MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2282226350 · doi:10.14288/1.0086312

Long-term follow-up of neonates who have been immunized with hepatitis B vaccine

2008· article· en· W2282226350 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marian Tomm Pastore

Notice bibliographique

RevuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHepatitis B Virus Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineTerm (time)Hepatitis B vaccineVirologyPediatricsImmunologyIntensive care medicineHepatitis B virusVirus

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Although the short-term effectiveness of hepatitis B vaccine has been well established, few long-term studies of the effectiveness of this vaccine in neonates who are born to HBsAg positive mothers have been undertaken. It is also not known if supplementary doses of vaccine are required to protect these children who are continuously exposed to the hepatitis B virus, and if so, how long after primary immunization the additional dose should be given. To determine the hepatitis B vaccine effectiveness up to eight years, a cohort of 770 (66%) of 1166 children who had been immunized with HBIG and hepatitis B vaccine at birth, between 1984 and 1989 inclusive, were tested for the serological markers: anti-HBc, anti-HBs and HBsAg. (Anti-HBc indicates that viral replication has occurred at some time (infection); anti-HBs is the antibody to HBsAg and may appear after natural infection or following immunization; and HBsAg indicates presence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection.) The children in the cohort were immunized as part of the British Columbia Ministry of Health Program to prevent HBV infection in infants of carrier mothers. Blood samples were obtained by finger-prick and tested at the Canadian Red Cross Society, Vancouver Centre, Blood Transfusion Service. The IMx assay kits were produced by Abbott Laboratories. Parents were interviewed for information on relevant variables. Associations were determined using chi-square tests, Mantel-Haenszel trend tests, linear and logistic regression procedures. Best prediction models for the outcomes: anti-HBc, anti-HBs and HBsAg were determined in a stepwise fashion. Of the participants, 31% of the mothers were HBeAg positive as well as HBsAg positive. The overall attack rate for ages 2 to 8years was 5.1%; the carrier rate was 2.3% and the seropositivity rate (>=10 mIU/ml) was 87.9%. The geometric mean titres of anti-HBs varied from a high of 272 mIU/ml at age two to a low of 23 mIU/ml at age seven. Vaccine efficacy for infection was 89%. The best predictors for infection were the mother's HBeAg status (P<0.0001), the age of the child when the first dose of vaccine was given (P=0.0001), the number of years the mother spent in her country of birth (P=0.001) and inversely the mother's age (P=0.002). Anti-HBs titres were best predicted by the inverse age of the child (P=0.0001), the number of doses of vaccine (P=0.0007), the age of the child when the first dose of vaccine was given (P=0.01) and the number of months the child spent abroad (P=0.05). Since the infection rate was relatively stable between age groups and the association between the child's age and anti-HBc was not significant (P=0.15), waning immunity is not suggested by the findings of this study. This was in spite of the decline in anti-HBs titres with increasing age. The conclusions of this study are: 1) That a booster dose of hepatitis B vaccine after the six month dose is not necessary at least up to age eight; 2) Because a delay in the first dose of vaccine resulted in increased infections, giving the first dose early is critical; 3) It could not be concluded from the data that HBIG was not important, therefore, continuation of HBIG at birth is recommended; 4) Since the timing of dose two later than two months after dose one was not found to be associated with increased infections, this dose could be incorporated with the regular immunization schedule at two months of age if administratively more feasible; 5) Susceptibility appears to arise earlier rather than later and may be due to non-response to the vaccine as a 14% non-response rate was found at 6 to 18 months of age.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,015
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,029

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,195
Écart entre enseignants0,184 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2008
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Même sujetHepatitis B Virus StudiesTravaux en français237 207