Talk:Varicella vaccine

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gomezestro, Juliechaeoon, Kathrynngyn, Sarahchongrx.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parties

Why are pox parties discoraged?

Because of the risk of serious injury or death from acquiring the disease. It's described in the "dangers of chicken pox" section, but I'll add a cross-reference. -- Beland (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This reference is confusing and should be revamped. Whats not recommended Pox parties or Measles parties? is this just bad grammar, or is it specifically pox parties that are discouraged????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.135.13 (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second Doses

I would like to see some information added regarding second doses of the varicella vaccine. I found an article in the Pediatrics Journal (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/117/6/e1070 ) that was very informative. I am unfamiliar with editing Wikipedia and really don't have time. Can you help? Tbuckles 15:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article on ctv.ca today briefly discusses a study recently published in The New England Journal of Medicine. Topics include the effectiveness of the vaccine, some stats on infection rates, and multiple vaccinations due to the vaccine wearing off over time: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070314/chickenpox_study_070314/20070314?hub=Health
--Stéphane Charette 17:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lifelong Immunity

There is no mention here of the fact that "natural" immunity isn't necessarily lifelong, either. It's not as unusual as you'd think for people to get chickenpox (not shingles!) multiple times. 76.178.229.52 (talk) 06:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Images

History

I didn't even know we had a chickenpox vaccine. When was it developed? By whom? Which companies are currently selling it? Is it patented? -- Beland (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The vaccine was licensed in the US in late 1994. I got the first dose around Thanksgiving 1994. I have no idea why most sources say 1995, but it's not correct. Can someone track down original newspaper reports? 74.69.172.76 (talk) 06:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pox party

User:SONORAMA has twice added text that states pox parties are a form of child abuse. Personally, I don't disagree with his/her POV, but it is just that: a POV. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a manual for social services staff. I guess if citations can be found where observers express this POV, it would be appropriate for an encyclopedia to note these views. Opinions? ... richi (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason for the mention of pox parties on the page on varicella vaccine. If mentioned anywhere, it could be on the varicella page, or on its own page, but since it has nothing to do with the varicella vaccine, I fail to see any reason for keeping it here. Removing it as it is not relevant to the subject of the page. --Synaptophysin (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason for mentioning chickenpox parties: they were a practical way to gain long-lasting immunity for children before a vaccine was available--that is the connection between the parties and the vaccine. David Spector (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a justification for inclusion on a page about Chickenpox. Slings were a way of hurling lead "bullets" with dangerous (even lethal) velocities prior to the invention of gunpowder weapons, but one wouldn't include a section on slings on the page about guns. Perhaps a page about projectile weapons would have information on both guns and slings, much as a page about methods to induce an immune response against disease would mention pox parties and variolation as well as vaccination. --Synaptophysin (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vaccines are about gaining immunity. Pox parties are about gaining immunity. Since this article is more about immunization than the general chickenpox article, it think pox parties belongs here. Support David spector --Lucas559 (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support. David Spector (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Increased Shingles

The first section titled "Dangers of Chickenpox" states that Shingles infection rates have increased because of varicella vaccination. This seems to be unsourced, and I can find no evidence for this. Can someone confirm this comment? If not, it should be deleted.Sisyphus (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As further clarification, I am finding articles and literature raising the question of increased rates occuring. Observational data from California, and also Alberta, have demonstrated increasing rates of Shingles, but in the Alberta instance, the increasing rate began before varicella immunization was implemented. The Centre for Disease Control has instituted surveillance but doesn't have any firm information yet. So far it seems to me that this is a theoretical effect of vaccination, but not proven. I'd be quite keen to see someone provide me with some further references. Cheers Sisyphus (talk) 04:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Shingles

I am trying to find out the relationship between varicella vaccine and shingles, but the current state of the article has left me very confused. It says

  • Shingles hospitalizations have increased since varicella vaccination programs started
  • Varicalla vaccine protects against shingles in people over 60, if given regularly

