Hepatitis B Immunisation For

EVIDENCE-BASED CHILD HEALTH: A COCHRANE REVIEW JOURNAL Evid.
-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007) Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/ebch.120
Hepatitis B immunisation for newborn infants of hepatitis B surface antigen-positive mothers (Review)
Lee C, Gong Y, Brok J, Boxall EH, Gluud C
This is a reprint of a Cochrane review, prepared and maintained by The Cochrane Collaboration, rst published in The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 1 http://www.thecochranelibrary.com
Hepatitis B immunisation for newborn infants of hepatitis B surface antigen-positive mothers (Review) Copyright 2007 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
67
Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007)

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING STUDIES FOR THIS REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SEARCH METHODS FOR IDENTIFICATION OF STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . METHODS OF THE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DESCRIPTION OF STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SOURCES OF SUPPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Characteristics of included studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Characteristics of excluded studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ADDITIONAL TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 01. Search strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 02. Intervention by group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANALYSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison 01. Vaccine versus placebo or no intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison 02. RV versus PDV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison 03. High-dose versus low-dose vaccine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison 04. Three-dose PDV plus HBIG versus two-dose PDV plus HBIG . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison 05. PDV at birth versus PDV at one month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison 06. One type of PDV versus another type of PDV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison 07. Four RV vaccinations versus three RV vaccinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison 08. One type of RV versus another type of RV with the same vaccination schedule . . . . . . . . Comparison 09. HBIG versus placebo or no intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison 10. Multiple HBIG plus PDV versus single HBIG plus PDV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison 11. PDV plus HBIG versus placebo or no intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INDEX TERMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COVER SHEET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GRAPHS AND OTHER TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 01.01. Comparison 01 Vaccine versus placebo or no intervention, Outcome 01 Hepatitis B events according to type of vaccine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 01.02. Comparison 01 Vaccine versus placebo or no intervention, Outcome 02 Hepatitis B events according to methodological quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 01.03. Comparison 01 Vaccine versus placebo or no intervention, Outcome 03 Hepatitis B events - Sensitivity analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 01.04. Comparison 01 Vaccine versus placebo or no intervention, Outcome 04 Hepatitis B events according to the mothers HBeAg status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 01.05. Comparison 01 Vaccine versus placebo or no intervention, Outcome 05 Hepatitis B events according to rst time of vaccine administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 02.01. Comparison 02 RV versus PDV, Outcome 01 Hepatitis B events . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 02.02. Comparison 02 RV versus PDV, Outcome 02 Hepatitis B events according to methodological quality Analysis 02.03. Comparison 02 RV versus PDV, Outcome 03 Hepatitis B events - sensitivity analyses . . . . . .
70 71 71 71 71 72 72 73 74 74 76 77 77 77 77 78 78 86 86 110 111 111 113 115 115 116 116 116 116 116 117 117 117 117 117 118 118 119 119 120 121 123 124 125 126 127
68

Analysis 02.04. Comparison 02 RV versus PDV, Outcome 04 Hepatitis B events according to the mothers HBeAg status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 02.05. Comparison 02 RV versus PDV, Outcome 05 Anti-HBs less than 10 IU/L . . . . . . . . . Analysis 03.01. Comparison 03 High-dose versus low-dose vaccine, Outcome 01 Hepatitis B events . . . . . . Analysis 03.02. Comparison 03 High-dose versus low-dose vaccine, Outcome 02 Hepatitis B events according to methodological quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 03.03. Comparison 03 High-dose versus low-dose vaccine, Outcome 03 Hepatitis B events - sensitivity analyses Analysis 03.04. Comparison 03 High-dose versus low-dose vaccine, Outcome 04 Hepatitis B events according to the mothers HBeAg status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 03.05. Comparison 03 High-dose versus low-dose vaccine, Outcome 05 Anti-HBs less than 10 IU/L . . . Analysis 04.01. Comparison 04 Three-dose PDV plus HBIG versus two-dose PDV plus HBIG, Outcome 01 Hepatitis B events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 04.02. Comparison 04 Three-dose PDV plus HBIG versus two-dose PDV plus HBIG, Outcome 02 AntiHBs less than 10 IU/L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 05.01. Comparison 05 PDV at birth versus PDV at one month, Outcome 01 Hepatitis B events . . . . Analysis 06.01. Comparison 06 One type of PDV versus another type of PDV, Outcome 01 Hepatitis B events . . Analysis 07.01. Comparison 07 Four RV vaccinations versus three RV vaccinations, Outcome 01 Hepatitis B events . Analysis 07.02. Comparison 07 Four RV vaccinations versus three RV vaccinations, Outcome 02 Anti-HBs level less than 10 IU/L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 08.01. Comparison 08 One type of RV versus another type of RV with the same vaccination schedule, Outcome 01 Hepatitis B events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 08.02. Comparison 08 One type of RV versus another type of RV with the same vaccination schedule, Outcome 02 Anti-HBs less than 10 IU/L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 09.01. Comparison 09 HBIG versus placebo or no intervention, Outcome 01 Hepatitis B events . . . . Analysis 09.02. Comparison 09 HBIG versus placebo or no intervention, Outcome 02 Hepatitis B events according to methodological quality of the trials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 09.03. Comparison 09 HBIG versus placebo or no intervention, Outcome 03 Hepatitis B events - sensitivity analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 09.04. Comparison 09 HBIG versus placebo or no intervention, Outcome 04 Hepatitis B events according to the mothers HBeAg status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 09.05. Comparison 09 HBIG versus placebo or no intervention, Outcome 05 Hepatitis B events according to time of HBIG administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 09.06. Comparison 09 HBIG versus placebo or no intervention, Outcome 06 Hepatitis B events according to standard and rapid schedule of vaccines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 09.07. Comparison 09 HBIG versus placebo or no intervention, Outcome 07 Anti-HBs less than 10 IU/L . Analysis 09.08. Comparison 09 HBIG versus placebo or no intervention, Outcome 08 Anti-HBs level . . . . . Analysis 09.09. Comparison 09 HBIG versus placebo or no intervention, Outcome 09 Adverse events . . . . . Analysis 10.01. Comparison 10 Multiple HBIG plus PDV versus single HBIG plus PDV, Outcome 01 Hepatitis B events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 11.01. Comparison 11 PDV plus HBIG versus placebo or no intervention, Outcome 01 Hepatitis B events Analysis 11.02. Comparison 11 PDV plus HBIG versus placebo or no intervention, Outcome 02 Hepatitis B events according to methodological quality of the trials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 11.03. Comparison 11 PDV plus HBIG versus placebo or no intervention, Outcome 03 Hepatitis B events sensitivity analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 11.04. Comparison 11 PDV plus HBIG versus placebo or no intervention, Outcome 04 Hepatitis B events according to mothers HBeAg status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 11.05. Comparison 11 PDV plus HBIG versus placebo or no intervention, Outcome 05 Hepatitis B events according to time of HBIG administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis 11.06. Comparison 11 PDV plus HBIG versus placebo or no intervention, Outcome 06 Adverse events . . 129 130 130 131 132 134 135 135 136 136 137 137 138 138 139 139 141 142 145 146 147 148 149 149 150 150 151 152 153 154 155
69
Hepatitis B immunisation for newborn infants of hepatitis B surface antigen-positive mothers (Review)
Lee C, Gong Y, Brok J, Boxall EH, Gluud C
This version rst published online: 19 April 2006 in Issue 2, 2006 of The Cochrane Library. Lee C, Gong Y, Brok J, Boxall EH, Gluud C. Hepatitis B immunisation for newborn infants of hepatitis B surface antigen-positive mothers. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD004790. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004790.pub2. Cochrane reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to feedback, and The Cochrane Library should be consulted for the most recent version of the review. Date of most recent substantive amendment: 22 February 2006
ABSTRACT Background Hepatitis B vaccine and hepatitis B immunoglobulin are considered for newborn infants of HBsAg-positive mothers to prevent hepatitis B infection. Objectives To assess the benecial and harmful effects of hepatitis B vaccines and hepatitis B immunoglobulin in newborn infants of HBsAgpositive mothers. Search strategy Trials were identied through The Cochrane Neonatal Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE (until February 2004), authors of trials, and pharmaceutical companies. Selection criteria Randomised clinical trials comparing: plasma-derived vaccine (PDV) or recombinant vaccine (RV) versus no intervention, placebo, or other active vaccines; hepatitis B immunoglobulin versus no intervention, placebo, or other control immunoglobulin; as well as PDV or RV plus hepatitis B immunoglobulin versus no intervention, placebo, or other control vaccines or immunoglobulin. Data collection and analysis Outcomes are assessed at maximal follow-up. The primary outcome measure was hepatitis B occurrence, based on a blood specimen positive for HBsAg, HBeAg, or antibody to hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc). Binary outcomes are reported as relative risks (RR) with 95% condence interval (CI). Subgroup analyses were performed with regard to methodological quality of the trial, mothers HBe-Ag status, and time of immunisation after birth. Main results We identied 29 randomised clinical trials, ve of which were considered high quality. Only three trials reported inclusion of hepatitis B e-antigen negative mothers. Compared with placebo/no intervention, vaccine reduced hepatitis B occurrence (RR 0.28, 95% condence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.40, 4 trials). No signicant differences of hepatitis B occurrence were found comparing recombinant vaccine (RV) versus plasma-derived vaccine (PDV) (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.42, 4 trials) and high-dose versus low-dose vaccine (PDV: RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.68, 3 trials; RV: RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.94, 1 trial). Compared with placebo/no intervention, hepatitis B immunoglobulin or the combination of vaccine plus hepatitis B immunoglobulin reduced hepatitis B occurrence (hepatitis B immunoglobulin: RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.60, 1 trial; PDV plus hepatitis B immunoglobulin: RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.17, 3 trials). Compared with vaccine, vaccine plus hepatitis B immunoglobulin reduced hepatitis B occurrence (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.73, 10 trials). Hepatitis B vaccine and hepatitis B immunoglobulin seem safe, but few trials reported on adverse events. Authors conclusions Vaccine, hepatitis B immunoglobulin, and vaccine plus hepatitis B immunoglobulin prevent hepatitis B occurrence in newborn infants of HBsAg positive mothers.
Hepatitis B immunisation for newborn infants of hepatitis B surface antigen-positive mothers (Review) Copyright 2007 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 70

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY Hepatitis B vaccine, hepatitis B immunoglobulin, and hepatitis B vaccine plus immunoglobulin prevent perinatal transmission of hepatitis B Hepatitis B vaccination and hepatitis B immunoglobulin are considered as preventive measures for newborn infants of HBsAg positive mothers. When all the identied trials were combined, hepatitis B vaccine alone, hepatitis B immunoglobulin alone, and hepatitis B vaccine plus hepatitis B immunoglobulin reduced perinatal transmission of hepatitis B compared with placebo or no intervention. Hepatitis B vaccine plus hepatitis B immunoglobulin were superior to hepatitis B vaccination alone. Adverse events were rare and mostly non-serious.
BACKGROUND Hepatitis B virus is a global acute and chronic communicable disease that causes major hepatic disease, with an estimated 350 million people infected (Beasley 1984). Mother to child transmission occurs frequently either in uterus (when the baby is still in the womb), through placental leakage, or through exposure to blood or blood contaminated uids at or around the time of birth. Such perinatal transmission is believed to account for 35% to 50% of hepatitis B carriers (Yao 1996). The risk of perinatal transmission is associated with the HBeAg status of the mother. If the mother is both HBsAg and HBeAg positive, 70% to 90% of the children become chronically infected (Stevens 1975; Akhter 1992). If the mother is HBsAg positive but HBeAg negative, the risk is signicantly reduced (Okada 1976; Beasley 1977; Beasley 1983b; Nayak 1987; Aggarwal 2004). Two types of vaccines have been licensed. One is derived from human plasma (plasma-derived vaccine (PDV)) and the other is derived from DNA recombinant technology (recombinant vaccine (RV)) from yeast or mammalian cells (Assad 1999). Repeated injections over months are required to mount an effective antibody response with vaccination. Hepatitis B immunoglobulin is an immune globulin, which contains a high level of antibody to hepatitis B surface antigen (anti-HBs). Hepatitis B immunoglobulin is considered immediately effective and seems protective for several months after which it wanes (Beasley 1983; Nair 1984). We have been unable to identify meta-analyses or systematic reviews on hepatitis B immunisation for newborn infants of HBsAg positive mothers. A narrative review regarding the efcacy of hepatitis B vaccine in neonates (Andre 1994) and several international guidelines (CDC 1999; WHO 2002) have been published. However, they do not represent systematic reviews containing an assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and presenting original data.
positive mothers.
CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING STUDIES FOR THIS REVIEW Types of studies We included randomised clinical trials, irrespective of blinding, publication status, or language. Types of participants We included newborn infants of either gender born to HBsAgpositive mothers. The immunisation should start within the rst month of life. Types of intervention The following analyses were performed: PDV or RV versus placebo or no intervention. Hepatitis B immunoglobulin versus placebo or no intervention. PDV or RV plus hepatitis B immunoglobulin versus placebo, no intervention, PDV, or RV. Types of outcome measures All outcomes were assessed at maximal follow-up. Primary outcome (1) Hepatitis B occurrence: blood specimen positive for HBsAg, HBeAg, or antibody to hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc). Secondary outcomes (2) Number of newborn infants with anti-HBs less than 10 IU/L, which is considered insufcient to prevent hepatitis B virus infection (Szmuness 1981; Hadler 1986). (3) Anti-HBs, either expressed as geometric mean titre (GMT) or mean titre. (4) Systemic adverse events: adverse events such as malaise, nausea, fever, arthralgia, rash, after each injection of vaccine. (5) Local adverse events: adverse events such as pain, redness, swelling, and/or myalgia at the site after each injection of vaccine.
71
OBJECTIVES To assess the benecial and harmful effects of hepatitis B vaccine and hepatitis B immunoglobulin in newborn infants of HBsAg-

(6) Any adverse events: adverse events including local adverse events and/or systemic adverse events. The adverse events are divided into severe and non-severe. A severe adverse event, according to the International Committee on Harmonisation Guidelines (ICH 1997) is any event that would increase mortality; is lifethreatening; requires inpatient hospitalisation; results in a persistent or signicant disability; or any important medical event which may jeopardise the patient or requires intervention to prevent it. All other adverse events are considered non-severe. (7) Cost-effectiveness. Methodological quality is dened as the condence that the design and report restrict bias in the intervention comparison (Moher 1998; Kjaergard 2001). Due to the risk of overestimation of intervention effects in randomised trials with inadequate methodological quality (Schultz 1995; Moher 1998; Kjaergard 2001), the methodological quality was assessed by using the following criteria: Generation of the allocation sequence Adequate, if the allocation sequence was generated by a computer or random number table. Drawing of lots, tossing of a coin, shufing of cards, or throwing dice was considered as adequate if a person who was not otherwise involved in the recruitment of participants performed the procedure. Unclear, if the trial was described as randomised, but the method used for the allocation sequence generation was not described. Inadequate, if a system involving dates, names, or admittance numbers were used for the allocation of patients. Such quasirandomised studies were excluded. Allocation concealment Adequate, if the allocation of patients involved a central independent unit, on-site locked computer, identically appearing numbered drug bottles or containers prepared by an independent pharmacist or investigator, or sealed envelopes. Unclear, if the trial was described as randomised, but the method used to conceal the allocation was not described. Inadequate, if the allocation sequence was known to the investigators who assigned participants. Blinding (or masking) Adequate, if the trial was described as double blind and the method of blinding involved identical placebo or active drugs. Unclear, if the trial was described as double blind, but the method of blinding was not described. Not performed, if the trial was not double blind. Follow-up Adequate, if the numbers and reasons for dropouts and withdrawals in all intervention groups were described or if it was specied that there were no dropouts or withdrawals. Unclear, if the report gave the impression that there had been no dropouts or withdrawals, but this was not specically stated. Inadequate, if the number or reasons for dropouts and withdrawals were not described. We post hoc dened high-quality trials when at least two out of the three quality components were adequate: generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, and blinding. This
72
SEARCH METHODS FOR IDENTIFICATION OF STUDIES See: Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group methods used in reviews. We searched The Cochrane Neonatal Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials(CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE/PubMed, and EMBASE. The search strategies and time span of the searches are specied in Table 01. We consulted with The Cochrane Vaccines Field to identify further trials, but no reply was received. We read the bibliographies of retrieved articles to identify further trials. We checked the reference lists of relevant articles for any new trials. We wrote to the principal authors of the identied trials and the pharmaceutical companies (SmithKline Beecham and Merck, Sharp & Dohme; GreenCross Vaccine; GlaxoSmithKline; Pasteur; and Abbott) involved in the production of hepatitis B vaccines for missing information and additional published or unpublished trials.
METHODS OF THE REVIEW Selection of trials for inclusion CL made the decisions on which trials to be included, and the selection was validated by YG, JB, and CG. We were unblinded with regard to the names of the authors, investigators, institutions, and results. Excluded trials were identied and listed with the reasons for exclusion. Data extraction CL, YG, and JB independently extracted the data from the included randomised trials. We wrote to the authors of trials if data were missing in the report. We extracted: primary author; number of participants; inclusion and exclusion criteria; HBeAg status of the mother; methodological quality (see below); dosage and types of vaccines; site of injection; vaccination schedules; duration of follow-up; outcome measures; and number and type of adverse events in the intervention and the control groups. Methodological quality

was due to the fact that only a single trial had high quality regarding all three components. Statistical methods Review Manager 4.2. was used to perform meta-analyses. Data were analysed by both a random-effects model (DerSimonian 1986) and a xed-effect model (DeMets 1987). If the results of both analyses gave the same overall results regarding signicance, only the results of the xed-effect model analysis was reported. We presented binary outcome measure as relative risks (RR) with 95% condence interval (CI), and continuous outcome measure as weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% CI. Heterogeneity was explored by chi-squared test with signicance set at P < 0.10 and the quantity of heterogeneity was measured by I2 (Higgins 2002). Meta-regression analysis was performed by STATA on hepatitis B occurrence, when more than 10 trials were included. Metaregression analysis examined the intervention effect in relation to methodological quality of trials, dosage of hepatitis B immunoglobulin and vaccine, and time of immunisation. Subgroup analyses were performed to compare the effects of vaccines in mothers with HBsAg (+)/HBeAg(+) compared to HBsAg (+)/HBeAg(-), doses (high-dose versus low-dose), as well as methodological quality of the trials (high-quality versus low-quality). The difference between the estimates of two subgroups was estimated according to Altman 2003. Regarding the hepatitis B occurrence, we included newborn infants with incomplete or missing data in the sensitivity analyses by imputing them in the following analyses (the last four being intention-to-treat analyses): Available data analysis: data on only those whose results are known, using the total number of patients who completed the trial as denominator; Assuming poor outcome: dropouts in both experimental and control group had the primary outcome; Assuming good outcome: none of the dropouts in the experimental and control group had the primary outcome; Extreme case favouring experimental intervention: none of the dropouts in the experimental group but all in the control group had the primary outcome; Extreme case favouring control intervention: all dropouts from the experimental group but no controls had primary outcome. We used funnel plot to provide a visual assessment of whether treatment estimates are associated with study size. We explored publication bias and other bias according to Beggs and Eggers methods (Begg 1994; Egger 1997). DESCRIPTION OF STUDIES We identied 226 references, but 186 were clearly irrelevant references. The remaining 40 references describing 29 randomised trials were included. Twenty-eight trials were published as full paper articles and one trial was published as an abstract. We were not able to extract relevant data according to our outcome measures from three trials (Yeoh 1986; Zhu 1987; Grosheide 1993). Excluded studies are listed under Characteristics of excluded studies with reasons for exclusion. The immunisation doses and schedules in the included trials varied substantially as described below. The capital letters in the references refer to the intervention arms of the trial as described in Table of included studies. Vaccine versus placebo or no intervention The dose of vaccine used was 3 microgram (Ip 1989 CD), 16 microgram (Xu 1995 AD), or 20 microgram (Liu 1987 AB; Xu 1995 BD). The vaccination schedules were 0-1-6 months (Liu 1987 AB; Xu 1995 AD/Xu 1995 BD), 0-1-2-6 months (Ip 1989 CD), or 0-1-2-14 months (Khukhlovich 1996). RV versus PDV The dose of vaccines was 5 microgram (Lee 1995 AB/Lee 1995 CB), 10 microgram (Pongpipat 1989), or 20 microgram (Halliday 1992 AB; Zhu 1994). The vaccination schedules were 0-1-6 months (Pongpipat 1989; Halliday 1992 AB; Zhu 1994) or 0-12-12 months (Lee 1995 AB/Lee 1995 CB). High-dose vaccine versus low-dose vaccine The doses of PDV were 10 microgram, 5 microgram, and 2 microgram (Oon 1986 AB, Oon 1986 CD, Pongpipat 1988; Theppisai 1990). The doses of RV were 20 microgram and 10 microgram (Halliday 1992 DC). The vaccination schedules were 0-1-6 months (Halliday 1992 DC), 0-1-2 months (Oon 1986 AB/Oon 1986 CD), or 0-1-2-12 months (Pongpipat 1988). Three-dose PDV plus hepatitis B immunoglobulin versus twodose PDV plus hepatitis B immunoglobulin One trial assessed three-doses PDV plus hepatitis B immunoglobulin versus two-doses PDV plus hepatitis B immunoglobulin (Piazza 1985). Both groups were given hepatitis B immunoglobulin 50 IU at birth, then 5 microgram PDV within ve days and at two months. The experimental group was given an additional PDV at one month. PDV at birth versus PDV at one month One trial assessed 20 microgram PDV at 0-1-6 months versus 20 microgram PDV at 1-2-7 months (Beasley 1983b). Both groups were given hepatitis B immunoglobulin 145 IU at birth. One type of PDV versus another type of PDV One trial assessed different types of PDV (PDV1(NIAID) versus PDV2 (BIVS) (Xu 1995 AB). The dose was 16 microgram of PDV1 and 20 microgram of PDV2. The schedules were 0-1-6 months. Four RV vaccinations versus three RV vaccinations
73

One trial assessed four RV vaccinations (0-1-2-12 months) versus three RV vaccinations (0-1-6 months) (Lolekha 2002). The dose of each RV was 5 microgram. One RV versus another RV with the same vaccination schedule Two trials assessed different types of RV (RV1(Beijing, China) versus RV2 (Institute of Preventive Medicine, China) (Kang 1995) and one trial assessed Cuban versus Engerix-B (Galban 1992). Two trials assessed different types of RV plus hepatitis B immunoglobulin (Hepavax-Gene versus Engerix-B (Hieu 2002) and HB-VAX II versus Engerix-B (Lee 1995 CA/Lee 1995 DE). The doses of RV were 5 versus 10 microgram (Lee 1995 CA/Lee 1995 DE), 10 versus 10 microgram (Hieu 2002), or 20 versus 20 microgram (Kang 1995). The vaccination schedules were 0-1-6 months (Kang 1995; Hieu 2002) or 0-1-2-12 months (Lee 1995 CA/Lee 1995 DE). Hepatitis B immunoglobulin versus placebo or no intervention The doses of hepatitis B immunoglobulin ranged from 90 to 260 IU. Hepatitis B immunoglobulin was administered within 12 hours of birth in seven trials (Beasley 1983a AB/Beasley 1983a CB; Lo 1985 AB/Lo 1985 CB; Theppisai 1987; Ip 1989 AC/ Ip 1989 BC; Halliday 1992 CA; Xu 1995 CB; Poovorawan 1997), within 24 hours in three trials (Farmer 1987; Sehgal 1992; Assateerawatt 1993), or within 48 hours in one trial (Liu 1987 CA). The vaccination schedules were 0-3-6 months (Beasley 1983a AB/Beasley 1983a CB), 0-6 weeks-6 months (Farmer 1987), 0-1-6 months (Ip 1989 AC/Ip 1989 BC; Theppisai 1987; Xu 1995 CB), 0-1-26 months ( Liu 1987 CA), 0-2-6-10 weeks (Lo 1985 AB/Lo 1985 CB), and 0-4-8 weeks (Sehgal 1992). Multiple hepatitis B immunoglobulin versus single hepatitis B immunoglobulin One trial compared 5 microgram PDV at 2-6-10 weeks plus 50 IU hepatitis B immunoglobulin at birth with or without additional hepatitis B immunoglobulin at 1 month (Lo 1985 CA). One trial compared 3 microgram PDV at 1-2-6 months plus 200 IU hepatitis B immunoglobulin at birth with or without additional hepatitis B immunoglobulin at 1-2-3-4-5-6 months (Ip 1989 AB) PDV plus hepatitis B immunoglobulin versus placebo or no intervention One trial compared 200 IU hepatitis B immunoglobulin at 0-1-23-4-5-6 months plus 3 microgram PDV at 0-1-2-6 months versus 200 IU hepatitis B immunoglobulin at birth plus 3 microgram PDV at 0-1-2-6 months versus placebo (Ip 1989 AD/Ip 1989 BD). One trial compared 20 microgram PDV at 0-1-2-6 months plus hepatitis B immunoglobulin at birth with placebo (Liu 1987 CB). One trial compared 20 microgram PDV at 0-1-6 months plus 250 IU hepatitis B immunoglobulin at birth versus placebo (Xu 1995 CD). Hepatitis B immunoglobulin was given within 12 hours (Ip 1989 AD/Ip 1989 BD), or within 24 hours (Xu 1995 CD), and within 48 hours (Liu 1987 CB). A number of trials had several intervention arms. For details of the included trials, we provided Table 02 by listing the relevant comparisons and which trials assessed this comparison. The capital letters after years of publication in the references stands for the comparison arms of the individual trial. Mothers HBeAg status Eighteen trials included only mothers, who were HBeAg positive. Three trials included mothers who were HBeAg positive or negative (Lee 1995 AB; Oon 1986 AB; Xu 1995 AB), and in eight trials mothers HBeAg status was not reported. Newborns birthweight Ten trials reported exclusion of low-birth-weight newborn infants. The limits for exclusion varied from 1600 to 3000 gram. The remaining 19 trials did not report any birth weight exclusion criteria. The average duration of follow-up was 19 months (range 6 to 60 months).
METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY Generation of the allocation sequence was adequate in six trials (Piazza 1985; Oon 1986 AB/Oon 1986 CD; Farmer 1987; Halliday 1992 AB/Halliday 1992 CA/Halliday 1992 DC; Assateerawatt 1993; Hieu 2002). Treatment allocation was adequately concealed in six trials (Ip 1989 AD/Ip 1989 BD/Ip 1989 CD; Piazza 1985; Liu 1987 AB/Liu 1987 CA/Liu 1987 CB; Halliday 1992 AB/Halliday 1992 CA/ Halliday 1992 DC; Grosheide 1993; Hieu 2002). Adequate method of double blinding was reported in three trials (Ip 1989 AD/Ip 1989 BD/Ip 1989 CD; Liu 1987 AB/Liu 1987 CA/Liu 1987 CB; Halliday 1992 AB/Halliday 1992 CA/Halliday 1992 DC). According to our criteria, we classied ve trials as high quality trials (Ip 1989 AD/Ip 1989 BD/Ip 1989 CD; Piazza 1985; Liu 1987 AB/Liu 1987 CB; Halliday 1992 AB/Halliday 1992 CA/ Halliday 1992 DC; Hieu 2002). The numbers and reasons for dropouts and withdrawals were adequately reported in six trials (Beasley 1983a AB/Beasley 1983a CB/Beasley 1983b; Piazza 1985; Theppisai 1987; Halliday 1992 AB/Halliday 1992 CA/Halliday 1992 DC; Grosheide 1993).
RESULTS Hepatitis B vaccines versus placebo or no intervention (Comparison 01-01 to 01-05) Compared with placebo/no intervention, hepatitis B vaccination signicantly decreased the risk of hepatitis B occurrence (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.40, 4 trials). The analysis showed heterogeneity (P = 0.07, I2 = 54.2%). The results of sensitivity analyses regarding dropouts were consistent. Analyses of PDV and RV individually
74

showed that both vaccines signicantly decreased the risk of hepatitis B occurrence. Subgroup analyses did not nd a signicant difference between high- and low-quality trials, the mothers HBeAg status, or time of vaccine injection (tests of interaction, P = 0.25, 0.07, and 0.11, respectively). Post hoc subgroup analysis according to vaccine schedules (0-1-6 months versus 0-1-2-6 or -12 months) showed no signicant difference (test of interaction, P = 0.75). No data on adverse events were reported. RV versus PDV (Comparison 02-01 to 02-05) We found no signicant difference between RV and PDV on hepatitis B occurrence (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.42, 4 trials). Heterogeneity was moderate (I2 = 29.4%). The results of sensitivity analyses regarding dropouts conrmed the nding. Subgroup analyses did not nd a signicant difference regarding the methodological quality or the mothers HBeAg status (both tests of interaction, P = 0.21). Signicantly fewer newborn infants on RV compared to PDV had anti-HBs less than 10 IU/L (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.72, 3 trials). High-dose versus low-dose vaccine (Comparison 03-01 to 0305) We found no statistical difference on hepatitis B occurrence comparing high-dose versus low-dose vaccine (PDV: RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.68, 3 trials; RV: RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.94, 1 trial). There was no signicant difference between high-dose versus lowdose vaccine on anti-HBs less than 10 IU/L (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82, 1.27, 2 trials). Three-dose PDV versus two-dose PDV (Comparison 04-01 to 04-02) Three-dose PDV plus hepatitis B immunoglobulin did not signicantly prevent hepatitis B occurrence compared with two-dose PDV plus hepatitis B immunoglobulin (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.28, 1 trial). However, three-dose PDV plus hepatitis B immunoglobulin resulted in signicantly less newborn infants who had anti-HBs less than 10 IU/L compared with two-dose PDV plus hepatitis B immunoglobulin (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.78, 1 trial). PDV at birth versus PDV at one month (Comparison 05-01) PDV administered for the rst time at birth did not signicantly differ from PDV administered for the rst time at one month of age regarding the number of newborn infants having hepatitis B occurrence (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.18 to 2.77, 1 trial). One type of PDV versus another type of PDV (Comparison 06-01) One trial compared two different types of PDV and no signicant difference was found in terms of hepatitis B occurrence (Xu 1995 AB). Four-dose RV vaccination versus three-dose RV vaccination (Comparison 07-01 to 07-02) One trial (Lolekha 2002) compared one type of RV with four vaccinations (0-1-2-12 months) versus the same RV with three vaccinations (0-1-6 months). No signicant differences were found on hepatitis B occurrence (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.51 to 4.37) or antiHBs level less than 10 IU/L (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.77). One type of RV versus another type of RV with the same vaccination schedule (Comparison 08-01 to 08-02) Different RV in terms of various manufacturers were assessed and no signicant differences were found on hepatitis B occurrence or anti-HBs less than 10 IU/L. Hepatitis B immunoglobulin versus placebo or no intervention (Comparison 09-01 to 09-08) Overall, hepatitis B immunoglobulin signicantly decreased the risk of hepatitis B occurrence in newborn infants (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.63, 11 trials). Compared with placebo/no intervention, hepatitis B immunoglobulin alone signicantly reduced hepatitis B occurrence (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.60, 1 trial). Compared with vaccination, vaccination plus hepatitis B immunoglobulin was likewise superior (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.73, 10 trials). The sensitivity analyses regarding dropouts were consistent, indicating the robustness of the ndings. In the meta-regression analyses, none of the trial characteristics (methodological quality, dosage of hepatitis B immunoglobulin, or time of hepatitis B immunoglobulin injection) was signicantly associated with the effect of hepatitis B immunoglobulin (P = 0.92, 0.67, and 0.79, respectively). Subgroup analyses did not nd a signicant difference between high- and low-quality trials, the mothers HBeAg status, or time of hepatitis B immunoglobulin injection (tests of interaction, P = 0.70, 0.62, and 0.63, respectively). Hepatitis B immunoglobulin had no signicant effect on the number of newborn infants with anti-HBs level less than 10 IU/L (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.73, 4 trials). Few trials reported adverse events. If reported, the authors did not specify in which intervention group these events occurred. Therefore we were not able to perform a meta-analysis on adverse events. In one trial (Beasley 1983a AB/Beasley 1983a CB), one infant receiving hepatitis B immunoglobulin died. The death appeared unrelated to hepatitis B immunoglobulin. Neither the Eggers nor the Beggs graphs and their corresponding tests on hepatitis B occurrence provided evidence for asymmetry (Eggers test, P = 0.31; Beggs test, P = 0.23). Multiple hepatitis B immunoglobulin versus single hepatitis B immunoglobulin administration (Comparison 10-01) Multiple hepatitis B immunoglobulin plus PDV versus single hepatitis B immunoglobulin plus PDV did not signicantly reduced the risk of hepatitis B occurrence (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.47, 2 trials) with no heterogeneity (I2 = 0%).
75

PDV plus hepatitis B immunoglobulin versus placebo or no intervention (Comparison 11-01 to 11-06) Compared with placebo/no intervention, PDV plus hepatitis B immunoglobulin signicantly reduced hepatitis B occurrence (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.17, 3 trials). The sensitivity analyses conrmed the robustness of the nding. Subgroup analyses did not nd a signicant difference between high- and low-quality trials, the mothers HBeAg status, or time of hepatitis B immunoglobulin injection (tests of interaction, P = 0.13, 0.28, and 0.22, respectively). One trial reported the number of adverse events: 3 out of 71 infants given vaccination versus 5 out of 34 in control group (Ip 1989 AD/Ip 1989 BD). The results showed no signicant difference (0.29, 0.07 to 1.13) (RR 1.96, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.78). The advantage of RV might be due to the difference in chemical and physical characteristics of the antigens components of the vaccines (Heijtink 2002). RV is the vaccine used in high-income countries due to the fear of human immuno-deciency virus infection and other infections, including transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (MacGregor 2004). Our nding seems to support the introduction of RVs in clinical practice. The recommended prevention regimen for immune prophylaxis varies among countries (David 1996; CDC 1999). Similarly in our included trials, the reported doses and schedules varied substantially (Table 02). In general, we were unable to demonstrate signicant differences among different doses, different schedules, and different forms of PDV and RV on hepatitis B occurrence. Furthermore, our subgroup analyses did not show strong associations between timing of injection (within 12, 24, or 48 hours) and magnitude of effects. The number of newborn infants evaluated in these comparisons was small. Therefore, future trials ought to be much larger before equivalence or non-inferiority can be claimed. Our meta-analyses demonstrated that hepatitis B immunoglobulin alone or when added to hepatitis B vaccine signicantly decreased the risk of hepatitis B infection (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.63). A recent non-randomised study reported no benet of adding hepatitis B immunoglobulin to vaccine in HBeAg-negative mothers (Yang 2003). In our analysis, only one small trial out of 11 trials included newborn infants of HBeAg-negative mothers (Xu 1995 AB). Our subgroup analysis, not surprisingly, did not nd any statistically signicant difference between newborn infants of HBeAg-negative and of HBeAg-positive mothers. Accordingly, more randomised trials on adding hepatitis B immunoglobulin to vaccine for newborn infants of HBeAg-negative mothers seem warranted. It should be noticed that hepatitis B immunoglobulin, as PDV, has the potential of transmitting blood-borne infections (CDC 1991). Few trials reported on adverse events. According to what has been reported, hepatitis B vaccine and hepatitis B immunoglobulin seem safe. These results are in accordance with two recent Cochrane reviews on hepatitis B vaccination for dialysis patients and health-care workers (Niu 1996; Chen 2005). Furthermore, several cohort studies found that hepatitis B vaccination is well tolerated and severe adverse events are rare (ICH 1997; Niu 1999; DuVernoy 2000; Kojouharova 2001; Lewis 2001; Bohlke 2003; Deeks 2003). However, one cohort study found that vaccine increased the risk of chronic arthritis and acute ear infections (Fisher 2001). We are unable to determine if this is a reliable nding due to the methodological weakness of cohort studies (CDC 1999). On the other hand, randomised clinical trials may overlook adverse events due to relatively low numbers of participants and/or poor reporting of adverse events (Hayashi 1996; Ioannidis 2001; Etminan 2004). Further trials ought to focus on these adverse events following ICH-GCP (ICH 1997).
76
DISCUSSION Our systematic review demonstrates that hepatitis B vaccine, hepatitis B immunoglobulin, or the combination of vaccine plus hepatitis B immunoglobulin given to newborn infants of HBsAg-positive mothers prevent hepatitis B occurrence. Further, the combination of vaccine plus hepatitis B immunoglobulin was superior to vaccine alone. These benets were not signicantly associated with the methodological quality of the trials, the mothers HBeAg status, time of immunisation, or the number of infants dropping out. Our review has several potential limitations. First, some analyses include few trials and a small number of newborn infants. Second, most trials had low methodological quality. However, we did not nd strong association between the methodological quality and the trial results. This supports the robustness of our results, but does not exclude the possibility of bias affecting our results (Schultz 1995; Moher 1998; Kjaergard 2001; Als-Nielsen 2004). Third, although we did not nd funnel plot asymmetries, we cannot exclude publication bias. Fourth, only few investigators responded to our request for further information and often the information was that the details were lost. Fifth, most trials only reported surrogate outcomes (HBsAg status or anti-HBs level) and not longterm clinical outcomes. Of note is the fact that one trial with longterm follow-up found more patients with chronic hepatitis in the PDV plus hepatitis B immunoglobulin group compared with the PDV group (Ip 1989 AC). Such an increase of chronic hepatitis could be due to contamination of hepatitis B immunoglobulin with hepatitis C virus. Our results convincingly demonstrate that hepatitis B vaccination reduces hepatitis B infection in newborn infants of hepatitis B surface antigen-positive mothers. We found no signicant difference between RV and PDV on hepatitis B infections (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.42). However, a greater number of newborn infants on PDV did not achieve anti-HBs level above 10 IU/L

The risk of perinatal transmission from HBeAg-negative mothers is considered much lower than in HBeAg-positive mothers (Okada 1976). If infected, the newborn infants of HBeAg-negative mothers often clear an asymptomatic infection (Dusheiko 1998). Our ndings are mainly based on immune prophylaxis for newborn infants of mothers being HBsAg and HBeAg positive. Evidence from randomised clinical trials is insufcient to either support or refute immune prophylaxis for infants of hepatitis B e antigen negative mothers. The applicability of our ndings to mothers negative for HBeAg, which are of high proportions in eg, the States and northern Europe, is therefore limited (Funk 2002). Cost-effectiveness studies indicate that hepatitis B vaccination for newborn infants of HBsAg-positive mothers are cost effective in countries with low (Bloom 1993; Tormans 1993; Da Villa 1999; Harris 2001), intermediate, and high prevalence of hepatitis B (Hall 1993; Liu 1995; Margolis 1995; Sriprakash 1997). We identied no cost-effectiveness studies assessing the effects of adding hepatitis B immunoglobulin to vaccine. As hepatitis B immunoglobulin seems able to reduce the risk of hepatitis B infection, the need to perform cost-effectiveness studies based on randomised trials seems justied. Two trials examined a new way to prevent vertical transmission of hepatitis B, which could not be included according to our inclusion criteria (Lee 2004). The two trials randomised pregnant women positive for hepatitis B surface antigen to hepatitis B immunoglobulin versus no intervention before delivery (Zhu 1997; Li 2003). In the group receiving immunoglobulin, fewer infants were positive for hepatitis B surface antigen at follow-up. The methodological quality of the two trials was low. Furthermore, the mothers are at risk of developing immune complex disease due to hepatitis B immunoglobulin reacting with their own circulating hepatitis B surface antigens. More trials are therefore needed before this intervention should be adopted. needed to treat to prevent a hepatitis B event is probably much larger than in mothers who are both HBsAg and HBeAg positive. Implications for research The potential adverse events related to hepatitis B prophylaxis should be studied further, especially the risk for ear infection and chronic arthritis. The new way of preventing hepatitis B prophylaxis in newborn infants - the hepatitis B immunoglobulin administration to the pregnant mother - need to be examined in randomised clinical trials of high quality. The cost-effectiveness of hepatitis B vaccination and hepatitis B immunoglobulin ought to be further evaluated based on results from randomised clinical trials. Further trials need to examine the effects of hepatitis B vaccine and hepatitis B immunoglobulin in newborn infants of HBsAg positive mothers who are HBsAg negative. Further trials need to examine the effects of hepatitis B vaccine and hepatitis B immunoglobulin in preterm infants and low birth-weight infants of HBsAg-positive mothers. Further trials need to examine if hepatitis B vaccine plus multiple hepatitis B immunoglobulin doses is superior to hepatitis B vaccine plus a single dose of hepatitis B immunoglobulin.
NOTES 1. A protocol for a systematic review on this topic was rst published in Issue 2, 1998 of The Cochrane Library and continued to be published until Issue 1, 2004 with a title Vaccines for preventing hepatitis B in high risk newborn infants. The authors, Jefferson TO, Pratt M, Buttery J, and El-Shukri N, have abandoned the systematic review. This necessitated an update of the protocol and the conduct of the review be performed by a new team of reviewers who now consists of Lee C, Gong Y, Brok J, Boxall EH, and Gluud C. 2. We modied the denition of hepatitis B occurence as shown in the present review. 3. In our protocol we demanded that each trial had to assess serological outcome in two and more consecutive blood specimens. We realized that this requirement was not detainable in the majority of the trials. We therefore decided to delete this requirement.
AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS Implications for practice HBsAg positive mothers who are HBeAg positive Evidence suggests that hepatitis B vaccine, hepatitis B immunoglobulin, and the combination of hepatitis B vaccine and hepatitis B immunoglobulin reduce the risk of perinatal transmission of hepatitis B in newborn infants of HBsAg positive mothers who are also positive for HBeAg. However, the optimal treatment regimen remains unclear. HBsAg positive mothers who are HBeAg negative There is insufcient evidence to support or refute the use of hepatitis B vaccine, hepatitis B immunoglobulin, and the combination of hepatitis B vaccine and immunoglobulin in newborn infants of HBsAg postive mother who are HBeAg negative. The number
POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST None known.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank TO Jefferson, M Pratt, J Buttery, and N El-Shukri who participated in the formulation of the rst Cochrane protocol on this topic. D Nikolova, The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group, is
77

thanked for translating a Russian trial and retrieving articles. We thank D Haughton, The Cochrane Neonatal Review Group, for retrieving articles. We thank Y Poovorawan and M Piazza who claried information on their trials. We thank A Dutta, MM Hassan, and SD Lee for providing assistance in our work to identify trial authors, and JU Olsen, GlaxoSmithKline, Denmark, for providing information regarding randomised clinical trials.
SOURCES OF SUPPORT External sources of support S.C. Van Foundation DENMARK Internal sources of support Public Health Laboratory Service UK Tri-Service General Hospital TAIWAN Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, H:S Rigshospitalet DENMARK
REFERENCES
References to studies included in this review

Assateerawatt 1993 {published data only} Assateerawatt A, Tanphaichitr VS, Suvatte V, Yodthong S. Immunogenicity and efcacy of a recombinant DNA hepatitis B vaccine, GenHevac B Pasteur in high risk neonates, school children and healthy adults. Asian Pacic Journal of Allergy Immunology 1993;11(1):85 91. Beasley 1983a AB {published data only} Beasley RP, Hwang LY, Stevens CE, Lin CC, Hsieh FJ, Wang KY, et al. Efcacy of hepatitis B immune globulin for prevention of perinatal transmission of the hepatitis B virus carrier state: nal report of a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Hepatology 1983; 3(2):13541. Beasley RP, Hwang LY, Szmuness W, Stevens CE, Lin CC, Hsieh FJ, et al. HBIG prophylaxis for perinatal HBV infections - nal report of the Taiwan trial. Developmental Biology Standard 1983;54:36375. Beasley 1983a CB {published data only} Beasley RP, Hwang LY, Stevens CE, Lin CC, Hsieh FJ, Wang KY, et al. Efcacy of hepatitis B immune globulin for prevention of perinatal transmission of the hepatitis B virus carrier state: nal report of a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Hepatology 1983; 3(2):13541. Beasley RP, Hwang LY, Szmuness W, Stevens CE, Lin CC, Hsieh FJ, et al. HBIG prophylaxis for perinatal HBV infections - nal report of the Taiwan trial. Developmental Biology Standard 1983;54:36375. Beasley 1983b {published data only} Beasley RP, Hwang LY, Lee GC, Lan CC, Roan CH, Huang FY, et al. Prevention of perinatally transmitted hepatitis B virus infections with hepatitis B virus infections with hepatitis B immune globulin and hepatitis B vaccine. Lancet 1983;2(8359):1099102.
Farmer 1987 {published data only} Farmer K, Gunn T, Woodeld DG. A combination of hepatitis B vaccine and immunoglobulin does not protect all infants born to hepatitis B e antigen positive mothers. New Zealand Medical Journal 1987;100(827):4124. Garcia 1992 {published data only} Garcia EG, Gonzalez JRB, Guillot CC, Curbelo GT, Griego AG, Gonzalez MGD. [Field trial of the Cuban recombinant vaccine against hepatitis B (Heberbiovac HB). Study in newborn infants born to AgsHB+ mothers]. Revista Cubana de Medicina Tropical 1992;44 (2):14957. Grosheide 1993 {published data only} Grosheide PM, del Canho R, Heijtink RA, Nuijten AS, Zwijnenberg J, Banffer JR, et al. Passive-active immunization in infants of hepatitis Be antigen-positive mothers. Comparison of the efcacy of early and delayed active immunization. American Journal of Diseases of Children 1993;147(12):131620. Mazel JA, Schalm SW, de Gast BC, Nuijten AS, Heijtink RA, Botman MJ, et al. Passive-active immunisation of neonates of HBsAg positive carrier mothers: preliminary observations. British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Ed.) 1984;288(6416):5135. Halliday 1992 AB {published data only} Halliday ML, Kang LY, Rankin JG, Coates RA, Corey PN, Hu ZH, et al. An efcacy trial of a mammalian cell-derived recombinant DNA hepatitis B vaccine in infants born to mothers positive for HBsAg, in Shanghai, China. International Journal of Epidemiology 1992;21(3): 56473. Halliday 1992 CA {published data only} Halliday ML, Kang LY, Rankin JG, Coates RA, Corey PN, Hu ZH, et al. An efcacy trial of a mammalian cell-derived recombinant DNA
78

hepatitis B vaccine in infants born to mothers positive for HBsAg, in Shanghai, China. International Journal of Epidemiology 1992;21(3): 56473. Halliday 1992 DC {published data only} Halliday ML, Kang LY, Rankin JG, Coates RA, Corey PN, Hu ZH, et al. An efcacy trial of a mammalian cell-derived recombinant DNA hepatitis B vaccine in infants born to mothers positive for HBsAg, in Shanghai, China. International Journal of Epidemiology 1992;21(3): 56473. Hieu 2002 {published data only} Hieu NT, Kim KH, Janowicz Z, Timmermans I. Comparative efcacy, safety and immunogenicity of Hepavax-Gene and EngerixB, recombinant hepatitis B vaccines, in infants born to HBsAg and HBeAg positive mothers in Vietnam: an assessment at 2 years. Vaccine 2002;20(13-14):18038. Ip 1989 AB {published data only} Ip HM, Lelie PN, Wong VC, Kuhns MC, Reesink HW. Prevention of hepatitis B virus carrier state in infants according to maternal serum levels of HBV DNA. Lancet 1989;1(8635):40610. Ip HM, Wong VC, Lelie PN, Reesink HW, Schaasberg W, Yeung CY, et al. Hepatitis B infection in infants after neonatal immunization. Acta Paediatric Japanese 1989;31(6):6548. Ip 1989 AC {published data only} Ip HM, Lelie PN, Wong VC, Kuhns MC, Reesink HW. Prevention of hepatitis B virus carrier state in infants according to maternal serum levels of HBV DNA. Lancet 1989;1(8635):40610. Ip HM, Wong VC, Lelie PN, Reesink HW, Schaasberg W, Yeung CY, et al. Hepatitis B infection in infants after neonatal immunization. Acta Paediatric Japanese 1989;31(6):6548. Ip 1989 AD {published data only} Ip HM, Lelie PN, Wong VC, Kuhns MC, Reesink HW. Prevention of hepatitis B virus carrier state in infants according to maternal serum levels of HBV DNA. Lancet 1989;1(8635):40610. Ip HM, Wong VC, Lelie PN, Reesink HW, Schaasberg W, Yeung CY, et al. Hepatitis B infection in infants after neonatal immunization. Acta Paediatric Japanese 1989;31(6):6548. Wong VC, Ip HM, Reesink HW, Lelie PN, Reerink-Brongers EE, Yeung CY, et al. Prevention of the HBsAg carrier state in newborn infants of mothers who are chronic carriers of HBsAg and HBeAg by administration of hepatitis-B vaccine and hepatitis-B immunoglobulin. Double-blind randomised placebo-controlled study. Lancet 1984;1 (8383):9216.
Ip HM, Wong VC, Lelie PN, Reesink HW, Schaasberg W, Yeung CY, et al. Hepatitis B infection in infants after neonatal immunization. Acta Paediatric Japanese 1989;31(6):6548.
Wong VC, Ip HM, Reesink HW, Lelie PN, Reerink-Brongers EE, Yeung CY, et al. Prevention of the HBsAg carrier state in newborn infants of mothers who are chronic carriers of HBsAg and HBeAg by administration of hepatitis-B vaccine and hepatitis-B immunoglobulin. Double-blind randomised placebo-controlled study. Lancet 1984;1 (8383):9216.
Ip 1989 CD {published data only} Ip HM, Lelie PN, Wong VC, Kuhns MC, Reesink HW. Prevention of hepatitis B virus carrier state in infants according to maternal serum levels of HBV DNA. Lancet 1989;1(8635):40610. Ip HM, Wong VC, Lelie PN, Reesink HW, Schaasberg W, Yeung CY, et al. Hepatitis B infection in infants after neonatal immunization. Acta Paediatric Japanese 1989;31(6):6548. Wong VC, Ip HM, Reesink HW, Lelie PN, Reerink-Brongers EE, Yeung CY, et al. Prevention of the HBsAg carrier state in newborn infants of mothers who are chronic carriers of HBsAg and HBeAg by administration of hepatitis-B vaccine and hepatitis-B immunoglobulin. Double-blind randomised placebo-controlled study. Lancet 1984;1 (8383):9216.
Kang 1995 {published data only} Kang P, Shen XM, Yu HM. [Study on the efcacy of genetically engineered vaccines against hepatitis B for interruption of perinatal transmission]. Zhonghua Hu Li Za Zhi 1995;30(7):3902. Khukhlovich 1996 {published data only} Khukhlovich PA, Shakhgildian IV, Narkevich MI, Ananev VA, Kuzin SN, Sergeeva NA, et al. [The vaccinal prophylaxis of hepatitis B among children born to mothers with persistent HBs-antigenemia]. Zhurnal Mikrobiologii, Epidemiologii, i Immunobiologii 1996; 2:559. Kuru 1995 AB {published data only} Kuru U, Turan O, Kuru N, Saglam Z, Alver A. Results of vaccinated infants born to HBsAg-positive mothers with different hepatitis B vaccines and doses. The Turkish Journal of Pediatrics 1995;37(2):93 102. Kuru 1995 AC {published data only} Kuru U, Turan O, Kuru N, Saglam Z, Alver A. Results of vaccinated infants born to HBsAg-positive mothers with different hepatitis B vaccines and doses. The Turkish Journal of Pediatrics 1995;37(2):93 102. Kuru 1995 BC {published data only} Kuru U, Turan O, Kuru N, Saglam Z, Alver A. Results of vaccinated infants born to HBsAg-positive mothers with different hepatitis B vaccines and doses. The Turkish Journal of Pediatrics 1995;37(2):93 102. Lee 1995 AB {published data only} Lee CY, Huang LM, Chang MH, Hsu CY, Wu SJ, Sung JL, et al. The protective efcacy of recombinant hepatitis B vaccine in newborn infants of hepatitis B e antigen-positive-hepatitis B surface antigen carrier mothers. The Pediatric infectious Disease Journal 1991;10(4): 299303. Lee PI, Lee CY, Huang LM, Chang MH. Long-term efcacy of recombinant hepatitis B vaccine and risk of natural infection in infants
79
Ip 1989 BC {published data only} Ip HM, Lelie PN, Wong VC, Kuhns MC, Reesink HW. Prevention of hepatitis B virus carrier state in infants according to maternal serum levels of HBV DNA. Lancet 1989;1(8635):40610. Ip HM, Wong VC, Lelie PN, Reesink HW, Schaasberg W, Yeung CY, et al. Hepatitis B infection in infants after neonatal immunization. Acta Paediatric Japanese 1989;31(6):6548. Ip 1989 BD {published data only} Ip HM, Lelie PN, Wong VC, Kuhns MC, Reesink HW. Prevention of hepatitis B virus carrier state in infants according to maternal serum levels of HBV DNA. Lancet 1989;1(8635):40610.

