Two year old hepatitis A vaccine is as good as new

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This review is withdrawn because it is outdated.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.

Hepatitis A vaccine administration: comparison between jet-injector and needle injection

INTRODUCTION

Type A hepatitis virus (HAV) is a serious health problem throughout the world and can be spread via fecal-oral contact. Both immune globulin and an HAV vaccine provide protection, but the vaccine gives complete protection. Efficacy of methods of vaccination in relation to the formation of anti-HAV antibodies is unclear; thus, this study seeks to determine if significant differences exist between the syringe as compared to the jet injection technique. The purpose of this study was to compare in a randomized trial Biojet jet-injection system to a needle-syringe method. To determine if a significant difference between these two methods in seroconversion rates or geometric mean titers of anti HAV antibody occurs at day 15, 30, and 210 days after vaccination.

METHOD

Anti-HAV IgG(-) adult hospital employees were randomized to receive 1440 EL.U of hepatitis a vaccine (HAVRIX(R)) in 2 doses by either needle or jet-injector (Biojector(R)) system at month 0 and 6. HAV seroconversion titer results were measured by the Boehringer-Mannheim method.

RESULTS/DISCUSSION

A higher proportion of persons who received HAV vaccine via the Biojector(R) seroconverted with anti-HAV level >/=20 mIU at day 15, 30, and month 7 when compared with a needle injection.Side-effect profiles reported by participants in both methods were below those identified in current published and insert information, but the Biojector(R) had greater local reactivity in all categories when compared to the needle method.

Cost-effective analysis of hepatitis A prevention in Ireland

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the most cost-effective prevention strategy against hepatitis A virus (HAV) infection for healthcare workers and the general population at risk in Ireland.

METHODS

Four prevention strategies were compared: active immunization with Havrix Monodose (1440E.U); screening for anti-HAV antibody and then vaccinating; passive immunization; screening for anti-HAV antibody and then passive immunization. The cost-effective ratio was calculated for each prevention strategy. Threshold analysis, sensitivity analysis, and model extension to include indirect cost from work days lost and secondary attack rates through horizontal transmission were also derived.

RESULTS

The medical costs were lowest and the infection rate highest when no preventive action was taken. Vaccination was most cost effective when the prevalence of immunity was 45% or less, reducing the infection rate by 98% when compared to nonprevention. Screening before vaccination was most cost effective when the prevalence of immunity was greater than 45%. Passive immunization and screening before passive immunization were not comparable to the other strategies in cost effectiveness. Sensitivity analysis showed that the cost-effective ratio for vaccination was dependent on vaccine price, incidence of HAV, and prevalence of immunity in the target group. Extending the model to include indirect costs further increased the cost effectiveness of vaccination.

CONCLUSION

The best cost-effective strategy relates to target group immunity. Where HAV immunity is 45% or less, vaccination is the strategy of choice and when immunity is greater than 45%, then screening followed by vaccination should be used. This study can be used to provide a framework within which choices can be made to achieve better health for less cost.