Rapid and sustained immune response against hepatitis A and B achieved with combined vaccine using an accelerated administration schedule

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This review is withdrawn because it is outdated.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.

2017 European guideline for the screening, prevention and initial management of hepatitis B and C infections in sexual health settings

This guideline updates the 2010 European guideline for the management of hepatitis B and C virus infections. It is primarily intended to provide advice on testing, prevention and initial management of viral hepatitis B and C for clinicians working in sexual health clinical settings in European countries. The guideline is in a new question and answer format based on clinical situations, from which population/intervention/comparison/outcome questions were formulated. Updates cover areas such as epidemiology, point-of-care tests for hepatitis B, hepatitis C risk and 'chemsex', and HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis and hepatitis B. We have also included a short paragraph on hepatitis E noting there is no evidence for sexual transmission. The guideline has been prepared in accordance with the Europe protocol for production available at http://www.iusti.org/regions/europe/pdf/2017/ProtocolForProduction2017.pdf.

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.

Immunogenicity and safety of concomitant administration of a combined hepatitis A/B vaccine and a quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine in healthy adults

BACKGROUND

This phase 3b randomized, open-label study evaluated the immunogenicity and safety of coadministration of a hepatitis A and/or B vaccine with a quadrivalent oligosaccharide meningococcal CRM197 -conjugate vaccine (MenACWY-CRM), in the context of an accelerated hepatitis A and/or B immunization schedule.

METHODS

A total of 252 healthy adult subjects were randomized to three groups to receive hepatitis A/B only (HepA/B), hepatitis A/B coadministered with MenACWY-CRM (HepA/B+MenACWY-CRM), or MenACWY-CRM only (MenACWY-CRM). Hepatitis A and/or B vaccination was administered in the form of a single booster dose or a primary three-dose series, depending on the hepatitis A and/or B vaccination history of subjects. Antibody responses to hepatitis A/B vaccination were assessed 1 month following the last hepatitis A and/or B dose. Serum bactericidal activity with human complement (hSBA) against meningococcal serogroups A, C, W-135, and Y was assessed 1 month post-MenACWY-CRM vaccination. Safety was monitored throughout the study.

RESULTS

At 1 month following the final hepatitis A and/or B vaccination, concomitant administration of hepatitis A/B and MenACWY-CRM was non-inferior to administration of hepatitis A/B alone in terms of geometric mean concentrations of antibodies against the hepatitis A and B antigens. One month post-MenACWY-CRM vaccination, the percentages of subjects achieving hSBA titers ≥8 for serogroups A, C, W-135, and Y in the HepA/B+MenACWY-CRM group (76, 87, 99, and 94%, respectively) were comparable to those in the MenACWY-CRM group (67, 82, 96, and 88%, respectively). The percentages of subjects reporting adverse events (AEs) were similar across study groups and a majority of the reported AEs were mild to moderate in nature. There were no study vaccine-related serious AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

MenACWY-CRM can be administered concomitantly with a hepatitis A and/or B vaccine in the context of an accelerated hepatitis A and/or B immunization schedule without increasing safety concerns or compromising the immune responses to any of the vaccine antigens. [NCT01453348].

Immunisations in Crohn's disease: who? why? what? when?

Immunosuppression induced by drugs increase the risk of infections in Crohn's disease (CD) patients. The vaccination rate in CD patients is usually low due to inaccurate information concerning the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Vaccines and immunoglobulins, are artificial ways of protection from common infectious diseases and they have had a major effect on mortality. Herein we detail the need of protection induced by vaccines of measles, varicella, Zoster, papillomavirus, shingles, pneumococcal invasive disease, influenza, hepatitis A and B in CD at diagnosis and during the course of the disease even during immunosuppression periods but with different singularities. Vaccination in CD travellers and the matters related to immunization of household healthy members of immunosuppressed patients are also discussed.

Effects of varying antigens and adjuvant systems on the immunogenicity and safety of investigational tetravalent human oncogenic papillomavirus vaccines: results from two randomized trials

BACKGROUND

A prophylactic human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine targeting oncogenic HPV types in addition to HPV-16 and -18 may broaden protection against cervical cancer. Two Phase I/II, randomized, controlled studies were conducted to compare the immunogenicity and safety of investigational tetravalent HPV L1 virus-like particle (VLP) vaccines, containing VLPs from two additional oncogenic genotypes, with the licensed HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine (control) in healthy 18-25 year-old women.

METHODS

In one trial (NCT00231413), subjects received control or one of 6 tetravalent HPV-16/18/31/45 AS04 vaccine formulations at months (M) 0,1,6. In a second trial (NCT00478621), subjects received control or one of 5 tetravalent HPV-16/18/33/58 vaccines formulated with different adjuvant systems (AS04, AS01 or AS02), administered on different schedules (M0,1,6 or M0,3 or M0,6).

RESULTS

One month after the third injection (Month 7), there was a consistent trend for lower anti-HPV-16 and -18 geometric mean antibody titers (GMTs) for tetravalent AS04-adjuvanted vaccines compared with control. GMTs were statistically significantly lower for an HPV-16/18/31/45 AS04 vaccine containing 20/20/10/10 μg VLPs for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18 antibodies, and for an HPV-16/18/33/58 AS04 vaccine containing 20/20/20/20 μg VLPs for anti-HPV-16 antibodies. There was also a trend for lower HPV-16 and -18-specific memory B-cell responses for tetravalent AS04 vaccines versus control. No such trends were observed for CD4(+) T-cell responses. Immune interference could not always be overcome by increasing the dose of HPV-16/18 L1 VLPs or by using a different adjuvant system. All formulations had acceptable reactogenicity and safety profiles. Reactogenicity in the 7-day post-vaccination period tended to increase with the introduction of additional VLPs, especially for formulations containing AS01.

CONCLUSIONS

HPV-16 and -18 antibody responses were lower when additional HPV L1 VLPs were added to the HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine. Immune interference is a complex phenomenon that cannot always be overcome by changing the antigen dose or adjuvant system.

Business travelers: vaccination considerations for this population

Illness in business travelers is associated with reduced productivity on the part of the employee as well as the employer. Immunizations offer a reliable method of preventing infectious diseases for international business travelers. The authors review the travel patterns of business travelers, available data on illnesses they encounter, their potential travel-associated risks for vaccine-preventable diseases and recommendations on immunizations for this population. Routine vaccines (e.g., measles, tetanus and influenza) should be reviewed to assure that they provide current coverage. The combined hepatitis A and hepatitis B vaccine with a rapid schedule offers options for those with time constraints. Other vaccine recommendations for business travelers need to focus on their destinations and activities and underlying health, taking into account the concept of cumulative risk for those with frequent travel, multiple trips or long stays.

Immunization in end-stage renal disease: opportunity to improve outcomes

Infection is the second most common cause of death in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), following cardiovascular causes. Immunization is a fairly simple, but underutilized, strategy for prevention of infectious morbidity and mortality in patients with kidney failure. It is imperative for nephrologists and primary care providers to have an understanding of immunization as an essential component of preventive healthcare measures in this high-risk population. Patients with ESRD represent a unique population due to their immunosuppressed state, dialysis-related exposures and suboptimal response to routine vaccines. While the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) provides guidelines for vaccination of patients with renal disease against Hepatitis B, influenza and pneumococcal disease, the data on immunization against other commonly preventable infectious diseases are lacking. This article reviews the recent evidence on immunization in the ESRD population and synthesizes the related implications for maximizing prevention of infectious diseases in this high-risk population.

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.

Vaccination of travelers: how far have we come and where are we going?

Vaccine recommendations are a prominent part of health preparations before international travel. We review progress made in the past decade regarding vaccines used primarily by persons traveling from high-income countries to low- and middle-income countries. The combined hepatitis A-B vaccine, the recently licensed Vero cell-derived Japanese encephalitis vaccine and conjugated quadrivalent meningococcal vaccines are discussed. This article provides updates on yellow fever vaccine-associated visceral and neurologic adverse events, indications for influenza vaccine in travelers, the rapid immunization schedule for tick-borne encephalitis vaccine, schedules for postexposure rabies prophylaxis, and new insights about oral cholera vaccines following the outbreak in Haiti. The future should bring vaccines for serogroup B Neiserria meningitidis, dengue and malaria, as well as an inactivated yellow fever vaccine.

Use of an accelerated immunization schedule for combined hepatitis A and B protection in the corporate traveler

Increased international business travel to moderate or high endemic areas of hepatitis A and B may leave many business travelers at risk for infection if not vaccinated. Many international business travelers depart for hepatitis A and B endemic areas within 2 months of the decision to travel. Many of these travelers do not seek pretravel medical advice and are unaware of the risks and modes of acquiring hepatitis A and B. Monovalent vaccines and a combined hepatitis A and B vaccine are available and can be administered on an accelerated schedule. Because many areas endemic for hepatitis A are also endemic for hepatitis B, accelerated administration of the combined vaccine can offer protection for many international business travelers destined for areas endemic for both diseases and should be part of corporate travel immunization programs.

The rhesus macaque pediatric SIV infection model - a valuable tool in understanding infant HIV-1 pathogenesis and for designing pediatric HIV-1 prevention strategies

Worldwide, the AIDS pandemic continues almost relentlessly. Women are now representing the fastest growing group of newly infected HIV-1 infected patients. The risk of mother-to-child-transmission (MTCT) of HIV-1 increases proportionally as many of these women are of childbearing age. The screening of pregnant women, the early diagnosis of HIV-1 infection, and the administration of antiretroviral therapy (ART) have helped to reduce MTCT significantly. However, this holds true only for developed countries. In many resource-poor countries, access to ART is limited, and breastfeeding, a major route of HIV-1 transmission, is essential to protect the infant from other infectious diseases preponderant in those geographic regions. HIV-1 infected children, in contrast to adult patients, have higher levels of virus replication that decline only slowly, and a subset progresses to AIDS within the first two years. Thus, it is imperative to understand pediatric HIV-1 pathogenesis to design effective prevention strategies and/or a successful pediatric HIV-1 vaccine. The review summarizes how MTCT of HIV-1 in humans can be modeled in the infant macaque model of SIV infection. Importantly, the infant macaque model of SIV infection provides the opportunity to study early virus-host interactions in multiple anatomic compartments. Furthermore, the review underlines the importance of evaluating SIV/HIV immune responses in the context of the normal developmental changes the immune system undergoes in the newborn. Thus, the pediatric SIV infection model provides a unique resource for preclinical studies of novel intervention therapies and vaccine strategies to stop MTCT of HIV-1.

Hepatitis C services and individuals with serious mental illness

Although individuals with serious mental illness have been shown to be at increased risk for hepatitis C viral (HCV) infection, there is growing concern regarding limited dissemination of recommended HCV related services to this population. This paper presents rates of receipt of HCV prevention services among a cohort of seriously mentally ill adults and reports rates of recommended follow-up care among the subset who tested HCV positive in a pilot study. Previous HCV screening was low and indicated medical follow-up among those who tested positive was also limited. Results stress the need for increased screening and counseling and delivery of preventive and follow-up medical services.

Bivalent inactivated hepatitis A and recombinant hepatitis B vaccine

Hepatitis A and B remain serious global public health problems. Monovalent vaccines against hepatitis A and B have been available for many years. Since 1996, licenses have been gradually introduced for different formulations and immunization schedules of the first combined vaccines against both diseases. Twinrix Adult (with conventional and accelerated schedules) is available for the immunization of individuals aged 16 years or older in Europe and 18 years or older the USA. Twinrix Pediatric, with its three-dose schedule, and AmBirix, with its two-dose schedule, are licensed in Europe for ages 1-15 years. These vaccines offer a single injection for satisfactory protection against hepatitis A and B and an excellent safety and reactogenicity profile in comparison with monovalent vaccines. This article focuses on immunogenicity of the vaccines and proposes expert opinion and future directions in this field.

The underestimated risk of hepatitis A and hepatitis B: benefits of an accelerated vaccination schedule

Hepatitis A virus (HAV) and hepatitis B virus (HBV) are vaccine-preventable. Current recommendations advocate vaccination of non-immune adults at risk of exposure, including travelers to HAV or HBV endemic areas, individuals with high risk of contracting a sexually transmitted infection, and some correctional facility inmates. We review the use of an accelerated schedule to administer the combination hepatitis A and hepatitis B vaccine (Twinrix). Administering three doses over three weeks and a fourth at 12 months provides rapid initial protection of most individuals for whom the standard 6-month vaccination schedule would not be suitable, including last-minute travelers and short-term correctional facility inmates. Furthermore, we consider the role of a universal vaccination strategy in preventing the spread of HAV and HBV.