Sports Medicine

, Volume 44, Issue 10, pp 1361–1376 | Cite as

Vaccination in Elite Athletes

Open Access
Review Article

Abstract

Public health vaccination guidelines cannot be easily transferred to elite athletes. An enhanced benefit from preventing even mild diseases is obvious but stronger interference from otherwise minor side effects has to be considered as well. Thus, special vaccination guidelines for adult elite athletes are required. In most of them, protection should be strived for against tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis, influenza, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, measles, mumps and varicella. When living or traveling to endemic areas, the athletes should be immune against tick-borne encephalitis, yellow fever, Japanese encephalitis, poliomyelitis, typhoid fever, and meningococcal disease. Vaccination against pneumococci and Haemophilus influenzae type b is only relevant in athletes with certain underlying disorders. Rubella and papillomavirus vaccination might be considered after an individual risk–benefit analysis. Other vaccinations such as cholera, rabies, herpes zoster, and Bacille Calmette–Guérin (BCG) cannot be universally recommended for athletes at present. Only for a very few diseases, a determination of antibody titers is reasonable to avoid unnecessary vaccinations or to control efficacy of an individual’s vaccination (especially for measles, mumps, rubella, varicella, hepatitis B and, partly, hepatitis A). Vaccinations should be scheduled in a way that possible side effects are least likely to occur in periods of competition. Typically, vaccinations are well tolerated by elite athletes, and resulting antibody titers are not different from the general population. Side effects might be reduced by an optimal selection of vaccines and an appropriate technique of administration. Very few discipline-specific considerations apply to an athlete’s vaccination schedule mainly from the competition and training pattern as well as from the typical geographical distribution of competitive sites.

Key Points

Risk–benefit analysis of vaccination in elite athletes differs significantly from that of the general population, providing the rationale for specific vaccination guidelines

Risk of infection is higher in athletes due to worldwide traveling and close contact with teammates or opponents. Moreover, consequences of infection are more serious, since even mild infections might be relevant for individual performance

Adverse reactions could be reduced by selecting the optimal vaccine, the optimal time point for vaccination and the correct vaccination technique

1 Introduction

Prevention of infection is a key issue in the healthcare of athletes. Exposure prophylaxis (e.g. avoiding mosquito or animal bites, avoiding contact with infected individuals, food, and personal hygiene) and vaccination play major roles in these matters. Although this article focuses on vaccination of adult athletes only, vaccination of the staff or family members is similarly important to create herd immunity and to reduce the risk for the athlete to get in contact with an infectious agent.

Among team doctors and other physicians there exists some uncertainty about the most appropriate vaccination regimens in athletes. Some typical circumstances of athletes’ daily life, such as frequent travelling to foreign countries or close contact with teammates and opponents, might indicate the need for a modification of recommended vaccination schedules. In addition, intense physical activity of training and competition with its possible effects on the immune function can affect decisions about execution and timing of vaccination. Such a complex situation warrants a detailed review of the most current scientific literature with regard to these issues. It is intended to deduct valid recommendations for the available vaccines from an international perspective. An important prerequisite for an immunization campaign in athletes is probably the acceptance of vaccination requirements by opinion formers in the clubs or organizations. Moreover, all staff members should be vaccinated as role models and to provide herd immunity.

2 Principles of Vaccination in Elite Athletes

2.1 Existing Vaccination Recommendations

In many countries, considerably different vaccination guidelines have been established and change over time [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. These guidelines target mainly on public health issues and focus on the general population rather than on individuals with a different benefit–risk profile. Several potential reasons exist for not recommending an available vaccine for the general population or for a defined subgroup. Besides few vaccines with an adverse medical risk–benefit ratio, the majority of vaccines are not generally recommended since the medical benefit is not regarded sufficiently balanced with the costs from the view of the general population (cost effectiveness), although being potentially beneficial in a specific individual [6, 7]. Some guidelines address this problem by an ‘opening clause’ indicating that even vaccinations not recommended by the guideline may be beneficial on an individual basis. Thus, they might be offered despite the lacking general recommendation [2].

2.2 Risk–Benefit Balance for Vaccination in Elite Athletes

In many aspects, the medical risk–benefit balance in elite athletes differs significantly from that of the general population [8]. Obviously, this might also affect cost-effectiveness considerations.

2.2.1 Vaccination is More Beneficial

Infections have a different significance in competitive sports. For elite athletes, even mild diseases that would never cause absenteeism in the general population are relevant for their individual performance. Seemingly trivial infections might well impair general well-being (or the athlete’s perception of being perfectly prepared) and represent an obstacle for the realization of maximal performance. Also, with the knowledge of a player’s infection, team coaches may tend to leave them on the bench. The same is true for long-lasting infections and post-infectious periods without full recovery of physical performance. When white-collar workers have already gone back to work, elite athletes are still clearly impaired or even unable to train and compete. Furthermore, some infections which typically cause only mild diseases in rare cases might result in severe complications such as myocarditis. This is a well known fact for at least the influenza virus. Athletes are potentially more prone to such organ infections than sedentary individuals, particularly during strenuous training and competition. Although evidence is mainly from animal studies, the severity of the disease renders this assumption tenable [9, 10, 11].

The spectrum of infectious agents potentially affecting athletes is different from that of the general population. Elite athletes are often frequent travelers and, thus, prone to acquire infections not prevalent in their home countries. Also, they frequently have contact with teammates or opponents from countries with a different profile of endemic diseases. Thus, a worldwide spectrum of infectious agents has to be considered.

Close contact with opponents and teammates favors transmission of many diseases, particularly respiratory-transmitted diseases [12, 13]. Typically, a contact of less than 1–2 m distance is necessary to transmit diseases such as influenza or other respiratory-transmissible infectious agents such as varicella [14, 15]. For blood-borne diseases, the transmission risk due to sport seems to be less pronounced, however still slightly higher than in the general population [16, 17]. Even healthy non-immune athletes being exposed to an infectious agent (contact with a diseased individual) might be excluded from training and competition for medical reasons. Usually such exclusion has to last for the complete incubation period of a disease (up to 3 weeks). That does not apply to vaccinated and thus immune athletes. Such a kind of prophylaxis was performed during the H1N1 influenza pandemic or recently during a mumps outbreak in the French rugby league [18].

Taken together, these facts argue in favor of a more aggressive vaccination policy since the elite athletes might benefit from a vaccine far more than the general population.

2.2.2 The Risk from Vaccination is Higher

Similar to the risk due to infection, the risks of vaccination are aggravated in athletes. At present, no long-term adverse effects occurring some years after vaccination have been identified using post-licensure passive surveillance notification systems such as the vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS; https://vaers.hhs.gov/index) in the US or similar notification systems [19]. Thus, only side effects manifesting shortly after vaccination have to be considered. These side effects of vaccines include (1) local reactions at the site of inoculation with the vaccine; (2) generalized reactions, e.g. allergic reaction or a usually mild disease, including fever, lymph node swelling, and headache; and (3) vaccine-specific symptoms that might mimic the disease aimed to prevent when using live vaccines.

2.2.2.1 Local Reactions
Local reactions occur frequently and early after application (6–72 h) and resolve within not more than 7 days [20, 21]. These local reactions are of minor importance in the general population and typically do not interfere relevantly with business requirements [22, 23, 24, 25]. However, this is not necessarily true in athletes. Modern vaccines can be administrated by injection (intramuscular, subcutaneous, and intradermal), as a nasal spray or as an oral vaccine (Table 1). Local reactions differ clearly, dependent on the route of administration. In vaccines administered by injection, pain, swellings, or indurations are frequently found. In a few cases (~1 % in children) itchy subcutaneous nodules (granuloma) appear. Aluminium-adsorbed vaccines administrated to the subcutis cause this phenomenon, which is suspected to be related to a contact allergy to aluminium [26].
Table 1

Administration of vaccines

Vaccine

Route of administration

Intramuscular

Subcutaneous

Intradermal

Oral

Intranasal

Measles

Xa

X

   

Mumps

Xa

X

   

Rubella

Xa

X

   

Varicella

 

X

   

Yellow fever

X

X

   

Herpes zoster

 

X

   

Cholera

   

X

 

Pertussis

X

    

Tetanus/diphtheria

X

    

Tick-borne encephalitis

X

    

Influenza

X

X

X

 

X

Hepatitis A

X

Xb

   

Hepatitis B

X

Xb

   

Poliomyelitis

X

Xb

 

X

 

Pneumococcal disease

Xc

Xd

   

Meningococcal disease

Xc

    

Typhoid fever

X

X

 

X

 

Japanese encephalitis

X

Xb

   

Rabies

X

    

Papillomavirus

X

    

Bacille Calmette–Guérin (BCG)

  

X

  

aIn combination with varicella vaccine, only a subcutaneous injection is possible

bIntramuscular injection preferred; only when an intramuscular injection is not possible, a subcutaneous injection should be considered

cConjugate vaccines should only be administrated intramuscularly

dPolysaccharide vaccine might be administered intramuscularly or subcutaneously

When using the intradermal route (e.g. for influenza), local reactions are mainly erythema (7 % of all vaccinations) and swelling (15–30 %) [27, 28]. Vaccines applied intranasally result in a significantly higher rate of local symptoms, as shown for the influenza vaccine. A runny nose was reported in ~50 % and a sore throat in ~25 % [29]. Very few vaccines are administrated orally and replicate in the gut. This replication might result in gastrointestinal symptoms and vaccinees can excrete the vaccine virus or bacteria for some weeks or months [30, 31, 32].

2.2.2.2 Generalized Reactions

Next to syncopes or collapses, which are more related to the injection itself than to the vaccine (see Sect. 5), generalized reactions may occur, including fever, headache, fatigue, or lymph node swelling. Depending on the definition of adverse reactions, the vaccine and the vaccinated cohort, the frequency of generalized adverse reactions might differ significantly [33, 34, 35]. These generalized reactions indicate an immunological reaction caused by the vaccine [36, 37, 38]. These reactions might be present during the first days after vaccination [35, 39, 40]. Next to these usually mild general reactions, severe reactions rarely occur, such as anaphylactic or anaphylactoid reactions, and they probably have the same relevance for sportsmen and the general population.

Severe acute allergic reactions rarely occur (~1:10 million doses for influenza vaccine or measles vaccine) and manifest immediately after vaccination (seconds to 1 h) [41, 42]. However, anaphylactoid reaction is more common (~1:100,000) [42]. Subacute allergic reactions appear a little later (some hours–2 days) and are usually characterized by urticaria, swellings, and exanthema. Delayed allergic reactions manifest some days to 1 week after vaccination (e.g. vasculitis after hepatitis B vaccination [43].

Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS) is a very rare event after vaccination with modern vaccines and occurs with a frequency of 1:1 million vaccinations or less [44, 45]. Other hypothetical side effects of vaccination have almost been ruled out, such as multiple sclerosis, diabetes mellitus type 1, or autism [46, 47, 48, 49].

2.2.2.3 Vaccine-Specific Reaction

Live vaccines against measles, mumps, rubella, varicella, yellow fever, cholera, poliomyelitis, or typhoid fever might cause a mild vaccine disease [50, 51]. This is due to the fact that live vaccines are only attenuated and viruses or bacteria replicate in the body. Thus, a mild disease might occur, mimicking the disease the vaccine was designed for. Fever and/or a few vesicles after varicella vaccination, elevated transaminases after yellow fever vaccination, meningitis after mumps vaccination, benign thrombocytopenic purpura after measles vaccination, or arthritis after rubella vaccination have been reported [48]. These symptoms normally occur after 10–14 days at the peak of replication. This should be considered for the timing of a vaccination (see Sect. 4). The frequency of some of these reactions is related to the vaccine strain, as shown for aseptic meningitis after mumps vaccination. Strains used in older vaccines such as Urabe had a much higher rate of aseptic meningitis compared with modern strains such as Jeryl Lynn strain [47, 52, 53].

2.3 Rationale for Vaccination Guidelines of Elite Athletes

As a result of these considerations, elite athletes need special vaccination guidelines that differ from the ones for the general population. Taken together, the benefits from vaccination and the risk from side effects have to be thoroughly balanced for the situation of an individual athlete. Therefore, we discuss the use of vaccines in adult elite athletes, excluding anthrax and smallpox vaccine, which are provided for military service only in a few countries, and excluding rotavirus vaccine since this vaccine is only licensed for infants.

3 Indications for Vaccination in Elite Athletes

3.1 Vaccines Recommended for All Athletes

For adult elite athletes, the inactivated vaccines against tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis, influenza, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, and the live vaccines against measles, mumps and varicella (if immunity is not proven by a natural infection) are uniformly recommended.

3.1.1 Tetanus and Diphtheria

Tetanus and diphtheria vaccines are implemented in almost all national guidelines and usually athletes have been vaccinated during early childhood with basic immunization (TD). However, in adults, a 10-yearly booster dose with a reduced diphtheria component (Td) is recommended. It might be worth mentioning that in many sports, bodily contact with soil and dust cannot be avoided, as well as the occurrence of wounds, both of which might favor the acquisition of Clostridium tetani. Although the risk of acquiring diphtheria is low, both infections are very severe and often associated with serious complications, which further justify their prevention by well-established vaccinations.

3.1.2 Pertussis

Pertussis vaccination for adults is only recommended by a few national guidelines in adults such as in Germany, Italy, France, UK, Austria, and the US, whereas it is not recommended for all adults in most other EU countries, Russia, Brazil, or Australia. However, there is growing evidence that pertussis is affecting adults, resulting in a variety of severe symptoms of the respiratory system that might last for many weeks and months. During the last years, the median age of infected individuals increased in many countries and thereby adults came into the focus of vaccination [54]. The risk of a clinically relevant disease is around 1:500 per year and vaccination reduces this risk by over 90 % at least for the first 2–3 years after vaccination [55]. The only licensed vaccine for adults is an acellular vaccine (with less side effects compared with a whole-cell vaccine) with a reduced antigen content compared with childhood vaccines used for basic immunization. At present, vaccination against pertussis in adults is only feasible using a combined vaccine together with tetanus and diphtheria booster dose [56]. It can well happen that pertussis vaccine is indicated but tetanus/diphtheria booster doses were already given within the last years. Earlier, it was suspected that side effects increase when shortening the interval between tetanus–diphtheria pre-vaccination and tetanus–diphtheria–pertussis booster [57]. However, two recently published reports do not support this hypothesis. Even within an interval of only 1 month, adverse reactions did not occur to a higher frequency in individuals recently pre-vaccinated compared with controls [58, 59]. Thus, pertussis vaccination is recommended in athletes because the likelihood of acquiring a severe, long-lasting infection that interferes with training and competition is relevant, and the vaccine-associated side effects seem tolerable.

3.1.3 Influenza

Influenza is an important health issue, even in young, healthy adults. The disease might be severe and the virus is highly contagious. This alone might constitute sufficient justification for a recommendation to vaccinate athletes. Such a consideration is based on the fact that even a moderate or mild influenza might cause absence from training and competition for weeks and possibly the loss of a whole season. Unfortunately, the vaccine efficacy differs from season to season and is generally less than that of other vaccines [60, 61]. Influenza vaccination is complicated by the fact that a wide variety of vaccines is available. Next to a live vaccine that is applied intranasally, different inactivated vaccines applied via the intradermal or intramuscular route are available. Moreover, the vaccines differ in the adjuvants used (with and without MF59), influencing the antibody production and the likelihood of adverse reactions. In addition, the antigens in the vaccines are manufactured differently. At present, sub-unit, split, and whole-virus vaccines are available. In the majority of vaccines, the antigens are produced in eggs and less frequently in cell cultures with a slightly different profile in antibody production and side effects. Finally, for the first time this season, some vaccines do not only include the two influenza A (H1N1 and H3N2) and one influenza B components originating from the Victoria or Yamagata lineage as an alternative (trivalent vaccine) but also both influenza B lineages (quadrivalent vaccine). The second influenza B component was implemented since two influenza B lineages are cocirculating without relevant cross protection between each other, resulting in an important lack of protection for the trivalent vaccine. However, the fourth component is included only in a few vaccines commercially available [62, 63, 64, 65].

Having this high number of different vaccines in mind when selecting an appropriate vaccine for healthy young adults that should be accompanied by a minimum of adverse effects, the use of adjuvanted vaccines is discouraged (more side effects with a benefit that is mainly detectable in immunosuppressed patients and elderly but less in healthy young adults) [66, 67]. The use of the quadrivalent influenza vaccine seems to be beneficial since quite a high number of influenza virus infections were caused by an influenza B type not included in the seasonal vaccine by the World Health Organization (WHO) recommendation during the last 10 years [68].

Concerning the other vaccine properties, the decision is less clear. An application by intranasal, intradermal, or intramuscular route is accompanied by different profiles of side effects. Efficacy is only slightly different between the intradermal and the intramuscular route. The intradermal application differs from the intramuscular application in the profile of local reactions. Rates of local adverse events were consistently higher after intradermal application, particularly erythema, swelling, induration, and pruritus. However, individuals reported less pain in the muscle after intradermal application [69]. Taking this into account, the optimal administration route varies between athletic disciplines. For a runner, the intradermal route or the deltoid seems preferable, whereas an archer may benefit from an intragluteal injection. The intranasally applied live vaccine (not available with inactivated vaccines) leads to a much higher protection in young children. With increasing age, this effect decreases to a level not different or even lower than for intramuscularly administered vaccines [60, 70]. The live vaccine has some other characteristics that apply to this kind of vaccine only. While replicating in the upper respiratory tract, it is possible that the virus might be transmitted to others within the first 2–3 days (up to 10 days). However, the rate of such transmission seems to be small (<2 %) [71]. The major benefit of this vaccine is its favorable profile of side effects without the typical symptoms of pain, swelling, or induration at the site of vaccination but with a runny nose or nasal congestion. At present, for athletes an intramuscular or intradermal application should be preferred since the live vaccine has not proven its effectiveness in healthy adults sufficiently compared with intramuscular vaccines. The live vaccine seems to be an option only in a few cases with an anaphylactic reaction after intramuscular vaccination or when local reactions at the injection site must be absolutely avoided for sport-specific or other reasons.

It should be kept in mind that in the two hemispheres different vaccines might be recommended and that the influenza season differs considerably due to the climate. This means that influenza can be a risk year-round, and even outside of the typical influenza season when travelling to countries with differing influenza seasons. Especially when travelling to the other hemisphere, a twice-yearly vaccination is essential for optimal protection.

Taken together, vaccination with a quadrivalent intramuscular or intradermal administrated influenza vaccine seems to be the best option for the majority of elite athletes.

3.1.4 Hepatitis A

Hepatitis A is frequently found in many countries around the world and is mainly a food-borne disease that is difficult to prevent using simple measures [72, 73]. Its prevalence is higher in countries with moderate climate and poor hygiene levels which are frequently chosen for training camps [74]. Due to the worldwide food market, even countries with typically low endemicity, such as Northern Europe, can be affected nowadays [73]. Thus, it is almost impossible to prevent hepatitis A virus infection by exposure prophylaxis alone. A vaccination is recommended because this disease typically leads to some months of reduced physical performance, and hepatitis A can be easily transferred to teammates and opponents [75].

3.1.5 Hepatitis B

Hepatitis B is mainly transmitted by blood or genital secretions. Viral load in infected individuals is rather high, enabling transmission even when only small amounts of infected fluids are transmitted. Thus, small injuries with blood contact to others might be sufficient to transmit the virus [16, 17]. Consequently, the vaccination is relevant in all sports with possible contact to blood and body fluids, such as football, boxing, and hockey, but less so in sports such as tennis or most winter sports [76]. Moreover, hepatitis B is highly prevalent in Africa, parts of Asia, and Latin America. Contact with the healthcare system in these countries may harbor an additional risk. Different hepatitis B vaccines are on the market. Vaccines with various hepatitis B surface antigen (HbsAg) concentrations (10, 20, and 40 µg) are available. Also, the antigens might be different since one vaccine includes not only the small HbsAg but all three subtypes of HbsAg (small, middle, and large) with the benefit of a better immune reaction and similar side effects [77]. In addition, a vaccine with a special adjuvant (AS04) is available that was mainly designed for immunosuppressed individuals [78]. For healthy adults, a 20 µg dose without adjuvant AS04 seems to be sufficient. The other formulations are an option for non-responders with the need for protection [79]. Hepatitis B vaccination is strongly recommended in athletes because of the disease severity (typically several months of no or reduced training and competition eligibility complicated by irreversible organ damage) and its contagiosity (likelihood of transfer to teammates and opponents).

3.1.6 Measles, Mumps, and Varicella

Outbreaks with measles have been reported during sport events (as reviewed by Pyne and Gleeson [80]). Measles is an extremely contagious and severe disease with a high rate of complications (pneumonia, otitis, encephalitis) [81, 82]. There is no doubt that elite athletes should be as immune to measles as everyone else. In quite a few countries where big football tournaments took place during the last years, a measles epidemic occurred at the same time (such as 2006 in Germany, 2010 in South Africa, 2008 in Switzerland/Austria, 2012 in Poland/Ukraine; Fig. 1). Measles has an extremely high basic reproduction number R0 of 7–30 (number of cases one case generates on average over the course of its infectious period, in an otherwise uninfected population) [83]. This means that even a short-lasting contact (e.g. with employees in hotels, shops, contact on streets) might result in an infection.
Fig.1

Poster at US airports (this poster was displayed in Boston) after the 2006 World Cup in Germany, since measles occurred during that time (photo reproduced with permission from Prof. Dr. Martina Sester)

Mumps infection is a little less severe and contagious compared with measles with an R0 of 3–10 [84]. However, it causes a general illness in adults with parotitis and often (15–20 %) orchitis and meningitis (10 %) as a complication [85, 86]. Moreover, some sports event had to be cancelled due to mumps [18, 87, 88]. Immunity after vaccination is not as high for mumps as it is for measles, even after two vaccinations. This means that the virus might circulate, even in countries with a high vaccination status [89].

Varicella vaccination is important to prevent chicken pox in all non-immune individuals. The worldwide prevalence of antibodies in young adults is relatively high, mainly due to natural infections. However, up to 10 % of adults are not immune [90]. Varicella virus is highly contagious (R0 = 7–13) and young adults are often exposed to (their own) children with chicken pox [91].

All these infections (measles, mumps, and varicella) have a more severe course in adults compared with children. This is particularly true for varicella with pneumonia and hemorrhagic varicella often with bacterial superinfection as complications [86, 92, 93]. Thus, there is no doubt that all elite athletes should be immune against varicella.

All three live vaccines should be administrated at least twice in non-immune individuals, with a minimum interval of 4 weeks [94]. It is recommended to use combined vaccines whenever possible [4]. The same applies to rubella vaccination, which is described later (see Sect. 3.2.3).

3.2 Vaccines Recommended in Special Situations

3.2.1 Vaccines Recommended due to Epidemiological Reasons Only

3.2.1.1 Tick-Borne Encephalitis, Yellow Fever, Japanese Encephalitis

Since tick-borne encephalitis, yellow fever, and Japanese encephalitis are solely vector-borne diseases, they should only be considered when athletes live or travel to the endemic areas, i.e. Eastern, Central and Northern Europe, Northern China, Mongolia, and the Russian Federation for tick-borne encephalitis; Africa and some tropical parts of South America for yellow fever; and parts of China, the Russian Federation’s south-east, and South and South-East Asia (including India and Nepal) for Japanese encephalitis [95, 96, 97]. Consequently, tick-borne encephalitis was recommended before the 2008 European football championship in Switzerland and Austria. When athletes travel to these regions, recommendations do not differ from the general population due to the severity of these diseases.

3.2.1.2 Poliomyelitis

Poliomyelitis is only rarely found worldwide and at present it occurs only in a few countries with major social and political problems, such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Somalia, and Nigeria [98]. Without direct contact with these countries (or indirectly through teammates), the risk of acquiring this infection is rather low [98]. An oral live vaccine and an inactivated vaccine for intramuscular injection are available. Again, both have a different profile of adverse events; the gut is more often involved when using the oral vaccine [99], whereas the inactivated vaccine causes side effects at the injection site [5]. Since the live vaccine harbours the rare risk to re-mutate to a pathogen, possibly causing outbreaks, it is discouraged in areas certified by the WHO as poliovirus-free [40, 98]. The WHO updates the list of countries with and without poliomyelitis, as well as the poliomyelitis-free region, on their web page [1]. The vaccine to be chosen for athletes should be the same as recommended by the national guideline for the general population.

3.2.1.3 Typhoid Fever

Typhoid fever is found in some endemic areas, such as several Asian regions of Russia and neighboring countries, and in parts of South and South-East Asia, Africa, and South America [100]. Within the last 10 years, there were large outbreaks in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Haiti [100]. However, the risk of transmitting the bacteria is rather small when taking the travel habits of elite athletes into consideration since these bacteria are mainly transmitted in the setting of poor hygiene. At present, three different vaccines are available: an oral live-attenuated vaccine (Ty21a strain of Salmonella typhi), a parenteral inactivated vaccine (Vi polysaccharide vaccine, one dose), and a newly licensed capsular polysaccharide vaccine (Vi-rEPA, two doses) for parenteral use. Efficacy seems to be higher using the new vaccine (<75 % seroconversion) compared with the two others (~50 %) [101, 102]. The oral vaccine rarely has side effects that mainly consist of abdominal discomfort, nausea and vomiting, whereas with the parenteral vaccines the local reactions at the site of injection dominate [103]. Theoretically, the live vaccine’s effect can be diminished by the use of antibiotics. It is thus recommended that this vaccine should be administered not earlier than 24 h after an antimicrobial dose [104].

3.2.1.4 Meningococcal Disease

Meningococcal vaccination is important at least when travelling to countries with high endemicity (sub-Saharan Africa from Senegal to Ethiopia). Moreover, outside of the endemic areas, meningococcal vaccination is relevant since sporadic meningococcal meningitis with complication may develop in healthy individuals, with a high fatality rate of 10–50 %. The disease peaks in children <6 years of age and in adolescents and young adults, and thus might play a role for young athletes [105, 106].

Similar to pneumococcal vaccination (see Sect. 3.2.2), a conjugate and a polysaccharide vaccine are available. Both vaccines cover the same subtypes. Immune response to conjugate vaccines is much better, clearly favoring this type [107, 108]. The vaccines currently available cover the serotypes A, C, W135, and Y [109]. In endemic regions, serotype A is the most prevalent, whereas serotype B dominates in non-endemic regions [110, 111]. Recently, a new vaccine was licensed targeting serotype B. Experience with this vaccine is very limited in healthy adults, thus it appears too early to recommend vaccination in athletes. If vaccination with the new serotype B vaccine is considered, it is strongly recommended to apply it in a resting period since adverse events with myalgia, arthralgia, headache, and fever are frequently found [112, 113].

