|
 sponsored by VACCINATIONNEWS.COM AND
REDFLAGSDAILY.COM
VACCINATION, RUBELLA AND CONGENITAL
RUBELLA SYNDROME
Separating Fact From Fiction
By Red Flags Columnist, F.
Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP.
TL Autism Research Falmouth, Massachusetts
E-mail: tlautstudy@aol.com
The health authorities have insisted that the
monovalent vaccines against measles, mumps and rubella would not be
made available in the United Kingdom. By doing so, they have
effectively forced parents who had serious concerns about the MMR
vaccine not to vaccinate their children altogether. As vaccination
rates fell and the threat of measles outbreaks became real, the
health authorities blamed Andrew Wakefield and his research.
Obviously no one mentions the fact that Dr. Wakefield has always
supported measles, mumps and rubella vaccination of toddlers and
that he has only suggested that the monovalent vaccines be made
available, alongside the MMR vaccine, just to give parents a
choice.
Dr. Simon Murch in a recent interview
introduced the threat of a rubella outbreak and the resulting
Congenital Rubella Syndrome (CRS) cases in his support of the MMR
vaccine. This represents a whole new front. It is more than likely
that the health authorities will now find a poor family that has
been devastated by having a child with CRS to demonstrate how sad
this disease is. Having cared for these children, I can testify that
CRS is a terrible disease and that we must do everything we can to
prevent it. On the other hand, autism is just as awful a disease and
like CRS, it destroys the child and the family. The only difference
is that presently autism in England must outnumber CRS by 5000 to 1
conservatively. So if journalists are going to be interviewing CRS
parents, it is only fair that they also write stories about the
equivalent number of families that have been destroyed by regressive
autism and who have witnessed their perfectly healthy normal
toddlers disappear. One must remember that in 2002 in California
(Population 34.5 millions), TEN new cases of autism accessed
services every day.
Had the monovalent vaccines been made
available 2 years ago as suggested by Dr. Wakefield and had the
single rubella vaccine been administered to every child in the UK,
ONE WHOLE YEAR after the single measles vaccine, the vaccination
rates of both measles and rubella would be at 95% right now.
Obviously the health authorities could have also chosen a shorter
waiting period. After all, the single vaccines used to be
administered every 3 months in the pre-MMR days.
Let's consider some statistics from the U.S. The following is
from the CDC's “Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable
Diseases,” 5th Edition (1999) starting on page 176. The
editors of that issue were Atkinson, W, Humison S, Wolfe C and
Nelson R.
“ Rubella and congenital rubella syndrome
became nationally notifiable diseases in 1966. The largest
annual total of cases of rubella in the United States was in 1969,
when 57,686 cases were reported (58 cases per 100,000 population).
Following vaccine licensure in 1969, rubella incidence fell
rapidly. By 1983, fewer than 1,000 cases per year were
reported (<0.5 cases per 100,000 population). A moderate
resurgence of rubella occurred in 1990-1991, primarily due to
outbreaks in California (1990) and among the Amish in Pennsylvania
(1991).
Until recently there was no
predominant age group for rubella cases. From 1982 to 1992,
approximately 30% of cases occurred in each of three age
groups: < 5, 5-19, and 20-39 years. Adults > 40
years of age typically accounted for < 10% of cases.
However, since 1994, persons 20-39 of age have accounted for more
than half of the cases. In 1997, this age group accounted for
77% of all reported cases. Most persons with rubella in this
age group were born outside the United States, in areas where
rubella vaccine is not routinely given.
In the pre vaccine era, epidemics of
rubella occurred every 6-9 years, with the last major U.S. epidemic
occurring in 1964-1965. No large epidemics have occurred since
the vaccine was licensed for use in 1969….
CRS surveillance is maintained through the
National Congenital Rubella Registry which is managed by the
National; Immunization program. The largest annual total of
reported CRS cases to the Registry was in 1970 (67 cases). An
average of 5-6 CRS cases have been reported annually since 1980.
Although reported rubella activity has
consistently and significantly decreased since vaccine has been
used, the incidence of CRS has only paralleled the decrease in
rubella cases since the mid 1970's. The fall in CRS since the
mid-1970's was due to an increased effort to vaccinate susceptible
adolescents and young adults, especially women.
Rubella outbreaks are almost always followed
by an increase in CRS. Rubella outbreaks in California and
Pennsylvania in 1990-1991 resulted in 25 cases of CRS in 1990 and 33
cases in 1991. A provisional total of 9 CRS cases were
reported in 1997. The mothers of all these infant s were born
outside the United States, primarily in Latin America and the
Caribbean, where rubella vaccine is not routinely used.”
The population of the Unites States
was 248.5 million in 1990 and 281.4 million in 2000. The population
of the United Kingdom was about 57 million in 1990 and 59 million in
2000. Assuming that the population of the UK is more than one fourth
that of the USA and stipulating that the incidence of rubella and
CRS is about the same in the two countries, then, it is likely that
before the introduction of the rubella vaccine, there may have been
at most 13,000-14,000 cases of rubella and 15-16 cases of CRS in the
UK in any year. The 33 cases of CRS in one year (1991), the highest
in the US since the vaccine, would translate to 6 cases in one year
in the UK and the average of 6-7 cases per year in the US
would be an average of one to two cases in the United Kingdom; there
were 4 cases of CRS in The USA in 1995 and 2 in 1996. For the
record, I firmly believe that ONE case a year of CRS is one
too many.
The following statement is important:
“From 1982 to
1992, approximately 30% of cases occurred in each of three age
groups: < 5, 5-19, and 20-39 years… However, since 1994, persons
20-39 of age have accounted for more than half of the cases.
In 1997, this age group accounted for 77% of all reported cases.
Most persons with rubella in this age group were born outside the
United States, in areas where rubella vaccine is not routinely
given”. Whatever the reason, it is
alarming that rubella, a childhood disease, is now occurring more
frequently in susceptible women. It can be argued that if the women
in that group had contracted rubella as children, when the disease
is fairly benign, they would have acquired solid lifetime immunity.
This appears to be supported by the fact that in 1969, when the
rubella vaccine was licensed, there were 57,686 cases of rubella
(reported) and 62 (0.1%) cases of CRS while in 1997, there were 181
reported cases of rubella and 9 (5%) cases of CRS.
A study from Greece by T.
Panagiotopoulos T. et al. published in the British Medical
Journal (BMJ
1999;319:1462-1467) reports that:
- MMR has been administered to
children in Greece since 1975
- In 1993, the incidence of rubella
in young adults was higher than in any other recent year
- That there were 25 serologically
confirmed cases of CRS {24.6/100 000 live births, largest since
1950) that year.
- “With low vaccination coverage,
the immunization
of boys and girls aged 1 year against rubella
carries the theoretical
risk of increasing the occurrence of congenital
rubella” wrote the
authors
On page 175 of the same CDC
publication quoted earlier, the authors state that presently “Up
to 85% of infants infected in the first trimester of pregnancy will
be found to be affected if followed after birth.” It is not clear whether the
authors refer to CRS or to other less serious complications. Older
pediatricians, this one included, did not see 80-85% of children
whose mothers developed rubella in the first trimester of pregnancy,
come down with CRS. In the late 50s we believed that incidence to be
around 25% and we thought that even those odds were
awful.
The following comprehensive review of rubella
in pregnant Danish Women (1975-1984), by M. Mitsch, was published in
the Danish Medical Bulletin in March1987 (34:46-49). It is one of
the largest studies ever done and it also shows how just few years
ago, the clinical picture was different. Its results are summarized
in the following table from WAVES, the New Zealand vaccine
review.
WAVES Vol. 11 No. 4 p. 21
RUBELLA RISKS FOR PREGNANT WOMEN
DANISH MEDICAL BULLETIN MARCH 1987
A study of pregnancy outcomes of 1346 women
serologically identified with rubella between 1975 and 1984.
Group 1 |
Group 2 |
|
623 chose abortion |
672 chose to continue pregnancy |
| |
113 lost to follow-up |
|
No further data – assumed no foetal autopsies |
559 total |
| |
35 aborted spontaneously |
| |
4 stillbirths |
| |
Total foetal deaths = 39 (6.97%) |
|
623 deaths |
520 live births – cord samples taken for rubella
testing. |
| |
111 had rubella specific IgM (21.34% infection
rate) |
| |
14 of those were infected prior to 12 weeks and 7 of those
had serious malformations (6.3% of 111) |
|
OUTCOME: |
OUTCOME: 513 normal |
|
0% healthy child outcome |
91.77% healthy child outcome |
The Danish study concluded:
- Not all foetuses are infected (21.34%)
- Not all infected foetuses have
malformations (6.3%)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: The above table was listed
as a historical reference of the incidence of CRS in Denmark between
1975 and 1984. It does not apply to present times in the UK and the
US. It is probable that, as mentioned, CRS will occur
proportionately more frequently now.
An argument one hears often is that
toddlers must be vaccinated because if they are not, they can come
down with rubella and infect their susceptible pregnant mother or
teacher. Clearly the best way to prevent that dangerous situation is
to make sure that the female adult herself is immune not all the
children around her.
Susceptible pregnant women in their critical first trimester may
be exposed not only to children but to infected adults and
especially healthcare workers. The following abstract of a study by
Dr. Walter Orenstein , now Chief of the Vaccine Immunization Program
at CDC describes such potential risks.
Rubella vaccine and susceptible hospital employees.
Poor physician participation. Orenstein WA, Heseltine PN,
LeGagnoux SJ, Portnoy BA serosurvey of 2,456 high-risk employees
of the Los Angeles County-University of Southern California
Medical Center showed that 345 (14%) were susceptible to rubella.
Of 197 seronegative personnel followed up for participation in a
vaccination program, 105 (53.3%) were vaccinated. However, only
one of the 11 known susceptible obstetrician-gynecologists was
vaccinated. Thirty-eight seronegative employees who were
vaccinated with RA 27/3 rubella vaccine were queried four to six
weeks after vaccination and compared with 32 unvaccinated
seropositive control subjects. Although the reaction rate was 50%
among vaccinees and 3% among control subjects, each vaccinee lost
only an average of 0.2 workdays compared with 0.1 workdays for
control subjects. The high rate of susceptibility to rubella among
hospital employees supports the need for screening. Although
vaccine reactions are common, they are generally mild. Means must
be found to ensure greater employee acceptance of vaccine. PMID: 7463660, UI: 81120098
JAMA 1981 Feb
20;245(7):711-3
Although it is highly advisable that
all mothers be immune to rubella, maternal immunity does not always
guarantee that the fetus will not develop CRS:
“Two children developed congenital
rubella infection when their mothers had been proven to be
satisfactorily immunised against rubella before the affected
pregnancy. One child was severely affected with heart lesions, brain
damage, severe deafness, physical retardation, cataracts and rubella
retinopathy. The other child had moderately severe sensorineural
deafness and a mild reduction in visual acuity due to rubella
retinopathy”
Bott LM, Eizenberg
DH.
Aust
N Z J Ophthalmol 1991 Nov;19(4):291-3
“We report a case of a patient who
had a subclinical rubella infection in the first trimester of
pregnancy which resulted in the delivery of a baby suffering from
congenital rubella. Rubella virus vaccine, live attenuated
(Cendevax) vaccine had been administered to the mother nearly three
years before, with proven sero-conversion from a rubella
haemagglutination-inhibition titer of 1:10 to 1:80.”
Bott LM, Eizenberg
DH. Med J Aust 1982 Jun 12;1(12):514-5
“A 2 1/2 year-old girl was found
to have congenital rubella syndrome. She presented with
microcephaly, mild developmental delay, partial sensorineural
deafness and cerebellar atrophy. Blood titers of rubella
hemagglutinin were 1/256 and 1/512 (exclusively IgG). She had not
had rubella, nor had she been immunized against it. The mother had
been immunized against rubella 4 years before her pregnancy with
this girl and 2 years later blood hemagglutinin titers were 1/32 and
1/64. She was neither exposed to nor suffered from rubella during
the pregnancy” Miron D, On A, Harefuah
1992 Mar 1;122(5):291-3
“No population studies have evaluated the effectiveness of
screening and vaccinating
susceptible individuals in
reducing the incidence of CRS. Of the 21 CRS cases reported in the
U.S. in 1990, 71% of the mothers had a positive serologic test,
while 43% gave a history of vaccination” Carolyn DiGuiseppi, MD, MPH, US Preventive
Services Task Force. January 1994
.
In Summary:
- Rubella is a rather benign illness in childhood.
- Rubella vaccination at an appropriate age should be
encouraged.
- The administration of the single rubella vaccine, 3 or 6
months, after the measles monovalent vaccine was very well
accepted for years.
- Resumption of that schedule may be welcome by those who have
MMR concerns.
- The majority of parents can still request the MMR vaccine for
their children.
Back
to Conference |