Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Fendrix® compared to Engerix® in HIV-infected patients nonresponding to initial- and re-vaccination schedule.

BACKGROUND: In HIV-infected patients, the immunogenicity of hepatitis B vaccines is impaired. In this randomised controlled study (RCT), we investigated the effect of Fendrix® versus double-dose Engerix® vaccination in previously non-responsive HIV-infected subjects.

METHODS: Patients included those who were HIV-infected and non-responders to a primary (single-dose hepatitis B (HBV) vaccination) and a subsequent double-dose HBV revaccination schedule. Subjects were randomised 1:1 to receive Fendrix® (t = 0, 4, 8, 24 weeks) or double-dose Engerix® (t = 0, 4, 24 weeks) vaccinations. Primary efficacy, defined as anti-HBs response ≥ 10 IU/l, was evaluated at week 28 in both study arms.

RESULTS: A subset of 48 patients non-responsive to HBV vaccination was selected, from a cohort of patients at our institution, who underwent HBV vaccination unsuccessfully either in a previous RCT or through standard care. The anti-HBs ≥ 10 IU/l response rate at week 28 in the Fendrix® arm and the Engerix® arm were 85.7% and 65.0%, respectively (p = 0.09). There was no significant difference between the two used vaccine types in the anti-HBs levels reached. In our institution, the overall response rate after initial standard-dose vaccination schedule and double-dose revaccination in our cohort was 75%. In this study, combining the effects of Fendrix and Engerix resulted in a 75% response rate in the 25% remaining non-responders on initial and double-dose revaccination series. This yielded an absolute 19% increase and an overall response to HBV vaccination in HIV-infected patients of around 94% in our cohort.

CONCLUSION: These results together, suggest that continuing HBV vaccination in non-responders to a first course of single-dose vaccine and a double-dose revaccination scheme is worth the effort. No superiority of one of the investigated hepatitis B vaccines was shown in this cohort but an appropriate number of patients needed to achieve reliable answers was not achieved.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app