Paper Details

  1. Home
  2. Paper Details

Case report: Persistent shedding of a live vaccine-derived rubella virus in a young man with severe combined immunodeficiency and cutaneous granuloma.

Author: BonnerKimberly E, ChenMin-Hsin, CieslakPaul R, DeBessEmilio, DeRavinSuk See, FaisthalabRaeesa, HaoLiJuan, IcenogleJoseph, LanzieriTatiana M, LeesmanChristopher, LemanRichard F, LikoJuventila, PerelyginaLudmila, SukermanEllie, SuttonMelissa

Case ReportsIn the medical field, a report that describes in detail a unique case, an unusual medical condition, or the effect of a treatment. Provides new insights and possibilities for treatment through individual patient cases.
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.Research funding provided by the Public Health Service (PHS).

Overview

This case report describes a young man with X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency who developed a persistent vaccine-derived rubella virus (VDRV) infection, leading to the emergence of cutaneous granulomas more than 15 years after receiving two doses of MMR vaccine. VDRV was detected in respiratory samples, cerebrospinal fluid, and urine, highlighting the potential for prolonged shedding and possible transmission. However, no evidence of VDRV transmission to close contacts was found.
Paper Details　
Original Abstract of the Article :
A young man with X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency developed a persistent vaccine-derived rubella virus (VDRV) infection, with the emergence of cutaneous granulomas more than fifteen years after receipt of two doses of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine. Following nasopharyngeal swab (NP) c...See full text at original site
Dr.Camel IconDr.Camel's Paper Summary Blogラクダ博士について

ラクダ博士は、Health Journal が論文の内容を分かりやすく解説するために作成した架空のキャラクターです。
難解な医学論文を、専門知識のない方にも理解しやすいように、噛み砕いて説明することを目指しています。

* ラクダ博士による解説は、あくまで論文の要点をまとめたものであり、原論文の完全な代替となるものではありません。詳細な内容については、必ず原論文をご参照ください。
* ラクダ博士は架空のキャラクターであり、実際の医学研究者や医療従事者とは一切関係がありません。
* 解説の内容は Health Journal が独自に解釈・作成したものであり、原論文の著者または出版社の見解を反映するものではありません。


引用元：
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9773200/

データ提供：米国国立医学図書館（NLM）

Persistent Rubella Virus Shedding in Immunocompromised Individuals

The measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine is highly effective in preventing these diseases. However, in individuals with compromised immune systems, the vaccine can lead to persistent shedding of vaccine-derived rubella virus (VDRV). This case report describes a young man with severe combined immunodeficiency who developed persistent VDRV infection, with the emergence of cutaneous granulomas more than fifteen years after receiving two doses of the MMR vaccine.

The Challenge of Persistent Rubella Virus Shedding

The study highlights the potential for persistent VDRV infection in individuals with severe combined immunodeficiency. The researchers detected VDRV RNA and isolated live virus from multiple respiratory and urine samples, underscoring the importance of understanding the prevalence and duration of shedding in immunocompromised individuals.

A Desert Oasis of Immunity

Imagine a desert oasis, a place where life thrives despite the harsh conditions. For individuals with weakened immune systems, the MMR vaccine can provide a crucial oasis of protection. However, this research reminds us that even in the desert of compromised immunity, unexpected challenges can arise, requiring careful monitoring and management.

Dr.Camel's Conclusion

This case report highlights the potential for persistent shedding of vaccine-derived rubella virus in individuals with severe combined immunodeficiency. The study emphasizes the need for understanding the prevalence and duration of shedding in these individuals, as well as the potential risks of transmission to close contacts.

Date :
  1. Date Completed 2022-12-27
  2. Date Revised 2023-01-18
Further Info :

Pubmed ID

36569925

DOI: Digital Object Identifier

PMC9773200

Related Literature

Article Analysis
・Effects of mmr vaccine
SNS
PICO Info
in preparation
Languages

English

Positive IndicatorAn AI analysis index that serves as a benchmark for how positive the results of the study are. Note that it is a benchmark and requires careful interpretation and consideration of different perspectives.

This site uses cookies. Visit our privacy policy page or click the link in any footer for more information and to change your preferences.