Prospective study of reactivation of hepatitis B virus in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who received immunosuppressive therapy: evaluation of both HBsAg-positive and HBsAg-negative cohorts

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

APPROACH AND RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Case report: Recombinant human type II tumour necrosis factor receptor-antibody fusion protein induced occult hepatitis B virus reactivation leading to liver failure

Recombinant human type II tumour necrosis factor receptor-antibody fusion protein (rh TNFR:Fc) is an immunosuppressant approved for treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This case report describes a case of hepatitis B reactivation in a patient with drug-induced acute-on-chronic liver failure. A 58-year-old woman with a history of RA was treated with rh TNFR:Fc; and then subsequently received 25 mg rh TNFR:Fc, twice a week, as maintenance therapy. No anti-hepatitis B virus (HBV) preventive treatment was administered. Six months later, she was hospitalized with acute jaundice. HBV reactivation was observed, leading to acute-on-chronic liver failure. After active treatment, the patient's condition improved and she recovered well. Following careful diagnosis and treatment protocols are essential when treating RA with rh TNFR:Fc, especially in anti-hepatitis B core antigen antibody-positive patients, even when the HBV surface antigen and the HBV DNA are negative. In the case of HBV reactivation, liver function parameters, HBV surface antigen and HBV DNA should be closely monitored during treatment, and antiviral drugs should be used prophylactically when necessary, as fatal hepatitis B reactivation may occur in rare cases. A comprehensive evaluation and medication should be administered in a timely manner after evaluating the patient's physical condition and closely monitoring the patient.

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.

Recommendations by the Spanish Society of Rheumatology on risk management of biological treatment and JAK inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To present recommendations based on the available evidence and the consensus of experts, for risk management of biological treatment and JAK inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

Clinical research questions relevant to the purpose of the document were identified. These questions were reformulated in PICO format (patient, intervention, comparison, outcome or outcome) by a panel of experts, selected based on their experience in the area. A systematic review of the evidence was carried out, grading according to the GRADE criteria (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). Specific recommendations were then formulated.

RESULTS

6 PICO questions were proposed by the panel of experts based on their clinical relevance and the existence of recent information regarding the risk of occurrence of serious infections, the risk of reactivation of the hepatitis B virus, the risk of reactivation of the virus varicella-zoster, the risk of appearance of skin (melanoma and non-melanoma) or haematological cancer, the risk of appearance of thromboembolic disease and the risk of progression of the human papilloma virus. A total of 28 recommendations were formulated, structured by question, based on the evidence found and the consensus of the experts.

CONCLUSIONS

The SER recommendations on risk management of treatment with biologic therapies and JAK inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis are presented.

Risk of alanine aminotransferase flare in patients with previous hepatitis B virus exposure on biological modifier therapies-A population-based study

BACKGROUND

It is uncertain whether biological therapies would increase the risk of hepatitis among patients with past hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. This study aimed to evaluate the risk of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) flare in patients with past HBV infection while using biological therapies.

METHODOLOGY

Patients who received biological therapies for ≥3 months from 2000 to 2019 were identified from a population-based database in Hong Kong. Patients with past HBV infection were compared with a control group without prior HBV exposure. The primary endpoint was development of ALT flare within 5 years of starting biological therapies, defined as ALT >80 IU/L.

RESULTS

There were 2471 and 2394 patients with and without past HBV infection respectively. There was a non-significant increase in risk of ALT flare among the HBV-exposed group (27.6% vs. 23.7%, p = .055). In multivariable analysis, using prednisolone-equivalent dose of >20 mg daily, male sex and concomitant immunosuppressants were risk factors for ALT flare. The risk of ALT flare was significantly higher with anti-CD20 when compared to other biological agents (36.1% vs. 14.5%, p < .01), but was not significantly different among anti-tumour necrosis factor, anti-cytokine, Janus kinase inhibitors and T cell/B cell inhibitors or anti-integrin (15.2% vs. 14.6% vs. 11.7% vs. 11.1%, p = .82). Among patients with documented hepatitis B surface antigen seroreversion, 96% were on anti-CD20.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study further supports the current suggestion of prophylactic anti-viral before starting anti-CD20 in HBV-exposed patients. While other biological therapies appear to have a lower risk for ALT flare, this result needs further confirmation.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

COVID-19 Pnömonisi Sonrası AntiHBs Değerlerindeki Değişiklikler

Background/aim: We aimed to determine if there is a decrease in antiHBS titer below the protective value during Coronavirus-19 disease (COVID-19). Materials and methods: A prospective study was made of 67 patients who had positive antiHbs values checked in the last 1 year. Demographic data and the previous antiHBs values were collected from the patient files and the laboratory findings of new antiHBs titers checked after one months later following COVID-19 infection were compared with the previous ones. Results: In the postcovid evaluation, a statistically significant decrease in the antiHBs levels of COVID-19 patients was determined with respect to previous values before COVID-19 infection (p&lt;0,001). Conclusion: In our study, we found that there was a statistically significant decrease in AntiHBs levels after COVID-19 infection, but none of them were below protective antiHBs levels. As a result, we can say a booster vaccination against hepatitis B is not needed during or after COVID-19 infection, but it would be appropriate to support it with studies with a higher number of patients.

