-
Gastroenterology Aug 2021Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may be at increased risk of some vaccine-preventable diseases. The effectiveness and safety of vaccinations may be altered...
BACKGROUND & AIMS
Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may be at increased risk of some vaccine-preventable diseases. The effectiveness and safety of vaccinations may be altered by immunosuppressive therapies or IBD itself. These recommendations developed by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and endorsed by the American Gastroenterological Association, aim to provide guidance on immunizations in adult and pediatric patients with IBD. This publication focused on live vaccines.
METHODS
Systematic reviews evaluating the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of vaccines in patients with IBD, other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, and the general population were performed. Critical outcomes included mortality, vaccine-preventable diseases, and serious adverse events. Immunogenicity was considered a surrogate outcome for vaccine efficacy. Certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Key questions were developed through an iterative process and voted on by a multidisciplinary panel. Recommendations were formulated using the Evidence-to-Decision framework. Strong recommendation means that most patients should receive the recommended course of action, whereas a conditional recommendation means that different choices will be appropriate for different patients.
RESULTS
Three good practice statements included reviewing a patient's vaccination status at diagnosis and at regular intervals, giving appropriate vaccinations as soon as possible, and not delaying urgently needed immunosuppressive therapy to provide vaccinations. There are 4 recommendations on the use of live vaccines. Measles, mumps, rubella vaccine is recommended for both adult and pediatric patients with IBD not on immunosuppressive therapy, but not for those using immunosuppressive medications (conditional). Varicella vaccine is recommended for pediatric patients with IBD not on immunosuppressive therapy, but not for those using immunosuppressive medications (conditional). For adults, recommendations are conditionally in favor of varicella vaccine for those not on immunosuppressive therapy, and against for those on therapy. No recommendation was made regarding the use of live vaccines in infants born to mothers using biologics because the desirable and undesirable effects were closely balanced and the evidence was insufficient.
CONCLUSIONS
Maintaining appropriate vaccination status in patients with IBD is critical to optimize patient outcomes. In general, live vaccines are recommended in patients not on immunosuppressive therapy, but not for those using immunosuppressive medications. Additional studies are needed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of live vaccines in patients on immunosuppressive therapy.
Topics: Canada; Consensus; Contraindications, Drug; Evidence-Based Medicine; Gastroenterology; Humans; Immunization; Immunocompromised Host; Immunosuppressive Agents; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Opportunistic Infections; Patient Safety; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome; Vaccine Efficacy; Vaccines, Live, Unattenuated
PubMed: 33617891
DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.12.079 -
BMJ Global Health Nov 2020There are reports of outbreaks of COVID-19 in prisons in many countries. Responses to date have been highly variable and it is not clear whether public health guidance...
BACKGROUND
There are reports of outbreaks of COVID-19 in prisons in many countries. Responses to date have been highly variable and it is not clear whether public health guidance has been informed by the best available evidence. We conducted a systematic review to synthesise the evidence on outbreaks of highly contagious diseases in prison.
METHODS
We searched seven electronic databases for peer-reviewed articles and official reports published between 1 January 2000 and 28 July 2020. We included quantitative primary research that reported an outbreak of a given contagious disease in a correctional facility and examined the effects of interventions. We excluded studies that did not provide detail on interventions. We synthesised common themes using the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guideline, identified gaps in the literature and critically appraised the effectiveness of various containment approaches.
RESULTS
We identified 28 relevant studies. Investigations were all based in high-income countries and documented outbreaks of tuberculosis, influenza (types A and B), varicella, measles, mumps, adenovirus and COVID-19. Several themes were common to these reports, including the public health implications of infectious disease outbreaks in prison, and the role of interagency collaboration, health communication, screening for contagious diseases, restriction, isolation and quarantine, contact tracing, immunisation programmes, epidemiological surveillance and prison-specific guidelines in addressing any outbreaks.
DISCUSSION
Prisons are high-risk settings for the transmission of contagious diseases and there are considerable challenges in managing outbreaks in them. A public health approach to managing COVID-19 in prisons is required.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42020178827.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; COVID-19; Communicable Disease Control; Communicable Diseases; Contact Tracing; Disease Outbreaks; Female; Health Communication; Humans; Male; Mass Screening; Middle Aged; Prisons; Public Health; SARS-CoV-2; Young Adult
PubMed: 33199278
DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003201 -
International Journal of Environmental... Oct 2020Prison inmates are highly susceptible for several infectious diseases, including vaccine-preventable diseases. We conducted a systematic international literature review...
Prison inmates are highly susceptible for several infectious diseases, including vaccine-preventable diseases. We conducted a systematic international literature review on vaccination coverage against hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis A virus (HAV), combined HAV/HBV, tetanus-diphtheria, influenza, pneumococcal, and combined measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) in prison inmates, according to the PRISMA guidelines. The electronic databases were used Web of Science, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cinhal. No language or time limit were applied to the search. We defined vaccination coverage as the proportion of vaccinated prisoners. There were no limitations in the search strategy regarding time period or language. Of 1079 identified studies, 28 studies were included in the review. In total, 21 reported on HBV vaccine coverage (range between 16-82%); three on HAV (range between 91-96%); two studies on combined HAV/HBV (77% in the second dose and 58% in the third); three studies on influenza vaccine (range between 36-46%), one of pneumococcal vaccine coverage (12%), and one on MMR coverage (74%). We found that data on vaccination coverage in prison inmates are scarce, heterogeneous, and do not include all relevant vaccines for this group. Current published literature indicate that prison inmates are under-immunized, particularly against HBV, influenza, MMR, and pneumococci. Strengthen immunization programs specifically for this population at risk and improvement of data record systems may contribute to better health care in prisoners.
Topics: Cross-Sectional Studies; Female; Humans; Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype; Influenza Vaccines; Male; Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine; Prisoners; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Vaccination; Vaccination Coverage; Viral Hepatitis Vaccines
PubMed: 33086513
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17207589 -
Expert Review of Vaccines Sep 2020Italy (in pilot regions) and Germany (nationwide) were the first European countries to introduce universal varicella vaccination (UVV) programs. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
INTRODUCTION
Italy (in pilot regions) and Germany (nationwide) were the first European countries to introduce universal varicella vaccination (UVV) programs.
AREAS COVERED
A systematic review was performed to assess varicella epidemiology before UVV programs and the impact of 1-dose and 2-dose UVV programs in Italy and Germany.
EXPERT OPINION
Italy implemented 1- or 2-dose UVV programs successively in eight pilot regions between 2003 and 2011 and nationwide in 2017. Germany implemented 1- and 2-dose UVV programs in 2004 and 2009, respectively. While Italy had two nationwide surveillance systems in place for varicella in the pre-vaccination era, in Germany, a mandatory notification system for varicella was only introduced in the New Federal States 2 years before the 1-dose UVV implementation. Substantial reductions in moderate/severe varicella and varicella-related hospitalization incidence occurred during the 1-dose era. Further reductions were reported in Italy and Germany after the recommendation of a second dose in a long or short schedule, respectively. Different benefit-risk evaluations of a tetravalent varicella-containing vaccine (MMRV) used as a first dose led to different recommendations (MMRV versus MMR+V) in these countries. Vaccination strategies in both countries tailored to country-specific needs and goals led to a reduction in varicella-related health care hospitalization costs.
Topics: Chickenpox; Chickenpox Vaccine; Disease Notification; Germany; Health Care Costs; Hospitalization; Humans; Immunization Programs; Italy; Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine; Vaccination; Vaccines, Combined
PubMed: 32969747
DOI: 10.1080/14760584.2020.1825947 -
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases Feb 2021Despite the universal use of the two-dose trivalent measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine in the past two decades, outbreaks of these diseases still occur in countries... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Despite the universal use of the two-dose trivalent measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine in the past two decades, outbreaks of these diseases still occur in countries with high vaccine uptake, giving rise to concerns about primary and secondary failure of MMR vaccine components. We aimed to provide seroconversion and waning rate estimates for the measles, mumps, and rubella components of MMR vaccines.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis we searched PubMed (including MEDLINE), Web of Science, and Embase for randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, or longitudinal studies reporting the immunogenicity and persistence of MMR vaccines, published in English from database inception to Dec 31, 2019. Studies were included if they investigated vaccine-induced immunity in healthy individuals who received a trivalent MMR vaccine, including different dosages and timepoints of vaccine administration. Studies featuring coadministration of MMR with other vaccines, maternal immunity to the MMR vaccine, or non-trivalent formulations of the vaccine were excluded. Pooled seroconversion and waning rates were estimated by random-effects meta-analyses. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019116705.
FINDINGS
We identified 3615 unique studies, 62 (1·7%) of which were eligible for analysis. Estimated overall seroconversion rates were 96·0% (95% CI 94·5-97·4; I=91·1%) for measles, 93·3% (91·1-95·2; I=94·9%) for mumps when excluding the Rubini strain, 91·1% (87·4-94·1; I=96·6%) for mumps when including the Rubini strain, and 98·3% (97·3-99·2; I=93·0%) for rubella. Estimated overall annual waning rates were 0·009 (95% CI 0·005-0·016; I=85·2%) for measles, 0·024 (0·016-0·039; I=94·7%) for mumps, and 0·012 (0·010-0·014; I=93·3%) for rubella.
INTERPRETATION
Our meta-analysis provides estimates of primary and secondary vaccine failure, which are essential to improve the accuracy of mathematical and statistical modelling to understand and predict the occurrence of future measles, mumps, and rubella outbreaks in countries with high vaccine uptake.
FUNDING
European Research Council.
Topics: Antibodies, Viral; Humans; Immunogenicity, Vaccine; Measles; Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine; Mumps; Rubella
PubMed: 32888410
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30442-4 -
Deutsches Arzteblatt International May 2020Adequate immunity to so-called childhood diseases can lower the occupational risk of vaccine-preventable infectious diseases in persons who work in day-care centers for...
BACKGROUND
Adequate immunity to so-called childhood diseases can lower the occupational risk of vaccine-preventable infectious diseases in persons who work in day-care centers for children.
METHODS
A systematic literature survey was carried out in PubMed and Embase for the period January 2000 to February 2019. Studies on immune status and vaccination status were included. In addition, data from the first wave of the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Adults (Studie zur Gesundheit Erwachsener in Deutschland, DEGS1) and surveillance data on notifiable infections in Germany were evaluated.
RESULTS
Six studies and the DEGS1 analysis of vaccination or immune status for varicella zoster, rubella, hepatitis A (HAV), pertussis, measles, and mumps in persons caring for children in day-care centers, most of whom are women, were included in this review. According to DEGS1, childcare workers are more commonly vaccinated against HAV and pertussis than the general female population (prevalence ratios [PR]: 1.46 [1.12; 1.90] and 1.57 [1.05; 2.36]), yet 57% had not been vaccinated against HAV and 77% had not been vaccinated against pertussis. Childcare workers were found to be less commonly vaccinated against rubella than the general female population, although the difference was not statistically significant (PR: 0.87 [0.71; 1.07]). In a Canadian study, positive HAV serology was found to be correlated with the duration of activity as a childcare worker. In the DEGS1 study, large proportions of the younger childcare workers in particular were seronegative against measles (16%), mumps (19%), and HAV (37%). Notifiable disease statistics show that those working in community facilities had a markedly higher risk of mumps, pertussis, and varicella (relative risk [RR]: 1.8-2.6) and a somewhat higher risk of rubella and HAV (RR: 1.47 and 1.21, respectively).
CONCLUSION
Childcare workers have a higher occupational risk of infection but do not always receive the appropriate vaccinations. In particular, women of child-bearing age working in day-care centers should be made more aware of the need for vaccination.
Topics: Child; Child Care; Germany; Humans; Occupational Diseases; Vaccine-Preventable Diseases
PubMed: 32843135
DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2020.0365 -
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Jul 2021Infectious etiologies are rare cause of acute pancreatitis (AP). We sought to investigate the frequency of viral-attributed AP (VIAP) and describe its natural course and...
Infectious etiologies are rare cause of acute pancreatitis (AP). We sought to investigate the frequency of viral-attributed AP (VIAP) and describe its natural course and clinical features. Comprehensive review of PubMed and EMBASE in English until December 31, 2019, was performed. AP diagnosis and severity were defined per the Revised Atlanta Classification. Viral infections were diagnosed by serology and/or histology. A diagnosis of viral infection, with a concurrent AP diagnosis, a temporal resolution of both entities, and the attempt to exclude the most common etiologies of AP defined VIAP. Two independent reviewers reviewed eligible publications. Bias risk was assessed with the Murad tool. A total of 209 cases identified in 128 publications met inclusion criteria. Mean age was 38.9 ± 1.28 years. Male-to-female ratio was 2.2:1, and 28% of patients were immunocompromised. Viral hepatitis (A, B, C, D and E) was the most common virus and accounted for 34.4% of cases, followed by coxsackie and echoviruses (14.8%), hemorrhagic fever viruses (12.4%), CMV (12.0%), VZV (10.5%), mumps and measles (3.8%), primary HIV infection (3.8%), HSV (1.9%), EBV (1.9%), and the remainder of cases (2.9%) attributed to adenovirus, influenza H1N1, and multiple viruses. Severity of AP was: 43.1% mild, 11.7% moderately severe, 32.4% severe. Death occurred in 42 (20.1%) patients. A significant portion of VIAP patients were immunocompromised (28.0%) and accounted for 71.4% of mortality cases. Mortality was higher than that reported for AP from other etiologies in the literature.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatitis; Prognosis; Virus Diseases
PubMed: 32789532
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-020-06531-9 -
Dermatology Online Journal Mar 2020New treatment options for warts include intralesional wart injection with agents such as vitamin D, measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine antigen, Bacillus...
BACKGROUND
New treatment options for warts include intralesional wart injection with agents such as vitamin D, measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine antigen, Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) antigen, and candida antigen but there have been limited studies to compare their efficacies.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this systematic review is to compare the efficacy and safety of injectable agents used for the treatment of warts.
METHODS
A PubMed search included terms "intralesional wart therapy," "wart injection" and "verruca injection." Articles reviewed were published over 10 years.
RESULTS
A total of 43 articles were reviewed; 30 covered studies with more than 10 participants and 13 were case reports, case series, and reviews. In comparison studies intralesional agents have equal or superior efficacy (66%-94.9%) compared to first-line salicylic acid or cryotherapy (65.5-76.5%). One advantage of intralesional injections is the rate of complete resolution of distant warts.
LIMITATIONS
Each study varied in their agents, treatment interval, and treatment dose, making comparisons difficult.
CONCLUSIONS
Intralesional wart injections are safe, affordable, and efficacious treatments for warts. Physicians should consider intralesional injections for patients with refractory warts, multiple warts, or warts in sensitive areas.
Topics: Aminolevulinic Acid; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antiviral Agents; BCG Vaccine; Bacterial Vaccines; Humans; Injections, Intralesional; Interferon-alpha; Mycobacterium; Tuberculin; Vitamin D; Warts
PubMed: 32609439
DOI: No ID Found -
BMC Public Health May 2020To analyse the impact of austerity measures taken by European governments as a response to the 2008 economic and financial crisis on social determinants on child health...
BACKGROUND
To analyse the impact of austerity measures taken by European governments as a response to the 2008 economic and financial crisis on social determinants on child health (SDCH), and child health outcomes (CHO).
METHODS
A systematic literature review was carried out in Medline (Ovid), Embase, Web of Science, PsycInfo, and Sociological abstracts in the last 5 years from European countries. Studies aimed at analysing the Great Recession, governments' responses to the crisis, and its impact on SDCH were included. A narrative synthesis of the results was carried out. The risk of bias was assessed using the STROBE and EPICURE tools.
RESULTS
Fourteen studies were included, most of them with a low to intermediate risk of bias (average score 72.1%). Government responses to the crisis varied, although there was general agreement that Greece, Spain, Ireland and the United Kingdom applied higher levels of austerity. High austerity periods, compared to pre-austerity periods were associated with increased material deprivation, child poverty rates, and low birth weight. Increasing child poverty subsequent to austerity measures was associated with deterioration of child health. High austerity was also related to poorer access and quality of services provided to disabled children. An annual reduction of 1% on public health expenditure was associated to 0.5% reduction on Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccination coverage in Italy.
CONCLUSIONS
Countries that applied high level of austerity showed worse trends on SDCH and CHO, demonstrating the importance that economic policy may have for equity in child health and development. European governments must act urgently and reverse these austerity policy measures that are detrimental to family benefits and child protection.
Topics: Child; Child Health; Economic Recession; Europe; Humans; Public Policy; Social Determinants of Health
PubMed: 32423441
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-020-08732-3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2020Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (chickenpox) are serious diseases that can lead to serious complications, disability, and death. However, public debate over the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (chickenpox) are serious diseases that can lead to serious complications, disability, and death. However, public debate over the safety of the trivalent MMR vaccine and the resultant drop in vaccination coverage in several countries persists, despite its almost universal use and accepted effectiveness. This is an update of a review published in 2005 and updated in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness, safety, and long- and short-term adverse effects associated with the trivalent vaccine, containing measles, rubella, mumps strains (MMR), or concurrent administration of MMR vaccine and varicella vaccine (MMR+V), or tetravalent vaccine containing measles, rubella, mumps, and varicella strains (MMRV), given to children aged up to 15 years.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2019, Issue 5), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to 2 May 2019), Embase (1974 to 2 May 2019), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (2 May 2019), and ClinicalTrials.gov (2 May 2019).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), prospective and retrospective cohort studies (PCS/RCS), case-control studies (CCS), interrupted time-series (ITS) studies, case cross-over (CCO) studies, case-only ecological method (COEM) studies, self-controlled case series (SCCS) studies, person-time cohort (PTC) studies, and case-coverage design/screening methods (CCD/SM) studies, assessing any combined MMR or MMRV / MMR+V vaccine given in any dose, preparation or time schedule compared with no intervention or placebo, on healthy children up to 15 years of age.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies. We grouped studies for quantitative analysis according to study design, vaccine type (MMR, MMRV, MMR+V), virus strain, and study settings. Outcomes of interest were cases of measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella, and harms. Certainty of evidence of was rated using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 138 studies (23,480,668 participants). Fifty-one studies (10,248,159 children) assessed vaccine effectiveness and 87 studies (13,232,509 children) assessed the association between vaccines and a variety of harms. We included 74 new studies to this 2019 version of the review. Effectiveness Vaccine effectiveness in preventing measles was 95% after one dose (relative risk (RR) 0.05, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.13; 7 cohort studies; 12,039 children; moderate certainty evidence) and 96% after two doses (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.28; 5 cohort studies; 21,604 children; moderate certainty evidence). The effectiveness in preventing cases among household contacts or preventing transmission to others the children were in contact with after one dose was 81% (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.89; 3 cohort studies; 151 children; low certainty evidence), after two doses 85% (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.75; 3 cohort studies; 378 children; low certainty evidence), and after three doses was 96% (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.23; 2 cohort studies; 151 children; low certainty evidence). The effectiveness (at least one dose) in preventing measles after exposure (post-exposure prophylaxis) was 74% (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.50; 2 cohort studies; 283 children; low certainty evidence). The effectiveness of Jeryl Lynn containing MMR vaccine in preventing mumps was 72% after one dose (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.76; 6 cohort studies; 9915 children; moderate certainty evidence), 86% after two doses (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.35; 5 cohort studies; 7792 children; moderate certainty evidence). Effectiveness in preventing cases among household contacts was 74% (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.49; 3 cohort studies; 1036 children; moderate certainty evidence). Vaccine effectiveness against rubella is 89% (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.42; 1 cohort study; 1621 children; moderate certainty evidence). Vaccine effectiveness against varicella (any severity) after two doses in children aged 11 to 22 months is 95% in a 10 years follow-up (rate ratio (rr) 0.05, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.08; 1 RCT; 2279 children; high certainty evidence). Safety There is evidence supporting an association between aseptic meningitis and MMR vaccines containing Urabe and Leningrad-Zagreb mumps strains, but no evidence supporting this association for MMR vaccines containing Jeryl Lynn mumps strains (rr 1.30, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.56; low certainty evidence). The analyses provide evidence supporting an association between MMR/MMR+V/MMRV vaccines (Jeryl Lynn strain) and febrile seizures. Febrile seizures normally occur in 2% to 4% of healthy children at least once before the age of 5. The attributable risk febrile seizures vaccine-induced is estimated to be from 1 per 1700 to 1 per 1150 administered doses. The analyses provide evidence supporting an association between MMR vaccination and idiopathic thrombocytopaenic purpura (ITP). However, the risk of ITP after vaccination is smaller than after natural infection with these viruses. Natural infection of ITP occur in 5 cases per 100,000 (1 case per 20,000) per year. The attributable risk is estimated about 1 case of ITP per 40,000 administered MMR doses. There is no evidence of an association between MMR immunisation and encephalitis or encephalopathy (rate ratio 0.90, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.61; 2 observational studies; 1,071,088 children; low certainty evidence), and autistic spectrum disorders (rate ratio 0.93, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.01; 2 observational studies; 1,194,764 children; moderate certainty). There is insufficient evidence to determine the association between MMR immunisation and inflammatory bowel disease (odds ratio 1.42, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.16; 3 observational studies; 409 cases and 1416 controls; moderate certainty evidence). Additionally, there is no evidence supporting an association between MMR immunisation and cognitive delay, type 1 diabetes, asthma, dermatitis/eczema, hay fever, leukaemia, multiple sclerosis, gait disturbance, and bacterial or viral infections.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Existing evidence on the safety and effectiveness of MMR/MMRV vaccines support their use for mass immunisation. Campaigns aimed at global eradication should assess epidemiological and socioeconomic situations of the countries as well as the capacity to achieve high vaccination coverage. More evidence is needed to assess whether the protective effect of MMR/MMRV could wane with time since immunisation.
Topics: Adolescent; Age Factors; Autistic Disorder; Chickenpox Vaccine; Child; Child, Preschool; Clinical Trials as Topic; Crohn Disease; Epidemiologic Studies; Humans; Infant; Measles; Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine; Mumps; Purpura, Thrombocytopenic; Rubella; Seizures, Febrile; Vaccines, Attenuated
PubMed: 32309885
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004407.pub4