These two claims aren't necessarily inconsistent -- maybe the vaccine protects against shingles in people over 60, but not younger people. Maybe it protects against shingles only if given regularly (what is meant by "regularly"?), but has the opposite effect if given only once. However, my suspicion is that the article (from the New England Journal of Medicine) cited for the claim that the vaccine protects people over 60 is actually referring to a different vaccine. I have two reasons for this:

  • The title of the article is A vaccine to prevent herpes zoster and postherpetic neuralgia in older adults. A vaccine, not Varicella vaccine or some other descriptive phrase. This suggests a new vaccine.
  • According to the CDC, there is a vaccine specifically designed for shingles named Zostavax. It is only recommended for people of age 60 and older. (However, it is specifically described as a "one-time vaccine", not one that should be given "regularly").

If anyone here has access to the New England Journal of Medicine, I'd really appreciate it if they could check up on this. Cheers! Grover cleveland (talk) 06:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The childhood varicella vaccine ("Varivax" in the 'States) is not the same as the varicella vaccine for the elderly ("Zostavax"). IMO the primary difference is the dose: the effective dose for an older adult is about twenty times what you need for a kid. (This is about having an older immune system, not about the vaccine itself.)
I'm not quite certain what your actual question is. Are you trying to find out whether giving Varivax to little Susie at age two is going to make her grandmother more likely to develop shingles? Or trying to find out whether giving Varivax to Susie when she is two years old will make Susie more likely to develop shingles when Susie herself is ninety-two? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My query concerns the respective merits of two courses of action:
  1. immunize a child with Varivax at twelve months (which I believe is the current recommendation of the CDC)
  2. do not immunize at twelve months. Assume that the child will probably contract chickenpox at some point during the childhood years. Consider immunizing at a later age, such as ten years, if this does not happen.
There are many factors to consider (such as the chance of complications from chicken pox or of side effects from the vaccine). However the specific question which I have, and which does not seem to be clearly answered anywhere (perhaps because the vaccine hasn't been around long enough to find out the answers), is what implication the two choices have for the chances of suffering from shingles later in life. I know that anyone who has contracted chickenpox can undergo shingles at any time later in life if their immune system is weak for some reason. Would the same be true for someone immunized against varicella as an infant? Would they be less likely, or more likely to suffer from shingles? If we don't know the answer to this, then I would suggest that the article should make our lack of knkowledge clear, because I imagine that a lot of parents might want to know the answer. Grover cleveland (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We do not know, because the very oldest of kids getting the vaccine are still in their 20s, and shingles doesn't turn up much in healthy young people. The proposed answers are:
  • Less likely, because the weakened virus in the vaccine is cleared from the body more easily;
  • More likely, because the weakened virus produces an immune response that fades more quickly; or
  • About the same, because the opposite effects cancel each other out.
While certain guesses have been made, the actual real-world data will not be known for several decades. You will have to make your choices in the absence of this information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        -I was going to write on this talk page concerning the issue of the possible correlation between the increase in shingles in the elderly and the introduction
    of the Varicella Vaccine in children.  As WhatAmIDoing above addressed, the implication of Grover's question is suggesting the correlation involves elderly
    people are getting shingles more frequently because of some factor of the Varicella Vaccine they received as children.  As the vaccine was only introduced
    less than 25 years ago, none of the elderly people involved in this (possible) correlation ever received the vaccine themselves.  
        The explanation (assuming the correlation actually does exist) I was under the impression was at least considered a very likely possibility involves the 
    boost in immunity adults receive after being exposed to contagious children infected with the wild type live virus.  Since so many fewer children are walking 
    around with active chickenpox infections since the vaccine was implemented, and thus adults in our society immune due to childhood infection are not 
    receiving anywhere near as many of these intermittent boosts, resulting in an increase in shingles occurrences in the elderly (most at risk group).
        This is an interesting conundrum result of the vaccines introduction, but it luckily will only be temporary if this is indeed the explanation.  Consider,
    live virus infections during youth are much more likely to cause a later resurgence of the virus in the form of shingles.  However, the majority of elderly 
    persons WILL have received the vaccination in 40 years, and live virus childhood infection will at that point become exceedingly rare.  Once that happens,
    this new absence of random immunity boosts received by random exposure to infected children will not be a problem.  
        Essentially the worst possible thing you could do to your child is have them be infected today through live virus, because by the time they are 65 there will 
    be nearly zero chance of receiving the immunity boosts needed by those infected with live chickenpox as children.
        Anyway the original thing I wanted to write here is that all the information I've mentioned here is included in the article, but it does not anywhere connect 
    the facts to suggest the very likely reason for the spike in shingles in the elderly after the Varicella Vaccine for children began being administered. 
         Thoughts?   -Paul    96.41.73.90 (talk) 09:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can read this review. It contains all answers. Ruslik_Zero 19:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccine makeup and action