Prophylactic effect of tenofovir on viral reactivation in immunocompromised pregnant women living with hepatitis B virus

The appropriate prophylaxis for hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr) during gestation for immunocompromised pregnant women has yet to be determined. The prophylactic efficacy and safety of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)–positive patients and the HBVr risk in hepatitis B core antibody (HBcAb)–positive patients during gestation were investigated. Eligible pregnant women were diagnosed with rheumatic diseases and were administered prednisone (≤10 mg daily) with permitted immunosuppressants at screening. HBsAg‐positive participants were instructed to take TDF; those unwilling to take TDF were followed up as the control group. Propensity score matching was applied to control for differences in confounding factors between the HBcAb‐positive and uninfected groups. Hepatopathy, maternal, pregnancy, and safety outcomes were documented as endpoints. A cohort of 1292 women was recruited from 2017 to 2020, including 58 HBsAg‐positive patients (29 in each group). A total of 120 pairs in the HBcAb‐positive and noninfection groups were analyzed. Among HBsAg‐positive patients, 6 (20.7%) cases of hepatitis flare (hazard ratio [HR]: 7.44; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.50–36.89; p = 0.014) and 12 (41.4%) cases of HBVr (HR: 8.71; 95% CI: 2.80–27.17; p < 0.001) occurred in the control group, while 0 occurred in the TDF prophylaxis group. The HBV level at delivery was the lowest (1.6 log₁₀ IU/ml) for those who received TDF during the pregestation period with a good safety profile. More adverse maternal outcomes were observed in the control group (odds ratio: 0.19, 95% CI: 0.05–0.77, p = 0.021), including one death from fulminant hepatitis and two cases of vertical transmission. No HBVr was recorded in HBcAb‐positive participants. Among immunocompromised pregnant women, prophylactic TDF during pregestation was necessary for HBsAg‐positive women, whereas regular monitoring was recommended for HBcAb‐positive women.

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.

Hepatitis B virus reactivation in rheumatoid arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune disease characterized by proliferative synovitis, which can cause cartilage and bone damage as well as functional limitations. Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs have significantly improved the prognosis of RA patients. However, people with RA, when combined with hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, may experience reactivation of HBV during treatment with anti-rheumatic drugs. The outcome of HBV reactivation (HBVr) varies from liver inflammation to liver failure, while insufficient HBV screening in RA patients has been reported in various countries. Therefore, it is necessary to identify patients at high risk before starting immunosuppressive therapy. The immune response plays an important role in anti-HBV infection. However, most anti-rheumatic drugs exert an inhibitory effect on the body's immune system, resulting in HBVr. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct a comprehensive evaluation based on host factors, viral factors, and drug factors. In this paper, we summarize the mechanism of HBVr, the risk of HBVr caused by anti-rheumatic drugs, and the appropriate diagnosis and treatment process for RA patients so that clinicians can have a more comprehensive understanding of HBVr in RA patients.

Safety of therapies using ustekinumab in patients with psoriasis who have had hepatitis B virus infection

Biological therapies used in psoriasis treatment pose a risk of reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. This risk occurs not only in patients with HB surface antigen (HBsAg) (+) but also in patients with past or occult HBV infection (with negative HBsAg, positive HB core antibodies (HBcAb), and positive HBV deoxyribonucleic acid [DNA]). Ustekinumab (UST) is a biologic agent acts by blocking the IL-12/23 pathway. Thus, hindering this response may lead to HBV reactivation. UST therapy is associated with mild HBV-r risk; however, there is insufficient data to confirm that hypothesis. Herein, we present observations on the safety of UST therapy in patients with psoriasis and serologically proved past HBV infection. One-hundred and six consecutive patients with moderate to severe psoriasis treated with biological therapy between May 2013 and January 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Out of 106 patients, there were five who reported having past HBV. Those five patients were tested for the presence of HBsAg, HBcAb, HBsAb as well as HBV DNA at baseline and at the end of the follow-up period. HBV reactivation was defined as changing of "undetectable" to "detectable" viremia. All five patients were treated with UST. Five patients in our cohort group were found to have resolved HBV infection: HBsAg (-), HBcAb (+), and HBV DNA (-); 4/5 were HBsAb (+) and 1/5 HBsAb (-). None of the patients experienced an increase in their liver function tests values and no signs of hepatitis or HBV reactivation were observed at any point during the study. All the patients were HBsAg and HBV DNA negative at the end of the follow-up period. The average treatment time was 82.4 (28, 96) weeks. The average follow-up time was 75.2 (31, 176) weeks. Based on the available literature and the results from our observations, UST therapy seems to be a safe option for patients with resolved HBV infection.

Risk of Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) Reactivation in Patients with Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases Receiving Biologics: Focus on the Timing of Biologics after Anti-HBV Treatment

Background/Aims

Anti-hepatitis B virus (HBV) therapy is required for patients with HBV infection receiving biologics because of the high risk of HBV reactivation. However, it is unclear when to start biologics after anti-HBV treatment. We investigated the risk of HBV reactivation according to the timing of biologics initiation after anti-HBV treatment in immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID) patients with HBV infection.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated the incidence of HBV reactivation in IMID patients who received biologics between July 2005 and April 2020. The patients were divided into two groups (within 1-week and after 1-week) according to the timing of biologics initiation after anti-HBV treatment. The cumulative probabilities and factors associated with HBV reactivation were evaluated.

Results

A total of 60 hepatitis B surface antigen-positive patients with IMID received biologics (within 1-week group, n=23 [38%]; after 1-week group, n=37 [62%]). During a median follow-up of 34 months (interquartile range, 20 to 74 months), three patients (5%) developed HBV reactivation. In univariate analysis, the timing of biologics after anti-HBV treatment was not significantly associated with the risk of HBV reactivation (hazard ratio, 0.657; 95% confidence interval, 0.059 to 7.327; p=0.733). The cumulative probabilities of HBV reactivation did not significantly differ according to the timing of biologics (p=0.731).

Conclusions

The risk of HBV reactivation was not significantly associated with the timing of biologics administration after anti-HBV treatment. Thus, biologics may be initiated early in patients with IMID undergoing treatment for HBV.

APASL clinical practice guideline on hepatitis B reactivation related to the use of immunosuppressive therapy

BACKGROUND & AIM

Hepatitis B reactivation related to the use of immunosuppressive therapy remains a major cause of liver-related morbidity and mortality in hepatitis B endemic Asia-Pacific region. This clinical practice guidelines aim to assist clinicians in all disciplines involved in the use of immunosuppressive therapy to effectively prevent and manage hepatitis B reactivation.

METHODS

All publications related to hepatitis B reactivation with the use of immunosuppressive therapy since 1975 were reviewed. Advice from key opinion leaders in member countries/administrative regions of Asian-Pacific Association for the study of the liver was collected and synchronized. Immunosuppressive therapy was risk-stratified according to its reported rate of hepatitis B reactivation.

RECOMMENDATIONS

We recommend the necessity to screen all patients for hepatitis B prior to the initiation of immunosuppressive therapy and to administer pre-emptive nucleos(t)ide analogues to those patients with a substantial risk of hepatitis and acute-on-chronic liver failure due to hepatitis B reactivation.

Clinical Course of Hepatitis B Viral Infection in Patients Undergoing Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor α Therapy for Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Background/Aims

Little is known about the clinical course of hepatitis B virus (HBV)-infected patients undergoing anti-tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) therapy for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We aimed to investigate the clinical course of HBV infection and IBD and to analyze liver dysfunction risks in patients undergoing anti-TNF-α therapy.

Methods

This retrospective multinational study involved multiple centers in Korea, China, Taiwan, and Japan. We enrolled IBD patients with chronic or resolved HBV infection, who received anti-TNF-α therapy. The patients’ medical records were reviewed, and data were collected using a web-based case report form.

Results

Overall, 191 patients (77 ulcerative colitis and 114 Crohn’s disease) were included, 28.3% of whom received prophylactic antivirals. During a median follow-up duration of 32.4 months, 7.3% of patients experienced liver dysfunction due to HBV reactivation. Among patients with chronic HBV infection, the proportion experiencing liver dysfunction was significantly higher in the non-prophylaxis group (26% vs 8%, p=0.02). Liver dysfunction occurred in one patient with resolved HBV infection. Antiviral prophylaxis was independently associated with an 84% reduction in liver dysfunction risk in patients with chronic HBV infection (odds ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.04 to 0.66; p=0.01). The clinical course of IBD was not associated with liver dysfunction or the administration of antiviral prophylaxis.

Conclusions

Liver dysfunction due to HBV reactivation can occur in HBV-infected IBD patients treated with anti-TNF-α agents. Careful monitoring is needed in these patients, and antivirals should be administered, especially to those with chronic HBV infection.

Novel strategies for the early diagnosis of hepatitis B virus reactivation

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation under systemic chemotherapy or immunosuppressive therapy is a serious complication among HBV-resolved patients. Some medications, such as more than 2 weeks of corticosteroid therapy, can influence HBV reactivation; therefore, screening tests that measure hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), hepatitis B core antibody, and hepatitis B surface antibody before therapy are required. Additionally, because HBV reactivation has been reported in patients positive for HBsAg treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), the prophylactic administration of nucleos(t)ide analogues prior to administering ICIs is recommended for HBsAg-positive patients. Under these circumstances, highly sensitive novel biomarkers are expected to be used for the early diagnosis of HBV reactivation. A fully automated high-sensitivity HBsAg assay (detection limit: 5 mIU/ml) by Lumipulse HBsAg-HQ, with 10-fold higher sensitivity than that of conventional assays, is currently used. Furthermore, ultra-sensitive HBsAg assays using a semi-automated immune complex transfer chemiluminescence enzyme immunoassay (ICT-CLEIA; detection limit: 0.5 mIU/ml) have been developed. Recently, a fully automated, novel high-sensitivity hepatitis B core-related antigen assay (iTACT-HBcrAg; cut-off value: 2.1 Log U/mL) has been developed and reported. The utility of ICT-CLEIA and iTACT-HBcrAg for the diagnosis of HBV reactivation appears comparable to the use of HBV DNA. In this review, we provide the latest information related to medications that influence HBV reactivation and recently developed novel biomarkers that predict and monitor HBV reactivation.

