Humoral and Cellular Responses to a Single Dose of Fendrix in Renal Transplant Recipients with Non-response to Previous Hepatitis B Vaccination

Immunological factors linked to geographical variation in vaccine responses

Vaccination is one of medicine's greatest achievements; however, its full potential is hampered by considerable variation in efficacy across populations and geographical regions. For example, attenuated malaria vaccines in high-income countries confer almost 100% protection, whereas in low-income regions these same vaccines achieve only 20-50% protection. This trend is also observed for other vaccines, such as bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), rotavirus and yellow fever vaccines, in terms of either immunogenicity or efficacy. Multiple environmental factors affect vaccine responses, including pathogen exposure, microbiota composition and dietary nutrients. However, there has been variable success with interventions that target these individual factors, highlighting the need for a better understanding of their downstream immunological mechanisms to develop new ways of modulating vaccine responses. Here, we review the immunological factors that underlie geographical variation in vaccine responses. Through the identification of causal pathways that link environmental influences to vaccine responsiveness, it might become possible to devise modulatory compounds that can complement vaccines for better outcomes in regions where they are needed most.

Diagnosis, treatment protocols, and outcomes of liver transplant recipients infected with COVID-19

Several cases of fatal pneumonia during November 2019 were linked initially to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, which the World Health Organization later designated as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The World Health Organization declared COVID-19 as a pandemic on March 11, 2020. In the general population, COVID-19 severity can range from asymptomatic/mild symptoms to seriously ill. Its mortality rate could be as high as 49%. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have acknowledged that people with specific underlying medical conditions, among those who need immunosuppression after solid organ transplantation (SOT), are at an increased risk of developing severe illness from COVID-19. Liver transplantation is the second most prevalent SOT globally. Due to their immunosuppressed state, liver transplant (LT) recipients are more susceptible to serious infections. Therefore, comorbidities and prolonged immunosuppression among SOT recipients enhance the likelihood of severe COVID-19. It is crucial to comprehend the clinical picture, immunosuppressive management, prognosis, and prophylaxis of COVID-19 infection because it may pose a danger to transplant recipients. This review described the clinical and laboratory findings of COVID-19 in LT recipients and the risk factors for severe disease in this population group. In the following sections, we discussed current COVID-19 therapy choices, reviewed standard practice in modifying immunosuppressant regimens, and outlined the safety and efficacy of currently licensed drugs for inpatient and outpatient management. Additionally, we explored the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in LT recipients and mentioned the efficacy and safety of vaccination use.

Differences in Humoral and Cellular Vaccine Responses to SARS-CoV-2 in Kidney and Liver Transplant Recipients

The antibody and T cell responses after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination have not been formally compared between kidney and liver transplant recipients. Using a multiplex assay, we measured IgG levels against 4 epitopes of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and nucleocapsid (NC) antigen, SARS-CoV-2 variants, and common coronaviruses in serial blood samples from 52 kidney and 50 liver transplant recipients undergoing mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. We quantified IFN-γ/IL-2 T cells reactive against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein by FluoroSpot. We used multivariable generalized linear models to adjust for the differences in immunosuppression between groups. In liver transplant recipients, IgG levels against every SARS-CoV-2 spike epitope increased significantly more than in kidney transplant recipients (MFI: 19,617 vs 6,056; P<0.001), a difference that remained significant after adjustments. Vaccine did not affect IgG levels against NC nor common coronaviruses. Elicited antibodies recognized all variants tested but at significantly lower strength than the original Wuhan strain. Anti-spike IFN-γ-producing T cells increased significantly more in liver than in kidney transplant recipients (IFN-γ-producing T cells 28 vs 11 spots/5x10⁵ cells), but this difference lost statistical significance after adjustments. SARS-CoV-2 vaccine elicits a stronger antibody response in liver than in kidney transplant recipients, a phenomenon that is not entirely explained by the different immunosuppression.

The influence of selected factors on the immunogenicity of preventive vaccinations against hepatitis A, B and influenza in solid organ transplant recipients undergoing immunosuppressive therapy - a review

INTRODUCTION

Immunization is the most effective form of the primary prevention of infectious diseases. Knowledge on the efficacy and immunogenicity of vaccinations in the group of organ transplant patients taking chronic immunosuppressive treatment remains incomplete.

AREAS COVERED

The aim of this paper was to analyze factors influencing the post-vaccination response in patients undergoing chronic immunosuppressive therapy based on a literature review. Only publications that evaluated the immunogenicity of influenza, HAV and HBV vaccinations in patients on immunosuppressive therapy were reviewed.

EXPERT OPINION

The following methods are used to potentially increase the immunogenicity of vaccinations against HAV and HBV amongst post-transplantation patients: increasing the number of doses, increasing dose volumes, the method of administering as well as the addition of adjuvant. Immunogenicity is also impacted by the immunosuppression mechanism. Overall, vaccination has been concluded to be safe for post-transplantation patients and adverse events following immunization (AEFI) have typically been rated as mild or moderate. The instances of transplant rejections as observable in the long term have not been related to administered vaccinations. The data shows certain correlations of some factors with increased immunogenicity, however it is necessary to repeat the studies on a more representative group of patients.

A Combined Adjuvant TF-Al Consisting of TFPR1 and Aluminum Hydroxide Augments Strong Humoral and Cellular Immune Responses in Both C57BL/6 and BALB/c Mice

TFPR1 is a novel adjuvant for protein and peptide antigens, which has been demonstrated in BALB/c mice in our previous studies; however, its adjuvanticity in mice with different genetic backgrounds remains unknown, and its adjuvanticity needs to be improved to fit the requirements for various vaccines. In this study, we first compared the adjuvanticity of TFPR1 in two commonly used inbred mouse strains, BALB/c and C57BL/6 mice, in vitro and in vivo, and demonstrated that TFPR1 activated TLR2 to exert its immune activity in vivo. Next, to prove the feasibility of TFPR1 acting as a major component of combined adjuvants, we prepared a combined adjuvant, TF-Al, by formulating TFPR1 and alum at a certain ratio and compared its adjuvanticity with that of TFPR1 and alum alone using OVA and recombinant HBsAg as model antigens in both BALB/c and C57BL/6 mice. Results showed that TFPR1 acts as an effective vaccine adjuvant in both BALB/c mice and C57BL/6 mice, and further demonstrated the role of TLR2 in the adjuvanticity of TFPR1 in vivo. In addition, we obtained a novel combined adjuvant, TF-Al, based on TFPR1, which can augment antibody and cellular immune responses in mice with different genetic backgrounds, suggesting its promise for vaccine development in the future.

Immunizations in Chronic Kidney Disease and Kidney Transplantation

Purpose of Review

Infection is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in both patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and in recipients of a kidney transplant (KT). We review the current data in patients with CKD, on dialysis, and in KT recipients to provide further guidance for clinicians regarding vaccine optimization in this patient population.

Recent Findings

This patient population remains under-vaccinated and thus more vulnerable to vaccine-preventable illness. Despite diminished responses to immunization in this population, significant protection is generally achieved.

Summary

Vaccines are an important preventative tool and offer protection against infection. In the setting of suboptimal and waning immunity in this patient population, future studies are indicated to determine optimal vaccination regimens.

Low efficacy of vaccination against serogroup B meningococci in patients with atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome

Background: The C5 complement inhibitor eculizumab is first-line treatment in atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS) going along with a highly increased risk of meningococcal infections. Serogroup B meningococci (MenB) are the most frequently encountered cause for meningococcal infections in Europe. Efficacy of the protein-based MenB-vaccine Bexsero in aHUS has not been determined and testing is only possible in patients off-treatment with eculizumab as a human complement source is required.

Methods: Patients with aHUS were vaccinated with two doses of the protein-based MenB-vaccine Bexsero. Serum bactericidal antibody (SBA) titers against factor H binding protein (fHbp) of MenB were determined in 14 patients with aHUS off-treatment with eculizumab.

Results: Only 50% of patients showed protective human serum bactericidal antibody (hSBA) titers (≥1:4) against MenB following two vaccinations. Bactericidal antibody titers were relatively low (≤1:8) in three of seven patients with protective titers. While 71% of patients were on immunosuppressive treatment for either thrombotic microangiopathy or renal transplantation at either first or second vaccination, all four patients not receiving any immunosuppressive treatment showed protective bactericidal antibody response. Time between second vaccination and titer measurement was not significantly different between patients with protective titers compared with those with non-protective titers, while time between first and second vaccination was significantly longer in patients with protective titers going along with a tendency for reduction in immunosuppressive treatment.

Conclusions: Efficacy of vaccination against MenB is insufficient in patients with aHUS. Response to vaccination seems to be hampered by immunosuppression. Therefore, implementation of adequate antibiotic prophylaxis seems pivotal.

Fendrix® Vaccine Effectiveness in Healthcare Workers Who Are Non-Responsive to Engerix B® Vaccination

Hepatitis B (HBV) is a pathogen virus with transmission mechanisms that include contact with the infected blood or bodily fluids of the infected organism. Nowadays, healthcare workers are one of the most exposed groups to HBV. Conventionally, completing a vaccine series dosage with Engerix B^® lowers this risk by providing workers with immunity to the virus. However, through the years, we have encountered nonresponsive health personnel to the Engerix B^® vaccine; hence, the Occupational Health Service of Poniente Hospital studied the Fendrix^® adjuvanted vaccine as an alternative vaccine to develop immunological responses in healthcare workers who do not respond to vaccination with Engerix B^®. In our study, we employed a vaccination schedule with the Fendrix^® vaccine, performing serology tests on the cases after the application of each dose. The results obtained showed humoral immunity in 92.3% of the cases, with a remarkable increase in antibody titer after the first doses. These encouraging results support the future inclusion of this vaccine as one possible alternative for the immunization to HBV for healthcare workers nonresponsive to Engerix B^®.

Immune Responses to SARS-CoV-2 in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by a complex interplay between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) dynamics and host immune responses. Hosts with altered immunity, including solid organ transplant recipients, may be at increased risk of complications and death due to COVID-19. A synthesis of the available data on immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection is needed to inform therapeutic and preventative strategies in this special population.

RECENT FINDINGS

Few studies have directly compared immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 between transplant recipients and the general population. Like non-transplant patients, transplant recipients mount an exuberant inflammatory response following initial SARS-CoV2 infection, with IL-6 levels correlating with disease severity in some, but not all studies. Transplant recipients display anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and activated B cells in a time frame and magnitude similar to non-transplant patients-limited data suggest these antibodies can be detected within 15 days of symptom onset and may be durable for several months. CD4+ and CD8+ T lymphopenia, a hallmark of COVID-19, is more profound in transplant recipients, but SARS-CoV-2-reactive T cells can be detected among patients with both mild and severe disease.

SUMMARY

The limited available data indicate that immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 are similar between transplant recipients and the general population, but no studies have been sufficiently comprehensive to understand nuances between organ types or level of immunosuppression to meaningfully inform individualized therapeutic decisions. The ongoing pandemic provides an opportunity to generate higher-quality data to support rational treatment and vaccination strategies in this population.

Vaccination adjuvated against hepatitis B in Spanish National Healthcare System (SNS) workers typed as non-responders to conventional vaccines

TRIAL DESIGN

An interventional, phase 4, single group assignment, without masking (open label), preventive clinical trial was carried out in health workers with biological risk in their tasks, who have been filed as non-responders to conventional vaccination against Hepatitis B.

METHODS

67 health workers with biological risk in their tasks, who have been filed as non-responders to conventional vaccination against Hepatitis B, were enrolled in the Clinical Trial. All participants were from 18 years up to 64 years old.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

NHS workers -including university students doing their internships in health centres dependent on the National Health System (inclusion of students is regulated and limited by specific instructions on labour prevention in each autonomous community)- classified as non-responders. The criteria defining them as non-responders to the conventional hepatitis B vaccine is anti HBsAb titers < 10 mUI/ml following the application of six doses of conventional vaccine at 20 μg doses (two complete guidelines). The objective of this study was to provide Health workers-staff with an additional protection tool against hepatitis B infection, and to evaluate the efficacy of the adjuvanted vaccine in healthy non-responders to conventional hepatitis B vaccine. The primary outcome was the measurement of antibody antiHBs before the first Fendrix® dose and a month after the administration of each dose. Other outcome was collection of adverse effects during administration and all those that could be related to the vaccine and that occur within 30 days after each dose. In this study, only one group was assigned. There was no randomization or masking.

RESULTS

The participants were recruited between April 13, 2018 and October 31, 2019. 67 participants were enrolled in the Clinical Trial and included the analyses. The primary immunisation consists of 4 separate 0.5 ml doses of Fendrix®, administered at the following schedule: 1 month, 2 months and 6 months from the date of the first dose. Once the positivity was reached in any of the doses, the participant finished the study and was not given the following doses. 68.66% (46 out 67) had a positive response to first dose of Fendrix®. 57.14% (12 out 21) had a positive response to second dose of Fendrix®. 22.22% (2 out 9) had a positive response to third dose of Fendrix and 42.96% (3 out 7) had a positive response to last dose of Fendrix®. Overall, 94.02% (64 out 67) of participants had a positive response to Fendrix®. No serious adverse event occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of Fendrix®, is a viable vaccine alternative for NHS workers classified as "non-responders". Revaccination of healthy non-responders with Fendrix®, resulted in very high proportions of responders without adverse events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered in the Spanish National Trial Register (REEC), ClinicalTrials.gov and inclusion has been stopped (identifier NCT03410953; EudraCT-number 2016-004991-23).

FUNDING

GRS 1360/A/16: Call for aid for the financing of research projects in biomedicine, health management and socio-health care to be developed in the centres of the Regional Health Management of Autonomous Community of Castile-Leon. In addition, this work has been supported by the Spanish Platform for Clinical Research and Clinical Trials, SCReN (Spanish Clinical Research Network), funded by the Subdirectorate General for Research Evaluation and Promotion of the Carlos III Health Institute (ISCIII), through the project PT13/0002/0039 and project PT17/0017/0023 integrated in the State Plan for R&D&I 2013-2016 and co-financed by and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).

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.

Improving Hepatitis B Virus Vaccination Responses in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Does Greater Dose and Greater Frequency Lead to Greater Protection?

Prevention of hepatitis B (HBV) infection is particularly important for patients with inflammatory bowel disease because of risks of HBV reactivation on immunosuppressive therapies. However, immune responses to standard HBV vaccination regimens are suboptimal. Chaparro et al. compared immune responses to 2 vaccines, an adjuvanted HBV vaccine (Fendrix) and double-dosed standard vaccine (Engerix-B) using an accelerated, 4-dose regimen (0, 1, 2, and 6 months). Although the study did not demonstrate superiority of one vaccine over another, several lessons can be derived regarding immune response to vaccinations among patients with inflammatory bowel disease, including the need to consider nonstandard regimens for patients on immunosuppression. These lessons can be translated broadly, including to a potential future severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccine when one becomes available.

Failure of first meningococcal vaccination in patients with atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome treated with eculizumab

BACKGROUND

The C5 complement inhibitor eculizumab is a first-line treatment in atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome (aHUS). Therapy with eculizumab is associated with a highly increased risk for meningococcal infection. Therefore, vaccination is highly recommended before beginning treatment. Efficacy of quadrivalent meningococcal vaccines (MenACWY) in patients treated with the C5 complement inhibitor eculizumab in aHUS has not yet been determined.

METHODS

Patients with aHUS received one dose of a MenACWY conjugate vaccine before eculizumab treatment commenced. Bactericidal titres against meningococcal serogroups A, C, W and Y were determined using baby rabbit complement in 25 patients.

RESULTS

Full immune response to meningococcal vaccination was detected in five patients (20%), while seven patients (28%) showed no immune response in any of the tested serogroups. The remaining 13 patients showed incomplete immune response with proof of protective antibody titres for one to three serogroups without perceptible preference for any serogroup. Bactericidal titres after re-vaccination were available for 17 patients. Nine patients with incomplete immune response after first vaccinations showed protective antibody titres for all serogroups after re-vaccination. Kidney function had improved in >50% of patients at the time of re-vaccination compared with the time of first vaccination and immunosuppressive therapy was only applied to re-vaccinated patients following kidney transplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Immunogenicity of first quadrivalent meninongococcal vaccination is insufficient in patients with aHUS. Booster response is promising, but incomplete. Therefore, establishing antibiotic prophylaxes seems pivotal.

HBV vaccination with Fendrix is effective and safe in pre-dialysis CKD population

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic kidney disease have a poor response to hepatitis B vaccine due to the immunodeficiency conferred from chronic uremia. A recombinant HB vaccine containing an improved adjuvant system AS04 (HBV-AS04) has been manufactured but scarce evidence exists on HBV-AS04 use among patients with CKD.

AIM

To assess efficacy and safety of an adjuvanted recombinant vaccine (HBV-AS04) in a large cohort of CKD patients at pre-dialysis stage (with susceptibility to HBV infection).

METHODS

Patients were prospectively enrolled to receive four 20-mcg doses of HBV-AS04 by intramuscular route (deltoid muscle) at months 1, 2, 3, and 4. Anti-HBs surface antibody concentrations were tested at intervals of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 12months. Multivariate analyses were performed to assess the parameters, which predicted immunologic response to HBV-AS04 vaccine.

RESULTS

One hundred and seven patients were included and 102 completed the study. At completion of vaccine schedule, the frequency of responders (anti-HBs titers≥10mIU/mL) was 95% (97/102) (mean anti-HBs antibody titers, 688.9±385mIU/mL), according to per-protocol analysis. Serum haemoglobin levels were greater in responder than non- or low-responder patients to HBV-AS04 (P=0.04) and this was confirmed by multivariate analysis. The seroprotection rate at month 50 was 88% (30/34) with lower anti-HBs antibody titers (218.5±269.6mIU/mL, P=0.001). No major side effects were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Our prospective study performed in a real-world setting showed a high immunogenicity and safety of HBV-AS04 vaccine in patients with CKD not yet on maintenance dialysis. Studies provided with longer follow-ups are under way to assess the durability of seroprotection in responders.

Sulfated archaeol glycolipids: Comparison with other immunological adjuvants in mice

Archaeosomes are liposomes traditionally comprised of total polar lipids (TPL) or semi-synthetic glycerolipids of ether-linked isoprenoid phytanyl cores with varied glyco- and amino-head groups. As adjuvants, they induce robust, long-lasting humoral and cell-mediated immune responses and enhance protection in murine models of infectious disease and cancer. Traditional total polar lipid (TPL) archaeosome formulations are relatively complex and first generation semi-synthetic archaeosomes involve many synthetic steps to arrive at the final desired glycolipid composition. We have developed a novel archaeosome formulation comprising a sulfated disaccharide group covalently linked to the free sn-1 hydroxyl backbone of an archaeal core lipid (sulfated S-lactosylarchaeol, SLA) that can be more readily synthesized yet retains strong immunostimulatory activity for induction of cell-mediated immunity following systemic immunization. Herein, we have evaluated the immunostimulatory effects of SLA archaeosomes when used as adjuvant with ovalbumin (OVA) and hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and compared this to various other adjuvants including TLR3/4/9 agonists, oil-in-water and water-in-oil emulsions and aluminum hydroxide. Overall, we found that semi-synthetic sulfated glycolipid archaeosomes induce strong Ag-specific IgG titers and CD8 T cells to both antigens. In addition, they induce the expression of a number of cytokines/chemokines including IL-6, G-CSF, KC & MIP-2. SLA archaeosome formulations demonstrated strong adjuvant activity, superior to many of the other tested adjuvants.

Engineering DNA vaccines against infectious diseases

Engineering vaccine-based therapeutics for infectious diseases is highly challenging, as trial formulations are often found to be nonspecific, ineffective, thermally or hydrolytically unstable, and/or toxic. Vaccines have greatly improved the therapeutic landscape for treating infectious diseases and have significantly reduced the threat by therapeutic and preventative approaches. Furthermore, the advent of recombinant technologies has greatly facilitated growth within the vaccine realm by mitigating risks such as virulence reversion despite making the production processes more cumbersome. In addition, seroconversion can also be enhanced by recombinant technology through kinetic and nonkinetic approaches, which are discussed herein. Recombinant technologies have greatly improved both amino acid-based vaccines and DNA-based vaccines. A plateau of interest has been reached between 2001 and 2010 for the scientific community with regard to DNA vaccine endeavors. The decrease in interest may likely be attributed to difficulties in improving immunogenic properties associated with DNA vaccines, although there has been research demonstrating improvement and optimization to this end. Despite improvement, to the extent of our knowledge, there are currently no regulatory body-approved DNA vaccines for human use (four vaccines approved for animal use). This article discusses engineering DNA vaccines against infectious diseases while discussing advantages and disadvantages of each, with an emphasis on applications of these DNA vaccines.

Statement of Significance

This review paper summarizes the state of the engineered/recombinant DNA vaccine field, with a scope entailing “Engineering DNA vaccines against infectious diseases”. We endeavor to emphasize recent advances, recapitulating the current state of the field. In addition to discussing DNA therapeutics that have already been clinically translated, this review also examines current research developments, and the challenges thwarting further progression. Our review covers: recombinant DNA-based subunit vaccines; internalization and processing; enhancing immune protection via adjuvants; manufacturing and engineering DNA; the safety, stability and delivery of DNA vaccines or plasmids; controlling gene expression using plasmid engineering and gene circuits; overcoming immunogenic issues; and commercial successes. We hope that this review will inspire further research in DNA vaccine development.

Recent advances in the discovery and development of TLR ligands as novel therapeutics for chronic HBV and HIV infections

INTRODUCTION

Toll-like receptor (TLR) ligands remain as promising antiviral drug candidates for the treatment of chronic viral infections. Basic research on the mechanisms of antiviral activity of TLR ligands in preclinical animal models and clinical testing of drug candidates have been carried out in recent years. Areas covered: This review provides an overview of the preclinical and clinical testing of TLR ligands in two major viral infections: hepatitis B virus (HBV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Recent results have further demonstrated the potent antiviral activity of various TLR ligands . A TLR7 agonist is in clinical trials for the treatment of chronic HBV infection while a HBV vaccine using a TLR9 ligand as an adjuvant has proven to be superior to conventional HBV vaccines and has been approved for clinical use. Generally, TLR activation may achieve viral control mainly by promoting adaptive immunity to viral proteins. Expert opinion: Recent research in this field indicates that TLR ligands could be developed as clinically effective drugs if the obstacles concerning toxicity and application routes are overcome. TLR-mediated promotion of adaptive immunity is a major issue for future studies and will determine the future development of TLR ligands as drugs for immunomodulation.

EASL 2017 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the management of hepatitis B virus infection

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection remains a global public health problem with changing epidemiology due to several factors including vaccination policies and migration. This Clinical Practice Guideline presents updated recommendations for the optimal management of HBV infection. Chronic HBV infection can be classified into five phases: (I) HBeAg-positive chronic infection, (II) HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis, (III) HBeAg-negative chronic infection, (IV) HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis and (V) HBsAg-negative phase. All patients with chronic HBV infection are at increased risk of progression to cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), depending on host and viral factors. The main goal of therapy is to improve survival and quality of life by preventing disease progression, and consequently HCC development. The induction of long-term suppression of HBV replication represents the main endpoint of current treatment strategies, while HBsAg loss is an optimal endpoint. The typical indication for treatment requires HBV DNA >2,000IU/ml, elevated ALT and/or at least moderate histological lesions, while all cirrhotic patients with detectable HBV DNA should be treated. Additional indications include the prevention of mother to child transmission in pregnant women with high viremia and prevention of HBV reactivation in patients requiring immunosuppression or chemotherapy. The long-term administration of a potent nucleos(t)ide analogue with high barrier to resistance, i.e., entecavir, tenofovir disoproxil or tenofovir alafenamide, represents the treatment of choice. Pegylated interferon-alfa treatment can also be considered in mild to moderate chronic hepatitis B patients. Combination therapies are not generally recommended. All patients should be monitored for risk of disease progression and HCC. Treated patients should be monitored for therapy response and adherence. HCC remains the major concern for treated chronic hepatitis B patients. Several subgroups of patients with HBV infection require specific focus. Future treatment strategies to achieve 'cure' of disease and new biomarkers are discussed.