delayed MMR and seizures

 a new study looked at 323K children in the US (from the Vaccine Safety Datalink) born between 2004 and 2008, assessing the timing of the array of first doses of childhood vaccines  and the development of seizures, with self-control -- ie, noting the timing of seizure after vaccination in children who never had a prior seizure (see vaccine MMR delay and sz peds 2014 in dropbox, or DOI: 10.1542/peds.2013-3429).  the seizure risk window varied a bit by different vaccines, but was 7-10 days for MMR. results:

    --5667 children had seizures. of these 49.7% received the vaccines on-time in the first 2 years of life.
    --in the first year of life, no diff in seizures with vaccine timing (includes DTaP, PCV, HIB, IPV, rotavirus)
    --in the second year of life, the IRR (incidence rate ratio) for seizures after the first MMR given at the recommended 12-15 months was 2.65. if given between 16-23 months it was 6.53!!  in those given the combo vaccine or MMR plus varicella, the IRR at 12-15 months was 4.95, increasing to 9.80 if given between 16-23 months. these numbers were worse with longer delays (eg, if MMR given between 16-18 months, IRR was 5.09; if given between 19-21 months it was 8.75)
    --although the old DTP vaccine used until the 1990s was associated with increased seizure, the subsequent DTaP vaccine is not associated with seizures

this study reinforces the importance of timely vaccine. some parents have been hesitant in this regard, anticipating an older child might tolerate the vaccine better. sometimes it is because of barriers to immunization (lack of insurance, transportation, accessible care). although this is an observational study, and it is possible that vaccine delay was related to some parental choice reflecting an increased risk of seizure, the large scope of this study makes that bias unlikely, and the more likely explanation having to do with maturity of the immune system with age and higher likelihood of febrile reaction prompting seizures.

Comments

Post a Comment

if you would like to receive the near-daily emails regularly, please email me at gmodest@uphams.org

Popular posts from this blog

cystatin c: better predictor of bad outcomes than creatinine

  another article found significant discordance between creatinine and cystatin C in assessing renal function,  finding that the latter correlated most strongly with both renal and non-renal adverse clinical outcomes (see   ckd cystatin c better than creat AJKD2023  in  dropbox or doi: 10.1053/ j.ajkd.2023.04.002)   Details: -- 158,601 adults who were in the Stockholm Creatinine Measurements (SCREAM) project and had testing of creatinine and cystatin C on the same day during a healthcare encounter, from 2010-2018     -- >400,000 outpatient tests were done for both creatinine and cystatin C levels -- mean age 62, 48% female -- mean eGFR by creatinine (   eGFR cr ) 80; mean eGFR by cystatin C ( eGFR cys  ) 73 -- mean stage of renal insufficiency: 39%  eGFR cr   90+; 38%  eGFR cr  60-89; 12%  eGFR cr  45-59; 7.1%  eGFR cr  30-44; 3.2%  eGFR cr  15-29, 0.7%  eGFR cr ...
Read more

diabetes DPP-4 inhibitors and the risk of heart failure

the FDA just came out with a safety alert about 2 DPP-4 inhibitors and the increased risk of heart failure (released 04/05/2016)(see  http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm494252.htm?source=govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery ​ ). details: --saxagliptin and alogliptin were singled out because of 2 clinical trials in diabetic patients with heart disease. in each trial more patients taking these meds were hospitalized for heart failure vs those on placebo     --in the saxagliptin trial: 3.5% were hospitalized for heart failure (vs 2.8% on placebo). risk factors included prior heart failure or kidney disease     --in the alogliptin trial: 3.9% were hospitalized for heart failure (vs 3.3% on placebo) --recommendation by the FDA:     -- we should consider stopping these drugs if the patient develops heart failure ...
Read more

UPDATE: ASCVD risk factor critique

I decided to do an extensive update of my prior ASCVD (atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease) risk analysis and critique of risk calculators, with much more information about the “non-traditional” risk factors. I felt that there should be more data/clarification, since I think we are really undertreating/not preventing the most common cause of death by relying on the current ASCVD risk calculators   -- Cardiovascular risk models:      -- many of us rely on the various cardiovascular risk models to determine the appropriate approach to patients, and these are often integrated into the electronic medical records      -- these risk models have several very important limitations:          -- they are typically based on community data, eg from the Framingham study etc. But, in clinical practice, we are dealing with the individual and not the community:          ...
Read more