Multidisciplinary Approach to Prevent de novo Hepatitis B in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

The reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is currently a social problem. Our hospital has established a project team, which consisted of medical staff including doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and technicians, to prevent HBV reactivation and subsequent de novo hepatitis B in 2015. To verify the usefulness of the team, we aimed to examine the implementation rate of HBV screening tests in patients with RA in 2011, 2015, and 2018. We also examined the rate of HBV infection, as well as the rate of HBV reactivation during the course. In this study, medical records of patients who visited our hospital in 2011, 2015, and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. HBV screening was completed when hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), hepatitis B surface antibody (HBsAb), and hepatitis B core antibody (HBcAb) were all examined. The prevalence of patients who completed HBV screening dramatically increased from 2.4% in 2011 to 79.1% in 2015 and 86.9% in 2018. Patients who completed the screening had significantly higher rates of liver dysfunction, methotrexate use, and use of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs than those who did not. Of the 767 patients who completed HBV screening in 2018, 157 patients (20.5%) had previously resolved HBV infection (HBsAg-negative but HBsAb- and/or HBcAb-positive). During a mean follow-up of 41.0 months, reactivation of HBV was observed in 10 out of the 157 patients (6.4%); however, none developed de novo hepatitis B. In conclusion, our multidisciplinary approach to prevent de novo hepatitis B is considered useful.

Post-marketing analysis for biosimilar CT-P13 in inflammatory bowel disease compared with external data of originator infliximab in Japan

BACKGROUND AND AIM

CT-P13, an infliximab (IFX) biosimilar, was approved for treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. However, no comparison with the originator IFX in this indication has been conducted in Japan where endemic levels of tuberculosis and hepatitis virus infection are not low. We evaluated the safety and efficacy in real-world data of CT-P13 and compared with originator IFX data in Japan.

METHODS

In a prospective post-marketing surveillance (PMS) study, patients who received CT-P13 in a 28-month period from January 2015 were followed up for 2 years. By conducting Japanese administrative database search (DBS) for the same period of PMS, data of the originator IFX including treatment persistence, tuberculosis incidence, and liver injury were analyzed retrospectively and compared with the corresponding PMS data of CT-P13.

RESULTS

CT-P13 persistence in PMS (n = 640) and IFX persistence in DBS (n = 4113) were almost similar between patients who switched from the originator and patients who continued on the originator, and also between the biologics-naïve patient groups. There were no differences in the incidences of tuberculosis and hepatic injury (Tuberculosis: 2 patients [0.31%] with CT-P13, 10 patients [0.24%] with the originator, P = 0.75; Hepatic injury: 18.5% with CT-P13, 15.4% with the originator, P = 0.22). Most of the patients with hepatic injury continued treatment in PMS and DBS at similar rates (80.8% vs 83.6%, P = 0.65).

CONCLUSION

The results of long-term PMS of CT-P13 compared with external reference data from an administrative database suggested that the biosimilar and its originator were comparably useful in real-world clinical practice.

Risk factors for losing hepatitis B virus surface antibody in patients with HBV surface antigen negative/surface antibody positive serostatus receiving biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs: a nested case-control study

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation consequent to immunosuppressive therapy is an increasingly prevalent problem with serious clinical implications. Treatment with biologic agents conduces to the loss of protective antibody to HBV surface antigen (anti-HBs), which significantly increases the risk of HBV reactivation. Hence, we investigated the risk factors for losing anti-HBs in patients with rheumatic diseases and HBV surface antigen negative/anti-HBs positive (HBsAg-/anti-HBs+) serostatus during treatment with biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

METHODS

Using a nested case-control design, we prospectively enrolled patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis/psoriasis, or juvenile idiopathic arthritis, who were treated with biologic DMARDs at Changhua Christian Hospital, Taiwan, from January 2013 to June 2019 and had HBsAg-/anti-HBs+ serostatus; the analytic sample excluded all patients with HBsAg+ or anti-HBs- serostatus. Anti-HBs titers were monitored 6-monthly and cases were defined as anti-HBs < 10 mIU/ml during follow-up. Cases were matched one-to-all with controls with anti-HBs ≥ 10 mIU/ml on the same ascertainment date and equivalent durations of biologic DMARDs treatment (control patients could be resampled and could also become cases during follow-up). Between-group characteristics were compared and risk factors for anti-HBs loss were investigated by conditional logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

