Diphtheria / Tetanus / Pertussis (acellular component) vaccine (adsorbed) injection pre-filled syringes / Haemophilus type b conjugate vaccine injection vials
Shortage warning
Current supply issues
High shortage warning
Healthcare professionals should be aware of the potential for delayed onset of angioedema and the distinction between bradykinin- and histamine-mediated cases, as treatment strategies differ significantly and bradykinin-medi…
Affected areas: UK
Official documents, adverse reaction reporting, and safety monitoring
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Official medicine documents
Yellow Card
Report side effects (MHRA)
Drug safety updates
MHRA alerts for Diphtheria + Tetanus + Pertussis + Haemophilus influenzae type B vaccine
Safety monitoring data
Yellow Card reports
The MHRA Yellow Card scheme collects reports of suspected side effects from healthcare professionals and patients. View the Drug Analysis Profile (iDAP) for real-world adverse reaction data.
View Drug Analysis Profile
Browse all Drug Analysis Profiles A–Z
Browse all iDAP reports
Interactive Drug Analysis Profiles for all medicines
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Data from the MHRA Yellow Card scheme. A reported reaction does not necessarily mean the medicine caused it. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
EudraVigilance
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) collects suspected adverse reaction reports from across the EU/EEA through the EudraVigilance system. Search for safety data on this medicine.
Search EudraVigilance database
Browse substances A–Z in the European adverse reaction database
About EudraVigilance
Learn about EU pharmacovigilance and safety monitoring
EudraVigilance data is published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). A suspected adverse reaction is not necessarily caused by the medicine.
2 branded products available
Therapeutically similar medicines
Similarity is based on WHO Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification and on a factual NHS dm+d therapeutic-grouping code prefix. Source data: NHS dm+d via TRUD (OGL v3.0), WHO ATC/DDD Index.
NHS prescribing volume and spending trends
Guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
NICE clinical guidance(1)
Source: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Check stock at pharmacies and supply information
Pharmacy stock checkers
Search for this medicine at major UK pharmacy chains. These links open the retailer's own website — results depend on their current online catalogue.
Supply & safety information
Official UK regulator monitoring and safety alerts
Pharmacy links redirect to the retailer's own search and do not represent real-time stock levels. Shortage and safety information sourced from MHRA drug safety updates (gov.uk, Crown Copyright under OGL v3.0).
Codes for healthcare professionals and prescribing systems
These codes are used by healthcare IT systems and prescribers to identify this medicine.
NHS UK identifiers
Browse tools
SNOMED CT and dm+d codes from NHS TRUD (Technology Reference data Update Distribution), licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. BNF code shown is the factual mapping value distributed by NHS Business Services Authority (NHSBSA) in the dm+d supplementary file under OGL v3.0; it is not affiliated with, nor licensed from, the publishers of the British National Formulary. ATC codes from the WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology (whocc.no).
Active and completed clinical studies from ClinicalTrials.gov
Source: ClinicalTrials.gov, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH). Data accessed via ClinicalTrials.gov API v2. Trial information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Academic studies and reviews for this medicine's active substance
Showing the 50 most relevant studies.
Reviews & meta-analyses: 17 · Randomised trials: 11 · 1983–2026
Showing the 50 most relevant studies, sorted by most relevant.
Kim Mulholland, Stephen T. Hilton, Richard A. Adegbola, et al.
The Lancet, 1997
- Haemophilus influenzae
- Tetanus Toxoid
- Age Factors
Bradford D. Gessner, Agustinus Sutanto, Mary Linehan, et al.
The Lancet, 2005
- Polysaccharides, Bacterial
- Immunization Programs
- Haemophilus Vaccines
Juhani Eskola, Rose‐Marie Ölander, Tapani Hovi, et al.
