Vaccine-related varicella-zoster rash in a hospitalized immunocompetent patient
ABSTRACT An immunocompetent health care worker with no known history of varicella-zoster virus (VZV) disease was exposed to a patient with herpes zoster and was immunized 2 days later. Twenty-seven days after receiving the varicella vaccine, while hospitalized, she developed a disseminated rash. This exposure and subsequent development of symptoms posed infection control challenges. A polymerase chain reaction analysis of her vesicular fluid was positive for vaccine-type VZV, and a blood specimen collected before vaccination demonstrated a positive VZV titer by the fluorescent antibody to membrane antigen test. To the best of our knowledge, there have been no previous reports of an immunocompetent seropositive person developing vaccine-type VZV after receiving the vaccine.
- SourceAvailable from: sciencedirect.com[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In a cooperative agreement starting January 1995, prior to the FDA's licensure of the varicella vaccine on March 17, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded the Los Angeles Department of Health Services' Antelope Valley Varicella Active Surveillance Project (AV-VASP). Since only varicella case reports were gathered, baseline incidence data for herpes zoster (HZ) or shingles was lacking. Varicella case reports decreased 72%, from 2834 in 1995 to 836 in 2000 at which time approximately 50% of children under 10years of age had been vaccinated. Starting in 2000, HZ surveillance was added to the project. By 2002, notable increases in HZ incidence rates were reported among both children and adults with a prior history of natural varicella. However, CDC authorities still claimed that no increase in HZ had occurred in any US surveillance site. The basic assumptions inherent to the varicella cost-benefit analysis ignored the significance of exogenous boosting caused by those shedding wild-type VZV. Also ignored was the morbidity associated with even rare serious events following varicella vaccination as well as the morbidity from increasing cases of HZ among adults. Vaccine efficacy declined below 80% in 2001. By 2006, because 20% of vaccinees were experiencing breakthrough varicella and vaccine-induced protection was waning, the CDC recommended a booster dose for children and, in 2007, a shingles vaccination was approved for adults aged 60years and older. In the prelicensure era, 95% of adults experienced natural chickenpox (usually as children)-these cases were usually benign and resulted in long-term immunity. Varicella vaccination is less effective than the natural immunity that existed in prevaccine communities. Universal varicella vaccination has not proven to be cost-effective as increased HZ morbidity has disproportionately offset cost savings associated with reductions in varicella disease. Universal varicella vaccination has failed to provide long-term protection from VZV disease.Vaccine 05/2012; 31(13). DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.05.050 · 3.49 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Varicella results from a primary infection with the varicella virus while herpes zoster is caused by a reactivation of a latent infection. Dissemination of herpes zoster is uncommon in immunocompetent individuals. Reports of disseminated herpes zoster in children are even less common than in adults. An unusual case of disseminated herpes zoster ophthalmicus in an 8-year old immunocompetent black boy is presented. He had a previous primary Varicella zoster virus infection at three years of age. In the current report, he presented during an on-going chicken pox outbreak and survived with no significant complications. A breakthrough varicella virus re-infection or a reactivation is possible, both of which could present as zoster. This case emphasizes the need for prevention of varicella virus infection through universal childhood immunization and effective infection control strategies in health care settings.08/2013; 3(2):e16. DOI:10.4081/cp.2013.e16
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Because information on biological agents in the workplace is lacking, biological hazard analyses at the workplace to securely recognize the harmful factors with biological basis are desperately needed. This review concentrates on literatures published after 2010 that attempted to detect biological hazards to humans, especially workers, and the efforts to protect them against these factors. It is important to improve the current understanding of the health hazards caused by biological factors at the workplace. In addition, this review briefly describes these factors and provides some examples of their adverse health effects. It also reviews risk assessments, protection with personal protective equipment, prevention with training of workers, regulations, as well as vaccinations.06/2014; 5(2):43-52. DOI:10.1016/j.shaw.2014.03.006