It would be useful to have some info about the makeup of and action of the vaccine--live vs. inactivated vs. processed antigenic components, etc. There's actually very little info about the vaccine itself in the article, and more about the dangers of chickenpox, controversies, and pox parties. The article really should be focused on the vaccine itself. Exerda (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deliberate factual error introduced

On December 10, 2012, IP user 82.12.234.93 added a sentence about the vaccine not being available because of a statement by Tony Blair. This is patently false. Sadly the statement remained until today. The IP address was used only on Dec. 10, so it is unknown (by me at least) if other such edits were made. Interested editors are asked to be alert to such dangerous vandalism. False information in Wikipedia can only encourage the anti-vaccination crowd, leading to less immunization and the needless deaths of children.--S. Rich (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

→Appears to be another deliberate factual error. "The vaccine is exceedingly safe: approximately 5% of children who receive the vaccine develop a fever or rash, but as of 1 May 2006, there have been no deaths yet attributable to the vaccine despite more than 40 million doses being administered.[15] Cases of vaccine-related chickenpox have been reported in patients with a weakened immune system,[15][16] but no deaths." →The JAMA article cited explicitly states "VAERS received 6574 varicella vaccine reports between March 1995 and July 1998 (Figure 1), an overall rate of 67.5 reports per 100,000 doses distributed..." " Approximately 4% of cases (2.9/100,000) were serious, including 14 deaths." 64.186.118.79 (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths reported to VAERS aren't necessarily attributable to the vaccine, so there may be no conflict. An adverse event following immunization can be recorded and reported, with the decision being that the event is not vaccine related. --Synaptophysin (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

20 years or 30 years?

The initial paragraph of this article says the vaccine was developed in 1995. The article later states "there are now persons vaccinated more than thirty years ago with no evidence of waning immunity." Is my math that bad that I am missing something?

Efficacy

Regarding efficacy, the introduction has facts from WHO and the body has facts from CDC - and they are not in agreement. Should we cite a broader range in the intro and then reference both studies in the body? --Lucas559 (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Varicella vaccine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"very safe"

@Doc James:Do we need to always say the vaccine is "very safe" right before saying "serious side effects are rare"? this seems to me like the scientific equivalent of puffery. Tornado chaser (talk)

I already agreed with you... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Varivax vs Varicella vaccines in general

This article may be very misleading because those two terms are used as substitutions! There are many of them - not only Varivax and Varirlix, but also MMRV... Not to mention about vaccines under development like V212 or HZ/su. All of them had different development, studies, controversies and outcomes.

Where are you seeing this? the only use of "Varivax" is to refer to the specific brand, I see no place where this is used as a general term. Also, Whey do you propose splitting the article? the split tag should be accompanied by an explanation on the talk page. I think I removed the essay-like part but let me know if I didn't Tornado chaser (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Foundations 2 2019, Group 1c goals

Add mechanism of action for the vaccine, storage of the vaccine, add more information about safety in special populations. Juliechaeoon (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Varicella_vaccine"