Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Feb 26;21(2):e0339690. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0339690

Hepatitis B immunity and vaccine completion among adults at increased risk for hepatitis B infection in Zambia

Enock Syabbalo 1,2,*,#, Sydney Mpisa 1,2,3,#, Michael J Vinikoor 2,4,5,6, Mercy Wamundila 4, Likando Munalula 4, Taonga Musonda 4, Ruth Phiri 4, Paul Kelly 2,4,7, Chloe Thio 8, David L Thomas 8, Edford Sinkala 1,2,4
Editor: Livia Melo Villar9
PMCID: PMC12944761  PMID: 41746994

Abstract

Background

Because of its low cost and lasting effects, hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccination of adults in Africa could significantly contribute to viral elimination. Among at-risk adult populations there are few data to inform vaccine implementation, including on pre-existing immunity and vaccine uptake. We serologically profiled adults with specific risk factors for HBV infection in urban Zambia and evaluated their uptake of vaccine.

Methods

At a tertiary hospital in Lusaka, we recruited hepatitis B surface antigen-negative adult (age 18+) contacts to people with chronic HBV, health workers (HCWs), and people with HIV (PLWH). After we jointly collected blood and gave the first HBV vaccine dose (blind to the full serological profile), we called back those whose results showed insufficient surface antibodies (anti-HBs) to complete the 3-dose series at 1 and 6 months, and we reimbursed transport costs. Stratified by group, we described the proportions of participants with past vaccination, resolved infection (anti-HBc-positive regardless of anti-Hbs status), isolated core antibodies (anti-HBc-positive and anti-HBs-negative), and neither antibody. We described the correlates of resolved infection. We described completion of the vaccine series in anti-HBs-negatives. In those with isolated core antibodies, we explored the incidence of an anamnestic response based on post-first-dose anti-HBs > 10 IU/ml and>= 1-log increase from baseline.

Results

616 adults (median age, 32.2 years, IQR [26.7–43.8]; 61.2% women) enrolled, including 333 contacts, 213 HCWs, and 70 PLWH. Half had neither antibody, including 68.5% of health workers. Prior vaccination was seen in 8.3% overall, including 11.3% of HCWs. Resolved infection was present for 39.3% and was more prevalent with increased age and among contacts. Isolated core was present in 59 (9.6% overall and 24.7% of those with resolved infection) participants. Among the 383 participants eligible for vaccination, 377 (98.4%) received 1 dose, 190 (49.6%) received 2 doses, and 54 (14.1%) completed the series. Among 18 individuals with isolated core antibodies, none had detectable HBV DNA, and 9 (50%) had an anamnestic response.

Discussion

Most adults at risk for HBV in Lusaka, Zambia, had inadequate immunity, which could undermine HBV elimination. High resolved infection rate in contacts supports the role of index testing in HBV case finding. Low vaccine completion, despite vaccine access and addressing transportation costs, was striking and underscores the need for integrated behavioral science approaches to improve implementation of this potentially cost-effective intervention. Low rates of anamnestic response in people with anti-HBc-positivity should be further studied in Africa.

Introduction

With 1.2 million new infections annually [1], 300 million people chronically infected [2] and 2 billion people having been previously infected, Hepatitis B continues to be an infectious disease of public health importance globally. Viral hepatitis for which Hepatitis B forms the majority of the infections, was the 2nd leading cause of death amongst infectious diseases in 2022, behind COVID 19 [1]. Hepatitis B infection mortality is mainly due to liver cirrhosis and/or hepatocellular carcinoma. Africa is disproportionately affected by Hepatitis B, accounting for 80 million chronic cases [3] and most new global infections [4]. To reduce new infections, infant vaccination, including at birth, is a major strategy for hepatitis B elimination since infection early in life is less likely to naturally resolve than in adulthood.

Hepatitis B is potentially preventable, with vaccination being at the core of primary prevention strategies. Hepatitis B vaccination has long been considered a safe, efficacious and cost-effective method of prevention. Since the first hepatitis vaccine in 1981 [5], several iterations have been developed to optimize immunogenicity and safety [6]. The preferred site of administration is intra-deltoid and preferred vaccination schedule is over 6 months with the 2nd vaccine given 1 month after the first, and the 3rd vaccine given at 6 months although alternative schedules have been proposed. The WHO position paper of 2017 indicated that 1–2 month post vaccination hepatitis B surface (HBs) IgG antibody titres of greater than or equal to 10 mIU/ml were considered effective to provide protection and a 3-dose strategy ensured that this target would be reached in greater than 95% of vaccinated individuals [7]. Though 10 mIU/ml is a correlate of immunity, 100 mIU/ml is considered as the optimal level of HBs and a marker of a robust immune response [8].

While infants in Africa are the priority group for vaccination, there is also strong rationale to vaccinate adults too, especially higher risk populations like health care workers, contacts of individuals infected with hepatitis, men who have sex with men (MSM), people who inject drugs (PWID), sex workers and people living with HIV (PLHIV). Data on adult transmission are lacking but do demonstrate the potential of vaccine. For example, among MSM in Kenya [9], HBV incidence based on acquisition of core antibodies was 6% per year. In Zambia, where 6% of adults have chronic infection, health care workers reported 1.3 needlestick injuries per work year [10]. Despite these data, vaccination of at-risk adult groups in Africa remains low. A systematic review reported HBV vaccination coverage among health workers in Africa of only 24.7% [11].

Low HBV vaccination in Africa, outside of infancy, may be due to limited awareness, lack of data on the need, and implementation questions. In Zambia, vaccination for hepatitis B was introduced into the national vaccination programme in 2005 with 3 doses being provided as part of a pentavalent vaccine diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, Haemophilus influenzae type b, and hepatitis B (DPT-Hib-HepB) administered at 6, 10 and 14 weeks of age [12]. This is provided free of charge and financed by the Ministry of Health in collaboration with its cooperative partners. However, universal or targeted birth-dose vaccinations are not currently provided to reduce the risk of mother to child transmission but are being planned for future rollout as part of the 2030 HBV elimination strategy. The birth dose in addition to HBV immunoglobulins are procured at a cost that is usually prohibitive by parents identified by clinicians as at risk for transmission, further hampering elimination of mother to child transmission efforts. Free adult vaccination is not currently available although the current national health strategy advises that all at risk individuals such as health workers, contacts of people living with the infection, and immunocompromised people should be vaccinated. Vaccine is available in the private sector but reaches few adults.

One common question around HBV vaccine implementation in Africa and other low and middle-income regions with high HBV prevalence is whether to undertake serological profiling before vaccination as a proportion of individuals may already be immune from prior infection, which could reduce vaccine dose requirements. When serologically profiling in these settings, questions also arise related to isolated core antibodies, which is defined as having negative hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and surface antibodies [13,14]. In Africa, the prevalence of isolated core antibodies is much more common than in upper-income countries. In upper-income countries, these individuals are assumed to have sufficient memory T/B cell immunity and are not routinely vaccinated [15]. With vaccination, protective antibodies begin to wane over time, preventing hepatitis B for up to 20–30 years [7]. The immune system however is able produce neutralizing antibodies when exposed to previously encountered antigens through a complex interplay between differentiated B cells, CD4 and CD8 T cells [16]. However, in the African context where HBV exposure is more common, this issue needs to be better defined. The WHO does not currently recommend vaccine boosting who have successfully completed a 3-dose vaccination schedule. In the isolated anti-HBc population, several studies have shown an increase in HBs titers after ‘vaccine boosting’, but none have outrightly demonstrated the clinical significance of this [17,18].

Another important HBV vaccine question is how to achieve high rates of HBV vaccine series completion among at risk adults in Africa. Right now, nearly all existing multi-dose vaccination programs focus on infants. Those for adults entail campaigns that have no longitudinal component. The COVID pandemic was among the first times when adults were provided a multi-dose vaccine series in many African settings. In past efforts at HBV vaccination of adults, prohibitive cost, low level of education, being male, reduced work experience, low perceived risk and being a resident of a rural area were reported as barriers to vaccine series completion [19–21]. Providing financial incentives, making vaccines free, and occupational health promotion are recommended to overcome these barriers [22,23].

In Zambia, to address real-world gaps in the HBV prevention field, we estimated HBV immunity and the need for HBV vaccination among selected at risk adult groups including health workers, contacts to people with chronic hepatitis B infection, and people with HIV. We expected to find high levels of prior infection and immunity among these groups. Then for non-immune individuals, we offered free vaccination with transportation reimbursement to augment completion of the 3-dose vaccine series. Therefore, the at-risk groups selected with no immunity to hepatitis B would benefit from the vaccinations provided. We expected that vaccine completion would be higher among health workers compared to other groups. In those with isolated core antibodies who received the vaccine, we assessed for the expected anamnestic response, indicating cellular immunity. The study aimed to explore immune status for hepatitis B amongst at-risk populations and provide preliminary data around vaccine uptake in these populations that could ultimately be used to direct policy and future research of hepatitis B in Zambia.

Methods

The study recruited participants using convenience sampling from a teaching hospital in Lusaka, Zambia, as part of a multicentre study investigating the human genetics of chronic hepatitis B infection. Both verbal and written informed consent were obtained from participants, and ethical approval was obtained from the University of Zambia Biomedical Research Ethics Committee approval reference number 2604–2022. Inclusion criteria were age at least 18 years, at elevated risk for hepatitis B, and testing HBsAg-negative on a rapid diagnostic test (RDT; Determine HBsAg 2; Abbott Laboratories, USA). We focused on three groups at elevated risk according to Zambian guidelines: health workers (HCW), contacts to someone known to have chronic Hepatitis B, and people living with HIV. There were no exclusion criteria. After providing written informed consent to participate in the study, blood was collected for qualitative hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc) testing and qualitative and quantitative hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs) testing. Participants were then offered an immediate dose of HBV vaccine with the BEVAC rDNA Hepatitis B vaccine (Biological E Limited, India), which is a second generation vaccine containing the S protein. Vaccination was not required for study participation. HIV rapid testing (Determine HIV-1/2, Abbott Laboratories, USA) was also conducted after routine counselling. After review of the serological testing results, available within 1–2 weeks, those with HBsAb < 10 mIU/ml, regardless of their core-Ab status, were phoned and asked to return for 2 additional vaccine doses at 1 month and 6 months after the first dose or to complete all 3 doses if they did not have the initial one yet. We explored vaccine immunogenicity in a subgroup of people with isolated core Ab, defined as HBsAg-negative, anti-HBc-positive, and anti-HBs < 10 IU/ml at baseline. At least one month after the first vaccine dose and before any additional doses, we repeated anti-HBs. In those without anamnestic responses (defined in the next paragraph), using stored plasma from enrollment, we checked HBV DNA viral load (Panther platform, lower limit of detection, 10 IU/ml) to rule out occult infection.

Data analysis was performed in RStudio version 2024.12.0.467 and Stata version 17 (Statacorp, College Station, TX). If a person was both HIV-positive and a contact or a HCW, we considered them in the PLWH group. We described the demographic and serological profiles by sex using Fishers exact test and Kruskal Willis Test. By group, we reported the proportion of individuals with immunity, based on anti-HBs > 10 (i.e., anti-HBs-positive) at enrollment, immunity from on vaccination, defined as anti-HBc-negative and anti-HBs-positive, and resolved infection based on anti-HBc, regardless of anti-HBs. Using multivariable logistic regression, we assessed the correlates of resolved infection including demographics and participant group. Among those with isolated core, we described the proportion with an anamnestic response, defined as at least 1-log increase and achieving anti-HBs of>=10 mIU/ml following the first dose of vaccine. Finally, after reporting the vaccine completion rate, we used multivariable logistic regression to compare the odds of vaccine completion between HCW and other groups, adjusted for other characteristics.

Results

From October 3, 2022, to December 8, 2023, we enrolled 616 individuals, including 333 contacts to people with HBV, 213 HCWs, and 70 people with HIV. The sample also included 10 pregnant women. The median age of participants was 32.2 years (IQR, 26.7–43.8) and 377 (61.2%) were women. Overall, 234 (38.0%) had immunity based on anti-HBs. When anti-HBs was reported as non-immune (i.e., < 10 mIU/ml), the median concentration of anti-HBs was 0.99 mIU/ml (IQR, 0.40–1.00).

The distribution of HBV serological profiles varied by age and participant group (see Table 1). In brief, 323 (52.4%) were HBV-naïve, 242 (39.3%) had resolved infection, and 51 (8.3%) were previously vaccinated. In multivariable regression, when compared to HCWs, contacts (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38–3.12)) and PLWH (AOR, 2.14; 95% CI, 0.66–7.06) had increased odds of resolved infection. Compared to participants <30 years old, older age was also associated with resolved infection, reaching 7 times increased odds at ages 50+ (Table 2). Similarly, isolated core antibodies increased with age and among contacts and PLWH, when compared to younger participants and those without HIV. Isolated core antibodies were seen in 13 (18.6%) of PLWH and 46 (8.4%) of those without HIV (P = 0.007).

Table 1. Demographic, serological profiles, and vaccine uptake among HBsAg-negative adults eligible for HBV vaccination in Zambia.

Overall
(N = 616)
Population at risk for HBV P value
HCWs
(n = 213)
Contacts (n = 333) PLWH
(n = 70)
Age, in years
 18-29 253 (41.1) 139 (65.3) 108 (32.4) 6 (8.6) <0.001
 30-39 155 (25.2) 49 (23.0) 87 (26.1) 19 (27.1)
 40-49 123 (20.0) 18 (8.5) 84 (25.2) 21 (30.0)
 50+ 85 (13.8) 7 (3.3) 54 (16.2) 24 (34.3)
Sex
 Women 377 (61.2) 132 (62.0) 191 (57.4) 54 (77.1) 0.008
 Men 239 (38.8) 81 (38.0) 142 (42.6) 16 (22.9)
HBV serostatus*
<0.001
 Prior vaccination 51 (8.3) 24 (11.3) 22 (6.6) 5 (7.1)
 Resolved infection with immunity 183 (29.7) 41 (19.3) 113 (33.9) 29 (41.4)
 Isolated core antibodies 59 (9.6) 2 (0.9) 44 (13.2)
13 (18.6)
 Naïve to all HBV markers 323 (52.4) 146 (68.5) 154 (46.3) 23 (32.9)
Accepted first vaccine on day of serological profiling

0.753
 Yes 563 (91.4) 197 (92.5) 303 (91.0) 63 (90.0)
 No 53 (8.6) 16 (7.5) 30 (9.0) 7 (10.0)
Vaccine doses received if deemed eligible per anti-HBs

<0.001
 0 doses 6 (1.6) 4 (2.7) 2 (1.0) 0
 1 dose 187 (48.8) 56 (37.8) 113 (57.1) 18 (48.7)
 2 doses 136 (35.5) 53 (35.8)
69 (34.9)
14 (37.8)
 3 doses (complete series) 54 (14.1) 35 (23.7) 14 (7.1) 5 (13.5)

*Prior vaccination was based on negative anti-Hbc and anti-HBs >=10; resolved infection with immunity was positive anti-HBc and anti-HBs >=10; isolated core was positive anti-HBc and anti-HBs < 10.

Abbreviations: HBsAg, hepatitis B surface antigen; HBV, hepatitis B virus; HCW, healthcare worker; PLWH, person living with HIV infection.

Table 2. Correlates of resolved HBV infection among at-risk adult populations in Zambia.

Bivariable Multivariable*
Odds ratio P value Odds ratio P value
Age, in years
 18-29 Reference Reference
 30-39 4.10 (2.92-5.75) <0.001 3.70 (2.32-5.88) <0.001
 40-49 4.47 (3.04-6.58) <0.001 5.11 (3.10-8.44) <0.001
 50+ 6.23 (3.88-10.00) <0.001 7.45 (4.15-13.38) <0.001
Sex
 Women Reference Reference
 Men 1.25 (0.96-1.63) 0.094 0.92 (0.64-1.33) 0.653
Population
 HCWs Reference Reference
 Contacts 3.32 (2.28-4.82) <0.001 2.07 (1.38-3.12) 0.001
 PLWH 6.34 (2.03-19.76) 0.001 2.14 (0.66-7.06) 0.204

*Factors associated with the outcome at P < 0.2 in bivariable analysis were included in the multivariable model.

Abbreviations: HBV, hepatitis B virus; HCW, healthcare worker; PLWH, person living with HIV infection.

Among the 59 individuals with isolated core antibodies, 18 (30.5%; 14 contacts, 1 HCW, and 3 people with HIV) underwent repeat assessment of anti-HBs levels after their first dose of vaccine. 9 of 18 (50%) had an anamnestic response based on rise in anti-HBs (see Table 3). This included 0 of 3 PLWH and 9 of 15 participants without HIV. Of the 9 non-responders, none had occult HBV based on HBV DNA testing. We did not repeat anti-HBs after additional doses of vaccine in non-responders. Further statistical analysis summarized in supplemental S1 Table found in the supplemental information shows the correlates of isolated hepatitis B core antibodies among at-risk and surface antigen-negative adult populations in Zambia.

Table 3. First HBV vaccine dose response in participants with isolated core antibodiesantibodies.

ID# Age (years) Sex HIV status HBsAg Anti-HBc HBV DNA Anti-HBs levels (mIU/ml) Anamnestic response*
Baseline Post-vaccine 1
R0224 44 Male Negative Negative Positive --- 0 445.57 Yes
R0451 52 Female Negative Negative Positive --- 8.38 103.44 Yes
R0513 28 Female Negative Negative Positive --- 0 30 Yes
R0656 31 Male Negative Negative Positive --- 1.42 1000 Yes
R0706 35 Male Negative Negative Positive --- 7.13 115.87 Yes
R0821 60 Female Negative Negative Positive --- 2.37 33.3 Yes
R0829 36 Female Negative Negative Positive --- 3.68 47.26 Yes
R0850 58 Female Negative Negative Positive --- 3.82 45.04 Yes
R0851 39 Female Negative Negative Positive --- 4.16 53.75 Yes
R0486 47 Female Positive Negative Positive No DNA detected 4.7 10.12 No
R0508 47 Male Negative Negative Positive No DNA detected 5.56 16.56 No
R0603 52 Female Positive Negative Positive No DNA detected 8.42 23.73 No
R0607 36 Male Negative Negative Positive No DNA detected 9.29 11.95 No
R0635 66 Female Negative Negative Positive No DNA detected 2.37 3.75 No
R0703 45 Female Positive Negative Positive No DNA detected 0.29 0.44 No
R0837 56 Female Negative Negative Positive No DNA detected 0.41 1.62 No
R0839 62 Male Negative Negative Positive No DNA detected 2.09 2.42 No
R0852 34 Female Negative Negative Positive No DNA detected 0.14 1.99 No

* An anamnestic response was defined as at least 1-log increased and anti-HBs of >10 mIU/ml at least 1 month after first dose of hepatitis B vaccine

On the day of enrollment, 565 (91.7%) agreed to receive their first dose of HBV vaccine without knowledge of their full serological profile and this was similar by group. Based on serological results from that day, we classified 383 (62.2%) participants requiring the full series at 1 and 6 months after the first dose. Because the project closed on February 28, 2024, we calculated vaccine completion rate based on eligible participants requiring vaccine who enrolled at least 8 months before project closure (i.e., June 30, 2023), and were classified as needing the full series. Among this group of 235 individuals, 229 (97.4%) had one dose, 129 (54.9%) had two doses, and 46 (19.6%) received all three doses of the vaccine. Completion of the vaccine series was similar across groups (P = 0.216) at 23.5% for HCWs, 15.4% for contacts, and 12% for PLWH. There were also no differences in vaccine completion by demographic characteristics.

