The new Eurosurveillance website is almost here.

Eurosurveillance is on the updated list of the Directory of Open Access Journals and in the SHERPA/RoMEO database. Read more here.

On 6 June 2017, the World Health Organization (WHO) published updates to its ‘Essential Medicines List’ (EML). Read more here.

Follow Eurosurveillance on Twitter: @Eurosurveillanc

In this issue

Home Eurosurveillance Monthly Release  2007: Volume 12/ Issue 9 Article 2
Back to Table of Contents
en fr

Eurosurveillance, Volume 12, Issue 9, 01 September 2007
Passive immunity against measles in infants: is there a need for policy changes in the European vaccination schedules?

Citation style for this article: Johansen K, Lopalco PL. Passive immunity against measles in infants: is there a need for policy changes in the European vaccination schedules?. Euro Surveill. 2007;12(9):pii=728. Available online:


Kari Johansen1, Pierluigi Lopalco (

1. Smittskyddsinstitutet (Swedish Institute for Infectious Disease Control), Stockholm, Sweden
2. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), Stockholm, Sweden

The elimination of measles by 2010 is part of the strategic plan for measles and congenital rubella infection in the European Region of the World Health Organization (WHO Euro). Many European Union (EU) countries are on the right track to reach this goal, but some problems still need to be solved; according to the data reported to EUVAC.NET, there are still several thousand measles cases reported in the EU annually [1]. Public health experts are well aware that the hardest efforts towards elimination of a disease usually have to be performed in the end phase of elimination programmes, when new and often unexpected issues arise and need to be faced in a short time.

A two-dose schedule of the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (MMR1 + MMR2) is nowadays included in all EU immunisation programmes. In nine Member States, catch-up campaigns are also carried out [1]. However, several European countries only recently implemented the second dose of MMR and the vaccination coverage in a number of EU countries is well below the >95% needed for achieving herd immunity.

To avoid interference with maternal antibodies passively transmitted to the infant it is common knowledge that the MMR1 should not be administered too early in life. On the other hand there is a window of susceptibility to measles infection between the decay of passively acquired maternal antibodies and the start of the immune response elicited by vaccination. The right timing for administration of the MMR1 is determined by balancing the need to minimise the length of this window period to the development of an optimal immune response to the vaccine.

So far, providing the first MMR dose to children aged >=12 months has been the golden standard. In EU countries, MMR1 is offered between 12 -18 months of age. In certain situations, as in France an early start is recommended for children attending day-care (MMR1 at 9 months of age followed by MMR2 at 12-15 months) or as in most countries before travelling to countries with wild-type measles circulating (MMR1 provided from 9 months of age). The MMR2 is usually offered after the 3rd year of life, with the exception of Austria and Germany where the MMR2 recently was recommended before the age of two.

In this issue, Cilla and colleagues compare the levels of measles-specific antibodies in two groups of parturient women in Spain who gave birth in 1990 (end of the epidemic period) and in 2006 (after eight years without virus circulation), respectively. The results from this survey are in line with similar studies recently carried out in Europe [2-4]: in the post-vaccination era the antibody levels in young adults are lower than those in the same age groups when the wild-type measles virus was widely circulating.

The issue of waning immunity after measles vaccination has been largely debated [5-8], especially in relation to the possibility of increasing number of measles cases in young adults. According to observations in settings where measles has almost been eliminated, such as in Scandinavia and the Americas, high vaccination coverage and active outbreak control may limit the effect of imported measles cases.

In the present situation, with wild virus still circulating in Europe and observed waning immunity, a discussion on a possible policy change with the first MMR dose provided at an earlier age may be warranted [9]. Scientific evidence could support such a change, including the research reported by Cilla and colleagues.

However, several issues have to be taken into account in the EU actual scenario. Anticipating the MMR1 before 12 months of age can definitively lead to the risk of development of a lower immune response to the vaccine in many children (especially those who received sufficient passive immunity from their mother). In such a situation the introduction of a policy change could add more interferences than real benefits. Changing the MMR vaccination schedule should be a public health decision taken after a thorough analysis not only of the available scientific evidence but also of many practicalities. At present, a general agreement on offering the MMR1 at 12 months of age in all EU countries would be a good compromise.

