Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Author’ response
Author’s reply
Authors' response
Authors#x2019; response
Book Received
Book Review
Book Reviews
Centenary Review Article
Clinical Image
Clinical Images
Commentary
Communicable Diseases - Original Articles
Correspondence
Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Correspondences
Correspondences & Authors’ Responses
Corrigendum
Critique
Current Issue
Editorial
Errata
Erratum
Health Technology Innovation
IAA CONSENSUS DOCUMENT
Innovations
Letter to Editor
Malnutrition & Other Health Issues - Original Articles
Media & News
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Original Articles
Perspective
Perspectives
Policy
Policy Document
Policy Guidelines
Policy, Review Article
Policy: Correspondence
Policy: Editorial
Policy: Mapping Review
Policy: Original Article
Policy: Perspective
Policy: Process Paper
Policy: Scoping Review
Policy: Special Report
Policy: Systematic Review
Policy: Viewpoint
Practice
Practice: Authors’ response
Practice: Book Review
Practice: Clinical Image
Practice: Commentary
Practice: Correspondence
Practice: Letter to Editor
Practice: Obituary
Practice: Original Article
Practice: Pages From History of Medicine
Practice: Perspective
Practice: Review Article
Practice: Short Note
Practice: Short Paper
Practice: Special Report
Practice: Student IJMR
Practice: Systematic Review
Pratice, Original Article
Pratice, Review Article
Pratice, Short Paper
Programme
Programme, Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Programme: Commentary
Programme: Correspondence
Programme: Editorial
Programme: Original Article
Programme: Originial Article
Programme: Perspective
Programme: Rapid Review
Programme: Review Article
Programme: Short Paper
Programme: Special Report
Programme: Status Paper
Programme: Systematic Review
Programme: Viewpoint
Protocol
Research Correspondence
Retraction
Review Article
Short Paper
Special Opinion Paper
Special Report
Special Section Nutrition & Food Security
Status Paper
Status Report
Strategy
Student IJMR
Systematic Article
Systematic Review
Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis
Viewpoint
White Paper
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Author’ response
Author’s reply
Authors' response
Authors#x2019; response
Book Received
Book Review
Book Reviews
Centenary Review Article
Clinical Image
Clinical Images
Commentary
Communicable Diseases - Original Articles
Correspondence
Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Correspondences
Correspondences & Authors’ Responses
Corrigendum
Critique
Current Issue
Editorial
Errata
Erratum
Health Technology Innovation
IAA CONSENSUS DOCUMENT
Innovations
Letter to Editor
Malnutrition & Other Health Issues - Original Articles
Media & News
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Original Articles
Perspective
Perspectives
Policy
Policy Document
Policy Guidelines
Policy, Review Article
Policy: Correspondence
Policy: Editorial
Policy: Mapping Review
Policy: Original Article
Policy: Perspective
Policy: Process Paper
Policy: Scoping Review
Policy: Special Report
Policy: Systematic Review
Policy: Viewpoint
Practice
Practice: Authors’ response
Practice: Book Review
Practice: Clinical Image
Practice: Commentary
Practice: Correspondence
Practice: Letter to Editor
Practice: Obituary
Practice: Original Article
Practice: Pages From History of Medicine
Practice: Perspective
Practice: Review Article
Practice: Short Note
Practice: Short Paper
Practice: Special Report
Practice: Student IJMR
Practice: Systematic Review
Pratice, Original Article
Pratice, Review Article
Pratice, Short Paper
Programme
Programme, Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Programme: Commentary
Programme: Correspondence
Programme: Editorial
Programme: Original Article
Programme: Originial Article
Programme: Perspective
Programme: Rapid Review
Programme: Review Article
Programme: Short Paper
Programme: Special Report
Programme: Status Paper
Programme: Systematic Review
Programme: Viewpoint
Protocol
Research Correspondence
Retraction
Review Article
Short Paper
Special Opinion Paper
Special Report
Special Section Nutrition & Food Security
Status Paper
Status Report
Strategy
Student IJMR
Systematic Article
Systematic Review
Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis
Viewpoint
White Paper
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Correspondence
139 (
6
); 949-951

Low rate of seropositivity (IgG) to mumps component in MMR vaccinees in Chennai, south India

Department of Microbiology, Dr. ALM PG Institute of Basic Medical Sciences University of Madras, Taramani Chennai 600 113, India

* For correspondence: thangam56@gmail.com

Licence

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Disclaimer:
This article was originally published by Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher.

Sir,

Mumps is an acute, highly contagious, systemic, communicable viral infection found throughout the world, characterized by parotitis of one or both salivary glands. Although it is generally believed that mumps virus is serologically monotypic, distinct genetic lineages of wild-type mumps viruses have been described and reported to be co-circulating globally1. The introduction of MMR vaccine had led to a decline in the levels of measles, mumps and rubella infections. Recent reports suggest the re-emergence of mumps infections in the vaccinated populations2. It is proposed that this re-emergence is due to the poor efficacy of the mumps vaccine strain and circulation of a heterologous strain different from the vaccine strain3. We have recently reported mumps infection in MMR vaccine recipients in India and identified genotype C rather than the vaccine strain (genotype N)4. There is a paucity of data regarding mumps infection in India, except for a few studies which have assessed the efficiency of MMR vaccine567. The present study was aimed to screen the rate of vaccine induced IgG seropositivity among healthy MMR vaccinees and to determine the peak antibody level.

This study was conducted between February 2011 and December 2012 in the Department of Microbiology, Dr. ALM institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. MMR vaccinated healthy children, adolescents and adults aged 2 to 25 years were selected randomly from Sri Ramachandra Medical College & Research Institute and V. K. Nursing Home, Chennai, India. An informed written consent and details including name, sex, date of birth, status and date of MMR immunization, past history suggestive of measles, mumps or rubella infection were obtained. Only those subjects who received one dose (15th month) and two doses (15th month and 5th yr) of MMR vaccine were included in the study. Human ethical clearance was obtained from Sri Ramchandra Medical College & Research Institute and Dr. ALM PG Institute of Basic Medical Sciences as per the study protocol. Blood sample (3 ml) was collected from each study participant and serum was separated and stored at -86°C until use. Participants having a history of receiving prolonged steroid therapy, convulsions or epilepsy, having received another live vaccine within the last four weeks, those who received blood, plasma or immunoglobulin within the last three months, those diagnosed with malignancy or immunodeficiency diseases or those with a history of severe reactions to a previous dose of MMR vaccine were excluded from the study. Measles, mumps and rubella specific quantitative IgG EIA (Techno Genetics, Italy) was done to quantify MMR induced specific IgG antibody to confirm that they had been vaccinated. IgG antibody titres of > 115 mU/ml for mumps, > 115 mIU/ml for measles and >15 IU/ml for rubella were defined as seropositivity4. Data were analyzed by means of One-way and Two-way ANOVA, non-parametric Brown-Forsythe test, P<0.05 was considered significant, and GraphPad Prism 6, version 6.01 (GraphPad Software, Inc, USA) was used.

A total of 12 individuals who had received a single dose and 95 individuals who had received two doses of MMR vaccine participated in this study; four of the 95 were excluded because of a doubtful history of previous infection. The participants were subdivided into four age groups: 2-5, 6-12, 13-18 and 19-25 yr. Of the 103 samples, highest seropositivity (100%) was noticed for rubella. The lowest rate of seropositivity was found for mumps (49 & 83%, for two doses and one dose, respectively). Seropositivity to measles was intermediate (76 & 92%, for two doses and one dose, respectively) suggesting that there was variation in antibody responses to the three different viruses. The seropositivity as detected by the presence of IgG antibody to mumps virus was significantly lower (P<0.05) among all the age groups, compared with measles and rubella (Table I). The percentage of MMR recipients who developed a protective range of mumps IgG after one dose and two doses of the vaccine was more among females (100 & 70%, respectively) than males (71 & 33%, respectively) but IgG against measles was more among males (100 & 78%, respectively) than females (80 & 72%, respectively) and equal (100%) for rubella IgG. The median concentration of IgG antibodies was evaluated in different age groups and the persistence of antibody to MMR vaccine was at its peak in the 6-12 yr age group and declined in the later age for mumps and measles (Table II).

Table I Seropositivity of MMR vaccine recipients
Table II Median concentration with range of IgG antibodies in MMR vaccinees

Since December 2005, 110 (57%) of the 193 World Health Organization member States had included mumps vaccine in their national immunization programmes, by including the combined measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine89. MMR vaccine is not included in the Indian Immunization schedule and the Indian Academy of Pediatrics has suggested including two doses of an MMR vaccine in the immunization schedule10. In the last decade, mumps made a global resurgence irrespective of whether people were vaccinated with MMR or not. The failure of the available mumps vaccine in preventing disease transmission among populations with high two-dose vaccination coverage levels raises a question regarding the vaccine efficacy2311. In India, there are reports of non-adherence to the vaccination schedule which is alarming considering all the complications associated with mumps1213. In the present study, the presence of IgG antibody to mumps virus in a limited number of individuals was used as a measure of immunity against mumps in Chennai, India. The results showed that the MMR induced seropositivity to mumps was low which was similar to a report from Germany14. Our preliminary results also suggested absence of lifelong protection and consequent susceptibility to infection. Further studies with a large number of MMR vaccinees are needed to confirm the decline of mumps and measles antibody levels over time after MMR vaccination, and the possibility of maintaining seroprotective antibody by additional doses during adulthood needs to be investigated.

Acknowledgment

Authors thank Dr. Padmasani Venkat Ramanan, Department of Pediatrics, Sri Ramachandra Medical College & Research Institute, Porur, Chennai and Dr Srinivasan V, Dr. Chitra S, V.K. Nursing Home, Valasaravakkam, Chennai, India for assistance in identifying the MMR recipients.

References

  1. . Mumps virus nomenclature update. Wkly epidemiol rec. 2012;87:217-24.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. , , , , , , . Recent mumps outbreaks in vaccinated populations: No evidence of a immune escape. J Virol. 2012;86:615-20.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. , , , , , , . Assessment of mumps virus-specific antibodies by different serological assays: which test correlates best with mumps immunity? Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2011;30:1223-8.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. , , , . Characterization of mumps virus genotype C among the patients with mumps in India. Indian J Med Microbiol. 2013;31:290-312.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. , , . Measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine. Indian J Pediatr. 2003;70:579-84.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. , , , , . Immune response to second dose of MMR vaccine in Indian children. Indian J Med Res. 2011;134:302-6.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. , , , , , , . Persistence of antibodies induced by measles-mumps-rubella vaccine in children in India. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2007;14:1370-1.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. , , , , , . Evaluation of serological status of rubella and mumps in children below five years. Indian J Med Res. 1999;110:1-3.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. , , , , , , . Seroprevalence of antibody to mumps virus in the US population, 1999-2004. J Infect Dis. 2010;202:667-74.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. , , , , , . Indian Academy of Pediatrics (IAP) recommended immunization schedule for children aged 0 through 18 years, India 2013 and updates on immunization. Indian Pediatr. 2013;50:1095-108.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. , , , , , , . Mumps virus genotyping: Basis and known circulating genotypes. Open Vaccine J. 2010;3:37-41.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Immunization Schedule. Department of public health & preventive medicine, Health and family welfare department, Government of Tamil nadu. . Available from: http://www.tnhealth.org/dphis.htm
    [Google Scholar]
  13. , , . Mumps - need for urgent action. Indian Pediatr. 2004;41:1181-2.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. , , . Seroprevalence of measles, mumps and rubella-specific IgG antibodies in German children and adolescents and predictors for seronegativity. PLoS One. 2012;7:e42867.
    [Google Scholar]

    Fulltext Views
    20

    PDF downloads
    9
    View/Download PDF
    Download Citations
    BibTeX
    RIS
    Show Sections
    Scroll to Top