Discussion

Among adults in Lusaka, Zambia, we performed HBV serological profiling and vaccination among high-risk adults to provide evidence on the need for HBV prevention in adult populations. Concerningly, most participants had inadequate immunity. PLWH and contacts had a higher burden of resolved infection than HCWs supporting the role of index testing in HBV case finding. Among those with resolved infection, the proportion with isolated anti-HBc was relatively high, and in an exploratory analysis, only half of this group achieved an anamnestic response with vaccination, which requires further study. Despite offering transportation reimbursement, only 1 in 5 participants in the project received the 3 doses of the vaccine, highlighting the need for strong sociobehavioral strategies to accompany adult HBV vaccination efforts in the future.

One important finding of this study was that, despite hepatitis B being endemic to Zambia, many adults remain at risk of infection. We classified 40% of the sample as needing vaccination due to inadequate antibodies. This is concerning as 20–60% of at-risk groups had resolved infection, in addition to the 6% of adults living with chronic infection in Zambia based on a national population serosurvey. Strikingly few participants in this study had been vaccinated beforehand despite HBV vaccine being strongly recommended for all groups in policy documents. This included only 11% of HCWs. A larger proportion of HCWs were vaccinated compared to contacts; however, it was still inadequate. These estimates are like the Africa region overall where only ~1 in 4 HCWs is vaccinated per a meta-analysis and systematic review [11].

We also documented increased prevalence of resolved HBV infection among contacts to people with chronic HBV and among PLWH, after adjusting for age. These data provide additional evidence for transmission in families and social networks. A recent study in Democratic Republic of Congo also documented intrafamilial transmission [24], which is neglected in Africa beyond mother-to-child transmission. Our data from PLWH are also supported by several studies showing higher resolved infection in this group. Lower rates of infection HBV among HCW could be a sign of better knowledge and expertise on disease transmission and prevention. Contacts and PLWH, on the other hand, may have been less likely to have knowledge of these practices and on the modes of transmission. We also found that resolved HBV infection increased strongly with age, which was also reported in Uganda [25], and likely reflects temporal trends in behaviors and public health programs.

We also explored the issue of whether to vaccinate populations in Africa who have isolated core-Ab, which was found in ~10% of participants overall and ~20% of participants with HIV. Isolated core was unlikely to be due to a false-positive core test as modern assays have specificity of 99.88% [26]. After vaccination, only half of people with isolated core antibodies experienced the expected anamnestic response to the first vaccine dose, albeit in a small sample size (n = 18). There is a relative dearth of information related to vaccinations of populations in Africa with isolated core antibodies but this finding is supported by other studies, largely in Asia. Yao et al reported anamnestic responses in 30% of participants, and Ural et al reported it in half. On the other hand, our data conflict with Su et al who reported 92% (12 of 13) response [18] and there was a 100% anamnestic response reported in a study in Malaysia [27]. It is important to highlight that despite similarities in the high prevalence of hepatitis B and relative reduced access to testing and treatment between Africa and Asia, Africa has been identified as requiring special focus in view of having over half of new infections globally [1]. Efforts have been made to address the disproportionate research output into hepatitis B in Africa such as through continental collaborations like HEPSANET and Africa CDC, but more research is required to explore this regional variation. Our data is an important exploration into this unique population and suggests inadequate immunity in people with isolated core in Africa and the need to vaccinate them fully. Unfortunately, we did not continue to monitor anti-HBs after the 2nd and 3rd doses. The data from this limited series also did not delve into the complex immunology surrounding vaccination in this group and should be interpreted with caution. Patients with isolated core antibodies are thought to have a hepatic reserve of hepatitis B genetic information in form of covalently closed circular and integrated HBV that may play a role in continued seroprotection in these individuals, but also pose a risk of reactivation [28]. Providing these patients with a booster may in fact provide protection from superinfection and perhaps even reactivation but more studies are needed to expand on the findings from this small cohort.

In this study, we also evaluated HBV vaccine completion in Zambia, which we tried to augment a priori by making transportation reimbursement available, avoiding stockouts, and ensuring the vaccine was routinely accessible at the hospital. Despite these recommended strategies, a disappointing 16% of participants received all 3 doses, which was significantly lower than a the ~ 70% in similar study on a university community from Ghana [29] and the ~ 60% of outpatients receiving care from 3 urban clinics in Kenya [30]. Among HCWs, uptake in Zambia was lower than Ghanian health care workers of whom ~50% completed the series [21]. Understanding reasons for low vaccine series completion were outside the scope of the project but could be related to low behavioral and social factors. Vaccine skepticism during the recent COVID pandemic may have also played a role. Yet, 91% agreed to a first dose on the day of serological profiling, suggesting high interest in being immunized. HBV elimination programs should consider other strategies to improve vaccine uptake and completion include incentivization, utilization of digital platforms and traditional media to create awareness amongst at-risk populations, increased hepatitis awareness and screening activities during commemoration days and vaccination campaigns, as well as integrating screening and hepatitis B vaccination into routine care.

