Hepatitis B virus reactivation associated with ruxolitinib. Ann Hematol. 2014;93:1075-1076. [PMID: 24173089 DOI: 10.1007/s00277-013-1936-5]

Typical hemophagocytic syndrome associated with cytomegalovirus infection in an immunocompetent patient: a case report and literature review

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is currently prevalent in populations throughout the world, and 56%‍-94% of the global population is seropositive for CMV. CMV infection mainly affects immunocompromised hosts. In these cases, it can cause significant symptoms, tissue-invasive disease, and many sequelae including death (Dioverti and Razonable, 2016). The vast majority of healthy adults with CMV infection experience an asymptomatic course; when symptomatic, it manifests as a mononucleosis-like syndrome in approximately 10% of patients (Sridhar et al., 2018). The gastrointestinal tract and central nervous system appear to be the most frequent sites of severe CMV infection in immunocompetent individuals (Rafailidis et al., 2008). However, CMV infection is relatively rarely recorded in immunocompetent hosts.

Risk of hepatitis B reactivation in patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms treated with ruxolitinib

Classical Philadelphia-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs), i.e., polycythemia vera, essential thrombocythemia, and primary/secondary myelofibrosis, are clonal disorders of the hematopoietic stem cell in which an uncontrolled proliferation of terminally differentiated myeloid cells occurs. MPNs are characterized by mutations in driver genes, the JAK2V617F point mutation being the most commonly detected genetic alteration in these hematological malignancies. Thus, JAK inhibition has emerged as a potential therapeutic strategy in MPNs, with ruxolitinib being the first JAK inhibitor developed, approved, and prescribed in the management of these blood cancers. However, the use of ruxolitinib has been associated with a potential risk of infection, including opportunistic infections and reactivation of hepatitis B. Here, we briefly describe the association between ruxolitinib treatment in MPNs and hepatitis B reactivation.

Ruxolitinib accelerates influenza A virus adaptation in the Madin-Darby canine kidney (MDCK) cell line

AIM

To investigate the effect of ruxolitinib medium supplement, separately and in combination with trypsin, on influenza A virus (IAV) adaptation and propagation in the Madin-Darby canine kidney (MDCK) cell line.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Two consecutive passages of three egg-based IAV strains were performed in the MDCK cell line with medium (a) without additives; (b) with a combination of ruxolitinib and trypsin; (c) with ruxolitinib; and (d) trypsin. Adaptation without a medium additive failed in both passages. After a single passage, the probability of the IAV adaptation was highly significantly influenced by the type of additive (binomial generalized linear model, χ22 = 23.84, P < 0.00001). The highest probability of adaptation was achieved with the combination of ruxolitinib and trypsin, followed by ruxolitinib alone and trypsin. After the two consecutive passages, the influence of the type of medium additive on the probability of virus adaptation was no longer significant. In two of three IAV MDCK-adapted strains, the type of medium additive had no significant influence on virus yields.

CONCLUSION

Ruxolitinib accelerates the adaptation of IAV in the MDCK cell line both individually and together with trypsin.

Recent progress of JAK inhibitors for hematological disorders

JAK inhibitors are important therapeutic options for hematological disorders, especially myeloproliferative neoplasms. Ruxolitinib, the first JAK inhibitor approved for clinical use, improves splenomegaly and ameliorates constitutional symptoms in both myelofibrosis and polycythemia vera patients. Ruxolitinib is also useful for controlling hematocrit levels in polycythemia vera patients who were inadequately controlled by conventional therapies. Furthermore, pretransplantation use of ruxolitinib may improve the outcome of allo-hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in myelofibrosis. In contrast to these clinical merits, evidence of the disease-modifying action of ruxolitinib, i.e., reduction of malignant clones or improvement of bone marrow pathological findings, is limited, and many myelofibrosis patients discontinued ruxolitinib due to adverse events or disease progression. To overcome these limitations of ruxolitinib, several new types of JAK inhibitors have been developed. Among them, fedratinib was proven to provide clinical merits even in patients who were resistant or intolerant to ruxolitinib. Pacritinib and momelotinib have shown merits for myelofibrosis patients with thrombocytopenia or anemia, respectively. In addition to treatment for myeloproliferative neoplasms, recent studies have demonstrated that JAK inhibitors are novel and attractive therapeutic options for corticosteroid-refractory acute as well as chronic graft versus host disease.

Hepatitis B virus reactivation associated with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors: a retrospective study of pharmacovigilance databases and review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Recently, there have been clinical reports of hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr) related with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. However, there were no studies to investigate the association between HBVr and different JAK inhibitors.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This study was a retrospective review utilizing the FAERS pharmacovigilance database and a systematic literature search for all cases of HBVr reported with JAK inhibitors. Disproportionality analysis and Bayesian analysis were used in data detection to screen the suspected HBVr after the administration of different JAK inhibitors, based on the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) pharmacovigilance database from Q4 2011 to Q1 2022.

RESULTS

There were a total number of 2097 (0.02%) reports of HBVr in FAERS, of which 41 (1.96%) were associated with JAK inhibitors. Baricitinib appeared to have the strongest signal among four JAK inhibitors, based on the highest reporting odds ratio (ROR = 4.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.67-11.89). Ruxolitinib also showed signals, whereas no signals were detected among Tofacitinib and Upadacitinib.

CONCLUSION

While there may be an association between JAK inhibitors and HBVr, it appears to be a numerically uncommon occurrence. Further studies are needed to optimize the safety profiles of JAK inhibitors.

Myeloproliferative Neoplasms, Version 3.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

The classic Philadelphia chromosome-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) consist of myelofibrosis, polycythemia vera, and essential thrombocythemia and are a heterogeneous group of clonal blood disorders characterized by an overproduction of blood cells. The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for MPN were developed as a result of meetings convened by a multidisciplinary panel with expertise in MPN, with the goal of providing recommendations for the management of MPN in adults. The Guidelines include recommendations for the diagnostic workup, risk stratification, treatment, and supportive care strategies for the management of myelofibrosis, polycythemia vera, and essential thrombocythemia. Assessment of symptoms at baseline and monitoring of symptom status during the course of treatment is recommended for all patients. This article focuses on the recommendations as outlined in the NCCN Guidelines for the diagnosis of MPN and the risk stratification, management, and supportive care relevant to MF.

Immune Dysregulation and Infectious Complications in MPN Patients Treated With JAK Inhibitors

BCR-ABL1-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms are burdened by a reduced life expectancy mostly due to an increased risk of thrombo-hemorrhagic events, fibrotic progression/leukemic evolution, and infectious complications. In these clonal myeloid malignancies, JAK2V617F is the main driver mutation, leading to an aberrant activation of the Janus kinase-signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) signaling pathway. Therefore, its inhibition represents an attractive therapeutic strategy for these disorders. Several JAK inhibitors have entered clinical trials, including ruxolitinib, the first JAK1/2 inhibitor to become commercially available for the treatment of myelofibrosis and polycythemia vera. Due to interference with the JAK-STAT pathway, JAK inhibitors affect several components of the innate and adaptive immune systems such as dendritic cells, natural killer cells, T helper cells, and regulatory T cells. Therefore, even though the clinical use of these drugs in MPN patients has led to a dramatic improvement of symptoms control, organ involvement, and quality of life, JAK inhibitors–related loss of function in JAK-STAT signaling pathway can be a cause of different adverse events, including those related to a condition of immune suppression or deficiency. This review article will provide a comprehensive overview of the current knowledge on JAK inhibitors’ effects on immune cells as well as their clinical consequences, particularly with regards to infectious complications.

Risk of hepatitis B virus reactivation following ruxolitinib treatment in patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms

Objectives The aim of this retrospective analysis was to assess the incidence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation among patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) during and after ruxolitinib treatment. Methods Between February 2013 and February 2020, 224 patients with MPN were treated using ruxolitinib at Peking Union Medical College Hospital. Of these, 6 had chronic, and 56 had resolved HBV infection, including 43 patients who received combination treatment with thalidomide, prednisone, and stanozolol (TSP) during ruxolitinib treatment. Results Two patients with chronic HBV infection who did not take any antiviral prophylaxis developed HBV reactivation and hepatitis flare. The other four patients with chronic HBV infection, who took antiviral prophylaxis before ruxolitinib treatment, did not develop HBV reactivation. Also, no patients with resolved HBV infection received antiviral prophylaxis and developed HBV reactivation. Conclusion This study demonstrated that HBV reactivation and hepatitis flare might commonly occur a few months after initiating ruxolitinib treatment in patients with chronic HBV infection who did not take antiviral prophylaxis, especially in combination with TSP. Still, it was extremely rare in patients with resolved HBV infection.

Ruxolitinib-Associated Infections in Polycythemia Vera: Review of the Literature, Clinical Significance, and Recommendations

Simple Summary

Polycythemia vera (PV) is a chronic blood disease characterized by elevated red blood cells and splenomegaly. About 98% of all PV patients harbor the JAK2 mutation. Ruxolitinib (RUX), a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor, received approval as a second-line indication in PV patients who are resistant or intolerant to standard therapy hydroxyurea in both the United States (2014) and Europe (2015). In the studies relevant to approval, RUX achieved excellent PV control. Due to its mechanism of action, RUX also has immunosuppressive effects. As expected, an increased rate of infection was observed in clinical studies and in practical application. In this overview, we have compiled all previous literature references on RUX and infections in PV. However, apart from a few individual cases with special infections and an increased rate of zoster infections, there are no exceptional high infection problems. Recommendations are given on how infections in RUX treated PV patients can be avoided.

Abstract

Ruxolitinib (RUX), a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor, is approved for second-line therapy in patients with polycythemia vera (PV) who are resistant or intolerant to hydroxyurea. Due to the immunomodulatory and immunosuppressive effect of RUX, there is an increased susceptibility to infections. However, an increased risk of infection is inherent to even untreated myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN). To obtain more information on the clinical significance of RUX-associated infections in PV, we reviewed the available literature. There is no evidence-based approach to managing infection risks. Most data on RUX-associated infections are available for MF. In all studies, the infection rates in the RUX and control groups were fairly similar, with the exception of infections with the varicella zoster virus (VZV). However, individual cases of bilateral toxoplasmosis retinitis, disseminated molluscum contagiosum, or a mycobacterium tuberculosis infection or a hepatitis B reactivation are reported. A careful assessment of the risk of infection for PV patients is required at the initial presentation and before the start of RUX. Screening for hepatitis B is recommended in all patients. The risk of RUX-associated infections is lower with PV than with MF, but compared to a normal population there is an increased risk of VZV infection. However, primary VZV prophylaxis for PV patients is not recommended, while secondary prophylaxis can be considered individually. As early treatment is most effective for VZV, patients should be properly informed and trained to seek medical advice immediately if cutaneous signs of VZV develop. Vaccination against influenza, herpes zoster, and pneumococci should be considered in all PV patients at risk of infection, especially if RUX treatment is planned. Current recommendations do not support adjusting or discontinuing JAK inhibition in MPN patients to reduce the risk of COVID-19.

Real-world experience with Ropeginterferon-alpha 2b (Besremi) in Philadelphia-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Ropeginterferon alpha-2b (Ropeg) is a novel pegylated interferon-alpha recently approved for the treatment of polycythemia vera (PV) in Europe. However, other than data from clinical trials, little is known about this agent in real world practice.

METHODS

A compassionate use program employing Ropeg for treating patients with unmet medical need was initiated in Taiwan in 2017. Herein, we collected clinical data and assessed the safety as well as efficacy of Ropeg in nine patients treated in this program.

RESULTS

Collectively, among evaluable patients, both the molecular response and complete blood count remission rates were 62.5%. Most therapy-related side effects were mild, and there was no treatment discontinuation attributable to intolerable adverse events. The agent also showed efficacy in symptom amelioration and spleen size reduction. Although no specific patterns of cytokine level alteration could be identified, significantly attenuated plasma levels of inflammation markers were observed in one particular patient who happened to have normalized spleen size and most remarkable reduction in JAK2 mutant allele burden, indicating all-around improvement in every aspect of this case. Furthermore, plasma hepcidin levels increased in two-thirds of PV patients, illustrating the potential of Ropeg to restore normal regulation of erythropoiesis. Using RNA sequencing on pre- and post-treatment samples from one patient, we demonstrated altered expression of genes participating in IFN response, inflammation, apoptosis, and cellular differentiation.

CONCLUSION

Conclusively, observed signs of efficacy and safety in our real-world experience prove Ropeg as a promising option for the treatment of MPN.

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.

