Second dose of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: questionnaire survey of health professionals.
ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To determine the knowledge, attitudes, and practices among health professionals regarding the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, particularly the second dose. DESIGN:Self administered postal questionnaire survey. SETTING:North Wales Health Authority, 1998. PARTICIPANTS:148 health visitors, 239 practice nurses, and 206 general practitioners. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Respondents' views on MMR vaccination, including their views on the likelihood of an association with autism and Crohn's disease and on who is the best person to give advice to parents, whether they agree with the policy of a second dose of the vaccine, and how confident they are in explaining the rationale behind the second dose. RESULTS:Concerning the second dose of the vaccine, 48% of the professionals (220/460) had reservations and 3% (15) disagreed with the policy of giving it. Over half the professionals nominated health visitors as the best initial source of advice on the second vaccine. 61% of health visitors (86/140), compared with 46% of general practitioners (73/158), reported feeling very confident about explaining the rationale of a two dose schedule to a well informed parent, but only 20% (28/138) would unequivocally recommend the second dose to a wavering parent. 33% of the practice nurses (54/163) stated that the MMR vaccine was very likely or possibly associated with Crohn's disease and 27% (44/164) that it was associated with autism. Nearly a fifth of general practitioners (27/158) reported that they had not read the MMR section in the "green book," and 29% (44/152) reported that they had not received the Health Education Authority's factsheet on MMR immunisation. CONCLUSIONS:Knowledge and practice among health professionals regarding the second dose of the MMR vaccine vary widely. Many professionals are not aware of or do not use the good written resources that exist, though local educational initiatives could remedy this.
Project description:BACKGROUND:The effect of a third dose of the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine in stemming a mumps outbreak is unknown. During an outbreak among vaccinated students at the University of Iowa, health officials implemented a widespread MMR vaccine campaign. We evaluated the effectiveness of a third dose for outbreak control and assessed for waning immunity. METHODS:Of 20,496 university students who were enrolled during the 2015-2016 academic year, mumps was diagnosed in 259 students. We used Fisher's exact test to compare unadjusted attack rates according to dose status and years since receipt of the second MMR vaccine dose. We used multivariable time-dependent Cox regression models to evaluate vaccine effectiveness, according to dose status (three vs. two doses and two vs. no doses) after adjustment for the number of years since the second dose. RESULTS:Before the outbreak, 98.1% of the students had received at least two doses of MMR vaccine. During the outbreak, 4783 received a third dose. The attack rate was lower among the students who had received three doses than among those who had received two doses (6.7 vs. 14.5 cases per 1000 population, P<0.001). Students had more than nine times the risk of mumps if they had received the second MMR dose 13 years or more before the outbreak. At 28 days after vaccination, receipt of the third vaccine dose was associated with a 78.1% lower risk of mumps than receipt of a second dose (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.12 to 0.39). The vaccine effectiveness of two doses versus no doses was lower among students with more distant receipt of the second vaccine dose. CONCLUSIONS:Students who had received a third dose of MMR vaccine had a lower risk of mumps than did those who had received two doses, after adjustment for the number of years since the second dose. Students who had received a second dose of MMR vaccine 13 years or more before the outbreak had an increased risk of mumps. These findings suggest that the campaign to administer a third dose of MMR vaccine improved mumps outbreak control and that waning immunity probably contributed to propagation of the outbreak. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.).
Project description:BACKGROUND:Field testing required to license the combined measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine must take into account the current recommendation of the vaccine in Brazil: first dose at 12 months and second dose at 15 months of age in combination with a varicella vaccine. OBJECTIVES:This study aimed to evaluate the clinical consistency, immunogenicity, and reactogenicity of three batches of MMR vaccine prepared with active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) from Bio-Manguinhos, Fiocruz (MMR-Bio), and compare it to a vaccine (MMR produced by GlaxoSmithKline) with different API. METHODS:This was a phase III, randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority study of the MMR-Bio administered in infants immunised at health care units in Pará, Brazil, from February 2015 to January 2016. Antibody levels were titrated by immunoenzymatic assays. Adverse events were recorded in diaries. FINDINGS:Seropositivity levels after MMR-Bio were 97.6% for measles, 84.7% for mumps, and 98.0% for rubella. After the MMRV vaccine, seroconversion rates and GMT increased substantially for mumps. In contrast, approximately 35% of the children had no detectable antibodies to varicella. Systemic adverse events were more frequent than local events. CONCLUSION:The demonstration of batch consistency and non-inferiority of the Bio-MMR vaccine completed the technology transfer. This is a significant technological achievement with implications for immunisation programs.
Project description:In many countries, a second dose of a combined measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine is recommended at 4-6 years of age - similarly to the booster of diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, and inactivated polio vaccine (DTaP-IPV) and the second dose of varicella vaccine (VV). Vaccine co-administration is generally encouraged if no interferences exist among the vaccines. This phase IIIa, randomized, controlled trial (NCT01621802) evaluated the immunogenicity and safety of MMR-RIT (Priorix, GSK) when given as a second dose with or without co-administration of DTaP-IPV and VV, using MMR II (M-M-R II, Merck & Co Inc.) as comparator. Antibody geometric mean concentrations or titers (GMCs/GMTs) and response rates to the components of all the administered vaccines were assessed. Solicited, unsolicited, and serious adverse events were recorded. Four thousand eleven children aged 4-6 years were enrolled. MMR-RIT elicited immune responses that were not inferior to those of MMR II in terms of GMCs and seroresponse rates when administered alone or when co-administered with DTaP-IPV and VV. The immune responses to the co-administered vaccines in MMR-RIT recipients were non-inferior to those in MMR II recipients. MMR-RIT and MMR II demonstrated similar reactogenicity profiles; the most frequent solicited adverse events across vaccine groups and sub-cohorts were local pain and fever. In conclusion, the immunogenicity and safety profiles of MMR-RIT administered with or without DTaP-IPV and VV were similar to those of MMR II.
Project description:Aims: To map health practitioners' experiences and describe knowledge regarding screening and management of Diabetes in Pregnancy (DIP) in Far North Queensland, Australia. Methods: Mixed methods including a cross-sectional survey (101 respondents) and 8 focus groups with 61 health practitioners. All participants provided clinical care for women with DIP. Results: A wide range of healthcare professionals participated; 96% worked with Indigenous women, and 63% were from regional or remote work settings. Universal screening for gestational diabetes at 24-28 weeks gestation was reported as routine with 87% using a 75 g Oral Glucose Tolerance Test. Early screening for DIP was reported by 61% although there was large variation in screening methods and who should be screened <24 weeks. Health practitioners were confident providing lifestyle advice (88%), dietary, and blood glucose monitoring education (67%, 81%) but only 50% were confident giving insulin education. Electronic medical records were used by 80% but 55% also used paper records. Dissatisfaction with information from hospitals was reported by 40%. In the focus groups improving communication and information technology systems were identified as key areas. Other barriers described were difficulties in care coordination and access for remote women. Conclusions: Communication, information technology systems, coordination of care, and education for health professionals are key areas that will be addressed by a complex health systems intervention being undertaken by the DIP Partnership in North Queensland.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>To achieve full benefits of vaccination programmes, high uptake and timely receipt of vaccinations are required.<h4>Objectives</h4>To examine uptake and timeliness of infant and pre-school booster vaccines using cohort study data linked to health records.<h4>Methods</h4>We included 1782 children, born between 2000 and 2001, participating in the Millennium Cohort Study and resident in Wales, whose parents gave consent for linkage to National Community Child Health Database records at the age seven year contact. We examined age at receipt, timeliness of vaccination (early, on-time, delayed, or never), and intervals between vaccine doses, based on the recommended schedule for children at that time, of the following vaccines: primary (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (DTP), polio, Meningococcal C (Men C), Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib)); first dose of measles, mumps and rubella (MMR); and pre-school childhood vaccinations (DTP, polio, MMR). We compared parental report with child health recorded MMR vaccination status at age three years.<h4>Results</h4>While 94% of children received the first dose of primary vaccines early or on time, this was lower for subsequent doses (82%, 65% and 88% for second and third doses and pre-school booster respectively). Median intervals between doses exceeded the recommended schedule for all but the first dose with marked variation between children. There was high concordance (97%) between parental reported and child health recorded MMR status.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Routine immunisation records provide useful information on timely receipt of vaccines and can be used to assess the quality of childhood vaccination programmes. Parental report of MMR vaccine status is reliable.
Project description:Background:The United States is experiencing mumps outbreaks in settings with high 2-dose measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine coverage, mainly universities. The economic impact of mumps outbreaks on public health systems is largely unknown. During a 2015-2016 mumps outbreak at the University of Iowa, we estimated the cost of public health response that included a third dose of MMR vaccine. Methods:Data on activities performed, personnel hours spent, MMR vaccine doses administered, miles traveled, hourly earnings, and unitary costs were collected using a customized data tool. These data were then used to calculate associated costs. Results:Approximately 6300 hours of personnel time were required from state and local public health institutions and the university, including for vaccination and laboratory work. Among activities demanding time were case/contact investigation (36%), response planning/coordination (20%), and specimen testing and report preparation (13% each). A total of 4736 MMR doses were administered and 1920 miles traveled. The total cost was >$649 000, roughly equally distributed between standard outbreak control activities and third-dose MMR vaccination (55% and 45%, respectively). Conclusions:Public health response to the mumps outbreak at the University of Iowa required important amounts of personnel time and other resources. Associated costs were sizable enough to affect other public health activities.
Project description:BACKGROUND:MMR II (M-M-R II [Merck & Co, Inc.]) is currently the only measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine licensed in the United States. A second MMR vaccine would mitigate the potential risk of vaccine supply shortage or delay. In this study, we assessed the immunogenicity and safety of another MMR vaccine (MMR-RIT [Priorix, GlaxoSmithKline]) compared with those of the MMR II in 12- to 15-month-old children who received it as a first dose. METHODS:In this phase III, observer-blinded, noninferiority, lot-to-lot consistency clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01702428), 5003 healthy children were randomly assigned to receive 1 dose of MMR-RIT (1 of 3 production lots) or MMR II along with other age-recommended routine vaccines. We evaluated the immunogenicity of all vaccines in terms of antibody concentrations (by using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay or electrochemiluminescence assay) and/or seroresponse rates 43 days after vaccination. We also assessed the reactogenicity and safety of the vaccines. RESULTS:Immunoresponses after vaccination with MMR-RIT were robust and noninferior to those after vaccination with the MMR II. Immunogenicity of the 3 production lots of MMR-RIT was consistent; more than 97% of the children had a seroresponse to MMR components. The coadministered vaccines elicited similar immunoresponses in the MMR-RIT and MMR II groups. Both MMR vaccines resulted in comparable reactogenicity profiles, and no safety concerns were detected. CONCLUSIONS:If licensed, the MMR-RIT could provide a valid option for the prevention of measles, mumps, and rubella in children in the United States and would reduce potential risks of a vaccine shortage.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Prevention of childhood obesity is a public health priority. Interventions that establish healthy growth trajectories early in life promise lifelong benefits to health and wellbeing. Proactive Assessment of Obesity Risk during Infancy (ProAsk) is a novel mHealth intervention designed to enable health professionals to assess an infant's risk of future overweight and motivate parental behaviour change to prevent childhood overweight and obesity. The aim of this study was to explore parents' and health professionals' experiences of the overweight risk communication and behaviour change aspects of this mHealth intervention. METHODS:The study was conducted in four economically deprived localities in the UK. Parents (N =?66) were recruited to the ProAsk feasibility study when their infant was 6-8?weeks old. Twenty two health visitors (HVs) used a hand-held tablet device to deliver ProAsk to parents when their infants were 3?months old. Parents (N =?12) and HVs (N =?15) were interviewed when infants in the study were 6?months old. Interview data were transcribed and analysed thematically using an inductive, interpretative approach. RESULTS:Four key themes were identified across both parent and health visitor data: Engaging and empowering with digital technology; Unfamiliar technology presents challenges and opportunity; Trust in the risk score; Resistance to targeting. Most