T E M S de Vries-Sluijs, E R Andrinopoulou, R A de Man, M E van der Ende
{"title":"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","authors":"T E M S de Vries-Sluijs, E R Andrinopoulou, R A de Man, 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":"{\"title\":\"Fendrix® compared to Engerix® in HIV-infected patients nonresponding to initial- and re-vaccination schedule.\",\"authors\":\"T E M S de Vries-Sluijs, E R Andrinopoulou, R A de Man, 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}","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}
Fendrix® compared to Engerix® in HIV-infected patients nonresponding to initial- and re-vaccination schedule.
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.
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.