Singles vaccines, is it true there are no mumps available?

[mummytowillow]

Hi

The time has come for DD to have the MMR and I'm really not happy giving to her, hubby has agreed we will do the singles but on DH2000 website I noticed that the mumps is not coming in until 2009??

So if this is true, any ideas where I can get it? We live in Kent but willing to travel to London etc?

I agree LLPJ. I had a rubella jab at 12 too. But what I meant really was that while this wasn't the case a rubella jab as part of MMR or as a single vaccine as a child is better than nothing. Ilovemydog demonstrates that there are women out there not immune to rubella and, having seen what catching rubella in pregnancy can do, it's not something I would want to know my child had passed on iyswim.
It is a very controversial subject which always causes strong opinions. I guess we just have to chose which guilt we can best live with don't we? A child harmed by a disease we could have vaccinated against or a child harmed by a vaccine we could have chosen not to give them. Who ever says being a parent is easy is a liar!!!!! :

It's madness that there is such a shortage of the mumps vaccine. I would have thought it was available as supply and demand iykwim.

Is the govt. making obstacles.

I suppose in talking about my brother I was trying to say don't be tempted to risk missing the mumps one just because it's not available.

But then giving the mmr is such an emotive issue here.

There are no sure facts in anything I kniow but on balance I feel happier having mmr than missing one because it wasn't available.

Yeah, I can only think that it is the government making obstacles to the single vaccine. Any ordinary shortage would just mean they produced more since there is money to be made in this.

We know the government has tried to prevent single vaccines before and they made their position quite clear. The singles vaccines must be stopped no matter the cost. Better no vaccines at all and an epidemic than allowing people to choose the singles.

Onager - there may be a government conspiracy - but as the vaccine is made in the States it sounds unlikely.

From the Torygraph...

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2270148/Parents-face-shortage-of-mumps-vaccine.html

"By Kate Devlin, Medical Correspondent
Last Updated: 6:16PM BST 08 Jul 2008

The American company which makes the single mumps vaccination, Mumpsvax, has discontinued production until early next year.

The company says there is not enough demand for a single vaccination and that most people choose to take the triple MMR vaccine, for measles, mumps and rubella.

The MMR vaccine is the only one available on the NHS.

However, parents who want to give their child a single vaccination, because of claims that MMR is linked to autism, can buy them through private clinics.

Merck, which makes Mumpsvax, has suspended production twice before, although for shorter periods of time.

Martha Cox, director of Wellcare, a nationwide network of private health clinics, was told she would not receive new supplies of the Mumpsvax vaccine until next September.

"I find it quite amazing that production can just be stopped like this and we haven't been told why.

"Everyone is running low on supplies. We will be getting one more load next week and then that's it," she said."

Well I think conspiracy probably isn't the word since they made it plain how opposed to the singles they are (though not why). There was a lot of stuff about licences etc a while back which certainly appeared to be an attempt to discourage the sale of single vaccines and maybe they have made it so it's not cost effective.

So Martha Cox thinks its 'amazing' so it's not just me struck by how odd this is.

Hang on, I just thought of something. There must be times when the NHS use single vaccines. Suppose you had the MMR, but it turned out a few weeks later the Mumps part hadn't worked. You wouldn't want to take the MMR again would you. Also in later years some must need redoing at different times to others.

Why is it amazing? The market for a single mumps vaccine is obviously quite limited. Most vaccines (except those for travel) are purchased in bulk order by governments. No government buys single mumps because the evidence is (from a public health point of view, ie for populations) that the MMR is cheaper and more effective. If there is a small market it probably makes more economic sense to do a few large batch runs rather than keeping a small production line going. I doubt it has much of a hit on how many of the vaccines are bought, and thus their profit.

Has there yet been any scientific evidence that having single vaccines makes any difference to the recipients in any case?

How on earth would you know "a few weeks later"? There are no routine tests following any vaccinations. There is an MMR booster given routinely, but otherwise you would only know if your immunity had failed if you then go ahead and catch the disease in question. This is a concern for those who worry that immunity may decrease over time, I've not seen any studies on this, but I suspect if it was shown that this was a significant problem then boosters would be added to normal adult vaccination programmes (like Polio and tetanus)

Nooka - it's an interesting point. My kids have have post-vax immunity assaying. (Tests to see if they are immune) because we are part of a vaccine trial. Almost all of the regular vax have had to be repeated because they didn't work. In fact the clinical team who is doing the trial has now dropped the 5 in 1 and replaced it with a newer 6 in 1 which is used all over Europe because apparently it's much more effective. Ironically the trial vaccine worked.

There is actually a serious point though about repeat MMR shots. If it didn't work first time, who is to say it will the second? Could it be that for some people vax don't always take hold? Case in point DD had whooping cough after being vaccinated and showing immunity. Perhaps for her the vaccine only lasted three months but your child would get life long immunity. It's too complex to really know without following up and assaying the blood of every kid at say 14 months to see what's happened.

Oh and from what I've heard on the mumps vax is that it's not official approved in the UK so each order has to be approved by (I think it's the HPA) which they take their time on. But that's hearsay and I can't guarantee that's not just doctor gossip!

whomovedmychocolate - It is good to see you made the effort to find death figures from mumps, but you are wrong in saying "figures for death are not recorded as such because most deaths from mumps occur from viral menigitis - and because of the way viral meningitis presents, it's hard to discern the difference between mumps instigated meningitis and other types"

Actually, these figures are recorded. If a person develops menengitis or encephalitis while they are still in the throes of mumps, I am assuming that it doesn't take a genius of a doctor to realize the two are related.

Death is a rare outcome of mumps. A total of 93 deaths from mumps
were registered for 1962-1981 in England and Wales, an average of five
per year. Inspection of death certificates of the 38 deaths registered in
1971-1981 showed that 16 were indeed probably due to mumps; in 13
the diagnosis was mumps encephalitis. There have been no recorded
deaths from Mumps in Ireland in the years 1980-2000 (Source CSO).

Source

It doesn't say when the last mumps death in England was, but there hasn't been one in Ireland since 1980.

Again, not exactly what I would call a scary killer disease.

Re "Yes but if she were to catch it she could pass it on to a pregnant woman couldn't she?"

It is the responsibility of the pregnant mother in question to get vaccinated against rubella before she gets pregnant, if she is not already immune.

It is not the responsibility of wee children to be vaccinated in the tens of thousands so that this one irresponsible woman can be assured not to catch rubella from anyone while pregnant.

If you don't trust individual responsibility and would rather the state impose these things, let it be imposed on 10 yr old girls - a simple blood test and vaccines for all who don't have immunity.

AFAIK the cover gained by MMR(or singles) "doesn't wear off" in the majority of people.

If a blood test is performed most people have full Immunity years later,as with Tetanus, Hepatitis B etc.

In a very small percentage of people/children the cover isnt there after immunisation,and thats down to their individual make-up and maybe the components in the vaccine they had.

I would imagine those children that have had Single Vacs,and not had the booster could still be "at risk",as there is 10% of the immunised community that don't "take up" the vaccine with the first one but only with the 2nd.

With the Rubella jab being introduced in Secondary school the amount of terminations performed due to "German measles affected" Foetuses went down dramatically.Maybe with introducing the MMR in children that made the secondary school vac."unnecessary".

the clinic where dd and ds had their singles has this about the mumps vaccine www.breakspearmedical.com/files/mumps.html (would thoroughly recommend Breakspear if you are nearish)

I'm glad to hear that vaccines don't wear off and rarely fail (That certainly wasn't my impression) but in that case what is a booster for?

The only point I was making is that if you have a three part thing and it's possible for one part of it to fail it makes sense to have a single replacement for that part on hand.

WWMC - if you want single vaccines near here I have a contact.

(bloody glad this will be my only post on this thread!)

None of these illnesses are usually serious and most children recover well. This can lull us all into a false sense of security. My Mum took a risk in not getting the whooping cough jab for my younger brother BUT she did not understand the risk she was taking. She had no idea just how serious whooping cough could be and in the same way I don't think we understand just how serious these infections can be either because we no longer see them as a result of vaccinations, better medical care etc.

I have no real feelings about single injections or mmr but DO think they are important to have done. I wouldn't risk it myself.

Having read through a bit more of the thread I would like to add that some children and adults are seriously at risk if they catch one of these infections. Children suffering from cancer for example - how dreadful would it be if my child gave a child seriously at risk mumps or measles because I had been too anxious to get the jabs done. There are good reasons to have it done.

I thought that the rubella one wore off and find it utterly heartless for anyone to say "the pregnant woman should have checked she was immune". What if she conceived accidentally? isIs the poster trying to say she would tell such a woman "it's all your fault" if her baby were born damaged. I am sure she cannot mean that. if so.

Not an easy thread this and I am all a bit too close to it because of my brother. Better leave now for other people to discuss.

Sorry MsD, I think it's more heartless to allow millions of children to take an unnecessary risk than to inform, educate, test and if necessary vaccinate when there is a lower chance of side effects. I totally concur with Cote.

re 'the cover gained by MMR(or singles) "doesn't wear off" in the majority of people'

That is a very misleading statement and also quite incorrect. You want us to think 100% of vaccinated children "gain cover", which is not the case. In fact, the effectiveness of MMR is about 65%. Meaning, a very large percentage of children vaccinated against measles, mumps, and rubella will catch these diseases anyway.

Booster vaccinations (2nd dose of MMR) increases the "cover gained by MMR", but still not to 100%. All seen again in the study below:

Document title
The effectiveness of the mumps component of the MMR vaccine : a case control study
Author(s)
HARLING Richard (1) ; WHITE Joanne M. (1) ; RAMSAY Mary E. (1) ; MACSWEEN Karen F. (2) ; VAN DEN BOSCH Cony (3) ;
Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) HPA-CDSC, 61 Colinclale Avenue, London NW9 5EQ, UK
(2) Clinical Infection Unit, St. George's Hospital, London SW17 0QT, UK
(3) East London and the City Health Authority, 81-91 Commercial Road, London E1 1RD, UK

Abstract
In 1998/1999, an outbreak of mumps occurred among children of a religious community in North East London. A case control study was conducted to assess the effectiveness of the mumps component of the MMR vaccine. One hundred and sixty-one cases of mumps were identified and 192 controls were selected. Fifty-one percent of cases and 77% of controls had a history at least one MMR vaccination. The observed effectiveness of any MMR vaccination adjusted for age, sex and general practice was 69% (95% CI: 41-84%). Two doses of vaccine were more effective (88% (95% CI: 62-96%)) than a single dose (64% (95% CI: 40-78%)).

From here.

Onegar - there is no single vaccine on the NHS. As a m/w if I have a postnatal women who is succeptible to rubella the only vaccine I can offer her is the MMR. She has to have the lot even if she only needs the rubella.

Woh ladies!! I didn't want to start any arguments!

Thanks for the replies though, it made very interesting reading what you all think, were definately having the single measles asap and then as one poster said the mumps when it comes in, you are supposed to wait 12 weeks between each one anyway, so that works out about right.

As for the rubella, I remember having mine when I was in high school, so I'm going to ask at the clinic if it is necessary now or when she is older?

Also, thanks for the links to the clinics, will check them all out.

xx