E Elhanan1, M Boaz2,3, I Schwartz1, D Schwartz1, G Chernin1, H Soetendorp1, A Gal Oz1, A Agbaria1, T Weinstein4. 1. Nephrology Department, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, 6 Weizman st., 64239, Tel Aviv, Israel. 2. Epidemiology and Research Unit, E. Wolfson Medical Center, Holon, Israel. 3. Ariel University, Ariel, Israel. 4. Nephrology Department, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, 6 Weizman st., 64239, Tel Aviv, Israel. taliaw@tlvmc.gov.il.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Dialysis patients have a suboptimal response to hepatitis B (HBV) vaccination. This study aimed to compare the immunogenicity of two vaccines: the third-generation Sci-B-Vac™ vs. the second-generation Engerix B®. The cohort included two groups of dialysis patients: naïve and previously vaccinated non-responders. Primary endpoints were antibody titers ≥10 IU/L at 3 and 7 month post-vaccination. Secondary objectives were seroprotection rates in vaccine-naïve patients and in previously vaccinated non-responders. METHODS:Eighty-six patients were assigned to vaccine (Sci-B-Vac™ or Engerix B®) using computer-generated randomization, stratified by age, gender, diabetes, and previous HBV vaccination. Sci-B-Vac™ was administered in three doses, 10 μg, at 0, 1, and 6 months in naïve patients; or 20 μg in previously vaccinated non-responders. Engerix B® included four doses, 40 μg at 0, 1, 2, and 6 months. RESULTS: Each group had 43 patients. Seroconversion was 69.8% with Engerix B® vs. 73.2% with Sci-B-Vac™. Antibody titers at 7 months were higher with Sci-B-Vac™ (266.4 ± 383.9, median 53.4) than with Engerix® (193.2 ± 328.9, median 19). However, these differences were not significant, perhaps due to a suboptimal sample size. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests comparable immunogenicity for both vaccines. Thus, we cannot reject the null hypothesis that there is no difference in seroconversion by vaccine type. It is noteworthy that naïve patients were vaccinated with a standard dose of Sci-B-Vac™, while Engerix B® was administered at a double dose. Similarly, although mean antibody titer levels in the Sci-B-Vac™ group were higher than in the Engerix® group, this difference did not reach significance. Consequently, a future clinical trial should recruit a larger cohort of patients, using a standard double-dose protocol in both groups.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Dialysis patients have a suboptimal response to hepatitis B (HBV) vaccination. This study aimed to compare the immunogenicity of two vaccines: the third-generation Sci-B-Vac™ vs. the second-generation Engerix B®. The cohort included two groups of dialysis patients: naïve and previously vaccinated non-responders. Primary endpoints were antibody titers ≥10 IU/L at 3 and 7 month post-vaccination. Secondary objectives were seroprotection rates in vaccine-naïve patients and in previously vaccinated non-responders. METHODS: Eighty-six patients were assigned to vaccine (Sci-B-Vac™ or Engerix B®) using computer-generated randomization, stratified by age, gender, diabetes, and previous HBV vaccination. Sci-B-Vac™ was administered in three doses, 10 μg, at 0, 1, and 6 months in naïve patients; or 20 μg in previously vaccinated non-responders. Engerix B® included four doses, 40 μg at 0, 1, 2, and 6 months. RESULTS: Each group had 43 patients. Seroconversion was 69.8% with Engerix B® vs. 73.2% with Sci-B-Vac™. Antibody titers at 7 months were higher with Sci-B-Vac™ (266.4 ± 383.9, median 53.4) than with Engerix® (193.2 ± 328.9, median 19). However, these differences were not significant, perhaps due to a suboptimal sample size. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests comparable immunogenicity for both vaccines. Thus, we cannot reject the null hypothesis that there is no difference in seroconversion by vaccine type. It is noteworthy that naïve patients were vaccinated with a standard dose of Sci-B-Vac™, while Engerix B® was administered at a double dose. Similarly, although mean antibody titer levels in the Sci-B-Vac™ group were higher than in the Engerix® group, this difference did not reach significance. Consequently, a future clinical trial should recruit a larger cohort of patients, using a standard double-dose protocol in both groups.
Authors: Sandra S Chaves; Danni Daniels; Brian W Cooper; Susan Malo-Schlegel; Susan Macarthur; Karen C Robbins; John F Kobetitsch; Aimee McDaniel; John F D'Avella; Miriam J Alter Journal: Vaccine Date: 2011-10-30 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Murielle Surquin; Christian L Tielemans; Imre Kulcsár; Miroslav Ryba; Péter Vörös; Olivier Mat; Serge Treille; Michel Dhaene; Jean-Claude Stolear; Sherine O Kuriyakose; Maarten X Leyssen; Sophie A Houard Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2009-11-25 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Rachel A Burdick; Jennifer L Bragg-Gresham; John D Woods; Sara A Hedderwick; Kiyoshi Kurokawa; Christian Combe; Akira Saito; John LaBrecque; Friedrich K Port; Eric W Young Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Robert S Janssen; Roberto Mangoo-Karim; Pablo E Pergola; Matthias Girndt; Hamid Namini; Sophia Rahman; Sean R Bennett; William L Heyward; J Tyler Martin Journal: Vaccine Date: 2013-05-30 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Katlyn Lederer; Emily Bettini; Kalpana Parvathaneni; Mark M Painter; Divyansh Agarwal; Kendall A Lundgreen; Madison Weirick; Kavitha Muralidharan; Diana Castaño; Rishi R Goel; Xiaoming Xu; Elizabeth M Drapeau; Sigrid Gouma; Jordan T Ort; Moses Awofolaju; Allison R Greenplate; Carole Le Coz; Neil Romberg; Jennifer Trofe-Clark; Gregory Malat; Lisa Jones; Mark Rosen; Daniela Weiskopf; Alessandro Sette; Behdad Besharatian; Mary Kaminiski; Scott E Hensley; Paul Bates; E John Wherry; Ali Naji; Vijay Bhoj; Michela Locci Journal: Cell Date: 2022-02-02 Impact factor: 66.850
Authors: María B Pisano; Cecilia G Giadans; Diego M Flichman; Viviana E Ré; María V Preciado; Pamela Valva Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2021-07-14 Impact factor: 5.742