Villanueva DJ, Gómez ACM, Esparza AM Caro LJ, Herbas RI, López CVR

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 124-134
PDF size: 1930.16 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: describe the distribution in time, place and person of the vaccine adverse event (VAE) in Mexico during the period 2003-2007 through an epidemiologist analysis.
Methodology: descriptive, transversal and observational study, in which the following variables were explored: applied vaccine, symptomatology, genre, state of occurrence, clinical classification, epidemiologist classification, clinical state at the time of the report and institution for each one of the eleven vaccines that conform the national scheme of vaccination in effective Mexico in 2007.
Results: the vaccines applied in 2007 increased 113% with respect to 2003; nevertheless the VAE reports were increased 400% in the same period. The vaccine with more reports is the pentavalent vaccine with 153 (0,6 VAE/100,000 applied doses), nevertheless the rate of reaction more high corresponds to the anti-rotavirus vaccine with 8.2 VAE/100,000 applied doses (64 VAE), followed of vaccine BCG (rate 2.0) and SR (rate 1.8) the less reaction vaccines are anti-hepatitis B (rate 0.1), Td and Sabin (both with rate smaller to 0.1). Although during the national weeks of health it reports the greater amount of VAE, the rate of reaction is lowest of the year (smaller of 0.2 VAE by 100.000 applied doses). The distribution by genre of VAE does not show to significant difference between men and women, 39.29% of the cases were children of one year old or less, 27.37% were children among 1 and 4 years old, and 10.21% were children among 5, and 14 years old. Of all VAE, 53.16% presented slight clinical manifestations, 29.81% moderate ones, and 17.03% serious ones. The 48.54% of the VAE presented causal association, 27.62% were coincident events and 23.84% corresponded to technical mistakes. The percentage of VAE reported by the Ministry of Health (70.44%), is major that the proportion of applied doses that correspond to him (55%), the rest of the institutions (IMSS, ISSSTE, DIF, PEMEX, SEDENA and private hospitals) reported 29.56% of VAE, while the proportion of applied doses is 45%. At the time of reporting, 72.87% of cases were asymptomatic, recovering 1.96%, 3.53% stable, active symptoms showed 17.15%, and 4.5% died.
Conclusions: the found rates of reaction in the study are similar to the reported ones in other parts of the world, with these findings we can assume that the vaccines that are applied in Mexico are safe.

REFERENCES

1. Secretaría de Salud. Eventos temporalmente asociados a la vacunación: manual de procedimientos. SSA México, 1ª edición. México, 2002. p. 17-129.

2. Secretaría de Salud. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-036-SSA2-2002. Aplicación de vacunas, toxoides, sueros, antitoxinas e inmunoglobulinas en el humano. 2ª edición. México, 2002. p. 15.

3. Panamerican Health Organization. Immunization safety, how to address events allegedly attributable to vaccination or immunization. PAHO. Washington, 2005. p. 3-14.

4. Roitt I. Fundamentos de inmunología. 9ª edición. Editorial Panamericana. p. 296.

5. Kliegman RM, Behrman RE, Jensen HB, et al. Tratado de Pediatria Nelson. 18ª edición. Editorial Saunders Elsevier. USA, 2007.

6. Santos JI. El Programa de Vacunación: orgullo de México. Rev Fac Med 2003;45(3):142-53.

7. Chen RT, Rastogi SC, Mullen JR, Hayes SW, Cochi SL, Donlon JA, Wassilak SG. The vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS). Vaccine 1994;12:542-550.

8. Milstien JB, Gibson JJ. Quality control of BCG vaccine by WHO: a review of factors that influence vaccine effectiveness and safety. Bull World Health Organ 1990;68(1):93-108.

9. Misery L, Combemale P. Systemic urticaria disclosing post-vaccine lupus tuberculosis. Ann Dermatol Venereol 1993;120(3):233-5.

10. Romanus V, Fasth A, Tordai P, Wiholm BE. Adverse reactions in healthy and immunocompromised children under six years of age vaccinated with the Danish BCG vaccine, strain Copenhagen 1331: implications for the vaccination policy in Sweden. Acta Pediatrica 2003;82:1043–52.

11. CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Update: vaccine side effects, adverse reactions, contraindications and precautions. MMWR: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2004;45:22–31.

12. CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Advisory Committee on Immunization. Practices (ACIP). Pertussis Vaccination: Use of acellular pertussis vaccines. MMWR: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 2005;46(RR-7):1-16.

13. Plotkin SA. Rubella vaccine. In: Plotkin SA, Orenstein WA (eds.). Vaccines. 3rd edition. Philadelphia, 1999. Saunders Company. p. 409-40.

14. Scheifele D, Bjornson G, Barreto L, Meekison W, Guasparini R. Controlled trial of Haemophilus influenzae type B, diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccines, in 18-month-old children, including comparison of arm versus thigh injection. Vaccine 2002;10:455-60.

15. CDC. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendations for use of Haemophilus by conjugate vaccines and a combined diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and Haemophilus B vaccine. Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2003;42(RR-13):1-15.

16. Mulholland EK, Byass P, Campbell H, et al. The immunogenicity and safety of Haemophilus influenzae type B, tetanus toxoid conjugate vaccine in Gambian children. Annals of Tropical Pediatrics 1994;14:183-8.

17. Fritzell B, Plotkin SA. Efficacy and safety of a Haemophilus influenzae type B capsular polysaccharide-tetanus protein conjugate vaccine. Journal of Pediatrics 1992;121:355-62.

18. Global Programme for Vaccines and Immunization (GPV). The WHO position paper on Haemophilus influenzae type B conjugate vaccines. Weekly Epidemiological Record 1998;73:64-8.

19. Joensuu J, Koskenniemi E, Vesikari T. Symptoms associated with rhesus-human reassortant rotavirus vaccine in infants. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1998;17:334-9.

20. Murphy T, Gargiullo P, Massoudi M, Nelson D, Jumaan A, Okoro C, et al. Intussusception among infants given an oral rotavirus vaccine. N Engl J Med 2001;344:564-72.