Int J Clin Pediatr
International Journal of Clinical Pediatrics, ISSN 1927-1255 print, 1927-1263 online, Open Access
Article copyright, the authors; Journal compilation copyright, Int J Clin Pediatr and Elmer Press Inc
Journal website http://www.theijcp.org

Short Communication

Volume 2, Number 1, June 2013, pages 30-33


Protective Antibodies to Rubella Virus in Children Aged 1.5 to 3 Years and in Women of Childbearing Age

Nikolay Todorov Vateva, e, Mariyana Vartigova Stoychevab, Maria Vasileva Atanasovac, Maria Anastasova Semerdjievad, Andrei Ivanov Petrovb

aDept. Epidemiology, 4002 Bul. Vasil Aprilov 15A, Medical University, Plovdiv, Bulgaria
bDept. Infectious Diseases, Parasitology and Tropical Medicine, Medical University, Plovdiv, Bulgaria
cDept. Microbiology, Virology and Immunology, Medical University, Plovdiv, Bulgaria
dDept. Management of Medical Cares, Medical University, Plovdiv, Bulgaria
eCorresponding author: Nikolay Todorov Vatev, Dept. Epidemiology, 4002 Bul. Vasil Aprilov 15A, Medical University, Plovdiv, Bulgaria

Manuscript accepted for publication March 20, 2013
Short title: Protective Antibodies to Rubella Virus
doi: https://doi.org/10.4021/ijcp97e

Abstract▴Top 

Background: Although immunization against rubella was introduced as routine practice in many European countries about 20 years ago, there are still epidemic outbreaks in some of them. This is a prerequisite for the continuous monitoring of population susceptibility to rubella. The aim of this study is to determine the proportion of people negative for the protective antibodies (IgG) to the rubella virus in terms of discretion of susceptibility to rubella and the risk of congenital rubella syndrome (CRS).

Methods: The study involved 180 subjects from two groups: children aged 1.5 - 3 years and women in childbearing age. Both groups, children and women, were divided into two subgroups: Bulgarian and Roma. The serological testing was performed with the kits Euroimmun (Medizinische Labordiagnostika AG) for quantitative determination of rubella antibodies (IgG).

Results: From the Roma children17.65% (12 out of 68) was seronegative. From the Bulgarian children the seronegative were 4.76% (2 out of 42). Of all the involved children from both groups (110 in number) in 14 children (12.73%) the results were negative. Seronegative women from Roma origin were 8.33% (2 out of 24), and from the Bulgarian women - 13.04% (6 out of 46). The total number of women studied was 70, of them the seronegative were 8 (11.43%).

Conclusions: 1). We have found still relatively high proportion of seronegative persons among the Roma children and the Bulgarian women of childbearing age; 2).We consider it appropriate to introduce in medical practice periodic monitoring of susceptibility to rubella virus and at risk of epidemics to carry out timely immunization campaigns.

Keywords: Rubella; Protective antibodies; Women in childbearing age

Introduction▴Top 

According to a decision of the European Commission from April 28, 2008 [1] rubella is defined as a sudden illness with maculopapular rash and at least one of the following clinical manifestations: 1). cervical adenopathy; 2). sub-occipital adenopathy; 3). post-auricular adenopathy; 4). arthralgia; 5). arthritis. According to WHO and CDC [2] rubella cases are classified as confirmed, probable and possible.

Since the licensing of the first rubella vaccine in the late 1960s, the goal of rubella immunization programs was preventing CRS as a complication of rubella infection during pregnancy [3-6]. In Bulgaria routine immunization against rubella was introduced in 1992 [7]. By 2001 all children were immunized with MMR at the age of 13months. At the age of 12 years a second dose of mono-rubella vaccine was administered only to girls. Since 2001, two doses of MMR are being administered to all children at the age of 13 months and 12 years.

Some European countries (Belgium, Austria, Cyprus, Ireland) have introduced an antenatal screening test for rubella antibodies.

A seroepidemiological study of 17 countries in 2004 [8] classifies countries into three groups according to the percentage of seronegative people: 1 group - less than 5%; 2 group - 5 to 10%: 3 group - more than 10%. Bulgaria is from the third group with atotal of 28.4 % seronegative children in the age group 2 - 14, and 11.3% for people aged 15 to 39 (11.8% for the women in this group).

According to data of ECDC [9] 17,821 cases of rubella have been reported from 1 January to 30 June 2012 from 26 European countries participating in the surveillance of rubella epidemic. Over the past12 months (July 2011 - June 2012) 22,835 cases have been reported. About 99% of all cases are from Poland and Romania.

For the period after the introduction of immunization against rubella in Bulgaria a significantly increased incidence was registered in 2000 (28,449 cases, incidence 345.66/100,000) and the previous 1995 - 1997 (with morbidity 122.72 to 439.16/100,000) with a peak in 1996. A minor increase was registered in 2005 (25.46/100,000).

Increase in the incidence of rubella was recorded in 2008 in Italy, in 2009 - in Poland and in 2007 in Romania (Table 1). The data show that in some countries, incl. Bulgaria, a cyclical increase in the incidence of rubella is registered.

Table 1.
Click to view
Table 1. Number of Cases and Incidence Rate Per 100,000 of Rubella in Some European Countries, 2006 - 2009
 

The aim of this study is to determine the proportion of people seronegative for the protective antibodies (IgG) to the rubella virus in terms of discretion of susceptibility to rubella and the risk of congenital rubella syndrome (CRS).

Materials and Methods▴Top 

The survey covered 180 people from Plovdiv region (Bulgaria). Surveyed persons were divided into two groups: children from 1.5 to 3 years and women of childbearing age (25 - 35years). Covered children belong to the age group 1.5 - 3years as in 2010 in Bulgaria an additional immunization with MMR took place (in relation to the outbreak of measles). Our aim was to examine children who were not covered by this campaign. Both children and women were divided into two subgroups: Bulgarians and Roma. This is reasoned by gaps in immunizations often found in Roma population and reported in our other studies [10, 11]. Serologic testing was performed with Euroimmun kits (Medizinische Labordiagnostika AG) for the quantitative determination of rubella antibodies (IgG).

Results▴Top 

A total of 68 children of Roma origin have been examined. Of these, 12 (17.65%) were seronegative. Among children of Bulgarian origin out of 42 only 2 were seronegative (4.76%). From both groups 110 children were covered, of which in 14 (12.73%), the result was negative (Table 2).

Table 2.
Click to view
Table 2. Protective Antibodies Against Rubella Virus Among Children
 

Surveyed women of childbearing age and Roma origin were 24. Of these, 2 (8.33%) were seronegative. The group of Bulgarian women consisted of 46 subjects - six of them (13.04%) were seronegative. The total number of women studied was 70, of which eight were seronegative - 11.43% (Table 3).

Table 3.
Click to view
Table 3. Protective Antibodies Against Rubella Virus Among Women
 
Discussion▴Top 

This study was conducted because we had unpleasant experience of outbreaks of other vaccine-preventable diseases in Bulgaria a few years ago. An example is the outbreak of measles in 2009 - 2010 [12, 13], which covered more than 24,000 cases. This outbreak occurred against the background of reported measles immunization coverage for the last 4 - 5 years of 95-97% (according to the National Institute for Infectious and Parasitic Diseases). During the epidemic only in Plovdiv region more than 2,700 people were infected. Several years earlier (2007/2008) an epidemic of mumps was registered in Bulgaria. Similar examples can be mentioned for other countries [14, 15]. There are probably some (subjective and objective) reasons due to which the reported and the officially recorded immunization coverage do not meet the real figures. The performance of sero-surveys to establish the susceptibility to an infectious disease can be an indicator of actual immunization coverage of the population in a country or region (when it comes to routine vaccine still in infancy). Furthermore, age and demographic distribution of the covered in the study can specifically target attention to the groups with gaps in immunization. Detected gaps in these groups can be covered by additional immunization campaign carried out before the beginning of an outbreak. Recommendations for carrying out such sero-surveys are given both by WHO and ECDC. In many cases though, they are not sufficient in scope and remain largely the subject of research and activities of the national reference laboratories. For successful elimination and subsequent eradication of rubella constant maintenance of immunity is needed in a very high percentage of the population. Otherwise there is a risk of resurgence of rubella and CRS [16, 17].

Conclusions

1). We have found still relatively high proportion of seronegative persons in the Roma children and Bulgarian women of childbearing age; 2). We consider it appropriate to introduce largely in medical practice periodic monitoring of susceptibility to rubella virus and at risk of epidemics to carry out timely immunization campaigns.


References▴Top 
  1. ECDC. EU Commission Decision of 28.04.2008.
  2. Case definitions for infectious conditions under public health surveillance. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. MMWR Recomm Rep. 1997;46(RR-10):1-55.
  3. Reef SE, Plotkin S, Cordero JF, Katz M, Cooper L, Schwartz B, Zimmerman-Swain L, et al. Preparing for elimination of congenital Rubella syndrome (CRS): summary of a workshop on CRS elimination in the United States. Clin Infect Dis. 2000;31(1):85-95.
    doi pubmed
  4. McGovern LM, Boyce TG, Fischer PR. Congenital infections associated with international travel during pregnancy. J Travel Med. 2007;14(2):117-128.
    doi pubmed
  5. Elimination of rubella and congenital rubella syndrome—United States, 1969-2004. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2005;54(11):279-282.
    pubmed
  6. Pandolfi E, Chiaradia G, Moncada M, Rava L, Tozzi AE. Prevention of congenital rubella and congenital varicella in Europe. Euro Surveill. 2009;14(9):16-20.
    pubmed
  7. Ministry of Health - Bulgaria: Kojouharova M, Gacheva N. Vaccines and immunizations. Editor: AKT. АКТ. 2000:81-89 (in Bulgerian).
  8. World Health Organization. Bulletin: 2008.
  9. ECDC. Annual Report on Communicable Diseases: 2011.
  10. Vatev NT, Stoycheva MV, Petrov AI. Reemergence of measles in Bulgaria: a large outbreak in Plovdiv, 2010. Braz J Infect Dis. 2011;15(6):613-616.
    pubmed
  11. Vatev N, Stoycheva M, Petrov A, Velcheva R. Epidemic outbreaks in Plovdiv region (Bulgaria) of vaccine-preventable diseases: measles, mumps, hepatitis A (2006 – 2010). WJV. 2012; 2(3):172-177.
    doi
  12. Marinova L, Kojouharova M, Mihneva Z. An ongoing measles outbreak in Bulgaria, 2009. Euro Surveill. 2009;14(26).
  13. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). (2011). Epidemiological update on measles in EU/EEA. Stockholm: ECDC. 31 Mar.
  14. Kuzmanovska G, Polozhani A, Mikik V, Stavridis K, Aleksoski B, Cvetanovska Z, Binnendijk R, et al. Mumps outbreak in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, January 2008-June 2009: epidemiology and control measures. Euro Surveill. 2010;15(23).
    pubmed
  15. Orlikova H, Rogalska J, Kazanowska-Zielinska E, Jankowski T, Slodzinski J, Kess B, Stefanoff P. Spotlight on measles 2010: A measles outbreak in a Roma population in Pulawy, eastern Poland, June to August 2009. Euro Surveill. 2010;15(17).
  16. Forrest JM, Burgess M, Donovan T. A resurgence of congenital rubella in Australia? Commun Dis Intell Q Rep. 2003;27(4):533-536.
    pubmed
  17. Kelly H, Worth L, Karapanagiotis T, Riddell M. Interruption of rubella virus transmission in Australia may require vaccination of adult males: evidence from a Victorian sero-survey. CDI. 2004; 28(1):70-73.


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


International Journal of Clinical Pediatrics is published by Elmer Press Inc.

 

Browse  Journals  

     

Journal of Clinical Medicine Research

Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism

Journal of Clinical Gynecology and Obstetrics

World Journal of Oncology

Gastroenterology Research

Journal of Hematology

Journal of Medical Cases

Journal of Current Surgery

Clinical Infection and Immunity

Cardiology Research

World Journal of Nephrology and Urology

Cellular and Molecular Medicine Research

Journal of Neurology Research

International Journal of Clinical Pediatrics

 

 

 

 

 

International Journal of Clinical Pediatrics, quarterly, ISSN 1927-1255 (print), 1927-1263 (online), published by Elmer Press Inc.                     
The content of this site is intended for health care professionals.
This is an open-access journal distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted
non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Creative Commons Attribution license (Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International
CC-BY-NC 4.0)


This journal follows the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals,
the Committee on Publication Ethics (
COPE) guidelines, and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

website: www.theijcp.org   editorial contact: editor@theijcp.org
Address: 9225 Leslie Street, Suite 201, Richmond Hill, Ontario, L4B 3H6, Canada

© Elmer Press Inc. All Rights Reserved.



Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in the published articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the editors and Elmer Press Inc. This website is provided for medical research and informational purposes only and does not constitute any medical advice or professional services. The information provided in this journal should not be used for diagnosis and treatment, those seeking medical advice should always consult with a licensed physician.