Advertisement

BioNanoScience

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 450–453 | Cite as

Serological Monitoring of Herd Immunity to Measles in Indicator Groups and Groups of Risk

  • Guzel Isaeva
  • Irina Reshetnikova
  • Yury Tyurin
  • Sergey Kulikov
  • Ekaterina Garanina
  • Niaz Khakimov
Article
  • 31 Downloads

Abstract

The analysis of herd immunity to measles in the Republic of Tatarstan indicates epidemiological well-being, with the values correlating with average values across the Russian Federation (RF) in the following indicator groups: 3–4 and 9–10 years of age. The proportion of antibody-negative individuals increases (in comparison with the average values across the RF) in the age groups of 16–17 and 23–28 years and older than 30 years that suggest the tendency to epidemiological unsafety in these age categories. High titers of anti-measles antibodies in the age groups older than 40 years might evidence about definitely increased post-infection immunity.

Keywords

Measles Serological monitoring 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work was partially supported by the Russian Government Program of Competitive Growth of Kazan Federal University.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Oliveira, J., da Cunha, S., Côrte-Real, R., et al. (1995). The prevalence of measles, rubella, mumps and chickenpox antibodies in a population of health care workers. Acta Médica Portuguesa, 8(4), 206–216.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kirkwood, B. R., & Sterne, J. A. C. (2003). Essential medical statistics (pp. 118–130). Hoboken: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mao, B., Chheng, K., Wannemuehler, K., et al. (2012). Immunity to polio, measles and rubella in women of child-bearing age and estimated congenital rubella syndrome incidence, Cambodia. Epidemiology and Infection, 143, 1858–1867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lee, M. S., King, C. C., Jean, J. Y., et al. (1992). Seroepidemiology and evaluation of passive surveillance during 1988–1989 measles outbreak in Taiwan. International Journal of Epidemiology, 21, 1165–1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Markowitz, L. E., Preblud, S. R., Fine, P. E., & Orenstein, W. A. (1990). Duration of live measles vaccine-induced immunity. The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 9, 101–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen, C. J., Lee, P. I., Hsieh, Y. C., et al. (2012). Waning population immunity to measles in Taiwan. Vaccine, 30, 6721–6727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Andani Cervera, J., Castañeda Gordillo, P., Fuente Goig, M. T., et al. (2014). Serological survey of measles, rubella and mumps immunity among pediatric and resident physicians, Valencia, Spain. Revista Española de Salud Pública, 88(5), 653–659.  https://doi.org/10.4321/S1135-57272014000500009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Santibanez, S., Prosenc, K., Lohr, D. et al.(2014) Measles virus spread initiated at international mass gatherings in Europe, 2011. Euro Surveill, 19(35). Erratum in: Euro Surveill, 19(37).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Plans-Rubio, P. (2014). Is the current prevention strategy based on vaccination coverage and epidemiological surveillance sufficient to achieve measles and rubella elimination in Europe? Expert Review of Anti-Infective Therapy, 12(7), 723–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guzel Isaeva
    • 1
    • 2
  • Irina Reshetnikova
    • 1
    • 3
  • Yury Tyurin
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sergey Kulikov
    • 1
  • Ekaterina Garanina
    • 3
  • Niaz Khakimov
    • 2
  1. 1.Kazan Scientific-Research Institute of Epidemiology and MicrobiologyKazanRussia
  2. 2.Kazan State Medical UniversityKazanRussia
  3. 3.Kazan Federal UniversityKazanRussia

Personalised recommendations