Two booster dose hepatitis B virus vaccination in patients with leukemia

[Vaccination of children and adolescents treated for acute leukemia, excluding HSCT recipients: Recommendations of the French Society for Childhood and Adolescent Cancer and Leukemia (SFCE)]

Children and adolescents who are being treated or have been treated for acute leukemia have a secondary immunodeficiency linked to chemotherapy, resulting in an increased risk of infections. Some of which can be prevented by vaccination but its effectiveness is not optimal during chemotherapy. Upon cessation of chemotherapy, the time required for immune reconstitution varies from three months to more than a year, depending on lymphocyte subpopulations, the patient's age, and the intensity of the treatment received. Although they may have regained their immune functions, studies show that most patients have lost part of their vaccine-induced protection post-chemotherapy and require booster doses of vaccines. Most practitioners agree on the importance of vaccinating or revaccinating these children, but practices are heterogeneous among pediatric hematologist-oncologists in France. Based on a practice study and a recent review of the literature, this work aims to propose new French recommendations for the vaccination strategy to be adopted for children and adolescents treated or recently treated for acute leukemia, excluding allogeneic transplant recipients, in 2024. These recommendations specifically include the vaccination protocols for human papillomavirus and meningococcal infections but do not address the COVID-19 vaccination, as its guidelines are subject to rapid changes.

Loss of protective anti-HBs titers and seroconversion to hepatitis B vaccination in children during chemotherapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate loss of protective anti-hepatitis B (HBs) titers and seroconversion to hepatitis B vaccine (HBV) during chemotherapy in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

METHODS

Anti-HBs titers were done at diagnosis. Patients were divided into two groups. Group I (protective titers >10 mIU/ml) received single double dose of HBV as booster. Titers were repeated at three time points: end of phase 1b, beginning of re-induction, and start of maintenance chemotherapy. Group II (nonprotective titers <10 mIU/L) received hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG), prior to start of chemotherapy, followed by three double doses of HBV as booster. Titers were repeated at two time points: prior to first dose, and 4 weeks after third dose of vaccine.

RESULTS

Total 125 patients were included: 88 in group I; 37 in group II. Among group I patients, 98.7%, 90%, and 84% retained protective titers at the three points, respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that those with initial titers greater than 100 mIU/L retained protective titers better than those with titers between 11 and 100 mIU/L (p = .0001). Among group II patients, 62% and 64% attained protective titers at the two points, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

HBV boosters helped maintain protective titers during intensive ALL chemotherapy in immunized children having titers more than 10 mIU/L, and more so if titer was more than 100 mIU/L. Therefore, we propose that cut off for protective anti-HBs titers be changed to greater than or equal to 100 mIU/L. Titers between 11 and 100 mIU/L may require combined active and passive immunization. Around one-third of group II patients who fail to attain protective titers may need frequent doses of HBIG.

Casting a wider protective net: Anti-infective vaccine strategies for patients with hematologic malignancy and blood and marrow transplantation

Patients who have hematologic malignancies are at high risk for infections but vaccinations may be effective prophylaxis. The increased infection risk derives from immune defects secondary to malignancy, the classic example being CLL, and chemotherapies and immunotherapy used to treat the malignancies. Therapy of hematologic malignancies is being revolutionized by introduction of novel targeted agents and immunomodulatory medications, improving the survival of patients. At the same time those agents uniquely change the infection risk and response to immunizations. This review will summarize current vaccine recommendations for patients with hematologic malignancies including patients who undergo hematopoietic cell transplant.

Vaccination of patients with haematological malignancies who did not have transplantations: guidelines from the 2017 European Conference on Infections in Leukaemia (ECIL 7)

Patients with haematological malignancies are at high risk of infection because of various mechanisms of humoral and cell-mediated immune deficiencies, which mainly depend on underlying disease and specific therapies. Some of these infections are vaccine preventable. However, these malignancies are different from each other, and the treatment approaches are diverse and rapidly evolving, so it is difficult to have a common programme for vaccination in a haematology ward. Additionally, because of insufficient training about the topic, vaccination is an area often neglected by haematologists, and influenced by cultural differences, even among health-care workers, in compliance to vaccines. Several issues are encountered when addressing vaccination in haematology: the small size of the cohorts that makes it difficult to show the clinical benefits of vaccination, the subsequent need to rely on biological parameters, their clinical pertinence not being established in immunocompromised patients, scarcity of clarity on the optimal timing of vaccination in complex treatment schedules, and the scarcity of data on long-term protection in patients receiving treatments. Moreover, the risk of vaccine-induced disease with live-attenuated vaccines strongly limits their use. Here we summarise guidelines for patients without transplantations, and address the issue by the haematological group-myeloid and lymphoid-of diseases, with a special consideration for children with acute leukaemia.

