A randomised comparison of two inactivated hepatitis A vaccines, Avaxim and Vaqta, given as a booster to subjects primed with Avaxim

Delaying the third dose of Japanese aluminum-free hepatitis A vaccine Aimmugen elicits effective immune responses against hepatitis A in adults

Inactivated aluminum-adsorbed hepatitis A vaccines such as Havrix, Vaqta, and Avaxim are commonly used worldwide. These vaccines are typically administered in a two-dose series (at 0 and 6-12 months). However, a lyophilized inactivated aluminum-free hepatitis A vaccine, Aimmugen, which is approved in Japan, is typically administered in a three-dose series (at 0, 2-4, and 24 weeks). Hence, individuals visiting endemic hepatitis A areas receive the primary two doses of Aimmugen before traveling and the third booster dose much later. It is currently uncertain whether boosting with a delayed third dose of Aimmugen is effective, or whether a new vaccination schedule should instead be initiated. Therefore, we investigated the anti-hepatitis-A viral immune response of adult travelers who received the third dose of Aimmugen more than 24 weeks after the first dose. Participants were vaccinated with the third dose of Aimmugen more than 2 years after the first two doses. Antibody titers were measured at Day 0 (prevaccination) and at 28-42 days after the third dose of Aimmugen. Twenty-nine adult participants were enrolled in the study (14 men and 15 women; mean age ± standard deviation age, 36.2 ± 8.1 years). The interval between the first two doses and the third dose was 3-14 years. The seroprotection rate (i.e., the percentage of participants with anti-hepatitis A virus antibody titers ≥ 10 mIU/mL) was 96.6 % (28/29) at Day 0 and increased to 100 % (29/29) at Days 28-42. Geometric mean concentration increased from 105 to 4,013 mIU/mL. We demonstrated that delaying the third dose of Aimmugen still elicited effective immune responses after priming with two doses of the vaccine. Trial registration: UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR): MIN000013624. Registered 03 April 2014. https://center6.umin.ac.jp/cgi-bin/ctr/ctr_view_reg.cgi?recptno=R000015906.

Hepatitis A immunisation in persons not previously exposed to hepatitis A

This review is withdrawn because it is outdated. A new review is to be published by the end of 2019.

Hepatitis A immunisation in persons not previously exposed to hepatitis A

BACKGROUND

In many parts of the world, hepatitis A infection represents a significant cause of morbidity and socio-economic loss. Whilst hepatitis A vaccines have the potential to prevent disease, the degree of protection afforded against clinical outcomes and within different populations remains uncertain. There are two types of hepatitis A virus (HAV) vaccine, inactivated and live attenuated. It is important to determine the efficacy and safety for both vaccine types.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical protective efficacy, sero-protective efficacy, and safety and harms of hepatitis A vaccination in persons not previously exposed to hepatitis A.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) up to November 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing HAV vaccine with placebo, no intervention, or appropriate control vaccines in participants of all ages.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were undertaken by two authors and verified by a third author. Where required, authors contacted investigators to obtain missing data. The primary outcome was the occurrence of clinically apparent hepatitis A (infectious hepatitis). The secondary outcomes were lack of sero-protective anti-HAV immunoglobulin G (IgG), and number and types of adverse events. Results were presented as relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Dichotomous outcomes were reported as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI), using intention-to-treat analysis. We conducted assessment of risk of bias to evaluate the risk of systematic errors (bias) and trial sequential analyses to estimate the risk of random errors (the play of chance).

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 11 clinical studies, of which only three were considered to have low risk of bias; two were quasi-randomised studies in which we only addressed harms. Nine randomised trials with 732,380 participants addressed the primary outcome of clinically confirmed hepatitis A. Of these, four trials assessed the inactivated hepatitis A vaccine (41,690 participants) and five trials assessed the live attenuated hepatitis A vaccine (690,690 participants). In the three randomised trials with low risk of bias (all assessing inactivated vaccine), clinically apparent hepatitis A occurred in 9/20,684 (0.04%) versus 92/20,746 (0.44%) participants in the HAV vaccine and control groups respectively (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.30). In all nine randomised trials, clinically apparent hepatitis A occurred in 31/375,726 (0.01%) versus 505/356,654 (0.18%) participants in the HAV vaccine and control groups respectively (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.17). These results were supported by trial sequential analyses. Subgroup analyses confirmed the clinical effectiveness of both inactivated hepatitis A vaccines (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.30) and live attenuated hepatitis A vaccines (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.17) on clinically confirmed hepatitis A. Inactivated hepatitis A vaccines had a significant effect on reducing the lack of sero-protection (less than 20 mIU/L) (RR 0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.03). No trial reported on a sero-protective threshold less than 10 mIU/L. The risk of both non-serious local and systemic adverse events was comparable to placebo for the inactivated HAV vaccines. There were insufficient data to draw conclusions on adverse events for the live attenuated HAV vaccine.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Hepatitis A vaccines are effective for pre-exposure prophylaxis of hepatitis A in susceptible individuals. This review demonstrated significant protection for at least two years with the inactivated HAV vaccine and at least five years with the live attenuated HAV vaccine. There was evidence to support the safety of the inactivated hepatitis A vaccine. More high quality evidence is required to determine the safety of live attenuated vaccines.

Comparing live attenuated and inactivated hepatitis A vaccines: an immunogenicity study after one single dose

INTRODUCTION

While three types of hepatitis A vaccines are available in China, little data are available to compare them in terms of early antibody response. We conducted a trial to compare antibody response at 7, 14 and 28 days.

METHODS

We randomized primary school children in Gansu and Jilin provinces into four groups to receive either (1) Chinese live attenuated hepatitis A vaccine (H2 strain), (2) domestic inactivated hepatitis A vaccine (Healive(®)), (3) imported inactivated hepatitis A vaccine (Havrix(®)) or (4) hepatitis B vaccine (Control group). We compared groups at 7, 14 and 28 days in terms of proportion of sero-conversions (≥10 mUI/ml), and Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) of antibodies measured with a Microparticle Enzyme Immunoassay (MEIA). We compared rates of self-reported adverse events following immunization (AEFI) in the first three days.

RESULTS

204 children received the H2 vaccine, 208 received Healive(®), 214 received Havrix(®), and 215 received hepatitis B vaccine (no differences across groups in terms of age, sex, weight and height). At seven days, sero-conversion proportions were 25%, 35%, 27% and 2% (p<0.0001) with GMC of 6 mIU/ml, 8 mIU/ml, 6 mIU/ml and 3 mIU/ml, respectively for the four groups. At 28 days, sero-conversion proportions were 98%, 100%, 93% and 3% (p<0.0001) with GMC of 47 mIU/ml, 71 mIU/ml, 67 mIU/ml and 3 mIU/ml, respectively. AEFI were benign and did not differ across groups (p=0.94).

CONCLUSIONS

While our study was not able to identify differences between Havrix(®), Healive(®) and H2 vaccine in terms of sero-conversion proportion and GMC between seven and 28 days, further studies should evaluate non-inferiority or equivalence of the Chinese vaccines, particularly with respect to the GMC concentration for the H2 vaccine since it could affect long-term protection.

The virology and developments toward control of human enterovirus 71

Enterovirus 71 (EV71), a member of the Enterovirus genus in the Picornaviridae family, was first recognized as a dermotrophic virus that usually cause mild, self-limiting hand-foot-and-mouth disease (HFMD). However, EV71 infection can sometimes induce a variety of severe neurological complications and even death. Current large outbreaks of EV71 make this virus being a major public health issue. Intense effort has been made to address its underlying pathogenesis and to develop effective means for combating EV71 infections. Here, we aimed to provide an overview of cellular mechanisms underlying EV71 infection and to assess potential agents for prevention and treatment of EV71 infections.

Neutralising antibody responses in cattle and sheep following booster vaccination with two commercial inactivated bluetongue virus serotype 8 vaccines

Cattle and sheep that had received a primary course of vaccination with an inactivated bluetongue virus serotype 8 (BTV-8) vaccine were booster vaccinated 6 or 12 months later with the homologous vaccine or an alternative inactivated BTV-8 vaccine and neutralising antibody responses were determined. Antibody titres to the alternative vaccine were significantly higher than to the homologous vaccine (P=0.013) in cattle. There was no significant difference between the antibody responses to alternative and homologous vaccines in sheep. These data indicate that cattle and sheep primed with one inactivated BTV-8 vaccine may be effectively boosted with an alternative commercial inactivated BTV-8 vaccine.

Enterovirus 71 vaccine: close but still far

Background

Enterovirus 71 (EV71), a member of the Enterovirus genus of the Picornaviridae family, is one of the causative pathogens of hand-foot-and-mouth disease (HFMD) and the most common etiological agent isolated from HFMD patients complicated with neurological disorders. EV71 has become an increasingly important neurotropic enterovirus in the post-poliomyelitis eradication era. Effective antiviral agents and vaccines against this virus are currently still under development. We reviewed publications on the development of EV71 vaccines in order to provide an overview of the field.

Methods

Fifty-five articles on EV71 vaccine development, published from 1974 to 2009, were collected from Sun Yat-sen University library and reviewed.

Results

Various types of vaccine have been developed for EV71. In results published to date, all vaccines for EV71 under development appear to elicit an immune response in rodents or in monkeys. According to the established regulatory standards, it may be relatively easy to acquire a license to use the inactivated virus in order to meet the immediate demands for EV71 control . With regard to the attenuated vaccine, it is critical to increase the genetic stability before clinical use, due to the risk of virulent revertants. The virus-like particle (VLP) vaccine, not only conserving the conformational epitopes, but also having no risk of virulent revertants, is another promising vaccine candidate for EV71, but needs further development. The VP1 capsid protein is the backbone antigen protein for developing subunit vaccine and epitope vaccine; these remain viable potential vaccine strategies worthy of further study and development.

Conclusions

The conservation of the three-dimensional structure is important for the EV71 inactivated vaccine and VLP vaccine to induce a strong immune response. To develop EV71 vaccines with a high protection efficacy, strategies such as the use of adjuvant, strong promoters, tissue-specific promoters, and addition of mucosal immune adjuvant should be considered.

Interchangeability of Hepatitis A boosters, Avaxim® and Vaqta®, in healthy adults following a primary dose of the combined typhoid/Hepatitis A vaccine Viatim®

This study investigated the suitability of Avaxim and Vaqta as Hepatitis A booster vaccines 6 months after priming with the combined Hepatitis A/typhoid vaccine, Viatim. One hundred and twenty adults were randomly assigned to one of the three groups. Group A (reference group) received Avaxim then Avaxim (n = 40), Group B received Viatim then Avaxim (n = 41) and Group C received Viatim then Vaqta (n = 39). One month after booster vaccination, anti-Hepatitis A virus (anti-HAV) antibodies geometric mean concentrations (GMC) of subjects primed with Viatim were non-inferior to the group primed and boosted with the monovalent Hepatitis A vaccine Avaxim. Anti-Salmonella typhi capsular polysaccharide virulence antigen (anti-Vi) GMCs in groups primed with Viatim were protective and all vaccines were well-tolerated. Therefore, Viatim may be used as a primary HAV vaccine with either Avaxim or Vaqta as Hepatitis A boosters and it will provide the same protection as two doses of Avaxim.

Long-term immunity in young adults after a single dose of inactivated Hepatitis A vaccines

We evaluated in a prospective study the immune response of naïve subjects to a single dose of inactivated Hepatitis A vaccine. Ninety-seven percent of the vaccinees sero-converted 1 month after vaccination and 93% were still positive 2 years later. All of the vaccinees had a strong booster response 2 years after the single dose. Avaxim was more immunogenic than Vaqta for the primary dose (p = 0.01 for sero-positivity, p<0.001 for antibody level) but no differences were found after boosting with Avaxim. Performance of intense physical activity during the first month after a single vaccine dose was associated with lower antibody levels (p = 0.004). This study indicates that a single dose of inactivated HAV vaccine elicits protective immune memory for at least 2 years.

Prevention of hepatitis A by vaccination

Inactivated hepatitis A vaccines have been available for more than a decade. Characteristics of the vaccines, comparative data among different formulations and the possibility of combination and association with other vaccines are reviewed in this article. Hepatitis A vaccines show high immunogenicity with different schedules and associations, induce long-term protection irrespective of timing of booster dose, and present an excellent safety profile. Pre-exposure efficacy has been demonstrated in large trials and postexposure protection has been described in family contacts of acute cases. The recommendations for the use of hepatitis A vaccines for immunisation campaigns and for targeted groups, such as travellers and people at risk for occupational and iatrogenic exposure or lifestyle behaviours, are discussed. Aspects related to economic analysis of vaccination strategies are also considered.