This study to the best of our knowledge is one of the first in Zambia to generate data around HBV prevention in adults. Demonstrating low levels in immunity in at risk populations may push policymakers and implementers of public health strategies to address this important issue if significant progress is to be made in the elimination of hepatitis B. While our data build rationale to test and vaccinate these populations, low vaccine series completion necessitates careful planning as this is scaled-up. Our study was also one of the first studies in the region to provide information about vaccine boosting in isolated anti-HBc where guidance around this practice is not supported by rigorous evidence. These data are exploratory but might lend support to ‘blind HBV vaccination’ in Africa, which is providing the 3-dose vaccine series without any antibody profiling beforehand. A rapid HBsAg test is recommended however to link people to clinical care. Our data support this because even if a substantial proportion have resolved infection, they could benefit from the boost in immunity. Our data can also support a strategy focused on surface antibody testing alone, which is the correlate of protection. It is important to bear in mind the increased cost that such a strategy may have, especially where several health priorities are competing for limited funding in low resource settings. This, however, could be mitigated by the significant savings made in reduced expenditure on care for liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma and lifelong follow up of those infected with hepatitis B. Furthermore, there is relatively finite number of adult populations at risk because of the diminishing rate of HBV infection due to the incorporation of the hepatitis 3 series vaccination in the under 5 vaccine schedule for the last 20 years. Targeting this population for immunization with a once-off national strategy may significantly reduce the prevalence of hepatitis B in the country. Other strategies that require immediate attention include universal hepatitis B birth dose administration enhanced integration in well-established services such as HIV care and antenatal care pathways where some level of hepatitis B care is present but not actively implemented or monitored as well as updating prevalence information for the country through a new demographic health survey.

While our study had strengths, including inclusion of several at risk groups, comprehensive HBV profiling, and longitudinal data on vaccine uptake and antibodies in a subgroup, it also had limitations. Limitations of the study included the small sample who had longitudinal anti-HBs measures and post vaccination serological testing on HBV naïve patients, which would have established vaccine efficacy. However, in another study awaiting publishing of health workers in Zambia who received HBV vaccine in the absence of core antibodies, ~ 20% developed anti-HBs > 10 mIU/ml after the first dose of vaccination which increased to 100% after the third dose [31]. We also have limited understanding of why vaccine series completion was so low. Future qualitative research is needed in this area. A study into the immunological profile especially T and B cell immunity in the various groups studied would also be a valuable addition to the current scientific literature to better understand vaccine response. Additionally, our convenience sampling approach limits the generalizability of the study.

In conclusion, in Zambia, several populations at high risk of HBV had inadequate immunity and should be vaccinated. Vaccination efforts need to have new strategies, beyond transportation reimbursement to support vaccine series completion. Deliberate policies to enhance vaccine uptake and completion amongst at risk populations through broad-based multifaceted strategies are required. If a program is using serological profiling, vaccine boosting in isolated anti-HBc may be beneficial in improving immunity, but more studies are required to validate this strategy.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Correlates of isolated hepatitis B core antibodies among at-risk and surface antigen-negative adult populations in Zambia.

(DOCX)

pone.0339690.s001.docx (16.7KB, docx)

Data Availability

Data is available on Figshare. DOI:10.6084/m9.figshare.30000523.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (R01AI148049 to DLT; R37AI179640 to MJV).

References

  • 1.World Health Organization. Global hepatitis report 2024 action for access in low- and middle-income countries. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2024. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Hsu Y-C, Huang DQ, Nguyen MH. Global burden of hepatitis B virus: current status, missed opportunities and a call for action. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023;20(8):524–37. doi: 10.1038/s41575-023-00760-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.World Health Organization. Viral Hepatitis Scorecard. African Hepatitis Summit. 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Delphin M, Mohammed KS, Downs LO, Lumley SF, Waddilove E, Okanda D, et al. Under-representation of the WHO African region in clinical trials of interventions against hepatitis B virus infection. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024;9(4):383–92. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(23)00315-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Szmuness W, Stevens CE, Zang EA, Harley EJ, Kellner A. A controlled clinical trial of the efficacy of the hepatitis B vaccine (Heptavax B): a final report. Hepatology. 1981;1(5):377–85. doi: 10.1002/hep.1840010502 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Pattyn J, Hendrickx G, Vorsters A, Van Damme P. Hepatitis B Vaccines. The Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2021;224(Supplement_4):S343–51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.World Health Organization. Hepatitis B vaccines: WHO position paper – July 2017. Weekly Epidemiological Record. 2017;92(27):369–92.28685564 [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hofmann F, Kralj N. Criteria for successful hepatitis B vaccination in adults: results of a case study. Infection. 2009;37(3):266–9. doi: 10.1007/s15010-008-7410-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Wahome E, Ngetsa C, Mwambi J, Gelderblom HC, Manyonyi GO, Micheni M, et al. Hepatitis B Virus Incidence and Risk Factors Among Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 Negative Men Who Have Sex With Men in Kenya. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2016;4(1):ofw253. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofw253 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Phillips EK, Simwale OJ, Chung MJ, Parker G, Perry J, Jagger JC. Risk of bloodborne pathogen exposure among Zambian healthcare workers. J Infect Public Health. 2012;5(3):244–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jiph.2012.02.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Auta A, Adewuyi EO, Kureh GT, Onoviran N, Adeloye D. Hepatitis B vaccination coverage among health-care workers in Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Vaccine. 2018;36(32 Pt B):4851–60. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.06.043 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ministry of Health Zambia. Implementation Framework & Clinical Guidance for Viral Hepatitis Prevention & Treatment. Lusaka: Ministry of Health Zambia; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Gessoni G, Beggio S, Barin P, Favarato M, Galli C, Valverde S, et al. Significance of anti-HBc only in blood donors: a serological and virological study after hepatitis B vaccination. Blood Transfus. 2014;12 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):s63-8. doi: 10.2450/2013.0227-12 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Wang Q, Klenerman P, Semmo N. Significance of anti-HBc alone serological status in clinical practice. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;2(2):123–34. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(16)30076-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Gish RG, Basit SA, Ryan J, Dawood A, Protzer U. Hepatitis B Core Antibody: Role in Clinical Practice in 2020. Curr Hepatology Rep. 2020;19(3):254–65. doi: 10.1007/s11901-020-00522-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kirman JR, Quinn KM, Seder RA. Immunological memory. Immunol Cell Biol. 2019;97(7):615–6. doi: 10.1111/imcb.12280 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kaech C, Pache I, Bürgisser P, Elzi L, Darling KEA, Cavassini M. Immune response to hepatitis B vaccination in HIV-positive adults with isolated antibodies to HBV core antigen. J Infect. 2012;65(2):157–64. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2012.03.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Su FH, Bai CH, Chu FY, Lin YS, Su CT, Yeh CC: Significance and anamnestic response in isolated hepatitis B core antibody-positive individuals 18 years after neonatal hepatitis B virus vaccination in Taiwan. Vaccine. 2012, 30(27):4034–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Park B, Choi KS, Lee H-Y, Kwak M-S, Jun JK, Park E-C. Determinants of suboptimal hepatitis B vaccine uptake among men in the Republic of Korea: where should our efforts be focused: results from cross-sectional study. BMC Infect Dis. 2013;13:218. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-13-218 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Awoke N, Mulgeta H, Lolaso T, Tekalign T, Samuel S, Obsa MS, et al. Full-dose hepatitis B virus vaccination coverage and associated factors among health care workers in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2020;15(10):e0241226. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241226 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Senoo-Dogbey VE, Anto F, Quansah R, Danso-Appiah A. Completion of three-dose hepatitis B vaccination cycle and associated factors among health care workers in the Greater Accra Region of Ghana. PLoS One. 2024;19(4):e0298771. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298771 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Topp L, Day CA, Wand H, Deacon RM, van Beek I, Haber PS, et al. A randomised controlled trial of financial incentives to increase hepatitis B vaccination completion among people who inject drugs in Australia. Prev Med. 2013;57(4):297–303. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.04.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Hiva S, Negar K, Mohammad-Reza P, Gholam-Reza G, Mohsen A, Ali-Asghar NG, et al. High level of vaccination and protection against hepatitis B with low rate of HCV infection markers among hospital health care personnel in north of Iran: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):920. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-09032-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Morgan CE, Ngimbi P, Boisson-Walsh AJN, Ntambua S, Matondo J, Tabala M, et al. Hepatitis B Virus prevalence and transmission in the households of pregnant women in kinshasa, democratic Republic of Congo. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2024;11(4):ofae150. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofae150 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Bwogi J, Braka F, Makumbi I, Mishra V, Bakamutumaho B, Nanyunja M, et al. Hepatitis B infection is highly endemic in Uganda: findings from a national serosurvey. Afr Health Sci. 2009;9(2):98–108. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Abbott P. Abbott PRISM hepatitis B virus core antigen (E. coli, recombinant). 6E66. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hudu SA, Malik YA, Niazlin MT, Harmal NS, Alshrari AS, Sekawi Z. Isolated hepatitis B core antibody positive among vaccinated cohort in Malaysia. Ann Saudi Med. 2013;33(6):591–4. doi: 10.5144/0256-4947.2013.591 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Boonstra A, Sari G. HBV cccDNA: The Molecular Reservoir of Hepatitis B Persistence and Challenges to Achieve Viral Eradication. Biomolecules. 2025;15(1):62. doi: 10.3390/biom15010062 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Kusi KA, van der Puije W, Asandem DA, Baba-Adam R, Agbevey H, Asare B, et al. World Hepatitis day 2021 -screening and vaccination against Hepatitis B virus in Accra, Ghana. BMC Public Health. 2023;23(1):1164. doi: 10.1186/s12889-023-16108-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Langat B, Muge EK, Night D, Okoth F, Ochwedo KO, Songok EM. Sero-prevalence of hepatitis B virus and compliance with hepatitis B vaccination schedules among outpatient clinic attendees in Nairobi. PLoS One. 2023;18(2):e0281256. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281256 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Kawana W, Musukuma-Chifulo K, Simuyandi MP, Muchimba T, Michelo Chipeta C, et al. Hepatitis B serostatus and vaccine uptake and efficacy among health workers in Zambia. Cape Town. 2022. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Livia Melo Villar

15 Jul 2025

-->PONE-D-25-26849-->-->Hepatitis B immunity and vaccine completion among adults at increased risk for hepatitis B infection in Zambia-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Syabbalo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 29 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Livia Melo Villar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf .

2.  We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3.  Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

[This study was supported by grants from the U.S. NIH, grant number

R01AI148049 received by DLT and grant number R01AI147727 received by MJV.].

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.""

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. In the online submission form, you indicated that [Data is available on request due to ethical restrictions.].

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

5. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

6.  Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

7. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Author,

Thanks for sending me this paper for my evaluation. The topic is relevant and new information was included in this manuscript. However, some issues were raised by the reviewers and they recommend the revision.

Sincerely,

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

-->4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: In this manuscript, the authors describe Hepatitis B seroprevalence in adults living in Zambia and tested longitudinally the anti-HBs antibody titers detected at least 1 month after a single vaccination dose.

The study extends our knowledge of HBV incidence in African population and shows that the presence of anti-HBc antibody is associated with a rapid increased of anti-HBs titer after a single vaccination, likely caused by the presence of helper T cells specific for HBs in this population.

I have only a minor request related to the data and some general considerations about the background information and the implications of some results.

Results: Table 3 Anamnestic response

The data presented are of interest but the results lack a control since it will be important to show that individual without anti-HBc have no anamnestic response.

This review suspects that in hyperendemic area many individuals might actually have anamnestic response even in the absence of anti-Hbc antibodies, mainly due to the fact that the the accelerated level of ani-HBs production after vaccination is likely due to the existence of CD4 T cells ( specific for core or envelope) that might be present even in the absence of antibodies. In any case, the authors should show the incidence of rapid anamnestic response in individuals who are not anti-HBc+.

Having said this, the possibility that antibodies anti-HBc might not be able to define all the individuals who encounter HBV in their life time warrants discussion One of the main concern is that this manuscript focuses solely on antiviral immunity in humans as being primarily based on antibody response. However, it is evident that memory antiviral-specific immunity includes both humoral (antibody-mediated) and cellular (T cell-mediated) components. The recent COVID-19 pandemic has clearly shown that healthy individuals can contract SARS-CoV-2 without developing a robust antibody response. Nevertheless, these individuals often exhibit an anamnestic T cell response specific to SARS-CoV-2 (see for example Samandari, T. et al. Prevalence and functional profile of SARS-CoV-2 T cells in asymptomatic Kenyan adults. J. Clin. Investig. 133, (2023).). This possibility was also showed for other viral infections ( see 1.Mok, C. K. P. et al. T-cell responses to MERS coronavirus infection in people with occupational exposure to dromedary camels in Nigeria: an observational cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis 21, 385–395 (2021). 1.Zhao, J. et al. Recovery from the Middle East respiratory syndrome is associated with antibody and T cell responses. Sci Immunol 2, eaan5393 (2017).).

This reviewer is aware that the possibility that people would only mount HBV-specific T cells in the absence of anti-HBV antibodies has not been studied yet in HBV infection, and I am also not certainly asking to analyse the HBV-specific T cell response. However, the possibility that serology might not be sufficient to reveal all the past history of exposure to HBV should at least be mentioned and discussed.

There are other points that need to be properly discussed: HBV, like any other DNA virus, is never completely eliminated and as such, the lack of detection of HBV-DNA in the serum is certainly not a demonstration that HBV is not present in these individuals. We know that patients who experienced acute HBV infection still harbour HBV-DNA in their liver that is detected only by analyzing liver biopsies ( see Michalak, T. I., Pasquinelli, C., Guilhot, S. & Chisari, F. V. Hepatitis B virus persistence after recovery from acute viral hepatitis. Journal of Clinical Investigation 94, 907 (1994). Rehermann, B., Ferrari, C., Pasquinelli, C. & Chisari, F. V. The hepatitis B virus persists for decades after patients’ recovery from acute viral hepatitis despite active maintenance of a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte response. Nature Medicine 2, 1104–1108 (1996).)

This fact should be clearly discussed in the introduction. A further consequence of HBV persistence is the real benefit of vaccination in individuals who are already anti-HBc+ ( and as such likely infected by HBV and harbouring HBV-DNA). A recall vaccination might not be important in these individuals to protect them from infection since they might already carrier the virus. Vaccination in these indivduals can indeed boost anti-HBs antibody production and this might be important to help individuals better control the infection or avoid possible re-infection from different HBV strains (??) . We know that we don’t have the answer to these questions, but such a possibility should be discussed. HBV pathogenesis is complex and need to be properly represented.

Reviewer #2: This is a relevant study addressing an important public health gap in Zambia. The study provides valuable real-world data on HBV seroprevalence, isolated anti-HBc profiles, and vaccine uptake in a sub-Saharan African setting where adult HBV immunization has historically received limited attention.

To strengthen the manuscript, I recommend the following specific revisions:

Introduction:

1 - I recommend that the authors include detailed background information on Zambia’s national HBV vaccination schedule. Please specify the target age groups, whether adult vaccination is currently available and free of charge, the estimated national coverage rates (both for children and adults, if available), and the types of HBV vaccines licensed and distributed in the country. This context will help readers interpret the observed low adult vaccination rates and compare them against the vaccine introduction timeline and the age range of participants.

2 - In the second paragraph, the authors refer to a "third-generation" HBV vaccine. For clarity, especially for readers less familiar with HBV vaccine technology, I recommend adding a brief explanation of how third-generation vaccines differ from earlier formulations.

3 - Currently, the Introduction lacks details about the demographic and risk-group profile of participants. Since the Results section reveals that the cohort consisted mostly of young women (median age 32) from three specific high-risk groups (HCWs, PLWH, and contacts), I suggest adding a short paragraph in the Introduction summarizing the target population and the rationale for focusing on these groups.

Methods:

1 - In the section describing serological testing (“...blood was collected for qualitative hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc) testing and qualitative and quantitative hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs) testing.”), please specify the exact commercial kits used for each assay, including manufacturer name, country, assay type (e.g., ELISA, chemiluminescence), and detection thresholds. This level of detail is important for reproducibility and cross-study comparability.

Results:

1 - Including participants with prior HBV exposure (resolved infection or isolated anti-HBc) in the vaccine response analysis may bias immunogenicity interpretation due to pre-existing immune memory. The authors should present stratified results for HBV-naïve individuals to allow an unbiased assessment of primary vaccine response. A dedicated figure or table focusing on this subgroup would enhance data clarity.

Discussion:

1 - The absence of serological monitoring after the second and third vaccine doses represents a limitation, as acknowledged by the authors. Without post-series serology, it is not possible to determine whether initial non-responders developed protective anti-HBs titers after completing the full vaccination schedule. I recommend that the authors more prominently highlight this limitation and discuss its implications for interpreting the vaccine efficacy data within the studied population.

Overall, this manuscript addresses a critically under-researched topic in HBV control efforts in Africa. The suggested clarifications and stratifications would further strengthen the paper and its contribution to the field.

Reviewer #3: General Comments and Commendation

I commend the authors for presenting original field data on HBV sero-status, vaccination uptake, and response among high-risk adult populations in Lusaka, Zambia. This is an important and timely contribution to the literature on hepatitis B prevention and control in sub-Saharan Africa. The manuscript is generally well-written, with well-articulated study objectives, design, and findings.

Major Review Comments for Improvement

1. Title and Abstract

The title is appropriate, and the abstract is comprehensive. However, I would suggest the following for an improved version of the abstract.

a. Review this sentence for clarity: “Low vaccine completion, despite vaccine access and transportation support, was striking, and underscores the need for integrated behavioral science approaches...”

b. The interquartile range (IQR) for median age is not specified (IQR (x, y)). Update with actual values for “x” and “y” to ensure transparency and reproducibility.

c. There is no mention of sampling method (e.g., convenience, purposive) or timeframe of recruitment. I recommend you briefly mention the recruitment method and study duration.

d. Add one comparative statement to contextualize the findings from the results.

e. Change the sub-heading, “Discussion” to “Conclusion”

2. Introduction

The introduction provides a strong foundation for this article, but I suggest you explicitly state the study objectives or significance of the study in the final paragraph of the introduction.

3. Methods

This section has a clear description of participant groups and serological testing strategy. However, it will benefit from addressing the following observed limitations:

a. The sampling technique is not abundantly clear whether it was convenience sampling or not? If it is ‘convenience sampling,’ then I suggest you address the implications for generalizability. You may also include sample size justification.

b. Provide more details about the statistical methods used. Specify the tests used for comparisons and state if there were any adjustments for confounders made for age, and sex, beyond what is currently written in this article?

4. Results

The results section provides important insights into HBV immunity gaps and low vaccine series completion in adults. The report on anamnestic response to first vaccine dose is a novel and valuable finding. However, I strongly recommend the following adjustments:

a. The use of terms such as “resolved infection,” “isolated core antibody,” and “anamnestic response” should be consistently and clearly defined earlier in the methods/results.

b. The proportion who showed anamnestic response should be accompanied by denominators and confidence intervals, where possible.

c. Summarily, it would be nice to include stratified tables for (a) immunity status by subgroup, (b) vaccine uptake by subgroup, and (c) anamnestic response among isolated core antibody group. Figure 1 already addressed the need for visual aids or bar graphs for completion rates.

5. Discussion

The discussion section impressively contextualizes the findings well. It also draws comparisons with literature from Africa and Asia, while making a strong case for policy reform and programmatic response.

However, I recommend the following areas for Improvement:

a. Even when clear sub-headings are not applied, the discussion could benefit from tighter organization addressing the following key area: Immunity Gaps, Vaccine Uptake, Anamnestic Response, and Policy Implications. Give it a thought.

b. Although the statement, “We believe these results support ‘blind HBV vaccination’ in Africa” is significant, it should be more rigorously supported with caveats. For example, cost-effectiveness and risk of unnecessary vaccination should be briefly mentioned.

c. The rationale for comparing with studies from Asia is understandable, but more attention should be given to regional differences in HBV epidemiology and health system context.

d. Summarily, I recommend expanding on implementation science considerations (e.g., what behavior change strategies might improve vaccine completion? How could digital tools or community health workers help?). Discuss how the study informs WHO guidance or Zambia’s national HBV policy.

6. Conclusion

The conclusion is sound, but it should be more specific about the next steps for research and implementation. For instance, consider recommending (1) integration of adult HBV vaccination into existing ART or ANC services, (2) operational research into vaccine adherence strategies, and (3) expanded national serosurveys.

7. References

The references are current and appropriate. It also showed a strong representation of WHO guidance and peer-reviewed African studies. However, kindly review and address the inconsistent or problematic references. For example:

a. Reference numbers 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14,15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24 (check the authors initials), 27 (incomplete author list, crosscheck the source to be sure), and 30, either lack full citation details, have capitalization concerns, missing volume issue or pages, or has concerns with authors’ initials.

b. Crosscheck, it looks like reference number 10 is repetitive or similar to reference number 1.

c. Crosscheck, it looks like reference number 21 is repetitive or similar to reference number 13.

8. General Minor Comments

a. For line-editing to improve grammar and flow, consider changing “lower rates of infection HBV among HCWs” to “lower HBV infection rates among HCWs”.

b. Consider replacing non-academic phrases like “strikingly few” with more measured terms like “a low proportion.”

c. I suggest that you clarify in the discussion whether “blind vaccination” would apply only to high-risk adults or to general adult populations.

d. Review and ensure that acronyms are consistently defined at first use (e.g., PLWH, HCW, anti-HBc, HBsAg).

e. I suggest you specify if this was a cross-sectional or longitudinal study, especially as it seems like the language is occasionally inconsistent.

e. Take some time to read through the entire work again and carry out some editing and rephrasing, to enhance clarity and flow of the article.

Well done to the authors!!!

**********

-->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .-->

Reviewer #1: Yes: Antonio Bertoletti

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Ojore Godday Aghedo

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2026 Feb 26;21(2):e0339690. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0339690.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


1 Sep 2025

The response to reviewers has been attached as well as the manuscript and revised manuscript with tracked changes.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

pone.0339690.s003.docx (28KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Livia Melo Villar

23 Oct 2025

-->PONE-D-25-26849R1-->-->Hepatitis B immunity and vaccine completion among adults at increased risk for hepatitis B infection in Zambia-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Syabbalo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 07 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

-->If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Livia Melo Villar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Author,

i have read the paper and comments of the reviewers, so I suggest to make minor corrections,

best

Livia

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.-->

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

-->2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: The authors have partially addressed some of my specific questions and provided additional information. However, there remains a lack of detail and clarity in the abstract and throughout the manuscript.

Since this is a paper about HBV vaccination, the authors should at least include information about the composition of the HBV vaccine used. The issue is that in their new introduction, the authors wrote that “Since the first hepatitis vaccine in

1981[5], several iterations have been developed to optimise immunogenicity and

safety. The third (current) generation of hepatitis B vaccines are recombinant,

containing multiple additional surface antigens (preS1, pre-S2 and S), whereas earlier

vaccines had only contained S antigens, which can provide a more robust immune

response even from non-responders [6].”

The authors seem to suggest that their vaccine now contains the Large envelope protein (PreS1, PreS2 and S), something that I sincerely doubt. Currently, the most widely used vaccine worldwide contains only S, not PreS1 and PreS2.

PreS1/PreS2/S vaccines have been developed; they are highly immunogenic and do not require the full three-dose course, but they are also more expensive (this vaccine needs to be produced in mammalian cells). The authors used the BEVAC rDNA Hepatitis B vaccine (Biological E Limited, India), but I am unable to determine whether this vaccine contains only S or also PreS1/PreS2/S. While this information might not be essential for writing a report about “vaccine acceptance in the population,” since the authors claim that “full course of HBV vaccination should be implemented in individuals with positivity of anti-HBc, " it is important to understand exactly which vaccine was used and which adjuvant it contained.

Additionally, because the analysis of the vaccine's immunogenicity in anti-Hbc+ individuals was conducted in only 18 patients, the data are at best preliminary and should not be presented as a major result of this report.

Reviewer #2: The authors have satisfactorily addressed the revisions requested during my first review and have provided clear clarifications to the points previously raised. I now consider the manuscript appropriate for publication.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

-->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Ojore Godday Aghedo

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

-->

PLoS One. 2026 Feb 26;21(2):e0339690. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0339690.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


11 Nov 2025

The vaccine used in the study was indeed a 2nd generation hepatitis b vaccine and as such contained the S antigen as it is the most widespread. This has been added to the introduction as well as the methods section.

A caveat has been made in the discussion section to further highlight the preliminary nature of the results shown from the anti HBc+ individuals.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Responses to reviewers.docx

pone.0339690.s004.docx (16.9KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Livia Melo Villar

10 Dec 2025

Hepatitis B immunity and vaccine completion among adults at increased risk for hepatitis B infection in Zambia

PONE-D-25-26849R2

Dear Dr. Syabbalo,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Livia Melo Villar

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Author,

After reading the comments of the reviewers, I recommend the publication of this manuscipt,

sincerely

Livia

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.-->

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

-->2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

-->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Ojore Godday Aghedo

**********

Acceptance letter

Livia Melo Villar

PONE-D-25-26849R2

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Syabbalo,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Livia Melo Villar

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Correlates of isolated hepatitis B core antibodies among at-risk and surface antigen-negative adult populations in Zambia.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0339690.s001.docx (16.7KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    pone.0339690.s003.docx (28KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Responses to reviewers.docx

    pone.0339690.s004.docx (16.9KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    Data is available on Figshare. DOI:10.6084/m9.figshare.30000523.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES