4.3 Article

Efficacy of Double-Dose Hepatitis B Rescue Vaccination in HIV-Infected Patients

Journal

AIDS PATIENT CARE AND STDS
Volume 24, Issue 7, Pages 403-407

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/apc.2009.0340

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Impaired hepatitis B virus vaccine (HBVV) efficacy has been observed in HIV-infected patients. We assessed the immunogenicity of double-dose (DD) hepatitis B virus revaccination in patients who had failed to respond to standard vaccination. A retrospective chart review of 4,663 patients ensued in two urban HIV clinics between January 2004 and March 2009. Of 363 patients who received three standard doses (SDs) of HBVV, 126 (34.7%) responded with detectable hepatitis B surface antibody [(HBsAb) HBsAb titer of >= 10 mIU/ml] and 237 (65.3%) nonresponders (NRs) remained seronegative. Among NRs, 61 received three to eight additional SDs of HBVV; 29 received three double doses (DDs) of HBVV (40 mu g/dose), spaced at monthly dosing intervals; and 11 received from one to five additional SD HBVV (who remained seronegative) and then received three DDs HBVV. Response rate was significantly higher among the 40DD recipients than among the 61 who received only additional SD (34/40, 85%, vs. 36/61, 59%; p = 0.006). In the revaccinated NR group (61 SD + 40 DD), a logistic regression analysis found that use of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) (OR, 10.166; CI, 1.359-76.026; p = 0.024), and CD4 cell counts >= 200 cells/mm(3) at the time of revaccination (OR, 9.233; CI, 1.393-61.207; p = 0.021) were associated with HBsAb response, as was DD HBV revaccination (OR, 4.177; CI, 1.282-13.614; p = 0.018). Rescue DD hepatitis B vaccination appears to improve the HBsAb response rate significantly in HIV-infected NR patients, especially after an adequate immune restoration with HAART. More prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available