Taken together, vaccination against meningococcal disease with a conjugate vaccine covering the serotypes A, C, W135, and Y is recommended when travelling to endemic areas [109, 110, 111]. Vaccination against serotype B cannot be recommended at present since available data are too limited.

3.2.2 Vaccines Recommended due to an Underlying Disorder

3.2.2.1 Pneumococcal Disease

Vaccination against pneumococcal disease is not implemented in national guidelines for young healthy adults but only for the elderly and for patients with certain underlying disorders [2, 4, 114]. For athletes, this vaccination should only be considered in the case of immunocompromizing conditions, functional or anatomic asplenia, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leaks, or cochlear implants [114]. Moreover, it is recommended for patients with chronic lung diseases such as asthma [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].

Two vaccines are available eliciting a different quality and quantity of immune response: a conjugated vaccine including 13 serotypes (PCV-13) at present and a polysaccharide vaccine with 23 serotypes (PPSV-23). Vaccination schedules are different for vaccine-naïve individuals and individuals prevaccinated with the polysaccharide vaccine. At present, it is considered advantageous for many underlying diseases that individuals receive one dose of the conjugate vaccine. A vaccine-naïve individual should receive the conjugated vaccine first followed by the polysaccharide vaccine after 8 weeks, since the opsonophagocytic activity seems to be reduced when the two vaccines are switched [115]. In a few diseases a booster vaccination is necessary. In these individuals the polysaccharide vaccine should be administered 5 years after the last vaccination. In individuals prevaccinated with the polysaccharide vaccine one dose of the conjugate vaccine should be used ≥1 year after the last dose of the polysaccharide vaccine [114, 116, 117].

3.2.2.2 Haemophilus influenzae Type b (Hib)

Similar to the pneumococcal vaccine, use of the Hib vaccine is only advised in the rare event of an asplenic athlete. One dose of Hib vaccine should then be administered [118].

3.2.3 Vaccines with a Critical Medical Benefit–Risk Ratio in Athletes

3.2.3.1 Rubella

Rubella infection causes a much milder disease compared with measles or mumps and is mainly asymptomatic, with a rash as the most prominent manifestation that is difficult to distinguish from allergic reaction. Fever and other complications are rare [119, 120]. Public health guidelines focus on the prevention of prenatal rubella infection that may cause embryopathy. Thus, vaccination of males targets to break the chain of infections and to reduce the risk for pregnant women and not to prevent the disease in non-pregnant women. One important complication of both the infection and the vaccination is arthritis for some weeks/months [121, 122, 123]. In a randomized controlled trial (strain RA27/3 versus saline), women vaccinated with rubella vaccine reported arthritis in ~30 % (controls ~20 %) [124]. Most of the data on arthritis after vaccination originate from studies of postpartum vaccination and thus only women were included. It seems that the risk for arthritis after vaccination in men is by far lower [122]. Thus, the risks and benefits of a rubella vaccination have to be considered carefully in an athlete since arthritis might be considered a more severe problem than in the general population.

3.2.3.2 Papillomavirus

Papillomavirus vaccination might prevent papillomavirus-associated genitoanal lesions, cancer, and condyloma accuminata. It is unclear if athletes are at a higher risk of acquiring sexually transmitted diseases since data on promiscuity in elite athletes are not available. Vaccination of adults is only recommended in a few countries [125]. Two vaccines are available: a bivalent vaccine including human papillomavirus (HPV) 16 and 18, with an adjuvant AS04 and a quadrivalent vaccine without this adjuvant and, additionally, HPV 6 and HPV11 (to prevent condyloma accuminata) [126]. Since the adjuvanted bivalent vaccine has a higher cross-protection against other high-risk types causing cancer, this vaccine seems to be of advantage for women because in women protection against cancer has the highest significance [127, 128]. In men, prevention of condyloma accuminata seems to be of more concern since HPV-associated cancer in men is found less frequently. Thus, for men, vaccination with the quadrivalent vaccine including HPV6 and 11 is probably the best option [125, 129].

3.3 Vaccines not Relevant to Athletes

3.3.1 Cholera

Vaccination against cholera does not seem to be relevant since cholera is a disease of very poor hygienic level, classically confined to refugee camps or slums.

3.3.2 Rabies

Rabies vaccination is not recommended since the vaccine has a high number of considerable side effects and the disease might be prevented by exposure prophylaxis. It should be possible to prevent animal bites in athletes by other measures and, when an incident occurs, post-exposure prophylaxis can be administered even after the bite [130].

3.3.3 Herpes Zoster

Vaccination against herpes zoster (shingles) does not seem to be indicated since herpes zoster is only very rarely found in athletes. There are some anecdotal reports of zoster occurrence in endurance athletes during highly strenuous training periods but due to their scarcity no conclusion of compromised immunity in this particular athlete population (as a typical precondition for zoster) can be drawn. Also, vaccination could not be recommended at present since there are no data on the efficacy in young adults but only in individuals >50 years of age [51, 131]. The vaccine was introduced only a short time ago and thus it is too early to draw any conclusions on a population for which the vaccine has not been tested so far.

3.3.4 Bacille Calmette–Guérin (BCG)

Bacille Calmette–Guérin vaccination is implemented in many countries for childhood vaccination, whereas vaccination in adulthood is usually not recommended. Although tuberculosis might be relevant in athletes, especially originating from countries with high endemicity, the vaccination of adult teammates does not seem to be beneficial [132]. This is due to the fact that the vaccination has a number of severe adverse events since it is a live vaccine and the bacteria replicate in the body, which might cause local infection and spread to the regional lymph nodes, accompanied by lymphadenitis. In rare events, abscesses can occur. Moreover, since the vaccine does not protect from primary tuberculosis, the chance of preventing transmission even within a team is very limited.

4 Timing of Vaccinations

Timing of vaccinations should be chosen with the purpose of minimizing interference with training and competition and making sure that the immune reaction is not temporarily impaired. Relevant side effects after inactivated vaccines can be expected within the first 2 days after vaccination, whereas after live attenuated vaccines they are more likely to occur after 10–14 days when the replication of the vaccines in the body peaks (see Sect. 2). Under these constraints, an appropriate time for vaccination which is not acutely indicated would be at the onset of resting periods or shortly prior to the winter and summer breaks.

Although indications for increased frequency of upper respiratory tract infections after strenuous exercise, such as marathon races, exist [133, 134, 135], measurable changes in immune cell number and function have mainly been documented within 2 h post-exercise [134, 136, 137] Theoretically, a compromised immune reaction to vaccinations can be derived from such observations. However, it has been shown that influenza vaccination did not lead to decreased titers when conducted immediately after physical activity and that acute exercise even increased antibody responses in pneumococcal vaccination [138, 139, 140, 141]. In another study in elite athletes, titers after hepatitis B vaccination were identical to the general population [142]. Thus, when a vaccination has to be carried out within a training and/or competition period (e.g. influenza), there is no major medical problem with vaccinating shortly after a competition to make the period of time to the next competition as long as possible. Acute exercise might even act as a weak adjuvant, increasing antibody responses slightly in some individuals [138, 139, 141, 143]. In contrast, the pain reaction following the vaccination was clearly diminished when vaccinating 6 h after activity compared with vaccination immediately or 24–48 h after activity [143]. This indicates that 6-h post-exercise might represent a preferable point in time.

5 Methods to Reduce Side Effects

Pain, headache, and fever as side effects might be reduced by co-administering substances such as paracetamol or ibuprofen, even though antibody titers can be slightly lower under such circumstances [37]. As already outlined in Sect. 3, another option is to choose a vaccine with a low profile of adverse events. Side effects of vaccines with more potent adjuvants, such as MF59, AS03, or AS04, are usually more intense although accompanied by higher antibody titers [66]. Moreover, the profile of local reactions is mainly based on the route of vaccination. Thus, oral, intranasal, intradermal, and intramuscular/subcutaneous routes of administration have a different local reaction profile.

In vaccines administrated by injection (intramuscularly or subcutaneously), the local adverse events might be partly due to the injection techniques. Thus, it is worth adhering to the correct injection technique (as reviewed by Petousis-Harris [144]). Dependent on the injection site, specific impairments may result (e.g. for running, from buttock pain after a gluteal injection). Obviously, it is advisable to use the non-dominant side for injections in unilateral disciplines such as racquet sports. The skin disinfectant must be completely dry before injection. Two separate needles for filling of the syringe and for injection should be used to avoid granuloma in the subcutis due to aluminium-containing vaccines [26]. If a vaccine is allowed to be administrated using the intramuscular or the subcutaneous route, the intramuscular vaccination seems to be beneficial (higher titer, lower risk of granuloma). Injection in the deltoid should be preferred, although other muscles are possible. It is important that the vaccinee is sitting or lying and the muscle is completely relaxed. Longer needles (25 mm) and a fast speed of injection and withdrawal of the needle (1–2 s) was associated with less pain [145]. An angle of injection of 90° also reduced pain in intramuscular injections.

