Rubella vaccination: Must not be business as usual
The Lancet (Impact Factor: 45.22). 07/2012; 380(9838):217-8. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61215-X
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: AIM: To determine the age specific immunity profile for rubella from three discrete study populations in Papua New Guinea, and to inform policy regarding the possible introduction of rubella vaccine. BACKGROUND: In 2005, the Western Pacific Region (WPR), of which Papua New Guinea (PNG) is a member state, declared the goal of regional measles elimination by 2012. Recently, WPR has incorporated an accelerated control goal for rubella and congenital rubella syndrome (CRS). PNG currently recommends two doses of measles vaccination at 6 and 9 months of age with a monovalent measles vaccine, which does not include rubella vaccine. METHODS: Convenience samples were collected from 1326 eligible participants in PNG and assessed for rubella immunity using the Dade Behring Enzygnost™ Anti-Rubella-Virus enzyme immunoassay. Nearly 34% were collected during an age stratified prospective survey of febrile patients in Madang Province; approximately 49% were collected from women of childbearing age in East Sepik and Milne Bay Provinces. Remaining specimens were collected from 6 to 7-month-old infants in Port Moresby prior to receiving the first dose of measles vaccine. FINDINGS: Of all samples tested, 65.2% (95% confidence interval (CI): 62.6-67.8) had evidence of immunity to rubella infection. Of women more than 15 years of age, 91.6% (95% CI: 89.4-93.5) were immune. The force of infection was highest between 5 and 19 years of age. CONCLUSIONS: Although a population-based sample was not used, our multi-centre study of the population immunity profile suggests that immunity against rubella is extremely high in most women of childbearing age, but women who become pregnant at an early age may be at high risk of rubella infection during pregnancy and potential delivery of an infant with CRS. Routine measles vaccine coverage, a proxy for measles-rubella vaccine coverage, as measured in recently published studies, is well below the WHO target of 80% coverage. Introduction of a child or infant dose of rubella vaccine requires caution and further study.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Despite a safe and effective vaccine, rubella vaccination programs with inadequate coverage can raise the average age of rubella infection; thereby increasing rubella cases among pregnant women and the resulting congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) in their newborns. The vaccination coverage necessary to reduce CRS depends on the birthrate in a country and the reproductive number, R0, a measure of how efficiently a disease transmits. While the birthrate within a country can be known with some accuracy, R0 varies between settings and can be difficult to measure. Here we aim to provide guidance on the safe introduction of rubella vaccine into countries in the face of substantial uncertainty in R0. We estimated the distribution of R0 in African countries based on the age distribution of rubella infection using Bayesian hierarchical models. We developed an age specific model of rubella transmission to predict the level of R0 that would result in an increase in CRS burden for specific birth rates and coverage levels. Combining these results, we summarize the safety of introducing rubella vaccine across demographic and coverage contexts. The median R0 of rubella in the African region is 5.2, with 90% of countries expected to have an R0 between 4.0 and 6.7. Overall, we predict that countries maintaining routine vaccination coverage of 80% or higher are can be confident in seeing a reduction in CRS over a 30 year time horizon. Under realistic assumptions about human contact, our results suggest that even in low birth rate settings high vaccine coverage must be maintained to avoid an increase in CRS. These results lend further support to the WHO recommendation that countries reach 80% coverage for measles vaccine before introducing rubella vaccination, and highlight the importance of maintaining high levels of vaccination coverage once the vaccine is introduced.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.