Intramuscular versus intradermal administration of anti-hepatitis B vaccine in non-cirrhotic hepatitis C patients

Vaccine Responses in Patients with Liver Cirrhosis: From the Immune System to the Gut Microbiota

Vaccines prevent a significant number of deaths annually. However, certain populations do not respond adequately to vaccination due to impaired immune systems. Cirrhosis, a condition marked by a profound disruption of immunity, impairs the normal immunization process. Critical vaccines for cirrhotic patients, such as the hepatitis A virus (HAV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), influenza, pneumococcal, and coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19), often elicit suboptimal responses in these individuals. The humoral response, essential for immunization, is less effective in cirrhosis due to a decline in B memory cells and an increase in plasma blasts, which interfere with the creation of a long-lasting response to antigen vaccination. Additionally, some T cell subtypes exhibit reduced activation in cirrhosis. Nonetheless, the persistence of memory T cell activity, while not preventing infections, may help to attenuate the severity of diseases in these patients. Alongside that, the impairment of innate immunity, particularly in dendritic cells (DCs), prevents the normal priming of adaptive immunity, interrupting the immunization process at its onset. Furthermore, cirrhosis disrupts the gut-liver axis balance, causing dysbiosis, reduced production of short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), increased intestinal permeability, and bacterial translocation. Undermining the physiological activity of the immune system, these alterations could impact the vaccine response. Enhancing the understanding of the molecular and cellular factors contributing to impaired vaccination responses in cirrhotic patients is crucial for improving vaccine efficacy in this population and developing better prevention strategies.

Efficacy of Hepatitis B Virus Vaccines HBVaxpro40© and Fendrix© in Patients with Chronic Liver Disease in Clinical Practice

Chronic liver disease results in a low response rate to the hepatitis B virus vaccine. Information on the efficacy of the double adjuvanted vaccine FENDRIX® (3-O-desacyl-4'-monophosphoryl lipid A and aluminum phosphate) and single adjuvant HBVAXPRO®40 (aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate) in chronic liver disease is scarce. The primary aim of this prospective study in clinical practice was to evaluate the effectiveness of HBVAXPRO®40 and FENDRIX® in this setting. Patients received HBVAXPRO® (0, 1 and 6 months) or FENDRIX® (0, 1, 2 and 6 months) depending on availability. Clinical data and anti-HBs levels were collected at 2, 6 and 12 months. A total of 125 patients were included (mean age 61.8 years; 57.6% males; 43.2% liver cirrhosis; 75.9% Child A and 24.1% Child B): 76 were vaccinated with HBVAXPRO® and 49 with FENDRIX®. There were no significant differences between the two vaccines. The overall response rates at 2, 6 and 12 months were 76.8, 72.8 and 59.2%, respectively. In the univariate analysis, active alcohol intake, alcohol etiology, liver cirrhosis and ultrasound signs of portal hypertension were associated with a lower response to vaccination, whereas in the multivariate analysis, liver cirrhosis was the only factor that significantly increased the likelihood of nonresponse (OR 10.5). HBVAXPRO® and FENDRIX® are good options for HBV vaccination in patients with chronic liver disease.

Eliminating viral hepatitis in children after liver transplants: How to reach the goal by 2030

Viral hepatitis infections are a great burden in children who have received liver transplant. Hepatotropic viruses can cause liver inflammation that can develop into liver graft fibrosis and cirrhosis over the long term. Immunological reactions due to viral hepatitis infections are associated with or can mimic graft rejection, rendering the condition difficult to manage. Prevention strategies using vaccinations are agreeable to patients, safe, cost-effective and practical. Hence, strategies to eliminate viral hepatitis A and B focus mainly on immunization programmes for children who have received a liver transplant. Although a vaccine has been developed to prevent hepatitis C and E viruses, its use is not licensed worldwide. Consequently, eliminating hepatitis C and E viruses mainly involves early detection in children with suspected cases and effective treatment with antiviral therapy. Good hygiene and sanitation are also important to prevent hepatitis A and E infections. Donor blood products and liver grafts should be screened for hepatitis B, C and E in children who are undergoing liver transplantation. Future research on early detection of viral hepatitis infections should include molecular techniques for detecting hepatitis B and E. Moreover, novel antiviral drugs for eradicating viral hepatitis that are highly effective and safe are needed for children who have undergone liver transplantation.

NEW IMMUNIZATION SCHEDULE EFFECTIVENESS AGAINST HEPATITIS B IN LIVER TRANSPLANTATION PATIENTS

BACKGROUND

Although liver transplantation is considered to be a high-risk procedure, it is well-established as a treatment option for the cure and quality of life enhancement for individuals who suffer from diseases. Preventing an infection by hepatitis B virus through immunization schedules has been the most effective way to reduce complications, since it decreases the number of people who suffer from chronic hepatitis caused by the hepatitis B virus and eradicates its transmission.

OBJECTIVE

1. Analyzing evidence in the literature on various schedules employed for immunization against hepatitis B in patients who have received a liver transplantation. 2. Suggesting potential immunization schedules against hepatitis B in patients who suffer from liver cirrhosis, without previous verifying documentation, using the Child-Turcotte Pugh score, according to evidences found in the literature.

METHODS

Systematic review of the literature, conducted on the data bases MedLine, PubMed, and Lilacs, between September, 2017 and January, 2018, by using the following keywords: "Liver Transplantation, "Immunization Schedule", "Hepatitis B Vaccines". In order to analyze the articles, a summary figure was especially designed and both the results and discussion were presented in a descriptive way.

RESULTS

We included 24 studies; among them, eight had accelerated immunization schedules, 13 followed the conventional schedules, and three had super accelerated schedules. Regarding immunization, 21 studies were conducted with patients in the pre-transplant period, one with a transplanted patient, one with a pre-transplant group, and one with a post-transplant group. Found articles suggest that, disregarding the chosen immunization schedule, seroconversion rates tended to be lower as the liver disease advanced, compared to the healthy population.

CONCLUSION

The studies did not find seroconversion superiority between the different immunization schedules (conventional and unconventional). However, since candidates to liver transplantation are usually very vulnerable, results show that super accelerated immunization schedules are possibly recommended for such group of patients; serologic test results will be higher when the immunization schedule is completed in the pre-transplant period.

Efficacy of high-dose intra-dermal hepatitis B virus vaccine in previous vaccination non-responders with chronic liver disease

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccination is essential in chronic liver disease (CLD), because it can help prevent acute-on-chronic disease, which has potentially fatal complications. Unfortunately, this group has a significant proportion of HBV vaccination non-responders. A variety of intra-muscular (IM) vaccination methods have been used in an attempt to remedy this poor-response, but with limited success.

AIMS

Herein is reported the safety and efficacy of high-dose intra-dermal (ID) HBV vaccination in CLD individuals who had failed previous IM standard and boost-dosing regimens.

METHODS

Forty-eight CLD individuals, known HBcAb negative, who had failed both a three-dose schedule of 40 μg IM vaccination, and boost dosing of either 40 or 80 μg IM, were identified, of which 42 completed the vaccination course. Each received a 40 μg ID total dose (20 μg per arm) during their clinic visits until a response was documented or a maximum of three doses had been administered. HBsAb titer ≥ 10 mIU/ml was regarded as an immunologic response; the intention was to achieve an optimum response of ≥ 100 mIU/ml.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine of forty-two (69%) individuals had an immunologic response, with 15 (51%) of the responders having the optimum response. No changes in serologic data occurred. No serious dermatologic reactions were observed. No differences between those who responded and those who did not were observed with regard to the presence of cirrhosis, diabetes mellitus, or chronic kidney disease.

CONCLUSIONS

High-dose ID HBV vaccination of previous CLD non-responders to the standard IM regimen with boost dosing is both safe and efficacious, and should be considered for all such groups.

Multifunctional T-cell characteristics induced by a polyvalent DNA prime/protein boost human immunodeficiency virus type 1 vaccine regimen given to healthy adults are dependent on the route and dose of administration

A phase I clinical vaccine study of a human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) vaccine regimen comprising a DNA prime formulation (5-valent env and monovalent gag) followed by a 5-valent Env protein boost for seronegative adults was previously shown to induce HIV-1-specific T cells and anti-Env antibodies capable of neutralizing cross-clade viral isolates. In light of these initial findings, we sought to more fully characterize the HIV-1-specific T cells by using polychromatic flow cytometry. Three groups of participants were vaccinated three times with 1.2 mg of DNA administered intradermally (i.d.; group A), 1.2 mg of DNA administered intramuscularly (i.m.; group B), or 7.2 mg of DNA administered i.m. (high-dose group C) each time. Each group subsequently received one or two doses of 0.375 mg each of the gp120 protein boost vaccine (i.m.). Env-specific CD4 T-cell responses were seen in the majority of participants; however, the kinetics of responses differed depending on the route of DNA administration. The high i.m. dose induced the responses of the greatest magnitude after the DNA vaccinations, while the i.d. group exhibited the responses of the least magnitude. Nevertheless, after the second protein boost, the magnitude of CD4 T-cell responses in the i.d. group was indistinguishable from those in the other two groups. After the DNA vaccinations and the first protein boost, a greater number of polyfunctional Env-specific CD4 T cells (those with > or = 2 functions) were seen in the high-dose group than in the other groups. Gag-specific CD4 T cells and Env-specific CD8 T cells were seen only in the high-dose group. These findings demonstrate that the route and dose of DNA vaccines significantly impact the quality of immune responses, yielding important information for future vaccine design.

Levamizole enhances immune responsiveness to intra-dermal and intra-muscular hepatitis B vaccination in chronic hemodialysis patients

Background

Hemodialysis patient are at high risk for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection.

Although preventive vaccination is done routinely, the response to vaccination is low in this patient population. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of Levamizol, an enhancer of the immune responsiveness, on different routs of vaccination, i.e., intradermal (ID) versus intramuscular (IM), in stable chronic hemodialysis patients.

Materials and methods

Forty four chronic heamodialyses patient were divided into four equal groups. The first group was received 40 μg HB vaccine intramuscularly. The second group was received 20 μg HB vaccine intradermally. The third and the fourth group received 20 μg vaccine IM or ID, respectively, in three doses plus oral Levamisole (100 mg for 12 day). After one and six months from the last dose of vaccine, HBs antibody titers were measured.

Results

The response rate to vaccine (HBs Antibody>10 μg/L) in the routine IM HB vaccination was low (60%). It increased to 70% with ID route. Levamisole significantly raised the response rate to 90% (P < 0.01). Also in the Levamisole groups protective HB antibody titers were maintained until the end of six months.

We conclude that HD patients must be vaccinated by ID route and addition of Levamisole. Levamisole also increases antibody maintenance.