Advertisement

European Journal of Epidemiology

, Volume 34, Issue 10, pp 893–896 | Cite as

Measles vaccine immune escape: Should we be concerned?

  • Luojun Yang
  • Bryan T. Grenfell
  • Michael J. MinaEmail author
COMMENTARY
  • 102 Downloads

Introductions of measles containing vaccines, initially in the United States in 1963, the United Kingdom in 1968, and globally thereafter have caused measles cases to plunge worldwide over the past half-century [1]. By any metric, the measles vaccine is among the most successful public health interventions of modern times and is directly responsible for the near elimination of the virus in much of the world—an incredible achievement for a pathogen that only 50 years ago infected almost every child born. It is estimated that since the year 2000, the measles vaccine has prevented over 21 million deaths from acute measles virus infections globally [2]. Furthermore, new ecological and immunological evidence suggests that this number could be far greater—by preventing measles-associated long-term “immunological-amnesia” [3, 4]. However, despite the magnificent successes of the global measles vaccine program, including a declaration of measles elimination in the Americas that persisted...

Notes

Author contributions

All authors contributing equally to this work.

Funding

This work was funded by the National Institutes of Health (DP5-OD028145 to MJM and a Fogarty International Center Grant to BTG).

References

  1. 1.
    Rota PA, Moss WJ, Takeda M, de Swart RL, Thompson KM, Goodson JL. Measles. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2016;14(2):16049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Mina MJ, Metcalf CJE, de Swart RL, Osterhaus ADME, Grenfell BT. Long-term measles-induced immunomodulation increases overall childhood infectious disease mortality. Science. 2015;348(6235):694–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mina MJ, Kula T, Leng Y, Li M, de Vries RD, Knip M, et al. Measles virus infection diminishes preexisting antibodies that offer protection from otherpathogens. Science. 2019;366(6465):599–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moss WJ, Griffin DE. Global measles elimination. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2006;4:900–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Strebel PM, Henao-Restrepo A-M, Hoekstra E, Olivé J-M, Cochi SL. Global measles elimination efforts: the significance of measles elimination in the United States. J Infect Dis. 2004;189:S251–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Measles Elimination in the U.S. | CDC. 2019 [cited 2019 Oct 20]. https://www.cdc.gov/measles/elimination.html.
  8. 8.
    Metcalf CJE, Ferrari M, Graham AL, Grenfell BT. Understanding herd immunity. Trends Immunol. 2015;36:753–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Javelle E, Colson P, Parola P, Raoult D. Measles, the need for a paradigm shift. Eur J Epidemiol. 2019.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-019-00569-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fatemi Nasab GS, Salimi V, Abbasi S, Adjami Nezhad Fard F, Mokhtari Azad T. Comparison of neutralizing antibody titers against outbreak-associated measles genotypes (D4, H1 and B3) in Iran. Pathog Dis. 2016;74(8):089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dascalu S. Measles epidemics in romania: lessons for public health and future policy. Front Public Health. 2019;25(7):98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ciceri G, Canuti M, Bianchi S, Gori M, Piralla A, Colzani D, et al. Genetic variability of the measles virus hemagglutinin gene in B3 genotype strains circulating in Northern Italy. Infect Genet Evol. 2019;28(75):103943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kurchatova A, Krumova S, Vladimirova N, Nikolaeva-Glomb L, Stoyanova A, Kantardjiev T, et al. Preliminary findings indicate nosocomial transmission and Roma population as most affected group in ongoing measles B3 genotype outbreak in Bulgaria, March to August 2017. Eurosurveillance. 2017;22:30611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lochlainn LN, Mandal S, de Sousa R, Paranthaman K, van Binnendijk R, Ramsay M, et al. A unique measles B3 cluster in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands linked to air travel and transit at a large international airport, February to April 2014. Eurosurveillance. 2016;21:30177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chiem AT. Infectious disease/CDC update. Measles Outbreak-California, December 2014–February 2015. Ann Emerg Med. 2015;66(1):82–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brown KE, Rota PA, Goodson JL, Williams D, Abernathy E, Takeda M, et al. Genetic characterization of measles and rubella viruses detected through global measles and rubella elimination surveillance, 2016–2018. MMWR. 2019;68:587–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
    Takashima Y, Schluter WW, Mariano KML, Diorditsa S, de Quiroz Castro M, Ou AC, et al. Progress toward measles elimination—Philippines, 1998–2014. MMWR. 2015;64(13):357–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    World Health Organization. MeaNS—measles nucleotide surveillance. [cited 2019 Oct 19]. http://www.who-measles.org/Public/Web_Front/main.php.
  20. 20.
    Patel MK, Orenstein WA. Classification of global measles cases in 2013–17 as due to policy or vaccination failure: a retrospective review of global surveillance data. Lancet Glob Health. 2019;7:e313–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ackley SF, Hacker JK, Enanoria WTA, Worden L, Blumberg S, Porco TC, et al. Genotype-specific measles transmissibility: a branching process analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66(8):1270–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hahné SJM, Nic Lochlainn LM, van Burgel ND, Kerkhof J, Sane J, Yap KB, et al. Measles outbreak among previously immunized healthcare workers, the Netherlands, 2014. J Infect Dis. 2016;214(12):1980–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gandon S, Mackinnon MJ, Nee S, Read AF. Imperfect vaccines and the evolution of pathogen virulence. Nature. 2001;414(6865):751–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lewnard JA, Grad YH. Vaccine waning and mumps re-emergence in the United States. Sci Transl Med. 2018;10(433):eaao5945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kanjilal S, Mina MJ. Passive immunity for the treatment of influenza: quality not quantity. Lancet Respir Med. 2019;7:922–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Xu GJ, Kula T, Xu Q, Li MZ, Vernon SD, Ndung’u T, et al. Comprehensive serological profiling of human populations using a synthetic human virome. Science. 2015;348(6239):aaa0698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyPrinceton UniversityPrincetonUSA
  2. 2.Fogarty International CenterNational Institutes of HealthBethesdaUSA
  3. 3.Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics, Department of Epidemiology, Department of Immunology and Infectious DiseasesHarvard School of Public HealthBostonUSA
  4. 4.Department of PathologyBrigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations