single mumps vaccine

[mango2000]

Has anyone else had trouble receiving the single mumps vaccine? We opted for the single jabs of mmr for our daughter when she was 13months old. She is now 3 years old and still waiting for the mumps. By which time we have just been informed she now needs the mmr booster!

They have stopped making it (Merck have the worldwide licence) and have no plans to resume it. So I guess just go ahead with the MMR booster now?

Thanks. How frustrating to have the choice taken away. Spoke to the GP nurse recently and she thinks if we go for the combined mmr we will have to have the jab twice (first and then the booster) as the NHS consider the single jabs not as effective. Anyone else know of this?

From the NHS website, it would appear that two doses of MMR are not guaranteed to protect against mumps. As for single jabs for measles not being as effective as MMR, that's what I had all those years ago.
www.nhs.uk/Conditions/MMR/Pages/FAQs.aspx#university
The text is below:

"My son is 18 and has been asked to have a second MMR jab before university. Is this sensible?
Many universities are recommending their students have MMR, because there have been outbreaks of mumps.
To ensure he is fully protected against mumps, he needs to have had two doses of MMR. Even if he has already had two doses of a measles vaccine, having a third to make sure he is protected against mumps will not cause any harm. "

My DS had singles (but no mumps) so I'm giving him the booster and may give him another pre-uni one too. I am really annoyed about it because the clinics knew there weren't any mumps vaccines but took people's money anyway. I did get a refund on that bit. I am glad the clinic we used has gone bust.

mango, mumps is usually a mild illness in childhood so you might want to hang on for a few years anyway.You never know, the singles may become available again or your daughter might catch it herself and be immune for life without having to worry about silly boosters every few years! She may have had it already - 30% of people with mumps are asymptomatic. Was there something in particular you were worried about with mumps? It seems awful that you have to resort to an MMR vaccine that you obviously decided against!

Although mumps natural immunity is very good, it is not perfect.

In addition, it is relatively unlikely that anyone un-vaccinated will acquire immunity.

Even when vaccination hadn't reduced mumps levels only 40% of children tested positive for antibodies.

OP is in a bad position, and certainly I'd be angry at any clinic if miss-selling had occurred but the safest course, however unwanted that may have been, would seem to be to get MMR.

I wish I could suggest other options.

I would actually say its a bit unnecessary to get a vaccine for 3 diseases when she's already been vaxed against 2 of them. Personally, I would wait until she was 11/12 and then test for antibodies and decide what to do then. If the OP has spent the time and money on getting the single vax for measles and rubella it seems a bit unnecessary to get vaxed again again against all 3 just for the sake of mumps which is usually mild in children and not very common either!

I agree that two of the vaccines in the MMR are unnecessary.

But the question is how to get coverage for Mumps.

Merck isn't going to start making the vaccine anytime soon.
And although their IP rights will wear off in a few years, I don't think another company will start production for cost/scientific reasons.

MMR would seem to be the only option.

And, if anyone were to care about the financial situation, isn't an antibody test around £50?
More than the vaccine covered by the NHS.

Mumps is on the rise due to fall in MMR vaccination rates.
2009 saw over 7500 cases in England & Wales.

Around 10% of these result in meningitis.

There are risks associated with MMR but they are extremely small.
And however frustrating is must be not to be able to follow the path you thought you had chosen, I think the motivation was safety.

And I think the benefits vs risk analysis, even with Measles & Rubella out of the equation, are in favour of MMR.

DBennett mumps may result in aseptic meningitis which is not as serious. From the aseptic meningitis website: "Aseptic meningitis is usually a harmless disease, and people usually have full recovery in 5 to 14 days after symptoms start."
It can be brought on by many viral infections and I dislike the way it is trotted out to try to scare people about mumps. Most people hear meningitis and immediately think of the more serious bacterial form.

DBennett You imply that you consider it necessary to be protected against mumps. I had it when I was seven. It just wasn't a concern. It was "just mumps".

Bubbly I, too, am getting a bit tired of this meningitis argument for a mumps jab. The trouble is, it makes me mistrust the whole vaccination programme when I find myself having to listen to information that I know is misleading.

Hence why DS has still not had any jabs at all and he's 16 mths old. I just cannot decide what to do.

Tabitha8, join Arnica group. Lots of like minded people there.

I'd love to. There isn't one near me, sadly.

Well you can join online. You'll just take part in discussions and ask questions you have. I find it really helpful.

Ah, did you mean the Yahoo Group? If so, thanks for the tip. Just joined!

ds had single measles vaccine. I wanted him to have the mumps one when he is older so that he'd have immunity as an adolescent (when mumps can be much worse for a boy), but now will have to either not vaccinate him or give him the MMR when imo boys shouldn't be vaccinated against rubella. Aggghhh. What to do ......

@ladylush,

Sorry, but why shouldn't boys be vaccinated against rubella? What if they pass it on to children too young to have been vaccinated? Any medical arguments against?

Are there any medical arguments in favour?
The NHS website describes rubella as "in most cases a mild condition."
I won't be having my son vaccinated against it.

Tabitha8,

Rubella can cause serious birth defects when passed on to a pregnant woman who has no immunity. OK, you could say it was HER responsibility to be vaccinated - but what if your son was that unvaccinated woman's partner, and passed the virus onto her and her baby? Nightmare scenario, IMO, not a risk I'd care to take with vaccine uptake so poor and vacinnation regimes so variable across the world. Your choice, of course, but your DS should be made aware of the risks when he's of an age.

pointy things - rubella is v mild in childhood and many children have it without even noticing. I think girls' immunity to it should be checked before puberty and then they can be given the vaccine if required. It would be unnecessary to give it to boys in this case and safer for girls as well because at least they have had the opportunity to get lifelong immunity to protect their unborn child or they will have the vaccine closer to their child bearing years when it is less likely to have worn off!

pointythings - yes, agree with both answers you were given.
Likewise, dd will have rubella when she is older - so that hopefully she will still be immune when she is of childbearing age.

Pointy - No nightmare necessary. Inform all sons, whether they are immune against rubella or not, that their wives/girlfriends should be checked for rubella immunity before they think of babies. Conversation to be scheduled right after the "HIV test before you put away condoms" talk.

.

Vaccinating women of child-bearing age for rubella used to be preferred practice in the UK.

And it didn't work very well.

In 1987, the last yr before rolling out rubella vaccination to all, there were 167 rubella infections in pregnant women.

In recent years that has fallen to single digits

Full story here.

It might also be worth bearing in mind that rubella is not safe for anyone to get, for example thrombocytopenia occurs in around 1 in 3000 cases and encephalitis in a round 1 in 6000.
There has also been suggested links with chronic disease such as arthritis.

All of this helps push the risk-benefit analysis firmly in the vaccinate column.

DBennett
Yes it does push the risk benefit firmly in the vaccinate column. For you. Not for me.
It is possible to develop thrombocytopenia following the MMR.
As I understand it encephalitis occurs in between 1 in 3000 and 1 in 24000 cases and most recover.
With the statistics such as they are, I am surprised that you use the word "firmly".

Have you read this?
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-388051/Scientists-fear-MMR-link-autism.html

That's a fairly old story.
But even then it was clear it did not support the hypothesis that MMR vaccination is a risk factor for autism.

In fact, the chief author said so at the time.

And I stand by the use of the word firmly.
The MMR vaccine, and vaccination in general, is very, very safe.

It has great benefits and very little in the way of risks.

There's a simple solution to this:

Let's say my (of necessity) unvaccinated 9-month-old catches measles at nursery from your (by choice) unvaccinated toddler. Yours is OK. Mine develops meningitis and ends up permanently disabled, needing lifelong care.

So you pay for that care - your free choice, your responsibility. Simple.