4.7 Article

Long term outcome of prevention of liver cancer by hepatitis B vaccine: Results from an RCT with 37

期刊

CANCER LETTERS
卷 536, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.canlet.2022.215652

关键词

Liver cancer; Hepatitis B vaccine; Maternal HBV status; Long-term efficacy; Chinese

类别

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81974492]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to evaluate the long-term efficacy of the hepatitis B vaccine in China. The results showed that hepatitis B vaccination at birth can significantly reduce the incidence and mortality rates of liver cancer, indicating excellent protective effects.
We aimed to evaluate the long-term efficacy of the hepatitis B vaccine in China. In an initial efficacy study, participants were collected from a cluster-randomized clinical trial conducted in 1983-90 in Qidong. All the participants in the vaccination group were vaccinated at birth, 1 and 6 months of age, and no intervention was implemented to the control group. In this 37-year extended follow-up study, the Poisson regression method was employed to derive rates per 105 person-years. The frailty Cox proportional hazard regression models obtained the hazard ratio (HR). Cumulative incidence/mortality rates were calculated and compared with log-rank tests. 41,136 in the vaccination and 41,730 in the control group were recorded. The incidence rate of liver cancer was significantly lower in the vaccinated group than in the control group [HR, 0.28; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11-0.70, P = 0.007]. The vaccine offers 72% (95% CI, 30-89) protection to prevent the occurrence of liver cancer. There is 70% (95% CI, 23-88) protective efficacy against liver cancer deaths and 64% (95% CI, 27-82) benefits in the prevention of deaths associated with liver diseases. Hepatitis B vaccine given at birth shows excellent protective effects in preventing the development of liver cancer and reducing mortality from liver cancer and liver diseases.

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

4.7
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