4.7 Article

Vaccination against hepatitis A and B in patients with chronic liver disease and type 2 diabetes: has anything changed?

Journal

LIVER INTERNATIONAL
Volume 36, Issue 8, Pages 1096-1100

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/liv.13164

Keywords

diabetes; HAV; HBV; vaccination

Funding

  1. Beatty Liver Obesity Research Fund, Inova Health System, Falls Church VA

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background & AimsGiven the severity of acute hepatitis in patients with chronic liver diseases (CLD) and patients with type 2 diabetes (DM), most of these patients are recommended to be vaccinated. The aim is to assess the recent changes in HAV and HBV vaccination rates in patients with CLD and DM in the U.S. using the most recent population data. MethodsWe used the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) cycles 2009-2012 and 2013-2014, and compared those to previous cycles (1999-2004 and 2005-2008). ResultsIn general U.S. population, the rates of quality measure (QM, serologic immunity or history of vaccination) for HBV increased from 31.9% in 1999-2004 to 49.5% in 2013-2014 (P < 0.0001), synchronously with an increase in self-reported HBV vaccination: from 24.4% to 41.3% (P < 0.0001). A similar increase was noted for HAV: 12.0% in 1999-2004 to 33.4% in 2013-2014 in vaccination, 44.0% to 52.4% in HAV QM (all P < 0.0001). Greater recent increases in HBV QM were noted in non-HBV CLD patients: 34.7% to 56.8% in HBV QM and 22.7% to 51.1% in HBV vaccination (all P < 0.0001), while the changes in patients with diabetes were similar to those in general U.S. population despite the recent CDC recommendation (for the age 19-59): 31.0% to 45.1% (P = 0.007) in HBV QM, and 22.3% to 39.0% (P = 0.0004) in HBV vaccination. ConclusionsDespite recommendations, HAV and HBV vaccination rates in patients with CLD and DM remain relatively low. Better vaccination strategies for these high risk patients should be undertaken.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available