A Randomized Study Comparing the Efficacy of Three Hepatitis B Vaccine Induction Regimens in Adult Patients with Hematological Malignancies

Objective:

Non-responsiveness to hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccines is not rare in hemato-oncological patients due to disease-associated or treatment-induced immune suppression. Although different strategies have been employed to improve the response rates, to date there is not an approved schedule for HBV immunization in patients with hematological malignancies. We designed a prospective randomized study to evaluate the efficacy of 3 different induction regimens for HBV vaccination.

Materials and Methods:

In the standard-dose (SD) group, total vaccine dose delivered was 40 µg and patients were vaccinated with 20 µg at weeks 0 and 4. In the high-dose dose-intensive (HDDI) group, total vaccine dose delivered was 80 µg and patients were vaccinated with 40 µg at weeks 0 and 4. In the high-dose time-intensive (HDTI) group, total vaccine dose delivered was 80 µg and patients were vaccinated with 20 µg at weeks 0, 2, 4, and 6.

Results:

In a cohort of 114 patients, 38.6% responded to HBV vaccination. The response rate in the SD arm, HDDI arm, and HDTI arm was 26.2%, 29.7%, and 44.4%, respectively (p>0.05). Age was the only variable identified as having a negative impact on response.

Conclusion:

Short of achieving statistical significance, a higher response rate was observed in the HDTI arm. Therefore, this study supports a high-dose, time-intensive HBV vaccine induction regimen in patients with hematological malignancies who are not on chemotherapy.

Guidelines on vaccinations in paediatric haematology and oncology patients

OBJECTIVE

Vaccinations are the most important tool to prevent infectious diseases. Chemotherapy-induced immune depression may impact the efficacy of vaccinations in children.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A panel of experts of the supportive care working group of the Italian Association Paediatric Haematology Oncology (AIEOP) addressed this issue by guidelines on vaccinations in paediatric cancer patients. The literature published between 1980 and 2013 was reviewed.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

During intensive chemotherapy, vaccination turned out to be effective for hepatitis A and B, whilst vaccinations with toxoid, protein subunits, or bacterial antigens should be postponed to the less intensive phases, to achieve an adequate immune response. Apart from varicella, the administration of live-attenuated-virus vaccines is not recommended during this phase. Family members should remain on recommended vaccination schedules, including toxoid, inactivated vaccine (also poliomyelitis), and live-attenuated vaccines (varicella, measles, mumps, and rubella). By the time of completion of chemotherapy, insufficient serum antibody levels for vaccine-preventable diseases have been reported, while immunological memory appears to be preserved. Once immunological recovery is completed, usually after 6 months, response to booster or vaccination is generally good and allows patients to be protected and also to contribute to herd immunity.

Vaccination of immunocompromised patients

Vaccination of immunocompromised patients is challenging both regarding efficacy and safety. True efficacy data are lacking so existing recommendations are based on immune responses and safety data. Inactivated vaccines can generally be used without risk but the patients who are most at risk for infectious morbidity and mortality as a result of their severely immunosuppressed state are also those least likely to respond to vaccination. However, vaccination against pneumococci, Haemophilus influenzae and influenza are generally recommended. Live vaccines must be used with care because the risk for vaccine-associated disease exists.

Vaccination in children with cancer: a debate

Children with malignancy present an important alteration of the immune system functionality caused by the illness itself and by the therapy they undergo. Therefore, they are at high risk of contracting vaccine-preventable diseases and of developing important complications. Vaccinations represent valid devices against these infections but this condition involves two main problems: are vaccines safe in these patients? Are vaccines effective in these patients? The aim of this review is to discuss the principles of vaccination management in children with cancer.

