Dataset Information

Comparative Efficacy of a High-Dose vs Standard-Dose Hepatitis B Revaccination Schedule Among Patients With HIV: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Active immunization for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is recommended in patients living with HIV. Limited evidence is available about the most appropriate regimen of HBV vaccination among those who have not responded to an initial schedule.

Objective

To determine the efficacy of a high-dose schedule compared with a standard dose of HBV vaccination.

Design, setting, and participants

This double-masked, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial included patients living with HIV at a single outpatient HIV and hepatology clinic in Chile for whom previous HBV vaccination had failed. Patients with hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs) titers less than 10 IU/L after an initial HBV vaccination regimen were included. Consecutive patients were recruited between December 2013 and March 2018. Data were analyzed in June 2018 using intention-to-treat analysis.

Intervention

The high-dose HBV vaccination group consisted of 3 doses of 40 μg recombinant hepatitis B vaccine at 0, 1, and 2 months. The standard-dose group received 3 doses 20 μg each at 0, 1, and 2 months.

Main outcomes and measures

Primary outcome was the serologic response to HBV vaccination (anti-HBs greater than 10 IU/L) 4 to 8 weeks after completion of the schedule. Secondary outcomes were anti-HBs greater than 100 IU/L and seroprotective anti-HBs at 1 year follow up.

Results

A total of 107 patients underwent randomization (55 to the standard-dose group, 52 to the high-dose group); 81 (75.7%) were men, and the mean (SD) patient age was 47.0 (13.3) years. Nearly all patients were receiving antiretroviral therapy (105 patients [98%]) and 92 patients (86%) had an undetectable HIV viral load. Mean (SD) CD4 count was 418 (205) cells/mm3. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between groups. Serological response in the high-dose group was found in 36 of 50 patients (72%; 95% CI, 56.9%-82.9%) compared with 28 of 55 patients in the standard-dose group (51%; 95% CI, 37.1%-64.6%) (odds ratio, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.02-6.10; P = .03). Mean (SD) anti-HB levels were 398.0 (433.4) IU/L in the high-dose group and 158.5 (301.4) IU/L in the standard-dose group (P < .001). Of patients with a serological response in the high-dose group, 29 of 36 (80.6%) had anti-HBs titers greater than 100 IU/L compared with 14 of 28 responders (50.0%) in the standard-dose group (P = .02). At 1-year follow-up, 20 of 25 patients (80.0%) with a serological response in the high-dose group had protective anti-HBs vs 9 of 23 patients (39.1%) in the standard-dose group (P = .01).

Conclusions and relevance

The results of this randomized clinical trial suggest that use of a high-dose regimen for HBV revaccination for patients with HIV achieves a higher and longer-lasting serological response as compared with a standard-dose regimen.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02003703.

SUBMITTER: Vargas JI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8383137 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAcute bacterial sinusitis is common, but currently recommended antibiotic treatment provides minimal benefit.ObjectiveTo confirm the previous finding that high-dose amoxicillin plus clavulanate (with double the amount of amoxicillin) may be superior to standard-dose amoxicillin plus clavulanate in adults.Design, setting, and participantsThis double-blind, comparative-effectiveness randomized clinical trial was conducted from February 26, 2018, through May 10, 2020, at the academic primary care internal medicine and pediatrics practice of Albany Medical Center, located in Cohoes, New York. Participants included adults aged 18 years or older who were prescribed amoxicillin plus clavulanate for acute bacterial sinusitis diagnosed in accordance with the Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines.InterventionsAmoxicillin 875 mg with clavulanate 125 mg plus either placebo (standard dose) or amoxicillin 875 mg (high dose) twice a day for 7 days.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary efficacy outcome was a global rating of "a lot better" or "no symptoms" at the end of 3 days of treatment using a Global Rating of Improvement scale, with outcomes ranging from 1 (a lot worse) to 6 (no symptoms). The primary adverse effect outcome was severe diarrhea at 3 or 10 days after the start of treatment.ResultsAt an unplanned interim analysis prompted by COVID-19 restrictions, 157 of a projected 240 participants had been enrolled (mean age, 48.5 [range, 18.7-84.0] years; 117 women [74.5%]), with 79 randomized to the standard dose and 78 to the high dose; 9 and 12, respectively, withdrew or were lost to follow-up before the assessment of the primary outcome. At day 3, 31 of 70 participants (44.3%) in the standard-dose group reported a global rating of "a lot better" or "no symptoms," as did 24 of 66 (36.4%) in the high-dose group, for a difference of -7.9% (95% CI, -24.4% to 8.5%; P = .35). The study was, therefore, stopped for futility. Diarrhea was common in both groups by day 3, with any diarrhea reported in 29 of 71 participants (40.8%) receiving the standard dose and 28 of 65 (43.1%) receiving the high dose and severe diarrhea reported in 5 of 71 (7.0%) and 5 of 65 (7.7%), respectively.Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this randomized clinical trial suggest that adults treated for clinically diagnosed acute sinusitis did not appear to benefit from taking high-dose compared with standard-dose amoxicillin plus clavulanate.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03431337.

Project description:Large randomized trials have previously shown that high-dose micronutrient supplementation can increase CD4 counts and reduce human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) disease progression and mortality among individuals not receiving highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART); however, the safety and efficacy of such supplementation has not been established in the context of HAART.To test the hypothesis that high-dose multivitamin supplementation vs standard-dose multivitamin supplementation decreases the risk of HIV disease progression or death and improves immunological, virological, and nutritional parameters in patients with HIV initiating HAART.A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of high-dose vs standard-dose multivitamin supplementation for 24 months in 3418 patients with HIV initiating HAART between November 2006 and November 2008 in 7 clinics in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. INTERVENTION The provision of daily oral supplements of vitamin B complex, vitamin C, and vitamin E at high levels or standard levels of the recommended dietary allowance.The composite of HIV disease progression or death from any cause.The study was stopped early in March 2009 because of evidence of increased levels of alanine transaminase (ALT) in patients receiving the high-dose multivitamin supplement. At the time of stopping, 3418 patients were enrolled (median follow-up, 15 months), and there were 2374 HIV disease progression events and 453 observed deaths (2460 total combined events). Compared with standard-dose multivitamin supplementation, high-dose supplementation did not reduce the risk of HIV disease progression or death. The absolute risk of HIV progression or death was 72% in the high-dose group vs 72% in the standard-dose group (risk ratio [RR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.96-1.04). High-dose supplementation had no effect on CD4 count, plasma viral load, body mass index, or hemoglobin level concentration, but increased the risk of ALT elevations (1239 events per 1215 person-years vs 879 events per 1236 person-years; RR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.11-1.87) vs standard-dose supplementation. CONCLUSION In adults receiving HAART, use of high-dose multivitamin supplements compared with standard-dose multivitamin supplements did not result in a decrease in HIV disease progression or death but may have resulted in an increase in ALT levels.Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00383669.

Project description:ImportanceA lower dose of intravenous alteplase appears to be a safer treatment option than the standard dose, reducing the risk of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage. There is uncertainty, however, over how this effect translates into an overall clinical benefit for patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS).ObjectiveTo assess whether older, Asian, or severely affected patients with AIS who are considered at high risk of thrombolysis may benefit more from low-dose rather than standard-dose alteplase treatment.Design, setting, and participantsThis study is a prespecified secondary analysis of the Enhanced Control of Hypertension and Thrombolysis Stroke Study (ENCHANTED), an international, randomized, open-label, blinded, end-point clinical trial of low-dose vs standard-dose intravenous alteplase for patients with AIS. From March 1, 2012, to August 31, 2015, a total of 3310 patients who had a clinical diagnosis of AIS as confirmed by brain imaging and who fulfilled the local criteria for thrombolysis treatment were included in the alteplase-dose arms. Patients were randomly assigned to receive low-dose (0.6 mg/kg; 15% as bolus and 85% as infusion over 1 hour) or standard-dose (0.9 mg/kg; 10% as bolus and 90% as infusion over 1 hour) alteplase. Of the 3310 randomized patients, 13 patients were excluded for missing consent, mistaken randomization, and duplicate randomization numbers. This secondary analysis was conducted between May 1, 2016, and April 28, 2017.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was a poor outcome defined by the combination of death and any disability as scored by the modified Rankin Scale (scores range from 2 to 6, with the highest score indicating death) at 90 days.ResultsOf the 3297 patients included in the analysis, 1248 (37.9%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 67 (13) years. No significant differences in the treatment effects were observed between low- and standard-dose alteplase for poor outcomes (death or disability) by age, ethnicity, or severity (all P > .37 for interaction). Similarly, the treatment effects of low- vs standard-dose alteplase on function outcome (ordinal shift of the modified Rankin Scale) in Asians (odds ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.90-1.22) was consistent with non-Asians (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.76-1.14) (P = .32 for interaction). There were generally consistent reductions in rates of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage with low-dose alteplase, although this reduction was not statistically significant by age, ethnicity, or severity.Conclusions and relevanceThis analysis found that the effects of low-dose alteplase were not clearly superior to the effects of standard-dose alteplase on death or disability in key demographic subgroups of patients with AIS. Further investigation is required to identify patients with AIS who may benefit from low-dose alteplase.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01422616.

Project description:ImportanceVitamin D may be important for neurodevelopment. The optimal daily dose of vitamin D for early brain development is not known.ObjectivesTo test whether a higher (1200 IU) vs standard (400 IU) dose of vitamin D3 has beneficial effects on neurodevelopment in the first 2 years of life and whether serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration is associated with neurodevelopment.Design, setting, and participantsThis double-blind, interventional randomized clinical trial involved healthy infants born full-term between January 1, 2013, and June 30, 2014, at a maternity hospital in Helsinki, Finland, at the 60th northern latitude. Two-year follow-up was conducted by May 30, 2016. Data analysis was by the intention-to-treat principle. Data were analyzed from November 1, 2020, to May 31, 2021.InterventionsRandomization of 404 infants to receive 400 IU of oral vitamin D3 supplementation daily and 397 infants to receive 1200 IU of oral vitamin D3 supplementation daily from 2 weeks to 24 months of age.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were child total developmental milestone scores at 12 and 24 months of age measured using the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (total score is calculated as a mean of the 5 subscale scores: total score range, 0-60, where 0 indicates delay in all developmental domains and 60 indicates that the child can master all age-specific skills) as well as externalizing, internalizing, and dysregulation problems and competencies scores at 24 months measured using the Infant-Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment (range 0-2, where 0 indicates no problems or no competencies and 2 indicates a high level of problems or a high level of competencies; variables were standardized to the mean [SD] of 0 [1]). Secondary outcomes were specific skills, problems, and competencies derived from these questionnaires.ResultsOf the 987 families recruited, 495 children were randomly assigned to receive 400 IU of vitamin D3, and 492 children were randomly assigned to receive 1200 IU of vitamin D3. A total of 801 families participated in the follow-up at 12 and/or 24 months, with 404 children (207 girls [51.2%]) in the 400-IU group and 397 children (198 girls [49.9%]) in the 1200-IU group. All children were of Northern European ethnicity. No differences were found between the 400-IU group and the 1200-IU group in the mean (SD) adjusted Ages and Stages Questionnaire total score at 12 months (45.0 [7.1] vs 46.2 [7.9]; mean difference [MD], 1.17 [95% CI, -0.06 to 2.38]) or 24 months (50.9 [5.3] vs 51.5 [5.5]; MD, 0.48 [95% CI, -0.40 to 1.36]). No differences were found between the 400-IU group and the 1200-IU group at 24 months in the mean (SD) adjusted Infant-Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment externalizing domain score (-0.07 [1.00] vs 0.07 [0.98]; MD, 0.15 [95% CI, -0.01 to 0.31]), internalizing domain score (0.04 [1.06] vs -0.02 [0.98]; MD, -0.07 [95% CI, -0.24 to 0.1.0]), dysregulation domain score (-0.00 [1.04] vs 0.02 [0.96]; MD, 0.02 [95% CI, -0.14 to 0.18]), or competencies score (-0.02 [1.02] vs 0.01 [1.02]; MD, 0.03 [95% CI, -0.13 to 0.20]). The 1200-IU group did have a higher risk in the adjusted model of scoring 1.5 SDs or more on the externalizing domain score (odds ratio, 2.33 [95% CI, 1.19-4.56]; P = .01). Levels of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D were not associated with the primary outcomes.Conclusions and relevanceHigher-than-standard vitamin D3 doses provide no systematic benefits for child neurodevelopment up to 2 years of age. However, the potential disadvantageous effects of higher doses could not be fully excluded; even if minimal, the potential nonbeneficial effects of higher-than-standard doses warrant further studies in which both safety and benefits should be evaluated.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01723852.