The Lancet, 1996
- Antibodies, Bacterial
- Antibodies, Viral
- Diphtheria
Headley TY, Shay CW, Tozan Y
2025
BackgroundArmed conflict disrupts health systems and undermines routine immunization, contributing to excess morbidity and mortality. This systematic review examines empirical evidence on the impact of armed conflict on vaccination services and coverage, identifying patterns of disruption across geographic settings and conflict types.MethodsThis study followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251064804). We searched seven databases for peer-reviewed and grey literature (1985-2025) reporting quantitative comparisons of vaccination coverage before and after conflict onset, or between conflict-affected and unaffected populations. Screening and data extraction followed standardized systematic review protocols, with dual validation of a subset of studies. Due to methodological heterogeneity across studies, a meta-analysis was not conducted.ResultsOf 8,043 citations screened, 33 met the inclusion criteria. Most focused on child immunization in settings across the Eastern Mediterranean (15, 45%) and African (12, 36%) regions. Data sources included household surveys (22, 67%) and health system records (8, 24%). Conflict exposure was most commonly measured using battle-related deaths (15, 45%). Analyses employing individual-level data were most common (10, 30%), followed by subnational administrative data (9, 27%). Nearly all studies (31, 94%) were observational or quasi-experimental. In 28 (85%) studies, conflict was associated with reduced vaccination coverage, sometimes exceeding 20% points for vaccines such as BCG, DTP, and polio. Declines were most pronounced in settings with civil war and moderate to high conflict intensity. Two studies reported localized increases in vaccination coverage, possibly due to targeted humanitarian interventions. Effect estimates were larger in studies using national or administrative-level data compared to those using household-level data, underscoring methodological variation as a key contributor to heterogeneity in reported impacts.ConclusionsArmed conflict is consistently associated with substantial declines in childhood vaccination coverage, most pronounced in civil war and military occupation settings and across conflicts with moderate-to-high annual BRDs. Regional disruptions were especially severe in the Eastern Mediterranean and sub-Saharan African regions. We found substantial variation in estimated effect sizes across analytic units (individual, household, region, country), suggesting that more aggregated data may better capture the broader impact of conflict on vaccination rates. Future research should incorporate standardized conflict and vaccination metrics to improve the generalizability of findings.
Abstract licence: CC BY
Niyati R, Rezahosseini O, Ekenberg C, et al.
2025
Background: Co-administration of vaccines can impact the immune response and safety. We aim to systematically review the current scientific literature and find evidence regarding the immunogenicity and safety of pneumococcal vaccines co-administered with common vaccines that are recommended for travelers, including hepatitis A, hepatitis B, yellow fever, tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap), Japanese encephalitis, rabies, typhoid, or meningococcal (MCV) vaccine in adults (18 years or older). Methods: We followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines and used the PICOS process to select the keywords. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE, and Google from 1 January 2000 to 30 June 2024. We included randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, observational studies, case series, and case reports in adults, all published in English. Results: Out of 598 articles screened, 6 studies were included in our study. Three studies involved immunocompetent individuals, and three involved immunocompromised individuals. Co-administration of pneumococcal vaccine with Tdap or Hepatitis A in immunocompetent individuals was safe and immunogenic. Similar findings were reported for immunocompromised individuals when pneumococcal vaccines were co-administered with Tdap, hepatitis A, and hepatitis B. However, no reports investigated the co-administration of yellow fever, rabies, Japanese encephalitis, and typhoid. Two non-randomized studies in immunocompromised individuals had a high risk of bias. Conclusions: The studies collectively indicate that the co-administration of pneumococcal vaccines with Hepatitis A and Tdap vaccines in adult immunocompetent and immunocompromised individuals is safe and immunogenic. However, a knowledge gap remains, and further high-quality studies are needed, particularly due to the limited number of studies and the potential risk of bias.
Abstract licence: CC BY
Valente CFC, Giamberardino HIG, Petraglia TCMB, et al.