How to manage vaccinations in children with cancer

The optimal use of routine childhood immunizations in children with malignancy is still a matter of debate. Despite their higher risk of contracting vaccine preventable diseases and of suffering important complications, there is little understanding of the magnitude of the possible benefit of administering active immunization in this population due to a paucity of clinical trial data. Our review focuses on the management of children with cancer and offers some suggestions regarding their vaccination schedules.

Vaccines for prophylaxis of viral infections in patients with hematological malignancies

BACKGROUND

Viral infections cause significant morbidity and mortality in patients with hematological malignancies. It remains uncertain whether viral vaccinations in these patients are supported by good evidence.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to determine the effectiveness and safety of viral vaccines in patients with hematological malignancies.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL (June 2010), reference lists of relevant papers, abstracts from scientific meetings and contacted vaccine manufacturers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating viral vaccines in patients with hematological malignancies were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Relative risk (RR) was used for binary data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data. Primary outcome was incidence of infection. Secondary outcomes were mortality, incidence of complications and severe viral infection, hospitalization, immune response and adverse effects. Fixed-effect model was used in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight RCTs were included, with 305 patients in the intervention groups and 288 in the control groups. They evaluated heat-inactivated varicella zoster virus (VZV) vaccine (two trials), influenza vaccines (five trials) and inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) (one trial). Seven trials had high and one trial had moderate risk of bias.VZV vaccine might reduce herpes zoster compared to no vaccine (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.3 to 1.0, P=0.05), but not statistically significant. Vaccination also demonstrated efficacy in immune response but frequently caused local adverse effects. One trial reported severity score of zoster, which favored vaccination (MD 2.6, 95% CI 0.94 to 4.26, P=0.002).Two RCTs compared inactivated influenza vaccine with no vaccine and reported lower risk of lower respiratory infections (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.78, P=0.008) and hospitalization (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.31, P<0.00001) in vaccine recipients. However, vaccine recipients more frequently experienced irritability and local adverse effects. There was no significant difference in seroconversion between one and two doses of influenza vaccine (one trial), or between recombinant and standard influenza vaccine (one trial), or influenza vaccine given with or without re-induction chemotherapy (one trial).The IPV trial comparing vaccination starting at 6 versus 18 months after stem cell transplant (SCT) found no significant difference in seroconversion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Inactivated VZV vaccine might reduce zoster severity in adult SCT recipients. Inactivated influenza vaccine might reduce respiratory infections and hospitalization in adults with multiple myeloma or children with leukemia or lymphoma. However, the quality of evidence is low. Local adverse effects occur frequently. Further high-quality RCTs are needed.

Efficacy of accelerated hepatitis B vaccination program in patients being actively treated for hematologic malignancies

BACKGROUND

The goal of this study was to conduct an accelerated vaccination program and to determine its efficacy in patients susceptible to hepatitis B virus (HBV) receiving chemotherapy because of their hematologic malignancies.

METHODS

Over a one-year period, a total of 327 patients who were diagnosed as having a hematologic malignancy were serologically analyzed in terms of HBV infection. Of those found to be susceptible to HBV infection, a total of 42 patients consisting of 16 females and 26 males were enrolled in the accelerated vaccination program. All the patients were administered a 20-microg yeast-derived recombinant hepatitis B vaccine on days 0, 14, and 28. Anti-HBs titers above 10IU/l at 1 and 3 months after the final dose were accepted as protective.

RESULTS

A total of 146 (44.6%) patients were susceptible to HBV, while 13 (4.0%) were carriers, 28 (8.6%) were vaccinated, and 113 (34.5%) had had a previous HBV infection. A total of 42 patients (16 females and 26 males, mean age 34.5+/-10.9 years) were enrolled in the vaccination program. Overall, 23.8% (10/42) of the patients in the program had developed anti-HBs at one month after the last vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

Poor results obtained by different vaccination programs suggest the need for alternative strategies to prevent the disease.

Hepatitis B virus vaccine in lymphoproliferative disorders: a prospective randomized study evaluating the efficacy of granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor as a vaccine adjuvant

OBJECTIVES

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is effectively preventable by immunization with the commercially available recombinant HBV vaccines (HBV(vac)) in approximately 95% of healthy people. Immunosuppressive diseases like hematological malignancies are a risk factor for non-response to HBV(vac). The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) as a vaccine adjuvant in lymphoproliferative disorders (LPD).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One- hundred and two patients with LPD were randomized to receive either a single dose of 40 mug HBV(vac) intramuscularly or one course of 40 mug HBV(vac) after 5 mug/kg recombinant GM-CSF injection.

RESULTS

Of the 94 patients that could be evaluated at 1 month, the seroprotection rate was higher in GM-CSF + HBV(vac) group (25.5% in GM-CSF + HBV(vac) group vs. 17% in HBV(vac) group). The median anti-HBs titer was also higher in GM-CSF + HBV(vac) group. However the difference did not reach to a significant level in terms of response rate and median antibody titers (P > 0.05). Univariate analysis identified age and time to vaccination from the last chemotherapy course as significant predictors of seroprotection. In multivariate analysis, age was the only predictor of achieving a seroprotective response. Patients who lost the seroprotective response during monitoring were boosted with a 20 microg HBV(vac) and they all achieved a seroprotective anti-HBs titer > 100 mIU/mL.

CONCLUSION

In LPD, the response to HBV(vac) is impaired. GM-CSF enhance to HBV(vac) in terms of the rate of response and average of antibody titers at the dose and schedule given.

Hepatitis B vaccination after living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of hepatitis B vaccination after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in patients transplanted anti-HBc-positive grafts or in patients who underwent LDLT for fulminant hepatitis B remains unknown.

METHOD

A total of 11 recipients who underwent LDLT between October 1996 and October 2002 prospectively received hepatitis B vaccination three times within 6 months, starting a few weeks after the cessation of hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) prophylaxis. Serial quantification of the hepatitis B surface antibody (HBsAb) was performed.

RESULTS

At the last follow-up, six out of 11 patients (54.5%) had seroconversion and were free from HBIG thereafter. Four out of those six responders had a peak HBsAb level of more than 1000 IU/L, while the other two patients had peak HbsAb levels below 1000 IU/L. Five patients never responded to the treatment and were back to HBIG prophylaxis. The average age of the six responders was 25.5 years, which was significantly younger than that of non-responders (44.4 years, P<0.05). None had side effects or hepatitis B infection during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the use of this treatment modality could be used to reduce the cost of HBIG.

The rate of hepatitis B and C virus infections and the importance of HBV vaccination in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia

AIM

The aim of the study was to evaluate the rate of hepatitis B and C virus infection and emphasize the importance of hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccination in leukemic children.

METHODS

One hundred and sixty children who were treated for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) at Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Pediatric Hematology Unit were included in the study. They were 71 (44.4%) girls and 89 (55.6%) boys with a mean age of 6.45 +/- 3.87 years.

RESULTS

Of these 160 children, 22 (13.8%) were anti-HBs-positive and 138 (86.2%) were anti-HBs-negative at the diagnosis of ALL. Among the 138 anti-HBs-negative children, 67 (41.9%) were vaccinated for HBV during maintenance chemotherapy, and 71 (44.3%) could not be vaccinated. Two (2.9%) vaccinated and 22 (30.9%) unvaccinated children developed HBV infection during the follow-up period (P < 0.001). Among 160 children treated for ALL, 24 (15.0%) had HBV, three (1.9%) had hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections, and 29 (18.1%) had toxic hepatitis. The majority of patients with HBV or HCV infections had high risk (HR) protocol, whereas most of the patients with toxic hepatitis had low risk (LR) protocol, especially St Jude Total XIII LR protocol.

CONCLUSION

Viral hepatitis and toxic hepatitis were observed more commonly in the HR and LR group, respectively, of ALL patients. This could be explained by intensive chemotherapy and more heavy blood product administration in the HR group and the chemotherapeutic agents of methotrexate and 6-mercaptopurine, basic drugs used in the LR group. In respect to protection from these complications, periodical liver function tests, serological tests for HBV and HCV, and vaccination for HBV should be performed for all children with ALL.

Evaluation of vaccine dosing in patients with solid tumors receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

To provide oncology healthcare providers with information on current vaccine recommendations and discuss the proper timing of vaccination in relation to chemotherapy, to allow for an adequate, protective antibody response.

DATA SOURCES

In this review, we have attempted to include all available literature as well as the current recommendations. The National Library of Medicine, PubMed online database was searched using the keywords: chemotherapy, influenza, vaccine, cancer, immunosuppression. In addition, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines were reviewed and incorporated into the recommendations.

DATA SYNTHESIS

There were several limitations to the literature available. To date, most of the literature was completed in the 1970s and 1980s, and definitions of protective immunity regarding influenza vaccines have changed over time, as well as improved study design. These studies have also been completed in a variety of disease states, hence, it is difficult to make comparisons between trials. The recommendations in this review are consistent with the current CDC Guidelines and, until further clinical trials are carried out, are the most conservative recommendations in favor of patient safety, health care costs, and resource utilization.

CONCLUSION

Patients on cancer chemotherapy should receive vaccination at least 2 weeks before initiation of treatment. Providers should avoid administering vaccination during chemotherapy or active radiation treatment because of suboptimal responses to vaccines. Active immunization has been shown to confer protective immunity to several infections in cancer patients at similar rates to healthy individuals.

Unexpected protection from infection by two booster hepatitis B virus vaccination in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia

The protective power of two booster dose vaccination against hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection has not been previously studied in patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) who remained unresponsive to immunization. The aim of this study was to determine the HBV infection rate in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients with or without seroconversion and to compare these groups in respect to HBV infection rate. The study group included 111 male and 85 female ALL patients with a mean age of 6.23+/-4.10 years. Patients were divided into three groups as follows: Group 1 included 82 patients who were vaccinated during maintenance chemotherapy, Group 2 included 87 unvaccinated patients, and Group 3 included 27 patients who were vaccinated prior to the diagnosis of ALL. Seroconversion was obtained in 35.4% (29/82) of patients in Group 1. The incidence of HBV infection was significantly lower in Group 1 (4/82, 4.8%) than in Group 2 (25/87, 28.7%). When we compared only the seronegative patients in Group 1 with Group 2 in respect to HBV infection rate, Group 1 still had a significantly lower HBV infection rate than Group 2 (7.5% versus 28.7%) (p<0.001). No patients in Group 3 (n=27) had HBV infection. In addition to the seroconversion level, infection rate is also important in the evaluation of the effectiveness of vaccination. Our study results suggest that a high protective role of HBV vaccination was also observed in non-seroconversion ALL patients. The effect of cellular immunity on the protection against infection should also be investigated in such patients with further studies.

Antigen-specific T-cell memory is preserved in children treated for acute lymphoblastic leukemia

Despite profound T-cell immunodeficiency, most patients treated with chemotherapy do not succumb to infection. The basis for residual protective immunity in lymphopenic patients is not known. We prospectively measured T-cell numbers, thymopoiesis, and T-cell memory in 73 children undergoing a 2-year chemotherapy regimen for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and compared them to an age-matched cohort of 805 healthy children. Most patients had profound defects in CD4 and CD8 T-cell numbers at diagnosis that did not recover during the 2 years of therapy. Thymic output and the fraction of naive T cells were significantly lower than in healthy controls. However, the remaining T-cell compartment was enriched for antigen-experienced, memory T cells defined both by phenotype and by function. This relative sparing of T-cell memory may, in part, account for the maintenance of protective immunity in lymphopenic patients treated for ALL. Moreover, because the memory T-cell compartment is least affected by ALL and its treatment, strategies to induce immunity to pathogens or tumor antigens in cancer patients may be most successful if they seek to expand pre-existing memory T cells.

Hepatitis B vaccine boosters: is there a clinical need in high endemicity populations?

