Transmission of mumps virus from mumps-vaccinated individuals to close contacts

Municipal Health Service "Midden-Nederland", Zeist, The Netherlands.
Vaccine (Impact Factor: 3.62). 11/2011; 29(51):9551-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.09.100
Source: PubMed


During a recent mumps epidemic in the Netherlands caused by a genotype D mumps virus strain, we investigated the potential of vaccinated people to spread mumps disease to close contacts. We compared mumps viral titers of oral fluid specimens obtained by quantitative PCR from vaccinated (n=60) and unvaccinated (n=111) mumps patients. We also investigated the occurrence of mumps infection among the household contacts of vaccinated mumps patients. We found that viral titers are higher for unvaccinated patients than for vaccinated patients during the 1st 3 days after onset of disease. While no symptomatic cases were reported among the household contacts (n=164) of vaccinated mumps patients (n=36), there were cases with serological evidence of asymptomatic infection among vaccinated household contacts (9 of 66 vaccinated siblings). For two of these siblings, the vaccinated index patient was the most probable source of infection. We conclude that, in this particular outbreak, the risk of a close contact becoming infected by vaccinated patients was small, but present.

Download full-text


Available from: Ewout Fanoy, Feb 24, 2014
  • Source
    • "In our study, the age group between 15 to 29 years was affected in particular. It can be assumed that MuV infecting vaccinated individuals will be passed on to other individuals (Fanoy et al., 2011), since we were able to cultivate the virus repeatedly despite the presence of highly concentrated anti-mumps IgG. These antibodies bind to the virus but seem to be unable to prevent the infection of the cell, suggesting a low neutralizing capacity. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: From 2008 to 2013, sample sets from 534 patients displaying clinical symptoms of mumps were submitted to the German Reference Centre for Measles, Mumps and Rubella. Mumps virus infection was confirmed in 216 cases (40%) by PCR and/or serology. Confirmed cases were more frequently seen in male than in female patients (128 vs. 81); the age group predominantly affected was 15 to 29 years old (65%, median age: 26.4 years). The majority of the confirmed cases had a remote history of vaccination with one or two doses of a mumps-containing vaccine (69%). Our results indicate that mumps virus caused two outbreaks in Bavaria in 2008 and 2010/2011 and a third one in Lower Saxony in 2011. Mumps virus genotype G was preponderantly detected from 2008 to 2013. For 107 of the 216 patients with a confirmed mumps infection, we correlated the results from PCR and serology. PCR detected cases during the first week after onset of symptoms (74% positive results). PCR worked best with throat swabs and oral fluids (61% and 60% positive results, respectively). IgM was more reliable with a longer time after onset of symptoms (67%), but indirect IgM serology was of insufficient sensitivity for vaccinated mumps cases (30%); the IgM μ-capture assay detected more cases in this group. Mumps virus is able to initiate an infection in vaccinated patients (secondary vaccine failure, SVF) although it is unclear to what extent. Since SVF does occur in highly vaccinated populations and IgM will not increase to detectable levels in all SVF patients, we strongly recommend using PCR plus serology tests to avoid false-negative diagnoses in vaccinated individuals with clinical signs of mumps.
    International journal of medical microbiology: IJMM 09/2015; 305(7). DOI:10.1016/j.ijmm.2015.08.011 · 3.61 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To estimate the mumps vaccine effectiveness (VE) during a large genotype D mumps outbreak, we conducted a cross-sectional study in eight primary schools and associated households in the Netherlands. Questionnaires were used to collect information on the occurrence of mumps. Multivariate analyses were used to estimate VE. Among schoolchildren we estimated the VE against mumps. Among household contacts where the schoolchild was the index case we estimated the VE against mumps and against mumps infectiousness. In total 1175 children and 2281 household contacts participated in the study. The mumps attack rate among schoolchildren was 17%. The mumps VE in schoolchildren was 92% [95% confidence interval (CI) 83-96%] and 93% [85-97%] for one and two doses of the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine, respectively. The adjusted mumps VE among household contacts was 67% [65-95%] and 11% [-4 to 88%] against mumps and mumps infectiousness, respectively. Our study indicates that the mumps component of the MMR vaccine offered adequate protection against mumps among schoolchildren. The relatively low VE among household contacts is of concern.
    Vaccine 02/2012; 30(19):2999-3002. DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.02.035 · 3.62 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Here we present mumps virus specific antibody levels in a large cross-sectional population-based serosurveillance study performed in the Netherlands in 2006/2007 (n = 7900). Results were compared with a similar study (1995/1996) and discussed in the light of recent outbreaks. Mumps antibodies were tested using a fluorescent bead-based multiplex immunoassay. Overall seroprevalence was 90.9% with higher levels in the naturally infected cohorts compared with vaccinated cohorts. Mumps virus vaccinations at 14 months and 9 years resulted in an increased seroprevalence and antibody concentration. The second vaccination seemed to be important in acquiring stable mumps antibody levels in the long term. In conclusion, the Dutch population is well protected against mumps virus infection. However, we identified specific age- and population groups at increased risk of mumps infection. Indeed, in 2007/2008 an outbreak has occurred in the low vaccination coverage groups emphasizing the predictive value of serosurveillance studies.
    PLoS ONE 03/2013; 8(3):e58234. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0058234 · 3.23 Impact Factor
Show more