Among 294 eligible patients, 23 cases were matched with 311 controls. The incidence of anti-HBs loss was ~ 2.7%/person-year during biologic DMARDs treatment. Besides lower baseline anti-HBs titer (risk ratio 0.93, 95% CI 0.89-0.97), cases were significantly more likely than controls to have diabetes mellitus (risk ratio 4.76, 95% CI 1.48-15.30) and chronic kidney disease (risk ratio 14.00, 95% CI 2.22-88.23) in univariate analysis. Risk factors remaining significantly associated with anti-HBs loss in multivariate analysis were lower baseline anti-HBs titer (adjusted risk ratio 0.93, 95% CI 0.88-0.97) and chronic kidney disease (adjusted risk ratio 45.68, 95% CI 2.39-871.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Besides lower baseline anti-HBs titer, chronic kidney disease also strongly predicts future anti-HBs negativity in patients with HBsAg-/anti-HBs+ serostatus who receive biologic DMARDs to treat rheumatic diseases. Patients with low anti-HBs titer (≤ 100 mIU/ml) and/or chronic kidney disease should be monitored during biologic DMARDs therapy, to enable timely prophylaxis to preempt potential HBV reactivation.

Monitoring by viral load and quantitative hepatitis B surface antigen in patients with hepatitis B virus infection receiving immunosuppressive therapy

OBJECTIVES

Hepatitis B virus reactivation in patients on immunosuppressive therapy is a critical issue. We aimed to verify the monitoring strategies of hepatitis B virus DNA and quantitative hepatitis B surface antigen in patients receiving therapies with moderate risk.

METHODS

We enrolled 25 patients with autoimmune diseases receiving immunosuppressive therapy. Liver function, hepatitis B virus DNA, and quantitative hepatitis B surface antigen were followed-up every 2 months for 24 months. The hepatitis B virus reactivation was defined as hepatitis B virus DNA reappearance or increase of >1 log IU/mL.

RESULTS

Patients who were hepatitis B surface antigen positive with (n = 12) or without (n = 6) antiviral prophylaxis and hepatitis B surface antigen negative (n = 7) were analyzed, and the reactivation rates were 0%, 50% and 14%, respectively. Antiviral prophylaxis prevented hepatitis B virus reactivation in hepatitis B surface antigen-positive patients (P = 0.025). Administration of high-risk steroid doses was the sole factor related to the sign of quantitative hepatitis B surface antigen increase of >0.5 log IU/mL in the first 12 months (P = 0.035, risk ratio = 0.098, 95% confidence interval = 0.011-0.847). Furthermore, no patient experienced hepatic decompensation or failure.

CONCLUSION

Monitoring hepatitis B virus DNA and quantitative hepatitis B surface antigen every 2 months is safe. However, antiviral prophylaxis can prevent hepatitis B virus reactivation. For patients under steroid therapy in high-risk doses, quantitative hepatitis B surface antigen increase of >0.5 log IU/mL may signify hepatitis B virus reactivation.

Hepatitis B virus reactivation during temozolomide administration for malignant glioma

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to clarify the clinical features of temozolomide (TMZ)-related hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation and to identify HBV reactivation predictive factors.

METHOD

We retrospectively reviewed the clinical course of 145 patients newly diagnosed or with recurrent malignant glioma treated with TMZ. Before treatment, we screened patients for HB surface antigen (HBsAg) positivity (HBV carrier) and HBsAg negativity. Patients were also screened for antibody for HB core antigen (anti-HBc) positivity and/or for HB surface antigen positivity (resolved HBV infection). The patients were monitored by HBV DNA, alanine, and aspartate aminotransaminase during and after the completion of TMZ. HBV carriers and those with resolved HBV infections with HBV reactivation received preemptive entecavir treatment. In those with resolved HBV infections, we analyzed clinical characters for the predictive factors for HBV reactivation.

RESULTS

In one of two HBV carriers, HBV DNA turned positive 8 months after the completion of TMZ and entecavir. In four (16.7%) of 24 resolved HBV infections, HBV DNA turned detectable at completion of concomitant radiation and TMZ or during monthly TMZ. HBV DNA turned negative with entecavir in all patients without liver dysfunction. In resolved HBV infections, those with a high anti-HBc titer had significantly higher incidence of HBV reactivation than those with low anti-HBc titers (60% vs. 5.3%: p = 0.018).

CONCLUSION

Screenings, monitoring, and preemptive entecavir were important for preventing TMZ-related HBV reactivations. Anti-HBc titers could be the predictive markers for HBV reactivation in the those with resolved HBV infections.

