MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3174238876 · doi:10.2337/db21-195-lb

195-LB: Lower Nonresponse Rates to 3-Antigen HBV Vaccine among Adults with Diabetes, Age 45 and Over, or Obesity Compared with a Single-Antigen HBV Vaccine: PROTECT Study

2021· article· en· W3174238876 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Francisco Díaz‐Mitoma, Timo Vesikari, Joanne M. Langley, ALOMGIR HOSSAIN, Nathalie Machluf, Johanna N. Spaans, Bebi Yassin-Rajkumar, David E. Anderson, Vlad Popovic

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatitis B Virus Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImmunogenicityHepatitis B virusHepatitis BHepatitis B vaccineObesityDiabetes mellitusInternal medicineAntigenVaccinationImmunologyHBsAgEndocrinologyVirus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diabetes mellitus (DM), older age (≥45 years) and obesity (BMI >30 kg/m2) are associated with lower response to immunizations and worse outcomes of chronic hepatitis B infection. Therefore, there is a need to enhance immunogenicity of HBV vaccine for adults, especially those with DM, older age, and obesity. PROTECT study compared the immunogenicity and safety of 3-doses of 3-antigen / 3A-HBV (Sci-B-Vac) and 1-antigen / 1A-HBV (Engerix-B) HBV vaccines administered at months 0, 1 and 6. The study enrolled 1607 adults age ≥18 years in the US (42.3%), Europe (41.6%) and Canada (16.1%). Immunogenicity, measured as rate of non-response (% not achieving anti-HBs levels ≥10 mIU/mL), anti-HBs geometric mean concentration (GMC), and safety were evaluated in all adults and key subgroups of interest. Of 1607 study participants, 7.5% (3A-HBV arm) and 8.0% (1A-HBV arm) had a stable and well controlled DM (HbA1c <8.5%), 81.4% were age ≥45 years and 36.7% had BMI >30 kg/m2. Overall non-response rates were 23.5% (1A-HBV) and 8.6% (3A-HBV). For diabetics, non-response rates were 41.7% (1A-HBV) and 16.7% (3A-HBV), for those age ≥45 years, 34.3% (1A-HBV) and 16.4% (3A-HBV) and for BMI >30 kg/m2, 31.9% (1A-HBV) and 10.8% (3A-HBV). Mean GMC of anti-HBs was higher for 3A-HBV compared to 1A-HBV (1424.5 vs. 235.4 mIU/mL) and consistently higher across key subgroups, including those with DM, age ≥45 years and BMI >30 kg/m2. Safety of 3A-HBV was comparable to 1A-HBV except for higher rates of injection site pain, tenderness and myalgia of mild to moderate severity and mean duration of 1-2 days. Completion rate of all 3 vaccine doses was high at 96.8% (1A-HBV) and 95.2% (3A-HBV). Immunization with 3A-HBV achieved lower rates of non-response compared to 1A-HBV in all adults, including those with diabetes, older age, and obesity. Disclosure F. Diaz-mitoma: Consultant; Self; VBI Vaccines. Protect study group: n/a. T. Vesikari: Research Support; Self; VBI Vaccines. J. M. Langley: Research Support; Self; GlaxoSmithKline plc., Medicago, VIDO, Entos, Merck & Co., Inc., Pfizer Inc., Sanofi. A. Hossain: None. N. Machluf: Employee; Self; VBI Vaccines. J. Spaans: Employee; Self; VBI Vaccines Inc. B. Yassin-rajkumar: None. D. E. Anderson: Employee; Self; VBI Vaccines, Inc., Stock/Shareholder; Self; VBI Vaccines, Inc. V. Popovic: Employee; Self; VBI Vaccines.

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetesSame topicHepatitis B Virus StudiesFrench-language works237,207