puerperium . Rubella vaccination in the

J. Beazley,R. Hurley,C. Middlebrook,M. F. Rumpus

Abstract:Horstmann, Liebhaber, and Kohorn (1970) reported on the administration of Cendehill rubella vaccine to seronegative and seropositive women in the puerperium. Their study was conducted in New Haven, Connecticut. This paper gives the results of a similar but smaller study made on women delivered at Queen Charlotte's Maternity Hospital. It was undertaken to ascertain whether it is safe, effective, and practicable to give Cendehill vaccine in the puerperium, and to provide figures for estimating the costs of vaccination against rubella in the postpartum period. Following extensive trials with living attenuated rubella virus vaccines, the Department of Health and Social Security stated in January 1970 that the Cendehill vaccine was available for use in Britain (Leading article, 1970); in pursuance of public policy, the vaccine will be given to adolescents, that is, to girls between their 11th and 14th birthdays (Leading article, 1970). It will be some years before the full effects of a policy to vaccinate schoolgirls will be evidenced by a reduction in the number of children born with congenital rubella, and meanwhile some fertile women remain at risk of German measles, especially during early pregnancy. Although the Cendehill vaccine has side effects, it is safe. It has the disadvantage of having to be given parenterally, but it does not carry the hypothetical risk of transmission of human genetic material, as does the intranasal RA 27/3. The virus may be excreted by the individual, after vaccination, but it is not communicated to others, even in closed communities (Dudgeon et al., 1969), and thus is not a hazard to other susceptible women in early pregnancy. Its side effects, which include pyrexia and sore throat, adenopathy, and allergic rashes, are transient and mild, and its use is less frequently complicated by arthralgia than are other parenteral rubella vaccines. Successful vaccination does not preclude reinfection with rubella virus (Detels et al., 1969) and should such infection occur during pregnancy there is risk of damage to the fetus. However, in these circumstances, virus replication is likely to be confined to the nasopharynx, and serum antibody should prevent viraemia and transmission to the fetus. Thus, the vaccine should protect against congenital rubella. There is no evidence that attenuation of the virus is associated with a reduction in teratogenicity, and preliminary findings suggest that the vaccine is transmitted across the placenta to the fetus (Vaheri et al., 1969). It must not be given if there is any possibility of the recipient becoming pregnant within eight weeks of vaccination, and, ifvaccination is inadvertently given during pregnancy, termination must be considered. For these reasons, rubella vaccine is unpromising in women of childbearing age unless pregnancy can be avoided. The chances of conception are least in the immediate puerperium, which is probably the safest time to attempt rubella vaccination on a large scale in adult women. This paper presents the results of a pilot study undertaken to assess the practicability, safety, and costs of offering vaccination with the Cendehill virus to women at risk, during the puerperium.