Sci-B-VacTM Vs ENGERIX-B Vaccines for Hepatitis B Virus in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Randomised Controlled Trial

Hepatitis B Vaccine: Four Decades on

Hepatitis B virus is a substantial contributor to cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) globally. Vaccination is the most effective method for prevention of hepatitis B and its associated morbidity and mortality, and the only method to prevent infection with hepatitis D virus. The hepatitis B vaccine has been used worldwide for more than four decades; it is available in a single- or triple-antigen form and in combination with vaccines against other infections. Introduction of the vaccine and administration at birth led to sustained decline in mother-to-child transmission, chronic hepatitis B, and HCC, however, global birth dose coverage remains suboptimal. In this review we will discuss different hepatitis B vaccine formulations and schedules, vaccination guidelines, durability of the response, and vaccine escape mutants, as well as the clinical and economic benefits of vaccination.

Design and characterization of chimeric Rabies-SARS-CoV-2 virus-like particles for vaccine purposes

Due to the high number of doses required to achieve adequate coverage in the context of COVID-19 pandemics, there is a great need for novel vaccine developments. In this field, there have been research approaches that focused on the production of SARS-CoV-2 virus-like particles. These are promising vaccine candidates as their structure is similar to that of native virions but they lack the genome, constituting a biosafe alternative. In order to produce these structures using mammal cells, it has been established that all four structural proteins must be expressed. Here we report the generation and characterization of a novel chimeric virus-like particle (VLP) that can be produced by the expression of a single novel fusion protein that contains SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) ectodomain fused to rabies glycoprotein membrane anchoring region in HEK293 cells. This protein is structurally similar to native S and can autonomously bud forming enveloped VLPs that resemble native virions both in size and in morphology, displaying S ectodomain and receptor binding domain (RBD) on their surface. As a proof of concept, we analyzed the immunogenicity of this vaccine candidate in mice and confirmed the generation of anti-S, anti-RBD, and neutralizing antibodies. KEY POINTS: • A novel fusion rabies glycoprotein containing S ectodomain was designed. • Fusion protein formed cVLPs that were morphologically similar to SARS-CoV-2 virions. • cVLPs induced anti-S, anti-RBD, and neutralizing antibodies in mice.

Efficacy of Hepatitis B Vaccination with a Novel Immunostimulatory Sequence Adjuvant (Heplisav-B) in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND

Owing to the use of immunosuppressive agents, patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have an increased risk of vaccine preventable diseases, including infection with hepatitis B virus (HBV). Heplisav-B, an FDA-approved vaccine, is more effective (90% to 100%) than Engerix-B (70.5% to 90.2%) at inducing immunity to HBV in clinical studies. Available data on efficacy of Heplisav-B vaccine in patients with IBD are limited.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study included patients age 18 years and older with ulcerative colitis (UC) or Crohn's disease (CD) who received 1 or 2 doses of Heplisav-B vaccine and had postvaccination serologic testing. Prior to immunization, all participants were seronegative for HBsAb antibodies (HBsAb) measured as <10 IU/mL. Postvaccination HBsAb of ≥10 IU/mL was considered successful vaccination. Patient demographics, disease characteristics, and medications were abstracted.

RESULTS

One hundred six patients were included in the analysis. Median age was 43 years, and 44 (42%) were female. Thirty-nine patients (37%) had UC, whereas 67 (63%) had CD. Eighty-three patients (78.3%) had active immunity after vaccination with Heplisav-B, with median postvaccination HBsAb levels of 114 IU/L. Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, immunomodulator use, or those on 2 or more of immunosuppressive medications were less likely to respond to Heplisav-B, though these findings were not statistically significant on a multivariate analysis aside from chronic kidney disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Heplisav-B, a 2-dose vaccine, is an effective vaccine for HBV in patients with IBD. In our study, its overall efficacy (78.3%) is greater than that reported for the presently available 3-dose vaccination (Engerix) in patients with IBD.

PreHevbrio: the first approved 3-antigen hepatitis B vaccine

INTRODUCTION

Hepatitis B remains a major cause of death and morbidity worldwide. Universal childhood immunization programs have been very successful, but many adults remain unprotected or are not optimally protected. PreHevbrio [Hepatitis B Vaccine (recombinant)] is a highly immunogenic 3-antigen (S/pre-S1/pre-S2) hepatitis B vaccine (3A-HBV) that recently received marketing authorization in the United States (2021), the European Union, United Kingdom (2022 - brand name PreHevbri), and Canada (2022- brand name PreHevbrio) for the prevention of infection caused by all known subtypes of the hepatitis B virus and the delta virus in adults 18 years and older.

AREAS COVERED

This review details the development of 3A-HBV and summarizes the results of the phase 3 clinical trials that support its immunogenicity and safety in adults.

EXPERT OPINION

3A-HBV is highly immunogenic in adults of all ages, including older adults and subgroups that respond sub-optimally to conventional single S-antigen hepatitis B vaccines (1A-HBV), such as those with obesity, type 2 diabetes, and smokers. 3A-HBV provides higher seroprotection rates after each vaccination compared to conventional 1A-HBV vaccines, allowing for more rapid protection. The higher overall immunogenicity is also reflected in more durable seroprotection years after vaccination, as supported by a follow-up study to one of the phase 3 studies.

Safety of Immunizations for the Adult Patient With Inflammatory Bowel Disease-A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have low vaccination rates for vaccine-preventable diseases. Fear of adverse reactions (AEs) appear to negatively affect vaccination efforts. We aimed to systemically review the risks for AEs following immunization for patients with IBD.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Embase until April 15, 2020, for studies evaluating the safety of vaccinations among patients with IBD. The primary outcome was the incidence of systemic and local AEs among vaccinated patients. Secondary outcome was the rate of IBD flare following immunization. We utilized a random effects meta-analysis of proportions using the DerSimonian-Laird approach to estimate the safety of immunizations.

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies with 2116 patients was included in our analysis after fulfilling our inclusion criteria. Seven studies examined the influenza vaccine, 4 the pneumococcal vaccine, 1 the recombinant zoster vaccine, and 1 the hepatitis B vaccine. Follow-up of patients was up to 6 months. The majority of AEs were local, with a pooled incidence of 24% (95% CI, 9%-42%) for all vaccines. Systemic AEs were mostly mild, without resulting in hospitalizations or deaths, with a pooled incidence of 16% (95% CI, 6%-29%) for all vaccines. Flare of inflammatory bowel disease after vaccination found with a pooled incidence of 2% (95% CI, 1%-4%) and we include in the analysis data from all immunizations examined.

DISCUSSION

Our study demonstrated that AEs after vaccination are mainly local or mildly systemic and do not differ significantly from the expected AE after recommended immunizations for the general population. Thus, gastroenterologists should reinforce that vaccines are safe in patients with IBD.

Meta-analysis: hepatitis B vaccination in inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND

The response rate of hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccination in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is variable. Increasing dose or accelerated schedule is the suggested strategy to improve seroconversion.

AIM

We performed a meta-analysis to determine the pooled response rate of HBV vaccination and to identify the predictors of seroconversion.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library databases. Studies reporting the response of HBV vaccination in IBD patients were included. Response was recorded as adequate immune response (AIR, >10 IU/L) and Effective immune response (EIR, >100 IU/L). Pooled AIR and EIR rates were calculated for different doses (10-20 μg or 40 μg) and schedules (standard: 0, 1 and 6 months or accelerated: 0, 1 and 2 months). Meta-analysis was performed to identify the predictors of response.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies including 2602 patients were eligible. Pooled AIR and EIR rates after HBV vaccination were 62% (95% CI, 55-68) and 42% (95% CI, 37-48), respectively. Pooled AIR and EIR rates for standard and double dose were similar. Pooled AIR and EIR rates were also comparable for different schedules of HBV vaccination. Gender, IBD subtype and disease activity did not affect the response rate. Use of immunosuppression [immunomodulators (RR: 0.73, 95% CI, 0.62-0.87) and anti-TNFs (RR: 0.72, 95% CI, 0.60-0.87)] was a predictor of poor immune response compared to no immunosuppressive therapy.

CONCLUSION

Patients with IBD have a poor serological response after HBV vaccination. HBV screening and vaccination should preferably be done before starting the immunosuppressive drugs.

Management of hepatitis B virus infection in patients with inflammatory bowel disease under immunosuppressive treatment

Hepatitis B remains a significant global clinical problem, despite the implementation of safe and effective vaccination programs. The prevalence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) largely follows the regional epidemiologic status. Serological screening with hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), and antibodies to hepatitis B surface (anti-HBs) and core (anti-HBc) proteins is a key element in the management of IBD patients and, ideally, should be performed at IBD diagnosis. Stratification of individual cases should be done according to the serologic profile and the IBD-specific treatment, with particular emphasis in patients receiving immunosuppressive regimens. In patients who have not contracted HBV, vaccination is indicated to accomplish protective immunity. Vaccination in immunosuppressed patients, however, is a challenging issue and several strategies for primary and revaccination have been proposed. The risk of HBV reactivation in patients with IBD should be considered in both HBsAg-positive and HBsAg-negative/anti-HBc-positive patients, when immunosuppressive therapies are administered. HBV reactivation is preventable via the administration of prophylactic nucleot(s)ide analogues and should be the standard approach in HBsAg-positive patients. HBsAg-negative/anti-HBc-positive patients represent a non-homogeneous group and bear a significantly lower risk of HBV reactivation. Biochemical, serological and molecular monitoring is currently the recommended approach for anti-HBc patients. Acute HBV infection is rarely reported in IBD patients. In the present review, we outline the problems associated with HBV infection in patients with IBD and present updated evidence for their management.

Immunogenicity and safety of a tri-antigenic versus a mono-antigenic hepatitis B vaccine in adults (PROTECT): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

The seroprotection rate (SPR) of hepatitis B vaccination in adults is suboptimal. The aim of this study was to compare the SPR of a tri-antigenic hepatitis B vaccine (TAV), with a mono-antigenic vaccine (MAV) in adults of all ages.

METHODS

This was a multicentre, double-blind, phase 3, randomised controlled trial (PROTECT) comparing the immunogenicity and safety of TAV with MAV in 28 community and hospital sites in the USA, Finland, Canada, and Belgium. Adults (aged ≥18 years) seronegative for hepatitis B virus (HBV), including those with well-controlled common chronic conditions, were randomly assigned (1:1) and stratified by study centre and age according to a web-based permuted blocked randomisation. Participants received either TAV or MAV which were administered as an intramuscular dose (1 mL) of TAV (10 μg; Sci-B-Vac, VBI Vaccines [SciVac, Rehovot, Israel]) or MAV (20 μg; Engerix-B [GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, Rixensart, Belgium]) on days 0, 28, and 168 with six study visits and 24 weeks of follow-up after the third vaccination. Participants, investigators, and those assessing outcomes were masked to group assignment. The co-primary outcomes were to show non-inferiority of the SPRs 4 weeks after the third vaccination with TAV versus MAV in adults aged 18 years and older, as well as superiority in adults aged 45 years and older. SPR was defined as the percentage of participants attaining anti-HBs titres of 10 mIU/mL or higher. Non-inferiority of TAV to MAV was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the between-group difference was greater than -5%. Non-inferiority was assessed in the per-protocol set of participants (aged ≥18 years) and superiority was assessed in all participants (aged ≥45 years) who received at least one vaccination and had at least one evaluable immunogenicity sample after baseline (full analysis set). Safety analyses were a secondary outcome and included all participants who received at least one injection. This trial is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03393754) and EudraCT (2017-001819-36) and is closed to new participants.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 13, 2017, and April 8, 2019, 1607 participants (796 allocated to TAV and 811 allocated to MAV) were randomly assigned and distributed across age cohorts of 18-44 years (299 of 1607; 18·6%), 45-64 years (716 of 1607; 44·6%), and 65 years and older (592 of 1607; 36·8%). In participants aged 18 years and older, SPR was 91·4% (656 of 718) in the TAV group versus 76·5% (553 of 723) in the MAV group (difference 14·9%, 95% CI 11·2-18·6), showing non-inferiority in the per-protocol set. In participants aged 45 years and older, SPR was 89·4% (559 of 625) in the TAV group versus 73·1% (458 of 627) in the MAV group (difference 16·4%, 95% CI 12·2-20·7), showing superiority in the full analysis set. TAV was associated with higher rates of mild or moderate injection site pain (63·2% [503 of 796] in TAV vs 36·3% [294 of 811] in MAV), tenderness (60·8% [484 of 796] in TAV vs 34·8% [282 of 811] in MAV), and myalgia (34·7% [276 of 796] vs 24·3% [197 of 811] in MAV). Otherwise, the safety profile of TAV was similar to that of MAV.

INTERPRETATION

The safety and efficacy of TAV shows its usefulness for the prevention of HBV infection in adults, including those with stable and controlled chronic conditions.

FUNDING

VBI Vaccines.

Fendrix vs Engerix-B for Primo-Vaccination Against Hepatitis B Infection in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Randomized Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

To compare Engerix-B and Fendrix hepatitis B virus for primo vaccination in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

METHODS

Patients with IBD were randomized 1:1 to receive Engerix-B double dose or Fendrix single dose at months 0, 1, 2, and 6. Anti-HBs titers were measured 2 months after the third and fourth doses. Response to vaccination was defined as anti-HBs ≥100 UI/L. Anti-HBs titers were measured 2 months after the third and fourth doses and again at 6 and 12 months after the fourth dose.

RESULTS

A total of 173 patients were randomized (54% received Engerix-B and 46% Fendrix). Overall, 45% of patients responded (anti-HBs ≥100 IU/L) after 3 doses and 71% after the fourth dose. The response rate after the fourth dose was 75% with Fendrix vs 68% with Engerix-B (P = 0.3). Older age and treatment with steroids, immunomodulators, or anti-tumor necrosis factor were associated with a lower probability of response. However, the type of vaccine was not associated with the response. Anti-HBs titer negativization occurred in 13% of patients after 6 months and 20% after 12 months. Anti-HBs ≥100 IU/L after vaccination was the only factor associated with maintaining anti-HBs titers during follow-up.

DISCUSSION

We could not demonstrate a higher response rate of Fendrix (single dose) over Engerix-B (double dose). A 4-dose schedule is more effective than a 3-dose regimen. Older age and treatment with immunomodulators or anti-tumor necrosis factors impaired the success. A high proportion of IBD patients with protective anti-HBs titers after vaccination loose them over time. The risk of losing protective anti-HBs titers is increased in patients achieving anti-HBs <100 IU/L after the vaccination.

Immune response to hepatitis B vaccination among people with inflammatory bowel diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The response rate to hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccination in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is low and varies markedly. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the response rate to HBV vaccination and identified the factors predictive of an immune response.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases, and reviewed the titles and abstracts of studies on the efficacy of HBV vaccination in IBD patients performed through July 2016. Anti-HBs levels>10IU/L was considered to be an effective immune response. The primary outcome measure was the response rate to HBV vaccination after series completion, and the secondary outcome was identification of factors at baseline predictive of an immune response.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies including 1688 patients were eligible for inclusion. Based on a random-effects model, the pooled rate of a response to HBV vaccination among patients with IBD was 61% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 53-69). Young age (mean difference [MD]: -5.7; 95% CI: -8.46, -2.95) and vaccination during disease remission (relative risk [RR]: 1.62; 95% CI: 1.15-2.29) were associated with a positive response to HBV vaccination. In addition, no immunosuppressive therapy was predictive of an immune response compared to immunomodulatory (RR: 1.33; 95% CI: 1.08-1.63) or anti-tumor necrosis factor-α (anti-TNF-α) (RR: 1.57; 95% CI: 1.19-2.08) therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this meta-analysis, only three of five IBD patients will show a serological response to HBV vaccination. Vaccination should be performed at the time of IBD diagnosis, during disease remission, or before starting immunosuppressive therapy.

Infections in inflammatory bowel disease

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease constitute a population with a special predisposition to develop bacterial, viral and fungal infections. Iatrogenic immunosuppression, frequent contact with healthcare facilities and surgical interventions are some of the risk factors that explain why these infections are one of the main causes of morbi-mortality in this disease. Some of these infections follow a subtle and paucisymptomatic evolution; their diagnosis and management may become a real challenge for the attending physician if their screening is not systematized or they are not considered in the differential diagnosis. The objective of this review is to provide an update from a practical and concise perspective on the knowledge regarding the epidemiology, prevention, diagnosis and treatment of the most common infections.