MMR vaccine and allergy

R LAKSHMAN; ADAM FINN

doi:10.1136/adc.82.2.93

Responses

PDF

Leading article

MMR vaccine and allergy

Free

Compose a Response to This Article

Compose Response

Title *

Author Information

Contributors
First Name and Middle Initial * First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'. Last Name * Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'. Email Address * Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com Occupation * Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'. Affiliation * Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.

Statement of Competing Interests

Competing interests? *

Yes

Please describe the competing interests

PLEASE NOTE:

Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

Recommendations or guidelines regarding MMR vaccination in children allergic to egg should be clear
Cantani Arnaldo
Published on: 7 July 2000
Re: Controversy about MMR vaccinations in children with or without egg allergy
R Lakshman
Published on: 28 June 2000
Controversy about MMR vaccinations in children with or without egg allergy
Arnaldo Cantani
Published on: 26 June 2000
Re: MMR vaccine in children allergic to egg
Harvey Marcovitch
Published on: 6 June 2000
Re: MMR vaccine in children allergic to egg
Adam Finn
Published on: 6 June 2000
MMR vaccine in children allergic to egg
Andrew Riordan
Published on: 6 June 2000

Published on: 7 July 2000
Recommendations or guidelines regarding MMR vaccination in children allergic to egg should be clear
- Cantani Arnaldo, Professor of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology
Dear Editor
I thank doctors Lakshman and Finn for their kind reply, and recognise that my use of the word "hospital" has given rise to a misunderstanding. My letter was based on the analysis the authors have made, not in the ADC article,[1] but in their eLetter to BMJ.[2]
They wrote:
(1) immunisation with any vaccine in any child always carries a risk of potentially fatal anaphylaxis...
Show More

Dear Editor
I thank doctors Lakshman and Finn for their kind reply, and recognise that my use of the word "hospital" has given rise to a misunderstanding. My letter was based on the analysis the authors have made, not in the ADC article,[1] but in their eLetter to BMJ.[2]
They wrote:
(1) immunisation with any vaccine in any child always carries a risk of potentially fatal anaphylaxis
(2) and must always be carried out in settings where personnel equipped to recognise and manage it are present
(3) annual updates in recognition and management of anaphylaxis for personnel involved in immunisation are desirable
(4) essential equipment - adrenaline, airway, Ambu bag with masks and a telephone to call for emergency help should always be to hand and regularly checked
(5) infants and children must be observed for at least 30 minutes after the injection to confirm that they are completely well before they leave the premises".
According to my interpretation, all these prerequisites are rarely to be found in the offices of paediatricians.
(1) I do not know how many paediatricians are equipped to recognise and manage anaphylaxis, considering that they usually operate not in "settings", but in their offices
(2) How many paediatricians are expert in the treatment of such reactions, and have adrenaline ready in the same tray as the vaccine?
(3) annual updates for paediatricians are helpful, however the authors prefer annual updates for personnel involved in immunisation, but I do not know in which specific place they are to be held, according to the authors
(4) paediatricians' offices are rarely equipped with Ambu masks, they are not reanimators or expert in resuscitation manoeuvres, in addition, adrenaline should also be kept in a refrigerator, and is no longer valid after 24-36 months; from an economical point of view, it is not convenient to store drugs used perhaps once in a year
(5) observation of vaccinated infants and children for at least 30 minutes is the easiest procedure to follow in a paediatrician's office.
Can the "settings where personnel equipped, etc", be paediatricians' offices? or can the "settings" be interpreted as "hospital-like premises", where annual discussions are to be held, where adrenaline is used continuously, and personnel with Ambu masks are operating? No such precautions were applied during MMR vaccinations in egg-allergic children made by us, and as far as I know, in the rest of about 1800 children previously cited by me.[3] I repeat, such precautions are valid only with children with severe reactions to egg documented with challenge tests. However to extend these recommendations[2] to all children subjected to MMR vaccine appears to be not practical as it would eliminate all programs in which vaccination is performed by nurses without doctors in attendance, as occurs in most Developing World countries and in almost all public health clinics First World countries.[3]
References
1. Lakshman R, Finn A. MMR vaccine and allergy. Arch Dis Child 2000;82:93-5
2. Lakshman R, Finn A. MMR Vaccine and Egg Allergy. BMJ [eLetter] 31 March 2000
3. Cantani A, Serra A, Arcese G, Lucenti P. Allergic reactions to MMR vaccines in egg- and not-egg-sensitive children: a continuing controversy. Pediatr Asthma Allergy Immunol 1995;9:7-14
Show Less

Conflict of Interest:
None declared.
- Back to top
Published on: 28 June 2000
Re: Controversy about MMR vaccinations in children with or without egg allergy
- R Lakshman, *Research Fellow and ** Director
- Other Contributors:
  Adam Finn
Dear Editor
Professor Cantani's[1] experience is very similar to what we found in our review[2] - that egg allergic children do not appear to be at any greater risk to severe allergic reactions with MMR vaccine.
In our review, we do not advocate hospitalisation of children with egg allergy for MMR immunisation; on the contrary we suggest that all children (including children with egg allergy) can be immu...
Show More

Dear Editor
Professor Cantani's[1] experience is very similar to what we found in our review[2] - that egg allergic children do not appear to be at any greater risk to severe allergic reactions with MMR vaccine.
In our review, we do not advocate hospitalisation of children with egg allergy for MMR immunisation; on the contrary we suggest that all children (including children with egg allergy) can be immunised with MMR vaccine in the community.
Since anaphylaxis is an extremely rare and unpredictable consequence of any vaccination, we suggested in our review that all children (not just children with egg allergy) must receive all vaccinations (not just MMR) in a place which is equipped to deal with anaphylaxis- by this we did not mean a hospital - and they must be observed for sufficient time after the injection to make sure they are well. As Professor Cantani mentions, many of the reactions to the MMR may be due to the gelatin or neomycin. It is generally agreed that MMR vaccine is contraindicated in children who have had severe systemic reactions to either gelatin or neomycin.
References
1. Cantani A, Serra A, Arcese G, Lucenti P. Allergic reactions to MMR vaccines in egg- and not-egg-sensitive children: a continuing controversy. Pediatr Asthma Allergy Immunol 1995;9:7-14.
2 Lakshman R, Finn A. MMR vaccine and allergy. Arch Dis Child 2000;82:93-5
Show Less

Conflict of Interest:
None declared.
- Back to top
Published on: 26 June 2000
Controversy about MMR vaccinations in children with or without egg allergy
- Arnaldo Cantani, Professor of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology
Dear Editor,
According to our studies 1803 children allergic to egg have been safely received the MMR vaccine. Systemic reactions were present only in 0.1% of cases and untoward reactions only in 1.7% cases (p = 0.0001).[1] No child vaccinated by us has manifested immediate reactions.[1] According to Sampson et al[2] the MMR vaccine is safe in such children, evaluating on the basis of confidence intervals (95%) t...
Show More

Dear Editor,
According to our studies 1803 children allergic to egg have been safely received the MMR vaccine. Systemic reactions were present only in 0.1% of cases and untoward reactions only in 1.7% cases (p = 0.0001).[1] No child vaccinated by us has manifested immediate reactions.[1] According to Sampson et al[2] the MMR vaccine is safe in such children, evaluating on the basis of confidence intervals (95%) that 97.5% of children can be safely vaccinated. The reactions reported by various authors were provoked by the gelatin present in plasma-expanders, which provokes reactions in 0.07-0.2% of cases and neomycin of which MMR vaccine contains 25 mg.[1]
In 47 non egg-allergic children a case of anaphylactic shock was due to gelatin, while the skin reactions to neomycin are more frequent, thus explaining the prevalence of urticarial manifestations in the vaccinated children. However the risk of untoward reactions in non egg-allergic children, is almost non existent, being = 0.00005%.[1] Two recent works increase the confusion, because one[3] suggests to perform MMR vaccinations in all children under controlled conditions in hospital, and the other[4] restrict these precautions to children with cardiorespiratory responses to egg and/or chronic asthma. No one gives suggestions about possible reactions to gelatin and/or neomycin.
We judge these conclusions[3, 4] allarmistic, and suggest that no guideline should prevent MMR vaccination in children. Obviously we recommend to vaccinate in the hospital all the children who have manifested severe, life-threatening reactions to egg. The door remains open for children who have had anaphylactic reactions to gelatin or neomycin: give MMR vaccine in hospital. Adrenaline at hand could be a useful addition.
References
1. Cantani A, Serra A, Arcese G, Lucenti P. Allergic reactions to MMR vaccines in egg- and not-egg-sensitive children: a continuing controversy. Pediatr Asthma Allergy Immunol 1995;9:7-14.
2. James JM, Burks AW, Roberson PK, Sampson HA. Safe administration of the measles vaccine to children allergic to eggs. N Engl J Med 1995;332:1262-6.
3. Lakshman R, Finn A. MMR vaccine and allergy. Arch Dis Child 2000;82:93-5
4. Khakoo GA, Lack G. Recommendations for using MMR vaccine in children allergic to eggs. BMJ 2000;320:929-32.
Show Less

Conflict of Interest:
None declared.
- Back to top
Published on: 6 June 2000
Re: MMR vaccine in children allergic to egg
- Harvey Marcovitch, Editor in Chief, ADC
Dr Riordan ask which expert opinion to follow. The answer surely lies in reading the papers carefully, seeking out any key references quoted and deciding for oneself who has provided the best evidence. This should be the case for all guidelines, but we know that they are often absorbed undigested, which is one reason why ADC erects fairly firm barriers to their publication. Lakshman and Finn's paper was commissioned b...
Show More

Dr Riordan ask which expert opinion to follow. The answer surely lies in reading the papers carefully, seeking out any key references quoted and deciding for oneself who has provided the best evidence. This should be the case for all guidelines, but we know that they are often absorbed undigested, which is one reason why ADC erects fairly firm barriers to their publication. Lakshman and Finn's paper was commissioned by the editors as a leading article because, as practising paediatricians, we recognised that all of us have problems responding logically to requests to immunise children in hospital.
When we commissioned this paper we did not know that a college committee was embarking on an enquiry; we learned this only after our leading article had been peer reviewed and was set up for publication. Editors of ADC have long been saddened that many of our readers, including members and fellows of the RCPCH, prefer first to submit their papers elsewhere; we realise, of course, that the artificial constraints of the research assessment exercise result in some authors needing to collect Brownie points by publishing in journals with a high impact factor even if their research thereby reaches an inappropriate readership. In this sense, the BMJ is our competitor not our partner which is why editors do not tell each other what they have in the pipeline.
I realise that this cannot have been the case in this instance as the BMJ copied Khakoo and Lack's paper from the specialist journal in which it originally appeared (which probably has a lower score than ADC and read by far fewer paediatricians).
Dr Riordan suggests seeking a consensus. Far better would be to undertake a full literature search of RCTs and subject it to a systematic review. The days of guidelines by GOBSAT* are over. At this year's annual scientific meeting of the RCPCH the journal and the college's quality of practice committee have forged a working relationship that should leave our readers less confused in future.
Harvey Marcovitch Editor in Chief
*Grand Old Boys Sitting At Table.
Show Less

Conflict of Interest:
None declared.
- Back to top
Published on: 6 June 2000
Re: MMR vaccine in children allergic to egg
- Adam Finn, Senior Lecturer in Immunology and Infectious Diseases
Dear Editor:
We note Riordan's response to our editorial on the issue of MMR vaccine and allergy[1] and the recommendations put forward by Khakoo and Lack[2] on this topic. While we agree that conflicting advice creates confusion, we cannot agree with his proposed "pragmatic approach". This amounts to a pointless waste of time and resources - greater than that proposed by anyone else to date - which will simply...
Show More

Dear Editor:
We note Riordan's response to our editorial on the issue of MMR vaccine and allergy[1] and the recommendations put forward by Khakoo and Lack[2] on this topic. While we agree that conflicting advice creates confusion, we cannot agree with his proposed "pragmatic approach". This amounts to a pointless waste of time and resources - greater than that proposed by anyone else to date - which will simply stoke up unfounded concerns about this vaccine while diverting people from the important necessity to prepare themselves to tackle cases of severe anaphylaxis which, on the rare occasions that they occur, will continue to do so in community clinic settings.
1. Lakshman R, Finn A. MMR Vaccine and Allergy. Arch Dis Child 2000;82:93-95
2. Khakoo GA, Lack G. Recommendations for using MMR vaccine in children allergic to eggs. BMJ 2000;320:929-932
R Lakshman
Research Fellow
Adam Finn MA PhD FRCPCH FRCP
Senior Lecturer in Immunology and Infectious Diseases
Sheffield Institute for Vaccine Studies
Division of Child Health
University of Sheffield
Show Less

Conflict of Interest:
None declared.
- Back to top
Published on: 6 June 2000
MMR vaccine in children allergic to egg
- Andrew Riordan, Consultant Paediatrician
Dear Editor
Two reviews of MMR vaccine and egg allergy have recently been published. [1, 2] One appears in the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health's own journal (Archives of Diseases in Childhood),[1] the other has been endorsed by the Committee on Infection and Immunisation of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.[2] The two articles differ in their recommendations of which children should be g...
Show More

Dear Editor
Two reviews of MMR vaccine and egg allergy have recently been published. [1, 2] One appears in the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health's own journal (Archives of Diseases in Childhood),[1] the other has been endorsed by the Committee on Infection and Immunisation of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.[2] The two articles differ in their recommendations of which children should be given MMR under supervision in hospital.
Which of these expert opinions should paediatricians and general practitioners follow? Were the authors of the two articles aware of each others conclusions? Could the editorial boards of the two journals (which have members common to both) not have informed the authors?
These recommendations also differ from Department of Health advice,[3] which also differs from that given by the Health Education Authority.[4] This debate might be settled if a consensus can be agreed and published in the next edition of Immunisation against Infectious Disease.[3]
In the mean time a pragmatic approach is needed. That is to offer MMR under supervision in hospital to children who have had a severe allergic reaction to egg and to children whose general practitioners, practice nurses or parents are unhappy for them to be given MMR elsewhere.
This letter has also been sent to BMJ.
F Andrew I Riordan
Consultant Paediatrician Dept of Child Health
Birmingham Heartlands Hospital
BIRMINGHAM B9 5SS, UK
References
1. Lakshman R, Finn A. MMR vaccine and allergy. Arch Dis Child 2000;82:93-95
2. Khakoo GA, Lack G. Recommendations for using MMR vaccine in children allergic to eggs. BMJ 2000;320:929-932
3. Salisbury DM, Begg NT eds. Immunisation against infectious disease. London: HMSO 1996;38:141
4. Health Education Authority. MMR immunisation factsheet. London: Department of Health 1997:5-6
Show Less

Conflict of Interest:
None declared.
- Back to top

Main menu

Plain text

PLEASE NOTE:

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

Log in using your username and password

Main menu

Log in using your username and password

You are here

Plain text

PLEASE NOTE:

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Log in using your username and password