![Sample our Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing & Allied Health journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5944/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Medicine-Dentistry-Nursing-Allied-Health.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Background
There is a lack of synthesis of literature to determine hepatitis B vaccine (HepB) strategies for hepatitis B virus (HBV) supported by quality evidence. We aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of HepB strategies among people with different characteristics.
Research design and methods
PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for meta-analyses comparing the efficacy and safety of HepB up to July 2023.
Results
Twenty-one meta-analyses comparing 83 associations were included, with 16 high quality, 4 moderate, and 1 low quality assessed by AMSTAR 2. Highly suggestive evidence supports HepB booster and HepB with 1018 adjuvant (HBsAg-1018) for improved seroprotection, and targeted and universal HepB vaccination reduced HBV infection Suggestive evidence indicated that targeted vaccination decreased the rate of hepatitis B surface antibody positivity and booster doses increased seroprotection in people aged 10–20. Weak evidence suggests potential local/systemic reaction risk with nucleotide analogs or HBsAg-1018. Convincing evidence shows HLA-DPB1*04:01 and DPB1*04:02 increased, while DPB1*05:01 decreased, hepatitis B antibody response. Obesity may reduce HepB seroprotection, as highly suggested.
Conclusion
Targeted vaccination could effectively reduce HBV infection, and adjuvant and booster vaccinations enhance seroprotection without significant reaction. Factors such as obesity and genetic polymorphisms may affect the efficacy.
Article highlights
Targeted hepatitis B vaccination is an effective way in reducing hepatitis B infection
Booster doses increase hepatitis B immune response
Population with specific factors such as obesity may reduce the efficacy of the vaccine
Hepatitis B vaccine strategies have no significant side effects
Declaration of interests
The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or material discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or mending, or royalties.
Reviewer disclosures
A peer reviewer on this manuscript has received an honorarium for their review work. Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no other relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.
Author contributions statement
Jiamin Qiu did the literature search and screening and extracted the data; conducted the data analyses; made the figures and tables; and drafted manuscript.
Shiwen Zhang did the literature search and screening and extracted the data; conducted the data analyses.
Yonghui Feng conducted the data analyses, participated in the interpretation of results, and critically revised the manuscript.
Xin Su and Jun Cai conducted the data analyses.
Shiyun Chen, Jiazi Liu, Sui Zhu, Shiqi Huang, Haokun Huang, Huiyan Wen, Jiaxin Li, Haoyu Yan, and Zhiquan Diao participated in the interpretation of results and critically revised the manuscript.
Xiaofeng Liang was the co-corresponding author who took responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Fangfang Zeng designed the study and also was the co-corresponding author who took responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
All authors participated in the interpretation of results, critically revised the manuscript, and approved the final version for submission.
Supplementary material
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/14760584.2023.2289566