4.5 Article

Anaphylaxis following quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccination

Journal

CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL
Volume 179, Issue 6, Pages 525-533

Publisher

CMA-CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.080916

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. New South Wales Department of Health

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: In 2007, Australia implemented the National human papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccination Program, which provides quadrivalent HPV vaccine free to all women aged 12-26 years. Following notification of 7 presumptive cases of anaphylaxis in the state of New South Wales, Australia, we verified cases and compared the incidence of anaphylaxis following HPV vaccination to other vaccines in comparable settings. Methods: We contacted all patients with suspected anaphylaxis and obtained detailed histories from telephone interviews and a review of medical records. A multidisciplinary team determined whether each suspected case met the standardized Brighton definition. Some participants also received skin-prick allergy testing for common antigens and components of the HPV vaccine. Results: Of 12 suspected cases, 8 were classified as anaphylaxis. Of these, 4 participants had negative skin-prick test results for intradermal Gardasil. From the 269 680 HPV vaccine doses administered in schools, 7 cases of anaphylaxis were identified, which represents an incidence rate of 2.6 per 100 000 doses (95% CI 1.0-5.3 per 100 000). In comparison, the rate of identified anaphylaxis was 0.1 per 100 000 doses (95% CI 0.003-0.7) for conjugated meningococcal C vaccination in a 2003 school-based program. Interpretation: Based on the number of confirmed cases, the estimated rate of anaphylaxis following quadrivalent HPV vaccine was significantly higher than identified in comparable school-based delivery of other vaccines. However, overall rates were very low and managed appropriately with no serious sequelae.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available