In addition, other health care measurements, besides those already implemented, may prove useful. Many of the recently measles infected individuals in Europe including in those countries close to elimination were in the age groups 25-50 years, too old to be offered measles vaccination, too young to be infected by natural measles and catch-up campaigns were never performed. To reach elimination for a disease like measles in our modern mobile societies close to all susceptible individuals need to be immunised. To obtain this goal and reach all the age groups that are susceptible, several alternative strategies could be tried such as; continue high vaccination coverage of all children with the two-dose schedule, offer measles vaccination to all age groups without a history of natural disease, offer all age groups who received one dose of measles a second dose to avoid breakthrough infections, offer measles vaccine to travellers to countries with endemic measles; offer measles vaccine to women planning to become pregnant with no history of natural measles or vaccination and include measles in the antenatal screening of pregnant women with no history of measles infection and vaccinate after delivery against measles.

Moreover, we actually do not know very well which level of protection is obtained long-term following the two doses of MMR vaccine, including the role of cellular immunity [10]. Many children are born to mothers in their third or fourth decade of life, and the long-term immunological memory after the varying vaccination schedules now in use within the EU ought to be evaluated. A third dose of MMR later in life may prove to be necessary in the future, especially in those countries with a well implemented measles immunization program and with steadily high coverage levels.

At present, however, the priority should be to strengthen existing measles elimination programmes and assure high vaccination coverage for two doses of MMR: it is important to keep in mind that most of the problems linked to waning immunity could be solved once the elimination goal has been reached.



  1. EUVAC.NET - A Surveillance Community Network for Vaccine Preventable Infectious Diseases. Avaiable at:
  2. Szenborn L, Tischer A, Pejcz J, Rudkowski Z, Wójcik M. Passive acquired immunity against measles in infants born to naturally infected and vaccinated mothers. Med Sci Monit. 2003; 9(12):CR541-6.
  3. Trevisan A, Morandin M, Frasson C, Paruzzolo P, Davanzo E, Marco LD, Fabrello A, Borella-Venturini M. Prevalence of childhood exanthematic disease antibodies in paramedical students: need of vaccination. Vaccine. 2006; 24(2):171-6.
  4. Vainio K, Samdal HH, Anestad G, Skutlaberg DH, Bransdal KT, Mundal R, Aaberge I. Seroprevalence of measles among Norwegian military conscripts in 2004. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2007; 26(3):217-20.
  5. LeBaron CW, Beeler J, Sullivan BJ, Forghani B, Bi D, Beck C, Audet S, Gargiullo P. Persistence of measles antibodies after 2 doses of measles vaccine in a postelimination environment. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007; 161(3): 294-301.
  6. Kremer JR, Schneider F, Muller CP. Waning antibodies in measles and rubella vaccines – a longitudinal study. Vaccine. 2006; 24(14): 2594-601.
  7. Glass K, Grenfell BT. Waning immunity and subclinical measles infections in England. Vaccine. 2004; 22(29-30): 4110-6.
  8. Dine MS, Hutchins SS, Thomas A, Williams I, Bellini WJ, Redd SC. Persistence of vaccine-induced antibody to measles 26-33 years after vaccination. J Infect Dis. 2004;189 Suppl 1:S123-30.
  9. Leuridan E, Van Damme P. Passive transmission and persistence of naturally acquired or vaccine-induced maternal antibodies against measles in newborns. Vaccine. 2007; 25(34):6296-304
  10. Jokinen S, Osterlund P, Julkunen I, Davidkin I.Cellular immunity to mumps virus in young adults 21 years after measles-mumps-rubella vaccination. J Infect Dis. 2007; 196(6):861-7.


Back to Table of Contents
en fr

The publisher’s policy on data collection and use of cookies.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by authors contributing to Eurosurveillance do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) or the editorial team or the institutions with which the authors are affiliated. Neither ECDC nor any person acting on behalf of ECDC is responsible for the use that might be made of the information in this journal. The information provided on the Eurosurveillance site is designed to support, not replace, the relationship that exists between a patient/site visitor and his/her physician. Our website does not host any form of commercial advertisement. Except where otherwise stated, all manuscripts published after 1 January 2016 will be published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence. You are free to share and adapt the material, but you must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the licence, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

Eurosurveillance [ISSN] - ©2007-2016. All rights reserved

This website is certified by Health On the Net Foundation. Click to verify. This site complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information:
verify here.