Other adverse reactions often occurring in adolescents and young adults are syncopes [146, 147]. According to the VAERS, this phenomenon was observed to increase when introducing papillomavirus vaccine, meningococcal B vaccine, and pertussis vaccine. Syncopes or collapses may be found at a frequency of around 1 % [19, 41]. Importantly, not only the syncope itself but secondary injuries such as skull fracture and cerebral hemorrhage are of major concern. In the VAERS reports, around 10 % of all syncopes resulted in hospitalization due to secondary injuries. The majority of syncopes (80 %) occurred within 15 min of vaccine administration, strongly favoring a 15–30 min observation of a vaccinee [147]. This observation might be of particular importance in endurance athletes because there are indications that, in these athletes, vasovagally-induced syncopes are more frequent [148]. The consequence would be a prolonged interval of medical monitoring in vaccinated (endurance) athletes.

6 Indications for Titer Control

Since athletes suffer more from side effects of vaccines (as outlined in Sect. 2), unnecessary vaccinations should be avoided. This is possible in individuals with pre-existing immunity due to a natural infection or a previous sufficient vaccination. Titer controls are generally not supported by national guidelines since they are often more expensive than vaccination. Moreover, antibody assays are not standardized, with the risk of highly different and misleading results between the assays [149, 150]. However, they might be well justified in top-level sportsmen to avoid adverse reactions due to an unnecessary vaccination. This is particularly true for live attenuated vaccines being more prone to side effects as well as for athletes from countries where the likelihood of acquiring natural immunity is high, e.g. against hepatitis A or B.

Usually, a documented vaccination by a valid vaccination certificate equals immunity in most cases. In contrast to this rule, a documented vaccination does not necessarily mean that vaccination was performed lege artis. This is why, in certain athletes who have been vaccinated in countries with doubtful (less immunogene) vaccine quality, a titer control might be worthwhile, even in cases with appropriate documentation. Documented examples for less active vaccines are regions in Eastern Europe or Asia; however, this might also apply for other regions [151, 152, 153, 154, 155]. When in doubt, vaccination documentation from such countries should not be regarded reliable. After inclusion of a new team member, the vaccination record should be carefully checked and, in case of any doubt, a titer control can be added. This is particularly true for all team members born and raised in countries with a different vaccination schedule. In very important vaccination situations, e.g. with a high risk of infection or in severe diseases, titer control after vaccination might be justified to be able to revaccinate quickly in cases of non-response (Table 2).
Table 2

Available vaccines: options for antibody titer controls, risk assessment for athletes, and vaccination schedules

Vaccine

Titer controla

Risk assessment for athletes

Vaccination schedule and vaccine

Vaccines recommended for all athletes (see Sect. 3.1)

 Tetanus/diphtheria (Td)

Unnecessary

Tetanus: high risk of skin-penetrating injury in sport. Diphtheria: severe disease

Basic immunization (often in childhood) with at least three shots. Combination with aP reasonable; booster after 10 years

 Pertussis (aP)

Unnecessary

Severe disease with relevant impairment of physical capability; frequently of long duration

Combination with Td. Interval between Td and TdaP at least 1 month; avoid proximity to competition (local reactions); combination with poliomyelitis vaccine; no booster

 Influenza

Unnecessary

High risk due to epidemic spread, highly contagious

Yearly vaccination. Different seasons and vaccines worldwide. Quadrivalent vaccine recommended

 Hepatitis A (HAV)

Only prior to vaccination

High risk during training and competition in risk areas; also possible in first-class hotels

Basic immunization with at least two shots (months 0, 6–12) as single vaccine or in combination with HBV (see HBV); no booster

 Hepatitis B (HBV)

Prior to vaccination and 4–6 weeks after the third shot

High risk in cases of contact (sexually, body fluids) with athletes from Africa, Asia, South America, Eastern Europe, or when utilizing the healthcare system in such countries; small risk from possible blood contact during training/competition

Three shots (months 0, 1, 6); shortened schedule available (days 0, 7, 21, 365). When indicated, combination with HAV preferred; booster dose (only HBV) after 10 years. In low-responders (anti-Hbs 10–100 IU/L) single re-vaccination without further titer control; in non-responders (anti-Hbs-titers <10 IU/L) up to three re-vaccinations, vaccines with high antigen content preferred

 Measles (M)

Yes

Severe disease with complication in adulthood, highly contagious, frequent small-area epidemics

Two shots with a min. interval of 4 weeks; combined vaccine preferred [MM(R)V]; no vaccination when immunity is proven by titer control; no additional vaccination after two shots without titer

 Mumps (M)

 Varicella (V)

Vaccines recommended due to epidemiological reasons only (see Sect. 3.2.1)

 Tick-borne encephalitis

Unnecessary

High infection risk during outdoor activities; increasing pathogenicity with increasing age. Eastern, Central and Northern Europe, Northern China, Mongolia, and the Russian Federation

Basic immunization with at least three shots (months 0, 1–3, 9–12); shortened schedule possible (days 0, 7, 21 + 12–18 months); booster dose 3–5 years, pay attention to manufacturer’s advice

 Yellow fever

NA

Severe disease, widely spread in Africa and South America. International travel regulations

Single vaccination, protection is assumed to remain lifelong

 Japanese encephalitis

NA

Risk only during stays of longer duration (several months, years) in rural areas of Asia (parts of China, the Russian Federation’s south-east, and South and South-East Asia)

Two shots with a min. interval of 4 weeks; booster after 1 year

 Poliomyelitis (P)

NA

Very small risk in only a few areas. Risk with close contact to population. Currently re-occurrence in countries where the disease had been eliminated years ago

Basic immunization (typically in childhood) with at least two to four shots depending on the vaccine. In adults without immunity, the complete schedule should be administered. When travelling into endemic areas, a single booster dose is recommended, possibly as combined vaccine TdaPP

 Typhoid fever

NA

Low transmission risk, typically bound to low hygiene and contact to local population (Asia, Africa, South America)

Inactivated vaccines (single shot) or live oral (day 0, 3, 5) preferred, heat-inactivated vaccine in combination with HAV possible; booster after 3 years with heat-inactivated vaccine or yearly with live oral vaccine

 Meningococcal disease

NA

Low transmission risk but severe disease; important when travelling to the “meningitis belt” (Northern Africa, Arabic countries)

Single vaccination with conjugate vaccine against four types (A, C, W135, Y) preferred; no booster

Vaccines recommended due to an underlying disorder (see Sect. 3.2.2)

 Pneumococcal disease

NA

Low transmission risk but severe disease in patients with underlying disorders

For optimal protection, start with 13-valent conjugate vaccine (PCV-13) and, 8 weeks later, 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV-23). If patient already had PPSV-23, the PCV-13 should be added after 1 year. In rare cases, booster after 5 years

 Hib

NA

Risk only in patients with underlying disorders

Single dose, no booster

Vaccines with a critical medical benefit–risk ratio in athletes (see Sect. 3.2.3)

 Rubella (R)

Yes

Typically mild disease; frequent complication in adults: arthritis

See measles

 Papillomavirus (HPV)

NA

Identical risk to general population

Three shots (0, 1–2 m, 6 m). Special adjuvanted vaccine (AS04; HPV 16 and 18) with higher titers and more local reactions compared with quadrivalent vaccine (HPV 16, 18, 6, 11)

Vaccines not relevant in athletes (see Sect. 3.3)

 Cholera

NA

Indication only in cases of competition or training camps in endemic areas (extremely rare)

Oral vaccination; two doses (day 0, 7), booster after 2 years

 Rabies

NA

Low risk of transmission, high risk of side effects; exposure prophylaxis possible; post-exposure vaccination effective

Post-exposure prophylaxis: vaccine (day 0, 3, 7, 14, 28, possibly 90) and hyperimmunoglobulin (single application)

 Herpes zoster

NA

Very rare in athletes

Single vaccination, currently only recommended for adults >50 years of age

 BCG

NA

Low protection and relevant adverse events

Single intradermal application

HibHaemophilus influenzae B, BCG Bacille Calmette–Guérin, Anti-Hbs antibodies against hepatitis B surface antigen, min. minimal, NA antibody titer controls are not available, or assays are not implemented in routine diagnostics but only in research laboratories

aTiter controls prior to vaccination aimed to avoid vaccination in case of a positive titer; titer control post-vaccination aimed to detect non-responders qualifying for a re-vaccination

7 Conclusions

The special situation of elite athletes justifies specified vaccination guidelines that partly differ from public health guidelines. The risk of side effects could be reduced by a correct vaccine and vaccination technique and by the timing of vaccination. All staff members should also be vaccinated to increase the acceptance of vaccination by the athlete.

Notes

Acknowledgments

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this review. Barbara Gärtner and Tim Meyer have no potential conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this review.

