Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Children's health

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Flip

Original poster

13 week baby called up for BCG just one week after 2nd Dip/Hib/Tet etc... anything to be concerned about?

14 replies

ChocFridgeCake · 09/05/2009 22:08

LO had 2nd jabs for Diptheria etc at 12 weeks last week.

Got an automated letter on Saturday advising baby to go for BCG (tuberculosis) jab next week.

I looked this up in the Birth to Five book and it says BCG is a non-routine immunisation.

LO was very off colour after jabs last week for Dip etc, should I really want a non-routine jab to happen just one week after?

Feel a bit concerned but I'm pretty sure if I speak to HV they will advise best to have it as not, which I would normally agree with, but don't really like overloading the system just one week after the last set of jabs.

Any thoughts/advice?

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

PfftTheMagicDragon · 09/05/2009 22:30

Do you live in a high risk area for TB? Although the Immunisation schedule says here that the BCG would be given at birth if this was the case.

I'm not sure, although am sure someone will be along who does, probably before I even click "post"....

Saying all that, if I were you and I did decide that the BCG was valid, I would not give it so soon after another jab, I would wait a month or so, and then put off the other baby jabs that are supposed to be in a month from now.

Original poster

ChocFridgeCake · 10/05/2009 13:05

Thanks for responding Pfft. I didn't think we did live in a high-risk area so was surprised when I received the letter. I also read that it would have been given at birth if there was thought to be a risk.

My instinct is to put it off until LO has had the third and final jab in this series (the essential, routine one), which is in 3 weeks time. TBH the baby & I don't go out and about that much outside my immediate circle of family/friends so not really mixing with lots of other DCs/people in the local area anyway ATM.

OP posts:

oodlesofpoodles · 10/05/2009 13:11

My ds had his BCG last week. They asked if he had had any other jabs within the last month (he hasn't) and said he can't have any at all for a month and any in that arm for at least 3 months.

DoNotAnnoy · 10/05/2009 13:15

I would ask what the grounds for having it are - given that it is a non routine vaccination you should have information as to why.

benandalex · 10/05/2009 13:18

is there any male in your family that has had tb when my dad was a baby because his dad had had tb both him and his brother had to have the bcg early but not their sister?

Original poster

ChocFridgeCake · 10/05/2009 13:56

Thanks for replies

The BCG jab invite has been issued out of the blue from a local Health Centre (rather than the doctors surgery where all the standard jabs take place).

We live on the border between two villages (urban not country) and I don't think the Health Centre has that much to do with the doctor's surgery so doubt the BCG has been co-ordinated with the fact he is in the middle of his standard jabs.

I am definitely going to postpone particularly because there was a delayed reaction to the last jab (was fine the day after but awful for the following two days after that - unusually fractious, crying, red rash on trunk etc). So I'm not willing to mix something else in so soon and I think the BCG is a biggie.

There's not been anyone we know of in our family or friends with TB so no risk there AFAIK.

OP posts:

Sidge · 10/05/2009 14:16

I spoke to a parent on Friday for the same thing - baby just had 2 imms, due BCG in our clinic this week, what to do. I advised waiting until 3rd imms are over, even though there is technically no reason they can't have it.

I advised this because 1, if there is a reaction we wouldn't necessarily know if it was due to the 2nd imms or the BCG. 2, many babies seem to feel grotty after their 2nd imms so why make them feel worse with the BCG on top of that.

If it is routine BCG due to living in a higher-risk area then waiting a couple of months shouldn't be a problem.

Original poster

ChocFridgeCake · 10/05/2009 14:37

Thanks Sidge.

Logically I know there isn't a technical reason not to have the BCG within a week of the 2nd jabs, but I think exactly as you do for why it is better to wait.

OP posts:

stitchtime · 10/05/2009 14:39

dnephew had bcg aged two weeks. lives in a third world country

oodlesofpoodles · 10/05/2009 14:49

You would have to delay the 3rd set of jabs for 3 months if he had BCG now.

Sidge · 10/05/2009 14:54

No you wouldn't oodlesofpoodles.

You have to wait at least 4 weeks before having another LIVE vaccine (eg yellow fever, or MMR) and avoid having any vaccine in the same arm for 3 months, but babies aren't given any vaccines in their arms normally, but in their legs so it shouldn't be an issue.

oodlesofpoodles · 10/05/2009 16:05

Yes I forgot about legs.

Original poster

ChocFridgeCake · 11/05/2009 11:45

Job done, I have rung & put it off for a month after the last standard injection

Thanks again for your replies.

OP posts:

Weegiemum · 11/05/2009 12:16

Our kids all had to have it (age 5, 3, 16months) as we were travelling to a developing nation and it was complicated fitting it in round typhoid/hepA/hepB etc ....

It wasn't a nice jag to have - so the earlier the better I would say!! Do be aware that it can ulcerate - my dd2, the youngest, ended up with a rather nasty ulcer on her arm that had to be drained out - uuuurgh! - much worse than the jag. But significantly less bad than TB, I would think.

Hope all goes well.

Flip