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

Detection of substantial numbers of latent tuberculosis and positive hepatitis B serology results in rheumatology patients preparing to receive intensified immunosuppressive therapy in a low-prevalence country: why screening still matters

INTRODUCTION /OBJECTIVES

International guidelines recommend screening for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) and chronic viral hepatitis infections before initiating intensified immunosuppressive therapy. We assessed the prevalence of positive screening tests for LTBI, hepatitis B virus (HBV), and hepatitis C virus (HCV) in patients screened at a large rheumatology outpatient center in Germany.

METHOD

This retrospective cohort study used electronic health records from adult rheumatology patients. The presence of LTBI was evaluated by chest X-rays, patient medical history/self-report, and QuantiFERON®-TB Gold Plus (QFT) interferon-gamma release assays. Antibodies to HBV core antigen (anti-HBc) and HCV were used to assess HBV and HCV, respectively. Statistically significant associations were evaluated by Fisher exact tests.

RESULTS

Of 697 screened patients with a rheumatological condition (61.3% female, mean age 60.0 years), 132 (18.9%) patients were positive for LTBI (99 [14.2%]), anti-HBc (39 [5.6%]), or anti-HCV (3 [0.4%]). Nine patients had more than one positive result; different infections were not significantly associated. QFT detected the most LTBI cases (59.5%) followed by patient report/history (42.4%) and chest X-rays (17.2%). Although most patients (83.8%) were positive on only one test, associations among LTBI tests were statistically significant. Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) use was lower in patients with a positive LTBI screening result compared with all screened patients (73.7% vs 86.4%) and targeted synthetic DMARD (tsDMARD) use was higher (10.1% vs 5.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Almost one-fifth of rheumatology patients preparing to initiate intensified immunosuppressive therapy have positive results on screening tests for LTBI or show evidence of exposure to HBV or HCV. These findings support the need for careful screening, even in "low-prevalence" countries.

Contradictory Mechanisms of rheumatoid arthritis and hepatitis B virus infection activation

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is associated with a high rate of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. A large proportion of HBV reactivation may occur in RA patients after immunosuppression treatment, while fulminant hepatitis may occur in severe cases. Immunosuppressants are fundamental medications for the treatment of RA but carry the risk of inducing HBV reactivation. This inherent contradiction poses challenges throughout the immunosuppressive treatment process in patients with RA. Recently, numerous studies have been conducted on the contradictory therapeutic mechanisms between RA treatment and HBV infection, including aspects of innate immunity, adaptive immunity, and related signalling pathways. In this article, we review the immunological mechanisms underlying the onset of RA and HBV infections, providing a reference for determining appropriate treatment plans to reduce therapeutic contradictions and thereby reduce the risk of HBV reactivation in patients with RA combined with HBV infection.

Pharmacological considerations in pharmacotherapy of rheumatology patients with liver disease: a brief narrative review

The presence of chronic liver diseases such as metabolic dysfunction-associated steatosis liver disease, viral hepatitis, and cirrhosis may affect the treatment plan in patients with rheumatologic disorders, with concern about the adverse effects of the rheumatic medications on the course of liver disease. Advanced liver disease can change the elimination and activation of many drugs. In addition, there are concerns about the risk of viral reactivation after using biologics and immunosuppressants in patients with chronic viral hepatitis. This narrative review will assess the considerations that should be made before starting the most frequently used drugs in all common rheumatic diseases and patients with chronic liver diseases including chronic viral hepatitis.

Biologics Versus JAK Inhibitors. Part II: Risk of Infections. A Narrative Review

INTRODUCTION

The risk of infections associated with biological drugs (BD) and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) has been extensively explored in the literature. However, there is a dearth of studies that evaluate both pharmacological groups together and, furthermore, compare them. Here, we review the risk of infections associated with BD and JAKi used in dermatology.

METHODS

A narrative review was performed. All relevant articles evaluating the risk of infection and opportunistic infections with BD and JAKi between January 2010 and February 2024 were selected.