2026
BackgroundAcute lymphoblastic leukemia is the most prevalent childhood cancer and the leading cause of cancer mortality before the age of 20. Although therapeutic advances have significantly improved survival, children and adolescents treated for acute lymphoblastic leukemia remain vulnerable to infections, largely preventable by vaccination, due to humoral and cellular immune dysfunction induced by disease and treatment.Materials and methodsThis systematic review, based on electronic databases, aims to evaluate antibody levels associated with potential protective immunity against vaccine antigens for diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, poliomyelitis, Haemophilus influenzae type b, measles, mumps, rubella, influenza, varicella-zoster virus, yellow fever, pneumococcal, and meningococcal diseases in children and adolescents treated for acute lymphoblastic leukemia after completion of chemotherapy.ResultsA total of twenty-four studies published between 1981 and 2023 were included, comprising 1110 children and adolescents. Protective antibody levels ranged from 11% to 97% for diphtheria, 0% to 90% for pertussis, 20% to 100% for tetanus, and 11% to 95% for poliomyelitis. Haemophilus influenzae type b, protection ranged from 16.7% to 100%. Viral vaccines also showed heterogeneous responses, with protection rates of 25-79% for mumps, 16-86% for measles, 35-98% for rubella, and 23-75% for varicella-zoster virus. Antibody responses to pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccines were consistently low, with protection rates of 5-38% for pneumococcal studies and 12% in a single meningococcal study.ConclusionsThis review found a consistent and clinically relevant loss of vaccine-induced immunity in children and adolescents treated for acute lymphoblastic leukemia. The recommendation of vaccine booster doses for this vulnerable population, irrespective of serological status, may represent a more practical approach to ensuring adequate post-chemotherapy treatment protection.
Abstract licence: CC BY
Doyon-Plourde P, Chong J, Abrams EM, et al.
2026
- Aluminum
- Vaccines
- Adjuvants, Immunologic
ObjectiveTo systematically review and critically appraise human evidence on potential health effects of aluminium adjuvanted vaccines.DesignSystematic review following PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis) 2020 guidelines.Data sourcesSix databases and trial registries were searched from inception to 3 March 2023 then updated to 27 November 2025. Reference lists of eligible studies were also screened.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesHuman studies assessing health outcomes after aluminium adjuvanted vaccination, including randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case series, and ecological studies. Investigational vaccines, case reports, and review articles were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers screened studies (with AI assistance for the 2023-25 update), extracted data, and assessed risk of bias (using RoB 2.0, ROBINS-I, or an adapted tool for case series). Certainty of evidence was rated using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation).ResultsThe review included 59 studies (37 case series, 11 randomised controlled trials, nine cohort studies, two ecological studies). High quality evidence from randomised controlled trials and large cohorts consistently showed no association between aluminium adjuvanted vaccines and serious or long term health outcomes, such as asthma, autism spectrum disorders, or other chronic conditions. Studies on macrophagic myofasciitis were generally small and methodologically limited, and did not provide credible evidence of a causal association (very low certainty). Localised persistent nodules or granulomas were observed infrequently after diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccines, consistent with delayed type hypersensitivity (ConclusionsCurrent evidence does not support causal associations between aluminium adjuvanted vaccines and serious or long term health outcomes. The most consistently documented reactions were persistent nodules or granulomas that are uncommon, local, and self-limited hypersensitivity reactions. These findings are broadly consistent with post-licensure surveillance findings. The predominance of methodologically limited studies for some outcomes highlights the need for higher quality research.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42023462831.
Abstract licence: CC BY-NC
Holland C, Oakes D, Sarna MM, et al.
2025
- Respiratory Tract Infections
- Influenza Vaccines
- Acute Disease
Stergachis A, Sevene E, Alam MGS, et al.
2026
- Vaccines
- Product Surveillance, Postmarketing
- Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems
Zeng Y, Yang C, Li X, et al.
2025
Sources: aggregated from Europe PMC (EMBL-EBI), OpenAlex, Crossref, PubMed and other open scholarly databases. Retracted articles are excluded. Study information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Scientific data (pharmacology, interactions, ADME) is not yet available for this medicine. Clinical sections are sourced from the NHS dm+d database.