Immunogenicity and reactogenicity of a combined hepatitis A-hepatitis B vaccine in adolescents

Hepatitis A immunisation in persons not previously exposed to hepatitis A

This review is withdrawn because it is outdated. A new review is to be published by the end of 2019.

Immunogenicity, effectiveness and safety of combined hepatitis A and B vaccine: a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis A and B are two of the most common vaccine-preventable diseases and vaccination for Hepatitis A virus (HAV) and hepatitis B virus (HBV) is recommended for those at risk of contracting HAV and/or HBV through their occupation, travel or lifestyle.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the vaccine efficacy, immunogenicity, effectiveness and safety of the combined vaccine against hepatitis A and hepatitis B.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature published between 1990 and 2015.

RESULTS

Anti-HAV seropositivity rates ranged from 96.2% to 100% and anti-HBs seroprotection rates from 82% to 100%. Antibodies persisted up to 15 years and geometric mean concentration (GMC) remained above the seropositivity cut-off value for both. Anti-HAV and anti-HBs immune responses were lower in less immunocompetent individuals one month after completion of the immunization schedule. The safety profiles of Twinrix(TM) and monovalent hepatitis A and B vaccines were similar.

CONCLUSION

The vaccine offers satisfactory long-term immunogenicity rates, expected duration of protection and safety profile similar to the monovalent hepatitis A or B vaccines.

Hepatitis B vaccination for reducing morbidity and mortality in persons with HIV infection

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis B vaccine has been recommended for use in people living with HIV (PLHIV) mostly because of the similarities in routes of infection and their prevalence in the same geographic areas. PLHIV may not develop sero-protection after receiving standard hepatitis B vaccine due to their compromised immune status.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of hepatitis B virus vaccine in PLHIV compared to placebo or no vaccine.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 6 English language databases in July 2012, and updated the search in June 2013 and August 2014. We searched the grey literature, conference proceedings, specialised web sites, and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of hepatitis B vaccine compared to placebo or no vaccine, evaluating relevant outcomes of efficacy and safety.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently sought and extracted data on study design, participants, hepatitis B infection, hepatitis B related morbidity and mortality, anti-HBs immunogenicity and adverse effects related to vaccines from published articles or through correspondence with authors. Data were analysed qualitatively.

MAIN RESULTS

One double-blind randomised controlled trial with 26 participants who were on antiretroviral therapy (ART), comparing hepatitis B vaccine to placebo conducted in Spain met our eligibility criteria and was included in this review. The study ran for three years and participants were followed up on a monthly basis. The study reported adequate humoral response to vaccine at 12 months and no local or systematic side effects in both intervention and control groups. This humoral response was lost when the participants stopped taking ART. The sample size of the study was small and the study was conducted in a high income setting unlike the areas of highest burden of hepatitis B and HIV co-infections.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence from this study is insufficient to support any recommendations regarding the use of hepatitis B vaccine in PLHIV. Neither does this evidence demonstrate that hepatitis B vaccine is unsafe in PLHIV. Further randomised controlled trials in high prevalence areas are required to generate evidence on the long term efficacy and safety of hepatitis B vaccine in PLHIV with and without ART. Different regimens and routes of administration should also be explored.

Hepatitis A immunisation in persons not previously exposed to hepatitis A

BACKGROUND

In many parts of the world, hepatitis A infection represents a significant cause of morbidity and socio-economic loss. Whilst hepatitis A vaccines have the potential to prevent disease, the degree of protection afforded against clinical outcomes and within different populations remains uncertain. There are two types of hepatitis A virus (HAV) vaccine, inactivated and live attenuated. It is important to determine the efficacy and safety for both vaccine types.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical protective efficacy, sero-protective efficacy, and safety and harms of hepatitis A vaccination in persons not previously exposed to hepatitis A.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) up to November 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing HAV vaccine with placebo, no intervention, or appropriate control vaccines in participants of all ages.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were undertaken by two authors and verified by a third author. Where required, authors contacted investigators to obtain missing data. The primary outcome was the occurrence of clinically apparent hepatitis A (infectious hepatitis). The secondary outcomes were lack of sero-protective anti-HAV immunoglobulin G (IgG), and number and types of adverse events. Results were presented as relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Dichotomous outcomes were reported as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI), using intention-to-treat analysis. We conducted assessment of risk of bias to evaluate the risk of systematic errors (bias) and trial sequential analyses to estimate the risk of random errors (the play of chance).

