Safety of long-term biologic therapy in rheumatologic patients with a previously resolved hepatitis B viral infection

Rituximab carries high risks of hepatitis B virus reactivation in hematologic and rheumatic patients with chronic or resolved hepatitis B

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Rituximab therapy is associated with a high risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation. We aimed to assess whether the risk of reactivation differed among various underlying diseases and between hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) carriers and patients with resolved HBV infection.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed patients with chronic or resolved HBV infection who received rituximab without prophylactic anti-HBV therapy at a tertiary medical center. The risks of HBV reactivation, hepatitis, and hepatic decompensation were compared between the patients with hematologic and rheumatic diseases.

RESULTS

There were 78 patients with hematologic diseases and 39 patients with rheumatic diseases included. Among them, 43 (59%) HBsAg-positive patients and 24 (55%) patients with resolved HBV infection experienced HBV reactivation at a median of 14.6 months after rituximab therapy. After rituximab treatment, the 1-year HBV reactivation rate among patients with hematologic and rheumatic diseases was 29% and 45% in HBsAg-positive patients, respectively, while the rates were 38% and 17% in patients with resolved HBV infection. The reactivation risk continued to increase even 2 years after rituximab therapy and was comparable between hematologic and rheumatic patients. A higher baseline HBV DNA level (≥20 IU/mL vs <20 IU/mL) was an independent predictor for HBV reactivation (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 10.9, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1-107) and HBV-associated hepatitis (aHR: 14.8, 95% CI: 1.4-158).

CONCLUSIONS

Rituximab therapy is associated with a 50-64% risk of HBV reactivation regardless of underlying diseases and HBsAg status. HBV DNA levels should be assessed before initiating rituximab.

Updates on the mechanisms of toxicities associated with monoclonal antibodies targeting growth factor signaling and immune cells in cancer

Monoclonal antibody (mAb)-based immunotherapy currently is considered to be an optimal therapeutic approach to cancer treatment, either in combination with surgery, radiation, and/or chemotherapy or alone. Various solid tumors and hematological malignancies have been characterized by distinct molecular targets, which could be utilized as innovative anticancer agents. Notably, receptor tyrosine kinases, including HER2, EGFR, VEGFR, and PDGFR, which act as receptors for growth factors, serve as crucial target proteins, expanding their role in the cancer therapeutic market. In contrast to conventional anticancer agents that directly target cancer cells, the advent of immunotherapy introduces novel approaches, such as immune checkpoint blockers (ICBs) and mAbs targeting surface antigens on immune cells in hematological malignancies and lymphomas. While these immunotherapies have mitigated the acquired resistance observed in traditional targeted therapies, they also exhibit diverse toxicities. Herein, this review focuses on describing the well-established toxicities and newly proposed mechanisms of monoclonal antibody toxicity in recent studies. Understanding these molecular mechanisms is indispensable to overcoming the limitations of mAbs-based therapies, facilitating the development of innovative anticancer agents, and uncovering novel indications for cancer treatment in the future.

Consensus Guidelines: Best Practices for the Prevention, Detection and Management of Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation in Clinical Trials with Immunosuppressive/Immunomodulatory Therapy

Hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr) during and after immunosuppressive/immunomodulatory (IS/IM) therapy is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, including hepatic decompensation and acute liver failure. The risk of HBVr with IS/IM has been heterogeneous and often unpredictable. As a result, patients with active or previous HBV infection are often excluded from clinical drug trials of such agents. Thorough screening for HBV infection, antiviral prophylaxis, and careful monitoring for HBVr have proven to be effective in reducing the rate of HBVr and improving its outcome in the context of IS/IM. Therefore, safe enrollment and management of certain HBV-marker-positive patients in clinical trials is possible. There is a great, unmet need for consistent, evidence-based recommendations for best practices pertaining to enrollment, monitoring, and management of HBVr in clinical trial participants receiving IS/IM. The aim of these consensus guidelines is to provide a step-by-step blueprint to safely enroll, monitor and manage the patient with inactive chronic or resolved HBV in IS/IM clinical trials from the time of screening through to the end of post-treatment follow up.

HBV reactivation in HBsAg-/HBcAb+ rheumatoid arthritis patients receiving biologic/targeted synthetic DMARDs

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients seropositive for hepatitis B core antibody (HBcAb) and negative for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) are at risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation when treated with biologic or targeted synthetic (b/ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). The study aims to investigate the risk in this population.

METHODS

From January 2004 through December 2020, 1068 RA patients undergoing b/tsDMARDs therapy and 416 patients with HBsAg-/HBcAb+ were enrolled. Factors associated with HBV reactivation were analysed.

RESULTS

During 2845 person-years of follow-up, 27 of 416 (6.5%,9.5 per 1000 person-years) patients developed HBV reactivation, with a cumulative rate of HBV reactivation of 3.5% at 5 years, 6.1% at 10 years and 24.2% at 17 years. The median interval from beginning b/tsDMARDs to HBV reactivation was 85 months (range: 9-186 months). The risk of HBV reactivation varied by type of b/tsDMARD, with rituximab having the highest risk (incidence rate: 48.3 per 1000 person-years), followed by abatacept (incidence rate: 24.0 per 1000 person-years). In multivariate analysis, rituximab (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 15.77, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.12-60.32, p = .001), abatacept (aHR: 9.30, 1.83-47.19, p = .007), adalimumab (aHR: 3.86, 1.05-14.26, p = .04) and negative baseline HBV surface antibody (anti-HBs, <10 mIU/mL) (aHR: 3.89, 1.70-8.92, p < .001) were independent risk factors for HBV reactivation.

CONCLUSION

HBsAg-/HBcAb+ RA patients are susceptible to HBV reactivation during b/tsDMARD therapy. Those with negative baseline anti-HBs and those on certain b/tsDMARDs, such as rituximab, abatacept and adalimumab, have high reactivation risks. Risk stratification and management should be based on the patient's baseline anti-HBs titre and type of therapy.

Hepatitis B reactivation is a rare event among patients with resolved infection undergoing anti-CD20 antibodies in monotherapy without antiviral prophylaxis: results from the HEBEM study

INTRODUCTION

Prospective data on the risk of hepatitis B reactivation (HBVr) among patients with resolved HBV infection undergoing anti-CD20 antibodies monotherapy is scarce. We aimed to assess the risk of HBVr in patients with resolved HBV infection treated with rituximab or ocrelizumab in monotherapy for multiple sclerosis (MS) or neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) without antiviral prophylaxis.

METHODS

HEBEM is a prospective study that included all consecutive adults HBsAg-negative/anti-HBc-positive who initiated anti-CD20 antibodies for MS or NMOSD at Cemcat. Inclusion criteria encompassed undetectable HBV-DNA, absence of other immunosuppressants or antiviral therapy. Every 6 months HBsAg, ALT and HBV-DNA were performed to rule out HBVr (defined by 2-log increase in HBV-DNA or seroconversion to HBsAg+).

RESULTS

From August/2019 to August/2022, 540 subjects initiated anti-CD20 antibodies, 28 (5.2%) were anti-HBc-positive and were included. Twenty-two received rituximab and 6 ocrelizumab. The majority (89.3%) had previously received ≥ 1 immunomodulatory drug, with corticosteroids (82.1%) and interferon (42.9%) as the most common. At inclusion, all presented normal transaminases and undetectable HBV-DNA. Median anti-HBs levels were 105.5 mIU/mL (IQR 0-609). Median follow-up was 3.1 years (2.1-4.0). Median number of cycles of anti-CD20 antibodies was 6 (3-7), with a cumulative dose of 8.5 g (5.8-11.2) of rituximab and 3 g (1.8-3.8) of ocrelizumab. Neither cases of HBVr nor changes in anti-HBs titers were observed per 83.6 patient-years treated with monotherapy with anti-CD20 antibodies.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort of patients with MS or NMOSD and resolved HBV infection, anti-CD20 monotherapy was not associated with detectable risk of HBV reactivation despite the lack of antiviral prophylaxis.

The Epidemiology, Transmission, Genotypes, Replication, Serologic and Nucleic Acid Testing, Immunotolerance, and Reactivation of Hepatitis B Virus

The epidemiology of Hepatitis B virus (HBV) has drastically changed in recent decades due to public health initiatives, including universal infant vaccination programs,urbanization driving global travel, and migration patterns. Despite screening of pregnant women and newborns significantly reducing the rate of perinatal transmission in certain parts of the world, other, perhaps more uncommon, routes (e.g., parenteral) have led to outbreaks in specific areas affected by the opioid epidemic and injection drug use. Although our current understanding of the effect of genetic variants of HBV is lacking, we review current knowledge and patterns of genetic variants with geographical predominance, pathophysiology, and clinical manifestations. Serologic and molecular markers are used to screen, identify phase and activity of infection, and monitor response to antivirals and/or reactivation. This review will provide the most up-to-date summary of the epidemiology, transmission, genotype, replication, and current methods of screening to follow the various phases of HBV, including immunotolerance and reactivation.

HBV reactivation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with anti-interleukin-6: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the possibility of HBV reactivation (HBVr) in patients with RA under anti-IL-6 treatment.

METHODS

Using PubMed, Scopus and EMBASE, we performed a systematic literature search for articles related to HBVr in RA patients under anti-IL-6 treatment. The search was performed with no date limits and was last updated 28 January 2023. The results from all the databases were combined and duplicates were excluded, as were non-English articles, case reports, position articles, comments, and paediatric studies.

RESULTS

Our initial search led to 427 articles; 28 were duplicates, 46 non-English, 169 reviews, 31 books/letters, 25 case reports, and 88 irrelevant to the meta-analysis aim; 21 were excluded due to inadequate information, leaving 19 articles, with a sum of 372 RA patients with chronic HBV (CHB) or resolved HBV infection, for further analysis. The overall risk for HBVr in RA patients with CHB was 6.7%, increasing to 37% when only RA patients with CHB and no antiviral prophylaxis were included. On the contrary, HBVr was close to 0% in RA patients with resolved HBV infection, irrespective of antiviral prophylaxis. All RA patients experiencing HBVr in these studies were successfully managed with antiviral treatment and/or drug withdrawal.

CONCLUSION

Overall, anti-IL-6 treatment comes with a significant risk of HBVr in RA patients with CHB; risk is diminished when antiviral prophylaxis is used. In contrast, in RA patients with resolved HBV infection, the risk of HBVr seems to be extremely low. Large, well-designed studies (either controlled trials or multicentre/international observational studies) are warranted to further validate these results.

Risk of Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) Reactivation in HBsAg-Negative, Anti-HBc-Negative Patients Receiving Rituximab for Autoimmune Diseases in HBV Endemic Areas

Background/Aims

Rituximab is known to be associated with high hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation rate in patients with resolved HBV infection and hematologic malignancy. However, data regarding HBV reactivation (HBVr) in rheumatic patients receiving rituximab is limited. To assess the HBVr rate in hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-negative patients receiving rituximab for autoimmune diseases in a large real-world cohort.

Methods

From March 2006 to December 2019, 900 patients with negative HBsAg receiving at least one cycle of rituximab for autoimmune diseases in a tertiary medical center in Taiwan were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical outcome and factors associated with HBVr were analyzed.

Results

After a median follow-up period of 3.3 years, 21 patients developed HBVr, among whom 17 patients were positive for hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc) and four were negative. Thirteen patients had clinical hepatitis flare, while eight patients had HBsAg seroreversion without hepatitis. Old age, anti-HBc positivity, undetectable serum hepatitis B surface antibody level at rituximab initiation and a higher average rituximab dose were associated with a higher HBVr rate. There was no significant difference in the HBVr risk between rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune diseases. Among anti-HBc-negative patients, subjects without HBV vaccination at birth had an increased risk of HBVr (4/368, 1.1%) compared with those who received vaccination (0/126, 0%).

Conclusions

In HBV endemic areas where occult HBV is prevalent, anti-HBc-negative patients, may still be at risk for HBVr after rituximab exposure. HBVr may still be considered in HBsAg-negative patients developing abnormal liver function after rituximab exposure, even in patients with negative anti-HBc.

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.

HBsAg (-)/HBsAb (-)/HBeAg (-)/HBeAb (+)/HBcAb (+) predicts a high risk of hepatitis B reactivation in patients with B-cell lymphoma receiving rituximab based immunochemotherapy

Patterns of hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBV-R) in HBsAg (-)/HBcAb (+) patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) receiving rituximab based immunochemotherapy have not been well described. The retrospective study included 222 HBsAg (-)/HBcAb (+) NHL patients as training cohort and 127 cases as validation cohort. The incidence of HBV-R in HBsAg (-)/HBcAb (+) B-cell NHL patients was 6.3% (14/222), of which that in HBsAg (-)/HBsAb (-)/HBeAg (-)/HBeAb (+)/HBcAb (+) population was 23.7% (9/38). Multivariate analysis showed that HBsAg (-)/HBsAb (-)/HBeAg (-)/HBeAb (+)/HBcAb (+) correlated with a high risk of HBV-R in B-cell lymphoma patients (training phase hazard ratio [HR], 10.123; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.389-30.239; p < 0.001; validation phase HR, 18.619; 95% CI, 1.684-205.906; p = 0.017; combined HR, 12.264; 95% CI, 4.529-33.207; p < 0.001). In the training cohort, the mortality rate of HBsAg (-)/HBcAb (+) B-cell NHL caused by HBV-R was 14.3% (2/14) while that for HBV reactivated HBsAg (-)/HBsAb (-)/HBeAg (-)/HBeAb (+)/HBcAb (+) population was up to 44.4% (4/9). As a high incidence of HBV-R and high mortality after HBV-R was found in HBsAg (-)/HBsAb (-)/HBcAb (+)/HBeAg (-)/HBeAb (+) patients with B-cell NHL receiving rituximab based immunochemotherapy, prophylactic antiviral therapy is recommended for 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.

Resolved hepatitis B infection in patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy: Monitor versus prophylaxis against viral reactivation

Risk of hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr) in patients with resolved HBV infection receiving immunosuppressive therapy has been a growing concern, particularly in the era of biological and targeted therapies. HBV monitoring versus antiviral prophylaxis against HBVr in those patients remains controversial. The aim of the study was to determine the incidence of HBVr and HBV-related hepatitis in resolved HBV patients who received immunosuppressive therapy with or without antiviral prophylaxis. This retrospective study included 64 patients with resolved HBV infection who received different regimens of immunosuppressive medications, with moderate risk of HBVr, for variable underlying diseases. Patients who had chronic HBV infection or other viral infections were excluded. Patients who received B-cell depleting therapies were ruled out. They were divided into 2 groups: group 1 included 31 patients who received immunosuppressive therapy without antiviral prophylaxis, and group 2 included 33 patients who received antiviral prophylaxis (entecavir) within 2 weeks of commencing the immunosuppressive therapy. HBVr, HBV-related hepatitis, and HBV-unrelated hepatitis were assessed along a 1-year duration. The overall HBVr incidence was 1.56% (1/64). This patient who had HBVr was seen in group 1. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups regarding the incidence of HBVr, HBV-related hepatitis, HBV-unrelated hepatitis, and immunosuppressive therapy interruption along a 1-year duration. Based on this retrospective study, close monitoring was equal to antiviral prophylaxis regarding the outcome of resolved HBV patients who received moderate risk immunosuppressive therapy. HBV treatment should commence once HBVr is confirmed.

2022 EULAR recommendations for screening and prophylaxis of chronic and opportunistic infections in adults with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases

Objectives

To develop EULAR recommendations for screening and prophylaxis of chronic and opportunistic infections in patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD).

Methods

An international Task Force (TF) (22 members/15 countries) formulated recommendations, supported by systematic literature review findings. Level of evidence and grade of recommendation were assigned for each recommendation. Level of agreement was provided anonymously by each TF member.

Results

Four overarching principles (OAP) and eight recommendations were developed. The OAPs highlight the need for infections to be discussed with patients and with other medical specialties, in accordance with national regulations. In addition to biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for which screening for latent tuberculosis (TB) should be performed, screening could be considered also before conventional synthetic DMARDs, glucocorticoids and immunosuppressants. Interferon gamma release assay should be preferred over tuberculin skin test, where available. Hepatitis B (HBV) antiviral treatment should be guided by HBV status defined prior to starting antirheumatic drugs. All patients positive for hepatitis-C-RNA should be referred for antiviral treatment. Also, patients who are non-immune to varicella zoster virus should be informed about the availability of postexposure prophylaxis should they have contact with this pathogen. Prophylaxis againstPneumocystis jiroveciiseems to be beneficial in patients treated with daily doses >15–30 mg of prednisolone or equivalent for >2–4 weeks.

Conclusions

These recommendations provide guidance on the screening and prevention of chronic and opportunistic infections. Their adoption in clinical practice is recommended to standardise and optimise care to reduce the burden of opportunistic infections in people living with AIIRD.

Systematic literature review informing the 2022 EULAR recommendations for screening and prophylaxis of chronic and opportunistic infections in adults with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) on the screening and prophylaxis of opportunistic and chronic infections in autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD).

METHODS

SLR (inception-12/2021) based on the following search domains: (1) infectious agents, (2) AIIRD, (3) immunosuppressives/immunomodulators used in rheumatology, (4) screening terms and (5) prophylaxis terms. Articles were retrieved having the terms from (1) AND (2) AND (3) plus terms from (4) OR(5). Databases searched: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

studies on postoperative infections, paediatric AIIRD, COVID-19, vaccinations and non-Εnglish literature. Study quality was assessed with Newcastle-Ottawa scale for non-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), RoB-Cochrane for RCTs, AMSTAR2 for SLRs.

RESULTS

From 5641 studies were retrieved, 568 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, with 194 articles finally included. For tuberculosis, tuberculin skin test (TST) is affected by treatment with glucocorticoids and conventional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and its performance is inferior to interferon gamma release assay (IGRA). Agreement between TST and IGRA is moderate to low. For hepatitis B virus (HBV): risk of reactivation is increased in patients positive for hepatitis B surface antigen. Anti-HBcore positive patients are at low risk for reactivation but should be monitored periodically with liver function tests and/or HBV-viral load. Risk for Hepatitis C reactivation is existing but low in patients treated with biological DMARDs. For Pneumocystis jirovecii, prophylaxis treatment should be considered in patients treated with prednisolone ≥15-30 mg/day for >2-4 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Different screening and prophylaxis approaches are described in the literature, partly determined by individual patient and disease characteristics.

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.

Risk of hepatitis B virus reactivation following treatment with abatacept: A retrospective study of international pharmacovigilance databases

BACKGROUND

Abatacept is a selective T-cell costimulation modulator approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and psoriatic arthritis. Reports were recently published on hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr) in patients who were treated with abatacept. However, the literature is limited to case reports and series, and no study has investigated the relationship between HBVr and abatacept using extensive population-based databases.

METHODS

Using the United States Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database, we collected all cases of HBVr between Jan 1, 2006 and June 30, 2021, for abatacept and other drugs. Disproportionality was analysed using the reporting odds ratio (ROR), which was considered significant when the lower limit of the 95% CI was >1. We also conducted a confirmatory analysis in the European pharmacovigilance database, EudraVigilance.

FINDINGS

During the study period, 77,669 adverse cases were reported for abatacept use. There were 2889 reports of HBVr with any drug during this period, of which 55 were reported with abatacept. The ROR for HBVr with abatacept was significantly elevated at 4·80 (95% CI 3·68-6·27). All 55 cases of HBVr with abatacept were reported as serious adverse events. Of them, six individuals were hospitalised and four died. Among 832 reports of HBVr with any drug in EudraVigilance, 43 were reported with abatacept; the ROR was 8·99 (95% CI 6·61-12·23).

INTERPRETATION

We identified a positive signal between abatacept exposure and HBVr. Future prospective studies should further confirm the relationship and provide evidence to develop strategies involving pre-treatment screening, monitoring, and utilisation of antiviral prophylaxis when using abatacept in patients with rheumatic diseases.

FUNDING

This work was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for Central Universities (xjh012019063).

Anti-rheumatic drug-induced hepatitis B virus reactivation and preventive strategies for hepatocellular carcinoma

To date, an estimated 3 million people worldwide have been infected with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV). Although anti-HBV therapies have improved the long-term survival profile of chronic carriers, viral reactivation still poses a significant challenge for preventing HBV-related hepatitis, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and death. Immuno-modulating drugs, which are widely applied in managing rheumatic conditions, are commonly associated with HBV reactivation (HBVr) as a result of drug-induced immune suppression. However, there are few reports on the risk of HBVr and the medication management plan for HBV carriers, especially rheumatic patients. In this review, we summarize immuno-modulating drug-induced HBVr during rheumatoid therapy and its preventive strategies for HBVr-induced liver diseases, especially cirrhosis and HCC. These findings will assist with developing treatments for rheumatic patients, and prevent HBV-related cirrhosis and HCC.

Long-term safety of rituximab in rheumatic patients with previously resolved hepatitis B virus infection

Conflicting results can be found in the literature on the frequency of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation (HBVr) on rituximab (RTX) in rheumatic patients with previously resolved HBV (prHBV) infection. Here, we report the frequency of HBVr in a large historical cohort of caucasian rheumatic patients with prHBV receiving RTX. Registry data of rheumatic patients treated with RTX were retrospectively analysed. Demographic and clinical characteristics including evaluation of anti-HCV and HBV markers, annual HBV-DNA determination and aminotransferase levels assessed every three months, were recorded. Kaplan-Meier estimate was used to compare the risk of being still under therapy at different time points in patients with or without prHBV infection. Cox regression analysis was used to determine the association between recorded variables and treatment discontinuation. A total of 311 patients treated with RTX, 44 (14.1%) with and 267 (85.9%) without prHBV were analysed. No significant difference between the two groups regarding demographic and clinical characteristics was observed. During RTX treatment, detectable HBV-DNA and reappearance of HBsAg in patients with prHBV (seroreversion) were never observed. Kaplan-Meier functions were similar in patients with or without prHBV infection which was not associated with RTX discontinuation neither at univariate nor at multivariate analysis. These data are in favor of the concept that patients with rheumatologic diseases have a very low risk of reactivation of the HBV infection under RTX treatment. However, future prospective studies, including a larger number of patients, are still necessary to draw definitive conclusions.

Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation Associated With Therapeutic Interventions

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation associated with various therapeutic interventions is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with current or resolved HBV infection. Because no curative treatment for HBV infection is yet available, there are many individuals at risk for HBV reactivation in the general population. Populations at risk for HBV reactivation include patients who are currently infected with HBV or who have been exposed to HBV in the past. HBV reactivation and its potential consequences is a concern when these populations are exposed to anti-cancer chemotherapy, immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory therapies for the management of various malignancies, rheumatologic diseases, inflammatory bowel disease, or solid-organ or hematologic stem cell transplantation. Accordingly, it has become important to understand the basics of HBV reactivation and the mechanisms by which certain therapies are more susceptible to HBV reactivation. This review aims to raise the awareness of HBV reactivation and to understand the mechanisms and the risks of HBV reactivation in various clinical settings.

Long-Term Safety in HBsAg-Negative, HBcAb-Positive Patients with Rheumatic Diseases Receiving Maintained Steroid Therapy after Pulse Therapy

The risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-negative, antibody to hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc)-positive patients after glucocorticoid (GC) pulse therapy remains unclear.

AIMS

Our study aimed to examine the safety of GC pulse therapy in HBsAg-negative, anti-HBc-positive rheumatic patients.

METHODS

Medical records of HBsAg-negative, anti-HBc-positive patients receiving GC pulse therapy to treat rheumatic diseases were reviewed. The primary outcome was HBV-associated hepatitis occurring within the first year after GC pulse therapy; the secondary outcome was HBsAg seroreversion occurring during the follow-up period.

RESULTS

We identified 5222 HBsAg-negative, anti-HBc-positive patients with rheumatic diseases who had attended Taichung Veterans General Hospital from October 2006 to December 2018. A total of 689 patients had received GC pulse therapy, with 424 patients being analyzed. Hepatitis was noted in 28 patients (6.6%) within the first year after GC pulse therapy, but none had been diagnosed as HBV-associated hepatitis. Three patients (0.7%) later developed HBsAg seroreversion, with a median interval of 97 months from the first episode of GC pulse therapy. These cases concurrently had maintained high dose oral prednisolone (≥20 mg prednisolone daily for over 4 weeks).

CONCLUSIONS

Amongst the HBsAg-negative, anti-HBc-positive rheumatic patients treated with GC pulse therapy, the risk of HBV-associated hepatitis within the first year was low. HBsAg seroreversion may have developed in the later stage, but only in those patients who had maintained high-dose oral steroid.

Abatacept is second to rituximab at risk of HBsAg reverse seroconversion in patients with rheumatic disease

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) reverse seroconversion (RS) can happen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with resolved hepatitis B (RHB) undergoing biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). But the incidence and risk factors need to be delineated.

METHODS

From 2003 to 2019, 1937 patients with RA with available HBsAg and antibody to hepatitis B virus (HBV) core antigen data were retrospectively reviewed, and 489 patients with RHB undergoing bDMARDs treatment were identified. Factors associated with HBsAg RS were analysed.

RESULTS

During 67 828 person-months of follow-up, 27 (5.5%) patients developed HBsAg RS after bDMARD treatment. As compared with those without HBsAg RS, patients with HBsAg RS were older, had lower frequency of antibody to HBsAg (anti-HBs), and lower baseline anti-HBs levels. In multivariate analysis, rituximab, abatacept and baseline negative for anti-HBs were the independent risk factors for HBsAg RS (adjusted HR: 87.76, 95% CI: 11.50 to 669.73, p<0.001; adjusted HR: 60.57, 95% CI: 6.99 to 525.15, p<0.001; adjusted HR: 5.15, 95% CI: 2.21 to 12.02, p<0.001, respectively). The risk of HBsAg RS was inversely related to the level of anti-HBs. Both rituximab and abatacept might result in anti-HBs loss, and abatacept had a cumulative incidence of HBsAg RS of 35.4%-62.5% in patients with low titers or negative of anti-HBs.

CONCLUSIONS

Not only rituximab, but also abatacept has a high risk of HBV reactivation in patient with RA with RHB. Anti-HBs positivity cannot confer HBV reactivation-free status if the anti-HBs levels are not high enough for patients with RHB on rituximab and abatacept treatment.

Risk of Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Undergoing Tocilizumab-Containing Treatment

BACKGROUND AND AIM

To investigate the risk of hepatitis B virus reactivation in patients undergoing long-term tocilizumab therapy for rheumatoid arthritis.

METHOD

From January 2011 through August 2019, a total of 97 patients were enrolled in this retrospective study. Clinical data, comedications, and the occurrence of HBV reactivation were recorded.

RESULTS

Seven patients were HBsAg+ (7.2%), 64 were HBsAg-/HBcAb+ (65.9%), and 26 were HBsAg-/HBcAb- (26.8%). The median disease follow-up time was 9 years. TCZ was administered for a median of 29 months. Four patients (4.1%) experienced HBV reactivation after tocilizumab therapy. Of the 7 HBsAg+ patients, 4 received antiviral prophylaxis and had no HBV reactivation; the remaining 3 patients did not receive antiviral prophylaxis, and all 3 (100%) experienced HBV reactivation and hepatitis flare-up. Hyperbilirubinemia occurred in 2 of these 3 patients, with mild prothrombin time prolongation in one. After salvage entecavir treatment, all patients had a favorable outcome. Of the 64 HBsAg-/HBcAb+ patients, only one became positive for serum HBV DNA (2.5 × 10⁷ IU/mL) after 18 months of tocilizumab treatment (1.6%; 1/64). This patient was immediately treated with entecavir, which prevented hepatitis flare-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Tocilizumab is widely used in treating rheumatoid arthritis and has the potential to reduce the mortality rate among severe COVID-19 patients. However, HBV reactivation needs to be considered. HBsAg+ patients have a high risk of HBV reactivation, which could be prevented by antiviral prophylaxis. Although the risk of reactivation is low in HBsAg-/HBcAb+ patients, strict monitoring is necessary.

Risk of hepatitis B reactivation in patients receiving anti-tumor necrosis factor-α therapy

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine hepatitis B virus (HBV) screening rates in patients receiving anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α therapy and the frequency of HBV reactivation in patients with resolved hepatitis B virus infection (hepatitis B surface antigen [HBsAg] negative, hepatitis B core antibody [Anti-HBc] positive).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data from 1834 patients who underwent anti-TNF-α therapy in the Rheumatology, Gastroenterology and Dermatology Departments of our hospital between 2010 and 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Within 6 months before the initial anti-TNF-α therapy, performing a HBsAg and/or anti-HBc test is defined as HBV screening. HBV reactivation is defined as the presence of detectable serum HBV DNA or HBsAg seroconversion from negative to positive.

RESULTS

The overall HBV screening rate was 82.3% before starting anti-TNF-α therapy. There was an increasing trend in HBV screening rates during the years analyzed (64% in 2010, 87.4% in 2019) (P < .001). Before anti-TNF-α therapy was initiated, 272 patients were HBsAg negative and anti-HBc positive. Among these patients, HBV reactivation did not occur in 31 patients who received antiviral prophylaxis, whereas HBV reactivation occurred in only 1 (0.4%) of the 241 patients who did not receive antiviral prophylaxis.

CONCLUSION

Hepatitis B virus screening rates prior to starting anti-TNF-α therapy were relatively high, and its trend was increased by year. HBV reactivation because of anti-TNF-α use rarely occurred in patients with resolved HBV infection. Further studies are needed on whether routine anti-HBc screening and/or HBV DNA follow-up are necessary in these patients aside from HBsAg.

Low but Long-lasting Risk of Reversal of Seroconversion in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis Receiving Immunosuppressive Therapy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

In patients who have resolved hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) can result in reappearance of hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), called reverse seroconversion. We investigated clinical features and outcomes of reverse seroconversion in patients who received immunosuppressant or biologic therapy for RA.

METHODS

We identified 1494 patients with RA (925 who resolved HBV infection) and available data on levels of antibody to HB core antigen and HBsAg who had attended Taipei Veterans General Hospital from January 2007 through December 2017. We identified 17 cases (median age, 66 years) who were negative for HBsAg before treatment of RA and reverse seroconversion (HBsAg reappearance) after glucocorticoid treatment (n = 13) and/or biologic therapy (adalimumab, n = 2; etanercept, n = 1; rituximab, n = 9; or abatacept, n = 4). Four patients were positive for antibodies against HBsAg (seroconverted) before the immunosuppressive treatment.

RESULTS

The median time from immunosuppressive treatment to reverse seroconversion was 120 months (range, 20-264 months), whereas the time from biologic therapy treatment to reverse seroconversion was 66 months (range, 10-105 months). After reverse seroconversion, 8 individuals (47.1%) were positive for HB e antigen; 9 cases (52.9%) did not have a flare of alanine transaminase. However, 3 patients (17.6%) developed liver decompensation.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients who resolved HBV infection and received immunosuppressant treatment of RA, risk of reversal of seroconversion is low but persists for up to 10 years. Patients with RA who previously resolved HBV infections should be monitored for levels of HBsAg and HBV DNA once immunosuppressive treatment of RA begins.

Safety of systemic treatments for Behçet's syndrome

INTRODUCTION

Treatment of Behçet's syndrome (BS) is aimed at controlling all symptoms of such a complex disorder, ensuring a good quality of life and preventing life-threatening complications. A better understanding of the pathogenic role of different chemokines has improved our knowledge of BS and elicited a more specific use of therapies currently available, minimizing the burden of potential side-effects related to treatment.

AREAS COVERED

This work aims to provide a detailed overview of the safety profile for current therapies available in the treatment of BS, focusing on the main side-effects, toxicity and contraindications.

EXPERT OPINION

The greatest experience in the management of BS has been achieved with the employment of monoclonal anti-tumor necrosis factor antibodies which have been advocated for BS refractory manifestations. Moreover, interleukin-1 inhibitors have proven to be effective as well as safe, despite escalation of their dosage, especially to manage the most severe and difficult-to-treat ocular manifestations. However, general treatment of BS patients remains awkward as protean clinical features may respond differently to the same treatment or even worsen. Therefore, patients' safety for therapies used in BS promotes the implementation of precision medicine, which could help targeting accurately the pathogenetic mechanisms concealed behind specific clinical phenotypes.

Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation: What Is the Issue, and How Should It Be Managed?

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation, in the background of cleared and overt chronic HBV infection, can be seen in patients receiving immunosuppressive agents. Risk of reactivation is variably associated with HBV serologic status and types of immunosuppressive therapy. Prevention of HBV reactivation by antiviral prophylaxis is an effective strategy to reduce morbidity and mortality in those with immunocompromised states. This article defines HBV reactivation, discusses risk stratification and common medications that can induce HBV reactivation as well as guideline recommendations for prevention of HBV reactivation, and describes the prognosis and management of patients who experience HBV reactivation.

Tuberculin skin test conversion in patients under treatment with anti-tumor necrotizing factor alpha agents

Background

Despite successful clinical outcomes of biologic medications in patients with chronic rheumatic diseases, some considerable adverse effects such as infections remain a major concern. Possibility of tuberculosis (TB) reactivation over treatment with anti-tumor necrotizing factor (TNF) alpha agents has necessitated a screening test before initiation of treatment. However, screening over the course of treatment is not recommended in those patients with negative baseline screening tests. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of tuberculin skin test (TST) before treatment in patients with chronic rheumatologic diseases who were indicated to receive anti-TNF-alpha therapy and the necessity of repeating this test over the course of treatment.

Methods

In this prospective study, patients with chronic rheumatologic diseases receiving anti-TNF-alpha agents were studied in a two-year period. TST was performed before treatment and those with positive results were excluded from the study. Thereafter, treatment with anti-TNF-alpha agents was initiated with the indicated dose. TST was repeated before administration of biologic treatment until TST became positive or 16 weeks after the initiation of treatment with anti-TNF-alpha.

Results

A total of 51 cases were studied, of whom one patient (1.9%) was excluded due to positive TST before treatment. All participants received infliximab and the TST test became positive in one patient (2%) 2 weeks after receiving the first dose. Also, the results of further tests at weeks 6, 10, and 14 were all negative for the remaining patients.

Conclusion

Due to the possibility of TST conversion after administration of anti-TNF-alpha therapy, it is important to consider TB monitoring in patients under treatment with these agents using available methods such as TST.

[Prophylactic Antiviral Treatment in Immunosuppressed Chronic Hepatitis B Patients]

Improved management of chronic hepatitis B patients with oral nucleos(t)ide analogues has increased the number of these patients who are getting older and have other accompanying comorbidities. These comorbidities frequently require various immunosuppression treatments and/or cytotoxic chemotherapy. Not only the patients who are positive for HBsAg, but also the patients who are positive for isolated anti-HBc are at risk for hepatitis B reactivation during immunosuppression. Prophylactic antiviral treatment with oral nucleos(t)ide analogues with high genetic barriers can decrease the risks of HBV reactivation, HBV reactivation- associated hepatitis, and mortality in these patients. It is crucial to screen HBV markers in all of the patients who have to undergo immunosuppression, be administered prophylactic antiviral treatment in the high risk groups, and be monitored for HBV reactivation during and after immunosuppression and/or cytotoxic chemotherapy. This study summarizes the recommendations from the recently updated guidelines from Korea, United States, and Europe.

Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation Potentiated by Biologics

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation can be a serious complication for patients with chronic or resolved HBV infection when treated with biologics. For HBsAg-positive patients receiving biologics, the risk of HBV reactivation is moderate to high. HBsAg-negative/anti-HBc positive patients are at lower risk of HBV reactivation than HBsAg-positive patients. However, patients taking anti-CD20 agents, such as rituximab, have high risk of HBV reactivation (>10%), so antiviral prophylactic therapies are required. This review provides the different classes of biologics associated with HBV reactivation, stratifies the various reactivation risk levels by HBV status and biologic agent, and discusses management strategies.

Reactivation of hepatitis B virus infection in rheumatic diseases: risk and management considerations

In patients with rheumatic diseases undergoing immunosuppressive treatment, hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr) has been long recognized as a major treatment-related adverse event with substantial morbidity and mortality. Because HBVr is easily preventable with appropriate screening and monitoring strategies, and, when indicated, prophylactic antiviral treatment, awareness of this complication is of the utmost importance, especially in the era of biologic treatments. As a condition, it continues to be topical, in view of the emergence of novel classes of immunosuppressive drugs (i.e. Janus kinase inhibitors) acquiring licenses for a variety of rheumatic diseases. The class-specific risk of these agents for HBVr has not yet been determined. Moreover, ambiguity still exists for the management of patients planned to be treated with traditional agents, such as cyclophosphamide and glucocorticoids, particularly in the setting of resolved HBV infection. Clinicians in the field of rheumatic diseases should be tailoring their practice according to the host's profile and treatment-specific risk for HBVr. In this review, the authors attempt to critically review the existing literature and provide practical advice on these issues.

Moderate Risk of Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation in HBsAg-/HBcAb+ Carriers Receiving Rituximab for Rheumatoid Arthritis

To investigate the incidence and risk factors of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in HBV surface antigen (HBsAg)-/ HBV core antibody (HBcAb)+ patients who underwent rituximab (RTX) therapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). From January 2000 through December 2017, a total of 134 RA patients with various HBV serostatuses who received RTX at Dalin Tzu Chi Hospital were screened. Finally, 50 HBsAg-/HBcAb+ patients were enrolled in this retrospective study. Baseline characteristics, comedications, and the occurrence of HBV reactivation were recorded. Four HBsAg-/HBcAb+ RA patients (8%; 4/50) experienced HBV reactivation after treatment with RTX. Hepatitis flare-up occurred in 2 of these 4 patients, with a fatal outcome in one. HBV reactivation occurred approximately 1-4 years after the first dose of RTX and 0.5-1.5 years after the last one. In HBsAg-/HBcAb+ patients, HBV reactivation was significantly more common in those who were HBV surface antibody (HBsAb)- at baseline than in those who were HBsAb+ (30% vs 4%; p = 0.02). A history of adalimumab use was associated with HBV reactivation (100% vs 39%; p = 0.02). A moderate risk of HBV reactivation was observed in HBsAg-/HBcAb+ RA patients receiving RTX therapy. The reactivation may induce acute hepatitis and even death. To reduce the risk of HBV reactivation, regular monitoring of liver function is insufficient; monitoring of viral load and HBsAg or prophylaxis with antiviral therapy should be considered.

Infection risk in patients undergoing treatment for inflammatory arthritis: non-biologics versus biologics

Introduction: Despite the therapeutic effectiveness of biologics targeting immune cells or cytokines in patients with inflammatory arthritis, which reflects their pathogenic roles, an increased infection risk is observed in those undergoing biological treatment. However, there are limited data regarding the comparison of infection risks in inflammatory arthritis patients treated with non-biologics (csDMARDs), biologics (bDMARDs), including tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors and non-TNF inhibitors, or targeted synthetic (ts)DMARDs.Areas covered: Through a review of English-language literature as of 30 June 2019, we focus on the existing evidence on the risk of infections caused by bacteria, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, and hepatitis virus in inflammatory arthritis patients undergoing treatment with csDMARDs, bDMARDs, or tsDMARDs.Expert opinion: While the risks of bacterial and mycobacterial infection are increased in arthritis patients treated with csDMARDs, the risks are further higher in those receiving bDMARDs therapy, particularly TNF inhibitors. Regarding HBV infection, antiviral therapy may effectively prevent HBV reactivation in patients receiving bDMARDs, especially rituximab. However, more data are needed to establish effective preventive strategies for HBsAg-negative/HBcAb-positive patients. It seems safe to use cyclosporine and TNF inhibitors in patients with HCV infection, while those undergoing rituximab therapies should be frequently monitored for HCV activity.Abbreviations: ABT: abatacept; ADA: adalimumab; AS: ankylosing spondylitis; bDMARDs: biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs; CKD: chronic kidney disease; COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CS: corticosteroids; CsA: cyclosporine A; csDMARDs: conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs; CZP: certolizumab; DAAs: direct-acting antiviral agents; DM: diabetes mellitus; DOT: directly observed therapy; EIN: Emerging Infections Network; ETN: etanercept; GOL: golimumab; GPRD: General Practice Research Database; HBV: hepatitis B virus; HBVr: HBV reactivation; HBsAg+: HBsAg-positive; HBsAg-/anti-HBc+: HBsAg-negative anti-HBc antibodies-positive; HCV: hepatitis C virus; HCQ: hydroxychloroquine: IFX: infliximab; IL-6: interleukin-6; JAK: Janus kinase; LEF: leflunomide; LTBI: latent tuberculosis infection; mAb: monoclonal antibody; MTX: methotrexate; OR: odds ratio; PsA: psoriatic arthritis; PMS: post-marketing surveillance; RA: rheumatoid arthritis; TNF: tumor necrosis factor; TNFi: tumor necrosis factor inhibitor; SCK: secukinumab; SSZ: sulfasalazine; TOZ: tocilizumab; RCT: randomized controlled trial; RR: relative risk; RTX: rituximab; 3HP: 3-month once-weekly isoniazid plus rifapentine; TB: tuberculosis; tsDMARDs: targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs; UTK: ustekinumab; WHO: World Health Organization.

Safety of systemic therapy for noninfectious uveitis

Introduction: The treatment strategies for noninfectious uveitis (NIU) aim to achieve disease remission, prevention of recurrences, and preserving vision, while minimizing the side effects associated with the therapies used.Areas covered: The index review aims to provide a detailed overview of the adverse events and safety parameters associated with the systemic therapies for the management of the NIU.Expert opinion: Despite being the cornerstone of management of acute cases of NIU, long-term corticosteroid use is associated with multi-system side effects, requiring the use of steroid-sparing agents. Adalimumab was recently approved by the FDA for the management of NIU based on the results of VISUAL studies. Similarly, newer drugs targeting various aspects of the inflammatory cascade are being developed. However, until we completely understand the molecular pathways of the inflammatory diseases, the therapeutic profile of these newer agents needs to be broad enough to suppress inflammatory cascade and narrow enough to spare normal cellular processes. Another strategy that has shown some potential in decreasing the systemic side effects is to provide local drug delivery. Therefore, the future of management of NIU is very bright with many novel therapeutic agents and strategies of drug delivery on the horizon.

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.

Screening and Prophylaxis to Prevent Hepatitis B Reactivation: Other Populations and Newer Agents

Because of the relatively high prevalence of both hepatitis B infection and various forms of autoimmune inflammatory diseases treated with aggressive immunotherapy, reactivation of hepatitis B occurs in a substantial number of patients. The risk of reactivation depends on the degree and duration of immunosuppression. A large number of drug treatments have resulted in reactivation of hepatitis B virus infection and, based on the mechanisms and extent of immunosuppression, recommendations for some of the newer classes of immunosuppressive drugs are provided.

Prediction and clinical implications of HBV reactivation in lymphoma patients with resolved HBV infection: focus on anti-HBs and anti-HBc antibody titers

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation (HBV-R) and hepatitis related to HBV-R are well-recognized complications that occur in patients who have undergone cytotoxic chemotherapy or immunosuppressive therapy. The degree of HBV-R in this population varies from self-limited or asymptomatic hepatitis to acute liver failure, which may lead to life-threatening events. However, no established treatment or standard surveillance method exists for monitoring patients to predict the development of HBV-R during or after chemotherapy or immunosuppressive therapy, particularly regarding resolved HBV infection. Prophylactic antiviral agents and regular monitoring of HBV-DNA levels are known to be useful methods for preventing HBV-R; however, these methods require considerable financial resources, and such resources are limited in the endemic areas of HBV infection. Most patients with resolved HBV infection do not develop a hepatitis flare or self-limited HBV-R with only an increase in HBV DNA. However, some patients may develop HBV-R even 1 year or more after the last chemotherapy treatment. Therefore, predicting the development of HBV-R and its timing is difficult, and exploring markers that could help predict whether or when HBV reactivation occurs is necessary. In this review, we address the predictive risk factors for HBV-R in patients with resolved HBV infection, focusing on the ability of anti-HBs and anti-HBc to predict HBV-R. We conclude that the combination of anti-HBc and anti-HBs titers may be a reliable and useful predictor for managing HBV-R.

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.

Recent Advances in HBV Reactivation Research

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) is an important public health problem that poses a serious threat to human health. HBV reactivation generally occurs in overt or occult HBV infection patients who suffered DDAs, chemotherapy, or immunosuppressive therapy, especially when some solid tumors and leukemia patients are using hormones such as prednisolone and imatinib. The approximate incidence of HBV reactivation ranged from about 10% to 40%. Scientists often explore the molecular mechanisms from both the virus and the host. But some studies have reported that some drugs (cisplatin, rituximab, imatinib, and glucocorticoid) could induce HBV reactivation directly. However, the specific molecular mechanisms were unclear. With the emergence of new antiviral drugs and molecular targeted drugs, the risk of HBV reactivation will increase significantly. Therefore this review was expected to be used to provide recommendations for future research in HBV reactivation.

Incidence of Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation and Hepatotoxicity in Patients Receiving Long-term Treatment With Tumor Necrosis Factor Antagonists

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists are the first-line treatment for many autoimmune diseases. However, they have been associated with reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV). We determined the rate of HBV reactivation and hepatotoxicity grade 3 or 4 (HT ≥3) in patients treated with an anti-TNF agent for an autoimmune disease.

METHODS

We collected data from 8887 adult patients in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California database who began treatment with TNF antagonists for autoimmune diseases (dermatologic, rheumatologic, or gastrointestinal) from 2001 through 2010, followed through December 2012. We obtained data on HBV infection (52% of patients were screened for HBV before treatment), demographic features, comorbidities, and use of immunosuppressive agents. HBV reactivation was defined as 1 of the following: >1 log increase in HBV DNA, HBV DNA-positive when previously negative, HBV DNA >2000 IU/mL if no baseline level was available, or reverse seroconversion. HT ≥3 was defined according to the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria. We performed multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with HT ≥3.

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients tested positive for HB surface antigen (HBsAg) at baseline and 9 of these had HBV reactivation; of the 4267 patients with unknown HBV status at baseline, 2 had HBV reactivation. None of the 178 patients who were HBsAg negative and positive for the hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc+) had HBV reactivation. HBV reactivation occurred in 1/5 HBsAg+ patients who received prophylactic antiviral therapy and 8/18 who did not (P = .61). No one with HBV reactivation had liver failure. HT ≥3 occurred in 273 patients (2.7%), but only 3 cases were attributed to HBV. Cirrhosis was significantly associated with HT ≥3 (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

In a retrospective analysis of patients treated with TNF antagonists for autoimmune diseases, we found HBV reactivation in 39% of patients who were HBsAg+ before therapy, but not in any patients who were HBsAg-negative and anti-HBc+ before therapy. Patients should be screened for HBV infection before anti-TNF therapy; HBsAg+ patients should receive prophylactic antiviral therapy, but not HBsAg-negative, anti-HBc+ patients.

Viral infections in the biologic therapy era

INTRODUCTION

The development of biologic therapies for treating patients with rheumatic, hematologic, or oncological diseases has increased in the last few years, spreading their use in clinical practice. Areas covered: Clinical experience has evidenced substantial risks for some viral infections and/or reactivations such as viral hepatitis, herpetic infections, and other viruses, as a consequence of specific immune pathway blockages. Biological therapies produce a variable risk of reactivation of viral infections, which is particularly uncertain in the case of the most recently introduced agents. Here we make an extensive review of the viral infections associated with the use of biological drugs and provide a series of recommendations for its prevention and management. Expert commentary: To prevent these infections/reactivations, the practitioner must be aware of the infection-risk profile, performing accurate screening during and after the use of any biologic agent. In some instances, expert recommendations are made for some therapies, while in other scenarios recommendations have not yet been defined making experimental and clinical research an essential approach to elucidate multiple issues yet not resolved in this field.

Management of anti-HBc-positive patients with rheumatic diseases treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs-a single-center analysis of 2054 patients

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation is a common complication of immunosuppressive treatment in high prevalence countries. Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) cause this adverse event more often than conventional immunosuppressants. The incidence of HBV reactivation during treatment for rheumatic diseases in Germany is unclear. Furthermore, it remains open how to treat and monitor patients at risk during immunosuppressive therapy with bDMARDs. We examined 2054 patients from a German tertiary rheumatology center in order to analyze the prevalence of HBc-antibody-positivity and the incidence of HBV reactivation in German rheumatology patients treated with immunosuppressants. Of 1317 patients treated with bDMARDs and 737 conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARDs) patients between 2008 and 2017, 86 had a history of HBV infection (anti-HBc positive). Only two patients were suffering from chronic infection (HBsAg positive). Three patients were treated pre-emptively with entecavir, and eight patients after HBV DNA reappearance. No liver failure occurred due to HBV reactivation. Compared to anti-HBc-positive patients without reactivation, the reactivation group included more patients exposed to three or more classes of bDMARDs (p = 0.017). The median HBs antibody titer was significantly lower in the reactivation group (15.0 IU/l vs. 293.5 IU/l; p = 0.001). This study shows that bDMARDs and csDMARDs can safely be administered to patients with a history of HBV, provided they are closely monitored. Low titers of anti-HBs antibodies and a history of ≥ 3 classes of immunosuppressants increase the risk of HBV reactivation. These data highlight major differences to high prevalence regions.

Pharmacotherapy-Induced Hepatitis B Reactivation Among Patients With Prior Functional Cure: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To describe and quantify the incidence and morbidity of hepatitis B reactivation (HBVr) secondary to pharmaceutical agents (eg, rituximab, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, direct-acting antivirals [DAAs] for hepatitis C) among patients with previously resolved hepatitis B infection.

DATA SOURCES

The MEDLINE database was searched from inception through July 2018 using the terms hepatitis B + ( reactivation OR [drug or drug class linked to HBVr]).

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Relevant English-language cohort studies or randomized trials quantifying the incidence of HBVr secondary to pharmacotherapy among patients negative for hepatitis B surface antigen and DNA and positive for hepatitis B core antibody were included.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Among 2045 articles, 102 met inclusion criteria. Receipt of rituximab was associated with the highest risk of HBVr (for oncological indication: 6.2% rate [225/3601 patients]) and subsequent hepatitis (up to 52.4% of all HBVr cases). Biologic agents for autoimmune disease were uncommonly associated with HBVr (2.4%, 56/2338), with only 4 cases of hepatitis, all attributable to rituximab. Reactivation caused by DAAs was rare (0.3%, 28/8398), with no cases of hepatitis. Relevance to Patient Care/Clinical Practice: This review compares and contrasts the incidence and clinical relevance of HBVr for various pharmacotherapies among patients with functionally cured hepatitis B, with discussion of appropriate risk mitigation strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with prior functional cure of hepatitis B, prophylactic antiviral therapy is recommended with rituximab administration irrespective of indication because of a high risk for HBVr-associated morbidity. Enhanced monitoring alone is reasonable for patients receiving nonrituximab biologics or DAAs.

Hepatitis B virus reactivation in patients with resolved hepatitis B virus infection receiving chemotherapy or immunosuppressive therapy

BACKGROUND

The role of antiviral prophylaxis before chemotherapy or immunosuppressive therapy to prevent hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in patients with resolved HBV infection [hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) negative, hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc) positive] is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic antiviral therapy and outcomes of HBsAg-negative, anti-HBc-positive patients who received chemotherapy or immunosuppressive therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated the medical records of HBsAg-negative, anti-HBc-positive patients who underwent chemotherapy or immunosuppressive therapy from January 2013 through November 2016 at a single institute in southern Taiwan.

RESULTS

Among 1000 included HBsAg-negative, anti-HBc-positive patients, the rate of hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs) seropositivity before chemotherapy or immunosuppressive therapy was 76.6%. Twenty-six patients received a prophylactic oral antiviral agent (one telbuvudine, two lamivudine, 22 entecavir, and one tenofovir). Seven (0.7%) patients were diagnosed with HBV reactivation during or after chemotherapy courses. In multivariate Cox regression analysis, an rituximab-based regimen (hazard ratio: 11.74; 95% confidence interval: 1.62-84.94; P=0.02) and baseline anti-HBs-positive status (hazard ratio: 0.17; 95% confidence interval: 0.04-0.8; P=0.03) were significant predictive factors for HBV reactivation. Among anti-HBs-negative recipients of rituximab-based chemotherapy, HBV reactivation was observed in zero of nine patients who received prophylactic antiviral therapy and three (33.3%) of nine patients who did not.

CONCLUSION

Negative anti-HBs status and rituximab-containing regimens are both important factors for predicting chemotherapy or immunosuppressive therapy-related HBV reactivation in patients with resolved HBV infection. Therefore, antiviral prophylaxis should be considered in this patient population.

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.

Short article: Safety of targeted prophylaxis strategy in patients with resolved hepatitis B virus infection receiving rituximab for immune-mediated diseases

OBJECTIVES

Rituximab (RTX) is a monoclonal antibody that is widely used in hematologic malignancies and immune-mediated diseases (IMID) and has been associated with the risk of hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr). Thus, antiviral prophylaxis is recommended before RTX treatment in all patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection and those with resolved infection affected by onco-hematological conditions. By contrast, the correct management of HBsAg-negative/HbcAb-positive patients candidates for RTX-containing regimens for IMID is still debated, owing to few data currently available in this setting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated the risk of HBVr in patients with IMID with resolved HBV infection, referred to the Infectious and Tropical Diseases Unit Outpatients Service, Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy, between September 2013 and September 2017, undergoing RTX without antiviral prophylaxis and followed up by serial serum HBV-DNA monitoring.

RESULTS

Overall, 20 patients with IMID were identified (70% female, with median age of 57 years) and followed up for a median period of 19 months (range: 2-36 months). A single HBVr case, detected in preclinical stage, was observed (1/20, 5%), and targeted prophylaxis was promptly introduced.

CONCLUSION

The results supported the low to moderate risk of HBVr in HBsAg-negative/HBcAb-positive patients with IMID undergoing RTX, in contrast to what is observed in onco-hematological settings. The targeted prophylaxis strategy, based on serum HBV-DNA serial monitoring, seems a safe option in these patients.

Antiviral prophylaxis during chemotherapy or immunosuppressive drug therapy to prevent HBV reactivation in patients with resolved HBV infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Until recently, the role of antiviral prophylaxis in preventing hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation during immunosuppressive therapy or chemotherapy in patients with resolved HBV infection was unclear. The aim of the study reported here was to compare the efficacy of antiviral prophylaxis versus that of non-prophylaxis in resolved HBV-infected patients undergoing chemotherapy or immunosuppressive therapy.

METHODS

PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the ClinicalTrials.gov website were searched from inception until December 2017. Studies comparing reactivation in prophylaxis versus non-prophylaxis in patients undergoing immunosuppressive therapy or chemotherapy were included. The meta-analysis was performed to calculate the relative risk (RR) and the pooled estimates.

RESULTS

A meta-analysis was conducted of 13 studies (2 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 11 cohort studies). The summary RR for HBV reactivation was 0.47 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-1.69) for antiviral prophylaxis versus non-prophylaxis. Both of the RCTs included in the meta-analysis enrolled patients treated with rituximab. Subgroup analyses showed that the two RCTs ± high-quality cohort studies showed a decreased risk of HBV reactivation among the antiviral prophylaxis groups (RCT 1: RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02-0.70; P = 0.02; RCT 2: 0.28, 95% CI 0.08-0.98; P = 0.05). Subgroup analyses further showed that the cohort studies did not support an association between the antiviral prophylaxis groups and HBV reactivation (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.14-2.83; P = 0.54); adjusting for confounding factors, such as detectable anti-HBs antibodies, failed to produce a significant association (RR,0.29, 95% CI 0.07-1.28; P = 0.10).

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analyses did not show an association between antiviral prophylaxis use and risk of HBV reactivation. As using only the RCTs ± high-quality cohort studies data rendered this association significant, clinicians can consider providing antiviral prophylaxis to patients with resolved HBV infection who are undergoing rituximab-based therapy.

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.