ReviewCentral-European journal of immunology2019
Comparative analysis of the safety and efficacy of HBsAg-1018 versus HBsAg-Eng: a meta-analysis.
Review in Central-European journal of immunology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Innate immunity stimulation via CpG oligodeoxynucleotides ameliorates Alzheimer's disease pathology in aged squirrel monkeys.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn addition to alum adjuvant, a wide diversity of adjuvants have been developed to enhance immune response of hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccine in varying subjects, either in healthy vaccinators or subjects with hypo-immunity. In this context, a novel HBV vaccine HBsAg-1018, formulated with a toll-like receptor 9 agonist, was developed, and is currently in the phase of clinical trials. So, the first meta-analysis was performed to examine the safety and immune response of HBsAg-1018 among varying subjects. MATERIAL AND
methodsOn the basis of inclusion criterion, eligible studies that reported safety and immunogenicity induced by HBsAg-1018 vaccination in randomised, controlled trials (RCTs) were involved from three databases: PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, and further confirmed by two reviewers. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3. The pooled relative risk (RR) for safety and immunogenicity was calculated using random-effects or fixed-effects models according to the heterogeneity of included studies. The methodology quality of eligible studies was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.1.0.
resultsIn total 5073 subjects administrated with HBV vaccine from four eligible publications were included in this meta-analysis. The data related to immunogenicity and safety post vaccination were pooled for meta-analysis. For safety, the combined RRs for adverse reactions were 0.98 (95% CI: 0.89-1.08), 1.02 (95% CI: 0.94-1.10) for AE, 0.88 (95% CI: 0.70-1.10) for SAE, and 1.07 (0.12-9.17) for death. No statistical heterogeneity among RCTs was found (p > 0.05). For immunogenicity, at four weeks post vaccination, seroprotection rates (SPRs) in HBsAg-1018 were significantly superior to the conventional HBV vaccine containing alum adjuvant, HBsAg-Eng (Engerix-B®, GlaxoSmithKline, Rixensart, Belgium) (RR: 4.35; 95% CI: 3.35-5.65). Furthermore, superior immunogenicity of HBsAg-1018 was maintained with RRs up to 1.23 and 95% CI: 1.20-1.27 through 28 weeks post vaccination. However, there was considerable heterogeneity with > 80% I2 value (p < 0.05).
conclusionsIn comparison with HBsAg-Eng, HBsAg-1018 exhibited superior immune response and comparable safety profile with HBsAg-Eng in varying subjects. HBsAg-1018 is an effective and safe prophylactic measure to prevent HBV infection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.