born to mothers with hepatitis B e antigen. The Journal of Pediatrics 1995;126(5 Pt 1):71621.
Lee PI, Lee CY, Huang LM, Chen JM, Chang MH. A follow-up study of combined vaccination with plasma-derived and recombinant hepatitis B vaccines in infants. Vaccine 1995;13(17):16859.
versus vaccine alone in the interruption of the perinatal transmission of HBV carrier state]. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi 1987;8 (6):3258. Liu 1987 CB {published data only} Liu LH. [Comparative study of the efcacy of hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccine combined with hepatitis B immunoglobulin(HBIG) versus vaccine alone in the interruption of the perinatal transmission of HBV carrier state]. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi 1987;8 (6):3258. Lo 1985 AB {published data only} Goudeau A, Lo KJ, Coursaget P, Tong MJ, Yeh CL, Tsai YT, et al. Prevention of hepatitis B virus infection in children born to HBsAg positive/HBeAg positive mothers. Preliminary results of active and passive-active immunization. Developmental Biology Standard 1983; 54:399404. Lo KJ, Tsai YT, Lee SD, Yeh CL, Wang JY, Chiang BN, et al. Combined passive and active immunization for interruption of perinatal transmission of hepatitis B virus in Taiwan. Hepatogastroenterology 1985;32(2):658.
Lee 1995 CA {published data only} Lee CY, Huang LM, Chang MH, Hsu CY, Wu SJ, Sung JL, et al. The protective efcacy of recombinant hepatitis B vaccine in newborn infants of hepatitis B e antigen-positive-hepatitis B surface antigen carrier mothers. The Pediatric infectious Disease Journal 1991;10(4): 299303. Lee PI, Lee CY, Huang LM, Chang MH. Long-term efcacy of recombinant hepatitis B vaccine and risk of natural infection in infants born to mothers with hepatitis B e antigen. The Journal of Pediatrics 1995;126(5 Pt 1):71621. Lee PI, Lee CY, Huang LM, Chen JM, Chang MH. A follow-up study of combined vaccination with plasma-derived and recombinant hepatitis B vaccines in infants. Vaccine 1995;13(17):16859.
Lee 1995 CB {published data only} Lee CY, Huang LM, Chang MH, Hsu CY, Wu SJ, Sung JL, et al. The protective efcacy of recombinant hepatitis B vaccine in newborn infants of hepatitis B e antigen-positive-hepatitis B surface antigen carrier mothers. The Pediatric infectious Disease Journal 1991;10(4): 299303. Lee PI, Lee CY, Huang LM, Chang MH. Long-term efcacy of recombinant hepatitis B vaccine and risk of natural infection in infants born to mothers with hepatitis B e antigen. The Journal of Pediatrics 1995;126(5 Pt 1):71621.
Lee PI, Lee CY, Huang LM, Chen JM, Chang MH. A follow-up study of combined vaccination with plasma-derived and recombinant hepatitis B vaccines in infants. Vaccine 1995;13(17):16859.
Lo 1985 CA {published data only} Goudeau A, Lo KJ, Coursaget P, Tong MJ, Yeh CL, Tsai YT, et al. Prevention of hepatitis B virus infection in children born to HBsAg positive/HBeAg positive mothers. Preliminary results of active and passive-active immunization. Developmental Biology Standard 1983; 54:399404.
Lo KJ, Tsai YT, Lee SD, Yeh CL, Wang JY, Chiang BN, et al. Combined passive and active immunization for interruption of perinatal transmission of hepatitis B virus in Taiwan. Hepatogastroenterology 1985;32(2):658.
Lee 1995 DE {published data only} Lee CY, Huang LM, Chang MH, Hsu CY, Wu SJ, Sung JL, et al. The protective efcacy of recombinant hepatitis B vaccine in newborn infants of hepatitis B e antigen-positive-hepatitis B surface antigen carrier mothers. The Pediatric infectious Disease Journal 1991;10(4): 299303. Lee PI, Lee CY, Huang LM, Chang MH. Long-term efcacy of recombinant hepatitis B vaccine and risk of natural infection in infants born to mothers with hepatitis B e antigen. The Journal of Pediatrics 1995;126(5 Pt 1):71621. Lee PI, Lee CY, Huang LM, Chen JM, Chang MH. A follow-up study of combined vaccination with plasma-derived and recombinant hepatitis B vaccines in infants. Vaccine 1995;13(17):16859.
Lo 1985 CB {published data only} Goudeau A, Lo KJ, Coursaget P, Tong MJ, Yeh CL, Tsai YT, et al. Prevention of hepatitis B virus infection in children born to HBsAg positive/HBeAg positive mothers. Preliminary results of active and passive-active immunization. Developmental Biology Standard 1983; 54:399404.
Lo KJ, Tsai YT, Lee SD, Yeh CL, Wang JY, Chiang BN, et al. Combined passive and active immunization for interruption of perinatal transmission of hepatitis B virus in Taiwan. Hepatogastroenterology 1985;32(2):658.
Lolekha 2002 {published data only} Lolekha S, Warachit B, Hirunyachote A, Bowonkiratikachorn P, West DJ, Poerschke G. Protective efcacy of hepatitis B vaccine without HBIG in infants of HBeAg-positive carrier mothers in Thailand. Vaccine 2002;20(31-32):373943. Oon 1986 AB {published data only} Oon CJ, Tan KL, Goh KT, Wong-Yong L, Viegas O, McCarthy T, et al. Evaluation of a low dose of hepatitis B vaccine given within a childhood immunisation programme in Singapore. The Journal of Infection 1986;13(3):25567. Oon 1986 CD {published data only} Oon CJ, Tan KL, Goh KT, Wong-Yong L, Viegas O, McCarthy T, et al. Evaluation of a low dose of hepatitis B vaccine given within a childhood immunisation programme in Singapore. The Journal of Infection 1986;13(3):25567.
80
Liu 1987 AB {published data only} Liu LH. [Comparative study of the efcacy of hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccine combined with hepatitis B immunoglobulin(HBIG) versus vaccine alone in the interruption of the perinatal transmission of HBV carrier state]. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi 1987;8 (6):3258. Liu 1987 CA {published data only} Liu LH. [Comparative study of the efcacy of hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccine combined with hepatitis B immunoglobulin(HBIG)

Piazza 1985 {published data only} Piazza M, Picciotto L, Villari R, Guadagnino V, Orlando R, Isabella L, et al. Hepatitis B immunisation with a reduced number of doses in newborn babies and children. Lancet 1985;1(8435):94951. Pongpipat 1986 {published data only} Pongpipat D, Suvatte V, Assateerawatts A. Efcacy of hepatitis-B immunoglobulin and hepatitis-B vaccine in prevention of the HBsAg carrier state in newborn infants of mothers who are chronic carriers of HBsAg and HBeAg. Asian Pacic Journal of Allergy Immunology 1986;4(1):336. Pongpipat 1988 {published data only} Pongpipat D, Suvatte V, Assateerawatts A. Hepatitis B immunization in high risk neonates born from HBsAg and HBeAg positive mothers: comparison of standard and low dose regimens. Asian Pacic Journal of Allergy Immunology 1988;6(2):10710. Pongpipat 1989 {published data only} Pongpipat D, Suvatte V, Assateerawatts A. Hepatitis B immunization in high risk neonates born from HBsAg positive mothers: comparison between plasma derived and recombinant DNA vaccine. Asian Pacic Journal of Allergy Immunology 1989;7(1):3740. Poovorawan 1997 {published data only} Poovorawan Y, Sanpavat S, Chumdermpadetsuk S, Safary A. Longterm hepatitis B vaccine in infants born to hepatitis B e antigen positive mothers. Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition 1997;77(1):F47F51. Poovorawan Y, Sanpavat S, Pongpunglert W, Chumdermpadetsuk S, Sentrakul P, Vandepapeliere P, et al. Long term efcacy of hepatitis B vaccine in infants born to hepatitis B e antigen-positive mothers. The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 1992;11(10):81621. Sehgal 1992 {published data only} Sehgal A, Gupta I, Sehgal R, Ganguly NK. Hepatitis B vaccine alone or in combination with anti-HBs immunoglobulin in the perinatal prophylaxis of babies born to HBsAg carrier mothers. Acta Virologica 1992;36(4):35966.
Sehgal A, Sehgal R, Gupta I, Bhakoo ON, Ganguly NK. Use of hepatitis B vaccine alone or in combination with hepatitis B immunoglobulin for immunoprophylaxis of perinatal hepatitis B infection. Journal of Tropical Pediatrics 1992;38(5):24751.
Xu ZY, Francis DP, Liu CB, Purcell RH, Duan SC, Chen RJ, et al. Prevention of hepatitis B virus carriage of infants using HBV vaccine in Shanghai. Preliminary report of a randomized doubleblind placebo-controlled trial. Chinese Medical Journal 1985;98(9): 6236. Xu ZY, Liu CB, Francis DP, Purcell RH, Gun ZL, Duan SC, et al. Prevention of perinatal acquisition of hepatitis B virus carriage using vaccine: preliminary report of a randomized, double-blind placebocontrolled and comparative trial. Pediatrics 1985;76(5):7138. Xu 1995 AD {published data only} Xu ZY, Duan SC, Margolis HS, Purcell RH, Ou-Yang PY, Coleman PJ, et al. Long-term efcacy of active postexposure immunization of infants for prevention of hepatitis B virus infection. United StatesPeoples Republic of China Study Group on Hepatitis B. The Journal of Infectious Diseases 1995;171(1):5460. Xu ZY, Francis DP, Liu CB, Purcell RH, Duan SC, Chen RJ, et al. Prevention of hepatitis B virus carriage of infants using HBV vaccine in Shanghai. Preliminary report of a randomized doubleblind placebo-controlled trial. Chinese Medical Journal 1985;98(9): 6236. Xu ZY, Liu CB, Francis DP, Purcell RH, Gun ZL, Duan SC, et al. Prevention of perinatal acquisition of hepatitis B virus carriage using vaccine: preliminary report of a randomized, double-blind placebocontrolled and comparative trial. Pediatrics 1985;76(5):7138. Xu 1995 BD {published data only} Xu ZY, Duan SC, Margolis HS, Purcell RH, Ou-Yang PY, Coleman PJ, et al. Long-term efcacy of active postexposure immunization of infants for prevention of hepatitis B virus infection. United StatesPeoples Republic of China Study Group on Hepatitis B. The Journal of Infectious Diseases 1995;171(1):5460. Xu ZY, Francis DP, Liu CB, Purcell RH, Duan SC, Chen RJ, et al. Prevention of hepatitis B virus carriage of infants using HBV vaccine in Shanghai. Preliminary report of a randomized doubleblind placebo-controlled trial. Chinese Medical Journal 1985;98(9): 6236. Xu ZY, Liu CB, Francis DP, Purcell RH, Gun ZL, Duan SC, et al. Prevention of perinatal acquisition of hepatitis B virus carriage using vaccine: preliminary report of a randomized, double-blind placebocontrolled and comparative trial. Pediatrics 1985;76(5):7138. Xu 1995 CB {published data only} Xu ZY, Duan SC, Margolis HS, Purcell RH, Ou-Yang PY, Coleman PJ, et al. Long-term efcacy of active postexposure immunization of infants for prevention of hepatitis B virus infection. United StatesPeoples Republic of China Study Group on Hepatitis B. The Journal of Infectious Diseases 1995;171(1):5460. Xu ZY, Francis DP, Liu CB, Purcell RH, Duan SC, Chen RJ, et al. Prevention of hepatitis B virus carriage of infants using HBV vaccine in Shanghai. Preliminary report of a randomized doubleblind placebo-controlled trial. Chinese Medical Journal 1985;98(9): 6236. Xu ZY, Liu CB, Francis DP, Purcell RH, Gun ZL, Duan SC, et al. Prevention of perinatal acquisition of hepatitis B virus carriage using vaccine: preliminary report of a randomized, double-blind placebocontrolled and comparative trial. Pediatrics 1985;76(5):7138.
81
Theppisai 1987 {published data only} Theppisai U, Thanuntaseth C, Chiewsilp P, Siripoonya P. A comparison between the efcacy of passive-active and active immunization for prevention of perinatal transmission of hepatitis B virus. Journal of Medical Association, Thailand 1987;70(8):45962. Theppisai 1990 {published data only} Theppisai U, Thanuntaseth C, Chiewsilp P, Siripoonya P. Prevention of hepatitis B infection in infants born to hepatitis B carrier mothers: low dosage vaccination. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 1990;32(4):3537. Xu 1995 AB {published data only} Xu ZY, Duan SC, Margolis HS, Purcell RH, Ou-Yang PY, Coleman PJ, et al. Long-term efcacy of active postexposure immunization of infants for prevention of hepatitis B virus infection. United StatesPeoples Republic of China Study Group on Hepatitis B. The Journal of Infectious Diseases 1995;171(1):5460.

Xu 1995 CD {published data only} Xu ZY, Duan SC, Margolis HS, Purcell RH, Ou-Yang PY, Coleman PJ, et al. Long-term efcacy of active postexposure immunization of infants for prevention of hepatitis B virus infection. United StatesPeoples Republic of China Study Group on Hepatitis B. The Journal of Infectious Diseases 1995;171(1):5460. Xu ZY, Francis DP, Liu CB, Purcell RH, Duan SC, et al. Prevention of hepatitis B virus carriage of infants using HBV vaccine in Shanghai. Preliminary report of a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Chinese Medical Journal 1985;98(9):6236. Xu ZY, Liu CB, Francis DP, Purcell RH, Gun ZL, Duan SC, et al. Prevention of perinatal acquisition of hepatitis B virus carriage using vaccine: preliminary report of a randomized, double-blind placebocontrolled and comparative trial. Pediatrics 1985;76(5):7138. Yeoh 1986 {published data only} Yeoh EK, Chang WK, Ip P, Chan KH, Chan E, Fung C. Efcacy and safety of recombinant hepatitis B vaccine in infants born to HBsAgpositive mothers. The Journal of Infection 1986;13 Suppl A:158. Zhu 1987 {published data only} Zhu Q-Y, Radvan GH. A randomized controlled trial of hepatitis B vaccine in high risk newborn infants in China. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Medicine 1987;17:498. Zhu 1994 {published data only} Zhu QR, Gu XH, Duan SC, Xu HF. Long-term immunogenicity and efcacy of recombinant yeast derived hepatitis B vaccine for interruption of mother-infant transmission of hepatitis B virus. Chinese Medical Journal 1994;107(12):9158. B virus: efcacy of hepatitis B immune globulin and hepatitis B vaccine in a low-prevalence area. Journal of Medical Virology 1986; 18(4):38191. Goh 1992 Goh KT, Tan KL, Kong KH, Oon CJ, Chan SH. Comparison of the immune response of four different dosages of a yeast-recombinant hepatitis B vaccine in Singapore children: a four-year follow-up study. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 1992;70(2):2339. Kang 1986 Kang Y. Efcacy of domestic hepatitis B viral vaccines in preventing transmission of e antigen from mothers to newborn infants. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi 1986;7(2):813. Lai 1986 Lai CL, Yeoh EK, Chang WK, Lo VW, Ng LN. Use of the hepatitis B recombinant DNA yeast vaccine (H-B-VAX II) in children: two doses vs. three doses of 5 micrograms regime; an interim report. The Journal of Infection 1986;13 Suppl A:1925. Lai 1993 Lai CL, Wong BC, Yeoh EK, Lim WL, Chang WK, Lin HJ. Fiveyear follow-up of a prospective randomized trial of hepatitis B recombinant DNA yeast vaccine vs. plasma-derived vaccine in children: immunogenicity and anamnestic responses. Hepatology 1993;18(4): 7637. Laille 1988 Laille M, Brethes B, Moreau JP, Pillot J. [Trial of hepatitis B prophylaxis in children born to mothers carrying HBs antigen in New Caledonia]. Bulletin de la Societe de Pathologie Exotique et de ses Filiales 1988;81(4):6738. Lin 1987 Lin KH, Twu SJ, Chen DS, Su S, Lee CJ. Efcacy of the national hepatitis B vaccination program in the Republic of China: preliminary observations from Taoyuan area. Taiwan Yi Xue Hui Za Zhi 1987;86(8):86972.
References to studies excluded from this review

Chung 1988 Chung WK. Persistence and boosting response of antibody to HBsAg induced by vaccine treatment. Tropical Gastroenterology 1988;9(1): 2630. Chung 1988 B Chung WK, Choi KY, Shim KS, Chung JW, Sun HS, Chung KW, et al. Safety, immunogenicity, and efcacy of a new heat-inactivated hepatitis B vaccine in the newborn. Viral Hepatitis and Liver Disease 1988:10146. Coursaget 1984 Coursaget P, Deciron F, Tortey E, Barin F, Chiron JP, Yvonnet B, et al. Immune response to hepatitis B vaccine in infants and newborns: control trial in an endemic area (Senegal). International Agency for Research on Cancer 1984;63:31935. Da 1995 Da Villa G, Picciottoc L, Elia S, Peluso F, Montanaro F, Maisto T. Hepatitis B vaccination: universal vaccination of newborn babies and children at 12 years of age versus high risk groups. A comparison in the eld. Vaccine 1995;13(13):12403. Delage 1993 Delage G, Remy-Prince S, Montplaisir S. Combined active-passive immunization against the hepatitis B virus: ve-year follow-up of children born to hepatitis B surface antigen-positive mothers. The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 1993;12(2):12630. Esteban 1986 Esteban JI, Genesca J, Esteban R, Hernandez JM, Seijo G, Buti M, et al. Immunoprophylaxis of perinatal transmission of the hepatitis
Linder 2000 Linder N, w-up-24.9p97 0-8iS5599j 6.95991 0 Td800T/R1it3R101 7.j 8.75986.75996 0 8. .5Tf en70.5Tf (Yi)Tj 9.47inh.11.87993 0 Td (F)Tjobser5998 0 Td (of)Tj T h9HBsthe 23.15979.47in Td Td f-14.7601 Td0.63989

Nair 1984 Nair PV, Weissman JY, Tong MJ, Thursby MW, Paul RH, Henneman CE. Efcacy of hepatitis B immune globulin in prevention of perinatal transmission of the hepatitis B virus. Gastroenterology 1984; 87(2):2938. Okoth 1994 Okoth FA, Kobayashi M, Takayanagi N, Kapttich DC, Kaiguri PM, Tukei PM. Efcacy of hepatitis B vaccine in a rural community in Muranga, Kenya. East African Medical Journal 1994;71(4):2502. Perrin 1986 Perrin J, Coursaget P, Ntareme F, Chiron JP. Hepatitis B immunization of newborns according to a two dose protocol. Vaccine 1986;4 (4):2414. Pongpipat 1984 Pongpipat D, Suvatte V, Assateerawatts A. Vaccination against hepatitis B virus infection in neonates. Helvetica Paediatrica Acta 1984; 39(3):2316. Poovorawan 1989 Poovorawan Y, Sanpavat S, Pongpunlert W, Chumdermpadetsuk S, Sentrakul P, Safary A. Protective efcacy of a recombinant DNA hepatitis B vaccine in neonates of HBe antigen-positive mothers. The Journal of the American Medical Association 1989;261(22):327881. Poovorawan 1990 Poovorawan Y, Sanpavat S, Pongpunlert W, Chumdermpadetsuk S, Sentrakul P, Chitinand S, et al. Comparison of a recombinant DNA hepatitis B vaccine alone or in combination with hepatitis B immune globulin for the prevention of perinatal acquisition of hepatitis B carriage. Vaccine 1990;8 Suppl:S56-S59; discussion S60-S62. Shikata 1984 Shikata T, Yano M, Shiraki K, Oda T. Efcacy trial of HBIG and hepatitis B vaccine for the prevention of perinatal HBV transmission. Viral Hepatitis and Liver Disease 1984:5967. Stevens 1987 Stevens CE, Taylor PE, Tong MJ, Toy PT, Vyas GN, Nair PV, et al. Yeast-recombinant hepatitis B vaccine. Efcacy with hepatitis B immune globulin in prevention of perinatal hepatitis B virus transmission. The Journal of the American Medical Association 1987;257 (19):26126. Stevens 1988 Stevens CE, Taylor PE, Tong MJ, Toy PT, Vyas GN, Zang EA, et al. Prevention of perinatal hepatitis B virus infection with hepatitis B immune globulin and hepatitis B vaccine. Viral Hepatitis and Liver Disease 1988:9828. Stevens 1990 Stevens CE, Taylor PE, Tong MJ, Toy PT. Hepatitis B immune globulin and yeast-recombinant hepatitis B vaccine in prevention of perinatal HBV infection in the USA. Viral Hepatits and Hepatocellular Carcinoma 1990:37784. Stevens 1992 Stevens CE, Toy PT, Taylor PE, Lee T, Yip HY. Prospects for control of hepatitis B virus infection: implications of childhood vaccination and long-term protection. Pediatrics 1992;90(1 Pt 2):1703. Surya 1996 Surya IGP, Kishimoto S, Sudaryat S, Tsuda F, Hamid A, Takahashi K, et al. Prevention of mother-to-infant transmission of hepatitis B virus with use of a preS2-containing vaccine in Bali, Indonesia. Vaccine Research 1996;5(4):20312. Suwignyo 1994 Suwignyo S, Surya IGP, Mulyanto, Montessori, Domoto K, Tsuda F, et al. The use of a PreS2-containing recombinant vaccine for the prevention of maternal transmission of hepatitis B virus in Indonesian neonates. Viral Hepatitis and Liver Disease 1994:5369. Theppisai 1988 Theppisai U, Thanuntaseh C, Chiewsilp P, Siripoonya P. Two-year study of passive-active immunization for prevention of hepatitis B infection in newborns. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand 1988;71(8):4136. Theppisai 1989 Theppisai U, Thanuntaseth C, Chiewsilp P, Siripoonya P. Long-term immunoprophylaxis of hepatitis B surface antigen carrier in infants born to hepatitis B surface antigen positive mothers using plasma derived vaccine. Asia Oceania Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1989;15(2):1115. Wheeley 1991 Wheeley SM, Jackson PT, Boxall EH, Tarlow MJ, Gatrad AR, Anderson J, et al. Prevention of perinatal transmission of hepatitis B virus (HBV): a comparison of two prophylactic schedules. Journal of Medical Virology 1991;35(3):2125. Young 2003 Young BW, Lee SS, Lim WL, Yeoh EK. The long-term efcacy of plasma-derived hepatitis B vaccine in babies born to carrier mothers. Journal of Viral Hepatitis 2003;10(1):2330. Yuen 1999 Yuen MF, Lim WL, Cheng CC, Lam SK, Lai CL. Twelve-year followup of a prospective randomized trial of hepatitis B recombinant DNA yeast vaccine versus plasma-derived vaccine without booster doses in children. Hepatology 1999;29(3):9247. Zanetti 1986 Zanetti AR, Dentico P, Del Vecchio Blanco C, Sagnelli E, Villa E, Ferroni P, et al. Multicenter trial on the efcacy of HBIG and vaccine in preventing perinatal hepatitis B. Final report. Journal of Medical Virology 1986;18(4):32734. Zhu 2003 Zhu Q, Yu G, Yu H, Lu Q, Gu X, Dong Z, et al. A randomized control trial on interruption of HBV transmission in uterus. Chinese Medical Journal 2003;116(5):6857.
Additional references
Aggarwal 2004 Aggarwal R, Ranjan P. Preventing and treating hepatitis B infection. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) 2004;329(7474):10806. Akhter 1992 Akhter S, Talukder MQ, Bhuiyan N, Chowdhury TA, Islam MN, Begum S. Hepatitis B virus infection in pregnant mothers and its transmission to infants. Indian Journal of Pediatrics 1992;59(4):411 5. Als-Nielsen 2004 Als-Nielsen B, Gluud LL, Gluud C. Methodological quality and treatment effects in randomised trials - a review of six empirical studies (abstract). Cochrane Colloquium 2004, Ottawa, Canada. 2004.
83

Altman 2003 Altman DG, Bland JM. Interaction revisited: the difference between two estimates. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) 2003;326:219. Andre 1994 Andre FE, Zuckerman AJ. Review: protective efcacy of hepatitis B vaccines in neonates. Journal of Medical Virology 1994;44(2):144 51. Assad 1999 Assad S, Francis A. Over a decade of experience with a yeast recombinant hepatitis B vaccine. Vaccine 1999;18(1-2):5767. Beasley 1977 Beasley RP, Trepo C, Stevens CE, Szmuness W. The e antigen and vertical transmission of hepatitis B surface antigen. American Journal of Epidemiology 1977;105(2):948. Beasley 1983 Beasley RP, Hwang LY. Postnatal infectivity of hepatitis B surface antigen-carrier mothers. Journal of Infectious Diseases 1983;147(2): 18590. Beasley 1984 Beasley RP, Hwang LY. Hepatocellular carcinoma and hepatitis B virus. Seminars in Liver Disease 1984;4(2):11321. Begg 1994 Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 1994;50(4):1088101. Bloom 1993 Bloom BS, Hillman AL, Fendrick AM, Schwartz JS. A reappraisal of hepatitis B virus vaccination strategies using cost-effectiveness analysis. Annals of Internal Medicine 1993;118(4):298306. Bohlke 2003 Bohlke K, Davis RL, Marcy SM, Braun MM, DeStefano F, Black SB, et al. Risk of anaphylaxis after vaccination of children and adolescents. Pediatrics 2003;112(4):81520. CDC 1991 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Hepatitis B virus: a comprehensive strategy for eliminating transmission in the United States through universal childhood vaccination: recommendations of the Immunization Practices Advisory Committee (ACIP). Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Recommendations and Reports/Centers for Disease Control 1991;40:119. CDC 1999 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Notice to readers update: recommendations to prevent hepatitis B virus transmission United States-updated. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 1999; 48(2):334. Chen 2005 Chen W, Gluud C. Vaccines for preventing hepatitis B in health-care workers. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD000100. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000100.pub3. Da Villa 1999 Da Villa G, Sepe A. Immunization programme against hepatitis B virus infection in Italy: Cost-effectiveness. Vaccine 1999;17(13-14): 17348. David 1996 David MS, Norman TB. Immunisation against Infectious Disease. London: HMSO, 1996. Deeks 2003 Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, DAmico R, Sowden AJ, Sakarovitch C, Song F, et al. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technology Assessment 2003;7(27):1173. DeMets 1987 DeMets DL. Methods for combining randomized clinical trials: strengths and limitations. Statistics in Medicine 1987;6(3):34150. 3616287. DerSimonian 1986 DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 1986;7(3):17788. 3802833. Dusheiko 1998 Dusheiko G. Hepatitis B. In: BircherJ, BenhamouJP, McIntyreN, RizzettoM, RodsJ editor(s). Oxford Textbook of Clinical Hepatology. Oxford, UK: Oxford Medical Publications, 1998:87696. DuVernoy 2000 DuVernoy TS, Braun MM. Hypotonic-hyporesponsive episodes reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 1996-1998. Pediatrics 2000;106(4):E52. Egger 1997 Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in metaanalysis detected by a simple graphical test. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) 1997;315(7109):62934. 9310563. Etminan 2004 Etminan M, Carleton B, Rochon PA. Quantifying adverse drug events: Are systematic reviews the answer?. Drug Safety 2004;27(11): 75761. Fisher 2001 Fisher MA, Eklund SA, James SA, Lin X. Adverse events associated with hepatitis B vaccine in U.S. children less than six years of age, 1993 and 1994. Annals of Epidemiology 2001;11(1):1321. Funk 2002 Funk ML, Rosenberg DM, Lok AS. World-wide epidemiology of HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis B and associated precore and core promoter variants. Journal of Viral Hepatitis 2002;9:5261. Hadler 1986 Hadler SC, Francis DP, Maynard JE, Thompson SE, Judson FN, Echenberg DF, et al. Long-term immunogenicity and efcacy of hepatitis B vaccine in homosexual men. The New England Journal of Medicine 1986;315(4):20914. 2941687. Hall 1993 Hall AJ, Robertson RL, Crivelli PE, Lowe Y, Inskip H, Snow SK, et al. Cost-effectiveness of hepatitis B vaccine in the Gambia. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 1993;87(3):333 6. Harris 2001 Harris A, Yong K, Kermode M. An economic evaluation of universal infant vaccination against hepatitis B virus using a combination vaccine (Hib-HepB): a decision analytic approach to cost effectiveness. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 2001;25 (3):2229.
84

Hayashi 1996 Hayashi K, Walker AM. Japanese and American reports of randomized trials: Differences in the reporting of adverse effects. Controlled Clinical Trials 1996;17(2):99110. Heijtink 2002 Heijtink RA, Kruining J, van Bergen P, de Rave S, van Hattum J, Schutten M, et al. Characterization of a human monoclonal antibody obtained after immunization with plasma vaccine and a booster with recombinant-DNA hepatitis B vaccine. Journal of Medical Virology 2002;66(3):30411. 11793381. Higgins 2002 Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a metaanalysis. Statistics in Medicine 2002;21:153958. ICH 1997 International Conference on Harmonisation Expert Working Group. Code of Federal Regulations & International Conference on Harmonization Guidelines. Media: Parexel Barnett, 1997. Ioannidis 2001 Ioannidis JP, Lau J. Completeness of safety reporting in randomized trials: an evaluation of 7 medical areas. JAMA 2001;285(4):43743. Kjaergard 2001 Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodological quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Annals of Internal Medicine 2001;135(11):9829. 11730399. Kojouharova 2001 Kojouharova M, Teoharov P, Bahtchevanova T, Maeva I, Eginlian A, Deneva M. Safety and immunogenicity of a yeast-derived recombinant hepatitis B vaccine in Bulgarian newborns. Infection 2001;29 (6):3424. Lee 2004 Lee C, Gong Y, Brok J, Boxall EH, Gluud C. Hepatitis B prophylaxis for newborns of hepatitis B surface antigen-positive mothers. (Protocol) The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD004790. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004790. Lewis 2001 Lewis E, Shineeld HR, Woodruff BA, Black SB, Destefano F, Chen RT, et al. Safety of neonatal hepatitis B vaccine administration. The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 2001;20(11):104954. Li 2003 Li XM, Yang YB, Hou HY, Shi ZJ, Shen HM, Teng BQ, et al. Interruption of HBV intrauterine transmission: a clinical study. World Journal of Gastroenterology 2003;9:15013. Liu 1995 Liu ZG, Zhao SL, Zhang YX. Cost-benet analysis on immunization of newborns with hepatitis B vaccine in Jinan City (Chinese). Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi 1995;16(2):814. MacGregor 2004 MacGregor IR. Screening assays for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs). Vox Sanguinis 2004;87 Suppl 2:36. Margolis 1995 Margolis H, Coleman P, Brown R, Mast E, Sheingold S, Arevalo J. Prevention of hepatitis B virus transmission by immunization. An economic analysis of current recommendations. JAMA 1995;274 (15):12018. Moher 1998 Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efcacy reported in meta-analyses. Lancet 1998;352(9128): 60913. 9746022. Nayak 1987 Nayak NC, Panda SK, Zuckerman AJ, Bhan MK, Guha DK. Dynamics and impact of perinatal transmission of hepatitis B virus in north India. Journal of Medical Virology 1987;21(2):13745. Niu 1996 Niu MT, Davis DM, Ellenberg S. Recombinant hepatitis B vaccination of neonates and infants: emerging safety data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 1996;15(9):7716. Niu 1999 Niu MT, Salive ME, Ellenberg SS. Neonatal deaths after hepatitis B vaccine: the vaccine adverse event reporting system, 1991-1998. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 1999;153(12):127982. Okada 1976 Okada K, Kamiyama I, Inomata M, Imai M, Miyakawa Y. E antigen and anti-e in the serum of asymptomatic carrier mothers as indicators of positive and negative transmission of hepatitis B virus to their infants. New England Journal of Medicine 1976;294(14):7469. Schultz 1995 Schultz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. The Journal of the American Medical Association 1995;273:40812. Sriprakash 1997 Sriprakash I, Anil T. Routine prenatal screening of Indian women for HBsAg: benets derived versus cost. Tropical Doctor 1997;27(3): 1767. Stevens 1975 Stevens CE, Beasley RP, Tsui J, Lee WC. Vertical transmission of hepatitis B antigen in Taiwan. The New England Journal of Medicine 1975;292(15):7714. Szmuness 1981 Szmuness W, Stevens CE, Zang EA, Harley EJ, Kellner AA. A controlled clinical trial of the efcacy of the hepatitis B vaccine: a nal report. Hepatology 1981;1(5):37785. 7030902. Tormans 1993 Tormans G, Van Damme P, Carrin G, Clara R, Eylenbosch W. Costeffectiveness analysis of prenatal screening and vaccination against hepatitis B virus - the case of Belgium. Social Society of Medicine 1993; 37(2):17381. WHO 2002 World Health Organization Department of Communicable Disease Surveillance and Response. Hepatitis B. http://www.who.int/ csr/disease/hepatitis/HepatitisB_whocdscsrlyo2002_2.pdf (Accessed 7 February 2006). Yang 2003 Yang Y, Liu C, Chen T, Lee M, Chen S, Shi H, et al. Role of hepatitis B immunoglobulin in infants born to hepatitis B e antigen-negative carrier mothers in Taiwan. Pediatrics Infection Disease Journal 2003; 22(7):5848.
85

Yao 1996 Yao JL. Perinatal transmission of hepatitis B virus infection and vaccination in China. Gut 1996;38 Suppl 2:S37S38. Zhu 1997 Zhu Q, Lu Q, Gu X, Xu H, Duan S. A preliminary study on interruption of HBV transmission in uterus. Chinese Medical Journal 1997;110(2):1457.
Indicates the major publication for the study
TABLES
Characteristics of included studies

Study Methods Assateerawatt 1993 Generation of allocation sequence: adequate - random permutation table. Allocation concealment: unclear - not described. Blinding: not performed. Follow-up: inadequate - only number of dropouts reported in each group, the reasons not described. Country: Thailand. Publication language: English. Inclusion criteria: HBsAg and HBeAg positive mothers. Interventions Group A: HBIG 100 IU at birth and GenHevac (RV) 20 microgram at birth, 1, 2 and 12 months. Group B: GenHevac (RV) 20 microgram at birth, 1, 2 and 12 months. Outcomes HBsAg Anti-HBs Anti-HBc Follow-up time: 14, 18 or 30 months. Adverse events: there were no serious reactions to the vaccine, and the adverse effects observed were mild and transient. Local swelling and erythema were observed in 3.3% of neonates. Allocation concealment Study Methods B Unclear Beasley 1983a AB Generation of allocation sequence: unclear - not described. Allocation concealment: unclear - not described. Blinding: unclear - described as double blind, but method of blinding not described. Follow-up: adequate - number and reasons reported. Country: Taiwan. Publication language: English. Inclusion criteria: HBsAg- and HBeAg-positive mothers. Infant birth weight over 2500 gm with Apgar scores > 8 at 1 minute. Exclusion criteria:
Participants
Notes
Participants
Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007) Characteristics of included studies (Continued )

HBeAg negative mother. Participants: (1) Group A (control group) received no prophylaxis against HBV. 23 were infants born in the same hospital and 61 were those randomised blind to receive placebo in another HBIG prophylaxis trial. Birth weight: (3239+-407) gram Older siblings (mean number): 0.5+-0.6 Cord blood positive (%): 29.5% Age 1st treatment (minutes): 36.0+-76.8 Age 2nd treatment (minutes): 98.4+-9.0 Age 3rd treatment (minutes): 190.1+-8.8 Mothers mean age: 24.8+-3.1 HBsAg titer: 12.1+-1.7 Drop-out: 12 (2) Group B Birth weight: (3209+-308) gram Older siblings (mean number): 0.7+-0.6 Cord blood positive (%): 23.9% Age 1st treatment (minutes): 20.5+-20.4 Age 2nd treatment (minutes): 97.1+-7.9 Age 3rd treatment (minutes): 186.8+-10.3 Mothers mean age: 26.3+-3.7 HBsAg titer: 11.9+-1.8 Drop-out: 9 (3) Group C Birth weight: (3232+-372) gram Older siblings (mean number): 0.6+-0.7 Cord blood positive (%): 22.8% Age 1st treatment (minutes): 35.8+-135.1 Age 2nd treatment (minutes): 98.0+-8.0 Age 3rd treatment (minutes): 189.0+-9.5 Mothers mean age: 25.5+-3.3 HBsAg titer: 12.0+-1.9 Drop-out: 6 Interventions Group A: HBIG 1.0 mL (180 mIU, Abbott) at birth and saline at 3 and 6 months. Group B: saline at birth, 3 and 6 months. Group C: given HBIG 0.5 mL (90 mIU, Abbott) diluted in 0.5 mL of immune serum globulin at birth, 3 and 6 months. The mean administration time of HBIG was within 36 minutes of birth: 95% were treated within an hour; all were treated within 30 hours. Outcomes Notes Hepatitis events at 15 months follow-up. HBsAg, Anti-HBs, Anti-HBc, and HBeAg. Follow-up time: 15 months. Adverse events: One infant died, but the death appeared unrelated to HBIG. 12 dropouts in Group A, including 10 refuse and 2 lost; 9 in Group B, including 7 refuse and 2 lost; 6 dropouts in Group C, all because of refusal. Allocation concealment B Unclear
87

Study Methods Participants Interventions Outcomes Notes Allocation concealment Study Methods B Unclear Beasley 1983b Generation of allocation sequence: unclear - not described. Allocation concealment: unclear - not described. Blinding: unclear - described as double blind but the method of blinding was not described. Follow-up: adequate - no dropouts. Country: Taiwan. Publication language: English. Inclusion criteria: HBsAg- and HBeAg-positive mothers. infant birth weight over 3000 gm and one-minute Apgar scores >= 9. Participants: (1) Control group received no prophylaxis against HBV. 23 were infants born in the same hospital and 61 were those randomised blind to receive placebo in another HBIG prophylaxis trial. Birth weight (mean +- SD): (3185+-438 gram) Sex ratio (% male): 50.7 Apgar score: 9.9+-0.1 Age initial HBIG (min): not reported. Mothers age: 25.1+-3.3 (2) Group A Birth weight (mean +- SD): (3392+-399 gram) Sex ratio (% male): 60.8 Apgar score: 9.9+-0.4 Age initial HBIG (min): 65+-186 Mothers age: 26.1+-4.1 (3) Group B Birth weight (mean +- SD): (3288+-264 gram) Sex ratio (% male): 56 Apgar score: 9.9+-0.3 Age initial HBIG (min): 171+-328 Mothers age: 25.4+-2.6 (4) Group C Birth weight (mean +- SD): (3192+-367 gram) Sex ratio (% male): 53.4 Apgar score: 9.7+-0.8 Age initial HBIG (min): 145+-312 Mothers age: 26.3+-3.4 Interventions Control group: saline at birth (mean and SD = 2.1+-4.8 h), 3 and 6 months (from previous study).
88
Beasley 1983a CB This trial is the same as Beasley 1983a BA, but has been entered with its own identier due to technical limits of RevMan in order to make data comparison.
Participants

Group A: HBIG 0.5 mL (145 IU, Abbott) at birth, a second dose at 3 months of age, at which time vaccination (20 microgram, Merck Sharp and Dohme) is initiated (88.6+-14.5 days). Followed by boosters a month and 6 month later. Group B: HBIG 0.5 mL at birth only and vaccination was initiated when they were 4 to 7 days old (6.3+ -1.5). Followed by boosters a month and 6 month later. Group C: HBIG 0.5 mL only and vaccination was initiated when they were approximately 1 month old (30.2+-4.3 days). Followed by boosters a month and 6 month later. Outcomes Notes Hepatitis events at maximum HBsAg, anti-HBs. Follow-up time: 9 months. Adverse events: The data in control group (84 infants) were obtained from another trial (Beasley, 1983) Allocation concealment Study Methods B Unclear Farmer 1987 Generation of allocation sequence: adequate - random number list. Allocation concealment: unclear - not described. Blinding: not performed. Follow-up: inadequate - not specied in the each groups. Country: New Zealand. Publication language: English. Inclusion criteria: Both HBsAg and HBeAg positive mothers. infant birth weight over 2500 gm with Apgar scores > 8 at 1 minute. Exclusion criteria: not reported. Participants: (1) Group A (3) Group B Interventions Group A: 0.25 mL (5 microgram) Hepavax (PDV, Merck Sharp and Dohme) I.M. at birth, 6 weeks and 6 months. Group B: 0.25 mL (5 microgram) Hepavax (PDV, Merck Sharp and Dohme) I.M. plus HBIG 0.25 mL (25 IU/kg) at birth then Hepavax + HBIG 0.25 mL (25 IU/kg) at 6 weeks. Finally, another Hepavax vaccine in 6 months. Hepatitis events at maximum follow-up. HBsAg. HBeAg and anti-HBs. Follow-up time: 12 months. Adverse events: not reported. Four infants were lost to follow-up. Allocation concealment Study Methods B Unclear Garcia 1992
Participants
Outcomes Notes
Generation of allocation sequence: unclear - not described. Allocation concealment: unclear - not described. . ..5.7108 concM Td (dm98858ot)Tj 14.1on ethods Generation of allocation seq TdP113927 Tm a7egT3Tj 14.1538 tC 1 60.48 128.02 Tmiallocatiear)Tj 27(HBeAg)Tj 28.0737 027 T7(t4hwi81L4.3165 in)Tj6861 -11.4.68 1688.06 -11.4.68 f852.7844

Follow-up: inadequate - not described. Participants Country: Cuba. Publication language: Spanish. Inclusion criteria: HBsAg positive mothers. Interventions Group A (Cuban): RV 10 microgram at birth, 1 and 2 months. Group B (SK): RV 10 microgram at birth, 1, and 2 months. Outcomes Notes Anti-HBs, HBsAg, Anti-HBc. Follow up time: 6 months. Adverse events: not reported. Allocation concealment Study Methods B Unclear Grosheide 1993 Generation of allocation sequence: unclear - described as randomised, but the method not described. Allocation concealment: adequate - sealed envelops. Blinding: not performed. Follow-up: adequate - number and reasons for dropouts described. Country: Netherlands Publication language: English. Inclusion criteria: HBsAg and HBeAg positive mothers. Exclusion criteria: Participants: Group A: Mother median age: 23 (19;33) Country of birth, No. (%) The Netherlands +other: 3 (8.6) Mediterranean: 15 (42.9) Surinam: 5 (14.3) Asia: 12 (34.3) Group B: Mother median age: 24 (17;38) Country of birth, No. (%) The Netherlands +other: 2 (5.4) Mediterranean: 16 (43.2) Surinam: 7 (18.9) Asia: 12 (32.4) Eight infants (schedule A, three infants; schedule B, ve infants) were excluded from further analysis. Interventions Group A: HBIG (0.5 mL/kg body weight) given within 2 hours of birth and PDV 10 microgram 2 days after birth, 1, 2, and 11 months. Group B: HBIG (0.5 mL/kg body weight) and PDV 10 microgram at 3, 4, 5 and 11 months (with diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, poliomyelitis concomitantly. HBIG (0.5 mL/kg body weight) was given at the age of 3 months. Number of HBsAg positive children in each group. Anti-HBs level. Follow-up time: 12 months.
90
Participants
Outcomes Notes

Adverse events: no side-effect were observed after neither passive or active immunisation (data from Mazel et al, 1984, a duplication publication). The data in this trial were not usable because the PDV vaccination schedule were different. A Adequate Halliday 1992 AB Generation of allocation sequence: adequate - random code. Allocation concealment: adequate - by independent unit. Blinding: adequate - injection was administered by a doctor who was not part of the research team. No one on the research team, or in the laboratory that performed the HBV marker tests, knew which vaccine was administered or whether the infant received HBIG. Follow-up: adequate - number and reasons described in each groups. Country: China. Publication language: English. Inclusion criteria: HBsAg positive mothers. infant weight equal to or greater than 2500 gm and a 5-minute Apgar score equal to or greater than 7 or infant weights less than 2500 gm but greater than 1600 gm and a 5-minute Apgar score of at least 9. Exclusion criteria: not reported. Participants: (1) Group A (2) Group B (3) Group C (4) Group D Interventions Group A: Betagen (20 microgram, RV) at birth, and 1 and 6 months. Group B: Lanzhou (20 microgram, PDV) at birth, and 1 and 6 months. Group C: HBIG (260 IU) at birth and RV (10 microgram) at birth, and 1 and 6 months. Group D: HBIG (260 IU) at birth and RV (20 microgram) at birth, and 1 and 6 months. Outcomes Percentage of infants with HBsAg at maxim (12 months) follow-up. Percentage of infants with HBsAg, by mothers HBsAg/HBeAg status. Geometric mean titre of anti-HBs in each group. Percentage of infants in each group with anti-HBsAg level higher than 10 mIU/mL. Follow-up time: 12 months. Reasons not to entering the trial: living too far to travel for follow-up visits too many blood tests did not want the baby to be hurt did not think vaccination was necessary would be going away. Allocation concealment Study Methods A Adequate Halliday 1992 CA This trial is the same as Halliday 1992 BA, but has been entered with its own identier due to technical limits of RevMan in order to make data comparison.
91
Allocation concealment Study Methods
Participants
Notes

Participants Interventions Outcomes Notes Allocation concealment Study Methods Participants Interventions Outcomes Notes Allocation concealment Study
A Adequate Halliday 1992 DC This trial is the same as Halliday 1992 BA, but has been entered with its own identier due to technical limits of RevMan in order to make data comparison.
A Adequate Hieu 2002
ieu793r

Notes Follow-up times: 30-60-180-210-360 days and 2 years. Adverse events: The majority of AEs were mild fever of less than 38 C degree. One infant had mild hyperexcitability (excessive crying). Allocation concealment Study Methods A Adequate Ip 1989 AB Generation of allocation sequence: unclear - not described. Allocation concealment: unclear - not described. Blinding: unclear - described as double blind, but method of blinding not described. Follow-up: inadequate - not described in each group. Country: HongKong, China. Publication language: English. Inclusion criteria: HBeAg positive mothers. Participants: (1) Group A: (2) Group B: (3) Group C: (4) Group D: (control) Interventions Group A: received four 3 microgram of PDV at birth and at the age of 1, 2, and 6 months, respectively. Also, received HBIG 200 IU at birth, and 100 IU at monthly intervals during the rst 6 months after birth. Group B: received four 3 microgram of PDV at birth and at the age of 1, 2, and 6 months. Also, received HBIG 200 IU at birth. Group C: received four 3 microgram of PDV at birth and at the age of 1, 2, and 6 months. Group D: control group (not randomised). Outcomes Notes HBsAg HBeAg, HBV DNA Follow-up time: 36 months. Adverse events: not reported. The code was broken in Oct, 1983. After that no new babies entered the placebo group and eligible babies were only randomly allocated to one of the rst three intervention groups. Part of the infants of the Ip 1989 trial originated from the Wong 1984 trial. Allocation concealment Study Methods Participants Interventions Outcomes Notes Allocation concealment B Unclear
93
Participants
B Unclear Ip 1989 AC This trial is the same as Ip 1989 AB, but has been entered with its own identier due to technical limits of RevMan in order to make data comparison.

Study Methods Ip 1989 AD Generation of allocation sequence: unclear - not described. Allocation concealment: adequate. Blinding: adequate. Follow-up: inadequate - reasons for dropouts described only, number was not reported. Country: China. Publication language: English. Inclusion criteria: HBsAg and HBeAg positive mothers. Exclusion criteria: Infants birthweight less than 2500 gm, gestational age less than 37 weeks, Apgar score less than 7, or in whom there were gross congenital abnormalities. Participants: Group A (n = 36): Mothers: age (yr): 26.0+-4.3 number of pregnancies: 1.7+-1.1 parity: 0.6+-0.1 duration of labour (minutes): 371+-268 mode of delivery: normal: 64% forceps: 8% lower section caesarean section: 8% induction of labour: 28% Infants: males: 47% birthweight (gm): 3112+-307 maturity (weeks): 40+-1 breastfed: 18% Group B (n = 35): Mothers: age (yr): 24.20+-3.6 number of pregnancies: 1.4+-0.8 parity: 0.5+-1.0 duration of labour (minutes): 452+-252 mode of delivery: normal: 51% forceps: 23% lower section caesarean section: 26% induction of labour: 21% Infants: males: 60% birthweight (gm): 3204+-341 maturity(weeks): 40+-1 breastfed: 18% Group C (n = 35): Mothers: age (yr): 25.6+-4.1
Participants

number of pregnancies: 1.5+-1.0 parity: 0.5+-0.8 duration of labour (minutes): 396+-243 mode of delivery: normal: 60% forceps: 23% lower section caesarean section: 17% induction of labour: 20% Infants: males: 57% birthweight (gm): 3107+-393 maturity(weeks): 40+-2 breastfed: 21% Group D (n = 34): Mothers: age (yr): 24.6+-3.8 number of pregnancies: 1.4+-0.6 parity: 0.3+-0.6 duration of labour (minutes): 430+-231 mode of delivery: normal: 56% forceps: 12% lower section caesarean section: 32% induction of labour: 24% Infants: males: 47% birthweight (gm): 3231+-362 maturity(weeks): 40+-2 breastfed: 21%. Interventions Group A: HBIG 200 IU and PDV 3 microgram were given at birth. Then HBIG 100 IU was given at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 months. PDV 3 microgram were given at 1, 2, and 6 months. Group B: HBIG 200 IU was given at birth. Placebo B was given at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 months. PDV 3 microgram was given at birth, 1, 2 and 6 months. Group C: PDV 3 microgram was given at birth, 1, 2 and 6 months. Placebo B was given at birth, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 months. Group D: placebo B was given at birth, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 months. Placebo A was given at birth, 1, 2, and 6 months. Outcomes Notes HBsAg HBeAg Anti-HBs Anti-HBe IgM-anti-HBc Follow-up time: 12 months. Adverse events: No serious side-effects from the injections were noticed. Six mothers observed a small swelling at the site of injection for 1 day; 6 babies had low-grade fever for 1 day; and 2 babies had low-grade fever for 1 day. Denition of persistent HBsAg antigenemia: all babies having been HBsAg-positive for over 6 months. The Wong 1984 trial constituted part of the infants in the Ip 1989 trial. Allocation concealment A Adequate
95

Study Methods Participants Interventions Outcomes Notes Allocation concealment Study Methods Participants Interventions Outcomes Notes Allocation concealment Study Methods Participants Interventions Outcomes Notes Allocation concealment Study Methods Ip 1989 BC This trial is the same as Ip 1989 AB, but has been entered with its own identier due to technical limits of RevMan in order to make data comparison.
B Unclear Ip 1989 BD This trial is the same as Ip 1989 AD, but has been entered with its own identier due to technical limits of RevMan in order to make data comparison.
A Adequate Ip 1989 CD This trial is the same as Ip 1989 AD, but has been entered with its own identier due to technical limits of RevMan in order to make data comparison.
A Adequate Kang 1995 Generation of allocation sequence: unclear - not described. Allocation concealment: unclear - not described. Blinding: not performed. Follow-up: inadequate - not described. Country: China. Publication language: Chinese. Inclusion criteria: HBsAg+ HBeAg positive mothers. Participants: (1) Group A: (2) Group B: (3) Group C:
Participants
Interventions
Group A: received 20 microgram of RV at birth and at the age of 1 and 6 months, respectively. Group B: received 20 microgram of genetic engineering vaccine at birth and at the age of 1 and 6 months. Group C: received 10 microgram of genetic engineering vaccine and HBIG 200 IU at birth and 10 microgram doses of genetic engineering vaccine at the age of 1 and 6 months.
Outcomes
HBsAg, Anti-HBs
96

Notes Anti-HBc Follow-up time: 7 months 1% soap solution was applied to avoid contamination by mothers faeces. No adverse events was reported. Data was comparable for Group A and Group B. Allocation concealment Study Methods B Unclear Khukhlovich 1996 Generation of allocation sequence: unclear - not described. Allocation concealment: unclear - not described. Blinding: unclear - described as double blind, but method of blinding not described. Follow-up: inadequate - not described. Country: Uzbekistan and Moldova (former Soviet Union). Publication language: Russian. Inclusion criteria: HBsAg positive carrier mothers. The children were healthy without any contraindications. Interventions Treatment Group: Engerix B 1 mL was given at birth, 1, 2, and 14 months. Control Group: no vaccines. Outcomes Notes Anti-HBs, HBsAg. Follow-up time:2 years. Adverse events: skin reactions, weak pain, little swollen of the injection site (transient reactions, disappeared within 1-3 days). Rare adverse events: without good sleep, over excited, dyspepsia, subfebrile temperature. After the vaccination, no other adverse event was observed. Allocation concealment Study Methods B Unclear Kuru 1995 AB Generation of allocation sequence: unclear - not described. Allocation concealment: unclear - not described. Blinding: not performed. Follow-up: unclear. Country: Turkey. Publication language: English. Inclusion criteria: HBsAg positive mothers. Participants: (1) Group A (Hevac B 0.5 mL) (2) Group B (Hevac B 1 mL) (3) Group C (Engerix B). Interventions Group A (Hevac B 0.5 mL): received 2.5 microgram of vaccine and HBIG 200 IU at birth and vaccine at the age of 1, 2, and 12 months, respectively. Group B (Hevac B 1 mL): received 5 microgram of vaccine and HBIG 200 IU at birth and vaccine at the age of 1, 2, and 12 months respectively. Group C (Engerix B 0.5 mL): received 10 microgram of vaccine and HBIG 200 IU at birth and vaccine at the age of 1, 2, and 12 months, respectively. Outcomes HBsAg,
97
Participants
Participants

Anti-HBs (geometric mean titer, GMT), HBeAg, Anti-HBe. Notes Follow-up time:13 months without the primary outcome dened in the protocol, which is Hepatitis B events at maximum follow-up. Adverse events: no side effects in the infants after the vaccination. Allocation concealment Study Methods Participants Interventions Outcomes Notes Allocation concealment Study Methods Participants Interventions Outcomes Notes Allocation concealment Study Methods B Unclear Lee 1995 AB Generation of allocation sequence: unclear - not described. Allocation concealment: unclear - not described. Blinding: Not performed. Follow-up: inadequate - number of dropouts reported, but reasons not described. Country: Taiwan. Publication language: English. Inclusion criteria: HBsAg and HBeAg positive/negative mothers. Group A (HBeAg+ mother): HBIG 145 IU (0)+ PDV 5 microgram (0)+ Engerix-B 10 microgram (1)+ Engerix-B 10 microgram (2)+ Engerix-B 10 microgram (12) Group B (HBeAg+ mother): HBIG 145 IU (0)+ PDV 5 microgram (0)+ PDV 5 microgram (1)+ PDV 5 microgram (2)+ PDV 5 microgram (12) Group C (HBeAg+ mother): HBIG 145 IU (0)+ PDV 5 microgram (0)+ H-B-VAX II 5 microgram (1)+ HB-VAX II 5 microgram (2)+ H-B-VAX II 5 microgram (12) Group D (HBeAg+ mother): HBIG 145 IU (0)+ PDV 5 microgram (0)+ PDV 5 microgram (1)+ H-B-VAX II 5 microgram (2)+ H-B-VAX II 5 microgram (12) Group E (HBeAg+ mother): HBIG 145 IU (0)+ PDV 5 microgram (0)+ PDV 5 microgram (1)+ EngerixB 10 microgram (2)+ Engerix 10 microgram (12) Group F (HBeAg- mother): HBIG 145 IU (0)+ PDV 5 microgram (0)+ Engerix-B 10 microgram (2)+ Engerix-B 10 microgram (6)
B Unclear Kuru 1995 AC This trial is the same as Kuru 1995 AB, but has been entered with its own identier due to technical limits of RevMan in order to make data comparison.
B Unclear Kuru 1995 BC This trial is the same as Kuru 1995 AB, but has been entered with its own identier due to technical limits of RevMan in order to make data comparison.
Participants Interventions

Group G (HBeAg- mother): HBIG 145 IU (0)+ PDV 5 microgram (0)+ H-B-VAX II 5 microgram(2)+ HB-VAX II 5 microgram(6) Outcomes Notes HBsAg, HBeAg, Anti-HBs by radioimmunoassay. Follow-up time: 6, 14, and 30 months (high risk infants). Adverse events: there was no signicant adverse reaction in any of the children during the study period. Allocation concealment Study Methods Participants Interventions Outcomes Notes Allocation concealment Study Methods Participants Interventions Outcomes Notes Allocation concealment Study Methods Participants Interventions Outcomes Notes Allocation concealment Study Methods B Unclear Lee 1995 CA This trial is the same as Lee 1995 A1C, but has been entered with its own identier due to technical limits of RevMan in order to make data comparison.
B Unclear Lee 1995 CB This trial is the same as Lee 1995 A1C, but has been entered with its own identier due to technical limits of RevMan in order to make data comparison.
B Unclear Lee 1995 DE This trial is the same as Lee 1995 A1C, but has been entered with its own identier due to technical limits of RevMan in order to make data comparison.
B Unclear Liu 1987 AB Generation of allocation sequence: unclear - not described. Allocation concealment: adequate - sealed envelopes. Blinding: adequate - with placebo. Follow-up: inadequate - not described. Country: China. Publication language: Chinese. Inclusion criteria: HBsAg+ HBeAg positive mothers or HBsAg titre >= 1:512.
Participants
Interventions
Group A: received 20 microgram of vaccine at birth and at the age of 1, 2, and 6 months, respectively.
99

Group B: placebo (normal saline) at birth and at the age of 1, 2, and 6 months, respectively. Group C: received 20 microgram of vaccine and HBIG 1: 1600,000 to 1: 3200,000 (RIA) at birth and vaccine at the age of 1, 2, and 6 months respectively. Outcomes Notes Overall number of HBsAg newborns in each tests. Anti-HBs, Anti-HBc (RIA) Follow-up time: 6-9-12 months. The numbers of HBsAg newborns were the sum of number of HBsAg positive newborns detected in 6, 9 and 12 months, not only in 12 months follow-up. Adverse events: no systemic reaction and serious local events. Some infants had local swollen and red, but all disappeared in 1 to 2 days. Allocation concealment Study Methods Participants Interventions Outcomes Notes Allocation concealment Study Methods Participants Interventions Outcomes Notes Allocation concealment Study Methods A Adequate Liu 1987 CA This trial is the same as Liu 1987 AC, but has been entered with its own identier due to technical limits of RevMan in order to make data comparison.
A Adequate Liu 1987 CB This trial is the same as Liu 1987 AC, but has been entered with its own identier due to technical limits of RevMan in order to make data comparison.
A Adequate Lo 1985 AB Generation of allocation sequence: unclear - not described. Allocation concealment: unclear - not described. Blinding: not performed. Follow-up: unclear. Country: Taiwan. Publication language: English. Inclusion criteria: HBsAg+ HBeAg positive mothers. Mother age: 20 to 36 years, mean 27 years old.
Participants
Interventions
Group A: received HBIG 50 IU at birth, then Hevac-B 5 microgram at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, and 10 weeks. Group B: received Hevac-B 5 microgram at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, and 10 weeks. Group C: received Hevac-B 5 microgram at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, and 10 weeks. Plus HBIG 50 IU at birth and one month of age.
100

Group D: control group (refused vaccination). Outcomes The status of HBsAg and HBeAg in infants Number of infants with HBsAg positive in 6 weeks, 10 weeks and 6 months of age. The incidence of persistent HBsAg carrier state. A summary of adverse events of HBV vaccination. Follow-up time: 6 weeks- 10 weeks- 6 months (all with number of infants HBsAg (+)). Adverse events: Fever: 2.8% Diarrhoea: 0.5% Swelling erythema: 6.6% Restlessness: 22.2% Two infants in Group 3 had an ALT rise. One was considered to be related to the use of traditional herbal drug. The other could not be accounted for. Both children returned to normal ALT within the follow-up period. Allocation concealment Study Methods Participants Interventions Outcomes Notes Allocation concealment Study Methods Participants Interventions Outcomes Notes Allocation concealment Study Methods B Unclear Lo 1985 CA This trial is the same as Lo 1985 BA, but has been entered with its own identier due to technical limits of RevMan in order to make data comparison.
Notes
B Unclear Lo 1985 CB This trial is the same as Lo 1985 BA, but has been entered with its own identier due to technical limits of RevMan in order to make data comparison.
B Unclear Lolekha 2002 Generation of allocation sequence: unclear - not described. Allocation concealment: unclear - not described. Blinding: not performed. Follow-up: inadequate - not described. Country: Thailand. Publication language: English. Inclusion criteria: HBsAg- and HBeAg-positive mothers. Infant birth weight >= 2000 gram, Apgar score >= 7 at 5 minutes Participants: (1) Group A
Participants
101

Male (%): 52 Female (%): 48 Birth weight (kg) Range: 2.15-4.26 Mean: 3.1 Median: 3.05 (2) Group B Male (%): 51 Female (%): 49 Birth weight (kg) Range: 2.34-4.25 Mean: 3.04 Median: 3.02 Interventions Group A: received 5 microgram of vaccine at birth (0 to 3 days) and at the age of 1 and 6 months, respectively. Group B: received 5 microgram of vaccine at birth (0 to 3 days) and at the age of 1, 2, and 12 months, respectively. Outcomes HBsAg HBeAg Anti-HBc Anti-HBs Follow-up time: 13 months. Adverse events: None of the vaccines had a serious adverse experience and none withdrew from the study because of a vaccine related adverse experience. Allocation concealment Study Methods B Unclear Oon 1986 AB Generation of allocation sequence: adequate - by lottery or the use of coded numbers. Allocation concealment: unclear - not described. Blinding: not performed. Follow-up: inadequate - not described. Country: Singapore Publication language: English. Inclusion criteria: HBsAg positive and negative mothers. Participants: Group A: HBsAg (-) mothers (n = 28) Group B: HBeAg (-)/HBsAg (+) mothers (n = 188) Group C: HBeAg (+)/HBsAg (+) mothers (n = 99) Group D: HBsAg (-) mothers (n = 39) Group E: HBeAg (-)/HBsAg (+) mothers (n = 205) Group F: HBeAg (+)/HBsAg (+) mothers (n = 103) Interventions Group A: 10 microgram PDV at birth, 1 and 2 months. Group B: 5 microgram PDV at birth, 1 and 2 months. Group C: HBIG 100 IU and 10 microgram PDV at birth and 10 microgram PDV at 1 and 2 months. Group D: HBIG 0.5 mL (100 IU) and 5 microgram PDV at birth and 5 microgram PDV at 1 and 2 months. Group E: 5 microgram PDV at birth, 1 and 2 months.
Notes
Participants

Group F: 10 microgram PDV at birth, 1 and 2 months. Outcomes HBsAg HBeAg Anti-HBs Follow-up time: 12 months. Adverse effects: none was observed during the surveillance period. Allocation concealment Study Methods Participants Interventions Outcomes Notes Allocation concealment Study Methods B Unclear Piazza 1985 Generation of allocation sequence: adequate - random number. Allocation concealment: adequate - sealed envelopes. Blinding: unclear. Follow-up: adequate - reasons and numbers described. Country: Italy. Publication language: English. Inclusion criteria: HBsAg-positive mothers. Mothers with HBsAg, anti-HBs, anti-HBc negative were also included in this study with different comparison groups. Participants: (partly included, some children were not infants) Group A: 2 withdrawn by their parents. Group B: 1 withdrawn by their parents. Group C: 5 withdrawn by their parents. Group D: 5 withdrawn by their parents. Interventions Group A: HBIG 50 IU at birth, PDV 5 microgram within 5 days after birth and at 2 months. Group B: HBIG 50 IU at birth, PDV 5 microgram within 5 days after birth and at 1 and 2 months. Group C: PDV 5 microgram within 5 days after birth and at 2 months. Group D: PDV 5 microgram within 5 days after birth and at 1 and 2 months. Outcomes Notes HBsAg Anti-HBc Follow-up time: 6 months. Adverse events: 2 children reported a sore arm after the 2nd dose of vaccine, and in both the complaint resolved a few hours later. There were no other adverse reactions. Allocation concealment A Adequate
103
Notes
B Unclear Oon 1986 CD This trial is the same as Oon 1986 EB, but has been entered with its own identier due to technical limits of RevMan in order to make data comparison.
Participants

Study Methods Pongpipat 1986 Generation of allocation sequence: unclear - not described. Allocation concealment: unclear - not described. Blinding: not performed. Follow-up: inadequate - reasons not described. Country: Thailand. Publication language: English. Inclusion criteria: HBsAg and HBeAg positive mothers. Interventions Group A: HBIG (Gamma-protect) 200 IU (at birth) + Havac B 5 microgram (birth-1-2 months). Group B: HBIG (Hepatect) 100 IU (0)+ HB vax (PDV) 10 microgram (birth-1-6 months). Outcomes Notes HBsAg Anti-HBc Follow-up time: 12 months. Adverse events: neither local nor systemic reactions were observed after immunisation. Allocation concealment Study Methods B Unclear Pongpipat 1988 Generation of allocation sequence: unclear - not described. Allocation concealment: unclear - not described. Blinding: not performed. Follow-up: inadequate - number reported only. Country: Thailand. Publication language: English. Inclusion criteria: HBsAg and HBeAg positive mothers. Participants: Group A: Group B: Interventions Group A (HBIG+ Hevac B): received 5 microgram of vaccine and HBIG 100 IU at birth and vaccine at the age of 1, 2, and 12 months, respectively. Group B (HBIG+ Hevac B): received 2 microgram of vaccine and HBIG 100 IU at birth and vaccine at the age of 1, 2, and 12 months respectively. Outcomes GMT (anti-HBs) seroconversion rate HBsAg Anti-PreS2 Anti-HBc Follow-up time: 4, 6, 12, and 13 months. Adverse events: neither local nor systemic reactions were observed after immunization with HBIG and hepatitis B vaccine. Allocation concealment Study Methods B Unclear Pongpipat 1989 Generation of allocation sequence: unclear - not described.
104
Participants
Participants
Notes

Allocation concealment: unclear - not described. Blinding: not performed. Follow-up: inadequate - number for dropouts described only. Participants Country: Thailand. Publication language: English. Inclusion criteria: HBsAg and HBeAg positive mothers. Participants: Group A: Group B: Interventions Group A (HBIG+ HBVax): received 10 microgram of PDV and HBIG 100 IU (0.5mL) at birth and vaccine at the age of 1, 2, and 12 months, respectively. Group B (HBIG+ HBVax II): received 5 microgram of RV and HBIG 100 IU (0.5mL) at birth and vaccine at the age of 1, 2, and 12 months respectively. Outcomes Notes GMT (anti-HBs) seroconversion rate (denition: higher than 5 mIU/mL after vaccination) HBsAg. Follow-up time: 12 months. Adverse events: neither local nor systemic reactions were observed after immunization with HBIG and both kinds of hepatitis B vaccine. Allocation concealment Study Methods B Unclear Poovorawan 1997 Generation of allocation sequence: unclear - not described. Allocation concealment: unclear - not described. Blinding: not performed. Follow-up: inadequate - reasons for dropouts described only, number was not reported. Country: Thailand. Publication language: English. Inclusion criteria: HBsAg and HBeAg positive mothers. Weight of 2 kg or more at birth and with a 5 minute Apgar score of 7 or higher. Interventions Open design without randomisation Group A: were vaccinated with Engerix-B (RV) 10 microgram at birth and subsequently at 1, 2, and 12 months of age. Group B: were vaccinated with Engerix-B (RV) 10 microgram and HBIG 100 IU at birth and Engerix-B (RV) 10 microgram and Engerix-B 10 microgram subsequently at 1, 2, and 12 months of age. Randomised groups: Group C: were vaccinated with Engerix-B (RV) 10 microgram at birth and subsequently at 1 and 6 months of age. Group D: were vaccinated with Engerix-B (RV) 10 microgram and HBIG 100 IU at birth and Engerix-B 10 microgram subsequently at 1 and 6 months of age. A booster was administered at 60 months for Group C and Group D. Outcomes HBsAg GMT (Anti-HBs) Anti-HBc
105
Participants

Notes Follow-up time: 60 months. Adverse events: not reported. Only the data in Group C and D were used for analysis. Allocation concealment Study Methods B Unclear Sehgal 1992 Generation of allocation sequence: unclear - not described. Allocation concealment: unclear - not described. Blinding: not performed. Follow-up: inadequate. Country: India. Publication language: English. Inclusion criteria: HBsAg positive mothers. Interventions Group A: 10 microgram PDV within 24 hours of birth, 4 and 8 weeks. Group B: HBIG and 10 microgram PDV within 24 hours of birth, and PDV given at 4 and 8 weeks. Group C (control group): not vaccinated. Outcomes HBsAg HBeAg Anti-HBe Anti-HBs Follow-up time: 3 and 6 months. Adverse events: not reported. Allocation concealment Study Methods B Unclear Theppisai 1987 Generation of allocation sequence: unclear - not described. Allocation concealment: unclear - not described. Blinding: not performed. Follow-up: adequate - no dropouts. Country: Thailand. Publication language: English. Inclusion criteria: HBsAg and HBeAg positive mothers. Interventions Group A: 10 microgram PDV given at 21 to 72 minutes of birth and the age of 1 and 6 months. Group B: HBIG 200 IU and 10 microgram PDV given at 21-72 minutes (average 67 minutes) of birth and 10 microgram PDV given the age of 1 and 6 months. Outcomes HBsAg HBeAg Anti-HBs Anti-HBe Follow-up time: 3 and 6 months. Adverse events: not reported Allocation concealment B Unclear
106
Participants
Notes
Participants
Notes

Study Methods Theppisai 1990 Generation of allocation sequence: unclear - not described. Allocation concealment: unclear - not described. Blinding: not performed. Follow-up: inadequate - number reported, but the reasons for dropouts not described. Country: Thailand. Publication language: English. Inclusion criteria: HBsAg and HBeAg positive mothers. Historical control group. Interventions Group A: HBIG 200 IU administered within 3 hours of birth, and 5 microgram PDV given at the age of 2 days, 1, 2, and 12 months. Group B: HBIG 200 IU administered within 3 hours of birth, and 2 microgram PDV given at the age of 2 days, 1, 2, and 12 months. Control group (historical control): no vaccination. Outcomes HBsAg Anti-HBs GMT seroconversion rate. Follow-up time: 4, 6, 12 and 13 months Adverse events: not reported. B Unclear Xu 1995 AB Generation of allocation sequence: unclear - not described. Allocation concealment: unclear - not described. Blinding: unclear - described as double blind, but method of blinding not described. Follow-up: inadequate - number for dropouts described only, reasons was not reported. Country: China. Publication language: English. Inclusion criteria: HBsAg and HBeAg positive/negative mothers. Exclusion criteria Infants birthweight less than 2500 gm, gestational age less than 37 weeks, Apgar score less than 7, or whom there were gross congenital abnormalities. Interventions Group A: NIAID vaccine (PDV produced by the U.S.) vaccine 16 microgram at birth, 1 and 6 months. Group B: BIVS vaccine (PDV produced by China) vaccine 20 microgram at birth, 1, and 6 months. Group C: randomisation into Group C was not begun until later in the trial): HBIG 250 IU at birth and BIVS vaccine 20 microgram at birth, 1, and 6 months. Group D (placebo): vaccine diluent plus adjuvant at birth, 1, and 6 months. Outcomes Notes HBsAg Anti-HBs Anti-HBc Follow-up time: 60 months, but due to the poor reporting, data on 6th month were extracted. Adverse events: not reported HBsAg event was dened as HBsAg positive at any time >= 1 month of age.
Participants
Notes Allocation concealment Study Methods
Participants

Chronic HBsAg was dened as HBsAg positive for >= 6 months. Allocation concealment Study Methods Participants Interventions Outcomes Notes Allocation concealment Study Methods Participants Interventions Outcomes Notes Allocation concealment Study Methods Participants Interventions Outcomes Notes Allocation concealment Study Methods Participants Interventions Outcomes Notes Allocation concealment Study Methods B Unclear Xu 1995 AD This trial is the same as Xu 1995 AB, but has been entered with its own identier due to technical limits of RevMan in order to make data comparison.
B Unclear Xu 1995 BD This trial is the same as Xu 1995 AB, but has been entered with its own identier due to technical limits of RevMan in order to make data comparison.
B Unclear Xu 1995 CB This trial is the same as Xu 1995 AB, but has been entered with its own identier due to technical limits of RevMan in order to make data comparison.
B Unclear Xu 1995 CD This trial is the same as Xu 1995 AB, but has been entered with its own identier due to technical limits of RevMan in order to make data comparison.
B Unclear Yeoh 1986 Generation of allocation sequence: unclear - not described. Allocation concealment: unclear - not described. Blinding: not performed. Follow-up: inadequate. Country: China. Publication language: English.
108
Participants

Inclusion criteria: HBsAg-positive mothers. Infants birthweight over 2000 gm. Apgar score >= 7 at 5 minutes. Interventions HBsAg(+)/ HBeAg(+) mothers (150 infants): Group A: HBIG 0.5 mL at birth and PDV 10 microgram were administered at birth, 1, and 6 months. Group B: HBIG 0.5 mL at birth and RV 5 microgram were administered at birth, 1, and 6 months. HBsAg(+)/ HBeAg(-) mothers (150 infants). Group C: HBIG 0.5 mL at birth and PDV 10 microgram were administered at birth, 1, and 6 months. Group D: HBIG 0.5 mL at birth and RV 5 microgram were administered at birth, 1, and 6 months. Outcomes HBsAg HBeAg Anti-HBs Anti-HBc Anti-HBe This trial was published as an abstract. We were not able to extract any relevant data from this abstract. Follow-up time: 6 and 9 months. Adverse events were few and minor, and no serious side-effects were attributable to either vaccine. Allocation concealment Study Methods B Unclear Zhu 1987 Generation of allocation sequence: unclear - not described. Allocation concealment: unclear - not described. Blinding: unclear - described as double blind, but method of blinding not described. Follow-up: inadequate. Country: China Publication language: English. Inclusion criteria: HBsAg positive mothers. Interventions Treatment group: 16 microgram vaccine (PDV or RV ?) was given at birth, 1, and 6 months. Control group (n = 57): buffer of HBV at the same interval. Outcomes Notes Transaminase abnormalities and hepatitis markers. This trial was published as an abstract. We were not able to extract relevant data from this abstract. Follow-up time: 24 months. Adverse events: not reported. Allocation concealment Study Methods B Unclear Zhu 1994 Generation of allocation sequence: unclear - not described. Allocation concealment: unclear - not described. Blinding: not performed. Follow-up: inadequate - number for dropouts described only, reasons was not reported. Country: China. Publication language: English.
109
Notes
Participants
Participants

Inclusion criteria: HBsAg and HBeAg positive mothers. Participants: Group 1 (RV): Birth weight: (mean+-SD): 3290+- 312 Apgar score: 9.3 No of male infants (%): 28 (52%) No of caesarean births (%): 9 (17%) Group 2 (PDV): Birth weight: (mean+-SD): 3301+- 347 Apgar score: 9.1 No of male infants (%): 26 (50%) No of caesarean births (%): 7 (14%) Interventions Group A: RV 20 microgram was administered at birth, 1 and 6 months. Group B: PDV 20 microgram was administered at birth, 1, and 6 months. Outcomes Notes HBsAg Anti-HBs Follow-up time: 6, 12, 24, 36, 48 and 60 months. Adverse events: These recipients of RV have no side effects and the vaccine is safe. Regarding Table 2 and 3. We considered negative patients as having no anti-HBs despite it is unclear in the report. Allocation concealment B Unclear
Characteristics of excluded studies

Study Chung 1988 Chung 1988 B Coursaget 1984 Da 1995 Delage 1993 Esteban 1986 Goh 1992 Kang 1986 Lai 1986 Lai 1993 Laille 1988 Lin 1987 Linder 2000 Milne 1989 Mittal 1994 Moulia-Pelat 1994 Reason for exclusion Non-randomised clinical study. Not newborns of HBsAg-positive mothers. Non-randomised clinical study. Non-randomised clinical study. Non-randomised clinical study. Non-randomised clinical study. The study population were not newborns but 1-12 year-old children. Non-randomised clinical study. The study population were not newborns but 3 months to 11 year-old children and the mothers were negative for all hepatitis B viral markers. The study population were not newborns but 3 months to 11 year-old children. Non-randomised clinical study. Non-randomised clinical study. The study population were not high-risk newborns. The study population were healthy newborns, not high-risk newborns of HBsAg-positive mothers. Non-randomised clinical study. The study population were healthy newborns, not high-risk newborns of HBsAg-positive mothers.
110
Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007) Characteristics of excluded studies (Continued )

Nair 1984 Okoth 1994 Perrin 1986 Pongpipat 1984 Poovorawan 1989 Poovorawan 1990 Shikata 1984 Stevens 1987 Stevens 1988 Stevens 1990 Stevens 1992 Surya 1996 Suwignyo 1994 Theppisai 1988 Theppisai 1989 Wheeley 1991 Young 2003 Yuen 1999 Zanetti 1986 Zhu 2003 Non-randomised clinical study. The study population was not newborns of HBsAg-positive mothers. The study population in this study was not newborns of HBsAg-positive mothers. Non-randomised clinical study. Non-randomised clinical study. Non-randomised clinical study. Non-randomised clinical study. Non-randomised clinical study. Non-randomised clinical study. Non-randomised clinical study. Non-randomised clinical study. Non-randomised clinical study. Non-randomised clinical study. Non-randomised clinical study. Non-randomised clinical study. Non-randomised clinical study. Non-randomised clinical study. The study population was not newborns of HBsAg-positive mothers. Non-randomised clinical study. The study population was not exclusively newborns of HBsAg-positive mothers.
ADDITIONAL TABLES
Table 01. Search strategies

Database The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register The Cochrane Neonatal Group Controlled Trials Register The Cochrane Vaccines Field Controlled Trials Register The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL/CCTR) in The Cochrane Library PubMed Period Until February 2004 Search strategy vaccin* AND hepatitis B AND (newborn* OR infant* OR child* OR baby OR babies) AND high risk A request for search on the Neonatal Group Controlled Trials Register was made (20 Feb, 2004) A request for search on the Vaccine Field Controlled Trials Register was made (20 Feb, 2004). But no reply were obtained. vaccin* AND hepatitis B AND (newborn* OR infant* OR child* OR baby OR babies) AND high risk #1 explode Vaccination/ all subheadings #2 explode Hepatitis-B-Vaccines/ all subheadings
111
20 February 2004
Not obtained
Until February 2004
Until February 2004
Table 01. Search strategies (Continued )

Database Period Search strategy #3 explode Vaccines/ all subheadings #4 vaccin* #5 PDV #6 YDV #7 #1 or #2 or #3 or #4 or #5 or #6 #8 explode Hepatitis-B/ all subheadings #9 hepatitis B #10 #8 or #9 #11 explode Infant-Newborn/ all subheadings #12 newborn* or infant* or child* or baby or babies #13 #11 or #12 #14 #13 and high risk #15 #7 and #10 and #14 #16 random* or blind* or placebo* or metaanalysis #17 #15 and #16 #18 (DTP-HB or Hib-HB or Comvax or Pediarix) MEDLINE January 1966 to February 2004 #1 explode Vaccination/ all subheadings #2 explode Hepatitis-B-Vaccines/ all subheadings #3 explode Vaccines/ all subheadings #4 vaccin* #5 PDV #6 YDV #7 #1 or #2 or #3 or #4 or #5 or #6 #8 explode Hepatitis-B/ all subheadings #9 hepatitis B #10 #8 or #9 #11 explode Infant-Newborn/ all subheadings #12 newborn* or infant* or child* or baby or babies #13 #11 or #12 #14 #13 and high risk #15 #7 and #10 and #14 #16 random* or blind* or placebo* or metaanalysis #17 #15 and #16 #18 (DTP-HB or Hib-HB or Comvax or Pediarix) #1 explode vaccination/ all subheadings #2 explode hepatitis-B-vaccine/ all subheadings #3 explode hepatitis-vaccine/ all subheadings #4 explode vaccine/ all subheadings #5 vaccin* #6 PDV
112
EMBASE
January 1980 to February 2004
Table 01. Search strategies (Continued )

Database Period Search strategy #7 YDV #8 #1 or #2 or #3 or #4 or #5 or #6 or #7 #9 explode hepatitis-B/ all subheadings #10 hepatitis B #11 #9 or #10 #12 explode infant/ all subheadings #13 explode newborn/ all subheadings #14 explode newborn-hepatitis/ all subheadings #15 explode baby/ all subheadings #16 #12 or #13 or #14 or #15 #17 newborn* or infant* or child* or baby or babies #18 #16 or #17 #19 #18 and high risk #20 #8 and #11 and #19 #21 random* or blind* or placebo* or metaanalysis #22 #20 and #21 #23 (DTP-HB or Hib-HB or Comvax or Pediarix)
Table 02. Intervention by group

Trial Assateerawatt 1993 Beasley 1983a Intervention group A*: HBIG 100 IU at birth and RV 20 microgram at birth and at 1, 2, and 12 months. A: HBIG 1.0 ml (180 IU) at birth and saline at 3 and 6 months. C: HBIG 0.5 ml (90 IU) diluted in 0.5 ml of immune serum globulin at birth and 3 and 6 months. A: HBIG 0.5 ml (145 IU) at birth and PDV 20 microgram at 4-7 days. Followed by boosters 1 and 6 months later. A: PDV 0.25 ml (5 microgram) + HBIG 0.25 ml (25 IU/kg) at birth then PDV + HBIG 0.25 ml (25 IU/kg) at 6 weeks and PDV at 6 months. A: 10 microgram RV-1 at birth and at 1 and 2 months. A: HBIG 0.5 ml/kg body weight at birth and PDV 10 microgram at 2 days and at 1, 2, and 11 months. Control group B: RV 20 microgram at birth and at 1, 2, and 12 months. B: saline at birth and 3 and 6 months.
Beasley 1983b
B: HBIG 0.5 ml (145 IU) and PDV 20 microgram at 1 month. Followed by boosters 1 and 6 months later. B: PDV 0.25 ml (5 microgram) at birth and at 6 weeks and 6 months. B: 10 microgram RV-2 at birth and at 1 and 2 months. B: HBIG 0.5 ml/kg body weight and PDV 10 microgram at 3, 4, 5, and 11 months (with diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, poliomyelitis concomitantly). HBIG 0.5 ml/kg body weight at 3 months. B: PDV 20 microgram at birth and at 1 and 6 months. D: HBIG 260 IU at birth and RV 10 microgram at birth and at 1 and 6 months.
113
Farmer 1987
Garcia 1992 Grosheide 1993
Halliday 1992
A: RV 20 microgram at birth and at 1 and 6 months. C: HBIG 260 IU at birth and RV 20 microgram at birth and at 1 and 6 months.

Trial Hieu 2002 Ip 1989
(Continued )
Control group B: HBIG 100 microgram + 10 microgram RV-2 at birth and Engerix-B at 30 and 180 days. B: PDV 3 microgram at birth and at 1, 2, and 6 months + HBIG 200 IU at birth. D: placebo.
Intervention group A: HBIG 100 microgram + 10 microgram RV-1 at birth and Hepavax at 30 and 180 days. A: PDV 3 microgram at birth and at 1, 2, and 6 months. Also, HBIG 200 IU at birth, and HBIG 100 IU at monthly intervals during the rst 6 months after birth. C: PDV 3 microgram at birth and at 1, 2, and 6 months. A: 20 microgram RV-1 at birth and at 1 and 6 months. A: RV 1 ml at birth and at 1, 2, and 14 months. A: PDV 0.5 ml (2.5 microgram) and HBIG 200 IU at birth and PDV at 1, 2, and 12 months. C: RV 0.5 ml (10 microgram) and HBIG 200 IU at birth and RV at 1, 2, and 12 months. A: HBIG 145 IU at birth + PDV 5 microgram at birth + 10 microgram RV-1 at 1, 2, and 12 months. C: HBIG 145 IU at birth + PDV 5 microgram at birth + 5 microgram RV-2 at 1, 2, and 12 months. E: HBIG 145 IU at birth + PDV 5 microgram at birth and 1 month + 10 microgram RV-1 at 2 and 12 months. G: HBIG 145 IU at birth + PDV 5 microgram at birth and RV-2 at 2 and 6 months. A: PDV 20 microgram at birth and at 1, 2, and 6 months. C: PDV 20 microgram at birth and at 1, 2, and 6 months and HBIG at birth. A: HBIG 50 IU at birth, then PDV 5 microgram at 2, 6, and 10 weeks. C: PDV 5 microgram at 2, 6, and 10 weeks + HBIG 50 IU at birth and 1 month. A: RV 5 microgram at birth and at 1 and 6 months. A: PDV 10 microgram at birth and at 1 and 2 months. C: HBIG 100 IU and PDV 10 microgram at birth and PDV 10 microgram at 1 and 2 months. A: PDV 5 microgram and HBIG 50 IU at birth and PDV at 1 and 2 months. A: 200 IU HBIG-1 at birth + 5 microgram PDV1 at birth and at 1 and 6 months. A: PDV 5 microgram and HBIG 100 IU at birth + PDV at 1, 2, and 12 months. A: RV 5 microgram and HBIG 100 IU at birth and RV at 1, 2, and 12 months. A: RV 10 microgram and HBIG 100 IU at birth and RV 10 microgram at 1 and 6 months. A booster was
Kang 1995 Khukhlovich 1996 Kuru 1995
B: 20 microgram RV-2 at birth and at 1 and 6 months. B: No vaccines. B: PDV 1 ml (5 microgram) and HBIG 200 IU at birth and PDV at 1, 2, and 12 months.
Lee 1995 *
B: HBIG 145 IU at birth + PDV 5 microgram at birth + PDV 5 microgram at 1, 2, and 12 months. D: HBIG 145 IU at birth + PDV 5 microgram at birth and 1 month + 5 microgram RV-2 at 2 and 12 months. F: HBIG 145 IU at birth + PDV 5 microgram at birth and RV-1 at 2 and 6 months.
Liu 1987
B: placebo (normal saline) at birth and at 1, 2, and 6 months. B: PDV 5 microgram at 2, 6, and 10 weeks.
Lo 1985
Lolekha 2002 Oon 1986
B: RV 5 microgram at birth and at 1, 2, and 12 months. B: PDV 5 microgram at birth and at 1 and 2 months. D: HBIG 100 IU and PDV 5 microgram at birth and PDV 5 microgram at 1 and 2 months. B:PDV 5 microgram and HBIG 50 IU at birth and PDV at 2 months. B: 100 IU HBIG-2 at birth + 10 microgram PDV2 at birth and at 1 and 6 months. B:PDV 2 microgram and HBIG 100 IU at birth + PDV at 1, 2, and 12 months. B: PDV 10 microgram and HBIG 100 IU at birth and PDV at 1, 2, and 12 months. B: RV 10 microgram at birth and at 1 and 6 months. A booster was administered at 60 months.
114
Piazza 1985 Pongpipat 1986 Pongpipat 1988 Pongpipat 1989 Poovorawan 1997

Trial
(Continued )
Control group
Intervention group administered at 60 months.
Sehgal 1992
A: HBIG 0.5 ml and PDV 10 microgram at birth, and PDV at 4 and 8 weeks. A: HBIG 200 IU and PDV 10 microgram at birth and PDV 10 microgram at 1 and 6 months. A: HBIG 200 IU at birth and PDV 5 microgram at the age of 2 days, 1, 2, and 12 months. A: 16 microgram PDV-1 at birth and at 1 and 6 months. C: HBIG 250 IU at birth and 20 microgram PDV2 at birth and at 1 and 6 months. A: HBsAg(+)/ HBeAg(+) mothers (150 infants): HBIG 0.5 ml at birth and PDV 10 microgram at birth and at 1 and 6 months. C: HBsAg(+)/ HBeAg() mothers (150 infants). HBIG 0.5 ml at birth and PDV 10 microgram at birth and at 1 and 6 months. A: 16 microgram vaccine given at birth, 1 and 6 months. A: RV 20 microgram at birth and at 1 and 6 months.
B: PDV 10 microgram at birth and at 4 and 8 weeks.
Theppisai 1987
B: PDV 10 microgram at birth and at 1 and 6 months.
Theppisai 1990
B: HBIG 200 IU at birth and PDV 2 microgram at the age of 2 days, 1, 2, and 12 months. B: 20 microgram PDV-2 at birth and at 1 and 6 months. D: vaccine diluent plus adjuvant at birth and at 1 and 6 months. B: HBsAg(+)/ HBeAg(+) mothers (150 infants): HBIG 0.5 ml at birth and RV 5 microgram at birth and at 1 and 6 months. D: HBsAg(+)/ HBeAg(-) mothers (150 infants). HBIG 0.5 ml at birth and RV 5 microgram at birth and at 1 and 6 months. B: buffer of HBV given at birth, 1 and 6 months
Xu 1995
Yeoh 1986
Zhu 1987
Zhu 1994
B: PDV 20 microgram at birth and at 1 and 6 months.
* HBeAg-positive mothers in A to E groups. HBeAg-negative mothers in F and G group.
ANALYSES
Comparison 01. Vaccine versus placebo or no intervention

No. of studies 5 5 No. of participants 403 403
Outcome title 01 Hepatitis B events according to type of vaccine 02 Hepatitis B events according to methodological quality 03 Hepatitis B events - Sensitivity analyses 04 Hepatitis B events according to the mothers HBeAg status 05 Hepatitis B events according to rst time of vaccine administration
Statistical method Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI
Effect size 0.28 [0.20, 0.40] 0.28 [0.20, 0.40] Subtotals only 0.29 [0.20, 0.41] 0.28 [0.20, 0.40]
7 5
403 403
Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI
115
Comparison 02. RV versus PDV

Outcome title 01 Hepatitis B events 02 Hepatitis B events according to methodological quality 03 Hepatitis B events - sensitivity analyses 04 Hepatitis B events according to the mothers HBeAg status 05 Anti-HBs less than 10 IU/L
5 4
382 256
Comparison 03. High-dose versus low-dose vaccine

Outcome title 01 Hepatitis B events 02 Hepatitis B events according to methodological quality 03 Hepatitis B events - sensitivity analyses 04 Hepatitis B events according to the mothers HBeAg status 05 Anti-HBs less than 10 IU/L
5 2
582 166
Comparison 04. Three-dose PDV plus HBIG versus two-dose PDV plus HBIG
Outcome title 01 Hepatitis B events 02 Anti-HBs less than 10 IU/L
Statistical method Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI
Effect size 0.50 [0.05, 5.28] 0.05 [0.00, 0.78]
Comparison 05. PDV at birth versus PDV at one month

No. of studies 1 No. of participants 108
Outcome title 01 Hepatitis B events
Statistical method Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI
Effect size 0.70 [0.18, 2.77]
Comparison 06. One type of PDV versus another type of PDV

No. of studies 1 No. of participants 120
Outcome title 01 Hepatitis B events
Statistical method Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI
Effect size 0.50 [0.22, 1.15]

116
Comparison 07. Four RV vaccinations versus three RV vaccinations

Outcome title 01 Hepatitis B events 02 Anti-HBs level less than 10 IU/L No. of studies 1 1 No. of participants 97 97 Statistical method Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Effect size 1.49 [0.51, 4.37] 0.53 [0.10, 2.77]
Comparison 08. One type of RV versus another type of RV with the same vaccination schedule
Outcome title 01 Hepatitis B events 02 Anti-HBs less than 10 IU/L No. of studies No. of participants Statistical method Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Effect size Subtotals only Subtotals only
Comparison 09. HBIG versus placebo or no intervention

Outcome title 01 Hepatitis B events 02 Hepatitis B events according to methodological quality of the trials 03 Hepatitis B events - sensitivity analyses 04 Hepatitis B events according to the mothers HBeAg status 05 Hepatitis B events according to time of HBIG administration 06 Hepatitis B events according to standard and rapid schedule of vaccines 07 Anti-HBs less than 10 IU/L 08 Anti-HBs level 09 Adverse events No. of studies 14 14 No. of participants 1086 1086 Statistical method Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Effect size 0.52 [0.44, 0.63] 0.52 [0.44, 0.63]
Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI 15 14 9 1086 1086 711 Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI
Subtotals only 0.52 [0.44, 0.63] 0.52 [0.44, 0.63] 0.53 [0.39, 0.74]
4 1
348 136
Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weighted Mean Difference (Fixed) 95% CI Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI
1.55 [0.89, 2.73] Subtotals only 3.47 [0.14, 83.67]
Comparison 10. Multiple HBIG plus PDV versus single HBIG plus PDV
Outcome title 01 Hepatitis B events No. of studies 2 No. of participants 198 Statistical method Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Effect size 0.87 [0.30, 2.47]
Comparison 11. PDV plus HBIG versus placebo or no intervention

Outcome title 01 Hepatitis B events 02 Hepatitis B events according to methodological quality of the trials 03 Hepatitis B events - sensitivity analyses No. of studies 4 4 No. of participants 246 246 Statistical method Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Effect size 0.08 [0.03, 0.17] 0.08 [0.03, 0.17]
Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI
Subtotals only
117
04 Hepatitis B events according to mothers HBeAg status 05 Hepatitis B events according to time of HBIG administration 06 Adverse events
5 4 2
246 246 105
Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI
0.08 [0.04, 0.18] 0.08 [0.03, 0.17] 0.29 [0.07, 1.13]
INDEX TERMS Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) Hepatitis B [immunology; prevention & control]; Hepatitis B Antibodies [ therapeutic use]; Hepatitis B e Antigens [ blood]; Hepatitis B Vaccines [ therapeutic use]; Infant, Newborn; Randomized Controlled Trials MeSH check words Female; Humans
COVER SHEET Title Authors Contribution of author(s) Hepatitis B immunisation for newborn infants of hepatitis B surface antigen-positive mothers Lee C, Gong Y, Brok J, Boxall EH, Gluud C CL developed the search strategy, identied trials, extracted data, carried out the statistical analyses, and drafted parts of the review. YG extracted data, carried out the statistical analyses, drafted parts of the review, and revised the review. YG is the guarantor. JB validated the assessment of methodological quality of the included trials, validated data from six randomly selected trials, drafted parts of the review, and revised the review. EHB has research experience in this topic. She provided trials for this review, validated data extraction, and revised the review. CG coordinated the review, functioned as an adjudicator in cases of disagreement, drafted parts of the review, and revised the review. 2004/2 2006/2 22 February 2006 22 February 2006 Information not supplied by author Information not supplied by author Information not supplied by author 01 February 2004 Information not supplied by author Dr Yan Gong Copenhagen Trial Unit
118
Issue protocol rst published Review rst published Date of most recent amendment Date of most recent SUBSTANTIVE amendment Whats New Date new studies sought but none found Date new studies found but not yet included/excluded Date new studies found and included/excluded Date authors conclusions section amended Contact address
Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, Copenhagen University Hospital Dept. 7102, Blegdamsvej 9 H:S Rigshospitalet Copenhagen DK-2100 DENMARK E-mail: ygong@ctu.rh.dk Tel: +45 3545 7161 Fax: +45 3545 7101 DOI Cochrane Library number Editorial group Editorial group code 10.1002/14651858.CD004790.pub2 CD004790 Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group HM-LIVER GRAPHS AND OTHER TABLES
Analysis 01.01.
Review:
Comparison 01 Vaccine versus placebo or no intervention, Outcome 01 Hepatitis B events according to type of vaccine
Hepatitis B immunisation for newborn infants of hepatitis B surface antigen-positive mothers
Comparison: 01 Vaccine versus placebo or no intervention Outcome: 01 Hepatitis B events according to type of vaccine Study Vaccine n/N 01 PDV versus placebo or no intervention Ip 1989 CD Liu 1987 AB Xu 1995 AD Xu 1995 BD Subtotal (95% CI) 7/35 3/27 7/60 14/60 182 23/34 21/26 12/30 12/30 120 26.2 24.0 17.9 17.9 86.0 0.30 [ 0.15, 0.60 ] 0.14 [ 0.05, 0.41 ] 0.29 [ 0.13, 0.66 ] 0.58 [ 0.31, 1.10 ] 0.31 [ 0.21, 0.45 ] Control n/N Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI
Total events: 31 (Vaccine), 68 (Control) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=6.00 df=3 p=0.11 I?? =50.0% Test for overall effect z=6.03 02 RV versus no intervention Khukhlovich 1996 Subtotal (95% CI) 2/70 70 9/31 31 14.0 14.0 0.10 [ 0.02, 0.43 ] 0.10 [ 0.02, 0.43 ] p<0.00001
Total events: 2 (Vaccine), 9 (Control) Test for heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect z=3.09 Total (95% CI) p=0.002 252 151
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
100.0
0.28 [ 0.20, 0.40 ]
Vaccine better
Control better
(Continued . . . )
119
(. . .
Study Vaccine n/N Total events: 33 (Vaccine), 77 (Control) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=8.74 df=4 p=0.07 I?? =54.2% Test for overall effect z=6.83 p<0.00001 Control n/N Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%)
Continued )
0.01
0.1
10
100
Vaccine better
Control better
Analysis 01.02.
Review:
Comparison 01 Vaccine versus placebo or no intervention, Outcome 02 Hepatitis B events according to methodological quality
Comparison: 01 Vaccine versus placebo or no intervention Outcome: 02 Hepatitis B events according to methodological quality Study Vaccine n/N 01 High-quality trials Ip 1989 CD Liu 1987 AB Subtotal (95% CI) 7/35 3/27 62 23/34 21/26 60 26.2 24.0 50.1 0.30 [ 0.15, 0.60 ] 0.14 [ 0.05, 0.41 ] 0.22 [ 0.12, 0.40 ] Control n/N Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI
Total events: 10 (Vaccine), 44 (Control) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=1.40 df=1 p=0.24 I?? =28.7% Test for overall effect z=5.03 02 Low-quality trials Khukhlovich 1996 Xu 1995 AD Xu 1995 BD Subtotal (95% CI) 2/70 7/60 14/60 190 9/31 12/30 12/30 91 14.0 17.9 17.9 49.9 0.10 [ 0.02, 0.43 ] 0.29 [ 0.13, 0.66 ] 0.58 [ 0.31, 1.10 ] 0.34 [ 0.22, 0.54 ] p<0.00001
Total events: 23 (Vaccine), 33 (Control) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=5.61 df=2 p=0.06 I?? =64.3% Test for overall effect z=4.56 Total (95% CI) p<0.00001 252 151 100.0 0.28 [ 0.20, 0.40 ]
Total events: 33 (Vaccine), 77 (Control) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=8.74 df=4 p=0.07 I?? =54.2% Test for overall effect z=6.83 p<0.00001
0.01
0.1
10
100
Vaccine better
Control better
120
Analysis 01.03.
Review:
Comparison 01 Vaccine versus placebo or no intervention, Outcome 03 Hepatitis B events Sensitivity analyses
Comparison: 01 Vaccine versus placebo or no intervention Outcome: 03 Hepatitis B events - Sensitivity analyses Study Vaccine n/N 01 Available patients course analysis Ip 1989 CD Khukhlovich 1996 Liu 1987 AB Xu 1995 AD Xu 1995 BD Subtotal (95% CI) 7/35 2/70 3/27 2/55 10/56 243 23/34 9/31 21/26 9/27 10/28 146 28.2 15.1 25.9 14.6 16.1 100.0 0.30 [ 0.15, 0.60 ] 0.10 [ 0.02, 0.43 ] 0.14 [ 0.05, 0.41 ] 0.11 [ 0.03, 0.47 ] 0.50 [ 0.24, 1.06 ] 0.23 [ 0.15, 0.35 ] Control n/N Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI
Total events: 24 (Vaccine), 72 (Control) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=7.74 df=4 p=0.10 I?? =48.3% Test for overall effect z=6.94 02 Assuming poor outcome Ip 1989 CD Khukhlovich 1996 Liu 1987 AB Xu 1995 AD Xu 1995 BD Subtotal (95% CI) 7/35 2/70 3/27 7/60 14/60 252 23/34 9/31 21/26 12/30 12/30 151 26.2 14.0 24.0 17.9 17.9 100.0 0.30 [ 0.15, 0.60 ] 0.10 [ 0.02, 0.43 ] 0.14 [ 0.05, 0.41 ] 0.29 [ 0.13, 0.66 ] 0.58 [ 0.31, 1.10 ] 0.28 [ 0.20, 0.40 ] p<0.00001
Total events: 33 (Vaccine), 77 (Control) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=8.74 df=4 p=0.07 I?? =54.2% Test for overall effect z=6.83 03 Assuming good outcome Ip 1989 CD Khukhlovich 1996 Liu 1987 AB Xu 1995 AD Xu 1995 BD Subtotal (95% CI) 7/35 2/70 3/27 2/60 10/60 252 23/34 9/31 21/26 9/30 10/30 151 28.3 15.1 25.9 14.5 16.2 100.0 0.30 [ 0.15, 0.60 ] 0.10 [ 0.02, 0.43 ] 0.14 [ 0.05, 0.41 ] 0.11 [ 0.03, 0.48 ] 0.50 [ 0.23, 1.07 ] 0.23 [ 0.15, 0.35 ] p<0.00001
0.01
0.1
10
100
Vaccine better
Control better
(Continued . . . )
121
(. . .
Study Vaccine n/N 04 Extreme case favouring vaccine Ip 1989 CD Khukhlovich 1996 Liu 1987 AB Xu 1995 AD Xu 1995 BD Subtotal (95% CI) 7/35 2/70 3/27 2/60 10/60 252 23/34 9/31 21/26 12/30 12/30 151 26.2 14.0 24.0 17.9 17.9 100.0 Control n/N Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%)
Continued )
0.30 [ 0.15, 0.60 ] 0.10 [ 0.02, 0.43 ] 0.14 [ 0.05, 0.41 ] 0.08 [ 0.02, 0.35 ] 0.42 [ 0.20, 0.85 ] 0.21 [ 0.14, 0.32 ]
05 Extreme case favouring control Ip 1989 CD Khukhlovich 1996 Liu 1987 AB Xu 1995 AD Xu 1995 BD Subtotal (95% CI) 7/35 2/70 3/27 7/60 14/60 252 23/34 9/31 21/26 9/30 10/30 151 28.3 15.1 25.9 14.5 16.2 100.0 0.30 [ 0.15, 0.60 ] 0.10 [ 0.02, 0.43 ] 0.14 [ 0.05, 0.41 ] 0.39 [ 0.16, 0.94 ] 0.70 [ 0.35, 1.39 ] 0.30 [ 0.21, 0.44 ]
0.01
0.1
10
100
Vaccine better
Control better
122
Analysis 01.04.
Review:
Comparison 01 Vaccine versus placebo or no intervention, Outcome 04 Hepatitis B events according to the mothers HBeAg status
Comparison: 01 Vaccine versus placebo or no intervention Outcome: 04 Hepatitis B events according to the mothers HBeAg status Study Vaccine n/N 01 HBeAg positive Ip 1989 CD Liu 1987 AB Xu 1995 AD Xu 1995 BD Subtotal (95% CI) 7/35 3/27 5/30 9/29 121 23/34 21/26 10/15 11/16 91 26.3 24.1 15.0 16.0 81.4 0.30 [ 0.15, 0.60 ] 0.14 [ 0.05, 0.41 ] 0.25 [ 0.10, 0.60 ] 0.45 [ 0.24, 0.85 ] 0.27 [ 0.18, 0.40 ] Control n/N Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI
Total events: 24 (Vaccine), 65 (Control) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=4.08 df=3 p=0.25 I?? =26.4% Test for overall effect z=6.43 02 HBeAg unknown Khukhlovich 1996 Subtotal (95% CI) 2/70 70 9/31 31 14.1 14.1 0.10 [ 0.02, 0.43 ] 0.10 [ 0.02, 0.43 ] p<0.00001
Total events: 2 (Vaccine), 9 (Control) Test for heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect z=3.09 03 HBeAg negative Xu 1995 AD Xu 1995 BD Subtotal (95% CI) 2/30 5/31 61 1/14 2/15 29 1.5 3.0 4.6 0.93 [ 0.09, 9.45 ] 1.21 [ 0.26, 5.53 ] 1.12 [ 0.31, 3.97 ] p=0.002
Total events: 7 (Vaccine), 3 (Control) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=0.03 df=1 p=0.85 I?? =0.0% Test for overall effect z=0.17 Total (95% CI) p=0.9 252 151 100.0 0.29 [ 0.20, 0.41 ]
0.01
0.1
10
100
Vaccine better
Control better
123
Analysis 01.05.
Review:
Comparison 01 Vaccine versus placebo or no intervention, Outcome 05 Hepatitis B events according to rst time of vaccine administration
Comparison: 01 Vaccine versus placebo or no intervention Outcome: 05 Hepatitis B events according to rst time of vaccine administration Study Vaccine n/N 01 Vaccine administered within 12 hours of birth Ip 1989 CD Khukhlovich 1996 Subtotal (95% CI) 7/35 2/70 105 23/34 9/31 65 26.2 14.0 40.1 0.30 [ 0.15, 0.60 ] 0.10 [ 0.02, 0.43 ] 0.23 [ 0.12, 0.42 ] Control n/N Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI
02 Vaccine administered within 24 hours of birth Xu 1995 AD Xu 1995 BD Subtotal (95% CI) 7/60 14/60 120 12/30 12/30 60 17.9 17.9 35.9 0.29 [ 0.13, 0.66 ] 0.58 [ 0.31, 1.10 ] 0.44 [ 0.27, 0.72 ]
Total events: 21 (Vaccine), 24 (Control) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=1.72 df=1 p=0.19 I?? =42.0% Test for overall effect z=3.26 p=0.001
03 Vaccine administered within 48 hours of birth Liu 1987 AB Subtotal (95% CI) 3/27 27 21/26 26 24.0 24.0 0.14 [ 0.05, 0.41 ] 0.14 [ 0.05, 0.41 ]
Total events: 3 (Vaccine), 21 (Control) Test for heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect z=3.59 Total (95% CI) p=0.0003 252 151 100.0 0.28 [ 0.20, 0.40 ]
0.01
0.1
10
100
Vaccine better
Control better
124
Analysis 02.01.
Review: Comparison: 02 RV versus PDV Outcome: 01 Hepatitis B events Study RV n/N 01 RV versus PDV Halliday 1992 AB Zhu 1994 Subtotal (95% CI) Total events: 30 (RV), 39 (PDV) 13/55 17/54 109
Comparison 02 RV versus PDV, Outcome 01 Hepatitis B events
PDV n/N
Weight (%)
18/55 21/52 107
38.6 45.9 84.5
0.72 [ 0.39, 1.33 ] 0.78 [ 0.47, 1.30 ] 0.75 [ 0.51, 1.12 ]
Test for heterogeneity chi-square=0.04 df=1 p=0.85 I?? =0.0% Test for overall effect z=1.41 p=0.2
02 RV plus HBIG versus PDV plus HBIG Lee 1995 AB Lee 1995 CB Pongpipat 1989 Subtotal (95% CI) Total events: 34 (RV), 5 (PDV) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=0.09 df=2 p=0.96 I?? =0.0% Test for overall effect z=1.90 Total (95% CI) Total events: 64 (RV), 44 (PDV) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=5.67 df=4 p=0.23 I?? =29.4% Test for overall effect z=0.02 p=1 p=0.06 227 155 100.0 1.00 [ 0.70, 1.42 ] 15/51 16/47 3/20 118 2/14 2/14 1/20 48 6.7 6.6 2.1 15.5 2.06 [ 0.53, 7.96 ] 2.38 [ 0.62, 9.13 ] 3.00 [ 0.34, 26.45 ] 2.33 [ 0.97, 5.56 ]
0.01
0.1 RV better
10
100
PDV better
125
Analysis 02.02.
Review:
Comparison 02 RV versus PDV, Outcome 02 Hepatitis B events according to methodological quality
Comparison: 02 RV versus PDV Outcome: 02 Hepatitis B events according to methodological quality Study RV n/N 01 High-quality trials Halliday 1992 AB Subtotal (95% CI) Total events: 13 (RV), 18 (PDV) Test for heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect z=1.05 02 Low-quality trials Lee 1995 AB Lee 1995 CB Pongpipat 1989 Zhu 1994 Subtotal (95% CI) Total events: 51 (RV), 26 (PDV) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=4.87 df=3 p=0.18 I?? =38.4% Test for overall effect z=0.70 Total (95% CI) Total events: 64 (RV), 44 (PDV) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=5.67 df=4 p=0.23 I?? =29.4% Test for overall effect z=0.02 p=1 p=0.5 227 155 100.0 1.00 [ 0.70, 1.42 ] 15/51 16/47 3/20 17/54 172 2/14 2/14 1/20 21/52 100 6.7 6.6 2.1 45.9 61.4 2.06 [ 0.53, 7.96 ] 2.38 [ 0.62, 9.13 ] 3.00 [ 0.34, 26.45 ] 0.78 [ 0.47, 1.30 ] 1.17 [ 0.75, 1.82 ] p=0.3 13/55 55 18/55 55 38.6 38.6 0.72 [ 0.39, 1.33 ] 0.72 [ 0.39, 1.33 ] PDV n/N Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI
0.01
0.1 RV better
10
100
PDV better
126
Analysis 02.03.
Review:
Comparison 02 RV versus PDV, Outcome 03 Hepatitis B events - sensitivity analyses
Comparison: 02 RV versus PDV Outcome: 03 Hepatitis B events - sensitivity analyses Study RV n/N 01 Available patients course analysis Halliday 1992 AB Lee 1995 AB Lee 1995 CB Pongpipat 1989 Zhu 1994 Subtotal (95% CI) Total events: 17 (RV), 26 (PDV) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=2.20 df=4 p=0.70 I?? =0.0% Test for overall effect z=2.13 02 Assuming poor outcome Halliday 1992 AB Lee 1995 AB Lee 1995 CB Pongpipat 1989 Zhu 1994 Subtotal (95% CI) Total events: 64 (RV), 44 (PDV) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=5.67 df=4 p=0.23 I?? =29.4% Test for overall effect z=0.02 03 Assuming good outcome Halliday 1992 AB Lee 1995 AB Lee 1995 CB Pongpipat 1989 Zhu 1994 Subtotal (95% CI) Total events: 17 (RV), 26 (PDV) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=2.60 df=4 p=0.63 I?? =0.0% Test for overall effect z=2.34 p=0.02 4/55 2/51 3/47 2/20 6/54 227 12/55 2/14 2/14 1/20 9/52 155 42.3 11.1 10.9 3.5 32.3 100.0 0.33 [ 0.11, 0.97 ] 0.27 [ 0.04, 1.78 ] 0.45 [ 0.08, 2.41 ] 2.00 [ 0.20, 20.33 ] 0.64 [ 0.25, 1.68 ] 0.50 [ 0.28, 0.89 ] p=1 13/55 15/51 16/47 3/20 17/54 227 18/55 2/14 2/14 1/20 21/52 155 38.6 6.7 6.6 2.1 45.9 100.0 0.72 [ 0.39, 1.33 ] 2.06 [ 0.53, 7.96 ] 2.38 [ 0.62, 9.13 ] 3.00 [ 0.34, 26.45 ] 0.78 [ 0.47, 1.30 ] 1.00 [ 0.70, 1.42 ] p=0.03 4/46 2/38 3/34 2/19 6/43 180 12/49 2/14 2/14 1/20 9/40 137 42.0 10.6 10.2 3.5 33.7 100.0 0.36 [ 0.12, 1.02 ] 0.37 [ 0.06, 2.37 ] 0.62 [ 0.12, 3.31 ] 2.11 [ 0.21, 21.36 ] 0.62 [ 0.24, 1.59 ] 0.53 [ 0.30, 0.95 ] PDV n/N Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI
0.01
0.1 RV better
10
100
PDV better
(Continued . . . )
127
(. . .
Study RV n/N 04 Extreme case favouring RV Halliday 1992 AB Lee 1995 AB Lee 1995 CB Pongpipat 1989 Zhu 1994 Subtotal (95% CI) Total events: 17 (RV), 44 (PDV) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=3.17 df=4 p=0.53 I?? =0.0% Test for overall effect z=4.33 p=0.00001 4/55 2/51 3/47 2/20 6/54 227 18/55 2/14 2/14 1/20 21/52 155 38.6 6.7 6.6 2.1 45.9 100.0 PDV n/N Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%)
Continued )
0.22 [ 0.08, 0.61 ] 0.27 [ 0.04, 1.78 ] 0.45 [ 0.08, 2.41 ] 2.00 [ 0.20, 20.33 ] 0.28 [ 0.12, 0.63 ] 0.30 [ 0.18, 0.52 ]
05 Extreme case favouring PDV Halliday 1992 AB Lee 1995 AB Lee 1995 CB Pongpipat 1989 Zhu 1994 Subtotal (95% CI) Total events: 64 (RV), 26 (PDV) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=2.17 df=4 p=0.70 I?? =0.0% Test for overall effect z=2.25 p=0.02 13/55 15/51 16/47 3/20 17/54 227 12/55 2/14 2/14 1/20 9/52 155 42.3 11.1 10.9 3.5 32.3 100.0 1.08 [ 0.54, 2.16 ] 2.06 [ 0.53, 7.96 ] 2.38 [ 0.62, 9.13 ] 3.00 [ 0.34, 26.45 ] 1.82 [ 0.89, 3.71 ] 1.64 [ 1.07, 2.52 ]
0.01
0.1 RV better
10
100
PDV better
128
Analysis 02.04.
Review:
Comparison 02 RV versus PDV, Outcome 04 Hepatitis B events according to the mothers HBeAg status
Comparison: 02 RV versus PDV Outcome: 04 Hepatitis B events according to the mothers HBeAg status Study RV n/N 01 HBeAg positive Lee 1995 AB Lee 1995 CB Pongpipat 1989 Zhu 1994 Subtotal (95% CI) Total events: 51 (RV), 26 (PDV) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=4.87 df=3 p=0.18 I?? =38.4% Test for overall effect z=0.70 02 HBeAg unknown Halliday 1992 AB Subtotal (95% CI) Total events: 13 (RV), 18 (PDV) Test for heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect z=1.05 03 HBeAg negative Subtotal (95% CI) Total events: 0 (RV), 0 (PDV) Test for heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable Total (95% CI) Total events: 64 (RV), 44 (PDV) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=5.67 df=4 p=0.23 I?? =29.4% Test for overall effect z=0.02 p=1 227 155 100.0 1.00 [ 0.70, 1.42 ] 0 0 0.0 Not estimable p=0.3 13/55 55 18/55 55 38.6 38.6 0.72 [ 0.39, 1.33 ] 0.72 [ 0.39, 1.33 ] p=0.5 15/51 16/47 3/20 17/54 172 2/14 2/14 1/20 21/52 100 6.7 6.6 2.1 45.9 61.4 2.06 [ 0.53, 7.96 ] 2.38 [ 0.62, 9.13 ] 3.00 [ 0.34, 26.45 ] 0.78 [ 0.47, 1.30 ] 1.17 [ 0.75, 1.82 ] PDV n/N Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI
0.01
0.1 RV better
10
100
PDV better
129
Analysis 02.05.
Review: Comparison: 02 RV versus PDV
Comparison 02 RV versus PDV, Outcome 05 Anti-HBs less than 10 IU/L
Outcome: 05 Anti-HBs less than 10 IU/L Study RV n/N Halliday 1992 AB x Kuru 1995 AC Kuru 1995 BC Zhu 1994 Total (95% CI) Total events: 25 (RV), 50 (PDV) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=1.17 df=2 p=0.56 I?? =0.0% Test for overall effect z=3.81 p=0.0001 6/46 0/5 0/6 19/43 100 PDV n/N 16/49 0/25 1/42 33/40 156 Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) 30.9 0.0 0.8 68.2 100.0 Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI 0.40 [ 0.17, 0.93 ] Not estimable 2.05 [ 0.09, 45.42 ] 0.54 [ 0.37, 0.77 ] 0.51 [ 0.36, 0.72 ]
0.01
0.1 RV better
10
100
PDV better
Analysis 03.01.
Review:
Comparison 03 High-dose versus low-dose vaccine, Outcome 01 Hepatitis B events
Comparison: 03 High-dose versus low-dose vaccine Outcome: 01 Hepatitis B events Study High dose n/N 01 High-dose PDV versus low-dose PDV x Oon 1986 AB Subtotal (95% CI) 0/141 141 0/102 102 0.0 0.0 Not estimable Not estimable Low dose n/N Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI
Total events: 0 (High dose), 0 (Low dose) Test for heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable 02 High-dose PDV plus HBIG versus low-dose PDV plus HBIG Oon 1986 CD Pongpipat 1988 Theppisai 1990 Subtotal (95% CI) 10/70 3/20 8/30 120 10/59 6/20 4/30 109 36.4 20.1 13.4 69.9 0.84 [ 0.38, 1.89 ] 0.50 [ 0.14, 1.73 ] 2.00 [ 0.67, 5.94 ] 0.97 [ 0.55, 1.68 ]
Total events: 21 (High dose), 20 (Low dose) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=2.91 df=2 p=0.23 I?? =31.3% Test for overall effect z=0.12 p=0.9
0.01
0.1
10
100
High dose better
Low dose better
(Continued . . . )
130
(. . .
Study High dose Low dose Relative
Continued )
(. . .
Study High-dose vaccine n/N Total events: 28 (High-dose vaccine), 29 (Low-dose vaccine) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=3.06 df=3 p=0.38 I?? =1.8% Test for overall effect z=0.39 p=0.7 Low-dose vaccine n/N Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%)
Continued )
0.01
0.1
10
100
High dose better
Low dose better
Analysis 03.03.
Review:
Comparison 03 High-dose versus low-dose vaccine, Outcome 03 Hepatitis B events sensitivity analyses
Comparison: 03 High-dose versus low-dose vaccine Outcome: 03 Hepatitis B events - sensitivity analyses Study High-dose vaccine n/N 01 Available patients course analysis Halliday 1992 DC x Oon 1986 AB Oon 1986 CD Pongpipat 1988 Theppisai 1990 Subtotal (95% CI) 2/50 0/141 10/70 1/18 2/24 303 3/49 0/102 10/59 1/15 2/28 253 18.0 0.0 64.5 6.5 11.0 100.0 0.65 [ 0.11, 3.74 ] Not estimable 0.84 [ 0.38, 1.89 ] 0.83 [ 0.06, 12.22 ] 1.17 [ 0.18, 7.67 ] 0.84 [ 0.44, 1.63 ] Low-dose vaccine n/N Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI
Total events: 15 (High-dose vaccine), 16 (Low-dose vaccine) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=0.20 df=3 p=0.98 I?? =0.0% Test for overall effect z=0.51 02 Assuming poor oucome Halliday 1992 DC x Oon 1986 AB Oon 1986 CD Pongpipat 1988 Theppisai 1990 Subtotal (95% CI) 7/55 0/141 10/70 3/20 8/30 316 9/55 0/102 10/59 6/20 4/30 266 30.1 0.0 36.4 20.1 13.4 100.0 0.78 [ 0.31, 1.94 ] Not estimable 0.84 [ 0.38, 1.89 ] 0.50 [ 0.14, 1.73 ] 2.00 [ 0.67, 5.94 ] 0.91 [ 0.57, 1.46 ] p=0.6
Total events: 28 (High-dose vaccine), 29 (Low-dose vaccine) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=3.06 df=3 p=0.38 I?? =1.8% Test for overall effect z=0.39 03 Assuming good outcome p=0.7
0.01
0.1
10
100
High dose better
Low dose better
(Continued . . . )
132
(. . .
Study High-dose vaccine n/N Halliday 1992 DC x Oon 1986 AB Oon 1986 CD Pongpipat 1988 Theppisai 1990 Subtotal (95% CI) 2/55 0/141 10/70 1/20 2/30 316 3/55 0/102 10/59 1/20 2/30 266 Low-dose vaccine n/N Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) 17.8 0.0 64.4 5.9 11.9 100.0
Continued )
Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI 0.67 [ 0.12, 3.84 ] Not estimable 0.84 [ 0.38, 1.89 ] 1.00 [ 0.07, 14.90 ] 1.00 [ 0.15, 6.64 ] 0.84 [ 0.43, 1.63 ]
Total events: 15 (High-dose vaccine), 16 (Low-dose vaccine) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=0.12 df=3 p=0.99 I?? =0.0% Test for overall effect z=0.52 p=0.6
04 Extreme case favouring high-dose vaccine Halliday 1992 DC x Oon 1986 AB Oon 1986 CD Pongpipat 1988 Theppisai 1990 Subtotal (95% CI) 2/55 0/141 10/70 1/20 8/30 316 9/55 0/102 10/59 6/20 2/30 266 32.3 0.0 39.0 21.5 7.2 100.0 0.22 [ 0.05, 0.98 ] Not estimable 0.84 [ 0.38, 1.89 ] 0.17 [ 0.02, 1.26 ] 4.00 [ 0.92, 17.30 ] 0.72 [ 0.42, 1.24 ]
05 Extreme case favouring low-dose vaccine Halliday 1992 DC x Oon 1986 AB Oon 1986 CD Pongpipat 1988 Theppisai 1990 Subtotal (95% CI) 7/55 0/141 10/70 3/20 8/30 316 3/55 0/102 10/59 1/20 4/30 266 15.9 0.0 57.6 5.3 21.2 100.0 2.33 [ 0.64, 8.56 ] Not estimable 0.84 [ 0.38, 1.89 ] 3.00 [ 0.34, 26.45 ] 2.00 [ 0.67, 5.94 ] 1.44 [ 0.84, 2.48 ]
0.01
0.1
10
100
High dose better
Low dose better
133
Analysis 03.04.
Review:
Comparison 03 High-dose versus low-dose vaccine, Outcome 04 Hepatitis B events according to the mothers HBeAg status
Comparison: 03 High-dose versus low-dose vaccine Outcome: 04 Hepatitis B events according to the mothers HBeAg status Study High-dose vaccine n/N 01 HBeAg positive Oon 1986 CD Pongpipat 1988 Theppisai 1990 Subtotal (95% CI) 10/70 3/20 8/30 120 10/59 6/20 4/30 109 36.4 20.1 13.4 69.9 0.84 [ 0.38, 1.89 ] 0.50 [ 0.14, 1.73 ] 2.00 [ 0.67, 5.94 ] 0.97 [ 0.55, 1.68 ] Low-dose vaccine n/N Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI
Total events: 21 (High-dose vaccine), 20 (Low-dose vaccine) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=2.91 df=2 p=0.23 I?? =31.3% Test for overall effect z=0.12 02 HBeAg unknown Halliday 1992 DC Subtotal (95% CI) 7/55 55 9/55 55 30.1 30.1 0.78 [ 0.31, 1.94 ] 0.78 [ 0.31, 1.94 ] p=0.9
Total events: 7 (High-dose vaccine), 9 (Low-dose vaccine) Test for heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect z=0.54 03 HBeAg negative x Oon 1986 AB Subtotal (95% CI) 0/102 102 0/141 141 0.0 0.0 Not estimable Not estimable p=0.6
Total events: 0 (High-dose vaccine), 0 (Low-dose vaccine) Test for heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable Total (95% CI) 277 305 100.0 0.91 [ 0.57, 1.46 ] Total events: 28 (High-dose vaccine), 29 (Low-dose vaccine) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=3.06 df=3 p=0.38 I?? =1.8% Test for overall effect z=0.39 p=0.7
0.01
0.1
10
100
High dose better
Low dose better
134
Analysis 03.05.
Review:
Comparison 03 High-dose versus low-dose vaccine, Outcome 05 Anti-HBs less than 10 IU/L
Comparison: 03 High-dose versus low-dose vaccine Outcome: 05 Anti-HBs less than 10 IU/L Study High-dose vaccine n/N 01 High dose PDV versus low dose PDV Kuru 1995 AB Subtotal (95% CI) 1/42 42 0/25 25 1.6 1.6 1.81 [ 0.08, 42.90 ] 1.81 [ 0.08, 42.90 ] Low-dose vaccine n/N Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI
Total events: 1 (High-dose vaccine), 0 (Low-dose vaccine) Test for heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect z=0.37 p=0.7
02 High dose RV versus low dose RV Halliday 1992 DC Subtotal (95% CI) 39/50 50 38/49 49 98.4 98.4 1.01 [ 0.81, 1.24 ] 1.01 [ 0.81, 1.24 ]
Total events: 39 (High-dose vaccine), 38 (Low-dose vaccine) Test for heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect z=0.05 Total (95% CI) p=1 92 74 100.0 1.02 [ 0.82, 1.27 ]
0.001 0.01 0.1 High dose better
10 100 1000 Low dose better
Analysis 04.01.
Review:
Comparison 04 Three-dose PDV plus HBIG versus two-dose PDV plus HBIG, Outcome 01 Hepatitis B events
Comparison: 04 Three-dose PDV plus HBIG versus two-dose PDV plus HBIG Outcome: 01 Hepatitis B events Study Three doses n/N Piazza 1985 Total (95% CI) 1/37 37 Two doses n/N 2/37 37 Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) 100.0 100.0 Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI 0.50 [ 0.05, 5.28 ] 0.50 [ 0.05, 5.28 ]
Total events: 1 (Three doses), 2 (Two doses) Test for heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect z=0.58 p=0.6
0.01
0.1
10
100
Three doses better
Two doses better
135
Analysis 04.02.
Review:
Comparison 04 Three-dose PDV plus HBIG versus two-dose PDV plus HBIG, Outcome 02 Anti-HBs less than 10 IU/L
Comparison: 04 Three-dose PDV plus HBIG versus two-dose PDV plus HBIG Outcome: 02 Anti-HBs less than 10 IU/L Study Three doses n/N Piazza 1985 Total (95% CI) 0/37 37 Two doses n/N 10/37 37 Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) 100.0 100.0 Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI 0.05 [ 0.00, 0.78 ] 0.05 [ 0.00, 0.78 ]
Total events: 0 (Three doses), 10 (Two doses) Test for heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect z=2.13 p=0.03
0.001 0.01 0.1 Three doses better
10 100 1000 Two doses better
Analysis 05.01.
Review:
Comparison 05 PDV at birth versus PDV at one month, Outcome 01 Hepatitis B events
Comparison: 05 PDV at birth versus PDV at one month Outcome: 01 Hepatitis B events Study At birth n/N Beasley 1983b Total (95% CI) 3/50 50 5/58 58 At one month n/N Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) 100.0 100.0 Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI 0.70 [ 0.18, 2.77 ] 0.70 [ 0.18, 2.77 ]
Total events: 3 (At birth), 5 (At one month) Test for heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect z=0.51 p=0.6
0.01
0.1
10
100
At birth better
One month better
136
Analysis 06.01.
Review:
Comparison 06 One type of PDV versus another type of PDV, Outcome 01 Hepatitis B events
Comparison: 06 One type of PDV versus another type of PDV Outcome: 01 Hepatitis B events Study NIAID n/N 01 NIAID versus BIVS Xu 1995 AB Total (95% CI) 7/60 60 14/60 60 100.0 100.0 0.50 [ 0.22, 1.15 ] 0.50 [ 0.22, 1.15 ] BIVS n/N Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI
Total events: 7 (NIAID), 14 (BIVS) Test for heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect z=1.63 p=0.1
0.01
0.1
10
100
NIAID better
BIVS better
Analysis 07.01.
Review:
Comparison 07 Four RV vaccinations versus three RV vaccinations, Outcome 01 Hepatitis B events
Comparison: 07 Four RV vaccinations versus three RV vaccinations Outcome: 01 Hepatitis B events Study 0-1-2-12 schedule n/N Lolekha 2002 Total (95% CI) 7/47 47 5/50 50 0-1-6 schedule n/N Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) 100.0 100.0 Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI 1.49 [ 0.51, 4.37 ] 1.49 [ 0.51, 4.37 ]
Total events: 7 (0-1-2-12 schedule), 5 (0-1-6 schedule) Test for heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect z=0.73 p=0.5
0.01
0.1
10
100
0-1-2-12 better
0-1-6 better
137
Analysis 07.02.
Review:
Comparison 07 Four RV vaccinations versus three RV vaccinations, Outcome 02 Anti-HBs level less than 10 IU/L
Comparison: 07 Four RV vaccinations versus three RV vaccinations Outcome: 02 Anti-HBs level less than 10 IU/L Study 0-1-2-12 schedule n/N Lolekha 2002 Total (95% CI) 2/47 47 4/50 50 0-1-6 schedule n/N Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) 100.0 100.0 Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI 0.53 [ 0.10, 2.77 ] 0.53 [ 0.10, 2.77 ]
Total events: 2 (0-1-2-12 schedule), 4 (0-1-6 schedule) Test for heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect z=0.75 p=0.5
0.01
0.1
10
100
0-1-2-12 better
0-1-6 better
Analysis 08.01.
Review:
Comparison 08 One type of RV versus another type of RV with the same vaccination schedule, Outcome 01 Hepatitis B events
Comparison: 08 One type of RV versus another type of RV with the same vaccination schedule Outcome: 01 Hepatitis B events Study RV1 n/N RV2 n/N Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI
01 Hepavax-Gene plus HBIG versus Engerix-B plus HBIG Hieu 2002 Subtotal (95% CI) Total events: 1 (RV1), 2 (RV2) Test for heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect z=0.59 p=0.6 1/53 53 2/52 52 100.0 100.0 0.49 [ 0.05, 5.25 ] 0.49 [ 0.05, 5.25 ]
02 HB VAX II plus HBIG versus Engerix-B plus HBIG Lee 1995 CA Lee 1995 DE Subtotal (95% CI) Total events: 6 (RV1), 6 (RV2) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=0.53 df=1 p=0.47 I?? =0.0% Test for overall effect z=0.05 p=1 3/34 3/36 70 2/38 4/35 73 31.8 68.2 100.0 1.68 [ 0.30, 9.44 ] 0.73 [ 0.18, 3.03 ] 1.03 [ 0.35, 3.02 ]
03 RV1 (Beijing, China) versus RV2 (Institute of Preventive Medicine, China ) Kang 1995 Subtotal (95% CI) Total events: 9 (RV1), 5 (RV2) Test for heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect z=0.50 p=0.6 9/57 57 5/41 41 100.0 100.0 1.29 [ 0.47, 3.58 ] 1.29 [ 0.47, 3.58 ]
0.01
0.1
10 RV2 better
100
RV1 better
Analysis 08.02.
Review:
Comparison 08 One type of RV versus another type of RV with the same vaccination schedule, Outcome 02 Anti-HBs less than 10 IU/L
Comparison: 08 One type of RV versus another type of RV with the same vaccination schedule Outcome: 02 Anti-HBs less than 10 IU/L Study RV n/N 01 Hepavax-Gene versus Engerix-B Hieu 2002 Subtotal (95% CI) 4/53 53 5/52 52 100.0 100.0 0.78 [ 0.22, 2.76 ] 0.78 [ 0.22, 2.76 ] Engerix-B n/N Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI
Total events: 4 (RV), 5 (Engerix-B) Test for heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect z=0.38 02 Cuban versus Engerix-B Garcia 1992 Subtotal (95% CI) 0/54 54 1/24 24 100.0 100.0 0.15 [ 0.01, 3.59 ] 0.15 [ 0.01, 3.59 ] p=0.7
Total events: 0 (RV), 1 (Engerix-B) Test for heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect z=1.17 p=0.2
0.001 0.01 0.1 RV better
10 100 1000 Engerix-B better
Analysis 09.01.
Review:
Comparison 09 HBIG versus placebo or no intervention, Outcome 01 Hepatitis B events
Comparison: 09 HBIG versus placebo or no intervention Outcome: 01 Hepatitis B events Study HBIG n/N 01 HBIG versus placebo or no intervention Beasley 1983a AB Beasley 1983a CB Subtotal (95% CI) Total events: 66 (HBIG), 68 (Control) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=7.81 df=1 p=0.005 I?? =87.2% Test for overall effect z=7.17 02 HBIG plus PDV versus PDV Farmer 1987 Ip 1989 AC 3/21 5/60 4/18 7/32
0.001 0.01 0.1 HBIG better 1 10 100 1000 Control better
Control n/N
Weight (%)
45/76 21/63 139
34/36 34/37 73
24.3 22.6 46.9
0.63 [ 0.51, 0.77 ] 0.36 [ 0.25, 0.52 ] 0.50 [ 0.41, 0.60 ]
p<0.00001
2.3 4.8
0.64 [ 0.17, 2.50 ] 0.38 [ 0.13, 1.10 ]
(Continued . . . )
139
(. . .
Study HBIG n/N Ip 1989 BC Liu 1987 CA Lo 1985 AB Lo 1985 CB Sehgal 1992 Theppisai 1987 Xu 1995 CB Subtotal (95% CI) Total events: 33 (HBIG), 51 (Control) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=5.97 df=8 p=0.65 I?? =0.0% Test for overall effect z=3.38 03 HBIG plus RV versus RV Assateerawatt 1993 Halliday 1992 CA Poovorawan 1997 Subtotal (95% CI) Total events: 28 (HBIG), 46 (Control) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=0.35 df=2 p=0.84 I?? =0.0% Test for overall effect z=2.35 Total (95% CI) p=0.02 615 471 100.0 6/30 7/55 15/63 148 11/30 13/55 22/64 149 5.8 6.8 11.5 24.1 p=0.0007 9/64 0/27 4/36 2/38 6/27 2/27 2/28 328 Control n/N 8/32 3/27 4/19 5/19 4/24 2/18 14/60 249 Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) 5.6 1.8 2.8 3.5 2.2 1.3 4.7 29.0
Continued )
Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI 0.56 [ 0.24, 1.32 ] 0.14 [ 0.01, 2.64 ] 0.53 [ 0.15, 1.88 ] 0.20 [ 0.04, 0.94 ] 1.33 [ 0.43, 4.17 ] 0.67 [ 0.10, 4.31 ] 0.31 [ 0.07, 1.26 ] 0.49 [ 0.32, 0.74 ]
0.55 [ 0.23, 1.28 ] 0.54 [ 0.23, 1.25 ] 0.69 [ 0.40, 1.21 ] 0.61 [ 0.41, 0.92 ]
0.52 [ 0.44, 0.63 ]
Total events: 127 (HBIG), 165 (Control) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=13.88 df=13 p=0.38 I?? =6.3% Test for overall effect z=7.03 p<0.00001
0.001 0.01 0.1 HBIG better
10 100 1000 Control better
140
Analysis 09.02.
Review:
Comparison 09 HBIG versus placebo or no intervention, Outcome 02 Hepatitis B events according to methodological quality of the trials
Comparison: 09 HBIG versus placebo or no intervention Outcome: 02 Hepatitis B events according to methodological quality of the trials Study HBIG n/N 01 High-quality trials Halliday 1992 CA Liu 1987 CA Subtotal (95% CI) Total events: 7 (HBIG), 16 (Control) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=0.76 df=1 p=0.38 I?? =0.0% Test for overall effect z=1.93 02 Low-quality trials Assateerawatt 1993 Beasley 1983a AB Beasley 1983a CB Farmer 1987 Ip 1989 AC Ip 1989 BC Lo 1985 AB Lo 1985 CB Poovorawan 1997 Sehgal 1992 Theppisai 1987 Xu 1995 CB Subtotal (95% CI) 6/30 45/76 21/63 3/21 5/60 9/64 4/36 2/38 15/63 6/27 2/27 2/28 533 11/30 34/36 34/37 4/18 7/32 8/32 4/19 5/19 22/64 4/24 2/18 14/60 389 5.8 24.3 22.6 2.3 4.8 5.6 2.8 3.5 11.5 2.2 1.3 4.7 91.3 0.55 [ 0.23, 1.28 ] 0.63 [ 0.51, 0.77 ] 0.36 [ 0.25, 0.52 ] 0.64 [ 0.17, 2.50 ] 0.38 [ 0.13, 1.10 ] 0.56 [ 0.24, 1.32 ] 0.53 [ 0.15, 1.88 ] 0.20 [ 0.04, 0.94 ] 0.69 [ 0.40, 1.21 ] 1.33 [ 0.43, 4.17 ] 0.67 [ 0.10, 4.31 ] 0.31 [ 0.07, 1.26 ] 0.53 [ 0.44, 0.64 ] p=0.05 7/55 0/27 82 13/55 3/27 82 6.8 1.8 8.7 0.54 [ 0.23, 1.25 ] 0.14 [ 0.01, 2.64 ] 0.45 [ 0.20, 1.01 ] Control n/N Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI
Total events: 120 (HBIG), 149 (Control) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=12.89 df=11 p=0.30 I?? =14.7% Test for overall effect z=6.79 Total (95% CI) p<0.00001 615 471 100.0 0.52 [ 0.44, 0.63 ]
0.001 0.01 0.1 HBIG better
141
Analysis 09.03.
Review:
Comparison 09 HBIG versus placebo or no intervention, Outcome 03 Hepatitis B events sensitivity analyses
Comparison: 09 HBIG versus placebo or no intervention Outcome: 03 Hepatitis B events - sensitivity analyses Study HBIG n/N 01 Available patients course analysis Assateerawatt 1993 Beasley 1983a AB Beasley 1983a CB Farmer 1987 Halliday 1992 CA Ip 1989 AC Ip 1989 BC Liu 1987 CA Lo 1985 AB Poovorawan 1997 Sehgal 1992 Theppisai 1987 Xu 1995 CB Subtotal (95% CI) 1/25 36/67 15/57 3/21 2/50 5/60 9/64 0/27 4/36 0/48 3/24 0/25 1/27 531 3/22 28/30 28/31 4/18 4/46 7/32 8/32 3/27 4/19 3/45 1/21 2/18 10/56 397 2.5 29.9 28.1 3.3 3.2 7.1 8.3 2.7 4.1 2.8 0.8 2.2 5.0 100.0 0.29 [ 0.03, 2.62 ] 0.58 [ 0.45, 0.73 ] 0.29 [ 0.19, 0.46 ] 0.64 [ 0.17, 2.50 ] 0.46 [ 0.09, 2.39 ] 0.38 [ 0.13, 1.10 ] 0.56 [ 0.24, 1.32 ] 0.14 [ 0.01, 2.64 ] 0.53 [ 0.15, 1.88 ] 0.13 [ 0.01, 2.53 ] 2.63 [ 0.29, 23.36 ] 0.15 [ 0.01, 2.87 ] 0.21 [ 0.03, 1.54 ] 0.44 [ 0.35, 0.55 ] Control n/N Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI
Total events: 79 (HBIG), 105 (Control) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=13.95 df=12 p=0.30 I?? =14.0% Test for overall effect z=7.11 02 Assuming poor outcome Assateerawatt 1993 Beasley 1983a AB Beasley 1983a CB Farmer 1987 Halliday 1992 CA Ip 1989 AC Ip 1989 BC Liu 1987 CA Lo 1985 AB 6/30 45/76 21/63 3/21 7/55 5/60 9/64 0/27 4/36 11/30 34/36 34/37 4/18 13/55 7/32 8/32 3/27 4/19
p<0.00001
5.8 24.3 22.6 2.3 6.8 4.8 5.6 1.8 2.8
0.55 [ 0.23, 1.28 ] 0.63 [ 0.51, 0.77 ] 0.36 [ 0.25, 0.52 ] 0.64 [ 0.17, 2.50 ] 0.54 [ 0.23, 1.25 ] 0.38 [ 0.13, 1.10 ] 0.56 [ 0.24, 1.32 ] 0.14 [ 0.01, 2.64 ] 0.53 [ 0.15, 1.88 ]
(Continued . . . )
142
(. . .
Study HBIG n/N Lo 1985 CB Poovorawan 1997 Sehgal 1992 Theppisai 1987 Xu 1995 CB Subtotal (95% CI) 2/38 15/63 6/27 2/27 2/28 615 Control n/N 5/19 22/64 4/24 2/18 14/60 471 Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) 3.5 11.5 2.2 1.3 4.7 100.0
Continued )
Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI 0.20 [ 0.04, 0.94 ] 0.69 [ 0.40, 1.21 ] 1.33 [ 0.43, 4.17 ] 0.67 [ 0.10, 4.31 ] 0.31 [ 0.07, 1.26 ] 0.52 [ 0.44, 0.63 ]
Total events: 127 (HBIG), 165 (Control) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=13.88 df=13 p=0.38 I?? =6.3% Test for overall effect z=7.03 03 Assuming good outcome Assateerawatt 1993 Beasley 1983a AB Beasley 1983a CB Farmer 1987 Halliday 1992 CA Ip 1989 AC Ip 1989 BC Liu 1987 CA Lo 1985 AB Lo 1985 CB Poovorawan 1997 Sehgal 1992 Theppisai 1987 Xu 1995 CB Subtotal (95% CI) 1/30 36/76 15/63 3/21 2/55 5/60 9/64 0/27 4/36 2/38 0/63 3/27 0/27 1/28 615 3/30 28/36 28/37 4/18 4/55 7/32 8/32 3/27 4/19 5/19 3/64 1/24 2/18 10/60 471 2.2 28.4 26.4 3.2 3.0 6.8 8.0 2.6 3.9 5.0 2.6 0.8 2.2 4.8 100.0 0.33 [ 0.04, 3.03 ] 0.61 [ 0.45, 0.82 ] 0.31 [ 0.20, 0.51 ] 0.64 [ 0.17, 2.50 ] 0.50 [ 0.10, 2.62 ] 0.38 [ 0.13, 1.10 ] 0.56 [ 0.24, 1.32 ] 0.14 [ 0.01, 2.64 ] 0.53 [ 0.15, 1.88 ] 0.20 [ 0.04, 0.94 ] 0.15 [ 0.01, 2.75 ] 2.67 [ 0.30, 23.96 ] 0.14 [ 0.01, 2.67 ] 0.21 [ 0.03, 1.59 ] 0.44 [ 0.35, 0.56 ] p<0.00001
04 Extreme case favouring HBIG Assateerawatt 1993 Beasley 1983a AB Beasley 1983a CB Farmer 1987 Halliday 1992 CA 1/30 36/76 15/63 3/21 2/55 11/30 34/36 34/37 4/18 13/55
5.8 24.5 22.7 2.3 6.9
0.09 [ 0.01, 0.66 ] 0.50 [ 0.39, 0.64 ] 0.26 [ 0.16, 0.41 ] 0.64 [ 0.17, 2.50 ] 0.15 [ 0.04, 0.65 ]
(Continued . . . )
143
(. . .
Study HBIG n/N Ip 1989 AC Ip 1989 BC Liu 1987 CA Lo 1985 AB Lo 1985 CB Poovorawan 1997 Sehgal 1992 Theppisai 1987 Xu 1995 CB Subtotal (95% CI) 5/60 9/64 0/27 4/36 2/38 0/63 3/27 0/27 2/28 615 Control n/N 7/32 8/32 3/27 4/19 5/19 22/64 4/24 2/18 10/60 471 Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) 4.8 5.7 1.9 2.8 3.5 11.9 2.2 1.6 3.4 100.0
Continued )
Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI 0.38 [ 0.13, 1.10 ] 0.56 [ 0.24, 1.32 ] 0.14 [ 0.01, 2.64 ] 0.53 [ 0.15, 1.88 ] 0.20 [ 0.04, 0.94 ] 0.02 [ 0.00, 0.36 ] 0.67 [ 0.17, 2.68 ] 0.14 [ 0.01, 2.67 ] 0.43 [ 0.10, 1.83 ] 0.32 [ 0.26, 0.40 ]
05 Extreme case favouring control Assateerawatt 1993 Beasley 1983a AB Beasley 1983a CB Farmer 1987 Halliday 1992 CA Ip 1989 AC Ip 1989 BC Liu 1987 CA Lo 1985 AB Lo 1985 CB Poovorawan 1997 Sehgal 1992 Theppisai 1987 Xu 1995 CB Subtotal (95% CI) 6/30 45/76 21/63 3/21 7/55 5/60 9/64 0/27 4/36 2/38 15/63 6/27 2/27 1/28 615 3/30 28/36 28/37 4/18 4/55 7/32 8/32 3/27 4/19 5/19 3/64 1/24 2/18 14/60 471 2.2 28.1 26.1 3.2 3.0 6.8 7.9 2.6 3.9 4.9 2.2 0.8 1.8 6.6 100.0 2.00 [ 0.55, 7.27 ] 0.76 [ 0.59, 0.98 ] 0.44 [ 0.30, 0.65 ] 0.64 [ 0.17, 2.50 ] 1.75 [ 0.54, 5.64 ] 0.38 [ 0.13, 1.10 ] 0.56 [ 0.24, 1.32 ] 0.14 [ 0.01, 2.64 ] 0.53 [ 0.15, 1.88 ] 0.20 [ 0.04, 0.94 ] 5.08 [ 1.55, 16.69 ] 5.33 [ 0.69, 41.20 ] 0.67 [ 0.10, 4.31 ] 0.15 [ 0.02, 1.11 ] 0.73 [ 0.59, 0.89 ]
Total events: 126 (HBIG), 114 (Control) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=33.05 df=13 p=0.002 I?? =60.7% Test for overall effect z=3.12 p=0.002
0.001 0.01 0.1 HBIG better
144
Analysis 09.04.
Review:
Comparison 09 HBIG versus placebo or no intervention, Outcome 04 Hepatitis B events according to the mothers HBeAg status
Comparison: 09 HBIG versus placebo or no intervention Outcome: 04 Hepatitis B events according to the mothers HBeAg status Study HBIG n/N 01 HBeAg positive Assateerawatt 1993 Beasley 1983a AB Beasley 1983a CB Farmer 1987 Ip 1989 AC Ip 1989 BC Liu 1987 CA Lo 1985 AB Lo 1985 CB Poovorawan 1997 Theppisai 1987 Xu 1995 CB Subtotal (95% CI) 6/30 45/76 21/63 3/21 5/60 9/64 0/27 4/36 2/38 15/63 2/27 2/17 522 11/30 34/36 34/37 4/18 7/32 8/32 3/27 4/19 5/19 22/64 2/18 9/29 361 5.8 24.2 22.5 2.3 4.8 5.6 1.8 2.7 3.5 11.5 1.3 3.5 89.4 0.55 [ 0.23, 1.28 ] 0.63 [ 0.51, 0.77 ] 0.36 [ 0.25, 0.52 ] 0.64 [ 0.17, 2.50 ] 0.38 [ 0.13, 1.10 ] 0.56 [ 0.24, 1.32 ] 0.14 [ 0.01, 2.64 ] 0.53 [ 0.15, 1.88 ] 0.20 [ 0.04, 0.94 ] 0.69 [ 0.40, 1.21 ] 0.67 [ 0.10, 4.31 ] 0.38 [ 0.09, 1.55 ] 0.51 [ 0.42, 0.61 ] Control n/N Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI
Total events: 114 (HBIG), 143 (Control) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=11.50 df=11 p=0.40 I?? =4.4% Test for overall effect z=7.18 02 HBeAg unknown Halliday 1992 CA Sehgal 1992 Subtotal (95% CI) Total events: 13 (HBIG), 17 (Control) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=1.58 df=1 p=0.21 I?? =36.6% Test for overall effect z=0.92 03 HBeAg negative Xu 1995 CB Subtotal (95% CI) Total events: 0 (HBIG), 5 (Control) Test for heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect z=0.99 p=0.3 0/11 11 5/31 31 1.6 1.6 0.24 [ 0.01, 4.06 ] 0.24 [ 0.01, 4.06 ] p=0.4 7/55 6/27 82 13/55 4/24 79 6.8 2.2 9.0 0.54 [ 0.23, 1.25 ] 1.33 [ 0.43, 4.17 ] 0.73 [ 0.38, 1.42 ] p<0.00001
0.001 0.01 0.1 HBIG better
(Continued . . . )
145
(. . .
Study HBIG n/N Total (95% CI) 615 Control n/N 471 Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) 100.0
Continued )
Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI 0.52 [ 0.44, 0.63 ]
0.001 0.01 0.1 HBIG better
Analysis 09.05.
Review:
Comparison 09 HBIG versus placebo or no intervention, Outcome 05 Hepatitis B events according to time of HBIG administration
Comparison: 09 HBIG versus placebo or no intervention Outcome: 05 Hepatitis B events according to time of HBIG administration Study HBIG n/N 01 HBIG administered within 12 hours of birth Beasley 1983a AB Beasley 1983a CB Halliday 1992 CA Ip 1989 AC Ip 1989 BC Lo 1985 AB Lo 1985 CB Poovorawan 1997 Theppisai 1987 Subtotal (95% CI) 45/76 21/63 7/55 5/60 9/64 4/36 2/38 15/63 2/27 482 34/36 34/37 13/55 7/32 8/32 4/19 5/19 22/64 2/18 312 24.3 22.6 6.8 4.8 5.6 2.8 3.5 11.5 1.3 83.2 0.63 [ 0.51, 0.77 ] 0.36 [ 0.25, 0.52 ] 0.54 [ 0.23, 1.25 ] 0.38 [ 0.13, 1.10 ] 0.56 [ 0.24, 1.32 ] 0.53 [ 0.15, 1.88 ] 0.20 [ 0.04, 0.94 ] 0.69 [ 0.40, 1.21 ] 0.67 [ 0.10, 4.31 ] 0.52 [ 0.43, 0.62 ] Control n/N Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI
02 HBIG administered within 24 hours of birth Assateerawatt 1993 Farmer 1987 Sehgal 1992 Xu 1995 CB 6/30 3/21 6/27 2/28 11/30 4/18 4/24 14/60
5.8 2.3 2.2 4.7
0.55 [ 0.23, 1.28 ] 0.64 [ 0.17, 2.50 ] 1.33 [ 0.43, 4.17 ] 0.31 [ 0.07, 1.26 ]
(Continued . . . )
146
(. . .
Study HBIG n/N Subtotal (95% CI) Total events: 17 (HBIG), 33 (Control) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=2.81 df=3 p=0.42 I?? =0.0% Test for overall effect z=1.79 p=0.07 106 Control n/N 132 Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) 15.0
Continued )
Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI 0.60 [ 0.35, 1.05 ]
03 HBIG administered within 48 hours of birth Liu 1987 CA Subtotal (95% CI) Total events: 0 (HBIG), 3 (Control) Test for heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect z=1.31 Total (95% CI) p=0.2 615 471 100.0 0.52 [ 0.44, 0.63 ] 0/27 27 3/27 27 1.8 1.8 0.14 [ 0.01, 2.64 ] 0.14 [ 0.01, 2.64 ]
0.001 0.01 0.1 HBIG better
Analysis 09.06.
Review:
Comparison 09 HBIG versus placebo or no intervention, Outcome 06 Hepatitis B events according to standard and rapid schedule of vaccines
Comparison: 09 HBIG versus placebo or no intervention Outcome: 06 Hepatitis B events according to standard and rapid schedule of vaccines Study HBIG+vaccine n/N 01 Standard schedule (0-1-6 months) Farmer 1987 Halliday 1992 CA Theppisai 1987 Xu 1995 CB Subtotal (95% CI) 3/21 7/55 2/27 2/28 131 4/18 13/55 2/18 14/60 151 5.1 15.3 2.8 10.5 33.8 0.64 [ 0.17, 2.50 ] 0.54 [ 0.23, 1.25 ] 0.67 [ 0.10, 4.31 ] 0.31 [ 0.07, 1.26 ] 0.49 [ 0.27, 0.90 ] Vaccine n/N Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI
Total events: 14 (HBIG+vaccine), 33 (Vaccine) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=0.73 df=3 p=0.87 I?? =0.0% Test for overall effect z=2.29 p=0.02
02 Rapid schedule (0-1-2-6 or 0-1-2-12 months) Assateerawatt 1993 6/30 11/30

13.0
0.55 [ 0.23, 1.28 ]
(Continued . . . )
147
(. . .
Study HBIG+vaccine n/N Ip 1989 AC Ip 1989 BC Liu 1987 CA Poovorawan 1997 Subtotal (95% CI) 5/60 9/64 0/27 15/63 244 Vaccine n/N 7/32 8/32 3/27 22/64 185 Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) 10.8 12.6 4.1 25.8 66.2
Continued )
Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI 0.38 [ 0.13, 1.10 ] 0.56 [ 0.24, 1.32 ] 0.14 [ 0.01, 2.64 ] 0.69 [ 0.40, 1.21 ] 0.55 [ 0.38, 0.81 ]
Total events: 35 (HBIG+vaccine), 51 (Vaccine) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=1.93 df=4 p=0.75 I?? =0.0% Test for overall effect z=3.07 Total (95% CI) p=0.002 375 336 100.0 0.53 [ 0.39, 0.74 ]
Total events: 49 (HBIG+vaccine), 84 (Vaccine) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=2.75 df=8 p=0.95 I?? =0.0% Test for overall effect z=3.83 p=0.0001
0.001 0.01 0.1 HBIG better
Analysis 09.07.
Review:
Comparison 09 HBIG versus placebo or no intervention, Outcome 07 Anti-HBs less than 10 IU/L
Comparison: 09 HBIG versus placebo or no intervention Outcome: 07 Anti-HBs less than 10 IU/L Study HBIG n/N 01 HBIG plus PDV versus PDV Sehgal 1992 Subtotal (95% CI) Total events: 6 (HBIG), 4 (Control) Test for heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect z=0.49 02 HBIG plus RV versus RV Assateerawatt 1993 Halliday 1992 CA Poovorawan 1997 Subtotal (95% CI) Total events: 21 (HBIG), 13 (Control) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=0.20 df=2 p=0.90 I?? =0.0% 1/30 11/55 9/63 148 1/30 6/55 6/64 149 5.8 34.9 34.6 75.4 1.00 [ 0.07, 15.26 ] 1.83 [ 0.73, 4.61 ] 1.52 [ 0.58, 4.03 ] 1.63 [ 0.85, 3.11 ] p=0.6 6/27 27 4/24 24 24.6 24.6 1.33 [ 0.43, 4.17 ] 1.33 [ 0.43, 4.17 ] Control n/N Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI
0.01
0.1
10
100
HBIG better
Control better
(Continued . . . )
148
(. . .
Study HBIG n/N Test for overall effect z=1.47 Total (95% CI) Total events: 27 (HBIG), 17 (Control) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=0.30 df=3 p=0.96 I?? =0.0% Test for overall effect z=1.54 p=0.1 p=0.1 175 173 100.0 Control n/N Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%)
Continued )
1.55 [ 0.89, 2.73 ]
0.01
0.1
10
100
HBIG better
Control better
Analysis 09.08.
Review:
Comparison 09 HBIG versus placebo or no intervention, Outcome 08 Anti-HBs level
Comparison: 09 HBIG versus placebo or no intervention Outcome: 08 Anti-HBs level Study N Poovorawan 1997 Subtotal (95% CI) 45 45 p=0.7 HBIG Mean(SD) 3.64 (1.44) N 48 48 Control Mean(SD) 3.74 (1.43) Weighted Mean Difference (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) 100.0 100.0 Weighted Mean Difference (Fixed) 95% CI -0.10 [ -0.68, 0.48 ] -0.10 [ -0.68, 0.48 ]
Test for heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect z=0.34
-10.0
-5.0
5.0
10.0
HBIG better
Control better
Analysis 09.09.
Review:
Comparison 09 HBIG versus placebo or no intervention, Outcome 09 Adverse events
Comparison: 09 HBIG versus placebo or no intervention Outcome: 09 Adverse events Study HBIG n/N Beasley 1983a CB Total (95% CI) Total events: 1 (HBIG), 0 (Control) Test for heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect z=0.77 p=0.4 1/63 63 Control n/N 0/73 73 Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) 100.0 100.0 Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI 3.47 [ 0.14, 83.67 ] 3.47 [ 0.14, 83.67 ]
0.01
0.1
10
100
HBIG better
Control better
149
Analysis 10.01.
Review:
Comparison 10 Multiple HBIG plus PDV versus single HBIG plus PDV, Outcome 01 Hepatitis B events
Comparison: 10 Multiple HBIG plus PDV versus single HBIG plus PDV Outcome: 01 Hepatitis B events Study Multiple HBIG n/N Ip 1989 AB Lo 1985 CA Total (95% CI) 4/60 2/38 98 Single HBIG n/N 3/64 4/36 100 Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) 41.4 58.6 100.0 Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI 1.42 [ 0.33, 6.09 ] 0.47 [ 0.09, 2.43 ] 0.87 [ 0.30, 2.47 ]
Total events: 6 (Multiple HBIG), 7 (Single HBIG) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=0.97 df=1 p=0.32 I?? =0.0% Test for overall effect z=0.27 p=0.8
0.1 0.2
0.5
10
Mutliple HBIG better
Single HBIG better
Analysis 11.01.
Review:
Comparison 11 PDV plus HBIG versus placebo or no intervention, Outcome 01 Hepatitis B events
Comparison: 11 PDV plus HBIG versus placebo or no intervention Outcome: 01 Hepatitis B events Study PDV + HBIG n/N Ip 1989 AD Ip 1989 BD Liu 1987 CB Xu 1995 CD Total (95% CI) 1/36 2/35 0/27 2/28 126 Control n/N 12/17 11/17 21/26 24/60 120 Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) 23.9 21.7 32.1 22.4 100.0 Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI 0.04 [ 0.01, 0.28 ] 0.09 [ 0.02, 0.35 ] 0.02 [ 0.00, 0.35 ] 0.18 [ 0.05, 0.70 ] 0.08 [ 0.03, 0.17 ]
Total events: 5 (PDV + HBIG), 68 (Control) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=2.73 df=3 p=0.43 I?? =0.0% Test for overall effect z=6.17 p<0.00001
0.001 0.01 0.1 PDV + HBIG better
150
Analysis 11.02.
Review:
Comparison 11 PDV plus HBIG versus placebo or no intervention, Outcome 02 Hepatitis B events according to methodological quality of the trials
Comparison: 11 PDV plus HBIG versus placebo or no intervention Outcome: 02 Hepatitis B events according to methodological quality of the trials Study PDV + HBIG n/N 01 High-quality trials Ip 1989 AD Ip 1989 BD Liu 1987 CB Subtotal (95% CI) 1/36 2/35 0/27 98 12/17 11/17 21/26 60 23.9 21.7 32.1 77.6 0.04 [ 0.01, 0.28 ] 0.09 [ 0.02, 0.35 ] 0.02 [ 0.00, 0.35 ] 0.05 [ 0.02, 0.14 ] Control n/N Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI
Total events: 3 (PDV + HBIG), 44 (Control) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=1.13 df=2 p=0.57 I?? =0.0% Test for overall effect z=5.44 02 Low-quality trials Xu 1995 CD Subtotal (95% CI) 2/28 28 24/60 60 22.4 22.4 0.18 [ 0.05, 0.70 ] 0.18 [ 0.05, 0.70 ] p<0.00001
Total events: 2 (PDV + HBIG), 24 (Control) Test for heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect z=2.46 Total (95% CI) p=0.01 126 120 100.0 0.08 [ 0.03, 0.17 ]
151
Analysis 11.03.
Review:
Comparison 11 PDV plus HBIG versus placebo or no intervention, Outcome 03 Hepatitis B events - sensitivity analyses
Comparison: 11 PDV plus HBIG versus placebo or no intervention Outcome: 03 Hepatitis B events - sensitivity analyses Study PDV + HBIG n/N 01 Available patients course analysis Ip 1989 AD Ip 1989 BD Liu 1987 CB Xu 1995 CD Subtotal (95% CI) 1/36 2/35 0/27 1/27 125 12/17 11/17 21/26 19/55 115 24.9 22.6 33.4 19.1 100.0 0.04 [ 0.01, 0.28 ] 0.09 [ 0.02, 0.35 ] 0.02 [ 0.00, 0.35 ] 0.11 [ 0.02, 0.76 ] 0.06 [ 0.02, 0.15 ] Control n/N Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI
Total events: 4 (PDV + HBIG), 63 (Control) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=1.34 df=3 p=0.72 I?? =0.0% Test for overall effect z=5.89 02 Assuming poor outcome Ip 1989 AD Ip 1989 BD Liu 1987 CB Xu 1995 CD Subtotal (95% CI) 1/36 2/35 0/27 2/28 126 12/17 11/17 21/26 24/60 120 23.9 21.7 32.1 22.4 100.0 0.04 [ 0.01, 0.28 ] 0.09 [ 0.02, 0.35 ] 0.02 [ 0.00, 0.35 ] 0.18 [ 0.05, 0.70 ] 0.08 [ 0.03, 0.17 ] p<0.00001
Total events: 5 (PDV + HBIG), 68 (Control) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=2.73 df=3 p=0.43 I?? =0.0% Test for overall effect z=6.17 03 Assuming good outcome Ip 1989 AD Ip 1989 BD Liu 1987 CB Xu 1995 CD Subtotal (95% CI) 1/36 2/35 0/27 1/28 126 12/17 11/17 21/26 19/60 120 25.0 22.7 33.6 18.6 100.0 0.04 [ 0.01, 0.28 ] 0.09 [ 0.02, 0.35 ] 0.02 [ 0.00, 0.35 ] 0.11 [ 0.02, 0.80 ] 0.06 [ 0.02, 0.15 ] p<0.00001
04 Extreme case favouring PDV plus HBIG Ip 1989 AD Ip 1989 BD 1/36 2/35 12/17 11/17
0.001 0.01 0.1 PDV + HBIG better 1 10 100 1000 Control better
23.9 21.7
0.04 [ 0.01, 0.28 ] 0.09 [ 0.02, 0.35 ]
(Continued . . . )
152
(. . .
Study PDV + HBIG n/N Liu 1987 CB Xu 1995 CD Subtotal (95% CI) 0/27 1/28 126 Control n/N 21/26 24/60 120 Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) 32.1 22.4 100.0
Continued )
Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI 0.02 [ 0.00, 0.35 ] 0.09 [ 0.01, 0.63 ] 0.06 [ 0.02, 0.15 ]
05 Extreme case favouring control Ip 1989 AD Ip 1989 BD Liu 1987 CB Xu 1995 CD Subtotal (95% CI) 1/36 2/35 0/27 2/28 126 12/17 11/17 21/26 19/60 120 25.0 22.7 33.6 18.6 100.0 0.04 [ 0.01, 0.28 ] 0.09 [ 0.02, 0.35 ] 0.02 [ 0.00, 0.35 ] 0.23 [ 0.06, 0.90 ] 0.08 [ 0.04, 0.18 ]
Analysis 11.04.
Review:
Comparison 11 PDV plus HBIG versus placebo or no intervention, Outcome 04 Hepatitis B events according to mothers HBeAg status
Comparison: 11 PDV plus HBIG versus placebo or no intervention Outcome: 04 Hepatitis B events according to mothers HBeAg status Study PDV + HBIG n/N 01 HBeAg positive Ip 1989 AD Ip 1989 BD Liu 1987 CB Xu 1995 CD Subtotal (95% CI) 1/36 2/35 0/27 2/17 115 12/17 11/17 21/26 21/31 91 23.3 21.2 31.3 21.3 97.1 0.04 [ 0.01, 0.28 ] 0.09 [ 0.02, 0.35 ] 0.02 [ 0.00, 0.35 ] 0.17 [ 0.05, 0.65 ] 0.07 [ 0.03, 0.17 ] Control n/N Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI
(Continued . . . )
153
(. . .
Study PDV + HBIG n/N 02 HBeAg unknown Subtotal (95% CI) 0 0 0.0 Control n/N Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%)
Continued )
Not estimable
Total events: 0 (PDV + HBIG), 0 (Control) Test for heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: not applicable 03 HBeAg negative Xu 1995 CD Subtotal (95% CI) 0/11 11 3/29 29 2.9 2.9 0.36 [ 0.02, 6.40 ] 0.36 [ 0.02, 6.40 ]
Analysis 11.05.
Review:
Comparison 11 PDV plus HBIG versus placebo or no intervention, Outcome 05 Hepatitis B events according to time of HBIG administration
Comparison: 11 PDV plus HBIG versus placebo or no intervention Outcome: 05 Hepatitis B events according to time of HBIG administration Study PDV + HBIG n/N 01 HBIG administered within 12 hours of birth Ip 1989 AD Ip 1989 BD Subtotal (95% CI) 1/36 2/35 71 12/17 11/17 34 23.9 21.7 45.6 0.04 [ 0.01, 0.28 ] 0.09 [ 0.02, 0.35 ] 0.06 [ 0.02, 0.19 ] Control n/N Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI
02 HBIG administered within 24 hours of birth Xu 1995 CD Subtotal (95% CI) 2/28 28 24/60 60 22.4 22.4 0.18 [ 0.05, 0.70 ] 0.18 [ 0.05, 0.70 ]
Total events: 2 (PDV + HBIG), 24 (Control)
0.001 0.01 0.1 PDV + HBIG
(Continued . . . )
154
(. . .
Study PDV + HBIG n/N Test for heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect z=2.46 p=0.01 Control n/N Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%)
Continued )
03 HBIG administered within 48 hours of birth Liu 1987 CB Subtotal (95% CI) 0/27 27 21/26 26 32.1 32.1 0.02 [ 0.00, 0.35 ] 0.02 [ 0.00, 0.35 ]
0.001 0.01 0.1 PDV + HBIG
Analysis 11.06.
Review:
Comparison 11 PDV plus HBIG versus placebo or no intervention, Outcome 06 Adverse events
Comparison: 11 PDV plus HBIG versus placebo or no intervention Outcome: 06 Adverse events Study PDV+HBIG n/N Ip 1989 AD Ip 1989 BD Total (95% CI) 1/36 2/35 71 Control n/N 2/17 3/17 34 Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI Weight (%) 40.2 59.8 100.0 Relative Risk (Fixed) 95% CI 0.24 [ 0.02, 2.43 ] 0.32 [ 0.06, 1.76 ] 0.29 [ 0.07, 1.13 ]
Total events: 3 (PDV+HBIG), 5 (Control) Test for heterogeneity chi-square=0.05 df=1 p=0.83 I?? =0.0% Test for overall effect z=1.78 p=0.07
0.01
0.1
10
100
PDV+HBIG better
Control better
155

Hepatitis B Immunisation For

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hepatitis B Immunisation For

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EVIDENCE-BASED CHILD HEALTH: A COCHRANE REVIEW JOURNAL Evid.

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007)

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007)

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007)

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007)

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007)

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007)

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007)

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007)

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007)

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007)

POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST None known.

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007)

References to studies included in this review

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007)

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007)

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007)

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007)

References to studies excluded from this review

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007)

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007)

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007)

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007)

Indicates the major publication for the study

Characteristics of included studies

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007) Characteristics of included studies (Continued )

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007) Characteristics of included studies (Continued )

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007) Characteristics of included studies (Continued )

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007) Characteristics of included studies (Continued )

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007) Characteristics of included studies (Continued )

Allocation concealment Study Methods

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007) Characteristics of included studies (Continued )

A Adequate Hieu 2002

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007) Characteristics of included studies (Continued )

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007) Characteristics of included studies (Continued )

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007) Characteristics of included studies (Continued )

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007) Characteristics of included studies (Continued )

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007) Characteristics of included studies (Continued )

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007) Characteristics of included studies (Continued )

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007) Characteristics of included studies (Continued )

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007) Characteristics of included studies (Continued )

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007) Characteristics of included studies (Continued )

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007) Characteristics of included studies (Continued )

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007) Characteristics of included studies (Continued )

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007) Characteristics of included studies (Continued )

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007) Characteristics of included studies (Continued )

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007) Characteristics of included studies (Continued )

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007) Characteristics of included studies (Continued )

Notes Allocation concealment Study Methods

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007) Characteristics of included studies (Continued )

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007) Characteristics of included studies (Continued )

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007)

Characteristics of excluded studies

Evid.-Based Child Health 2: 67155 (2007) Characteristics of excluded studies (Continued )

Table 01. Search strategies

Until February 2004

Until February 2004

Table 01. Search strategies (Continued )

January 1980 to February 2004

Table 01. Search strategies (Continued )

Table 02. Intervention by group

Garcia 1992 Grosheide 1993

Table 02. Intervention by group

Kang 1995 Khukhlovich 1996 Kuru 1995