Mumps outbreak in the Plzeň Region in 2011
Authors:
P. Pazdiora 1,2; J. Skálová 2; A. Kubátová 2; I. Ježová 2; I. Morávková 2; I. Podlesná 2; J. Průchová 2; M. Spáčilová 2; M. Švecová 3
Authors‘ workplace:
Ústav epidemiologie, Lékařská fakulta UK v Plzni
1; Odbor protiepidemický, Krajská hygienická stanice Plzeňského kraje se sídlem v Plzni
2; Ústav mikrobiologie LF a FN Plzeň
3
Published in:
Epidemiol. Mikrobiol. Imunol. 64, 2015, č. 4, s. 242-249
Category:
Original Papers
Overview
Aim:
The mumps outbreak in the Plzeň Region in 2011 was analysed retrospectively using the epidemiological, clinical, and laboratory data. Vaccine efficacy analysis was also conducted in various population groups.
Material and methods:
The routine procedure and standard form were used by the epidemiologists to collect data on the age, sex, place of residence, presence in collectivities, date of disease onset, type of complications and date of their onset, hospital admission, vaccination, and results of laboratory analyses. Based on the records of general practitioners for children and adolescents, data on the vaccination of children born in the previous three years have been provided to the epidemic control departments every year by 30 June since 1989. To estimate the vaccination coverage rate, the numbers of single-dose or two-dose recipients are related to the number of children registered in a given year. The first year of vaccine recipients were children born in 1986 who were aged 25 in 2011. The data collected on the population of the Plzeň Region were used for the primary analyses. To estimate the efficacy of the mumps vaccine, age and vaccine coverage cohort analysis was performed using the screening method. To analyse categories, the chi-square test with Yates’ correction was applied at a significance level of p = 0.05 % (EPIINFO version 6.04d).
Results:
In 2011, 721 mumps cases were reported in the Plzeň Region (incidence: 126.1 cases per 100 000 population). The average patient age was 19.4 years, with a median of 18 years (age range 1–77 years). Four hundred and seventeen (57.8%) patients were males. Biological specimens from 375 (52.0%) patients were investigated serologically in the virology laboratory and mumps were laboratory confirmed in 316 (43.8%) of them – in 222 patients, one blood specimen was analysed. The most afflicted area was the Klatovy district with the incidence of 449.3/100 000 population. The most affected age group were 15–19 year-olds with the incidence of 1008.2/100 000 population. Forty-two (5.8%) patients were diagnosed with complications and 68 (9.4%) patients were admitted to the hospital. No statistically significant difference was found in the incidence of complications between the vaccinated and non-vaccinated patients. The assessment of hospitalisation risk showed a statistically significant difference between the vaccinated and non-vaccinated persons in both the whole study cohort and subcohort of patients who received the mumps vaccine within the childhood immunization schedule (p = 0.000 and p = 0.004, respectively). The average age of the vaccinated patients was 16.1 years (median of 17) and that of the non-vaccinated patients was, 29.3 years (median of 27). At the six to ten-month interval, as laid down by the legislation, the second dose of the vaccine was only given to 83.6 % of the patients. The screening method showed a high efficacy of the vaccine in the age group 20–25 years (97.6% in two-dose recipients), declining to 29.6% in the most affected age group of 15–19 years.
Conclusions:
Mumps outbreak may has been a result of the accumulation of high numbers of susceptible individuals in the population. The most affected area was the Klatovy district where the last epidemic outbreak occurred 23 years ago. To make the favourable epidemiological situation with occasional local outbreaks continue, the high two-dose vaccine coverage rate needs to be maintained.
Key words:
mumps – vaccine efficacy – incidence – complications – hospital admission
Sources
1. Bacci S, Bang H. Mumps surveillance annual report 2009. EUVAC.NET, 2010:1–6.
2. Barskey AE, Glasser JW, LeBaron CW. Mumps resurgences in the United States: A historical perspective on unexpected elements. Vaccine, 2009;27(44):6186–6195.
3. Barskey AE, Schulte C, Rosen JB, et al. Mumps outbreak in Orthodox Jewish communities in the United States. N Engl J Med, 2012;367(18):1704–1713.
4. Boxall N, Kubinyiova M, Prikazsky V, et al. An increase in the number of mumps cases in the Czech Republic, 2005–2006. Euro Surveill, 2008;13(16):18842.
5. Braeye T, Linina I, De Roy R, et al. Mumps increase in Flanders, Belgium, 2012–2013: results from temporary mandatory notification and a cohort study among university students. Vaccine, 2014;32(35):4393–4398.
6. Brunell P. The effectiveness of evaluating mumps vaccine effectiveness. Clin Infect Dis, 2007;45(4):467–469.
7. Chen CC, Lu CC, Su BH, et al. Epidemiologic features of mumps in Taiwan from 2006 to 2011: a new challenge for public health policy. World J Pediatr, 2015;11(2):141–147.
8. Cohen Ch, White JM, Savage EJ, et al. Vaccine effectiveness estimates, 2004–2005 mumps outbreak, England. Emerg Infect Dis, 2007;13(1):12–17.
9. Eriksen J, Davidkin I, Kafatos G, et al. Seroepidemiology of mumps in Europe (1996–2008): why do outbreaks occur in highly vaccinated populations? Epidemiol Infect, 2013;141(3):651–666.
10. Gouma S, Sane J, Gijselaar D, et al. Two major mumps genotype G variants dominated recent mumps outbreaks in the Netherlands (2009–2012). J Gen Virol, 2014;95(5):1074–1082.
11. He H, Chen E, Chen H, et al. Similar immunogenicity of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine administrated at 8 months versus 12 months age in children. Vaccine, 2014;32(31):4001–4005.
12. Hukic M, Ravlija J, Dedeic Ljubovic A, et al. Ongoing large mumps outbreak in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, December 2010 to July 2011. Euro Surveill, 2011;16(35):19959.
13. Hukic M, Hajdarpasic A, Ravlija J, et al. Mumps outbreak in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina with large cohorts of susceptibles and genetically diverse strains of genotype G, Bosnia and Herzegovina, December 2010 to September 2012. Euro Surveill, 2014;19(33):20879.
14. Kubátová A, Pazdiora P, Hutin Y, et al. A mumps outbreak among adolescents highly vaccinated with two doses, Klatovy, Czech Republic, 2011. Abstract book from European Scientific Conference on Applied Infectious Disease Epidemiology, 2014:56.
15. Kubinyiova M, Benes C, Prikazsky V, et al. Mumps vaccination in the Czech Republic. Euro Surveill, 2008;13(27):18920.
16. Latner DR, McGrew M, Williams NJ, et al. Estimates of mumps seroprevalence may be influenced by antibody specificity and serologic method. Clin Vaccine Immunol, 2014;21(3):286–297.
17. Latner DR, Hickman CJ. Remembering mumps. PLoS Pathog, 2015;11(5):e1004791.
18. LeBaron CW, Forghani B, Beck C, et al. Persistence of mumps antibodies after 2 doses of measles-mumps-rubella vaccine. J Infect Dis, 2009;199(4):552–560.
19. Lebo EJ, Kruszon-Moran DM, Marin M, et al. Seroprevalence of measles, mumps, rubella and varicella antibodies in the United States population, 2009-2010. Open Forum Infect Dis, 2015;2(1):ofv006.
20. Lernout T, Theeten H, Hens N, et al. Timeliness of infant vaccination and factors related with delay in Flanders, Belgium. Vaccine, 2014;32(2):284–289.
21. Leuridan E, Goeyvaerts N, Hens N, et al. Maternal mumps antibodies in a cohort of children up to the age of 1 year. Eur J Pediatr, 2012;171(8):1167–1173.
22. Lexova P, Limberkova R, Castkova J, et al. Increased incidence of mumps in the Czech Republic in the years 2011 and 2012. Acta Virol, 2013;57(3):347–351.
23. McLean HQ, Fiebelkorn AP, Temte JL, et al. Prevention of measles, rubella, congenital rubella syndrome, and mumps, 2013: summary recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep, 2013;62(RR-04):1–34.
24. Mrazova M, Smelhausova M, Sestakova Z, et al. The 2001 serological survey in the Czech Republic – mumps. Cent Eur J Public Health, 2003;11 Suppl:S50–53.
25. Orenstein WA, Bernier RH, Dondero TJ, et al. Field evaluation of vaccine efficacy. Bull World Health Org, 1985;6:1055–1068.
26. Orenstein WA, Bernier RH, Hinman AR. Assessing vaccine efficacy in the field, further observations. Epidemiol Rev, 1988;10:212–240.
27. Otto W, Mankertz A, Santibanez S, et al. Ongoing outbreak of mumps affecting adolescents and young adults in Bavaria, Germany, August to October 2010. Euro Surveill, 2010;15(50):19748.
28. Park SH. Resurgence of mumps in Korea. Infect Chemother, 2015;47(1):1–11.
29. Rogalska J, Paradowska-Stankiewicz I. Mumps in Poland in 2012. Przegl Epidemiol, 2014;68(2):191–193, 317–318.
30. Rota JS, Rosen JB, Doll MK, et al. Comparison of the sensitivity of laboratory diagnostic methods from a well-characterized outbreak of mumps in New York city in 2009. Clin Vaccine Immunol, 2013;20(3):391–396.
31. Sane J, Gouma S, Koopmans M, et al. Epidemic of mumps among vaccinated persons, The Netherlands, 2009-2012. Emerg Infect Dis, 2014;20(4):643–648.
32. Snijders BE, van Lier A, van de Kassteele J, et al. Mumps vaccine effectiveness in primary schools and households, the Netherlands, 2008. Vaccine, 2012;30(19):2999–3002.
33. Takla A, Bohmer MM, Klinc C, et al. Outbreak-related mumps vaccine effectiveness among a cohort of children and of young adults in Germany 2011. Hum Vaccin Immunother, 2014;10(1):140–145.
34. Trmal J, Kočí J, Šimůnková L, et al. Mumps outbreak in the Ústí administrative region. Zprávy CEM (SZÚ, Praha), 2011;20(6):219–223.
35. Vygen S, Fischer A, Meurice L, et al. Evidence of waning immunity against mumps in vaccinated young adults, France 2013. Abstract book from European Scientific Conference on Applied Infectious Disease Epidemiology, 2014:27.
36. WHO. Global status of mumps immunization and surveillance. Wkly Epidemiol Rec, 2005;80(48):418–424.
37. WHO. Mumps virus vaccines. Wkly Epidemiol Rec, 2007;82(7):51–60.
38. WHO. Mumps virus nomenclature update: 2012. Wkly Epidemiol Rec, 2012;87(22):217–224.
39. Zdravotní ústavy Ostrava a Ústí nad Labem. Víceúčelový sérologický přehled (spalničky, příušnice, pertuse, virová hepatitida B) SP 2013, ČR. Zprávy CEM (SZÚ, Praha), 2014;23(suppl. 1):1–152.
Labels
Hygiene and epidemiology Medical virology Clinical microbiologyArticle was published in
Epidemiology, Microbiology, Immunology
2015 Issue 4
Most read in this issue
- Benign acute childhood myositis as a complication of influenza B and its differential diagnosis
- Human hantavirus diseases – still neglected zoonoses?
- Toxic shock syndrome
- The role of Streptococcus mutans in the oral biofilm