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 11 clinical studies, of which only three were considered to have low risk of bias; two were quasi-randomised studies in which we only addressed harms. Nine randomised trials with 732,380 participants addressed the primary outcome of clinically confirmed hepatitis A. Of these, four trials assessed the inactivated hepatitis A vaccine (41,690 participants) and five trials assessed the live attenuated hepatitis A vaccine (690,690 participants). In the three randomised trials with low risk of bias (all assessing inactivated vaccine), clinically apparent hepatitis A occurred in 9/20,684 (0.04%) versus 92/20,746 (0.44%) participants in the HAV vaccine and control groups respectively (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.30). In all nine randomised trials, clinically apparent hepatitis A occurred in 31/375,726 (0.01%) versus 505/356,654 (0.18%) participants in the HAV vaccine and control groups respectively (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.17). These results were supported by trial sequential analyses. Subgroup analyses confirmed the clinical effectiveness of both inactivated hepatitis A vaccines (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.30) and live attenuated hepatitis A vaccines (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.17) on clinically confirmed hepatitis A. Inactivated hepatitis A vaccines had a significant effect on reducing the lack of sero-protection (less than 20 mIU/L) (RR 0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.03). No trial reported on a sero-protective threshold less than 10 mIU/L. The risk of both non-serious local and systemic adverse events was comparable to placebo for the inactivated HAV vaccines. There were insufficient data to draw conclusions on adverse events for the live attenuated HAV vaccine.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Hepatitis A vaccines are effective for pre-exposure prophylaxis of hepatitis A in susceptible individuals. This review demonstrated significant protection for at least two years with the inactivated HAV vaccine and at least five years with the live attenuated HAV vaccine. There was evidence to support the safety of the inactivated hepatitis A vaccine. More high quality evidence is required to determine the safety of live attenuated vaccines.

Reactogenicity profile of a combined hepatitis A and B vaccine in clinical practice: a naturalistic study in adult travellers

A prospective observational naturalistic study was conducted to assess the reactogenicity of the combined hepatitis A and hepatitis B (HAB) vaccine in a real-life setting. All healthy candidates for HAB vaccination attending an adult vaccination centre between October 1998 and February 2000 were invited to participate in the study. A follow-up diary card was provided to subjects to record local and general symptoms during a 4-day follow-up. Intensity was graded from 1 to 3. Redness was recorded as presence or absence. Fever was defined as axillar temperature > or =37.5 degrees C and grade 3 >39.0 degrees C. For all other symptoms, grade 3 was defined as an adverse reaction preventing normal everyday activities; 998 subjects (74% females), mean age (+/-S.D.) of 23 years (+/-4.5) (range: 11-54 years) agreed to participate. At first immunization 92% were <30 years old. Grade 3 pain and swelling was recorded in 1.2% and 0.3% of local symptom sheets completed, respectively; 438 subjects received the HAB vaccine alone (group 1) whereas 560 received at least one concomitant vaccine (group 2). In 45%, 27%, 18% and 10% of subjects the HAB vaccine was coadministered with 1, 2, 3 or 4 to 6 vaccines (mainly Td adult-type, typhoid, MMR and IPV vaccine). Grade 3 pain and swelling were recorded in 1.2% & 0.3% of symptom sheets (SS), respectively. In group 1, any fever and grade 3 fever was recorded in 3.5% and 0.1% of SS. Group 1 versus 2 had a lower risk for any fatigue (p=0.0002; OR=0.617) and any malaise (p=0.0076; OR=0.693) but not for grade 3 symptoms. In conclusion, our study showed that the HAB vaccine is well tolerated in adults either alone or coadministered with other vaccines in the routine clinical practice.

Combined hepatitis A and B vaccines: a review of their immunogenicity and tolerability

Three combined hepatitis A and B vaccine preparations are commercially available in various countries: a two-dose paediatric formulation (Ambirix) [administered at months 0 and 6-12]; and a three-dose adult (Twinrix Adult) or paediatric (Twinrix Paediatric) formulation (administered at months 0, 1 and 6). The adult vaccine provides consistent, marked immunogenicity which is at least similar to that of its constituent vaccines used together and with a tolerability profile that is possibly improved. An accelerated, day-0, -7 and -21 regimen has also shown immunogenicity similar to that of the monovalent vaccines given concurrently, and now has an emerging role in adults likely to travel to hepatitis A virus (HAV) and/or hepatitis B virus (HBV) endemic regions within 1 month. The adult vaccine appears effective and generally well tolerated when given concurrently with monovalent typhoid vaccine (Typherix). Immunogenicity of the two-dose paediatric vaccine is high and appears to be similar whether administered as a month-0, -6 or month-0, -12 schedule and when compared to that of the three-dose paediatric vaccine (months 0, 1, 6), both of which provide a similar degree of protection to the adult vaccine. Although both preparations also provide high end-of-schedule seroprotection against hepatitis B surface antigen, protection between the first and second doses of the two-dose regimen appears lower than with the three-dose schedule. Therefore, the three-dose paediatric vaccine is a practical option in individuals at risk of immediate exposure to HBV, while the two-dose regimen may have an important function in immunisation programmes in regions where such risk is low. Combined hepatitis A and B vaccines are generally well tolerated. The most frequently reported adverse events in clinical trials were injection-site pain and redness, and general fatigue and headache; most events were mild and transient. Pharmacoeconomic models suggest the combined vaccine is cost effective compared with no vaccine (in children/adolescents) or monovalent hepatitis B vaccine (in children/adolescents and prison inmates).

CONCLUSION

The three commercially available combined hepatitis A and B adult and paediatric vaccines are highly immunogenic and generally well tolerated; the adult vaccine demonstrates immunogenicity at least as marked as that of monovalent hepatitis A and B vaccines. While further research is required to confirm potential advantages such as improved cost effectiveness, the combined vaccines have established a key role in the prevention of hepatitis A and B in defined risk groups, and have an expanding role in population-based vaccination programmes with younger age groups.

A new accelerated vaccination schedule for rapid protection against hepatitis A and B

BACKGROUND

Increasing travel stresses the requirement for rapid protection against infections such as hepatitis A and B.

METHODS

This randomised, multicentre study investigated an accelerated vaccination schedule using a combined hepatitis A and B vaccine (Twinrix, Smithkline Beecham Biologicals) compared with simultaneous administration of the two corresponding monovalent vaccines. The combined vaccine was administered on days 0, 7 and 21, whereas the comparison group received hepatitis A vaccine on day 0 and hepatitis B vaccine on days 0, 7 and 21. All subjects received booster vaccination at month 12.

RESULTS

At month 1, 100% of subjects in the combined group and 99% of the controls were seropositive for anti-HAV antibodies. The corresponding seroprotection rates for anti-HBs antibodies were 82.0 and 83.9%, respectively. Examination of the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the treatment differences showed the two vaccines to be equivalent in terms of immunogenicity 1 week after the initial vaccination course. Just prior to the booster, the seropositivity rate for anti-HAV was 96.2% in the combined group and 95% in the control group. For anti-HBs, this was 94 and 91.6%, respectively. All subjects were seropositive for anti-HAV and seroprotected against hepatitis B at month 13. The anti-HAV GMCs were 9571mIU/ml with the combined vaccine and 5206mIU/ml in control subjects. The anti-HBs titre was 26002 and 29,196mIU/ml, respectively. Both groups had a similar reactogenicity profile.

CONCLUSIONS

The accelerated schedule of the combined vaccine provides a good immune response against hepatitis A and B antigens and is suitable for last minute immunisation.

[Hepatitis A and hepatitis B seroprevalence in 4 centers in Brazil]

The prevalence of antibodies to hepatitis A and B virus was assessed in 3,653 subjects across four regions of Brazil. The anti-HAV and anti-HBc seroprevalence were 64.7% and 7.9%, respectively. The highest anti-HAV (92.8%) and anti-HBc (21.4%) rates were seen in the Northern region. In other regions, anti-HAV seroprevalence over 90% was only reached in the more elderly, indicating an intermediate endemicity and a significantly higher anti-HAV prevalence was seen in the low socioeconomic group between 1-30 years. With respect to anti-HBc seroprevalence an increase was seen in adolescents and there was a significantly higher anti-HBc prevalence in the lower socioeconomic group between 1-20 years. A 3.1% anti-HBc prevalence was seen in one-year-old infants, suggesting a vertical transmission. The major findings of this study indicate that the pre-adolescent and adolescent population in some Brazilian cities are at greatest risk from both hepatitis A and B infection, but for different reasons.