Association of hepatitis B with antirheumatic drugs: a case-control study

Pharmacovigilance of Biopharmaceuticals in Rheumatic Diseases, Adverse Events, Evolution, and Perspective: An Overview

Since we have gained an understanding of the immunological pathophysiology of rheumatic diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus, treatment based on biological drugs has become a fundamental axis. These therapies are oriented towards the regulation of cytokines such as tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), interleukin (IL)-6, IL-1, and the modulation of cell-mediated immunity (B cells and T cells) by anti CD20 or anti CTAL-4 agents, and can increase the risk of associated infections or adverse events (AE). In this context, the entry of biotherapeutics represented a challenge for pharmacovigilance, risk management and approval by the main global regulatory agencies regarding biosimilars, where efficacy and safety are based on comparability exercises without being an exact copy in terms of molecular structure. The objective of this review is divided into three fundamental aspects: (i) to illustrate the evolution and focus of pharmacovigilance at the biopharmaceutical level, (ii) to describe the different approved recommendations of biopharmaceuticals (biological and biosimilars) and their use in rheumatic diseases (RDs) such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA), juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and other less frequent RD like cryopyrin-associated autoinflammatory syndromes (CAPS), and (iii) to identify the main AE reported in the post-marketing phase of RD biopharmaceuticals.

The Practice Guideline for Vaccinating Korean Patients with Autoimmune Inflammatory Rheumatic Disease

To develop a clinical practice guideline for vaccination in patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic disease (AIIRD), the Korean College of Rheumatology and the Korean Society of Infectious Diseases developed a clinical practice guideline according to the clinical practice guideline development manual. Since vaccination is unlikely to cause AIIRD or worsen disease activities, required vaccinations are recommended. Once patients are diagnosed with AIIRD, treatment strategies should be established and, at the same time, monitor their vaccination history. It is recommended to administer vaccines when the disease enters the stabilized stage. Administering live attenuated vaccines in patients with AIIRD who are taking immunosuppressants should be avoided. Vaccination should be considered in patients with AIIRD, prior to initiating immunosuppressants. It is recommended to administer influenza, Streptococcus pneumoniae, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, herpes zoster, measles-mumps-rubella virus, human papillomavirus, and tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis vaccines in patients with AIIRD; such patients who planned to travel are generally recommended to be vaccinated at the recommended vaccine level of healthy adults. Those who live in a household with patients with AIIRD and their caregivers should also be vaccinated at levels that are generally recommended for healthy adults.

Relevance of the Weber effect in contemporary pharmacovigilance of oncology drugs

Background

Numerous reporting biases have been known to affect spontaneous reporting databases. The Weber effect, which constitutes a peak in adverse event (AE) reporting of a drug at the end of second year after regulatory approval followed by a continuous decline thereafter, has been considered an important bias for a long time. The existence of this bias in AE reporting of oncology drugs remains an underevaluated area, prompting a targeted examination.

Methods

The US Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) was studied for AE reporting patterns of 5 years of 15 new molecular entities (NMEs) and biologics used in oncology. This 5-year period started from the USFDA date of approval for the NMEs and biologics. The number of AEs reported for each of the drugs was plotted against time (years). The AE reporting patterns were specifically examined for the existence of the Weber effect. In addition, AE reporting rate patterns of 5 years of seven NMEs and biologics used in oncology were examined.

Results

A total of 50,630 AE reports were logged in to the FAERS for all 15 drugs examined for AE reporting patterns. We observed five distinct AE reporting patterns for 15 drugs; however, none of the AE patterns were identical to the Weber effect. We did not observe a consistent AE reporting rate pattern for the seven drugs examined for AE reporting rates. With the exception of one drug (cetuximab), none of the drugs exhibited a second-year peak in AE reporting rates. This peak was not followed by continuous decline in AE reporting rate thereafter.

Conclusion

This study does not support the existence of the Weber effect in AE reporting of oncology drugs. The contemporary AE reporting of oncology drugs does not exhibit a consistent pattern.

Management of psoriasis patients with hepatitis B or hepatitis C virus infection

The systemic therapies available for the management of Psoriasis (PsO) patients who cannot be treated with more conservative options, such as topical agents and/or phototherapy, with the exception of acitretin, can worsen or reactivate a chronic infection. Therefore, before administering immunosuppressive therapies with either conventional disease-modifying drugs (cDMARDs) or biological ones (bDMARDs) it is mandatory to screen patients for some infections, including hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV). In particular, the patients eligible to receive an immunosuppressive drug must be screened for the following markers: antibody to hepatitis B core, antibody to hepatitis B surface antigen (anti-HBsAg), HBsAg, and antibody to HCV (anti-HCV). In case HBV or HCV infection is diagnosed, a close collaboration with a consultant hepatologist is needed before and during an immunosuppressive therapy. Concerning therapy with immunosuppressive drugs in PsO patients with HBV or HCV infection, data exist mainly for cyclosporine a (CyA) or bDMARDs (etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, ustekinumab). The natural history of HBV and HCV infection differs significantly as well as the effect of immunosuppression on the aforementioned infectious diseases. As a rule, in the case of active HBV infection, systemic immunosuppressive antipsoriatic therapies must be deferred until the infection is controlled with an adequate antiviral treatment. Inactive carriers need to receive antiviral prophylaxis 2-4 wk before starting immunosuppressive therapy, to be continued after 6-12 mo from its suspension. Due to the risk of HBV reactivation, these patients should be monitored monthly for the first 3 mo and then every 3 mo for HBV DNA load together with transaminases levels. Concerning the patients who are occult HBV carriers, the risk of HBV reactivation is very low. Therefore, these patients generally do not need antiviral prophylaxis and the sera HBsAg and transaminases dosing can be monitored every 3 mo. Concerning PsO patients with chronic HCV infection their management with immunosuppressive drugs is less problematic as compared to those infected by HBV. In fact, HCV reactivation is an extremely rare event after administration of drugs such as CyA or tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors. As a rule, these patients can be monitored measuring HCV RNA load, and ALT, aspartate transaminase, gamma-glutamyl-transferase, bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase, albumin and platelet every 3-6 mo. The present article provides an updated overview based on more recently reported data on monitoring and managing PsO patients who need systemic antipsoriatic treatment and have HBV or HCV infection as comorbidity.

Reactivation of occult hepatitis B virus infection in patients with rheumatic diseases: pathogenesis, risk assessment and prevention

Over the past decade, reactivation of occult hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection has garnered much attention from rheumatologists owing to a number of reports which have indicated the potential risk of biologics in causing this previously ignored infectious complication. Hepatitis due to reactivation of occult HBV infection occurs only occasionally but with high mortality upon occurrence, placing us in a clinical dilemma "to address or not to address?" In this review, we discuss how biological and other immunosuppressive therapies increase the risk of developing reactivation of occult HBV infection and attempt to solve this clinical quandary.

Screening and Monitoring for Infectious Complications When Immunosuppressive Agents Are Studied in the Treatment of Autoimmune Disorders

Significant progress has been made in the development, investigation, and clinical application of immunosuppressive agents to treat a variety of autoimmune disorders. The expansion of clinical applications of these new agents requires the performance of large multicenter clinical trials. These large clinical trials are particularly important as one considers these agents for the treatment of type 1 diabetes, which although autoimmune in its pathogenesis, is not classically treated as an autoimmune disorder. Although these agents hold promise for amelioration or cure of this disease, they have the potential to facilitate infectious complications. There are limited data regarding the prospective assessment of infectious risks with these agents in trials of this nature. Pediatric subjects may be at greater risk due to the higher likelihood of primary infection. A subgroup of experts associated with TrialNet (a National Institutes of Health [NIH]-funded Type 1 diabetes mellitus research network) with expertise in infectious diseases, immunology, and diagnostics developed an approach for screening and monitoring of immunosuppression-associated infections for prospective use in clinical trials. The goals of these recommendations are to provide a structured approach to monitor for infections, to identify specific laboratory testing and surveillance methods, and to consider therapies for treatment of these potential complications. Prospective evaluations of these infectious risks allow for greater scientific rigor in the evaluation of risk, which must be balanced with the potential benefits of these therapies. Our experience supports an important role for investigators with expertise in infections in immunocompromised individuals in protocol development of immunosuppressive trials in type 1diabetes and potentially other autoimmune diseases.

Safety of biologic and nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy in veterans with rheumatoid arthritis and hepatitis B virus infection: a retrospective cohort study

Introduction

We evaluated the safety of current treatment regimens for patients with RA and HBV in a large US cohort.

Methods

We identified biologic and nonbiologic treatment episodes of RA patients using 1997 to 2011 national data from the US Veterans Health Administration. Eligible episodes had evidence of HBV infection (HBV surface antigen, HBV core antibody, HBV e-antibody and/or HBV DNA) and had a baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) <1.5 times the upper limit of laboratory normal within 90 days prior to initiation of a new biologic or nonbiologic DMARD. The main outcome of interest was hepatotoxicity, defined as ALT elevation >100 IU/mL. Results were reported as the cumulative incidence of treatment episodes achieving hepatotoxicity at 3, 6 and 12 months post biologic exposure.

Results

Five hundred sixty-six unique RA patients with HBV contributed 959 treatment episodes. Mean age was 62.1 ± 10.3 years; 91.8% were male. Hepatotoxicity was uncommon, with 26 events identified among 959 episodes (2.7%) within 12 months. Hepatotoxicity was comparable between biologic and nonbiologic DMARDs (2.6% vs. 2.8%, P = 0.87). The median time between HBV screening and starting a new RA drug was 504 days (IQR 144, 1,163). Follow-up HBV testing occurred among 14 hepatotoxicity episodes (53.8%) at a median of 202 days (IQR 82, 716) from the date of ALT elevation. A total of 146 (15.2%) treatment episodes received at least one test for HBV DNA at any point in the observation period.

