4.2 Article

Hepatitis B Vaccination and Waning Hepatitis B Immunity in Persons Living with HIV

期刊

CURRENT HIV/AIDS REPORTS
卷 16, 期 5, 页码 395-403

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11904-019-00461-6

关键词

HBV; HIV; Anti-HBs; Protective immunity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose of Review Persons with HIV are at a higher risk for acquiring HBV (hepatitis B virus) than the general population due to shared modes of transmission and are significantly more likely to develop and die from sequelae of chronic HBV infection. Early vaccination is key to achieving HBV protective immunity, but response rates are still much lower than in the general population, ranging from 35 to 70%. Individuals with HIV also experience more rapidly waning immunity than those without HIV. Strategies to augment initial response and improve long-term immunity in individuals with HIV include alterations in dose, frequency, and the use of immune adjuvants. Recent Findings Recent studies have focused on the use of different vaccine formulations, the use of vaccine adjuvants, increased number and strength of vaccine dosages, increased dose frequency, alternative routes of administration, dual vaccinations, and the use of booster vaccines. Although no consensus has been reached on the use of certain vaccination regimens, three and four double-dose vaccine schedules via the intramuscular route have demonstrated higher initial response rates. Early vaccination when CD4 cell counts are greater than 350/mm(3) with low viral loads has been shown to improve initial response, along with completion of immunization series. Adjuvants such as TLR4 and TLR9 agonists appear to improve response to HBV vaccination, but further research is needed in individuals with HIV. Persons with HIV have significant lower initial and long-term seroresponse rates after HBV vaccination than immunocompetent individuals. Recent and ongoing studies continue to evaluate multiple strategies to improve these rates within a uniquely susceptible population.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据