References

  1. 1.
    World Health Organization. WHO vaccine-preventable diseases: monitoring system. 2012 global summary 2013. http://www.who.int/immunization_monitoring/data/data_subject/en/index.html. Accessed 1 Jun 2013.
  2. 2.
    Ständige Impfkommission (STIKO). Empfehlungen der Ständigen Impfkommission (STIKO) am Robert Koch-Institut. Epi Bull. 2012;283–10.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    European Center for Disease Prevention and Control. Vaccination schedules; 2013. http://www.euvac.net/graphics/euvac/background.html. Accessed 1 Jun 2013.
  4. 4.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. General recommendations on immunization—recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep. 2011;60:1–64.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Australian Government Department of Health and Aging. The Australian immunisation handbook. 10th ed; 2013.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Black S. The role of health economic analyses in vaccine decision making. Vaccine. 2013;31:6046–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Welte R, Trotter CL, Edmunds WJ, et al. The role of economic evaluation in vaccine decision making: focus on meningococcal group C conjugate vaccine. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23:855–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Signorelli C, Gozzini A. Raccomandazioni Vaccinali per gli atleti professionisti. Guidelines for immunization practices in professional athletes. Ig Sanita Pubbl. 2011;67:387–400.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gatmaitan BG, Chason JL, Lerner AM. Augmentation of the virulence of murine coxsackie-virus B-3 myocardiopathy by exercise. J Exp Med. 1970;131:1121–36.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ilback NG, Fohlman J, Friman G. Exercise in coxsackie B3 myocarditis: effects on heart lymphocyte subpopulations and the inflammatory reaction. Am Heart J. 1989;117:1298–302.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kiel RJ, Smith FE, Chason J, et al. Coxsackievirus B3 myocarditis in C3H/HeJ mice: description of an inbred model and the effect of exercise on virulence. Eur J Epidemiol. 1989;5:348–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Daly P, Gustafson R. Public health recommendations for athletes attending sporting events. Clin J Sport Med. 2011;21:67–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mast EE, Goodman RA. Prevention of infectious disease transmission in sports. Sports Med. 1997;24:1–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bischoff WE, Swett K, Leng I, et al. Exposure to influenza virus aerosols during routine patient care. J Infect Dis. 2013;207:1037–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Menkhaus NA, Lanphear B, Linnemann CC. Airborne transmission of varicella-zoster virus in hospitals. Lancet. 1990;336:1315.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kordi R, Wallace WA. Blood borne infections in sport: risks of transmission, methods of prevention, and recommendations for hepatitis B vaccination. Br J Sports Med. 2004;38:678–84.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pirozzolo JJ, LeMay DC. Blood-borne infections. Clin Sports Med. 2007;26:425–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pretot J. Mumps epidemic forces French to postpone games; 2011. http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/wire-news/mumps-epidemic-forces-french-to-postpone-games_608077.html. Accessed 1 Jun 2013.
  19. 19.
    Mentzer D, Keller-Stanislawski B. Daten zur Pharmakovigilanz von Impfstoffen aus dem Jahr 2011. Bulletin zur Arzneimittelsicherheit; 2013. http://www.pei.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/bulletin-einzelartikel/2013-daten-pharmakovigilanz-impfstoffe-2011.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3. Accessed 1 May 2014.
  20. 20.
    Vilella A, Dal-Re R, Simo D, et al. Reactogenicity profile of tetanus–diphtheria (adult-type) vaccine: results of a naturalistic study performed at an adult vaccination center. J Clin Pharmacol. 2000;40:1267–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rennels MB. Extensive swelling reactions occurring after booster doses of diphtheria–tetanus–acellular pertussis vaccines. Semin Pediatr Infect Dis. 2003;14:196–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gidudu J, Kohl KS, Halperin S, et al. A local reaction at or near injection site: case definition and guidelines for collection, analysis, and presentation of immunization safety data. Vaccine. 2008;26:6800–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gidudu JF, Walco GA, Taddio A, et al. Immunization site pain: case definition and guidelines for collection, analysis, and presentation of immunization safety data. Vaccine. 2012;30:4558–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kohl KS, Walop W, Gidudu J, et al. Induration at or near injection site: case definition and guidelines for collection, analysis, and presentation of immunization safety data. Vaccine. 2007;25:5839–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kohl KS, Walop W, Gidudu J, et al. Swelling at or near injection site: case definition and guidelines for collection, analysis and presentation of immunization safety data. Vaccine. 2007;25:5858–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gente Lidholm A, Bergfors E, Inerot A, et al. Unexpected loss of contact allergy to aluminium induced by vaccine. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;68:286–92.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Frenck RW Jr, Belshe R, Brady RC, et al. Comparison of the immunogenicity and safety of a split-virion, inactivated, trivalent influenza vaccine (Fluzone(R)) administered by intradermal and intramuscular route in healthy adults. Vaccine. 2011;29:5666–74.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Marra F, Young F, Richardson K, et al. A meta-analysis of intradermal versus intramuscular influenza vaccines: immunogenicity and adverse events. Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2013;7:584–603.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nichol KL, Mendelman PM, Mallon KP, et al. Effectiveness of live, attenuated intranasal influenza virus vaccine in healthy, working adults: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1999;282:137–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    van der Sanden S, Pallansch MA, van de Kassteele J, et al. Shedding of vaccine viruses with increased antigenic and genetic divergence after vaccination of newborns with monovalent type 1 oral poliovirus vaccine. J Virol. 2009;83:8693–704.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jenkins HE, Aylward RB, Gasasira A, et al. Implications of a circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus in Nigeria. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:2360–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Venkatesan MM, Ranallo RT. Live-attenuated Shigella vaccines. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2006;5:669–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kohl KS, Marcy SM, Blum M, et al. Fever after immunization: current concepts and improved future scientific understanding. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;39:389–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Michael Marcy S, Kohl KS, Dagan R, et al. Fever as an adverse event following immunization: case definition and guidelines of data collection, analysis, and presentation. Vaccine. 2004;22:551–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tapiainen T, Heininger U. Fever following immunization. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2005;4:419–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Andrews NJ, Walker WT, Finn A, et al. Predictors of immune response and reactogenicity to AS03B-adjuvanted split virion and non-adjuvanted whole virion H1N1 (2009) pandemic influenza vaccines. Vaccine. 2011;29:7913–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Prymula R, Siegrist CA, Chlibek R, et al. Effect of prophylactic paracetamol administration at time of vaccination on febrile reactions and antibody responses in children: two open-label, randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2009;374:1339–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Reinert P, Fiquet A, Thomas S, et al. Fever as a marker of reactogenicity of an acellular pertussis-containing hexavalent vaccine (HEXAVAC) in a large-scale, open, randomized safety study in healthy French infants. Hum Vaccin. 2006;2:215–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Update: vaccine side effects, adverse reactions, contraindications, and precautions. Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep. 1996;45:1–35.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Possible Side-effects from Vaccines; 2014. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm. Accessed 1 May 2014
  41. 41.
    Halsey NA, Griffioen M, Dreskin SC, et al. Immediate hypersensitivity reactions following monovalent 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) vaccines: reports to VAERS. Vaccine. 2013;31:6107–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    D’Souza RM, Campbell-Lloyd S, Isaacs D, et al. Adverse events following immunisation associated with the 1998 Australian Measles Control Campaign. Commun Dis Intell. 2000;24:27–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Geier DA, Geier MR. A case-control study of serious autoimmune adverse events following hepatitis B immunization. Autoimmunity. 2005;38:295–301.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Juurlink DN, Stukel TA, Kwong J, et al. Guillain–Barre syndrome after influenza vaccination in adults: a population-based study. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:2217–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Stowe J, Andrews N, Wise L, et al. Investigation of the temporal association of Guillain–Barre syndrome with influenza vaccine and influenza-like illness using the United Kingdom General Practice Research Database. Am J Epidemiol. 2009;169:382–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Weisser K, Barth I, Keller-Stanislawski B. Sicherheit von Impfstoffen. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2009;52:1053–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Demicheli V, Rivetti A, Debalini MG, et al. Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;2:CD004407.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Jefferson T, Price D, Demicheli V, et al. Unintended events following immunization with MMR: a systematic review. Vaccine. 2003;21:3954–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Farez MF, Correale J. Immunizations and risk of multiple sclerosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurol. 2011;258:1197–206.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Breugelmans JG, Lewis RF, Agbenu E, et al. Adverse events following yellow fever preventive vaccination campaigns in eight African countries from 2007 to 2010. Vaccine. 2013;31:1819–29.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Goulleret N, Mauvisseau E, Essevaz-Roulet M, et al. Safety profile of live varicella virus vaccine (Oka/Merck): five-year results of the European Varicella Zoster Virus Identification Program (EU VZVIP). Vaccine. 2010;28:5878–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Miller E, Goldacre M, Pugh S, et al. Risk of aseptic meningitis after measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine in UK children. Lancet. 1993;341:979–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Bonnet MC, Dutta A, Weinberger C, et al. Mumps vaccine virus strains and aseptic meningitis. Vaccine. 