RESULTS

Overall, the incidence of infections, serious infections, and opportunistic infections associated with BD and JAKi is low, but higher than in the general population. JAKi approved for dermatological disorders (abrocitinib, baricitinib, deucravacitinib, upadacitinib, ritlecitinib, and topical ruxolitinib) have been shown to be safe, and present a low rate of infections. We found an elevated risk, especially with anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents, rituximab, and JAKi (particularly tofacitinib at high doses). Specific associations with infections include tuberculosis and tuberculosis reactivation with anti-TNF agents and tocilizumab; candidiasis with anti-interleukin (IL) 17 agents; hepatitis B virus reactivation with rituximab, anti-TNF, and JAKi; and herpes simplex and herpes zoster infections with JAKi (especially tofacitinib and upadacitinib at high doses). The incidence of infections with ustekinumab and anti-IL-23 was very low. Anti-IL-1, nemolizumab, tralokinumab, and omalizumab were not associated with an increased risk of infections. Dupilumab could decrease the incidence of cutaneous infections.

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-TNF agents, rituximab, and JAKi (particularly tofacitinib) can increase the risk of infections. Close monitoring of patients undergoing these therapies is recommended. Prospective studies with long-term follow-up are needed to comparatively evaluate the risks of infection deriving from treatment with BD and JAKi.

Implementation of Guideline-Based HBV Reactivation Management in Patients with Chronic HBV Infections of HBsAg or Resolved HBV Infection Undergoing Immunosuppressive Therapy

INTRODUCTION

Although patients with HBV have a risk of reactivation after immunosuppressive therapy (IST), the status of their risk management is unclear in Japan. This study aims to describe the proportion of patients who received preventive management of HBV reactivation during ISTs in patients with chronic HBV infection of HBsAg or resolved HBV infection.

METHOD

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the JMDC Japanese claims database from April 2011 to June 2021. Patients with HBV infections of HbsAg who received ISTs or patients who had resolved HBV infections who received ISTs were identified from the database and evaluated for appropriate management to prevent HBV reactivation.

RESULTS

In total, 6242 eligible patients were identified. The proportions of patients with appropriate HBV reactivation management, stratified by the HBV reactivation risk level of IST, was 43.1% (276/641) for high-risk, 40.2% (223/555) for intermediate-risk and 14.9% (741/4965) for low-risk patients. When the evaluation period for the outcome calculation was shortened from 360 to 180 days, the proportion for high risk increased to 52.7%. The odds ratios of large hospitals for receiving appropriate management were 2.16 (95% CI 1.12-4.44) in the high-risk, 4.63 (95% CI 2.34-10.25) in the intermediate-risk and 3.60 (95% CI 3.07-4.24) in the low-risk patients.

CONCLUSION

HBV reactivation management was tailored according to the reactivation risk associated with IST. However, adherence to HBV reactivation management guidelines was sub-optimal, even among high-risk patients. This is especially the case for ensuring smaller-sized medical institutions, highlighting the need for further educational activities.

[Chronic hepatitis B in rheumatic diseases: issues of screening and reactivation of infection: A review]

Patients with rheumatic diseases infected with hepatitis B virus (HBV) are difficult to manage not only due to the presence of risk factors for the development and rapid progression of liver cirrhosis, but also due to the likelihood of reactivation of this infection. Despite the successes achieved in the fight against HBV, the virus cannot be completely defeated due to the presence of hidden forms of the disease, escaping the field of vision of a rheumatologist and an infectionist. Based on the results of the analysis of current publications, the paper presents the rationale for a complete immunological screening of patients with rheumatic diseases when prescribing antirheumatic therapy. The issues of the role of COVID-19 in the exacerbation of chronic viral hepatitis B, antiviral prevention and monitoring are discussed, the classification of antirheumatic drugs according to the risk of HBV reactivation is presented.

Upadacitinib-Induced Hepatitis B Reactivation Leading to Liver Transplant

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation can occur with the use of immunosuppressive therapy used to treat autoimmune conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis. Janus kinase inhibitors, such as upadacitinib, have been approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. This is the first case report of a patient who used upadacitinib without antiviral prophylaxis against HBV and developed HBV reactivation, leading to fulminant hepatic failure necessitating emergent liver transplantation.

Targeted Systemic Therapies for Adults with Atopic Dermatitis: Selecting from Biologics and JAK Inhibitors

Therapeutic options for people with moderate or severe atopic dermatitis refractory to topical therapy have rapidly expanded in recent years. These new targeted immunomodulatory agents-biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors-have each demonstrated high levels of efficacy and acceptable safety in mostly placebo-controlled clinical trials for atopic dermatitis, but there is no universally applicable algorithm to help choose between them for a given patient. Hence, patients and physicians should utilize shared decision making, discussing efficacy, safety, mode of delivery, monitoring, costs, speed of onset, and other factors to reach individualized treatment decisions. In this review, we try to aid shared decision making by summarizing the efficacy, safety, and monitoring of biologics and oral JAK inhibitors for adults with atopic dermatitis. Network meta-analyses suggest that higher doses of abrocitinib and upadacitinib are more effective than biologics. They also show that, among biologics, dupilumab is likely more effective than tralokinumab and lebrikizumab. Biologics are generally considered safer than JAK inhibitors, although concerns about JAK inhibitors are mainly extrapolated from older generation JAK inhibitors used in higher-risk populations. We also outline evidence and considerations for choosing and using systemic immunomodulatory treatments for special populations including pregnant individuals, those with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B and C, end stage kidney disease, and older adults.

Long-term safety of biologic and targeted synthetic disease modifying drugs in rheumatology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The landscape for treatment of rheumatic diseases is ever evolving, with several new drugs recently approved across diseases and more in the pipeline. This timely review aims to highlight the latest literature on long-term safety profiles of salient established and emerging biologic (b) and targeted synthetic (ts) disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

RECENT FINDINGS

The risk of infection remains elevated with the use of most b and tsDMARDs, with specifically risk of hepatitis B reactivation with rituximab and zoster infection with JAK inhibitors (JAKi). The results of the ORAL surveillance trial led to new black box warnings for JAKi and evoked critical risk-benefit discussions surrounding JAKi and DMARDs overall.

SUMMARY

Such well conducted trials are needed to gather long term comparative safety data of DMARDs. In the interim, real world observational studies also have a role to play in our understanding of long-term drug safety, provided that detailed attention is paid to minimize biases inherent in observational studies.

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.

The Risk of Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Receiving Tocilizumab: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Tocilizumab has demonstrated optimal efficacy and safety in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from clinical trials. However, the risk of hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr) in these patients remains uncertain because patients with underlying HBV have been excluded in phase III studies.

METHODS

Systematical reviews were conducted on PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to 21 February 2023. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate the pooled incidence of HBV reactivation.

RESULTS

We included 0 clinical trials and 11 observational studies with a total of 25 HBsAg+ and 322 HBsAg-/anti-HBc+ RA patients. Among the HBsAg+ patients without antiviral prophylaxis, the pooled rate was 69.4% (95% CI, 32.9-91.3), with a median time of 4 months (range, 1-8 months) from tocilizumab initiated. Half of these patients with HBVr experienced hepatitis flare-up but no deaths. HBVr was eliminated with prophylaxis in this population. Among HBsAg-/anti-HBc+ patients, the pooled incidence of reactivation was 3.3% (95% CI, 1.6-6.7), with a median time of 10 months (range, 2-43 months) from tocilizumab initiated. HBVr was not associated with hepatitis flare-up and death. HBsAg-/anti-HBc+ patients without anti-HBs antibodies had a significantly higher risk of HBVr (Odds ratio, 12.20; 95% CI, 1.16-128.06).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review indicated that the risk of HBVr in RA patients with anti-HBs-, HBsAg+, or HBsAg-/anti-HBc+ cannot be ignored but may be avoided. Clinicians should consider implementing appropriate antiviral prophylaxis and monitoring policies for RA patients to avoid unnecessary hepatic side effects from tocilizumab treatment.