4.4 Article

Immunogenicity, antibody persistence, and safety of the 60g hepatitis B vaccine in hemodialysis patients: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-controlled trial

Journal

EXPERT REVIEW OF VACCINES
Volume 16, Issue 10, Pages 1045-1052

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14760584.2017.1367667

Keywords

Hepatitis B; vaccine; hemodialysis; randomized controlled trial; immunogenicity

Categories

Funding

  1. National Science and Technology Major Project of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China [2012ZX10002001]
  2. Research Project - Shanxi Scholarship Council of China [2013-056]
  3. Open Project by State Key Laboratory of Infectious Disease Prevention and Control [2016SKLID311]
  4. Construction Project of Characteristic Key Disciplines for Universities of Shanxi Province

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: To evaluate the immunogenicity, antibody persistence, and safety of the 60 mu g hepatitis B vaccine in hemodialysis patients in China.Methods: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-controlled trial including 352 hemodialysis patients who were centrally randomized in a ratio of 1:1 to receive a 20 mu g (IM20 group) or 60 mu g (IM60 group) recombinant hepatitis B vaccine at months 0, 1, and 6.Results: The vaccine-elicited antibody responses peaked at month 7, and declined at month 12. At month 7, the IM60 group had stronger GMC of anti-HBs, and a higher proportion of seroconversion and high-level response than the IM20 group did (P < 0.05). Better immune responses were observed in the IM60 group, especially for those aged or in the high-frequency hemodialysis population.Conclusion: The high dose 60 mu g recombinant hepatitis B vaccines elicited stronger immune responses than the 20 mu g hepatitis B vaccine did among hemodialysis patients.Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02963714.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available