MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3120520258 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.1237

1051. Rapid onset of seroprotection rates in young adults immunized with a tri-antigenic hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccine compared to a mono-antigenic HBV vaccine

2020· article· en· W3120520258 on OpenAlexaffabout
Timo Vesikari, Joanne M. Langley, Nathalie Machluf, Johanna N. Spaans, Bebi Yassin-Rajkumar, Dave Anderson, Vlad Popovic, Francisco Díaz‐Mitoma

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatitis B Virus Studies
Canadian institutionsVariation Biotechnologies (Canada)Nova Scotia Health AuthorityIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHepatitis B virusTransmission (telecommunications)VaccinationHepatitis BAntigenInternal medicineVirologyImmunologyVirus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Hepatitis B (HBV) remains a significant public health risk with an estimated 240-350 million people chronically-infected with HBV worldwide. In the US, rates of new HBV infections are highest among individuals aged 30-39 years, highlighting the elevated risk in adults. Moreover, CDC reported that in 2017 only 34.3% of US adults aged 19-49 years were vaccinated against HBV. Younger adults who are at-risk of HBV infection, through exposure in the workplace or home (e.g. healthcare workers, public service sector workers, those living with HBsAb-positive individuals), through travel to countries with high HBV prevalence, or through exposure as a result of high-risk behavior (e.g. injection drug use, risk through sexual transmission), need a highly effective and safe HBV vaccine with a rapid onset of seroprotection. Seroprotection Rates from Phase 3 Studies Methods Four phase 3 studies assessing kinetics of seroprotection rates (SPR; anti-HBs ≥ 10 mIU/mL) in adults aged 18-45 years, vaccinated at months 0, 1 and 6 with 10 µg of tri-antigenic HBV vaccine (TAV) vs. 20 µg of a mono-antigenic HBV vaccine (MAV) were completed between 2008 & 2020: (1) PROTECT study in US, Europe, and Canada, n = 299; (2) CONSTANT study in US, Europe and Canada, n = 2,838; (3) SG-005-05 study in Vietnam, n = 349; (4) 38-13-040 study in Russia, n = 99. One phase 4, single-arm study was conducted with 10 µg of TAV in adults aged 20-40 years: SciB018 study in Israel, n = 83. Results In all five studies, vaccination with TAV achieved SPRs of 87.2-100.0% at month 6 after 2 doses and 99.2-100.0% at month 7 after 3 doses, compared to 39.0-89.4% and 91.1-98.3% achieved with MAV at months 6 and 7, respectively (Fig 1). Moreover, as demonstrated with the data available from two of the controlled studies, TAV induced SPRs of 76.0%-95.9% at month 3 after 2 doses compared to 37.2%-87.2% with MAV. No major safety signals were observed, and adverse events were well-balanced and consistent with the known vaccine safety profiles. Conclusion Tri-antigenic HBV vaccine (TAV) has demonstrated its ability to rapidly, consistently, and safely elicit high SPRs in younger adults across different regions of the world. Disclosures Joanne M. Langley, MD, GSK group of companies (Research Grant or Support)Immunivaccines Inc (Scientific Research Study Investigator, Research Grant or Support)Janssen (Research Grant or Support)Pfizer (Research Grant or Support)Symvivo (Scientific Research Study Investigator, Research Grant or Support)VBI Vaccines (Research Grant or Support) Nathalie Machluf, PhD, VBI Vaccines Inc. (Employee) Johanna Spaans, BSc, MSc, VBI Vaccines Inc (Employee) Dave Anderson, PhD, VBI Vaccines (Employee, Shareholder) Vlad Popovic, MD, VBI Vaccines, Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Francisco Diaz-Mitoma, MD, VBI Vaccines, Inc. (Shareholder, Independent Contractor)

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicHepatitis B Virus StudiesFrench-language works237,207