Conclusions

Among US veterans with RA and HBV the risk of hepatotoxicity is low (2.7%), and comparable between biologic and nonbiologic DMARDS (2.8% vs. 2.6%, P = 0.87). HBV testing associated with DMARD initiation or hepatotoxicity was infrequent.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13075-015-0628-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Hepatitis B and immunosuppressive therapies for chronic inflammatory diseases: When and how to apply prophylaxis, with a special focus on corticosteroid therapy

Currently immunosuppressive and biological agents are used in a more extensive and earlier way in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatic or dermatologic diseases. Although these drugs have shown a significant clinical benefit, the safety of these treatments is a challenge. Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivations have been reported widely, even including liver failure and death, and it represents a deep concern in these patients. Current guidelines recommend to pre-emptive therapy in patients with immunosuppressants in general, but preventive measures focused in patients with corticosteroids and inflammatory diseases are scarce. Screening for HBV infection should be done at diagnosis. The patients who test positive for hepatitis B surface antigen, but do not meet criteria for antiviral treatment must receive prophylaxis before undergoing immunosuppression, including corticosteroids at higher doses than prednisone 20 mg/d during more than two weeks. Tenofovir and entecavir are preferred than lamivudine because of their better resistance profile in long-term immunosuppressant treatments. There is not a strong evidence, to make a general recommendation on the necessity of prophylaxis therapy in patients with inflammatory diseases that are taking low doses of corticosteroids in short term basis or low systemic bioavailability corticosteroids such as budesonide or beclomethasone dipropionate. In these cases regularly HBV DNA monitoring is recommended, starting early antiviral therapy if DNA levels begin to rise. In patients with occult or resolved hepatitis the risk of reactivation is much lower, and excepting for Rituximab treatment, the prophylaxis is not necessary.

Perioperative infection in the patient with rheumatic disease

The risk of infection accompanies the benefits of surgery. Immunomodulatory chronic illnesses may increase the risk of surgical infections. Surgical patients with rheumatologic illness need close preoperative assessment regarding their infection risks (fixed and modifiable), which vary on the basis of the proposed procedure, specific rheumatologic illness, and underlying comorbidities. Modification of the medication regimens in the preoperative period may decrease risk and enhance healing. Intraoperative antisepsis and antibiotic prophylaxis remain critical in this patient population. Postoperative fevers within 3 days of surgery are usually noninfectious but require vigilance and attention. The principles of surgical infection reduction are not different in the rheumatologic and general patient populations, but best practice depends on expertise in caring for patients with these illnesses.

Hepatitis reactivation in patients with rheumatic diseases after immunosuppressive therapy--a report of long-term follow-up of serial cases and literature review

The aims of this paper are to report hepatitis B virus reactivation in 12 patients with rheumatic disease undergoing immunosuppressive therapy and to evaluate whether pre-emptive antiviral therapy is necessary in patients receiving disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. From January 2008 to March 2012, a total of 12 HBV-infected patients with rheumatic diseases were consecutively enrolled in the long-term follow-up. Liver function, HBV DNA, and serum aminotransferase level were tested during the follow-up. We also reviewed the published reports and summarized the clinical characteristics of HBV reactivation during immunosuppressive therapy in patients with rheumatic diseases. The medium duration of follow-up was 41 months (range 16–48). Patients were treated with prednisone, disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) or tumor necrosis factor-alpha-blocking agents (TNFBA). HBV reactivation was only documented in two patients treated with prednisone without pre-emptive antiviral therapy. One hundred patients from literature review were identified as having HBV reactivation; 20.8 % of the patients receiving prednisone experienced HBV reactivation compared to only 4.46 and 9.52 % of patients treated with DMARDs or TNFBA, respectively. This long-term follow-up of serial cases suggests that pre-emptive antiviral therapy should be administered in patients receiving prednisone therapy for rheumatic disease. In contrast, DMARDs and TNFBA are relatively safe to HBV-infected patients with rheumatic diseases. Close monitoring of HBV DNA and ALT levels is necessary in the management of HBV reactivation.

Hepatitis B virus reactivation associated with anti-neoplastic therapy

Reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is a known complication during and after anti-cancer therapy. This condition can affect two patient populations: it is most commonly seen in patients who are seropositive for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), but it is also being increasingly reported among patients who are HBsAg-negative but who have prior infection, as evident by seropositive status for antibody to hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc), irrespective of their anti-HBs (antibody to HBsAg) status. The clinical course can vary from asymptomatic hepatitis to fulminant hepatic failure that can be potentially fatal. With the increasing use of biological agents in addition to potent cytotoxic chemotherapy in the armamentarium of anti-cancer treatments, reactivation of hepatitis B has become a common clinical situation that is faced by both oncologists and hepatologists especially in HBV endemic areas. In this review, we discuss the clinical course of reactivation in the two HBV-infected sub-populations, and the role of anti-virals in the prevention and management of HBV reactivation in association with cytotoxic chemotherapy and biological therapies.