Seroprevalence of measles and varicella in healthcare workers in Chonburi province, Thailand between October 2022 and January 2023

Introduction

Measles and varicella zoster virus (VZV) are extremely contagious diseases that manifest with skin eruptions. The secondary attack rate of measles and varicella ranges between 70% and 90% among susceptible exposed individuals [1]. The basic reproduction number of measles and varicella ranges from 13 to 18 and 3.7 to 5.0, respectively [2, 3]. The measles vaccine was developed in the 1970s and was integrated into the Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI) worldwide in 1974 [4]. The live attenuated varicella vaccine, derived from the VZV Oka strain, has been licensed for more than a decade [5, 6]. Despite the decline in the incidence of measles and varicella resulting from widespread vaccination efforts, outbreaks of these two diseases have been reported in settings where children gather, such as childcare centers and schools, in hospitals, institutionalized children and adults’ facilities, refugee camps, and among healthcare workers (HCWs) [7–10].

HCWs are at increased risk for measles than the general population. In the United States, 78 documented cases of measles were attributed to transmission within healthcare facilities [11]. Furthermore, 29 healthcare personnel contracted the virus through occupational exposure, with one individual transmitting the measles virus to a patient. Consequently, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends that HCWs who were born before 1957 or who lack serological evidence of immunity or prior vaccination should receive a two-dose regimen of the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, with a minimum interval of four weeks between doses [12].

The VZV vaccine, also known as chickenpox vaccine, is a live-attenuated vaccine for protection against chickenpox (varicella) [7, 13]. The currently licensed varicella vaccines are highly effective in preventing varicella and its complications [14, 13]. However, varicella outbreaks have been reported, including among healthcare workers in Thailand [15]. Previous seroprevalence studies showed high levels of seronegativity among healthcare workers ranging from 14–15.6% in Malaysia and Saudi Arabia, to as high as 51% among first-year medical and engineering students in Sri Lanka [16–18]. In Thailand, the varicella vaccine is an optional vaccine. Thus, the coverage is low. A previous study of VZV seroprevalence in Thailand conducted among university students found that 26% were seronegative to anti-VZV antibodies, suggesting that one in four young Thai adults remained susceptible to varicella [19]. The CDC’s ACIP recommends that for varicella, HCWs born after 1970, without a history of varicella and/or a negative result on the antibody screening test, are advised to receive a two-dose vaccination series.

To develop a measles and varicella vaccination policy for Thai HCWs, it is important to understand the seroprevalence of these two diseases. Currently, there are neither serological screening nor a catch-up vaccination campaign in the HCWs working in Chonburi Province, Thailand. This study aimed to investigate the immune status of HCWs against measles and varicella in a variety of healthcare settings located in Chonburi province, Thailand and to define an appropriate vaccination program among HCWs.

Methods

Results

Discussion

Vaccination for HCWs is an essential step in protecting not only HCWs but also patients and communities [21, 22]. To establish an effective immunization program, a serological survey is necessary to obtain the immune status of HCWs, together with a history of previous infection and vaccination, are necessary. Our study showed high seroprotection rates of more than >90% for measles (anti-measles IgG > 275 IU/L) and VZV (anti-VZV IgG > 110 IU/L) in HCWs older than 41 years working in Chonburi Province, Thailand, even when the policy for the screening and vaccination campaign in HCWs has not been implemented. This preexisting immunity is likely to result from natural exposure before the EPI for measles and varicella vaccinations were in place for all infants. On the contrary, individuals between 21-30 years of age who were born under the universal measles vaccination for all infants at 9 months of age had the lowest seroprotection rate for measles. A recent seroprevalence survey in Thai adolescents also showed that, despite 70% documented one- or two-dose measles vaccination during childhood, only half of the adolescents had anti-measles IgG greater than 275 IU/L, likely due to the decline of antibodies without natural exposure or primary vaccine failure [23]. Thus, in this study, HCWs younger than 30 years of age who could have been vaccinated against measles under the EPI program could possibly have anti-measles immunity that waned overtime. Furthermore, the second dose of measles-containing vaccine coverage among Thai children reached more than 80% of the population only after 2016, suggesting that a large number of populations may have received only one dose of measles-containing vaccine during childhood [24]. Thus, it is important to prioritize a catch-up campaign for measles vaccination for young healthcare workers who had no history of two-dose measles immunization or had negative serology.