participants found the interactivity and visual presentation of information on ProAsk engaging. Health visitors who were unfamiliar with mobile technology drew support from parents who were more confident using tablet devices. There was evidence of resistance to targeting infants at greatest risk of future overweight and obesity, and both parents and health visitors drew on a number of reasons why a higher than average overweight risk score might not apply to a particular infant. CONCLUSIONS:An mHealth intervention actively engaged parents, enabling them to take ownership of the process of seeking strategies to reduce infant risk of overweight. However, cognitive and motivational biases that prevent effective overweight risk communication are barriers to targeting an intervention at those infants most at risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT02314494 . Date registered 11th December 2014.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>The reported coverage of the measles-rubella (MR) or measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine is greater than 99.0% in Zhejiang province. However, the incidence of measles, mumps, and rubella remains high. In this study, we assessed MMR seropositivity and disease distribution by age on the basis of the current vaccination program, wherein the first dose of MR is administered at 8 months and the second dose of MMR is administered at 18-24 months.<h4>Methods</h4>Cross-sectional serological surveys of MMR antibodies were conducted by collecting epidemiological data in Zhejiang province, China in 2011. In total, 1015 participants were randomly selected from two surveillance sites. Serum MMR-specific immunoglobulin G levels were tested by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The geometric mean titers and seroprevalence with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by age and gender. Proportions of different dose of vaccine by age by vaccine were also identified. Statistically significant differences between categories were assessed by the Chi-square test.<h4>Results</h4>Over 95% seroprevalence rates of measles were seen in all age groups except <7 months infants. Children aged 5-9 years were shown lower seropositivity rates of mumps while elder adolescences and young adults were presented lower rubella seroprevalence. Especially, rubella seropositivity was significantly lower in female adults than in male. Nine measles cases were unvaccinated or unknown vaccination history. Among them, 66.67% (6/9) patients were aged 20-29 years while 33.33% (3/9) were infants aged 8-12 months. In addition, 57.75% (648/1122) patients with mumps were children aged 5-9 years, and 50.54% (94/186) rubella cases were aged 15-39 years.<h4>Conclusions</h4>A timely two-dose MMR vaccination schedule is recommended, with the first dose at 8 months and the second dose at 18-24 months. An MR vaccination speed-up campaign may be necessary for elder adolescents and young adults, particularly young females.
Project description:Health Care Workers (HCWs) have an increased risk of contracting contagious disease, including mumps. In January 2017 the Italian National Vaccine Prevention Plan 2017-2019, recommended the administration of a dose of MMR vaccine (Measles-Mumps-Rubella) to the Health Care Workers (HCWs) that, working in a risky environment, did not carry out the complete vaccination cycle of MMR or that are seronegative for at least one of the three vaccine viruses. In October of the same year, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended a third dose of a vaccine containing Mumps Virus for people previously vaccinated with 2 doses, belonging to a group or to a population at increased risk of acquire mumps in the event of an epidemic. We analyzed the clinical records and values of mumps-specific IgG antibodies of 3032 HCWs (mean age 32.80 ± 10.75 years), that underwent occupational health surveillance between January 1st 2017 and March 31th 2018. The HCWs were also screened for measles, rubella, mumps using serological methods. 13% (405) was seronegative for mumps, especially among HCWs between 18 and 36 years. We calculated the cost-effectiveness of two-doses and three-doses MMR vaccination. The cost of vaccination without screening was significantly more expensive (cost difference: 99 712 € and 184 996 €) both in case of two-dose and three-dose MMR vaccination respectively. Our study suggests that, in HCWs, the assessment of the mumps antibody titer before vaccination may be a useful complement to vaccination itself, because it is more accurate and cost-effective than direct immunization of unvaccinated subjects.