Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T21:41:01.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prevalence of Measles, Rubella, Mumps, and Varicella Antibodies Among Healthcare Workers in Japan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Shuji Hatakeyama ,
Kyoji Moriya ,
Satoru Itoyama ,
Yoko Nukui ,
Miho Uchida ,
Yoshizumi Shintani ,
Yuji Morisawa  and
Satoshi Kimura
Shuji Hatakeyama*
Affiliation:
Department of Infectious Diseases, University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
Kyoji Moriya
Affiliation:
Department of Infection Control and Prevention, University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
Satoru Itoyama
Affiliation:
Department of Infectious Diseases, University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
Yoko Nukui
Affiliation:
Department of Infectious Diseases, University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
Miho Uchida
Affiliation:
Department of Nursing, University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
Yoshizumi Shintani
Affiliation:
Department of Infection Control and Prevention, University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
Yuji Morisawa
Affiliation:
Department of Infection Control and Prevention, University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
Satoshi Kimura
Affiliation:
AIDS Clinical Center, International Medical Center of Japan, Tokyo, Japan
*
Department of Infectious Diseases, University of Tokyo Hospital, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyoku, Tokyo 113-8655, Japan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives:

To evaluate the immune status of healthcare workers (HCWs) against measles, rubella, mumps, and varicella in Japan, and to promote an adequate vaccination program among HCWs.

Setting:

University of Tokyo Hospital.

Participants:

Eight hundred seventy-seven HCWs.

Design:

Serologic screening for measles, rubella, mumps, and varicella was performed on HCWs. Antibodies against measles, rubella, and mumps were detected using hemagglutination inhibition (HI) assay ($4.20 per test). If serum was negative by HI assay, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (EIA) was performed ($12.60 per test). Anti-varicella antibodies were detected by EIA only.

Results:

Among tested HCWs, 98.5%, 90.4%, 85.8%, and 97.2% had immunity to measles, rubella, mumps, and varicella, respectively. All those born before 1970 were seropositive for measles. However, individuals susceptible to rubella, mumps, and varicella were present in all age groups. The sensitivities and negative predictive values of HI assay compared with EIA were 86.6% and 11.3% for measles, 99.1% and 92.2% for rubella, and 47.8% and 24.1% for mumps, respectively. For measles and mumps, prevaccination screening by HI assay in combination with EIA led to significant savings compared with EIA only. In contrast, it was estimated that prevaccination screening using only HI assay would be more economical for rubella.

Conclusions:

Aggressive screening and vaccination of susceptible HCWs was essential regardless of age. Prevaccination serologic screening using a combination of HI assay and EIA was more economical for measles and mumps.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 25 , Issue 7 , July 2004 , pp. 591 - 594
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Nakatani, H, Sano, T, Iuchi, T. Development of vaccination policy in Japan: current issues and policy directions. Jpn J Infect Dis 2002;55:101–111.Google ScholarPubMed
2.Infectious Diseases Surveillance Center of the National Institute of Infectious Diseases. Measles, Japan 1999-2001 [in Japanese]. Infectious Agents Surveillance Report 2001;22:273–274. Available at idsc.nih.go.jp/iasr/iasr-gel.html. Accessed June 16, 2003.Google Scholar
3.Infectious Diseases Surveillance Center of the National Institute of Infectious Diseases. Rubella vaccine coverage in Japan [in Japanese]. Infectious Agents Surveillance Report 2003;24:55–57.Google Scholar
4.Sugiura, A, Yamada, A. Aseptic meningitis as a complication of mumps vaccination. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1991;10:209–213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Fujinaga, T, Motegi, Y, Tamura, H, Kuroume, T. A prefecture-wide survey of mumps meningitis associated with measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1991;10:204–209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Ueda, K, Miyazaki, C, Hidaka, Y, Okada, K, Kusuhara, K, Kadoya, R. Aseptic meningitis caused by measles-mumps-rubella vaccine in Japan. Lancet 1995;346:701–702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Nakayama, T, Zhou, J, Fujino, M. Current status of measles in Japan. J Infect Chemother 2003;9:1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Immunization of healthcare workers: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and the Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). MMWR Recomm Rep 1997;46(RR-18):1–42.Google Scholar
9.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Measles, mumps, and rubella-vaccine use and strategies for elimination of measles, rubella, and congenital rubella syndrome and control of mumps: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep 1998;47(RR-8):1–57.Google Scholar
10.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevention of varicella: update recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep 1996;45(RR-11):1–36.Google Scholar
11.Neumann, PW, Weber, JM, Jessamine, AG, O'Shaughnessy, MV. Comparison of measles antihemolysin test, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, and hemagglutination inhibition test with neutralization test for determination of immune status. J Clin Microbiol 1985;22:296–298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Skendzel, LP, Edson, DC. Evaluation of enzyme immunosorbent rubella assays. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1985;109:391–393.Google ScholarPubMed
13.Popow-Kraupp, T. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELKA) for mumps virus antibodies. J Med Virol 1981;8:79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.World Health Organization. Measles: progress towards global control and regional elimination, 1998-1999. Wkly Epidemiol Rec 1999;74:429–434.Google Scholar
15.Hersh, BS, Tambini, G, Nogueira, AC, Carrasco, P, de Quadros, CA. Review of regional measles surveillance data in the Americas, 1996-99. Lancet 2000;355:1943–1948.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National, state, and urban area vaccination coverage levels among children aged 19-35 months: United States, 2001. MMWR 2002;51:664–666.Google Scholar
17.Fedeli, U, Zanetti, C, Saia, B. Susceptibility of healthcare workers to measles, mumps, rubella and varicella. J Hosp Infect 2002;51:133–135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Ferson, MJ, Robertson, PW, Whybin, LR. Cost effectiveness of prevaccination screening of health care workers for immunity to measles, rubella and mumps. Med J Aust 1994;160:478–482.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Infectious Diseases Surveillance Center of the National Institute of Infectious Diseases. Measles antibody prevalence and vaccine coverage in Japan, 2000: National Epidemiological Surveillance of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases [in Japanese]. Infectious Agents Surveillance Report 2001;22:275–277.Google Scholar
20.Subbarao, EK, Amin, S, Kumar, ML. Prevaccination serologic screening for measles in health care workers. J Infect Dis 1991;163:876–878.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Sellick, JA JrLongbine, D, Schifeling, R, Mylotte, JM. Screening hospital employees for measles immunity is more cost effective than blind immunization. Ann Intern Med 1992;116:982–984.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed