Explore the vast range of titles available.

The rapid rollout of vaccines against COVID-19 as a key mitigation strategy to end the global pandemic might be informed by lessons learned from rubella vaccine implementation in response to the global rubella epidemic of 1963-1965. That rubella epidemic led to the development of a rubella vaccine that has been introduced in all but 21 countries worldwide and has led to elimination of rubella in 93 countries. Although widespread introduction and use of rubella vaccines was slower than that for COVID-19 vaccines, the process can provide valuable insights for the continued battle against COVID-19. Experiences from the rubella disease control program highlight the critical and evolving elements of a vaccination program, including clearly delineated goals and strategies, regular data-driven revisions to the program based on disease and vaccine safety surveillance, and evaluations to identify the vaccine most capable of achieving disease control targets.

•MMR vaccination is given to protect against measles, mumps and rubella.•RSV is an important cause of acute lower respiratory infections in young children.•MMR vaccination was associated with 22% lower rate of RSV hospital contacts.•MMR vaccination may reduce the rate or severity of RSV infection. The live measles vaccine has been associated with lower non-measles mortality and admissions in low-income countries. The live measles–mumps–rubella vaccine has also been associated with lower rate of admissions with any type of infection in Danish children; the association was strongest for admissions with lower respiratory infections. To examine whether measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccination was associated with reduced rate of hospital contact related to respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in a high-income country. Nationwide cohort study of laboratory-confirmed RSV hospital contacts at age 14–23 months in all children born in Denmark 1997–2002 who had already received the vaccine against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (acellular), polio, and Haemophilus influenzae type b (DTaP-IPV-Hib) at the recommended ages of 3, 5, and 12 months. The study included 888 RSV hospital contacts in 128,588 person years of follow up (rate 6.8/1000 person years). Having MMR as the most recent vaccine was associated with a reduced rate of RSV hospital contacts compared with having DTaP-IPV-Hib as the most recent vaccine (Incidence rate ratio (IRR), 0.75; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.63–0.89). After adjustment for potential confounders including exact age in days the IRR was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.66–0.93). The adjusted IRR was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.60–0.92) in males and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.66–1.06) in females (P Interaction, 0.42). There was no association in the first month after MMR vaccination (adjusted IRR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.76–1.24) but the adjusted IRR was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.58–0.85) from one month after MMR vaccination. MMR vaccination was associated with reduced rate of hospital contacts related to laboratory-confirmed RSV infection. Further research on the association between MMR vaccination and other unrelated pathogens are warranted.

Revaccination with the live measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine was associated with 16% reduction in the rate of hospitalizations for off-target infections lasting ≥2 days. There was no association with less severe infections, leading to shorter hospitalizations and antibiotic prescriptions. Abstract Background It has been hypothesized that revaccination with live vaccines is associated with reductions in off-target morbidity and mortality. We examined if revaccination with the live measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (MMR) is associated with a lower rate of off-target infections. Methods We performed a register-based nationwide cohort study that included 295559 children born in Denmark from April 2004 to December 2010. The cohort were followed from age 47 months (1 month before turning age 4 years, which is the recommended age of the second MMR [MMR-2]) until age 60 months. In Cox regression, we estimated adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRRs) of antibiotic prescriptions and hospital admissions for any infection comparing MMR-2 as most recent vaccine with not having MMR-2 as the most recent vaccine. Results There was no association between MMR-2 and antibiotic prescriptions (aIRR, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99-1.02). The aIRR for the association between MMR-2 and admissions for infection of any duration was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.88-0.98). For admissions for infection lasting 0 to 1 day, the aIRR was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.90-1.03) compared with the aIRR of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.74-0.95) for admissions for infection lasting 2 days or longer (test for equality of aIRRs, P = .039). Conclusions In this study, revaccination with MMR appeared safe in relation to off-target infections and was associated with a lower rate of severe off-target infections. More studies of the possible association between revaccination with live attenuated vaccines and off-target infections are needed.

Childhood rubella infection in early pregnancy can lead to fetal death or congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) with multiple disabilities. Reduction of transmission via universal vaccination can prevent CRS, but inadequate coverage may increase CRS numbers by increasing the average age at infection. Consequently, many countries do not vaccinate against rubella. The World Health Organization recommends that for safe rubella vaccination, at least 80% coverage of each birth cohort should be sustained. The nonlinear relationship between CRS burden and infection dynamics has been much studied; however, how the complex interaction between epidemic and demographic dynamics affects minimum safe levels of coverage has not been quantitatively evaluated across scales necessary for a global assessment. We modelled 30-year CRS burdens across epidemiological and demographic settings, including the effect of local interruption of transmission via stochastic fadeout. Necessary minimum vaccination coverage increases markedly with birth and transmission rates, independent of amplitude of seasonal fluctuations in transmission. Susceptible build-up in older age groups following local stochastic extinction of rubella increased CRS burden, indicating that spatial context is important. In low birth-rate settings, 80% routine coverage is a conservative guideline, particularly if supplemented with campaigns and vaccination of women of childbearing age. Where birth and transmission rates are high, immunization coverage must be well above 80% and campaigns may be needed. Policy-makers should be aware of the potential negative effect of local extinction of rubella, since heterogeneity in vaccination coverage will shape extinction patterns, potentially increasing CRS burdens.

Vaccination against mumps virus (MuV) (mostly measles-mumps-rubella) is routinely performed in more than 120 countries and has resulted in a distinct decrease of mumps incidence. However, alteration of mumps epidemiology has been observed in several countries after implementation of the vaccine but is sparsely documented. Moreover, outbreaks have occurred after starting vaccination, even in highly vaccinated populations. In the former German Democratic Republic (DDR) mumps was a notifiable disease but vaccination against mumps was not implemented. In the five eastern German states forming the DDR until 1990, mumps was not notifiable until 2001. Except for the lack of reporting between 1990–2000, data from Eastern Germany allow analysis of mumps epidemiology after initiating the vaccination campaign. For the period from 2001 to 2016 the data show that the incidence of mumps dropped notably after initiating vaccines, and was accompanied by an increase of the median age of patients with mumps. In Eastern Germany, no outbreaks were noted, while several outbreaks occurred in Western Germany, possibly due to a lower vaccination rate. Further literature analysis revealed that outbreaks were facilitated by waning immunity and crowding. Nevertheless, although vaccination prevented infection, the course of illness, once infected, was sometimes more complicated. In comparison to non-vaccinated populations, high rates of complicated courses occurred and were marked by orchitis, due to higher age of mumps patients. Therefore, refusing vaccination against mumps increases the risk of severe courses when living in a vaccinated population.

Thanks to the recommendation of a combined Measles/Mumps/Rubella (MMR) vaccine, like Priorix®, these childhood diseases are less common now. This is beneficial to limit the spread of these diseases and work towards their elimination. However, the measles, mumps and rubella antibody titers show a large variability in short- and long-term immunity. The recent outbreaks worldwide of measles and mumps and previous studies, which mostly focused on only one of the three virus responses, illustrate that there is a clear need for better understanding the immune responses after vaccination. Our healthy cohort was already primed with the MMR antigens in their childhood. In this study, the adult volunteers received one Priorix® vaccine dose at day 0. First, we defined 4 different groups of responders, based on their antibody titers’ evolution over 4 time points (Day 0, 21, 150 and 365). This showed a high variability within and between individuals. Second, we determined transcriptome profiles using 3′mRNA sequencing at day 0, 3 and 7. Using two analytical approaches, “one response group per time point” and “a time comparison per response group”, we correlated the short-term gene expression profiles to the different response groups. In general, the list of differentially expressed genes is limited, however, most of them are clearly immune-related and upregulated at day 3 and 7, compared to the baseline day 0. Depending on the specific response group there are overlapping signatures for two of the three viruses. Antibody titers and transcriptomics data showed that an additional Priorix vaccination does not facilitate an equal immune response against the 3 viruses or among different vaccine recipients.

•Injection site pain associated with vaccination can lead to vaccination hesitancy.•We review evidence on injection site pain following MMR vaccination in children.•Immediate (acute) pain: defined as pain occurring within 0–5min of injection.•Less immediate injection site pain was observed with Priorix than with M-M-R II.•Vaccine diluent or formulation may influence level and duration of injection pain. The risk of post-vaccination adverse events (AEs) is a primary public health concern. Among the AEs, pain is a significant source of anxiety for both children and their parents. This review describes and assesses the intensity of pain experienced by children post-vaccination with widely used Measles–Mumps–Rubella (MMR) vaccines. A systematic literature search was conducted in Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane to identify publications describing immediate pain at injection site (primary objective) or pain within days (secondary objective) after 2 specific MMR vaccines. Immediate pain (‘acute pain’ according to the Brighton Collaboration case definition) was defined as pain occurring at the time or within 5min of injection. Four studies, which compared the intensity of immediate injection site pain experienced by children after MMR vaccination, were identified. Various pain assessment tools and methods were used to quantify the intensity of pain, including the median difference in Visual Analog Scale scores between vaccine groups. All four studies showed significantly less immediate pain caused by Priorix (GSK Vaccines) compared with M-M-R II (Merck & Co., Inc.). To our knowledge, this review summarizes for the first time the available scientific evidence on the intensity of pain following different MMR vaccines. It highlights that MMR vaccines can differ in terms of immediate pain. Further research may be needed to better understand the underlying reason for this observation. In this context, it is very important to understand which physicochemical properties are most relevant for the immediate pain profile of a vaccine to thereby support the development of vaccines with the best possible immediate pain profile.

Despite the availability of effective and safe rubella vaccines for women of childbearing age, prevention and control of congenital rubella syndrome in children remains challenging in Vietnam. In order to examine this issue, we conducted a cross-sectional study, examining the current coverage of rubella vaccination before pregnancy among 807 pregnant women and women with children under 12 months of age in urban and rural districts, Dong Da and Ba Vi, in Hanoi, Vietnam. In this population, we observed an alarming non-compliance rate with rubella vaccination before pregnancy in both localities. Among the 82.0% of participants who remained unvaccinated against this contagious viral infection, 95.8% of them were in Ba Vi district, compared to 68.0% in Dong Da district (p < 0.001). Besides the differences in age, number of children, education levels, primary occupations and monthly incomes among the participants between the two districts, other reasons for noncompliance with rubella vaccination includeddisinterest in rubella vaccination, the high cost and long distance to vaccination sites as well as unawareness of vaccination locations. In addition to addressing the unique socio-economicchallenges behind one’s accessibility to vaccination services in urban and rural areas, our study supports a continued effort in ensuring proper access to and education about pre-pregnancy vaccines and vaccination among women of childbearing age in order to achieve and sustain sufficient immunization coverage of rubella and other vaccine-preventable diseases in both settings.

[...]we would like to emphasize that this systematic review included all peer-reviewed articles published in international scientific journals that were identified by the comprehensive search of three main literature databases. [...]the results were consistent across the four studies and did not reveal any discrepancies with respect to these studies’ respective conclusions. [...]one study did not report an odds ratio since no cases of immediate pain were reported after Priorix, compared with MMR-II [7]. [...]we remain content that the majority of the listed trials (three out of five) [8–10] indicate that Priorix was associated with a lower frequency of pain within days compared to MMR-II.