Use of anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha therapy in patients with concurrent rheumatoid arthritis and hepatitis B or hepatitis C: a retrospective analysis of 32 patients

What is the benefit of prophylaxis to prevent HBV reactivation in HBsAg-negative anti-HBc-positive patients? Meta-analysis and decision curve analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Patients with overt or occult hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection receiving immunosuppressive treatments have a wide risk of HBV reactivation (HBVr). We performed meta-analysis with decision curve analyses (DCA) to estimate the risk of HBVr in HBsAg-negative anti-HBc-positive patients naïve to nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs) receiving immunosuppressive treatments.

APPROACH AND RESULTS

Studies were identified through literature search until October 2022. Pooled estimates were obtained using random-effects model. Subgroup analyses were performed according to underlying disease and immunosuppressive treatments. DCA was used to identify the threshold probability associated with the net benefit of antiviral prophylaxis in HBsAg-negative anti-HBc-positive patients. We selected 68 studies (40 retrospective and 28 prospective), including 8034 patients with HBsAg negative anti-HBc positive. HBVr was 4% (95% CI 3%-6%) in HBsAg-negative anti-HBc-positive patients, with a significantly high heterogeneity (I2 69%; p < .01). The number-needed-to-treat (NNT) by DCA ranged from 8 to 24 for chemotherapy plus rituximab, from 12 to 24 for targeted therapies in cancer patients and from 13 to 39 for immune-mediated diseases. Net benefit was small for monoclonal antibodies.

CONCLUSIONS

Our DCA in HBsAg-negative anti-HBc-positive patients provided evidence that NA prophylaxis is strongly recommended in patients treated with chemotherapy combined with rituximab and could be appropriate in patients with cancer treated with targeted therapies and in patients with immune-mediated diseases. Finally, in patients with cancer treated with monoclonal antibodies or with chemotherapy without rituximab, the net benefit is even lower.

Risk of hepatitis B reactivation in HBsAg-/HBcAb+ patients after biologic or JAK inhibitor therapy for rheumatoid arthritis: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation after biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) combined with HBsAg-/HBcAb+ is still inconsistent.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of existing databases from 1977 to August 22, 2021. Studies of RA patients combined with HBsAg-/HBcAb +, treated with b/tsDMARDs and the reported number of HBV reactivation were included.

RESULTS

We included 26 studies of 2252 HBsAg-/HBcAb+ RA patients treated with b/tsDMARDs. The pooled HBV reactivation rate was 2.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.01-0.04; I2  = 66%, p < .01). In the subgroup analysis, the HBV reactivation rate of rituximab (RTX), abatacept, and inhibitors of Janus kinase (JAK), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) were 9.0% (95% CI: 0.04-0.15; I2  = 61%, p = .03), 6.0% (95% CI: 0.01-0.13; I2  = 40%, p = .19), 1.0% (95% CI: 0.00-0.03; I2  = 41%, p = .19), 0.0% (95% CI: 0.00-0.02; I2  = 0%, p = .43), 0.0% (95% CI: 0.00-0.01; I2  = 0%, p = .87), respectively. While HBsAb- patients have a significant risk of reactivation (odds ratio [OR] = 4.56, 95% CI = 2.45-8.48; I2  = 7%, p = .37), low HBsAb+ group also display a significant risk of reactivation (OR = 5.45, 95% CI: 1.35-21.94; I2  = 0%, p = .46).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis demonstrates the highest potential risk of HBV reactivation in HBsAg-/HBcAb+ RA patients receiving RTX treatment, especially HBsAb- patients. Our study furthers the understanding of the prophylactic use of anti-HBV drugs in such patients. However, it is relative safety to use the inhibitors of IL-6, TNF-α, and JAK in these patients.

Hepatitis B virus reactivation associated with new classes of immunosuppressants and immunomodulators: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and expert opinion

HBV reactivation (HBVr) can be prevented by nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the risk of HBVr associated with new classes of immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory therapies and developed guidance on NA prophylaxis. An expert panel reviewed the data and categorised the risk of HBVr associated with each class of drugs into low (<1%), intermediate (1-10%), and high (>10%). Our search uncovered 59 studies, including 3,424 HBsAg+ and 5,799 HBsAg-/anti-HBc+ patients, which met our eligibility criteria. Based on medium-high quality evidence, immune checkpoint inhibitors, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, cytokine inhibitors, chimeric antigen receptor T-cell immunotherapies, and corticosteroids were associated with high HBVr risk in HBsAg+ patients; cytokine inhibitors, chimeric antigen receptor T-cell immunotherapies, and corticosteroids with intermediate risk in HBsAg-/anti-HBc+ patients; and anti-tumour necrosis factor agents and immune checkpoint inhibitors with low risk in HBsAg-/anti-HBc+ patients. Provisional recommendations are provided for drugs with low quality evidence. NA prophylaxis is recommended when using drugs associated with a high HBVr risk, while monitoring with on-demand NAs is recommended for low-risk drugs - either approach may be appropriate for intermediate-risk drugs. Consensus on definitions and methods of reporting HBVr, along with inclusion of HBsAg+, and HBsAg-/anti-HBc+ patients in clinical trials, will be key to gathering reliable data on the risk of HBVr associated with immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory therapies.

Meta-analysis: hepatitis B reactivation in patients receiving biological therapy

BACKGROUND

The use of biologics poses a moderate to high risk for hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr) in chronic carriers.

AIM

To determine the prevalence of HBVr with TNF alpha inhibitors, ustekinumab and vedolizumab METHOD: We followed the MOOSE guidelines and conducted a comprehensive literature search. We conducted a systematic search of EMBASE (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid) and PubMed. The studies included patients who were chronic and occult HBV carriers with various rheumatological, dermatological or gastroenterological conditions. We used a random effects model using pooled estimates (prevalence of HBVr with 95% confidence intervals (CI)).

RESULTS

We included 29 studies with 1409 patients infected with HBV. The prevalence of HBVr in chronic carriers of HBV was 17.1% (95% CI: 7.0-35.9, n = 5), 16.6% (95% CI: 9.5-27.5%, n = 6), 40.5% (95% CI: 20.3-64.5%, n = 4) and 19.1% (95% CI: 7.3-41.2%, n = 2), respectively, for adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab and ustekinumab. The respective prevalence for reactivation in patients with occult HBV infection was 5.0% (95% CI: 2.8-8.7%, number of studies: n = 18), 2.6% (95% CI: 1.4-4.7%, n = 18), 4.4% (95% CI: 2.2-8.7%, n = 12) and 6.4% (95% CI: 2.2-16.8, n = 5). There were 39 HBVr (26 in chronic HBV and 13 in the occult group) without any hepatic failure or death. In the chronic HBVr group, only three of 24 patients received antiviral prophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

HBVr prevalence rates differ between the chronic carrier state and the occult carrier state. The uptake of prophylactic antiviral therapy in high-risk groups was low, contrary to clinical practice guidelines.

TNF-alpha inhibitors and ustekinumab for the treatment of psoriasis: therapeutic utility in the era of IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory condition for which eleven FDA-approved biologic therapies are approved. Over the past decade, studies have documented the higher efficacy of IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors for the treatment of psoriasis compared to the TNF-alpha inhibitors and ustekinumab, an IL-12/23 inhibitor. Despite this, there remains an important role for the use of TNF-alpha inhibitors and ustekinumab in the treatment of psoriasis. Here, we review how considerations of infection and malignancy risk, patient demographics, treatment resistance, and co-morbidities may make certain TNF-alpha inhibitors or ustekinumab an excellent choice for therapy in particular patient subgroups.

A Review on Rheumatoid Arthritis Interventions and Current Developments

Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic autoimmune disorder characterized by inflammation, swelling, and joint destruction primarily affecting the peripheral joints. In recent years, RA has become an alarming concern affecting more than 1.5% of the population worldwide. The majority of the drugs in clinical trials for rheumatoid arthritis are immunomodulatory. The development of novel drugs for RA is impending and scientists are exploring new strategies through various innovative approaches for RA drug development. Treat-to-target and window of opportunity hypothesis are the new approaches that are used to treat, improve outcomes, and prevent long-term use of ineffective therapy, respectively. Novel therapeutic agents (e.g. GM-CSF inhibitors, Matrix metalloproteinase inhibitors) and delivery systems (e.g., Liposomes, Superparamagnetic iron oxide nano particles (SPIONs)) are under investigation for more target based therapy with reduced side effects and toxicity. The new drug discovery and repositioning of previously FDA-approved drugs are also being considered for chronic inflammatory disorder. The review encompasses a vast array of information, including genetics, etiology, clinical symptoms, current treatment, and newer therapeutics approaches, focused on the development of RA interventions. The introduction of the bioinformatics-based approach in RA has also been significantly discussed in the review. This review provides a general understanding of the challenges and uncertainties in the treatment of RA and summarizes the evolving scenario as well as innovative approaches taken into consideration for drug development in rheumatoid arthritis.

Infectious Complications of Biological and Small Molecule Targeted Immunomodulatory Therapies

The past 2 decades have seen a revolution in our approach to therapeutic immunosuppression. We have moved from relying on broadly active traditional medications, such as prednisolone or methotrexate, toward more specific agents that often target a single receptor, cytokine, or cell type, using monoclonal antibodies, fusion proteins, or targeted small molecules. This change has transformed the treatment of many conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, cancers, asthma, and inflammatory bowel disease, but along with the benefits have come risks. Contrary to the hope that these more specific agents would have minimal and predictable infectious sequelae, infectious complications have emerged as a major stumbling block for many of these agents. Furthermore, the growing number and complexity of available biologic agents makes it difficult for clinicians to maintain current knowledge, and most review articles focus on a particular target disease or class of agent. In this article, we review the current state of knowledge about infectious complications of biologic and small molecule immunomodulatory agents, aiming to create a single resource relevant to a broad range of clinicians and researchers. For each of 19 classes of agent, we discuss the mechanism of action, the risk and types of infectious complications, and recommendations for prevention of infection.

Managing Psoriasis in Patients with HBV or HCV Infection: Practical Considerations

Considered more efficacious and safer than traditional systemic drugs, biologic therapies have dramatically improved the quality of life of patients with psoriasis. Recently, there has been a proliferation of new targeted treatment options, including anti-interleukin-17, anti-interleukin-12/23, as well as small-molecule drugs such as apremilast. There are nevertheless some concerns regarding their use, especially in patients with chronic infections such as hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV). It has been estimated that two billion individuals are infected with HBV worldwide and approximately 240 million have chronic HBV infection. Moreover, there are approximately 71 million individuals with chronic HCV infection worldwide, with a high percentage of them unaware of being infected. As patients with HBV and HCV infections are excluded from controlled clinical trials investigating new drugs, data regarding their safety in patients with psoriasis are based almost exclusively on case reports and small retrospective cohort studies and need to be constantly updated. The risk of HBV reactivation can be defined as: high risk (≥ 10%), moderate risk (1-10%), and low risk (< 1%) depending on the type of immunosuppressive therapy stratified by the presence or absence of hepatitis B surface antigen but positivity to anti-hepatitis B core antigen. Hepatitis B surface antigen-positive patients treated with tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors, ustekinumab, or cyclosporine carry a high or moderate risk of HBV reactivation and should be considered candidates for prophylactic anti-HBV therapy. Once therapy is commenced, it is important to check HBV DNA levels every 3 months. Hepatitis B virus reactivation typically occurs with immune reconstitution and therefore antiviral therapy should continue for 6-12 months after stopping immunosuppression. Hepatitis B surface antigen-positive patients who are prescribed methotrexate, acitretin, or apremilast have a low risk and need to be monitored for viral reactivation by determining alanine aminotransferase and HBV DNA levels every 3 months. No conclusive data are available for interleukin-17 and interleukin-23 inhibitors. Anti-hepatitis B core antigen-positive patients treated with tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors, ustekinumab, and cyclosporine are linked to a moderate risk of reactivation, and they should preferably undergo HBV DNA or hepatitis B surface antigen and alanine aminotransferase testing rather than be subjected to routine pre-emptive therapy. Anti-hepatitis B core antigen-positive patients receiving methotrexate, acitretin, or apremilast have a low risk of reactivation and do not require anti-HBV therapy, nor should monitoring be considered mandatory. No conclusive data are available for interleukin-17 and interleukin-23 inhibitors.

Challenges in the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis

Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by a heterogeneous clinical response to the different treatments. Some patients are difficult to treat and do not reach the treatment targets as clinical remission or low disease activity. Known negative prognostic factors, such as the presence of auto-antiantibodies and joint erosion, the presence of a genetic profile, comorbidities and extra-articular manifestations, pregnancy or a pregnancy wish may concur to the treatment failure. In this review we aimed at identify difficult to treat RA patients and define the optimal therapeutic and environmental targets. Genetic markers of severity such as HLA-DRB1, TRAF1, PSORS1C1 and microRNA 146a are differently associated with joint damage; other gene polymorphisms seem to be associated with response to biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). The presence of comorbidities and/or extra-articular manifestations may influence the therapeutic choice; overweight and obese patients are less responsive to TNF inhibitors. In this context the patient profiling can improve the clinical outcome. Targeting different pathways, molecules, and cells involved in the pathogenesis of RA may in part justify the lack response of some patients. An overview of the future therapeutic targets, including bDMARDs (inhibitors of IL-6, GM-CSF, matrix metalloproteinases, chemokines) and targeted synthetic DMARDs (filgotinib, ABT-494, pefacitinib, decernotinib), and environmental targets is addressed. Environmental factors, such as diet and cigarette smoke, may influence susceptibility to autoimmune diseases and interfere with inflammatory pathways. Mediterranean diet, low salt intake, cocoa, curcumin, and physical activity seem to show beneficial effects, however studies of dose finding, safety and efficacy in RA need to be performed.

Hepatitis B and C infection in patients undergoing biologic and targeted therapies for rheumatic diseases

Hepatitis B and C are common viral infections that affect more than 430 million population worldwide. In patients with rheumatic diseases, the prevalence of inactive/chronic hepatitis B infection ranges from 0.4% to 38% and that of past/resolved infection is much higher (7.3%-69%). The prevalence of hepatitis C infection in rheumatic disorders is less clear but probably lower than that of hepatitis B (1.7%-4%). With the increasing use of biologic and targeted disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapies, reactivation of past and chronic hepatitis B and C infection is increasingly recognized, with presentation ranging from asymptomatic viremia to serious clinical hepatitis with liver failure. The concomitant use of effective antiviral therapies helps reduce the risk of hepatitis B reactivation and control of active hepatitis C infection. This article summarizes the prevalence and risk factors of hepatitis B and C reactivation in patients with rheumatic diseases undergoing biologic and targeted therapies, as well as the recommendations for screening, monitoring, and treatment of these infections.

Harmful Effects and Potential Benefits of Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF)-α on the Liver

Anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α agents represent an effective treatment for chronic inflammatory diseases. However, some concerns about their potentially undesirable effects on liver function have been reported. On the other hand, evidence of their therapeutic effects on certain liver diseases is accumulating. Many data showed the safety of anti-TNF-α in patients with chronic hepatitis B and C and in liver transplanted patients even if a strict follow-up and prophylaxis are recommended in well-defined subgroups. On the other side, anti-TNF-α-induced liver injury is not a rare event. However, it is often reversible after anti-TNF-α withdrawal. Anti-TNF-α agents have been tested in advanced stages of severe alcoholic hepatitis and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Limited data on the efficacy of anti-TNF-α in patients with autoimmune hepatitis and primary biliary cholangitis are also available. In this review, we explored the hepatic safety concerns in patients receiving anti-TNF-α agents with and without pre-existent hepatic diseases. In addition, the available evidence on their potential benefits in the treatment of specific hepatic diseases is discussed.

Hepatitis B virus reactivation in HBsAg-negative, anti-HBc-positive patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy: a systematic review

Background:

The optimal management of HBsAg-negative, anti-HBc-positive patients who receive immunosuppression remains unclarified. We systematically reviewed the available data on potential predictors of the risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in such patients.

Methods:

A literature search identified 55 studies with 3640 HBsAg-negative, anti-HBc-positive patients who received immunosuppressive regimens.

Results:

HBV reactivation was reported in 236 (6.5%) patients. The pooled HBV reactivation rates did not differ between patients with detectable or undetectable HBV DNA in studies with hematological diseases or regimens containing rituximab, but it was higher in patients with detectable than in those with undetectable HBV DNA who were taking rituximab-free regimens (14% vs. 2.6%; risk ratio [RR] 12.67, 95% CI: 95%CI 2.39-67.04, P=0.003) or had non-hematological diseases, although the latter was not confirmed by sensitivity analysis (RR 8.80, 95%CI 0.71-109.00, P=0.09). The pooled HBV reactivation rates were lower in patients with positive than in those with negative anti-HBs in studies with hematological (7.1% vs. 21.8%; RR 0.29, 95%CI 0.19-0.46, P<0.001) or non-hematological (2.5% vs. 10.7%; RR 0.28, 95%CI 0.11-0.76, P=0.012) diseases, and rituximab-containing (6.6% vs. 19.8%; RR 0.32, 95%CI 0.15-0.69, P=0.003) or rituximab-free (3.3% vs. 9.2%; RR 0.36, 95%CI 0.14-0.96, P=0.042) regimens.

Conclusions:

The risk of HBV reactivation is high; therefore, anti-HBV prophylaxis should be recommended in HBsAg-negative, anti-HBc-positive patients with hematological diseases and/or rituximab-containing regimens, regardless of HBV DNA and anti-HBs status. In contrast, patients with non-hematological diseases or rituximab-free regimens have a low risk of HBV reactivation and may not require anti-HBV prophylaxis if they have undetectable HBV DNA and positive anti-HBs.

Risk of Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation in Patients With Inflammatory Arthritis Receiving Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation rates in patients with resolved or chronic HBV infection, receiving disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and with or without antiviral prophylaxis.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. Electronic searches were conducted in PubMed, Medline, and Embase using Ovid through December 31, 2015. A search strategy was developed for each database using the following inclusion criteria: for participants, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and resolved or chronic HBV infection; for intervention, tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors or non-TNF biologic or nonbiologic DMARDs; and for outcome, HBV reactivation. Four reviewers independently extracted study data and assessed study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. To determine the pooled HBV reactivation rate, the variances of the raw proportions were stabilized using a Freeman-Tukey-type arcsine square root transformation, using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. The overall pooled rate of HBV reactivation was 1.6% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.8-2.6) in patients with resolved HBV. Similar rates were observed in resolved patients taking TNF inhibitors (1.4% [95% CI 0.5-2.6]), non-TNF biologics (6.1% [95% CI 0.0-16.6]), and nonbiologic DMARDs (1.7% [95% CI 0.2-4.2]). We also found that the reactivation rate was lower in patients with chronic HBV infection who received antiviral prophylaxis (9.0% [95% CI 4.1-15.5]) than in those who did not (14.6% [95% CI 4.3-29.0]).

CONCLUSION

We found that the HBV reactivation rate in inflammatory arthritis patients receiving DMARDs was low in resolved patients and moderate in patients with chronic HBV infection. Further, lower rates were observed in patients with chronic HBV infection who were using antiviral prophylaxis.

Antibody Response to Hepatitis B Virus Vaccine is Impaired in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease on Infliximab Therapy

BACKGROUND

Studies have demonstrated an association between anti-TNF/immunomodulator agents used in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and impaired hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccine immunogenicity, but little data exist on whether specific medication types affect protective HBsAb titers. Our aim was to analyze this association.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study. Inclusion criteria: age ≥18, diagnosis of Crohn's disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC), previous HBV vaccination series and/or ≥1 positive HBsAb, and record of IBD therapy in 6 months before titer level. Patients were stratified based upon medication exposures: anti-TNF, immunomodulator, combination anti-TNF and immunomodulatory, and a reference arm. Titer levels following vaccination and specific medication types given in the 6 months before titer were recorded. Seroprotection was defined as HBsAb ≥10 IU/l and ≥100 IU/l.

RESULTS

The study cohort (N = 391) was 70.8% white, 51.4% female and 64.2% had CD and 35.8% had UC. The mean age was 45.8 years. A significantly lower percentage of patients exposed to anti-TNF, immunomodulator or dual therapy had titers ≥10 (P < 0.01). Regarding specific medications, only patients exposed to infliximab (P < 0.01) were less likely to have titer levels ≥10, after controlling for other medication exposures, age at titer level, and interval time between vaccination/titer level. This was not found for patients exposed to adalimumab, methotrexate, 6-mercaptopurine, or azathioprine.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients exposed to infliximab were significantly less likely to have protective HBsAb titer levels following vaccination, a trend not seen in patients on adalimumab. Efforts to vaccinate IBD patients against HBV before use of immunomodulators and anti-TNFs, infliximab specifically, and screen periodically thereafter must be reinforced.

Tuberculosis and viral hepatitis infection in Eastern Europe, Asia, and Latin America: impact of tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors in clinical practice

Tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) inhibitors are increasingly becoming the standard of care for treating a number of inflammatory diseases. However, treatment with TNF-α inhibitors carries an inherent risk of compromising the immune system, resulting in an increased susceptibility to infections and malignancies. This increased risk of infection is of particular concern in Asia, Eastern Europe, and Latin America where tuberculosis (TB) and viral hepatitis are endemic. In this brief review, we examine the literature and review the impact of TNF-α inhibitors on the incidence and the reactivation of latent disease with respect to TB, hepatitis C infection, and hepatitis B infection. Our findings show that TNF-α inhibitors are generally safe, if used with caution. Patients should be screened prior to the initiation of TNF-α inhibitor treatment and given prophylactic treatment if needed. In addition, patients should be monitored during treatment with TNF-α inhibitors and after treatment has stopped to ensure that infections, if detected, are treated promptly and effectively. Our analysis is consistent with other reports and guidelines.

Not all TNF inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis are created equal: important clinical differences

INTRODUCTION

Anti-TNF therapy has dramatically changed how we manage rheumatoid arthritis. There are many similarities among the five approved agents but also some important differences. Rheumatologists have 5 different options to choose from when they are ready to commence anti-TNF therapy. Although all block the TNF cytokine, there are important critical differences among them that affect their safety profile and clinical utility in certain scenarios. Unfortunately, there are no head to head trials to compare the different anti-TNF agents and none appear to be in the horizon. Areas covered: This article reviews the various clinical situations where it may be important to use a particular anti-TNF agent. The authors also give their expert opinion and future perspectives on the area. Expert opinion: Although there are many similarities among the five different TNFi that are clinically available, there are important clinical niches, where the limited data that are available, that clearly support the preferential use of a particular agent or class of agents. Assays or tests that allow us to find the 'sweet spot' of TNF inhibition at the level of each patient are long overdue.

Treatment of Hepatitis C in Patients Undergoing Immunosuppressive Drug Therapy

With 185 million people chronically infected globally, hepatitis C is a leading bloodborne infection. All-oral regimens of direct acting agents have superior efficacy compared to the historical interferon-based regimens and are significantly more tolerable. However, trials of both types of regimens have often excluded patients on immunosuppressive medications for reasons other than organ transplantation. Yet, these patients-most often suffering from malignancy or autoimmune diseases-could stand to benefit from these treatments. In this study, we systematically review the literature on the treatment of hepatitis C in these neglected populations. Research on patients with organ transplants is more robust and this literature is reviewed here non-systematically. Our systematic review produced 2273 unique works, of which 56 met our inclusion criteria and were used in our review. The quality of data was low; only 3 of the 56 studies were randomized controlled trials. Sustained virologic response was reported sporadically. Interferon-containing regimens achieved this end-point at rates comparable to that in immunocompetent individuals. Severe adverse effects and death were rare. Data on all-oral regimens were sparse, but in the most robust study, rates of sustained virologic response were again comparable to immunocompetent individuals (40/41). Efficacy and safety of interferon-containing regimens and all-oral regimens were similar to rates in immunocompetent individuals; however, there were few interventional trials. The large number of case reports and case series makes conclusions vulnerable to publication bias. While firm conclusions are challenging, given the dearth of high-quality studies, our results demonstrate that antiviral therapy can be safe and effective. The advent of all-oral regimens offers patients and clinicians greatly increased chances of cure and fewer side effects. Preliminary data reveal that these regimens may confer such benefits in immunosuppressed individuals as well. More prospective interventional trials would greatly benefit the many patients with chronic hepatitis C on immunosuppressive therapies.

Hepatitis B Reactivation During Immunosuppressive Therapy or Cancer Chemotherapy, Management, and Prevention: A Comprehensive Review-Screened

CONTEXT

Due to the close relationship between the immune system and the hepatitis B virus (HBV) replication, it is essential to monitor patients with current or past HBV infection under any type of immunosuppression. Cancer chemotherapy, immunosuppressive therapies in autoimmune diseases, and immunosuppression in solid organ and stem cell transplant recipients are the major reasons for hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr). In this review, the challenges associated with HBVr are discussed according to the latest studies and guidelines. We also discuss the role of treatments with different risks, including anti-CD20 agents, tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) inhibitors, and other common immunosuppressive agents in various conditions.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Through an electronic search of the PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus databases, we selected the studies associated with HBVr in different conditions. The most recent recommendations were collected in order to reach a consensus on how to manage patients at risk of HBVr.

RESULTS

It was found that the positive hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), the high baseline HBV DNA level, the positive hepatitis B virus e antigen (HBeAg), and an absent or low hepatitis B surface antibody (HBsAb) titer prior to starting treatment are the most important viral risk factors. Furthermore, rituximab, anthracycline, and different types of TNF-α inhibitors were identified as the high-risk therapies. By analyzing the efficiency of prophylaxis on the prevention of HBVr, it was concluded that those with a high risk of antiviral resistance should not be used in long-term immunosuppressants. Receiving HBV antiviral agents at the commencement of immunosuppressant therapy or chemotherapy was demonstrated to be effective in decreasing the risk of HBVr. Prophylaxis could also be initiated before the start of therapy. For most immune suppressive regimes, antiviral therapy should be kept up for at least 6 months after the cessation of immunosuppressive drugs. However, the optimal time of prophylaxis keeping should be increased in cases associated with rituximab or hematopoietic stem cell transplants. According to the latest studies and guidelines from different bodies, recommendations regarding screening, monitoring, and management of HBVr are outlined.

CONCLUSIONS

Identification of patients at the risk of HBVr before immunosuppressive therapy is an undeniable part of treatment. Starting the antiviral therapy, based on the type of immunosuppressive drugs and the underlying disease, could lead to better management of disease.

Hepatitis B virus reactivation associated with antirheumatic therapy: Risk and prophylaxis recommendations

Accompanying the increased use of biological and non-biological antirheumatic drugs, a greater number of cases of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation have been reported in inactive hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) carriers and also in HBsAg-negative patients who have resolved HBV infection. The prevalence of resolved infection varies in rheumatic disease patients, ranging from 7.3% to 66%. Through an electronic search of the PubMed database, we found that among 712 patients with resolved infection in 17 observational cohort studies, 12 experienced HBV reactivation (1.7%) during biological antirheumatic therapy. Reactivation rates were 2.4% for etanercept therapy, 0.6% for adalimumab, 0% for infliximab, 8.6% for tocilizumab, and 3.3% for rituximab. Regarding non-biological antirheumatic drugs, HBV reactivation was observed in 10 out of 327 patients with resolved infection from five cohort studies (3.2%). Most of these patients received steroids concomitantly. Outcomes were favorable in rheumatic disease patients. A number of recommendations have been established, but most of the supporting evidence was derived from the oncology and transplantation fields. Compared with patients in these fields, rheumatic disease patients continue treatment with multiple immunosuppressants for longer periods. Optimal frequency and duration of HBV-DNA monitoring and reliable markers for discontinuation of nucleoside analogues should be clarified for rheumatic disease patients with resolved HBV infection.

Infection risk associated with anti-TNF-α agents: a review

INTRODUCTION

TNF-α is a pro-inflammatory cytokine known to a have a key role in the pathogenesis of chronic immune-mediated diseases. TNF-α inhibitors can be administered either as monotherapy or in combination with other anti-inflammatory or disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) to treat chronic immune-mediated diseases.

AREAS COVERED

Patients receiving TNF-α inhibitors are at high risk of infections. Based on our experience, in this paper, we discuss the risk of infections associated with the administration of TNF-α inhibitors and the strategies for mitigating against the development of these serious adverse events.

EXPERT OPINION

Infliximab more so than etanercept appears to be responsible for the increased risk of infections. Re-activation of latent tuberculosis (LTB) infection and the overall risk of opportunistic infections should be considered before beginning TNF-α inhibitor therapy. A careful medical history, Mantoux test and chest-x-ray should always be performed before prescribing TNF-α inhibitors. Particular attention should be paid to risk factors for Pneumocystis jirovecii infection. Hepatitis B and C virological follow-up should be considered during TNF-α inhibitor treatment. Finally, patients who are at high risk of herpes zoster (HZ) reactivation would benefit from a second vaccination in adulthood when receiving TNF-α inhibitors.