2006;24:7037–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Celentano LP, Massari M, Paramatti D, et al. Resurgence of pertussis in Europe. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2005;24:761–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Ward JI, Cherry JD, Chang SJ, et al. Efficacy of an acellular pertussis vaccine among adolescents and adults. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1555–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Klein NP, Bartlett J, Fireman B, et al. Comparative effectiveness of acellular versus whole-cell pertussis vaccines in teenagers. Pediatrics. 2013;131:e1716–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Halperin SA, Sweet L, Baxendale D, et al. How soon after a prior tetanus–diphtheria vaccination can one give adult formulation tetanus–diphtheria–acellular pertussis vaccine? Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006;25:195–200.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Beytout J, Launay O, Guiso N, et al. Safety of Tdap-IPV given one month after Td-IPV booster in healthy young adults: a placebo-controlled trial. Hum Vaccin. 2009;5:315–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Talbot EA, Brown KH, Kirkland KB, et al. The safety of immunizing with tetanus–diphtheria–acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap) less than 2 years following previous tetanus vaccination: experience during a mass vaccination campaign of healthcare personnel during a respiratory illness outbreak. Vaccine. 2010;28:8001–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Manzoli L, Ioannidis JP, Flacco ME, et al. Effectiveness and harms of seasonal and pandemic influenza vaccines in children, adults and elderly: a critical review and re-analysis of 15 meta-analyses. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2012;8:851–62.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Heikkinen T, Heinonen S. Effectiveness and safety of influenza vaccination in children: European perspective. Vaccine. 2011;29:7529–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Beran JI, Peeters M, Dewe W, et al. Immunogenicity and safety of quadrivalent versus trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine: a randomized, controlled trial in adults. BMC Infect Dis. 2013;13:224.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Greenberg DP, Robertson CA, Noss MJ, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of a quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine compared to licensed trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines in adults. Vaccine. 2013;31:770–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Toback SL, Levin MJ, Block SL, et al. Quadrivalent Ann Arbor strain live-attenuated influenza vaccine. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2012;11:1293–303.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Block SL, Yi T, Sheldon E, et al. A randomized, double-blind noninferiority study of quadrivalent live attenuated influenza vaccine in adults. Vaccine. 2011;29:9391–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    O’Hagan DT. MF59 is a safe and potent vaccine adjuvant that enhances protection against influenza virus infection. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2007;6:699–710.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Cheong HJ, Song JY, Heo JY, et al. Immunogenicity and safety of the influenza A/H1N1 2009 inactivated split-virus vaccine in young and older adults: MF59-adjuvanted vaccine versus nonadjuvanted vaccine. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2011;18:1358–64.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Reed C, Meltzer MI, Finelli L, et al. Public health impact of including two lineages of influenza B in a quadrivalent seasonal influenza vaccine. Vaccine. 2012;30:1993–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Young F, Marra F. A systematic review of intradermal influenza vaccines. Vaccine. 2011;29:8788–801.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    DiazGranados CA, Denis M, Plotkin S. Seasonal influenza vaccine efficacy and its determinants in children and non-elderly adults: a systematic review with meta-analyses of controlled trials. Vaccine. 2012;31:49–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Vesikari T, Karvonen A, Korhonen T, et al. A randomized, double-blind study of the safety, transmissibility and phenotypic and genotypic stability of cold-adapted influenza virus vaccine. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006;25:590–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Frank C, Walter J, Muehlen M, et al. Large outbreak of hepatitis A in tourists staying at a hotel in Hurghada, Egypt, 2004: orange juice implicated. Euro Surveill. 2005;10(6):E050609.2.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Gillesberg Lassen S, Soborg B, Midgley S, et al. Ongoing multi-strain food-borne hepatitis A outbreak with frozen berries as suspected vehicle: four Nordic countries affected, October 2012 to April 2013. Euro Surveill. 2013;18(7):20467.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Martin A, Lemon SM. Hepatitis A virus: from discovery to vaccines. Hepatology. 2006;43:S164–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Koslap-Petraco MB, Shub M, Judelsohn R. Hepatitis A, disease burden and current childhood vaccination strategies in the United States. J Pediatr Health Care. 2008;22:3–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Grosset-Janin A, Nicolas X, Saraux A. Sport and infectious risk: a systematic review of the literature over 20 years. Med Mal Infect. 2012;42:533–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Raz R, Koren R, Bass D. Safety and immunogenicity of a new mammalian cell-derived recombinant hepatitis B vaccine containing Pre-S1 and Pre-S2 antigens in adults. Isr Med Assoc J. 2001;3:328–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Tong NK, Beran J, Kee SA, et al. Immunogenicity and safety of an adjuvanted hepatitis B vaccine in pre-hemodialysis and hemodialysis patients. Kidney Int. 2005;68:2298–303.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Hoebe CJ, Vermeiren AP, Dukers-Muijrers NH. Revaccination with Fendrix(R) or HBVaxPro(R) results in better response rates than does revaccination with three doses of Engerix-B(R) in previous non-responders. Vaccine. 2012;30:6734–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Pyne DB, Gleeson M. Effects of intensive exercise training on immunity in athletes. Int J Sports Med. 1998;19(Suppl 3):S183–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Caseris M, Houhou N, Longuet P, et al. French 2010–2011 measles outbreak in adults: report from a Parisian teaching hospital. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014;20:O242–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Schonberger K, Ludwig MS, Wildner M, et al. Epidemiology of subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) in Germany from 2003 to 2009: a risk estimation. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e68909.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Edmunds W, Dejene A, Mekonnen Y, et al. The cost of integrating hepatitis B virus vaccine into national immunization programmes: a case study from Addis Ababa. Health Policy Plan. 2000;15:408–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Edmunds WJ, Gay NJ, Kretzschmar M, et al. The pre-vaccination epidemiology of measles, mumps and rubella in Europe: implications for modelling studies. Epidemiol Infect. 2000;125:635–50.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Barskey AE, Schulte C, Rosen JB, et al. Mumps outbreak in orthodox Jewish communities in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1704–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Hviid A, Rubin S, Muhlemann K. Mumps. Lancet. 2008;371:932–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Owen P. Mumps outbreak puts hockey game on ice; 2007. http://peel.library.ualberta.ca/newspapers/GAT/2007/11/29/17/Img/Pg017.pdf. Accessed 19 Dec 2013.
  88. 88.
    Telegraph T. Biarritz squad quarantined over mumps scare following Amlin Challenge Cup win over Gloucester. 2013. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/9975206/Biarritz-squad-quarantined-over-mumps-scare-following-Amlin-Challenge-Cup-win-over-Gloucester.html. Accessed 19 Dec 2013.
  89. 89.
    Rubin SA, Link MA, Sauder CJ, et al. Recent mumps outbreaks in vaccinated populations: no evidence of immune escape. J Virol. 2012;86:615–20.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    van Rijckevorsel GG, Damen M, Sonder GJ, et al. Seroprevalence of varicella-zoster virus and predictors for seronegativity in the Amsterdam adult population. BMC Infect Dis. 2012;12:140.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Ogunjimi B, Hens N, Goeyvaerts N, et al. Using empirical social contact data to model person to person infectious disease transmission: an illustration for varicella. Math Biosci. 2009;218:80–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Hervas D, Henales V, Yeste S, et al. How frequent is varicella-associated pneumonia in children? Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2011;30:435–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Nilsson A, Ortqvist A. Severe varicella pneumonia in adults in Stockholm County 1980–1989. Scand J Infect Dis. 1996;28:121–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Epidemiology and prevention of vaccine-preventable diseases. The pink book: course textbook. 12th ed.; 2012.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    World Health Organization. Yellow fever; 2015. http://www.who.int/topics/yellow_fever/en/. Accessed 1 May 2014.
  96. 96.
    Campbell GL, Hills SL, Fischer M, et al. Estimated global incidence of Japanese encephalitis: a systematic review. Bull World Health Organ. 2011;89(10):766–74, 774A–74E.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    World Health Organization. Vaccines and biologicals: tick-borne encephalitis; 2014. http://www.who.int/immunization/topics/tick_encephalitis/en/. Accessed 1 May 2014.
  98. 98.
    World Health Organization. Poliomyelitis; 2014. http://www.who.int/topics/poliomyelitis/en/. Accessed 1 May 2014.
  99. 99.
    Sugawara T, Ohsuka Y, Taya K, et al. Diarrhea as a minor adverse effect due to oral polio vaccine. Jpn J Infect Dis. 2009;62:51–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    World Health Organization. Typhoid fever; 2014. http://www.who.int/topics/typhoid_fever/en/. Accessed 1 May 2014.
  101. 101.
