Fendrix® compared to Engerix® in HIV-infected patients nonresponding to initial- and re-vaccination schedule.

4区 医学 Q3 Medicine Netherlands Journal of Medicine Pub Date : 2020-12-01
T E M S de Vries-Sluijs, E R Andrinopoulou, R A de Man, M E van der Ende
{"title":"Fendrix® compared to Engerix® in HIV-infected patients nonresponding to initial- and re-vaccination schedule.","authors":"T E M S de Vries-Sluijs,&nbsp;E R Andrinopoulou,&nbsp;R A de Man,&nbsp;M E van der Ende","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In HIV-infected patients, the immunogenicity of hepatitis B vaccines is impaired. In this randomised controlled study (RCT), we investigated the effect of Fendrix® versus double-dose Engerix® vaccination in previously non-responsive HIV-infected subjects.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients included those who were HIV-infected and non-responders to a primary (single-dose hepatitis B (HBV) vaccination) and a subsequent double-dose HBV revaccination schedule. Subjects were randomised 1:1 to receive Fendrix® (t = 0, 4, 8, 24 weeks) or double-dose Engerix® (t = 0, 4, 24 weeks) vaccinations. Primary efficacy, defined as anti-HBs response ≥ 10 IU/l, was evaluated at week 28 in both study arms.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A subset of 48 patients non-responsive to HBV vaccination was selected, from a cohort of patients at our institution, who underwent HBV vaccination unsuccessfully either in a previous RCT or through standard care. The anti-HBs ≥ 10 IU/l response rate at week 28 in the Fendrix® arm and the Engerix® arm were 85.7% and 65.0%, respectively (p = 0.09). There was no significant difference between the two used vaccine types in the anti-HBs levels reached. In our institution, the overall response rate after initial standard-dose vaccination schedule and double-dose revaccination in our cohort was 75%. In this study, combining the effects of Fendrix and Engerix resulted in a 75% response rate in the 25% remaining non-responders on initial and double-dose revaccination series. This yielded an absolute 19% increase and an overall response to HBV vaccination in HIV-infected patients of around 94% in our cohort.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These results together, suggest that continuing HBV vaccination in non-responders to a first course of single-dose vaccine and a double-dose revaccination scheme is worth the effort. No superiority of one of the investigated hepatitis B vaccines was shown in this cohort but an appropriate number of patients needed to achieve reliable answers was not achieved.</p>","PeriodicalId":18918,"journal":{"name":"Netherlands Journal of Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Netherlands Journal of Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In HIV-infected patients, the immunogenicity of hepatitis B vaccines is impaired. In this randomised controlled study (RCT), we investigated the effect of Fendrix® versus double-dose Engerix® vaccination in previously non-responsive HIV-infected subjects.

Methods: Patients included those who were HIV-infected and non-responders to a primary (single-dose hepatitis B (HBV) vaccination) and a subsequent double-dose HBV revaccination schedule. Subjects were randomised 1:1 to receive Fendrix® (t = 0, 4, 8, 24 weeks) or double-dose Engerix® (t = 0, 4, 24 weeks) vaccinations. Primary efficacy, defined as anti-HBs response ≥ 10 IU/l, was evaluated at week 28 in both study arms.

Results: A subset of 48 patients non-responsive to HBV vaccination was selected, from a cohort of patients at our institution, who underwent HBV vaccination unsuccessfully either in a previous RCT or through standard care. The anti-HBs ≥ 10 IU/l response rate at week 28 in the Fendrix® arm and the Engerix® arm were 85.7% and 65.0%, respectively (p = 0.09). There was no significant difference between the two used vaccine types in the anti-HBs levels reached. In our institution, the overall response rate after initial standard-dose vaccination schedule and double-dose revaccination in our cohort was 75%. In this study, combining the effects of Fendrix and Engerix resulted in a 75% response rate in the 25% remaining non-responders on initial and double-dose revaccination series. This yielded an absolute 19% increase and an overall response to HBV vaccination in HIV-infected patients of around 94% in our cohort.

Conclusion: These results together, suggest that continuing HBV vaccination in non-responders to a first course of single-dose vaccine and a double-dose revaccination scheme is worth the effort. No superiority of one of the investigated hepatitis B vaccines was shown in this cohort but an appropriate number of patients needed to achieve reliable answers was not achieved.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Fendrix®与Engerix®在初次和再接种计划无反应的hiv感染患者中的比较
背景:在hiv感染患者中,乙型肝炎疫苗的免疫原性受损。在这项随机对照研究(RCT)中,我们研究了Fendrix®与双剂量Engerix®疫苗在先前无应答性hiv感染受试者中的效果。方法:患者包括hiv感染者和对初次(单剂量乙型肝炎(HBV)疫苗接种)和随后的双剂量HBV再接种计划无反应的患者。受试者按1:1随机分组接受Fendrix®(t = 0、4、8、24周)或双剂量Engerix®(t = 0、4、24周)疫苗接种。主要疗效,定义为抗hbs反应≥10 IU/l,在两个研究组的第28周进行评估。结果:从我们机构的一组患者中选择了48例对HBV疫苗接种无反应的患者,这些患者在之前的随机对照试验中或通过标准治疗接受HBV疫苗接种失败。Fendrix®组和Engerix®组第28周抗- hbs≥10 IU/l的应答率分别为85.7%和65.0% (p = 0.09)。两种使用的疫苗在达到的抗hbs水平上没有显著差异。在我们的机构中,在我们的队列中,初始标准剂量疫苗接种计划和双剂量再接种后的总体应答率为75%。在这项研究中,结合Fendrix和Engerix的作用,在剩余的25%的无应答者中,首次和双剂量再接种系列疫苗的应答率为75%。这产生了19%的绝对增长,在我们的队列中,hiv感染患者对HBV疫苗接种的总体应答率约为94%。结论:这些结果表明,对第一疗程单剂量疫苗和双剂量再接种方案无反应的患者继续接种HBV疫苗是值得的。在该队列中,所研究的乙型肝炎疫苗中没有显示出任何一种疫苗的优越性,但没有达到获得可靠答案所需的适当数量的患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Netherlands Journal of Medicine
Netherlands Journal of Medicine 医学-医学:内科
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Netherlands Journal of Medicine publishes papers in all relevant fields of internal medicine. In addition to reports of original clinical and experimental studies, reviews on topics of interest or importance, case reports, book reviews and letters to the editor are welcomed.
期刊最新文献
Hypotonic polyuria: at the cross-roads of copeptin. Severe acute respiratory infections surveillance for early signals in the community. Implementation of 'Choosing Wisely Netherlands' for internal medicine. Doppler follow-up after TIPS placement is not routinely indicated. A 16-years single centre experience. A healthcare failure mode and effect analysis to optimise the process of blood culture performance.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1