Table 4.

Vaccine effectiveness (VE) of M-M-R_II during measles and mumps outbreaks

Outbreak	Study	Study period		n	Age range		Case definition (if specified)	Dose number comparison	VE (%)
Measles	Lynn99		1998	3,679	13–21 years			2 vs. 1	94
	De Serres96a		2011	1,306	High school students, median 15 years (range not specified)			1 vs. 0	96
						Classical		≥2 vs. 0	96
						Classical + attenuated		≥2 vs. 0	94
	Arciuolo93		2013	318	6 months to 19 years	Postexposure prophylaxis		1 vs. 0	83
	Woudenberg103b		2013–2014	1,230	6–14 months	Clinical		1 vs. 0	71
						Self-reported		1 vs. 0	43
Mumps	Hersh97c		1988–1989	1,713	Junior high school students (age not specified)			≥1 vs. 0	83
	Marin100	2006		2,363	≥7 years, college students(range not specified)			1 vs. 0	84
								2 vs. 0	80
	Ogbuanu102	2009–2010		2,265	11–17 years			3 vs. ≤2	88
	Nelson101d	2009–2010		3,239	9–14 years			3 vs. ≤2	60
	Livingston98	2010		2,176	≥5 years (range not specified)			1 vs. 0	83
								2 vs. 0	86
								≥1 vs. 0	86
	Cardemil94	2015–2016		20,496	18–24 years			3 vs. 2	60–78
								2 vs. 0 (vaccinated <13 years before outbreak)	89
								2 vs. 0 (vaccinated ≥13 years before outbreak)	32

All studies were conducted in the United States except De Serres (Canada) and Woudenberg (Netherlands).

No use of M-M-R_II during rubella outbreaks was reported.

^aM-M-R_II was generally used, but vaccines also included Connaught Canada monovalent measles vaccine.

^bStudy was designed to assess the effectiveness of an early first dose of M-M-R_II during an outbreak.

^cOnly eight participants were unvaccinated. Vaccines included monovalent mumps vaccine as well as M-M-R_II.

^dVaccine effectiveness was not provided in the original publication and was therefore estimated by calculating 1 – the reported relative risk.