Article Text

PDF

BCG vaccination by multipuncture method
  1. L PETER ORMEROD
  1. Chest Clinic
  2. Blackburn Royal Infirmary
  3. Blackburn
  4. Lancashire BB2 3LR, UK
    1. NABIL AL JARAD
    1. Department of Respiratory Medicine
    2. Bristol Royal Infirmary
    3. Bristol BS2 8HW
    4. UK
    5. Royal London Hospital Trust
    6. London E1 1BB, UK
    7. Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre
    8. 61 Colindale Avenue
    9. London NW9 5EQ, UK
    1. Dr N Al Jarad
    1. D W EMPEY
    1. Department of Respiratory Medicine
    2. Bristol Royal Infirmary
    3. Bristol BS2 8HW
    4. UK
    5. Royal London Hospital Trust
    6. London E1 1BB, UK
    7. Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre
    8. 61 Colindale Avenue
    9. London NW9 5EQ, UK
    1. Dr N Al Jarad
    1. G DUCKWORTH
    1. Department of Respiratory Medicine
    2. Bristol Royal Infirmary
    3. Bristol BS2 8HW
    4. UK
    5. Royal London Hospital Trust
    6. London E1 1BB, UK
    7. Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre
    8. 61 Colindale Avenue
    9. London NW9 5EQ, UK
    1. Dr N Al Jarad

    Statistics from Altmetric.com

    I write in response to the article by Al Jaradet al 1 on this topic. The first study to compare the efficacy of BCG vaccination and its side effects using the Bignal multipuncture device with the reusable handle and disposable heads was the pilot study of neonatal BCG vaccination carried out in 1992 for the Department of Health in our health authority.2

    In previous studies in neonates and children under two, referenced in the paper by Al Jarad et al,1an 18–20 needle percutaneous head gave approximately the same degree of tuberculin conversion as did intradermal vaccination but, to achieve this in older children and adults, 36–40 punctures were required. This would require either a 40 needle head or a double vaccination with two × 18–20 needles. This is why percutaneous BCG is currently only licensed for children aged under two years. Although in neonates2 and in Al Jarad's study1 in older children the rate of tuberculin conversion was lower with percutaneous than with intradermal vaccination, tuberculin conversion does not necessarily equate to lower efficacy. In the early studies on intradermal BCG the protective efficacy of the vaccination was related to the presence of a scar after vaccination, but not to the tuberculin test result after vaccination. Those with a BCG scar but a negative post vaccination tuberculin test—that is, no tuberculin conversion—had the same degree of protection against tuberculosis over the 15 years following vaccination as did those with a scar and a positive post vaccination tuberculin test.3

    The multipuncture method is undoubtedly easier to use in neonates because their very thin skin makes intradermal vaccination difficult, and also in nervous teenagers. Further long term studies on large numbers of subjects would be required to determine whether the technique using only 18 needles in older children is as effective as intradermal vaccination. Such studies may well prove to be unnecessary. The PHLS system for enhanced tuberculosis surveillance begun this year should, with sufficient cooperation, be able to give the relevant information by the end of 2001 to show whether England and Wales meet the internationally recommended criteria for discontinuation of unselective BCG vaccination in low prevalence countries.4BCG vaccination of selective at risk groups, however, would still be required.

    References

    authors' reply To our knowledge our study1-1 was the first to compare the Bignal device with the conventional device in the multipuncture technique in schoolchildren. We were interested in assessing its efficacy in this particular group as we felt that the multipuncture technique would allow us to protect more schoolchildren in a part of London where it is difficult to access this population. The studies by Cundall et al 1-2 and later by Ormerod and Palmer1-3made the same comparison in neonates and small children.

    We agree (and stated) that the 18 needle device may not be sufficient to convey a similar conversion rate of the tuberculin test. The manufacturers were unable to produce 40 needle heads as they would require an unacceptably high pressure on the handle to release the needles. We feel that applying two successive punctures with an 18 needle head on the same skin area would not be practicable as the head comes off and would need to be changed after each application. In addition, schoolchildren (and the operators) would not appreciate two applications.

    Dr Ormerod's statement on the BCG scar being a predictor of protection may be appropriate for the intradermal method. In our study the BCG scar in children who received the multipuncture method was not visible in under one fifth of children.

    Dr Ormerod is in agreement with our statement that the conversion of the tuberculin test does not equate to protection from tuberculosis, but it is frequently used as an indirect measure of the efficacy of BCG vaccination.

    We strongly support the PHLS system for enhanced tuberculosis surveillance in the UK, but unfortunately we do not hold out Dr Ormerod's optimism that it will indicate that unselective BCG vaccination can be discontinued in boroughs and countries where notification rates of tuberculosis are high. Further studies on the protective values of multipuncture BCG may still be appropriate.

    References

    1. 1-1.
    2. 1-2.
    3. 1-3.
    View Abstract

    Request permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.