Japan Society of Hepatology Guidelines for the Management of Hepatitis B Virus Infection: 2019 update

The Drafting Committee for Hepatitis Management Guidelines established by the Japan Society of Hepatology published the first version of the Guidelines for the Management of Hepatitis B in 2013 (first English version in 2014), and has since been publishing updates to the Guidelines as new drugs become available, with the latest original Japanese version being Version 3.1. Herein, the Drafting Committee publishes the second English version that contains all the changes made since the first English version of the guidelines was published in 2014. This 2019 version covers: (i) the nucleos(t)ide analogs, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and tenofovir alafenamide; (ii) updates to treatment recommendations and management of drug-resistant hepatitis B virus that reflect the new availability of these drugs; and (iii) new information about hepatitis B virus reactivation with each update. This latest update also contains information about treatment goals, indications for treatment and cessation of nucleos(t)ide analog therapy, most of which were covered by the first version.

Ultra-high sensitivity HBsAg assay can diagnose HBV reactivation following rituximab-based therapy in patients with lymphoma

BACKGROUND & AIMS

HBV reactivation is a risk in patients receiving anti-CD20 antibodies for the treatment of lymphoma. The purpose of this post hoc analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of an ultra-high sensitivity HBsAg assay to guide preemptive antiviral treatment in patients with lymphoma and resolved HBV infections using prospectively stored samples from an HBV DNA monitoring study.

METHODS

HBV reactivation (defined as HBV DNA levels of ≥11 IU/ml) was confirmed in 22 of 252 patients. A conventional HBsAg assay (ARCHITECT, cut-off value: 0.05 IU/ml) and an ultra-high sensitivity HBsAg assay employing a semi-automated immune complex transfer chemiluminescence enzyme technique (ICT-CLEIA, cut-off value: 0.0005 IU/ml) were performed at baseline, at confirmed HBV reactivation and monitored after HBV reactivation.

RESULTS

Baseline HBsAg was detected using ICT-CLEIA in 4 patients; in all of whom precore mutants with high replication capacity were reactivated. Of the 6 patients with HBV DNA detected below the level of quantification at baseline, 5 showed HBV reactivation and 3 of the 5 had precore mutations. Sensitivity for detection by ARCHITECT and ICT-CLEIA HBsAg assays at HBV reactivation or the next sampling after HBV reactivation was 18.2% (4 of 22) and 77.3% (17 of 22), respectively. Of the 5 patients undetectable by ICT-CLEIA, HBV reactivation resolved spontaneously in 2 patients. All 6 patients reactivated with precore mutations including preS deletion could be diagnosed by ICT-CLEIA HBsAg assay at an early stage of HBV reactivation. Multivariate analysis showed that an anti-HBs titer of less than 10 mIU/ml, HBV DNA detected but below the level of quantification, and HBsAg detected by ICT-CLEIA at baseline were independent risk factors for HBV reactivation (adjusted hazard ratios, 15.4, 31.2 and 8.7, respectively; p <0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

A novel ICT-CLEIA HBsAg assay is an alternative method to diagnose HBV reactivation.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER

UMIN000001299.

LAY SUMMARY

Hepatitis B virus can be reactivated in lymphoma patients receiving anti-CD20 antibodies such as rituximab. Currently, reactivation requires the monitoring of HBV DNA, but monitoring of the surface antigen (HBsAg) could provide a relatively inexpensive, quick and easy alternative. We assessed the performance of an ultra-high sensitivity HBsAg assay and showed that it could be effective for the diagnosis and monitoring of HBV reactivation.

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.

[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.

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.

Isolated Anti-HBc: Significance and Management

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is prevalent worldwide and is associated with dramatic levels of morbidity and mortality. Isolated anti-HBc (IAHBc) is a particular serological pattern that is commonly found in immunocompromised patients. There is ongoing debate regarding the management of patients with IAHBc. Herein, we summarize the current guidelines and the newest evidence. The frequency of IAHBc is variable, with a higher prevalence in some populations, such as persons living with HIV and others immunocompromised patients. The risk of HBV reactivation depends on host factors (including immunosuppression) and viral factors. It is now well established that immunocompromised patients can be classified into three groups for risk according to the type of immunosuppression and/or treatment. In patients at high risk, HBV therapy has to be considered systematically. In patients at moderate risk, the decision is based on the level of HBV DNA (preemptive treatment or monitoring and vaccination). In patients with low risk, HBV vaccination is another possible approach, although further studies are needed to assess the type of preemptive strategy.

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.

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.

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.

2018 APLAR axial spondyloarthritis treatment recommendations

INTRODUCTION

Despite the availability of axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) recommendations proposed by various rheumatology societies, we considered that a region-specific guideline was of substantial added value to clinicians of the Asia-Pacific region, given the wide variations in predisposition to infections and other patient factors, local practice patterns, and access to treatment across countries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Systematic reviews were undertaken of English-language articles published between 2000 and 2016, identified from MEDLINE using PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. The strength of available evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. Recommendations were developed through consensus using the Delphi technique.

RESULTS

Fourteen axial SpA treatment recommendations were developed based on evidence summaries and consensus. The first 2 recommendations cover non-pharmacological approaches to management. Recommendations 3 to 5 describe the following: the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as first-line symptomatic treatment; the avoidance of long-term corticosteroid use; and the utility of conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) for peripheral or extra-articular manifestations. Recommendation 6 refers to the indications for biological DMARDs (bDMARDs). Recommendation 7 deals specifically with screening for infections endemic to Asia, prior to use of bDMARDs. Recommendations 7 to 13 cover the role of bDMARDs in the treatment of active axial SpA and include related issues such as continuing therapy and use in special populations. Recommendation 14 deals with the utility of surgical intervention in axial SpA.

CONCLUSION

These recommendations provide up-to-date guidance for treatment of axial SpA to help meet the needs of patients and clinicians in the Asia-Pacific region.

2018 update of the APLAR recommendations for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

AIM

To update recommendations based on current best evidence concerning the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), focusing particularly on the role of targeted therapies, to inform clinicians on new developments that will impact their current practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search of relevant literature from 2014 to 2016 concerning targeted therapies in RA was conducted. The RA Update Working Group evaluated the evidence and proposed updated recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach, to describe the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Recommendations were finalized through consensus using the Delphi technique.

RESULTS

This update provides 16 RA treatment recommendations based on current best evidence and expert clinical opinion. Recommendations 1-3 deal with the use of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. The next three recommendations (4-6) cover the need for screening and management of infections and comorbid conditions prior to starting targeted therapy, while the following seven recommendations focus on use of these agents. We address choice of targeted therapy, switch, tapering and discontinuation. The last three recommendations elaborate on targeted therapy for RA in special situations such as pregnancy, cancer, and major surgery.

CONCLUSION

Rheumatoid arthritis remains a significant health problem in the Asia-Pacific region. Patients with RA can benefit from the availability of effective targeted therapies, and these updated recommendations provide clinicians with guidance on their use.

Chronic hepatitis B viral infection among RA patients-a cross-sectional control study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is the most common inflammatory joint disorder presenting also with extra-articular manifestations. As many other autoimmune diseases, it has been suggested that infectious diseases might contribute to its emergence. Hepatitis viruses were suggested by several reports as a trigger of RA onset. We aimed to assess the association between RA and chronic hepatitis B viral infection (HBV).

METHODS

Patients with RA were compared with age- and sex-matched controls regarding the proportion of chronic HBV infection in a case-control study. The chi-square and t tests were used for univariate analysis, whereas a logistic regression model was used for multivariate analysis. The study was performed utilizing the medical database of Clalit Health Services.

RESULTS

There was a significantly higher proportion of chronic HBV infection in RA patients compared with controls (1.19% vs 0.63%, respectively; p < 0.001). In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, RA was significantly associated with chronic HBV infection (OR = 1.89, 95%CI 1.55-2.29, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with RA have a greater proportion of chronic HBV infection than matched controls. Screening for HBV infection among RA patients may be warranted.

Management of HBV reactivation in non-oncological patients

INTRODUCTION

HBV reactivation (HBVr) in patients undergoing immunosuppressive therapy is a well-known event. While there are clear directives on the management of current or resolved HBV infection in onco-hematological diseases, there are few data regarding patients with non-oncological diseases. Thus, the aim of the present review is to evaluate HBVr in patients with non-oncological diseases, and identify the management of these patients to prevent HBVr. Areas covered: Original papers, case reports and meta-analyses reporting data on HBVr of current or resolved infection in gastrointestinal, dermatological, rheumatologic and neurological diseases were evaluated. Expert commentary: In HBsAg-positive subjects, those with HBV-related hepatitis (both HBeAg-positive or negative) should be treated with a high genetic barrier nucleos(t)ide analog. The patients with HBV-infection (both HBeAg-positive and negative) an antiviral prophylaxis should be used, with lamivudine in those HBeAg-negative without signs of advanced liver disease, and with ETV, TDF or TAF in all the HBeAg-positive or in those HBeAg-negative with signs of advanced liver disease. In HBsAg-negative/anti-HBc positive subjects, when the risk of HBV reactivation is moderate (use of B-cell depleting agents), a prophylaxis-strategy may be considered; instead, in those with low risk of HBVr, a pre-emptive therapy strategy may be used.

Risk of Hepatitis B Reactivation in Patients with Psoriasis on Ustekinumab

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Ustekinumab is used to treat moderate-to-severe psoriasis by blocking the interleukin-12/23 pathway, which is also essential against intracellular pathogens. Because there is a high prevalence of hepatitis B viral infection in Taiwan, the expected risk of reactivation is higher among ustekinumab-treated patients. We performed this study to investigate the risk of hepatitis reactivation.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Patients with psoriasis treated with ustekinumab from October 2011 to June 2016 were enrolled in a prospective cohort study. All patients were tested for hepatitis B serology and serum viral DNA at baseline. For those positive for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) or hepatitis B core antibodies (anti-HBc) testing for HBV DNA was conducted at least annually. An increase of HBV DNA > 2 log scale or emergence of HBV DNA were defined as reactivation. The primary outcome of this study was HBV reactivation.

RESULTS

Ninety-three psoriasis patients receiving ustekinumab were included. The average duration of treatment and follow-up was 24 ± 12 months. There were 39 patients classified as naïve to HBV or vaccinated, and none of these patients had HBV reactivation. Among the remaining 54 patients classified as inactive HBV carriers, resolved HBV infection, or isolated anti-HBc positivity, only 3 patients experienced virologic reactivation, and none had liver failure.

CONCLUSION

The study outcomes indicate that ustekinumab could be safe for psoriasis patients since none developed persistent hepatitis or acute liver failure during therapy. However, the re-appearance of plasma HBV DNA requires appropriate monitoring of HBV viral load during ustekinumab treatment.

INASL Guidelines on Management of Hepatitis B Virus Infection in Patients receiving Chemotherapy, Biologicals, Immunosupressants, or Corticosteroids

Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) reactivation in patients receiving chemotherapy, biologicals, immunosupressants, or corticosteroids is emerging to be an important cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with current or prior exposure to HBV infection. These patients suffer a dual onslaught of illness: one from the primary disease for which they are receiving the culprit drug that led to HBV reactivation, and the other from HBV reactivation itself. The HBV reactivation not only leads to a compromised liver function, which may culminate into hepatic failure; it also adversely impacts the treatment outcome of the primary illness. Hence, identification of patients at risk of reactivation before starting these drugs, and starting treatment aimed at prevention of HBV reactivation is the best strategy of managing these patients. There are no Indian guidelines on management of HBV infection in patients receiving chemotherapy, biologicals, immunosupressants, or corticosteroids for the treatment of rheumatologic conditions, malignancies, inflammatory bowel disease, dermatologic conditions, or solid-organ or bone marrow transplantation. The Indian National Association for Study of the Liver (INASL) had set up a taskforce on HBV in 2016, with a mandate to develop consensus guidelines for management of various aspects of HBV infection, relevant to India. In 2017 the taskforce had published the first INASL guidelines on management of HBV infection in India. In the present guidelines, which are in continuation with the previous guidelines, the issues on management of HBV infection in patients receiving chemotherapy, biologicals, immunosupressants, or corticosteroids are addressed.

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.

Hepatitis B virus reactivation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Analysis of the National Database of Japan

This study aimed to determine the incidence and risk factors for hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) undergoing immunosuppressive therapy. The National Database of Japan, in which insurance claim data have been comprehensively accumulated, was utilized. The subjects were 76 641 RA patients who were plausibly initiated on immunosuppressive therapy from April 2013 to March 2014. Laboratory tests of the hepatitis B surface antigen, anti-hepatitis B virus surface antibody, and anti-hepatitis B virus core antibody were performed in 28.23%, 12.52% and 14.63% of patients, respectively, when the therapy was initiated. We found that HBV reactivation and fulminant hepatitis occurred in both the patients with and without HBV DNA monitoring, indicating insufficient monitoring in Japan during the study. The cumulative incidence of HBV reactivation over 24 months was 1.57% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.28%-1.92%) in the monitoring group, which consisted of those with resolved HBV infection. Glucocorticoid administration was a potent risk factor for HBV reactivation (hazard ratio [HR]  = 1.70, 95% CI = 1.26-2.29, P = .001 in all subjects, and HR = 1.82, 95% CI = 1.18-2.81, P = .007 in the nonmonitoring group), although it was not statistically significant in the monitoring group (HR = 1.49, 95% CI = 0.99-2.26 and P = .057). No significant risk difference was observed between single administration of methotrexate and biological drugs.

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.

Disease Characteristics and Change in Arthritis Activity according to Treatment in Hepatitis B Surface Antigen-positive Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients: a Retrospective Chart Review Study

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment may differ according to hepatitis B state and consequently may bring about different arthritis outcomes. However, whether hepatitis B affects treatment outcome remains unclear. We investigated differences in change in arthritis activity between RA patients according to concomitant hepatitis B virus infection.

METHODS

A retrospective medical chart review was performed by two rheumatologic fellows using single center data, from January 2000 to March 2015. Among RA patients older than 18 years, patients with comorbidities that could affect RA treatment aside from hepatitis B were excluded. Using 1:3 propensity score matching, 40 hepatitis B virus surface antigen (HBsAg)-positive patients and 112 HBsAg-negative patients were included in the study. Data were collected longitudinally using standardized electronic forms. The longitudinal relationship between HBsAg-positivity and RA activity was analyzed using generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

RA activity showed time-dependent improvement. Reductions of swollen joint count over time were significantly larger in the HBsAg-negative group. However, changes in disease activity score in 28 joints with three variables (DAS28-3), tender joint count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein level did not differ between the groups. There were no differences in alanine aminotransferase level. HBsAg-positive patients were less likely to receive methotrexate (odds ratio [OR], 0.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04-0.19; P < 0.001) and more likely to receive sulfasalazine (OR, 3.67; 95% CI, 1.94-6.95; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

RA medication use varied according to HBsAg-positivity. However, improvement in RA activity was not significantly affected by concomitant hepatitis B infection.

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.