    Anwar E, Goldberg E, Fraser A, et al. Vaccines for preventing typhoid fever. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;1:CD001261.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Martin LB. Vaccines for typhoid fever and other salmonelloses. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2012;25:489–99.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Begier EM, Burwen DR, Haber P, et al. Postmarketing safety surveillance for typhoid fever vaccines from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, July 1990 through June 2002. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;38:771–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Cryz SJ Jr. Patient compliance in the use of Vivotif Berna(R) vaccine, typhoid vaccine, live oral Ty21a. J Travel Med. 1998;5:14–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Barnett ED, Klein JO, Teele DW. Pneumococcal vaccine for Olympic athletes and visitors to Spain. N Engl J Med. 1992;326:1572.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Plasencia A, Segura A, Farres J, et al. Pneumococcal vaccine for Olympic athletes and visitors to Spain. Barcelona Olympic Organizing Committee. N Engl J Med. 1992;327:437.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Cohn AC, Harrison LH. Meningococcal vaccines: current issues and future strategies. Drugs. 2013;73:1147–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Cohn AC, MacNeil JR, Clark TA, et al. Prevention and control of meningococcal disease: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep. 2013;62:1–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Zahlanie YC, Hammadi MM, Ghanem ST, et al. Review of meningococcal vaccines with updates on immunization in adults. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2014;10:995–1007.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Jafri RZ, Ali A, Messonnier NE, et al. Global epidemiology of invasive meningococcal disease. Popul Health Metr. 2013;11:17.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Harrison LH, Trotter CL, Ramsay ME. Global epidemiology of meningococcal disease. Vaccine. 2009;27(Suppl 2):B51–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Carter NJ. Multicomponent meningococcal serogroup B vaccine (4CMenB; Bexsero®): a review of its use in primary and booster vaccination. BioDrugs. 2013;27:263–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Vesikari T, Esposito S, Prymula R, et al. Immunogenicity and safety of an investigational multicomponent, recombinant, meningococcal serogroup B vaccine (4CMenB) administered concomitantly with routine infant and child vaccinations: results of two randomised trials. Lancet. 2013;381:825–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Use of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine and 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine for adults with immunocompromising conditions: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012;61:816–9.Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Jackson LA, Gurtman A, van Cleeff M, et al. Influence of initial vaccination with 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine or 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine on anti-pneumococcal responses following subsequent pneumococcal vaccination in adults 50 years and older. Vaccine. 2013;31:3594–602.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Jackson LA, Gurtman A, Rice K, et al. Immunogenicity and safety of a 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in adults 70 years of age and older previously vaccinated with 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine. Vaccine. 2013;31:3585–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Jackson LA, Gurtman A, van Cleeff M, et al. Immunogenicity and safety of a 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine compared to a 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine in pneumococcal vaccine-naive adults. Vaccine. 2013;31:3577–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Briere EC, Rubin L, Moro PL, et al. Prevention and control of haemophilus influenzae type b disease: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep. 2014;63:1–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Best JM. Rubella vaccines: past, present and future. Epidemiol Infect. 1991;107:17–30.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Best JM. Rubella. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2007;12:182–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Janta D, Stanescu A, Lupulescu E, et al. Ongoing rubella outbreak among adolescents in Salaj, Romania, September 2011–January 2012. Euro Surveill. 2012;17(7):pii 20089.Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Geier DA, Geier MR. Rubella vaccine and arthritic adverse reactions: an analysis of the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database from 1991 through 1998. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2001;19:724–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Ray P, Black S, Shinefield H, et al. Risk of chronic arthropathy among women after rubella vaccination. Vaccine Safety Datalink Team. JAMA. 1997;278:551–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Tingle AJ, Mitchell LA, Grace M, et al. Randomised double-blind placebo-controlled study on adverse effects of rubella immunisation in seronegative women. Lancet. 1997;349:1277–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. FDA Licensure of quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV4, Gardasil) for use in males and guidance from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2010;59:630–2.Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Lu B, Kumar A, Castellsague X, et al. Efficacy and safety of prophylactic vaccines against cervical HPV infection and diseases among women: a systematic review & meta-analysis. BMC Infect Dis. 2011;11:13.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Einstein MH, Baron M, Levin MJ, et al. Comparative immunogenicity and safety of human papillomavirus (HPV)-16/18 vaccine and HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine: follow-up from months 12–24 in a phase III randomized study of healthy women aged 18–45 years. Hum Vaccin. 2011;7:1343–58.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Einstein MH, Baron M, Levin MJ, et al. Comparison of the immunogenicity of the human papillomavirus (HPV)-16/18 vaccine and the HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine for oncogenic non-vaccine types HPV-31 and HPV-45 in healthy women aged 18–45 years. Hum Vaccin. 2011;7:1359–73.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Goldstone SE, Jessen H, Palefsky JM, et al. Quadrivalent HPV vaccine efficacy against disease related to vaccine and non-vaccine HPV types in males. Vaccine. 2013;31:3849–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Warrell MJ. Current rabies vaccines and prophylaxis schedules: preventing rabies before and after exposure. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2012;10:1–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Schmader KE, Levin MJ, Gnann JW Jr, et al. Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of herpes zoster vaccine in persons aged 50–59 years. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;54:922–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
  133. 133.
    Nieman DC. Exercise, upper respiratory tract infection, and the immune system. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1994;26:128–39.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    Gabriel H, Schwarz L, Steffens G, et al. Immunoregulatory hormones, circulating leucocyte and lymphocyte subpopulations before and after endurance exercise of different intensities. Int J Sports Med. 1992;13:359–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Nieman DC, Johanssen LM, Lee JW, et al. Infectious episodes in runners before and after the Los Angeles Marathon. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 1990;30:316–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Pedersen BK, Toft AD. Effects of exercise on lymphocytes and cytokines. Br J Sports Med. 2000;34:246–51.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Pedersen BK, Bruunsgaard H, Jensen M, et al. Exercise and the immune system: influence of nutrition and ageing. J Sci Med Sport. 1999;2:234–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Edwards KM, Pung MA, Tomfohr LM, et al. Acute exercise enhancement of pneumococcal vaccination response: a randomised controlled trial of weaker and stronger immune response. Vaccine. 2012;30:6389–95.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Edwards KM, Campbell JP, Ring C, et al. Exercise intensity does not influence the efficacy of eccentric exercise as a behavioural adjuvant to vaccination. Brain Behav Immun. 2010;24:623–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    Long JE, Ring C, Drayson M, et al. Vaccination response following aerobic exercise: can a brisk walk enhance antibody response to pneumococcal and influenza vaccinations? Brain Behav Immun. 2012;26:680–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    Ranadive SM, Cook M, Kappus RM, et al. Effect of acute aerobic exercise on vaccine efficacy in older adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2014;46:455–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  142. 142.
    Rosic I, Malicevic S, Medic S, et al. Immune response by athletes to hepatitis B vaccination. Vaccine. 2008;26:3190–1.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Campbell JP, Edwards KM, Ring C, et al. The effects of vaccine timing on the efficacy of an acute eccentric exercise intervention on the immune response to an influenza vaccine in young adults. Brain Behav Immun. 2010;24:236–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Petousis-Harris H. Vaccine injection technique and reactogenicity: evidence for practice. Vaccine. 2008;26:6299–304.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    Ipp M, Taddio A, Sam J, et al. Vaccine-related pain: randomised controlled trial of two injection techniques. Arch Dis Child. 2007;92:1105–8.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    Braun MM, Patriarca PA, Ellenberg SS. Syncope after immunization. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1997;151:255–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Syncope after vaccination—United States, January 2005–July 2007. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2008;57:457–60.Google Scholar
  148. 148.
    Hastings JL, Levine BD. Syncope in the athletic patient. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2012;54:438–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  149. 149.
    Huzly D, Schenk T, Jilg W, et al. Comparison of nine commercially available assays for quantification of antibody response to hepatitis B virus surface antigen. J Clin Microbiol. 2008;46:1298–306.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  150. 150.
    Rota JS, Rosen JB, Doll MK, et al. Comparison of the sensitivity of laboratory diagnostic methods from a well-characterized outbreak of mumps in New York City in 2009. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2013;20:391–6.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  151. 151.
    Velicko I, Muller LL, Pebody R, et al. Nationwide measles epidemic in Ukraine: the effect of low vaccine effectiveness. Vaccine. 2008;26:6980–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  152. 152.
    Atrasheuskaya AV, Kulak MV, Neverov AA, et al. Measles cases in highly vaccinated population of Novosibirsk, Russia, 2000–2005. Vaccine. 2008;26:2111–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  153. 153.
    Atrasheuskaya AV, Blatun EM, Neverov AA, et al. Measles in Minsk, Belarus, 2001–2003: clinical, virological and serological parameters. J Clin Virol. 2005;34:179–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  154. 154.
    Hostetter MK. Infectious diseases in internationally adopted children: findings in children from China, Russia, and eastern Europe. Adv Pediatr Infect Dis. 1999;14:147–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  155. 155.
    Kriz B, Burian V, Sladky K, et al. Comparison of titration results of diphtheric antitoxic antibodies obtained by means of Jensen’s method and the methods of tissue cultures and haemagglutination. J Hyg Epidemiol Microbiol Immunol. 1978;22:485–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2014

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Microbiology and Hygiene, Saarland University, Faculty of Medicine and Medical CenterHomburg/SaarGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Sports and Preventive MedicineSaarland UniversitySaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations