Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Sexually Transmitted Infections logoLink to Sexually Transmitted Infections
. 2007 Oct;83(6):426–432. doi: 10.1136/sti.2006.022111

Schedules for hepatitis B vaccination of risk groups: balancing immunogenicity and compliance

K Van Herck 1,2, E Leuridan 1,2, P Van Damme 1,2
PMCID: PMC2598703  PMID: 17911142

Abstract

Introduction

Vaccination is an important tool in hepatitis B prevention. However, several vaccine doses are required to induce long‐term protection. Several at‐risk groups have difficulties in adhering to the standard vaccination schedule.

Objectives

This paper aims to review the use of accelerated hepatitis B vaccination schedules, in terms of immunogenicity and compliance.

Results

Accelerated schedules (0.1.2.12 months) or super‐accelerated schedules (0.7.21.360 days) have been shown to result in higher proportions of healthy vaccinees reaching anti‐HBs antibody levels ⩾10 IU/l more rapidly. A fourth completing dose is required to lift antibody levels to an equal height, as does a standard (0.1.6 months) schedule.

Accelerated schedules do also increase the uptake of hepatitis B vaccine, that is the proportion of vaccinees who receive three doses. However, completing the schedule with a fourth dose is usually more difficult than completing a standard 0.1.6‐month schedule. Several additional tools can help to increase the compliance (eg, reminder systems, outreach services and incentive schemes).

Conclusion

For rapid seroconversion and almost immediate protection in the short term, a (super)accelerated schedule could be used in at‐risk groups. As long‐term protection data with these (super) accelerated schedules have not been documented yet, a fourth dose at month 12 is still required. A shortened schedule (0.1.4 months) might be an alternative worth considering compared with the standard 0.1.6, as it convenes to internationally accepted minimum dose intervals and offers earlier protection. There is a clear need to study the long‐term protection and effectiveness of the primary part of (super)accelerated schedules.

In 1992, the Global Advisory Group of the Expanded Programme on Immunisation (World Health Organization, WHO) set 1997 as the target for integrating hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccination into national immunisation programmes worldwide.1 Even if it was estimated that more than one‐half of the world's infants were still not being immunised in 1999, substantial progress in implementing that WHO recommendation has been made since. By the end of 2005, 168 countries worldwide had implemented or were planning to implement a universal HBV immunisation programme for infants and/or adolescents.2,3

Apart from the above‐mentioned universal immunisation programmes, several risk groups are targeted by hepatitis B vaccination programmes. These groups are either at increased risk of HBV infection or at increased risk of complications in case an HBV infection were to occur.4 Unfortunately, despite the longstanding existence of recommendations, it often remains difficult to reach at‐risk groups due to a combination of factors, including lack of perceived risk and the limited presence of specific healthcare programmes targeting certain risk groups (in particular sex workers, injecting drug users, and prisoners). Moreover, even if they can be reached, those who engage in high‐risk behaviour often fail to complete the required vaccination regimen for hepatitis B.5

Whenever hepatitis B immunisation programmes targeting such at‐risk groups are implemented or evaluated, the choice of the most efficient vaccination schedule is an important issue. After all, the standard hepatitis B vaccination schedule might need to be adapted, either to increase the probability of completing the vaccination in groups with limited compliance, to offer protection as soon as possible after starting the vaccination schedule, or to better fit this vaccination programme into existing vaccination or other preventive programmes in that specific at‐risk population. It is beyond doubt that any adaptations should aim to optimise the compliance to the immunisation programme, while maintaining the vaccine's immunogenicity and efficacy. Since people in these at‐risk populations most often continue to be at risk, long‐term protection against hepatitis B is highly important.

This paper aims to review the evidence on (accelerated) hepatitis B vaccination schedules for risk groups: those at increased risk of sexual HBV transmission (including men who have sex with men, sex workers, and attendees of STI clinics), injecting drug users, inmates and staff of correctional facilities and prisons, and travellers to areas of intermediate or high endemicity.

Methodology

The search strategy for this review consisted of the keywords (“hepatitis B” AND vaccine* AND schedule* AND accelerate*). Multiple databases were searched: BioMedCentral, the Cochrane Library, all Evidence Based Medicine reviews (Ovid), and Medline (National Library of Medicine's PubMed online search engine and Ovid Medline). The internet search engine Google was used with the same set of keywords AND “guideline” to additionally identify a number of guidelines regarding hepatitis B vaccination.

Searches were performed in February 2007, without any restrictions (eg, with regard to the year of publication or language). Related articles were assessed, and the reference lists of the retrieved articles were also used to identify related literature.

Retrieved papers were included in this review only if they described the immunogenicity and/or compliance for a standard and/or altered hepatitis B vaccination regimen in healthy adolescents, healthy adults or one of the above‐mentioned risk groups. Papers addressing hepatitis B vaccination in groups with specific medical conditions requiring additional efforts to improve the immunogenicity of routinely used hepatitis B vaccines (eg, haemodialysis patients, liver transplant candidates, immunosuppressed patients) were not included in this review. Alterations in hepatitis B vaccination schedules included modification of vaccine dosage and shortening of the interval between vaccine doses.

Results

Existing vaccination schedules

Worldwide, the standard schedule for vaccination of healthy children, adolescents and adults against hepatitis B consists of three doses, given according to a 0.1.6‐month vaccination schedule. However, the timing of the third dose allows substantial flexibility. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend for adolescents and adults a minimal interval of 16 weeks between the first and the third dose of hepatitis B vaccine (and 8 weeks between dose 2 and dose 3), which allows the schedule to be shortened to 0.1.4 months. Conversely, in case the administration of the third dose were to be delayed, the complete schedule does not need to be restarted.6

Testing to determine antibody responses is not routinely recommended after routine vaccination of infants and adolescents. However, when feasible, knowledge of response to vaccination is important in the following groups: (1) all above‐mentioned risk groups; (2) persons at risk of occupational HBV exposure; (3) infants born to HBsAg‐positive mothers; (4) immunocompromised persons; and (5) sexual partners of HBsAg‐positive persons. Testing for anti‐HBs should be performed by a method that allows determination of whether the anti‐HBs concentration is ⩾10 IU/l. Adults should be tested 1–3 months after completion of the vaccination series. Persons found to be antibody‐negative after the primary series should be referred for appropriate follow‐up.7 Lifelong protection is assumed in healthy, fully vaccinated infants, children, adolescents or adults—the last, however, should be tested after the complete vaccination series, to demonstrate a seroprotective anti‐HBs level.8 Seroprotection is defined as achieving an anti‐HBs titre above or equal to 10 IU/l, measured 1–3 months after a completed immunisation schedule (ie, 0.1.6 or 0.1.2.12 months).

The need for accelerated vaccination schedules against hepatitis B is well recognised for specific at‐risk groups. Several schedules have been investigated to enhance the compliance or to reach protective levels of antibodies earlier without cutting on the immunogenicity of hepatitis B vaccination. In high‐risk situations, where one aims to offer protection against hepatitis B as rapidly as possible, the following alternative vaccination schedules may be considered: either 0.1.2.12 months or 0.7.21.360 days. It should be noted that both accelerated schedules require the administration of a fourth dose of vaccine, 1 year after starting the vaccination. The administration of this fourth dose of hepatitis B vaccine in case an accelerated schedule is used is consistently present in a number of recommendations and guidelines from both national and international Public Health Organisations, and organisations of clinicians, in several countries.6,7,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16

Immunogenicity and effectiveness/efficacy of the standard vaccination schedule

A complete vaccination course in healthy infants, children, and adolescents results in seroprotective anti‐HBs levels in over 95% of vaccinees. In adults below the age of 40, this is slightly lower (yet still more than 90%), to reach 65–75% by the age of 60 years. Decreased vaccine response is associated with smoking, obesity, genetic factors, chronic diseases and immune disorders.4

During the vaccination course, 30–55% of healthy adults below the age of 40 years reach the seroprotective anti‐HBs level after the first dose, mounting to 75% after the second dose and over 90% after the third dose.4

Pre‐exposure hepatitis B vaccine efficacy studies in several high‐risk groups have demonstrated an overall efficacy of 80–100%, with nearly 100% efficacy in persons who developed a seroprotective anti‐HBs response (⩾10 IU/l).4

Immunogenicity and effectiveness/efficacy of accelerated vaccination schedules in different populations (table 1)

Table 1 Overview of immunogenicity results according to vaccination schedule, in different populations.

Ref. Vaccine brand (antigen dosage*) Schedule (months†) Type‡ Population Age range (years) Mean age (years) N M/F§ Anti‐HBs testing (month) Tested n ⩾10 IU/l n (%)¶ Anti‐HBs geometric mean concentration (IU/l)
18 Engerix‐B (20 mcg) 0;1/2;3/2 (A) High‐risk youth 13–20 42 0.56 4.5 14 14 (100) 630
20 Recombivax‐HB (5 mcg) 0;1;6 S Healthy adolescents 11–19 14.2–14.5 1.02–1.22 7 179 177 (99) 2493
20 Recombivax‐HB (5 mcg) 0;6 2D Healthy adolescents 11–19 14.2–14.5 1.02–1.22 7 162 154 (95) 1136
20 Recombivax‐HB (10 mcg) 0;4 2D Healthy adolescents 11–19 14.2–14.5 1.02–1.22 5 187 183 (98) 1477
20 Recombivax‐HB (10 mcg) 0;6 2D Healthy adolescents 11–19 14.2–14.5 1.02–1.22 7 185 180 (97) 3049
20 Recombivax‐HB (5 mcg) 0;2;4 SS Healthy adolescents 11–19 14.2–14.5 1.02–1.22 5 184 178 (97) 675
19 Engerix‐B (10 mcg) 0;1;6 S Healthy children 5 20 1 6 20 16 (80)
19 Engerix‐B (10 mcg) 0;1/3;3/4 (SA) Healthy children 5 20 1 6 20 19 (95)
21 Merck recombinant hepB (10 mcg) 0;1;6 S Healthy adults 24.4 30 1.14 7 30 30 (100) 5846
21 Merck recombinant hepB (10 mcg) 0;1;2 (A) Healthy adults 24.7 29 1.42 7 18 17 (94) 207
21 Merck recombinant hepB (10 mcg) 0;1;12 P Healthy adults 24.6 30 1.14 13 24 23 (96) 19 912
22 Engerix B (20 mcg) 0;1;6 S Healthy adults 24.3 48 55 54 (98) 204
22 Heptavax (20 mcg) 0;1;6 S Healthy adults 24.3 48 52 49 (94) 244
22 Engerix B (20 mcg) 0;1;2;12 A Healthy adults 24.3 48 17 16 (94) 435
22 Heptavax (20 mcg) 0;1;2;12 A Healthy adults 24.3 48 20 20 (100) 640
29 Engerix‐B (20 mcg) 0;1;2 (A) Healthy adults 18–40 26.6 101 0.66
29 Engerix‐B (20 mcg) 0;1/2;1 (SA) Healthy adults 18–40 28.3 109 0.45
29 Engerix‐B (20 mcg) 0;1/4;3/4 (SA) Healthy adults 18–40 26 96 0.60
23 Gen‐Hevac B (20 mcg) 0;1;2;12 A Healthy adults 18–40 23.5 133 0.48 3 133 122 (92) 175
23 Gen‐Hevac B (20 mcg) 0;1/3;3/4;12 SA Healthy adults 18–40 23.9 137 0.62 1.75 137 96 (70) 22
24 Engerix‐B (20 mcg) 0;1;6 S Healthy adults >18 27.5 117 0.83 7 107 106 (99) 4264
24 Engerix‐B (20 mcg) 0;1;2 (A) Healthy adults >18 27 113 0.38 7 98 95 (97) 347
25 Engerix‐B (20 mcg) 0;1;2 (A) Healthy adults 13 1.17 2.5 13 9 (69) 27
25 Engerix‐B (20 mcg) 0;1/2;3/2 (A) Healthy adults 17 1.83 2 17 14 (82) 43
26 Gen‐Hevac B (20 mcg) 0;1;2 (A) Healthy subjects 22.5 30 0.88 2
26 Gen‐Hevac B (20 mcg) 0;1/3;3/4 (SA) Healthy subjects 25.9 90 0.80 2
17 Bevac (10 mcg <10 years old; 20 mcg >10 years old) 0;1;2 (A) General population 5–35 1.05 3 (100) 2628
17 Engerix‐B (10 mcg <10 years old; 20 mcg >10 years old) 0;1;2 (A) General population 5–35 1.47 3 (100) 2273
27 Enivac HB (20 mcg) 0;1;2 (A) Healthy adults 18–29 110 3 3025
27 Enivac HB (20 mcg) 0;1;2 (A) Healthy adults 30–39 105 3 2096
27 Enivac HB (20 mcg) 0;1;2 (A) Healthy adults 40–49 92 3 92 72 (97) 1592
28 Revac B (20 mcg) 0;1;6 S Students 17–30 23.5 32 0.68 7 32 32 (100) 1237
28 Revac B (20 mcg) 0;1;2 (A) Students 17–30 23.5 31 1.38 7 31 31 (100) 533
28 Revac B (20 mcg) 0;1 2D Students 17–30 23.5 26 1.45 7 16 16 (100) 858
38 Engerix‐B (20 mcg) 0;1;6 S Heroin users 25.7 486 7 340 313 (92)
38 Engerix‐B (20 mcg) 0;1;2 (A) Heroin users 25.7 689 3 474 317 (67)
50 Engerix‐B (20 mcg) 0;1;6 S Prisoners IVDU 15 7
50 Engerix‐B (20 mcg) 0;1/4;3/4;7 SA Prisoners IVDU 19 7
50 Engerix‐B (20 mcg) 0;1/4;3/4;7 SA Prisoners IVDU 566 7 145 97 (67) 27
37 Twinrix 0;1;6 S Drug users 25.8 34 3.85 8 34 33 (97) 1726
32 Recombivax‐HB (10 mcg) 0;1;6 S Healthy older adults 40+ 48.2 58 0.53 7 (90) 536
32 Recombivax‐HB (20+10 mcg) 0;6 2D Healthy older adults 40+ 50.9 20 0.67 7 (80) 126
32 Recombivax‐HB (20+20 mcg) 0;6 2D Healthy older adults 40+ 48 35 0.59 7 (83) 174
32 Recombivax‐HB (40+10 mcg) 0;6 2D Healthy older adults 40+ 50.4 36 0.57 7 (81) 241
32 Recombivax‐HB (40+20 mcg) 0;6 2D Healthy older adults 40+ 50.8 26 0.30 7 (96) 369
33 Engerix‐B (20 mcg) 0;1;6 S Alcoholic patients 51.7 52 NA 12 52 24 (46) 39
33 Engerix‐B (40 mcg) 0;1;2;6 A Alcoholic patients 50.4 48 NA 12 48 36 (75) 76
39 0;1;6 S STI clinic
39 0;1;2 (A) STI clinic
40 Engerix‐B (20 mcg) 0;1;6 S STI clinic 30.1 104 33.67 7.5 40 35 (88)
40 Engerix‐B (20 mcg) 0;1;2 (A) STI clinic 30 110 35.67 3.5 59 49 (83)
46 Engerix‐B (20 mcg) 0;1;6 S MSM, GUM clinic 16–72 32.4 42 22 21 (96)
43 Engerix‐B (20 mcg) 0;1/4;3/4 (SA) GUM clinic 116 3 (69)
43 Engerix‐B (20 mcg) 0;1;6 S GUM clinic 171 3
44 Engerix‐B (20 mcg) 0;1;6 S MSM, GUM clinic 27 118
44 Twinrix 0;1/4;3/4 (SA) MSM, GUM clinic 25 220
45 Engerix‐B (20 mcg) 0;1;2 (A) Male sex workers 489
34 Engerix‐B (20 mcg) 0;1/4;3/4;12 SA Healthy adult travellers 18–48 27 240 1.16 3 184 167 (91) 131
34 Twinrix (20 mcg) 0;1/4;3/4;12 SA Healthy adult travellers 18–45 24.9 239 0.81 3 206 196 (95) 183
Open in a new tab

*Bold values refer to a higher antigen dosage; † schedule expressed in months; 1/4;1/3;1/2;3/4;3/4 therefore correspond to 7, 10, 14, 21 days, and 1.5 months (6 weeks), respectively; ‡type of vaccination schedule: coded as S (standard), SS (shortened standard), A (accelerated), SA (super‐accelerated) or P (prolonged); parentheses indicate schedules without the final dose; § M/F: male/female ratio; NA: not applicable (all males); ¶numbers and percentages either reported in the paper or calculated from the reported values.

Healthy adolescents

Few studies have examined the use of accelerated hepatitis B vaccination schedules in adolescents. Nevertheless, since the immunogenicity of many vaccines, including hepatitis B vaccines, is higher in younger persons, the results of studies in healthy adults can safely be extrapolated to younger age groups.4

In a study by Chowdhury et al, 100% of vaccinated adolescents reached an anti‐HBs level ⩾10 IU/l, 1 month after the primary part of an accelerated vaccination schedule (0.1.2 months), with two different vaccines.17 Wilkinson et al described similar results in a small group of high‐risk youth.18 In another study in healthy children, Bosnak and co‐workers concluded that 1 month after administering the primary part of a super‐accelerated schedule (0.7.21 days) similar rates of anti‐HBs levels ⩾10 IU/l were reached, when compared with the standard 0.1.6‐month schedule. However, the proportion of vaccinees attaining 10 IU/l was higher within the first 2–3 months after dose 1. No data on the magnitude of anti‐HBs levels were reported.19 Cassidy et al studied a shortened standard schedule (0.2.4 months), which resulted in a similar seroprotection rate as the standard schedule (0.1.6 months) 1 month after completion, but with remarkably lower antibody levels.20

Healthy adults

Jilg et al clearly demonstrated in a study comparing a primary part of an accelerated (0.1.2 months) schedule with a standard (0.1.6 months) and a prolonged vaccination schedule (0.1.12 months) that a longer interval between the second and the last dose of hepatitis B vaccine resulted in higher anti‐HBs levels.21 Scheiermann et al reported similar seroprotection rates obtained by the standard (0.1.6 months) and the accelerated (0.1.2.12 months) vaccination schedule, even up to 4 years after the first dose. The accelerated schedule (including the fourth dose) yielded higher antibody levels.22 A study by Marchou et al comparing a super‐accelerated 0.10.21.365 days to the accelerated 0.1.2.12‐month schedule showed a more rapid immune response to the super‐accelerated schedule (after 1 month), yet higher antibody levels after three doses when the intervals between doses were larger.23

Other studies using the first three doses of an accelerated vaccination schedule concluded that seroprotection after the vaccination series was comparable with that obtained by the standard schedule. Accelerated schedules resulted in higher proportions reaching 10 IU/l between 3 and 6 months after the first dose; however, the antibody levels after three doses were markedly lower than with the standard schedule.24,25,26,27,28

With the primary part of different super‐accelerated vaccination schedules (three doses given within 3–4 weeks' time) the proportion reaching 10 IU/l after the vaccination series is comparable with that obtained after the standard schedule, while this proportion is higher within the first 2–3 months after the first dose. Yet again, super‐accelerated schedules result in lower anti‐HBs levels after three vaccine doses.25,26,29,30,31

The immune response to hepatitis B vaccination is known to decrease with increasing age. Both Rosman and Gellin reported a beneficial effect of increasing the vaccine's antigen dosage in adults over 40 years of age.32 The use of an accelerated schedule with a high‐dose vaccine was shown to induce higher seroprotection levels compared with the standard schedule in a population of alcoholic older subjects.33

Travellers to areas of intermediate or high endemicity

Travellers form a very specific at‐risk group; they often have a very limited time to start a vaccination schedule. Moreover, completing a hepatitis B vaccination regimen, being at 6 or 12 months after the first dose, is often neglected. Nevertheless, most travellers are healthy persons. The above‐mentioned results thus also hold for travellers.34 This has been confirmed in two recent reviews.35,36

Drug users

Lugoboni et al found a similar immunogenicity as compared with the general population, using the combined vaccine according to a standard (0.1.6‐month) vaccination schedule against hepatitis A and B in a population of drug users.37

Quaglio et al compared a 0.1.2 to a standard 0.1.6‐month schedule in heroin users; they found a significantly lower proportion reaching the 10 IU/l antibody level after three doses with the accelerated schedule (67 vs 92%).38

Compliance with accelerated vs standard vaccination schedules in different populations (table 2)

Table 2 Overview of hepatitis B vaccine uptake according to vaccination schedule, in different at‐risk populations.

Ref. Population Schedule (months*) Type† N Uptake dose 2 n (%)‡ Uptake dose 3 n (%)‡ Uptake dose 4 n (%)‡ Anti‐HBs testing (month) Anti‐HBs testing n (%)‡ Additional interventions
38 Heroin users 0;1;2 (A) 689 3 474 (69)
38 Heroin users 0;1;6 S 486 3 350 (72)
49 Homeless drug users 0;1;6 S 54 23 (43) 3 (6)
49 Homeless drug users 0;1/4;3/4 (SA) 90 64 (71) 35 (39)
50 Prisoners with intravenous drug use 0;1;6;7 S 15 8 (53) 3 (20) 1 (7) 7 1 (7)
50 Prisoners with intravenous drug use 0;1/4;3/4;7 SA 19 13 (68) 12 (63) 3 (16) 7 3 (16)
50 Prisoners with intravenous drug use 0;1/4;3/4;7 SA 566 516 (91) 457 (81) 236 (42) 7 236 (42)
37 Drug users 0;1;6 S 34 31 (91) 8 34 (100)
48 Drug users 0;1/4;3/4 (SA) 90 74 (82) 64 (71) Outreach programme with active reminding
39 STI clinic 0;1;6 S 161 64 (40) 45 (28) Vaccination at the STI clinic vs referral to a vaccination centre
39 STI clinic 0;1;2;12 A 170 66 (39) 58 (34) 23 (14)
58 STI clinic 0;1;6 S 233 113 (49) 68 (29) Reminder by mail and telephone
58 STI clinic 0;1;2;12 A 197 97 (49) 67 (34) 35 (18)
40 STI clinic 0;1;6 S 104 84 (81) 64 (62) 7–8 40 (38) Mail and telephone
40 STI clinic 0;1;2 (A) 110 88 (80) 83 (75) 3–4 59 (54)
62 STI clinic 319 179 (56)
43 STI clinic 0;1/4;3/4 (SA) 116 105 (91) 84 (72) 3
43 STI clinic 0;1;6 S 171 134 (78) 105 (61) 3
41 MSM, IVDU, CSW and STI 0;1;6 S 13184 (77) (59) Pilot vaccination group with programmes for high‐risk populations
57 CSW 0;1;6 S 148 100 (68) Outreach programme
42 CSW 0;1;2;12 A 414 314 (76) 281 (68) 184 (44) Outreach programme
42 CSW 0;1;6 S 474 321 (68) 227 (48)
63 CSW 0;1;6 S 79 69 (87) 57 (72) Outreach programme with active reminding
56 CSW 0;1;6 S 369 221 (60) 7 161 (44) Outreach programme with active reminding
55 CSW 0;1;6 S 59 32 (54) Outreach programme with active reminding
45 CSW 0;1;2 (A) 489 292 (60) Specialist and holistic nature of the services; reminder by telephone
47 CSW 0;1;4 SS 322 190 (59) Anytime 121 (38) Outreach programme with active reminding
47 CSW 0;1;6 S 293 158 (54) Anytime 117 (40)
64 HCW male 0;1;6 S 101 101 (100) 8–12 96 (95)
64 HCW female 0;1;6 S 131 131 (100) 8–12 129 (98)
64 MSM 0;1;6 S 104 89 (86) 8–12 76 (73)
46 MSM 0;1;6 S 42 30 (71) 7 22 (52) Reminder letters
44 MSM 0;1;6 S 146 135 (92) 118 (81) 118 (81)
44 MSM 0;1/4;3/4;12 SA 302 264 (87) 220 (73) 220 (73)
65 MSM in STI clinics 5669 2588 (46)
Open in a new tab

*Schedule expressed in months; 0;1/4;3/4 therefore corresponds to 0.7.21 days; † type of vaccination schedule: coded as S (standard), SS (shortened standard), A (accelerated) or SA (super‐accelerated); parentheses indicate schedules without the final dose; ‡ numbers and percentages either reported in the paper, or calculated from the reported values

SW/MSM/Multiple partners/STI clinic attendants

Several studies have reported being able to administer three doses of hepatitis B vaccine to a higher proportion of the population targeted, when an accelerated or a super‐accelerated schedule was used, at least the primary part of it. Unfortunately, few of these studies report immunogenicity data; this is mainly due to the difficulties to administer three vaccine doses, and thus the low proportion that can actually be tested afterwards.39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46

A recent paper that did report immunogenicity data studied a shortened standard schedule (0.1.4 months) as an alternative option, in a setting (sex workers) where other strategies are used to improve the compliance. Even if the 0.1.4 months schedule failed to significantly improve the compliance, it offered equal protection within a shorter interval.47

Drug users

Rogers and Lubman reported that the use of a super‐accelerated schedule in an outreach programme had a positive impact on the compliance of a population of young drug users.48

Wright et al described the vaccine uptake in a population of homeless drug users in a single primary care centre. The standard schedule (0.1.6 months) that was offered in 1999 changed to the primary part of a super‐accelerated 0.7.21‐day vaccination schedule in 2000. As a result, the uptake of hepatitis B vaccination increased once the vaccination regimen was introduced, and completion rates were even seven times higher with the super‐accelerated schedule.49

Christensen et al showed that a super‐accelerated schedule resulted in a significantly higher proportion of vaccinated prisoners with intravenous drug use, and a higher efficacy. Vaccination with a 3‐week schedule in prison reached a higher proportion with anti‐HBs ⩾10 IU/l (measured at day 210) than what could have been obtained with a standard 0.1.6‐month schedule.50

Discussion and conclusions

This review aimed to discuss the preferred vaccination schedules for vaccinating risk groups against hepatitis B, trying to balance the immunogenicity of the vaccine and the compliance of the vaccinees.

Indeed, there is substantial evidence that accelerated and super‐accelerated hepatitis B immunisation regimens offer a clear benefit: a larger proportion of vaccinees will reach an anti‐HBs level ⩾10 IU/l within the first months after the first vaccine dose. However, this favourable effect is rather short‐lived; the standard (0.1.6 months) vaccination schedule induces comparable seroprotection from month 6 after the first dose onwards. Moreover, the standard schedule results in higher antibody levels; this effect is even stronger when the administration of the final dose is scheduled at month 12.21 Therefore, with regards to immunogenicity, the (super)accelerated schedule should strictly be reserved for those persons for whom protection as early as possible is desirable (including postexposure prophylaxis), or for travellers leaving within a month.9,36,51 Offering the fourth dose would guarantee a long‐term protection equal to what is known for the traditional schedules (0.1.6 or 0.1.2.12 months).

Another benefit of the (super)accelerated schedules is the improved uptake of hepatitis B vaccine in a number of at‐risk groups who are difficult to stay in touch with over a longer period of time. Studies in drug users, STI clinic attendees, sex workers and so on have demonstrated that there is a larger proportion of vaccinees who receive three doses of hepatitis B vaccine when a (super)accelerated schedule is offered. As shown in table 2, this is especially the case in settings where the coverage of the third dose of the standard 0.1.6‐month schedule is very low (eg, homeless drug users, etc). This defines another situation where a (super)accelerated schedule could be chosen for reasons of compliance.

However, offering only the primary part of the accelerated schedules also has a downside: the final anti‐HBs levels are markedly lower, compared with schedules with a larger interval between the first and the last dose of hepatitis B vaccine. On top of that, the groups who would benefit from the more rapid protection or improved compliance offered by the accelerated schedules most often are at continuous risk or—in the case of travellers—are likely to repeat their risk over the years to come. Therefore, these groups would also benefit from long‐term protection.

Even if the current consensus regarding the need for hepatitis B booster vaccinations recommends relying on underlying cellular immunity induced by hepatitis B vaccines, rather than on persistence of antibodies alone, the consensus statement on long‐term (lifetime) protection against hepatitis B is based on data from healthy, fully vaccinated persons. When adults are concerned—which most often is the case in these at‐risk groups—the confirmation of an adequate internationally accepted seroprotective immune response (anti‐HBs ⩾10 IU/l) after a complete series of hepatitis B vaccine is recommended.8 As of today, the terms “fully vaccinated persons” and “complete vaccination series” still refer to either the standard schedule (0.1.6 months) or the accelerated (0.1.2.12 months) or super‐accelerated schedule (0.7.21.360 days) including the fourth dose after 12 months.6,7,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 Even if an adequate immune response after the first three doses of a (super)accelerated hepatitis B vaccination schedule might be sufficient to also offer long‐term protection (there is as yet insufficient scientific evidence to support this), this could become subject to further research. Based on the presently available data, we cannot conclude that long‐term protection against hepatitis B is warranted in persons who only received the first three doses of an accelerated schedule, either 0,1,2 months or 0,7,21 days, even if they showed an anti‐HBs level ⩾10 IU/l 1–3 months after the third dose. Independently of an eventual risk of hepatitis B infection before completion of the vaccination schedule, long‐term protection needs to be evidenced after a (super)accelerated schedule.52

In these settings of risk group vaccination, the vaccination schedule should therefore rather be chosen by balancing the need for more rapid protection as compared with that offered by the standard 0,1,6‐month vaccination schedule, with the need for offering long‐term protection to persons who continue being at risk. That choice will be affected by the additional cost and the feasibility of offering a fourth vaccine dose.

There is a clear need to study the possible long‐term (ie, 10 years and beyond) efficacy and protection of the three‐dose (super) accelerated schedules. However, such studies are difficult to conduct in the at‐risk groups—for example, sex workers. First, in case one managed to consistently follow‐up at‐risk persons over a number of years, it would be unethical not to offer them the fourth dose of hepatitis B vaccine. Second, in such an at‐risk setting, there is a higher probability of intermediate exposure to hepatitis B virus, and thus of natural boosting. However, long‐term observational studies could be considered in travellers or healthcare workers who did not receive their fourth dose and who could more easily be recalled compared with the setting of sex workers, for example.

As long as evidence demonstrating this long‐term protection is lacking, a more “compact” standard schedule (ie, 0.1.4 months) might be an option worth considering, to maximise both seroprotection rates and compliance to offer early long‐term protection with the least number of doses.47 Confirmation of these observations is welcomed in further studies, comparing seroprotection with this compact schedule. After all, most at‐risk groups are at continuous risk and thus clearly benefit from long‐term protection.

To further improve the compliance of difficult‐to‐reach at‐risk groups, other strategies (eg, reminder systems, outreaching activities, incentive schemes, etc) need to be considered.42,45,46,47,48,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61 Additionally, the value of an alternative vaccine giving equivalent immunogenicity with two doses only would be very useful in at‐risk populations. The venue of new adjuvants could support these alternative approaches.

Contributions of each author

EL and KVH performed the literature searches and prepared a draft manuscript. PVD was involved in interpreting the results and final editing of the manuscript.

Abbreviations

HBV - hepatitis B virus

WHO - World Health Organization

Footnotes

Conflict of interest statement: EL and PVD are employees of the University of Antwerp. KVH is a Postdoctoral Fellow of the Research Fund Flanders (FWO grant no. 1.2.695.07N00). PVD and KVH have been principal investigators of vaccine trials for several vaccine manufacturers, for which the University of Antwerp obtains research grants.

References

  • 1.Expanded programme on immunization Global Advisory Group—Part I. Wkly Epidemiol Rec 199267(3)11–15. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Vryheid R E, Kane M A, Muller N.et al Infant and adolescent hepatitis B immunization up to 1999: a global overview. Vaccine 200019(9–10)1026–1037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Banatvala J, Van Damme P, Emiroglu N. Hepatitis B immunisation in Britain: time to change? BMJ 2006332804–805. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Mast E, Mahoney F, Kane M.et al Hepatitis B vaccine. In: Plotkin S, Orenstein WA, eds. Vaccines. 4th edn. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 2004299–337.
  • 5.Zimmerman R K, Middleton D B, Burns I T.et al Routine vaccines across the life span, 2005. J Fam Pract 200554(1 Suppl)S9–26. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Epidemiology and prevention of vaccine‐preventable diseases. 10th edn. Washington, DC: Public Health Foundation, 2007
  • 7.World Health Organisation Hepatitis B vaccines. WHO Position Paper. Wkly Epidemiol Rec 200479253–264.15344665 [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Banatvala J, Kane M, Da Villa G.et al Are booster immunisations needed for lifelong hepatitis B immunity? Lancet 2000355561–565. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Health Protection Agency Immunisation against infectious disease. 3rd edn, 2006 edn. Norwich, UK: The Stationery Office, 2006
  • 10.National Health & Medical Research Counsil The Australian immunisation handbook. 8th edn, 2003 edn. Canberra: Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, 2003
  • 11.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Health information for international travel 2005–2006. 2005–2006 edn. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, 2005
  • 12.Migrant Clinicians Network http://www.migrantclinician.org/_resources/hep_mcn_position_paper.pdf (accessed 9 Mar 2007)
  • 13.Royal College of General Practitioners http://www.rcgp.org.uk/pdf/drug_hepab.pdf (accessed 9 Mar 2007)
  • 14.Royal Australian College of General Practitioners http://www.racgp.org.au/content/navigationmenu/clinicalresources/racgpguidelines/immunisation/vaccines/hepatitisb/default.htm#dosage (accessed 9 Mar 2007)
  • 15.British Association of Sexual Health and HIV UK national guideline on the management of viral hepatitis A, B, and C. http://www.bashh.org/guidelines/2005/hepatitis_abc_final_0905.pdf (accessed 9 Mar 2007)
  • 16.Mast E E, Weinbaum C M, Fiore A E.et al A comprehensive immunization strategy to eliminate transmission of hepatitis B virus infection in the United States: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Part II: immunization of adults. MMWR Recomm Rep 2006551–33 quiz CE14. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Chowdhury A, Santra A, Habibullah C M.et al Immune response to an indigenously developed r‐hepatitis B vaccine in mixed population: study of an accelerated vaccination schedule. World Journal of Gastroenterology 2005111037–1039. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Wilkinson S E, Morath M, Bennett D L.et al Accelerated schedule of hepatitis B vaccination in high‐risk youth. J Paediatr Child Health 19963260–62. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Bosnak M, Dikici B, Bosnak V.et al Accelerated hepatitis B vaccination schedule in childhood. Pediatr Int 200244663–665. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Cassidy W M, Watson B, Ioli V A.et al A randomized trial of alternative two‐ and three‐dose hepatitis B vaccination regimens in adolescents: antibody responses, safety, and immunologic memory. Pediatrics 2001107626–631. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Jilg W, Schmidt M, Deinhardt F. Vaccination against hepatitis B: comparison of three different vaccination schedules. J Infect Dis 1989160766–769. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Scheiermann N, Gesemann M, Maurer C.et al Persistence of antibodies after immunization with a recombinant yeast‐derived hepatitis B vaccine following two different schedules. Vaccine 19908(Suppl)S44–6 discussion S602. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Marchou B, Excler J L, Bourderioux C.et al A 3‐week hepatitis B vaccination schedule provides rapid and persistent protective immunity: a multicenter, randomized trial comparing accelerated and classic vaccination schedules. J Infect Dis 1995172258–260. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Marsano L S, Greenberg R N, Kirkpatrick R B.et al Comparison of a rapid hepatitis B immunization schedule to the standard schedule for adults. Am J Gastroenterol 199691111–115. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Carlsson T, Struve J, Sonnerborg A.et al The anti‐HBs response after 2 different accelerated intradermal and intramuscular schemes for hepatitis B vaccination. Scand J Infect Dis 19993193–95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Saltoglu N, Inal A S, Tasova Y.et al Comparison of the accelerated and classic vaccination schedules against Hepatitis B: three‐week Hepatitis B vaccination schedule provides immediate and protective immunity. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob 2003210. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hussain Z, Ali S S, Husain S A.et al Evaluation of immunogenicity and reactogenicity of recombinant DNA hepatitis B vaccine produced in India. World J Gastroenterol 2005117165–7168. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Marocho L, Vildozola H, Valencia E.et al [Comparative study on the protective effect of two immunization schemes using a hepatitis B recombinant vaccine in vulnerable health science students]. Rev Gastroenterol Peru 200525313–319. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Bock H L, Loscher T, Scheiermann N.et al Accelerated schedule for hepatitis B immunization. J Travel Med 19952213–217. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kallinowski B, Benz C, Buchholz L.et al Accelerated schedule of hepatitis B vaccination in liver transplant candidates. Transplant Proc 199830797–799. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Engler S H, Sauer P W, Golling M.et al Immunogenicity of two accelerated hepatitis B vaccination protocols in liver transplant candidates. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 200113363–367. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Gellin BG G R, Hart R H, Bertino J S.et al Immunogenicity of two doses of yeast recombinant hepatitis B vaccine in healthy older adults. J Infect Dis 19971751494–1497. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Rosman A S, Basu P, Galvin K.et al Efficacy of a high and accelerated dose of hepatitis B vaccine in alcoholic patients: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Med 1997103217–222. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Nothdurft H D, Dietrich M, Zuckerman J N.et al A new accelerated vaccination schedule for rapid protection against hepatitis A and B. Vaccine 2002201157–1162. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Zuckerman J. The place of accelerated schedules for hepatitis A and B vaccinations. Drugs 2003631779–1784. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Keystone J S. Travel‐related hepatitis B: risk factors and prevention using an accelerated vaccination schedule. Am J Med 2005118(Suppl 10A)63S–68S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Lugoboni F, Quaglio G, Pajusco B.et al Immunogenicity, reactogenicity and adherence to a combined hepatitis A and B vaccine in illicit drug users. Addiction 2004991560–1564. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Quaglio G, Talamini G, Lugoboni F.et al Compliance with hepatitis B vaccination in 1175 heroin users and risk factors associated with lack of vaccine response. Addiction 200297985–992. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Dal‐Re R, Gonzalez A, Ramirez V.et al Compliance with immunization against hepatitis B. A pragmatic study in sexually transmitted disease clinics. Vaccine 199513163–167. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Asboe D, Rice P, de Ruiter A.et al Hepatitis B vaccination schedules in genitourinary medicine clinics. Genitourin Med 199672210–212. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.van Steenbergen J E. Results of an enhanced‐outreach programme of hepatitis B vaccination in the Netherlands (1998–2000) among men who have sex with men, hard drug users, sex workers and heterosexual persons with multiple partners. J Hepatol 200237507–513. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Mak R, Traen A, Claeyssens M.et al Hepatitis B vaccination for sex workers: do outreach programmes perform better? Sex Transm Infect 200379157–159. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Jones O, Sankar K N. Audit of outcome of super‐accelerated hepatitis B vaccination schedule in a genitourinary medicine clinic. Int J STD AIDS 200516636–637. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.McMillan A. Hepatitis B vaccination of men who have sex with men: experience with an accelerated course of vaccination in a genitourinary medicine clinic. Int J STD AIDS 200516633–635. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Sethi G, Holden B M, Greene L.et al Hepatitis B vaccination for male sex workers: the experience of a specialist GUM service. Sex Transm Infect 20068284–85. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Opaneye A A, Bashford J. Audit of hepatitis B immunization at the genitourinary medicine department in Middlesbrough, UK. Int J STD AIDS 200213268–270. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Wouters K, Leuridan E, Van Herck K.et al Compliance and immunogenicity of two hepatitis B vaccination schedules in sex workers in Belgium. Vaccine 2007251893–1900. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Rogers N, Lubman D I. An accelerated hepatitis B vaccination schedule for young drug users. Aust NZ J Public Health 200529305–307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Wright N M, Campbell T L, Tompkins C N. Comparison of conventional and accelerated hepatitis B immunisation schedules for homeless drug users. Commun Dis Public Health 20025324–326. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Christensen P B, Fisker N, Krarup H B.et al Hepatitis B vaccination in prison with a 3‐week schedule is more efficient than the standard 6‐month schedule. Vaccine 2004223897–3901. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Zuckerman J N. The place of accelerated schedules for hepatitis A and B vaccinations. Drugs 2003631779–1784. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Zuckerman J N, Connor B A, von Sonnenburg F. Hepatitis A and B booster recommendations: implications for travelers. Clin Infect Dis 2005411020–1026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Seal K H, Kral A H, Lorvick J.et al A randomized controlled trial of monetary incentives vs. outreach to enhance adherence to the hepatitis B vaccine series among injection drug users. Drug Alcohol Depend 200371127–131. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Vilella A, Bayas J M, Diaz M T.et al The role of mobile phones in improving vaccination rates in travelers. Prev Med 200438503–509. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Leuridan E, Wouters K, Stalpaert M.et al Male sex workers in Antwerp, Belgium: a descriptive study. Int J STD AIDS 200516744–748. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Van Ardenne N, Roelofs I, Leuridan E.et al Audit on offering and accepting hepatitis B vaccine by sex workers. Int J STD AIDS 200415493–494. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Prévost C, Bertrand, Tonglet Pertinence et faisabilité d'un programme de vaccination contre l'hépatite B propose à un groupe de prostituées à Bruxelles, Belgique. Arch Public Health 20005837–48. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Weinstock H S, Bolan G, Moran J S.et al Routine hepatitis B vaccination in a clinic for sexually transmitted diseases. Am J Public Health 199585846–849. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Baker A M, McCarthy B, Gurley V F.et al Influenza immunization in a managed care organization. J Gen Intern Med 199813469–475. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Sansom S, Rudy E, Strine T.et al Hepatitis A and B vaccination in a sexually transmitted disease clinic for men who have sex with men. Sex Transm Dis 200330685–688. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Jacobson V J, Szilagyi P. Patient reminder and patient recall systems to improve immunization rates. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005CD003941. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 62.Jaleel H, Allan P S, Huengsberg M.et al Offering the vaccine and accepting it: an audit of hepatitis B vaccination in West Midlands region. Int J STD AIDS 200314632–635. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Wouters K. Sexually transmitted infections (STI) among prostitutes in Antwerp, Belgium. Arch Public Health 20026027–38. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Das S, Brassington M, Drake S M.et al Response to hepatitis‐B vaccination in healthy homosexual individuals: retrospective case control study. Vaccine 2003213701–3705. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Brown A E, Tomkins S E, Logan L E.et al Monitoring the effectiveness of HIV and STI prevention initiatives in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland: where are we now? Sex Transm Infect 2006824–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Sexually Transmitted Infections are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES