-
Telematics and Informatics Jan 2023The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the importance of large-scale campaigns to facilitate vaccination adherence. Social media presents unique opportunities to reach... (Review)
Review
The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the importance of large-scale campaigns to facilitate vaccination adherence. Social media presents unique opportunities to reach broader audiences and reduces the costs of conducting national or global campaigns aimed at achieving herd immunity. Nonetheless, few studies have reviewed the effectiveness of prior social media campaigns for vaccination adherence, and several prior studies have shown that social media campaigns do not increase uptake rates. Hence, our objective is to conduct a systematic review to examine the effectiveness of social media campaigns and to identify the reasons for the mixed results of prior studies. Our methodology began with a search of seven databases, which resulted in the identification of 92 interventions conducted over digital media. Out of these 92 studies, only 15 adopted social media campaigns for immunization. We analyzed these 15 studies, along with a coding scheme we developed based on reviews of both health interventions and social media campaigns. Multiple coders, who were knowledgeable about social media campaigns and healthcare, analyzed the 15 cases and obtained an acceptable level of inter-coder reliability (> .80). The results from our systematic review show that only a few social media campaigns have succeeded in enhancing vaccination adherence. In addition, few campaigns have utilized known critical success factors of social media to induce vaccination adherence. Based on these findings, we discuss a set of research questions that informatics scholars should consider when identifying opportunities for using social media to resolve one of the most resilient challenges in public health. Finally, we conclude by discussing how the insights drawn from our systematic reviews contribute to advancing theories, such as social influence and the health belief model, into the realm of social media-based health interventions.
PubMed: 36438457
DOI: 10.1016/j.tele.2022.101918 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022Mumps is caused by the mumps virus and is characterized by pain and parotid gland swelling. Although its incidence has declined due to vaccines, outbreaks still occur...
Clinical efficacy evaluation and potential mechanism prediction on Pudilan Xiaoyan oral liquid in treatment of mumps in children based on meta-analysis, network pharmacology, and molecular docking.
Mumps is caused by the mumps virus and is characterized by pain and parotid gland swelling. Although its incidence has declined due to vaccines, outbreaks still occur among children. In addition, it can lead to severe complications, so it has a certain perniciousness. Pudilan Xiaoyan oral liquid (PDL), a Chinese patent medicine, commonly treats children with mumps. However, its safety, efficacy, and specific mechanisms lack relevant evaluation and analysis. Therefore, we did a meta-analysis of the randomized controlled trials combined with a network pharmacology analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of PDL in relieving symptoms of mumps in children and investigate its pharmacological mechanisms. This study systematically searched the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WanFang Data Knowledge Service Platform, VIP Database, Sinomed, Chinese Medical Journal Full-text Database, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for the published randomized controlled trials (date up to 3 March 2022; studies in both English and Chinese) comparing PDL and antiviral drug combination treatment to standalone antiviral drug treatment. The primary outcomes in this study were the effective rate and duration of five characteristic symptoms of children's mumps. We assessed the pooled data by using a fix-effect or random-effect model. We illustrated an odds ratio (OR) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) using the Stata 15 software. In network pharmacology, active components of PDL were collected from the traditional Chinese medicine system pharmacology technology platform and the CNKI studies, while mumps' targets were collected from databases of the Genecards and Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM), and then we constructed a "drug-component-target" network and a protein-protein interaction network using Cytoscape 3.9.0 for screening the core components and targets. Next, we ran Gene Ontology (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) analysis of intersection targets of PDL and mumps. Finally, molecular docking was performed between core components and targets. Of 70 identified studies, 12 were eligible and included in our analysis (N = 1,307 participants). Compared with the antiviral drug treatments, combination treatment using PDL and antiviral drugs provided higher effective rates (OR = 5.94), shorter symptom durations for fever (SMD = -1.05), headache (SMD = -0.69), parotid gland swelling (SMD = -1.30), parotid gland pain (SMD = -2.53), and loss of appetite (SMD = -0.56) with fewer reported side effects. Of the 113 active components of PDL and 57 mumps' targets, 11 core components like quercetin, isoetin, and seven core targets such as albumin (ALB) and interleukin-6 were obtained. Moreover, the potential pathways identified included cytokine-cytokine receptor interaction and T helper cell 17 (Th17 cell) differentiation. Molecular docking results revealed that most core components and targets could form stable structures. The core components, including isoetin, quercetin, and luteolin, and core targets involving heat shock protein HSP 90-alpha (HSP90AA1), estrogen receptor (ESR1), and ALB showed the best affinities. The combined use of PDL and antiviral drugs could effectively improve the efficacy of mumps among children and rapidly alleviate mumps-related symptoms. This efficacy may be associated with the anti-inflammatory and antiviral mechanisms by which PDL acts using multiple components, multiple targets, and multiple pathways. However, these results should be confirmed by further studies.
PubMed: 36210814
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.956219 -
Cureus Aug 2022There is increasing literature mentioning severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (COVID-19 infection) causing acute pancreatitis (AP). It... (Review)
Review
There is increasing literature mentioning severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (COVID-19 infection) causing acute pancreatitis (AP). It is hypothesized that SARS-Cov-2 causes pancreatic injury either by direct cytotoxic effect of the virus on pancreatic cells through the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors - the main receptors for the virus located on pancreatic cells - or by the cytokine storm that results from COVID-19 infection or a component of both. Many viruses are related to AP including mumps, coxsackievirus, cytomegalovirus (CMV), Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), and as data evolves SARS-CoV-2 virus may be one of them as well. We conducted a systematic literature review to explore the current literature and provide an overview of the evidence of AP in COVID-19 infection. We studied the presence of AP in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and calculated the time of diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection with respect to the time of diagnosis of AP. We also studied the age, gender, clinical manifestations, time of onset of symptoms, laboratory values, imaging findings, mortality, length of stay, comorbidities, need for Intensive Care Unit (ICU) care, and excluded any other common causes of AP. We included 40 articles comprising 46 patients. All patients had a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test and all patients had AP as per Atlanta's criteria. The most common clinical presentation was abdominal pain in 29 (63.0%). Edematous pancreas was the most common Computed Tomography Abdomen Pelvis (CTAP) scan finding in these patients (35 patients). Seventeen (37%) patients required ICU admission and six (13%) patients died. Our study provides an important overview of the available data on AP in COVID-19 patients and concludes that AP is an important complication in COVID-19 infection and should be considered as an important differential in patients with COVID-19 infection who complain of abdominal pain.
PubMed: 36168341
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.28380 -
Vaccine: X Dec 2022In the pre-vaccination era, all adults acquired immunity status due to natural infections during childhood and adolescence, whereas universal mass vaccination has...
INTRODUCTION
In the pre-vaccination era, all adults acquired immunity status due to natural infections during childhood and adolescence, whereas universal mass vaccination has changed the seroepidemiology of rubella among adults, showing lack of immunity in some subgroups. National and international guidelines recommend evaluating all healthcare workers (HCWs) for their immune status to rubella and possibly vaccinating those who are seronegative. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the susceptibility rate to rubella among HCWs in Italy and to explore possible options for the management of those found to be susceptible.
METHODS
Eight studies were included in the meta-analysis, selected from scientific papers available in the MEDLINE/PubMed and Google Scholar (till page 10) databases between January 1, 2015 and November 30, 2021. The following terms were used for the search strategy: (sero* OR seroprevalence OR prevalence OR susceptibilit* OR immunit* OR immunogenict*) AND (healthcare worker* OR health personnel OR physician* OR nurse OR student*) AND (rubella OR german measles OR TORCH) AND (Italy).
RESULTS
The prevalence of rubella-susceptible HCWs was 9.0 % (95 %CI: 6.4-12.1 %). In a comparison of female vs. male serosusceptible HCWs, the RR was 0.67 (95 %CI = 0.51-0.88). Occupational medicine examinations for rubella screening with possible subsequent vaccination of seronegatives and exclusion of susceptible HCWs from high-risk settings were common management strategies.
CONCLUSIONS
HCWs susceptible to rubella are an important epidemiological concern in Italy, and efforts to identify and actively offer the vaccine to this population should be increased.
PubMed: 36032697
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvacx.2022.100195 -
Indian Journal of Dermatology,... 2022Background Intralesional immunotherapy has been reported to be effective for warts and to show good safety profiles, but this has not yet been systematically studied.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Background Intralesional immunotherapy has been reported to be effective for warts and to show good safety profiles, but this has not yet been systematically studied. Aims To determine the efficacy and safety of intralesional immunotherapy for treating non-genital warts. Methods We comprehensively searched the MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases from the times of their inception to January 3, 2020. The primary outcome was the rate of complete response of all lesions. The distant complete response rate of warts located in an anatomically different body part and the recurrence rate were also analyzed. Results A total of 54 prospective studies was ultimately included. The immunotherapeutic agents used were Mycobacterium w vaccine, measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, purified protein derivative, Candida antigen, interferon, bacillus Calmette-Guérin vaccine and others. The pooled rate of complete response among all patients with non-genital warts treated using intralesional immunotherapy was 60.6% (95% confidence interval 54.8-66.5%). The pooled recurrence rate was 2.0% (95% confidence interval, 1.1-2.9%). All reported adverse events were mild and transient. Limitations The heterogeneity among studies Conclusion Intralesional immunotherapy is suggested for use in patients with multiple warts, given its promising results, good safety profile and low recurrence rate.
Topics: Humans; Injections, Intralesional; Prospective Studies; Warts; Immunotherapy; Immunologic Factors; BCG Vaccine; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35962514
DOI: 10.25259/IJDVL_1369_20 -
Frontiers in Pediatrics 2022In 2011, the first European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) vaccination recommendations for pediatric patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases...
Efficacy, Immunogenicity and Safety of Vaccination in Pediatric Patients With Autoimmune Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases (pedAIIRD): A Systematic Literature Review for the 2021 Update of the EULAR/PRES Recommendations.
BACKGROUND
In 2011, the first European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) vaccination recommendations for pediatric patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (pedAIIRD) were published. The past decade numerous new studies were performed to assess the safety, efficacy and immunogenicity of vaccinations in pedAIIRD. A systematic literature review (SLR) was therefore performed to serve as the basis for the updated 2021 EULAR/PRES recommendations.
METHODS
An SLR was performed according to the standard operating procedures for EULAR-endorsed recommendations. Primary outcomes were efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of vaccination in pedAIIRD. The search was performed in Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library and included studies published from November 2010 until July 2020.
RESULTS
The SLR yielded 57 studies which were included for critical appraisal and data extraction. Only 8 studies described the occurrence of vaccine-preventable infections after vaccination (efficacy), none of these studies were powered to assess efficacy. The majority of studies assessed (humoral) immune responses as surrogate endpoint for vaccine efficacy. Studies on non-live vaccines showed that these were safe and in general immunogenic. Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in general did not significantly reduce seroprotection rates, except for B-cell depleting therapies which severely hampered humoral responses. Four new studies on human papilloma virus vaccination showed that this vaccine was safe and immunogenic in pedAIIRD. Regarding live-attenuated vaccinations, level 1 evidence of the measles mumps rubella (MMR) booster vaccination became available which showed the safety of this booster for patients treated with methotrexate. In addition, level 3 evidence became available that suggested that the MMR and varicella zoster virus (VZV) vaccination for patients on low dose glucocorticosteroids and bDMARDs might be safe as well.
CONCLUSIONS
The past decade, knowledge on the safety and immunogenicity of (live-attenuated) vaccines in pedAIIRD significantly increased. Data on efficacy (infection prevention) remains scarce. The results from this SLR are the basis for the updated EULAR/PRES vaccination recommendations in pedAIIRD.
PubMed: 35874582
DOI: 10.3389/fped.2022.910026 -
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases Sep 2022Understanding why some migrants in Europe are at risk of underimmunisation and show lower vaccination uptake for routine and COVID-19 vaccines is critical if we are to... (Review)
Review
Understanding why some migrants in Europe are at risk of underimmunisation and show lower vaccination uptake for routine and COVID-19 vaccines is critical if we are to address vaccination inequities and meet the goals of WHO's new Immunisation Agenda 2030. We did a systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42020219214) exploring barriers and facilitators of vaccine uptake (categorised using the 5As taxonomy: access, awareness, affordability, acceptance, activation) and sociodemographic determinants of undervaccination among migrants in the EU and European Economic Area, the UK, and Switzerland. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO from 2000 to 2021 for primary research, with no restrictions on language. 5259 data sources were screened, with 67 studies included from 16 countries, representing 366 529 migrants. We identified multiple access barriers-including language, literacy, and communication barriers, practical and legal barriers to accessing and delivering vaccination services, and service barriers such as lack of specific guidelines and knowledge of health-care professionals-for key vaccines including measles-mumps-rubella, diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus, human papillomavirus, influenza, polio, and COVID-19 vaccines. Acceptance barriers were mostly reported in eastern European and Muslim migrants for human papillomavirus, measles, and influenza vaccines. We identified 23 significant determinants of undervaccination in migrants (p<0·05), including African origin, recent migration, and being a refugee or asylum seeker. We did not identify a strong overall association with gender or age. Tailored vaccination messaging, community outreach, and behavioural nudges facilitated uptake. Migrants' barriers to accessing health care are already well documented, and this Review confirms their role in limiting vaccine uptake. These findings hold immediate relevance to strengthening vaccination programmes in high-income countries, including for COVID-19, and suggest that tailored, culturally sensitive, and evidence-informed strategies, unambiguous public health messaging, and health system strengthening are needed to address access and acceptance barriers to vaccination in migrants and create opportunities and pathways for offering catch-up vaccinations to migrants.
Topics: COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Europe; Health Services Accessibility; Humans; Measles; Transients and Migrants; Vaccination; Vaccines
PubMed: 35429463
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00066-4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2021Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (chickenpox) are serious diseases that can lead to serious complications, disability, and death. However, public debate over the... (Review)
Review
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, using a vaccine with the BRD2 strain which is only used in China, 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: Chickenpox; Child; Humans; Infant; Measles; Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine; Mumps; Rubella
PubMed: 34806766
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004407.pub5 -
International Journal of Molecular... 2021This study was performed to investigate published literature about the association between measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and COVID-19. This is a systematic... (Review)
Review
This study was performed to investigate published literature about the association between measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and COVID-19. This is a systematic review in which the databases of Chocrane, Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science as well as reliable journals including Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, Jama and also Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publications were searched.Out of 169 documents discovered during the literature review, 56 ones were somehow related to the association between MMR vaccine and COVID-19, of which 11 ones mentioned the association between these two, and 8 of them contained a hypothesis about this relationship. A quasi-trial study reported the positive effect of the MMR vaccine on reducing the severity of COVID-19 symptoms among those who received it. Also, a cross-sectional study showed an association between the level of Immunoglobulin G (IgG) mumps and COVID-19. Moreover, a genomic data analysis study also reported the effect of Rubella Immunoglobulin G (IgG) level on COVID-19. It seems that due to the similarity of respiratory diseases including measles, rubella, and mumps to COVID-19, MMR vaccine should be investigated more deeply to see if it is effective in order to deal with this novel disease.
PubMed: 34336136
DOI: No ID Found -
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics Dec 2022M-M-R® (M-M-R II) is routinely used in many countries at 12-15 months with a second dose at 4 to 6 years of age. However, the vaccine may need to be administered at...
M-M-R® (M-M-R II) is routinely used in many countries at 12-15 months with a second dose at 4 to 6 years of age. However, the vaccine may need to be administered at other ages due to delays in the immunization schedule or in certain situations such as outbreaks or international travel. A systematic literature review was conducted to evaluate efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of M-M-R II among 6- to 11-month-olds and persons ≥7 years of age. A search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted in 2019 including Medline, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL. Only one study reported seroconversion rates after one dose in infants at 9 months of age: 87.4% (measles), 92.3% (mumps), and 91.2% (rubella); no safety data were reported. Seven studies reported immunogenicity and safety data for M-M-R II at ≥7 years of age. Seroconversion rates ranged from 96%-100% (measles), 65%-100% (mumps), and 91%-100% (rubella). Rates of selected adverse events ranged from 5.2%-8.7% for fever (≥38°C or ≥38.1°C), 2%-33.3% for injection site reactions, and 0.4% for measles/rubella-like rash (one study). No efficacy studies were found. This literature review identified RCTs with evidence to support that M-M-R II is immunogenic and well tolerated in individuals ≥7 years of age.
Topics: Aged, 80 and over; Antibodies, Viral; Antigens, Viral; Humans; Immunization Schedule; Infant; Measles; Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine; Mumps; Rubella; Vaccines, Combined
PubMed: 34128759
DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2021.1933874