A case report of cryptococcal meningitis associated with ruxolitinib

We herein report a 76-year-old Japanese man with myelofibrosis who developed cryptococcal meningitis. After treatment for 5 months with ruxolitinib, the patient presented with fever and disturbance of consciousness. Marked nuchal stiffness was noted. The magnetic resonance imaging results of the brain were normal. Lumbar puncture showed an opening cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) pressure of 110 mm H2O, pleocytosis (85 mononuclear cells and 222 polymorphonuclear cells/μL), decreased CSF/serum glucose ratio (43%), and elevated protein (194 mg/dL). Blood and CSF cultures grew no bacteria or fungi. However, cryptococcal antigen was detected in the blood and CSF samples. We discontinued ruxolitinib and started administration of amphotericin B. His condition improved gradually 1 week after initiation of treatment. There have been only a few reports on cryptococcal meningitis associated with ruxolitinib. Physicians should consider the possibility of cryptococcal meningitis in patients receiving ruxolitinib.

Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation: Risk Factors and Current Management Strategies

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) is a global disease with significant morbidity and mortality. Worldwide, ~257 million people are chronically infected with HBV, defined as having a positive hepatitis B surface antigen, but millions more have prior HBV exposure indicated by positive hepatitis B core antibody. Reactivation of hepatitis B implies a sudden increase in viral replication in a patient with chronic HBV infection or prior HBV exposure. Hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr) can occur spontaneously, but it is more commonly triggered by immunosuppressive therapies for cancer, immunologic diseases, or transplantation. Elimination of hepatitis C virus (HCV) in HBV-HCV coinfected individuals treated with direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) has also been identified as an important cause of HBVr. Hepatitis B virus reactivation is an underappreciated but important complication of common medical therapies that can delay treatment or result in clinical episodes of hepatitis, hepatic failure, or death. In this review, factors associated with HBVr, particularly medication-related risks, are explored. We review data involving rituximab and ofatumumab, doxorubicin, corticosteroids, tumor necrosis factor antagonists, tyrosine kinases, bortezomib, hematologic stem cell transplantation, and DAAs for HCV treatment. In addition, we discuss screening strategies, choice of antiviral prophylaxis, and the optimal duration of therapy for HBVr. With additional awareness, screening, and appropriate antiviral therapy, it is expected that most cases of HBVr can be prevented.

A journey through infectious risk associated with ruxolitinib

Ruxolitinib has proved to be effective for the treatment of patients with myelofibrosis (either primary or secondary) and polycythaemia vera, and its approval led to a significant change in the current treatment algorithm. Despite its efficacy and beyond its well described haematological toxicity, a peculiar immunosuppressive effect emerged as our clinical experience grew, both within and outside of a clinical trial setting. Definite and negative interactions with multiple pathways of the immune system of patients have been reported so far, involving both adaptive and innate immune responses. These pathophysiological mechanisms may contribute to the increased risk of reactivation of silent infections (e.g., tuberculosis, hepatitis B virus and varicella zoster virus) that have been associated with the drug. Even though such infectious events may be fatal or may lead to significant impairment of organ function, compromising the eligibility of patients for an allotransplant procedure, there are no dedicated guidelines that may help us in assessing and managing the risk of developing serious infections. On this basis, our aim for the present work was to review the current knowledge on the pathophysiological mechanisms through which ruxolitinib may exert its immunosuppressive effect, and to illustrate our personal approach to the management of three peculiar clinical scenarios, for which a risk-based algorithm is suggested.

Reactivation of hepatitis B virus infection in patients with hemo-lymphoproliferative diseases, and its prevention

Reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) replication is characterized by increased HBV-DNA serum values of about 1 log or by HBV DNA turning positive if previously undetectable in serum, possibly associated with liver damage and seldom life-threatening. Due to HBV reactivation, hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-negative/anti-HBc-positive subjects may revert to HBsAg-positive. In patients with hemo-lymphoproliferative disease, the frequency of HBV reactivation depends on the type of lymphoproliferative disorder, the individual's HBV serological status and the potency and duration of immunosuppression. In particular, it occurs in 10%-50% of the HBsAg-positive and in 2%-25% of the HBsAg- negative/anti-HBc-positive, the highest incidences being registered in patients receiving rituximab-based therapy. HBV reactivation can be prevented by accurate screening of patients at risk and by a pharmacological prophylaxis with anti-HBV nucleo(t)sides starting 2-3 wk before the beginning of immunosuppressive treatment and covering the entire period of administration of immunosuppressive drugs and a long subsequent period, the duration of which depends substantially on the degree of immunodepression achieved. Patients with significant HBV replication before immunosuppressive therapy should receive anti-HBV nucleo(t)sides as a long-term (may be life-long) treatment. This review article is mainly directed to doctors engaged every day in the treatment of patients with onco-lymphoproliferative diseases, so that they can broaden their knowledge on HBV infection and on its reactivation induced by the drugs with high immunosuppressive potential that they use in the care of their patients.

