Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T21:50:02.569Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The immunoglobulin M response to rubella vaccine in young adult women

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

P. P. Mortimer ,
J. M. B. Edwards ,
A. D. Porter ,
R. S. Tedder  and
J. Haslehurst
P. P. Mortimer
Affiliation:
PHLS Virus Reference Laboratory, Colindale Avenue, London NW9 5HT
J. M. B. Edwards
Affiliation:
PHLS Virus Reference Laboratory, Colindale Avenue, London NW9 5HT
A. D. Porter
Affiliation:
PHLS Virus Reference Laboratory, Colindale Avenue, London NW9 5HT
R. S. Tedder
Affiliation:
Department of Virology, Middlesex Hospital Medical School, London W1
J. Haslehurst
Affiliation:
Health Services, Marks and Spencer, Michael House, London W1A 1DN
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Rubella vaccination histories were taken from 333 young women working in the head office of a retail organization: 29% said they had had vaccine and 47% said they had not. The remainder did not know. Forty-six per cent of those ≤ 25 years old (who should have been offered vaccine at school), and 6% of those > 25 years old, said they had been vaccinated. When screened for immunity to rubella by radial haemolysis (RH) 3% had a low level of antibody (< 15 i.u./ml) and 11% had no antibody. After immunization with Cendevax the specific rubella IgM response was measured by an IgM antibody capture radioimmunassay (MACRIA). It was only detectable in the group without RH antibody, and was present in 26/31 of them. The Ig M response to Cendevax was strongest in specimens taken 20–39 days after immunization, but in 10 out of 11 cases tested was still present at around 71 days. The specific Ig M responses to Cendevax were very similar to those in women given Almevax in an earlier study, when measured in parallel tests.

Taking both vaccines together, specific Ig M was present in 35 out of 36 vaccinees without pre-existing antibody tested between 40 and 77 days post-immunization. Detection of specific IgM by MACRIA would therefore be an effective means of determining susceptibility retrospectively in rubella vaccinees found to be pregnant.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 92 , Issue 3 , June 1984 , pp. 277 - 283
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

References

Banatvala, J. E., Druce, A., Best, J. M. & Al Nakib, W. (1977). Specific IgM responses after rubella vaccination: potential application following inadvertent vaccination during pregnancy. British Medical Journal ii, 1263–1264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, N. A., Parsons, A., Kurtz, J. B., McWhinney, N., Lacey, A. & Mayon White, R. T. (1983). Post-partum immunisation: a controlled trial of two vaccines. Lancet ii, 990–992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cradock-Watson, J. E., MacDonald, H., Ridehalgh, M. K. S., Bourne, M. S. & Vandervelde, E. M. (1974). Specific immunoglobulin responses in serum and nasal secretions after the administration of attenuated rubella vaccine. Journal of Hygiene 73, 127–141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kurtz, J. B., Mortimer, P. P., Mortimer, P. R., Morgan-Capner, P., Shafi, M. S. & White, G. B. B. (1980). Rubella antibody measured by radial haemolysis. Characteristics and performance of a simple screening method for use in diagnostic laboratories. Journal of Hygiene 84, 213–222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacDonald, H., Tobin, J. O'H., Cradock-Watson, J. E., Lomax, J. & Bourne, M. S. (1978). Antibody titres in women six to eight years after the administration of RA27/3 and Cendehill rubella vaccines. Journal of Hygiene 80, 337–346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mortimer, P. P., Tedder, R. S., Hambling, M. H., Shafi, M. S., Burkhardt, F. & Schilt, U. (1981 a). Antibody capture radio-immunoassay for anti-rubella IgM. Journal of Hygiene 86, 139–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mortimer, P. P., Edwards, J. M. B., Porter, A. D., Tedder, R. S., Mace, J. E. & Hutchinson, A. (1981 b). Are many women immunized against rubella unnecessarily? Journal of Hygiene 87, 131–138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pattison, J. R. & Mace, J. E. (1973). Rubella screening tests. Journal of Clinical Pathology 26, 161–162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peckham, C. S., Marshall, W. C. & Dudgeon, J. A. (1977). Rubella vaccine uptake of schoolgirls: factors affecting vaccine uptake. British Medical Journal i, 760–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Report (1982). Rubella vaccination during pregnancy – United States, 1971–1981. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 31, 477–481.Google Scholar
Tedder, R. S., Yao, J. L. & Anderson, M. J. (1982). The production of monoclonal antibodies to rubella haemagglutinin and their use in antibody-capture assays for rubella-specific IgM. Journal of Hygiene 88, 335–350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed