4.6 Article

Risks of convulsion and aseptic meningitis following measles-mumps-rubella vaccination in the United Kingdom

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 165, 期 6, 页码 704-709

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwk045

关键词

adverse drug reaction reporting systems; measles-mumps-rubella vaccine; meningitis, aseptic; seizures; vaccines

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccines containing the Urabe strain of mumps were withdrawn in the United Kingdom in 1992 following demonstration of an increased risk of aseptic meningitis 15-35 days after vaccination. Following introduction of a replacement MMR vaccine (Priorix; GlaxoSmithKline, London, United Kingdom) in 1998, active surveillance of aseptic meningitis and convulsion was established to evaluate the risk associated with the new vaccine. No laboratory-confirmed cases of mumps meningitis were detected among children aged 12-23 months after administration of 1.6 million doses of Priorix (upper 95% confidence limit of risk: 1:437,000) in England and Wales. The upper 95% confidence limit excluded the risk found for mumps meningitis with Urabe vaccines (1:143,000 doses). No cases of aseptic meningitis were detected among children aged 12-23 months, who had received over 99,000 doses of Priorix (upper 95% confidence limit of risk: 1:27,000), in a regional database of hospital-admitted cases. This compares with an observed risk of 1:12,400 for Urabe vaccines. An elevated relative incidence of convulsion was found in the 6- to 11-day period after receipt of Priorix (relative incidence = 6.26, 95% confidence interval: 3.85, 10.18)-consistent with the known effects of the measles component of MMR vaccine-but not in the 15- to 35-day period (relative incidence = 1.48, 95% confidence interval: 0.88, 2.50) as occurred with Urabe-containing vaccines. This study demonstrates the power of active postmarketing surveillance to identify or exclude events too rare to be detected in prelicensure trials.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据