Infections associated with immunotherapeutic and molecular targeted agents in hematology and oncology. A position paper by the European Conference on Infections in Leukemia (ECIL)

A multitude of new agents for the treatment of hematologic malignancies has been introduced over the past decade. Hematologists, infectious disease specialists, stem cell transplant experts, pulmonologists and radiologists have met within the framework of the European Conference on Infections in Leukemia (ECIL) to provide a critical state-of-the-art on infectious complications associated with immunotherapeutic and molecular targeted agents used in clinical routine. For brentuximab vedotin, blinatumomab, CTLA4- and PD-1/PD-L1-inhibitors as well as for ibrutinib, idelalisib, HDAC inhibitors, mTOR inhibitors, ruxolitinib, and venetoclax, a detailed review of data available until August 2018 has been conducted, and specific recommendations for prophylaxis, diagnostic and differential diagnostic procedures as well as for clinical management have been developed.

Reactivation of hepatitis B virus infection in patients with hematologic disorders

Hepatitis B reactivation is the reappearance or rise of hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA in patients with past or chronic HBV infection, usually occurring in the context of immunosuppression. HBV reactivation has been most commonly reported in patients with hematologic disorders, with potentially serious and life-threatening consequences. In this review, we discuss the basis and presentation of HBV reactivation, and risk factors in terms of the host, the virus and the immunosuppression regimen, including newer agents used to manage hematologic malignancies. We overview the management of HBV reactivation, highlighting an up-dated recommendation on the use of newer nucleoside and nucleotide analogs, such as tenofovir and entecavir, for antiviral prophylaxis.

Ruxolitinib-associated infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Ruxolitinib exerts immunosuppressive activity that may increase the risk of infectious complications. We performed a systematic review of the literature with the aim of estimating the risk of infections in patients treated with ruxolitinib. Studies were identified by electronic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE database. Differences in the incidence of infectious events between ruxolitinib and comparison groups were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Five phase III randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (3 phase IIIa with their extended phase and 2 phase IIIb), 6 phase IV studies and 28 case reports were included in this systematic review. Ruxolitinib was associated with a statistically significant increased risk of herpes zoster infection compared to control group in 3 RCTs including patients with polycythemia vera (OR 7.39 [1.33, 41.07]) and in a pooled analysis of the extended phase IIIa RCTs (OR 5.20 [95%CI 1.27, 21.18]). In the larger phase IV post-marketing study, the incidence of the most frequent infections was 8% for herpes zoster, 6.1% for bronchitis and 6% for urinary tract infections. In the published case reports, the most frequent infections were tuberculosis (N = 10), hepatitis B reactivation (N = 5) and pneumocystis jeroveci infection (N = 2). Evidence is not solid enough to accurately estimate the risk of infection in ruxolitinib-treated patients. However, published data clearly suggest that the infection risk may be clinically relevant. Well-designed studies are warranted to evaluate the risk of ruxolitinib-associated infection, in order to identify the most appropriate antimicrobial prophylactic strategy.

An updated review of the JAK1/2 inhibitor (ruxolitinib) in the Philadelphia-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms

Ruxolitinib (Rux), a JAK1/2 inhibitor, has been approved for patients with myelofibrosis and in polycythemia vera with inadequate response/intolerance to hydroxycarbamide. Studies have demonstrated that Rux improves disease-related symptoms and splenomegaly. A late emerging observation from two Phase III trials was that Rux was associated with survival advantage in comparison with placebo or other available therapies in myelofibrosis. Important data suggest that for polycythemia vera Rux improved control of blood counts. Main hematological side effects are anemia and thrombocytopenia predominantly at the beginning of the treatment. Some studies and case reports highlighted potential risks of nonmelanoma skin cancers and increased risk of infection including reactivation of hepatitis B, tuberculosis or herpes zoster infections after Rux treatment.

Ruxolitinib in myelofibrosis: to be or not to be an immune disruptor

Primary myelofibrosis (PMF) is a myeloproliferative neoplasm classified according to the 2016 revision of World Health Organization Classification of Tumors and Haematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissue. Ruxolitinib is an oral inhibitor of Janus kinase approved in the USA for the treatment of intermediate or high-risk PMF and approved in Europe for the treatment of splenomegaly and constitutional symptoms of the disease. More recently, case reports described serious opportunistic infections in this neoplasm treated with ruxolitinib. Research studies demonstrated the immunological derangement of this compound mainly based on T, dendritic, and natural killer cell defects. The purpose of this review of the literature was to analyze the relationship among ruxolitinib, immune system and bacterial, viral, fungal, and protozoan infections. A literature search was conducted using PubMed articles published between January 2010 and November 2016. The efficacy of drug in patients with PMF was demonstrated in two phase III studies, Controlled MyeloFibrosis Study with ORal Jak inhibitor Treatment (COMFORT-I and COMFORT-II). Grade 3 and 4 neutropenia were recognized in 7.1% and 2% of patients in the ruxolitinib and placebo arm of COMFORT-I. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia or leukopenia were observed in 8.9% and 6.3% of ruxolitinib treated patients of 5-year follow-up of COMFORT-II. In addition, leukocyte subpopulations, lymphocyte functions, or antibody deficiency were not documented in either of the studies. The complex interactions between ruxolitinib, bone marrow, immune system, and infections in PMF need further investigation, robust data from a randomized clinical trial, registry, or large case-series.

Prevention and management of hepatitis B virus reactivation in patients with hematological malignancies treated with anticancer therapy

Hepatitis due to hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation can be severe and potentially fatal, but is preventable. HBV reactivation is most commonly reported in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy, especially rituximab-containing therapy for hematological malignancies and those receiving stem cell transplantation. All patients with hematological malignancies receiving anticancer therapy should be screened for active or resolved HBV infection by blood tests for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and antibody to hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc). Patients found to be positive for HBsAg should be given prophylactic antiviral therapy to prevent HBV reactivation. For patients with resolved HBV infection, no standard strategy has yet been established to prevent HBV reactivation. There are usually two options. One is pre-emptive therapy guided by serial HBV DNA monitoring, whereby antiviral therapy is given as soon as HBV DNA becomes detectable. However, there is little evidence regarding the optimal interval and period of monitoring. An alternative approach is prophylactic antiviral therapy, especially for patients receiving high-risk therapy such as rituximab, newer generation of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, obinutuzumab or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. This strategy may effectively prevent HBV reactivation and avoid the inconvenience of repeated HBV DNA monitoring. Entecavir or tenofovir are preferred over lamivudine as prophylactic therapy. Although there is no well-defined guideline on the optimal duration of prophylactic therapy, there is growing evidence to recommend continuing prophylactic antiviral therapy for at least 12 mo after cessation of chemotherapy, and even longer for those who receive rituximab or who had high serum HBV DNA levels before the start of immunosuppressive therapy. Many novel agents have recently become available for the treatment of hematological malignancies, and these agents may be associated with HBV reactivation. Although there is currently limited evidence to guide the optimal preventive measures, we recommend antiviral prophylaxis in HBsAg-positive patients receiving novel treatments, especially the Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors and the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibitors, which are B-cell receptor signaling modulators and reduce proliferation of malignant B-cells. Further studies are needed to clarify the risk of HBV reactivation with these agents and the best prophylactic strategy in the era of targeted therapy for hematological malignancies.

Elevation of the Hepatitis B Virus DNA during the Treatment of Polycythemia Vera with the JAK Kinase Inhibitor Ruxolitinib

Ruxolitinib is a useful treatment option for myelofibrosis since it effectively resolves splenomegaly and constitutional symptoms. After the widespread use of ruxolitinib outside of clinical trials, a series of case reports indicated a potential risk of ruxolitinib-associated opportunistic infections, including the reactivation of the hepatitis B virus (HBV). We herein report the case of a polycythemia vera patient who showed an elevation of HBV-DNA viral DNA with an elevation of aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) after the initiation of ruxolitinib. Anti-viral therapy with entecavir was immediately started and the HBV viral load thereafter decreased with an improvement of the liver function. Physicians should thus be aware of the potential risk of ruxolitinib-associated HBV reactivation.

Reactivation of hepatitis B virus after withdrawal of erlotinib

Reactivation of hepatitis B virus (hbv) is a reported complication for patients undergoing chemotherapy, particularly immunochemotherapy with anti-CD20 agents such as rituximab. However, as the use of molecularly targeted agents increases, the risk of viral reactivation is less clearly defined. Here, we present the case of a 62-year-old woman with newly diagnosed EGFR mutation-positive metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc). Per interview, our patient had a remote history of hbv infection. She was started on erlotinib and developed profound diarrhea leading to renal failure that required hospital admission and temporary discontinuation of erlotinib. At 8 days after erlotinib cessation, she had a marked spike in her liver function tests, with viral serologies that were consistent with hbv reactivation. Although erlotinib and other tyrosine kinase inhibitors (tkis) are not classically associated with hbv reactivation, hbv reactivation can occur even in the setting of tki withdrawal. Before tki initiation, careful patient screening in those at risk for hbv should be performed to attenuate preventable hepatotoxicity and to differentiate between other causes of hepatotoxicity (for example, drug-induced toxicity).

Clinical potential of pacritinib in the treatment of myelofibrosis

Myelofibrosis (MF) is a myeloid disorder caused by a clonal hematopoietic stem-cell proliferation associated with activation of the Janus kinase (JAK) signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) signaling pathways. Patients with MF often develop severe splenomegaly, marked symptom burden and significant cytopenias, with a consequent marked negative impact on quality of life and survival. The management of MF patients has dramatically improved with the development of a group of drugs that inhibit JAK signaling. The first of these agents to be approved was ruxolitinib, a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor, which has been shown to improve both spleen size and symptoms in patients with MF. However, myelotoxicity, particularly of the platelet lineage, significantly limits the patient population who can benefit from this agent. Thus, there is an unmet need for novel agents with limited myelotoxicity to treat MF. Pacritinib, a JAK2 and FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3) inhibitor, has shown promising results in early phase trials with limited myelotoxicity and clinical responses that are comparable with those seen with ruxolitinib, even in patients with severe thrombocytopenia. Currently there are two large phase III clinical trials of pacritinib in MF, including patients with thrombocytopenia, and those previously treated with ruxolitinib. If the encouraging results observed in early phase clinical trials are confirmed, pacritinib will represent a new and exciting treatment option for patients with MF and particularly patients with significant cytopenias.

Case-report: EBV driven lymphoproliferative disorder associated with Ruxolitinib

BACKGROUND

Ruxolitinib, a novel inhibitor of Janus kinases 1 and 2, was recently approved for the treatment of myelofibrosis but, recently, attention has been drawn to potential side effects and especially opportunistic infections and virus reactivations. EBV reactivation has not previously been reported to occur in association with Ruxolitinib.

CASE PRESENTATION

We report a case of a 57 year old female with post-polycythemic myelofibrosis who was treated with Ruxolitinib. Approximately 9 weeks later she presented with a rapidly fatal, suspected EBV driven lymphoproliferative disorder in the CNS.

CONCLUSIONS

Our report further underlines that patients treated with Ruxolitinib should be monitored closely for reactivations of opportunistic pathogens and viral infections.

Critical appraisal of the role of ruxolitinib in myeloproliferative neoplasm-associated myelofibrosis

The recent approval of molecular-targeted therapies for myeloproliferative neoplasm-associated myelofibrosis (MPN-MF) has dramatically changed its therapeutic landscape. Ruxolitinib, a JAK1/JAK2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is now widely used for first- and second-line therapy in persons with MPN-MF, especially those with disease-related splenomegaly, intermediate- or high-risk disease, and constitutional symptoms. The goal of this work is to critically analyze data supporting use of ruxolitinib in the clinical settings approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA). We systematically reviewed the literature and analyzed the risk of biases in the two randomized studies (COMFORT I and COMFORT II) on which FDA and EMA approval was based. Our strategy was to apply the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach by evaluating five dimensions of evidence: (1) overall risk of bias, (2) imprecision, (3) inconsistency, (4) indirectness, and (5) publication bias. Based on these criteria, we downgraded the evidence from the COMFORT I and COMFORT II trials for performance, attrition, and publication bias. In the disease-associated splenomegaly sphere, we upgraded the quality of evidence because of large effect size but downgraded it because of comparator choice and outcome indirectness (quality of evidence, low). In the sphere of treating persons with intermediate- or high-risk disease, we downgraded the evidence because of imprecision in effect size measurement and population indirectness. In the sphere of disease-associated symptoms, we upgraded the evidence because of the large effect size, but downgraded it because of comparator indirectness (quality of evidence, moderate). In conclusion, using the GRADE technique, we identified factors affecting the quality of evidence that were otherwise unstated. Identifying and evaluating these factors should influence the confidence with which physicians use ruxolitinib in persons with MPN-MF.