Active clinical trials for "Chickenpox"

Background: People who have cancer tend to get sick more often. This is in part because of the cancer treatments they get. Because of this, they may get shingles. Scientists had thought people with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) should not get the shingles vaccine. Now there is a new shingles vaccine that is not live and cannot cause shingles. The new shingles vaccine may protect people with weak immune systems from getting shingles. This is currently shown to be safe to give people 50 years and older to prevent shingles. Researchers want to test how safe the vaccine is and how it works in people with CLL. Objective: To learn how a new shingles vaccine works in people who have chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL). Eligibility: Adults ages 18 years and older with CLL or SLL who are not being treated for CLL or who are getting certain treatments. Design: Participants will be screened with a chart review or through another protocol. Visit 1 At visit 1, participants may have a pregnancy test, blood test, or physical exam. Pregnant participants cannot be in the study. Eligible participants will get the shingles vaccine as an injection. Participants will receive a diary and write down any symptoms they have for 7 days after the vaccines. Visit 2 Visit 2 will be 3 months later. Participants will have blood taken and get another dose of the vaccine. Participants will receive a diary and write down any symptoms they have for 7 days after the vaccines. Visit 3 Visit 3 will be 3 months after visit 2. Participants will have blood taken. Participants may be able to get an additional vaccine the same day as the shingles vaccine.

Dissemination research examines the processes and factors that lead to widespread use of evidence-based interventions. There are several theories on how to best minimize the perceived and actual burdens on practitioners associated with implementing evidence-based medicine. For instance, the pay for performance model attempts to improve physician compliance with quality guidelines by providing financial incentives. Recent studies suggest pay for performance is effective in improving practitioner performance, but it is unclear whether the gains are sustainable once incentives are stopped. Another approach to promoting best practices is the Model for Improvement whose main method is to employ Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles of small changes Although this approach has been successful within individual institutions, there is minimal evidence of its effect when employed simultaneously in multiple autonomous institutions. There is also little evidence of the sustainability of outcomes after intervention activities end. The specific aims of the proposed study are to examine the effect of quality improvement dissemination models on the immunization coverage of children ages 3 to 18 months old. The investigators propose to: 1. Determine the effect on immunization compliance of two different models of dissemination which will provide physicians 12 months of quality improvement (QI) activity support for implementing CDC immunization best practices. Hypothesis 1a: Study participants receiving the QI technical support intervention (QITS) will have more improvement in immunization rates from baseline to immediately after support ends than participants receiving the pay for performance intervention (P4P). Hypothesis 1b: Study participants receiving QITS will increase immunization coverage for their practices over baseline. Hypothesis 1c: Study participants receiving P4P will increase immunization coverage for their practices over baseline.

Primary objective: To compare if, when given concomitantly with VARIVAX® by the same route at 12-18 months of age using separate injection sites, a single dose of M-M-RTMII administered by IM route is as immunogenic as a single dose of M-M-RTMII administered by SC route in terms of response rates to measles, mumps and rubella at 42 days following the vaccination. AND/OR To compare if, when given concomitantly with M-M-RTMII by the same route at 12-18 months of age using separate injection sites, a single dose of VARIVAX® administered by IM route is as immunogenic as a single dose of VARIVAX® administered by SC route in terms of response rate to varicella at 42 days following the vaccination Secondary objectives: To summarise the antibody titres to measles, mumps, rubella and varicella at 42 days following the vaccination in children immunised with M-M-R™II and VARIVAX® administered concomitantly at two separate injection sites by the same route IM or SC, To evaluate the safety profiles of M-M-R™II and VARIVAX® administered concomitantly at two separate injection sites by the same route IM or SC.

This study will test the immunogenicity, safety, and tolerability of VARIVAX™ manufactured with the Varicella Enhanced Process (VEP) compared with the VARIVAX™ 2007 Process. The primary hypotheses being tested are 1)VARIVAX™ VEP will induce varicella-zoster virus (VZV) antibody responses that are non-inferior to those induced by VARIVAX™ 2007 process at 6 weeks after vaccination 1, and 2) VARIVAX™ VEP will induce an acceptable anti-VZV antibody response rate at 6 weeks after vaccination 1.

This study aims to determine the efficacy of 70% trichloroacetic acid on atrophic scars of varicella

The purpose of this study is to demonstrate that an investigational refrigerated vaccine with measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella is well tolerated and has similar immune response when compared to a frozen vaccine with measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella.

The purpose of this study is to see if it is safe to give Varivax to HIV-positive children and whether it protects children from infection. Varivax is a vaccine against varicella zoster virus (VZV), the virus that causes chickenpox (varicella) and shingles (zoster). VZV can cause many serious complications in HIV-infected children. Varivax is a VZV vaccine that has been approved for use in healthy children. More research is needed to find out how this vaccine will affect HIV-infected children.

This study will compare Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and Varicella Vaccine (V221) and concomitant administration of Varivax and M-M-R II vaccines in healthy children.

The study was conducted to determine if ProQuad may be used in place of the second dose of M-M-R II routinely given to children 4 to 6 years old who were previously immunized with M-M-R II and Varivax.

A Study comparing three different doses of ProQuad to concomitant administration of M-M-R II and PUVV (Process Upgrade Varicella Vaccine) vaccines.