Post-exposure passive immunisation for preventing measles

Added November 13, 2019

Citation: Young M.K., Nimmo G.R., Cripps A.W., et al. Post-exposure passive immunisation for preventing measles. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD010056. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010056.pub2.

Injecting antibodies into a muscle of people who came into contact with measles, but lacked their own antibodies, was effective at preventing them catching the disease compared to those who received no treatment. 

Passive immunization is generally considered to prevent measles in someone who is not immune and has been exposed to infection. This review assesses the effectiveness and safety of intramuscular injection or intravenous infusion of immunoglobulins for preventing measles when administered to exposed susceptible people before the onset of symptoms. The group of susceptible people are considered those without antibodies. Based on seven studies that fit the inclusion criteria (1432 participants), the review found when using the modern-day antibody preparation, people were 83% less likely to develop measles than those who were not treated. However, only two studies compared the measles vaccine with the antibody injection in this group of people, so no firm conclusions could be drawn about the relative effectiveness of these interventions. In addition, these studies did not include pregnant women, infants and immunocompromised in the participation group, so they are not included in findings. As well, no minimum dosage of antibodies required to reach effectiveness was measured in the studies. 


Disclaimer: This summary has been written by staff and volunteers of Evidence Aid in order to make the content of the original document accessible to decision makers who are searching for the available evidence on the health of refugees and asylum seekers but may not have the time, initially, to read the original report in full. This summary is not intended as a substitute for the medical advice of physicians, other health workers, professional associations, guideline developers, or national governments and international agencies. If readers of this summary think that the evidence that is presented within it is relevant to their decision-making they should refer to the content and details of the original article, and the advice and guidelines offered by other sources of expertise, before making decisions. Evidence Aid cannot be held responsible for any decisions made about the health of refugees and asylum seekers on the basis of this summary alone.