In the present study, the overall seroprotection rate for measles in HCWs was lower than in the general population over 26 years of age in our previous serosurvey conducted in 2014 (85% versus 97.7%) [25]. The younger generation of the 2030s, having been born under the Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) with improved vaccine coverage, may possess vaccine-induced immunity that diminishes over time, resulting in lower seroprevalence rates during adulthood compared to the previous survey 10 years ago. Additionally, comparison of anti-measles seroprevalence among HCWs from different regions showed that HCWs from high-income countries had a higher rate of measles seroprevalence ranging from 87% to 97% than HCWs in our study [9].

Our study showed that the overall seroprotection rate against varicella was 81.2% This rate was lower compared to HCWs in Japan (96.3%) [26], Finland (99%) [27], Denmark (98.6%) [28], and Korea (91%) [29, 30]. In Thailand, older individuals acquired immunity to varicella through natural exposure, while younger individuals may have received varicella vaccination, which are optional vaccines, or may have contracted the disease during childhood. Therefore, younger HCWs are likely to have a low seroprotection rate compared to older HCWs due to the low coverage of optional vaccines and the lack of exposure to natural infection. Other countries also reported low anti-VZV seroprevalence rates in the young population [31]. Based on our results, it is recommended to prioritize varicella vaccination for HCWs in the 21-30 age group with negative serology and no record of two-dose varicella vaccination.

The correlation between self-reported history and seroprotected status showed that neither history of measles vaccination nor history of measles were associated with seroprotected status. Our results are consistent with other studies showing that self-reported vaccination history may not be predictive and reliable [27]. Therefore, when a measles vaccination record was not available, serologic tests should be performed to provide evidence of measles immunity. Unlike measles, we found that a history of previous varicella was more frequent among those who were immune to varicella. This is similar to the report of a Thai university student showing the significant association between the history of varicella and the seropositivity rate [19]. Consistent with a previous report, negative predictive values for both previous vaccination and infection were very low for both measles and varicella [30]. Our research indicates the necessity of implementing a universal record system to document vaccine administration for every individual in Thailand. The universal record system could potentially reduce unnecessary serologic screening and catch-up vaccinations.

This study has some limitations. First, the participants’ history of vaccination and previous infection was only obtained through questionnaires, which resulted in missing information and uncertain information regarding diagnosis, actual vaccination doses, and dates. Selecting HCWs from one province may not fully represent all HCWs in Thailand. A larger study that explores other regions of Thailand could provide a more comprehensive representation of the entire country. Additionally, the small sample size of participants older than 60 years makes it challenging to draw conclusive results.

Conclusions

This study provides comprehensive information to inform policy makers and establish effective measles and varicella immunization programs for HCWs throughout the country. To prevent measles and VZV outbreaks in HCWs, it is crucial to conduct serological screening and implement catch-up measles and varicella vaccination programs, particularly among HCWs younger than 30 years of age.

Ethics approval

The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB), Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University (IRB 0706/65). Written informed consent was waived by the IRB.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Funding

This research was financially supported by the Health Systems Research Institute (HSRI), the National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT), the Research Chair Grant from the National Science and Technology Development Agency (P-15-50004), the Center of Excellence in Clinical Virology, Chulalongkorn University, and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital and the Second Century Fund (C2F) of Jira Chansaenroj, Chulalongkorn University. The funders had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, publication decision, or manuscript preparation.

Author contributions

Conceptualization: Y.P.; Data curation: A.K., W.T., J.C., N.W.; Formal analysis: A.K., J.C., N.W.; Funding acquisition: J.C., Y.P.; Investigation: A.K., W.T.; Methodology: A.K., J.C.; Project administration: J.C., R.N., S.N., Y.P., P.S., P.P.; Resources: A.K., W.T., C.S., P.A.; Software: J.C., N.W.; Supervision: Y.P.; Validation: A.K., N.W., Y.P.; Visualization: J.C.; Roles/Writing - original draft: A.K., J.C., R.N., S.N., Y.P., P.S., P.P., N.W.; and Writing – review & editing: A.K., N.W.