Systematic review of the efficacy and safety of intradermal versus intramuscular hepatitis B vaccination in end-stage renal disease population unresponsive to primary vaccination series.
Review
Overview
abstract
INTRODUCTION: The response to hepatitis B vaccine in the dialysis population is reduced compared to the general population. The intradermal (ID) hepatitis B vaccine has been studied as a potential alternative to intramuscular (IM) administration. This alternative route of administration may illicit a response via a distinct immunologic pathway that may help achieve higher seroconversion rates and thus, protection against hepatitis B infection in this vulnerable patient population. METHODS: A literature search was performed in January 2015 using Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials with keywords including, hepatitis B vaccines, intradermal, dermal, intracutaneous, dialysis, hemodialysis, continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis, CAPD, peritoneal dialysis, renal failure, chronic renal failure, chronic kidney disease, chronic renal insufficiency, End Stage Renal Disease, ESRD, and CKD. Our search strategy was restricted to human studies published in the English language, and additional literature was retrieved by hand-searching bibliographies of relevant articles. Two reviewers (F.Y. and S.G.) independently reviewed abstracts and/or full texts of articles retrieved from the electronic database using the above-mentioned search strategy. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) Published, English-language studies performed in the human population, (2) adult patient population (≥18 years of age), (3) randomized trials, (4) patient population must have been unresponsive to a primary IM hepatitis B vaccination protocol, (5) patients must be chronic dialysis patients, either on maintenance hemodialysis or continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD), (6) studies that compare IM and ID hepatitis B vaccination-associated seroconversion rates, (7) results must be reported as seroconversion rates at 1-3, 6-9, 12, or 20 months post-vaccination, and (8) seroconversion (protective antibody levels) defined as >10 or ≥10 IU/L. RESULTS: Our initial literature review yielded 113 results, of which four were included in our final review. These four prospective trials studied a combined total of 204 dialysis patients. Of these patients, 120 (59%) had received the hepatitis B vaccine intradermally, while 84 (41%) received it intramuscularly. Hepatitis B vaccination type, dose, route, and seroconversion rates were tabulated for each study. Each of the studies used different protocols for patient inclusion, schedule of vaccine administration, and time-points for measuring seroconversion. Seroconversion rates at either 1, 2, 3, 6-9, 12 and/or 20 months were reported. The combined seroconversion rates were 91%, 83%, 86%, 81%, 76%, and 32% at 1, 2, 3, 6-9, 12, and 20 months in the ID group, respectively, and 55%, 72%, 58%, 44%, 24%, and 0% in the IM group, respectively. Chi-square analysis revealed a significantly higher proportion of patients achieving seroconversion in the ID group versus the IM group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our review demonstrates that ID hepatitis B vaccination in primary non-responders undergoing dialysis provides an effective alternative to IM vaccination as a means of protection against hepatitis B infection in this highly susceptible population. Additional well-designed, double-blinded, randomized trials are warranted to establish clear guidelines on ID Hepatitis B vaccine dose and duration of vaccination schedule.