The Steering Committee for the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases in Asia recently conducted a survey of primary-care physicians in Asia, which revealed that many physicians administer boosters in their clinical practice and that there is considerable variation and uncertainty among physicians regarding this practice. This paper serves as a response to physicians' uncertainties by reviewing the literature regarding the administration of hepatitis B vaccine boosters in high endemicity areas and presenting the Steering Committee's guidelines for booster administration. While there are few data to support a need for routine hepatitis B vaccine boosters as a public health measure, they help to provide reassurance of immunity against breakthrough infection in certain risk groups. In clinical practice, primary-care physicians must exercise their judgment regarding the need for booster vaccination on an individual basis. This paper examines the available literature on the administration and value of hepatitis B vaccine boosters, explores the differences between the public health approach and clinical practice, and provides guidelines for those who use boosters in high endemicity Asian populations. Relevant articles were identified through searches of MEDLINE (1975-2003) and the Cochrane Library, using 'hepatitis B' and 'booster' as primary search terms. Guidelines for those who decide to administer hepatitis B vaccine boosters include: boosting approximately 10-15 years after primary vaccination; boosting rather than not when monitoring of antibody levels is not feasible; boosting immunocompromised patients when the antibody to hepatitis B surface antigen titer falls below 10 mIU/mL; and boosting healthcare workers based on the endemicity of the particular country.

Management of hepatitis B in children

Children with hepatitis B infection require management by physicians knowledgeable about the natural history of this disorder and experienced in the treatment of children. Selection of appropriate pediatric patients for treatment will prevent some cases of advanced liver disease later in life. New treatments under development for adults may benefit children as well, once they have been rigorously investigated in the pediatric population. Prevention of new HBV infections is an important part of management in children, and working with public health campaigns will hopefully reduce both vertical and horizontal transmission.

Recombinant hepatitis B vaccine (Engerix-B): a review of its immunogenicity and protective efficacy against hepatitis B

Engerix-B (Hep-B[Eng]) is a noninfectious recombinant DNA vaccine containing hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg). It is produced from genetically engineered yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae). Intramuscular Hep-B(Eng) [0-, 1-, 6-month schedule] has excellent immunogenicity in healthy neonates and infants, children, adolescents and adults, with seroprotection rates of 85-100% seen approximate, equals 1 month after the final dose of vaccine; seroprotection was defined as an antibody against HBsAg (anti-HBs) titre of > or =10 IU/L. The use of alternative Hep-B(Eng) immunisation schedules (e.g. a 0-, 1-, 2-, 12-month schedule in neonates and infants, 0-, 12-, 24-month or two-dose schedules in children and adolescents, and accelerated schedules in adults) have also been associated with high rates of seroprotection. Seroprotection rates were generally similar with Hep-B(Eng) and the recombinant vaccine Recombivax HB (Hep-B[Rax]) or plasma-derived vaccines (PDVs) approximate, equals 1 month after the final dose (although anti-HBs geometric mean titres were significantly higher with Hep-B[Eng] than with Hep-B[Rax]). One month after the final dose, adults had significantly higher seroprotection rates with the recombinant triple-antigen vaccine Bio-Hep-B (Hep-B[Bio]) than with Hep-B(Eng), although seroprotection rates in healthy infants were similar with Hep-B(Eng) and Hep-B(Bio). Hep-B(Eng) had excellent immunogenicity in several groups considered at high risk of acquiring hepatitis B (e.g. neonates born to hepatitis B carrier mothers and healthcare workers). The immunogenicity of Hep-B(Eng) was reduced in patients with conditions associated with impaired immune function (e.g. patients undergoing haemodialysis or being treated for malignancy), although it had good immunogenicity in patients with diabetes mellitus.Hep-B(Eng) had excellent protective efficacy against HBsAg carriage in healthy infants and children, and in neonates born to hepatitis B carrier mothers (protective efficacy of 95-99%). Hep-B(Eng) also demonstrated good protective efficacy in a number of other high-risk groups. Hep-B(Eng) is generally well tolerated with a tolerability profile similar to that of Hep-B(Rax), Hep-B(Bio) and PDVs. In conclusion, Hep-B(Eng) is a well established, highly immunogenic hepatitis B vaccine with good tolerability and excellent protective efficacy; it offers flexibility through a variety of immunisation schedules. In addition, it appears that Hep-B(Eng) confers immunity for at least 10 years. Hep-B(Eng) has an important role in mass vaccination campaigns against hepatitis B, as well as in groups considered at high risk of acquiring hepatitis B.