Project description:ImportanceHospitalized patients with COVID-19 are at risk for venous and arterial thromboembolism and death. Optimal thromboprophylaxis dosing in high-risk patients is unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of therapeutic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) vs institutional standard prophylactic or intermediate-dose heparins for thromboprophylaxis in high-risk hospitalized patients with COVID-19.Design, setting, and participantsThe HEP-COVID multicenter randomized clinical trial recruited hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 with D-dimer levels more than 4 times the upper limit of normal or sepsis-induced coagulopathy score of 4 or greater from May 8, 2020, through May 14, 2021, at 12 academic centers in the US.InterventionsPatients were randomized to institutional standard prophylactic or intermediate-dose LMWH or unfractionated heparin vs therapeutic-dose enoxaparin, 1 mg/kg subcutaneous, twice daily if creatinine clearance was 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 or greater (0.5 mg/kg twice daily if creatinine clearance was 15-29 mL/min/1.73 m2) throughout hospitalization. Patients were stratified at the time of randomization based on intensive care unit (ICU) or non-ICU status.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary efficacy outcome was venous thromboembolism (VTE), arterial thromboembolism (ATE), or death from any cause, and the principal safety outcome was major bleeding at 30 ± 2 days. Data were collected and adjudicated locally by blinded investigators via imaging, laboratory, and health record data.ResultsOf 257 patients randomized, 253 were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 66.7 [14.0] years; men, 136 [53.8%]; women, 117 [46.2%]); 249 patients (98.4%) met inclusion criteria based on D-dimer elevation and 83 patients (32.8%) were stratified as ICU-level care. There were 124 patients (49%) in the standard-dose vs 129 patients (51%) in the therapeutic-dose group. The primary efficacy outcome was met in 52 of 124 patients (41.9%) (28.2% VTE, 3.2% ATE, 25.0% death) with standard-dose heparins vs 37 of 129 patients (28.7%) (11.7% VTE, 3.2% ATE, 19.4% death) with therapeutic-dose LMWH (relative risk [RR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.96; P = .03), including a reduction in thromboembolism (29.0% vs 10.9%; RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21-0.66; P < .001). The incidence of major bleeding was 1.6% with standard-dose vs 4.7% with therapeutic-dose heparins (RR, 2.88; 95% CI, 0.59-14.02; P = .17). The primary efficacy outcome was reduced in non-ICU patients (36.1% vs 16.7%; RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27-0.81; P = .004) but not ICU patients (55.3% vs 51.1%; RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.62-1.39; P = .71).Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, therapeutic-dose LMWH reduced major thromboembolism and death compared with institutional standard heparin thromboprophylaxis among inpatients with COVID-19 with very elevated D-dimer levels. The treatment effect was not seen in ICU patients.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04401293.