Risk factors for mumps at a university with a large mumps outbreak.

Epidemic Intelligence Service, Office of Workforce and Career Development, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Public Health Reports (Impact Factor: 1.64). 01/2009; 124(3):419-26.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Routine measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine use has greatly decreased the incidence of mumps in the U.S. However, a resurgence of mumps occurred in 2006. We investigated the large outbreak at a university and assessed risk factors for disease.
We described the outbreak and conducted a case-control study. We interviewed case students (identified from student health service and health department records) and control students (selected from a randomly ordered administrative list) and assessed their vaccination status. We compared case students with > or = 2 MMR doses and control students with > or = 2 MMR doses in univariate and multivariate analyses.
The mean age of the 174 case students was 20.9 years; 65% were women. Ninety-seven case students and 147 control students were enrolled in the study. Two-dose MMR coverage was 99% among case and control students with complete records. Only 33% of case students reported exposure to someone with mumps. Case students were more likely than control students to be aged 18 to 19 years (vs. aged 22 years, adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 5.55; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.09, 14.74), to report exposure to mumps (AOR=2.31, 95% CI 1.13, 4.73), and to have worked/volunteered on campus (AOR=2.91, 95% CI 1.33, 6.33). Also, women in dormitories had increased odds of mumps compared with men in dormitories.
High two-dose MMR coverage was not sufficient to prevent the outbreak. Further study is needed to better understand the effects of dormitory residency and gender on mumps transmission. Clinicians should be vigilant for mumps in young adults presenting with parotitis regardless of immunization history.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Mumps is easily preventable through vaccination. Investigation of a number of recent mumps outbreaks in universities in the North West of England, however, found that affected students were either not vaccinated or only partially vaccinated. An online survey of students (n=2456) attending five universities in the region was undertaken during 2010 to establish MMR vaccination status, knowledge of mumps and willingness to take up vaccination if offered. Regression analysis was undertaken to identify characteristics of unimmunized students to ascertain likely target groups for future vaccination campaigns. Students least likely to be fully vaccinated with MMR included males; those not registered with a GP; first year students; mature students; and those with poor knowledge of mumps. A high proportion of students were willing to accept MMR vaccination if offered at university. Those least likely to take up vaccination included students not registered with a GP; mature students; and those who did not consider mumps to be a serious disease. The survey also highlighted that misconceptions remain about both the MMR vaccine safety and perceptions of risk/benefit of the vaccine. Encouraging registration with a GP and awareness raising should be a key part of campaigns to improve vaccination uptake among university students.
    Vaccine 06/2012; 30(34):5081-5. DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.05.078 · 3.49 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In 2006, a mumps outbreak occurred on a university campus despite ≥ 95% coverage of students with 2 doses of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine. Using plasma samples from a blood drive held on campus before identification of mumps cases, we compared vaccine-induced preoutbreak mumps antibody levels between individuals who developed mumps (case patients) and those who did not develop mumps (nonpatients). Preoutbreak samples were available from 11 case patients, 22 nonpatients who reported mumps exposure but no mumps symptoms, and 103 nonpatients who reported no known exposure and no symptoms. Antibody titers were measured by plaque reduction neutralization assay using Jeryl Lynn vaccine virus and the outbreak virus Iowa-G/USA-06 and by enzyme immunoassay (EIA). Preoutbreak Jeryl Lynn virus neutralization titers were significantly lower among case patients than unexposed nonpatients (P = .023), and EIA results were significantly lower among case patients than exposed nonpatients (P = .007) and unexposed nonpatients (P = .009). Proportionately more case patients than exposed nonpatients had a preoutbreak anti-Jeryl Lynn titer < 31 (64% vs 27%, respectively; P = .065), an anti-Iowa-G/USA-06 titer < 8 (55% vs 14%; P = .033), and EIA index standard ratio < 1.40 (64% vs 9%; P = .002) and < 1.71 (73% vs 14%, P = .001). Case patients generally had lower preoutbreak mumps antibody levels than nonpatients. However, titers overlapped and no cutoff points separated all mumps case patients from all nonpatients.
    The Journal of Infectious Diseases 09/2011; 204(9):1413-22. DOI:10.1093/infdis/jir526 · 5.78 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Evidence suggests that primary and secondary vaccine failure have contributed to recent university-based mumps outbreaks. We describe the epidemiology and public health management of two such outbreaks that occurred simultaneously in two areas of the North West of England, affecting four universities, using data from routine surveillance, serology testing, and telephone interviews and electronic questionnaires. Vaccination status was obtained from GP records. Cases were predominantly first year students living in university halls of residence. Public health response involved active surveillance, isolation advice and targeted vaccination clinics. Many students lack natural immunity and mumps vaccination. Factors hindering the public health response include delayed notifications, inability to readily define the 'at risk' population, low vaccine uptake, and lack of an evidence-based, cost effective strategy.
    Vaccine 03/2011; 29(22):3883-7. DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.03.037 · 3.49 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 20, 2014