Reactivation of hepatitis B virus in rheumatologic patients receiving immunosuppressive agents

Hepatitis Flare During Immunotherapy in Patients With Current or Past Hepatitis B Virus Infection

INTRODUCTION

Immunotherapy has dramatically improved the survival of patients with advanced or metastatic malignancies. Recent studies suggest that immunotherapy may increase the risk of hepatitis, whereas it may also induce functional cure of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. We evaluated the incidence of hepatitis flare, HBV reactivation, hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) seroclearance or seroreversion in patients with current or past HBV infection who had received immunotherapy.

METHODS

This was a territory-wide observational cohort study in Hong Kong. We identified patients through electronic medical records based on the prescriptions of immune checkpoint inhibitors from July 1, 2014, to December 31, 2019. Patients who were HBsAg positive or HBsAg negative with results for antibody to hepatitis B surface or core antigen (anti-HBs or anti-HBc) were included.

RESULTS

A total of 990 patients (397 HBsAg-positive, 593 HBsAg-negative with 482 anti-HBc and/or anti-HBs positive, and 111 both anti-HBc and anti-HBs negative) were identified. All of HBsAg-positive and 15.9% HBsAg-negative patients were put on oral antiviral treatment. Hepatitis flare (alanine aminotransferase >2 times of the upper limit of normal) occurred in 39.3% HBsAg-positive and 30.4% HBsAg-negative patients. High baseline alanine aminotransferase and combination of immunotherapy increased the risk of hepatitis. HBV reactivation (≥2 log increase in HBV DNA from baseline) occurred in 2 HBsAg-positive patients; HBsAg seroclearance and seroreversion was observed in 1 HBsAg-positive and 1 HBsAg-negative patient, respectively (<1%).

DISCUSSION

Hepatitis flare occurs in approximately 40% of HBsAg-positive patients and 30% of HBsAg-negative patients during immunotherapy. HBV reactivation, HBsAg seroclearance, and HBsAg seroreversion are rare. Current or past HBV infection has no impact on the emergence of hepatic flare associated with immunotherapy.

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.

Risk of hepatitis B surface antigen seroreversion after corticosteroid treatment in patients with previous hepatitis B virus exposure

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Systemic corticosteroids may cause HBV reactivation, but the impact on patients with previous HBV exposure is poorly defined. We aimed to study the risk of HBsAg seroreversion and hepatitis flare in patients with previous HBV exposure.

METHODS

Patients who were negative for HBsAg and received corticosteroids between 2001-2010 were included. Patients who were positive for antibody to HBsAg (anti-HBs) and/or to HBcAg (anti-HBc) were defined as having previous HBV exposure. The primary endpoint was HBsAg seroreversion; the secondary endpoint was hepatitis flare (alanine aminotransferase >80 U/L) at 1 year.

RESULTS

A total of 12,997 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria: anti-HBs positive only (n = 10,561); anti-HBc positive only (n = 970); anti-HBs & anti-HBc positive (n = 830) and anti-HBs & anti-HBc negative (n = 636). HBsAg seroreversion occurred in 165 patients. Patients who were anti-HBc positive only had a higher risk of HBsAg seroreversion (1-year incidence 1.8%) than those negative for both anti-HBs & anti-HBc (0%; p = 0.014). Patients with previous HBV exposure had a similarly low risk of liver failure as unexposed individuals (1.1% vs. 0.9%). The risk of a hepatitis flare started to increase in those receiving corticosteroids at peak daily doses of 20-40 mg (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.19, p = 0.048) or >40 mg (aHR 2.11, p = 0.015) prednisolone equivalents for <7 days, and was increased at treatment durations of 7-28 days and >28 days (aHR 2.02-3.85; p <0.001-0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

In HBsAg-negative patients who were only anti-HBc positive, high peak daily doses of corticosteroids increased the risk of hepatitis flare, but not seroreversion. The rate of liver failure was low and similar in HBV exposed and unexposed individuals; there were no deaths, nor any requirement for liver transplantation.

LAY SUMMARY

It is important to know the hepatitis B virus (HBV) status before starting corticosteroid therapy. Patients with resolved HBV infection without detectable immunity are at an increased risk of HBV surface antigen seroreversion after corticosteroid therapy. High peak daily doses of corticosteroids (>40 mg prednisolone equivalents) increase the risk of hepatitis flare, but not seroreversion, in patients with previous exposure to HBV, irrespective of the duration of treatment. Interval monitoring of liver biochemistries is essential for the early detection of hepatitis flares in these patients.

Impact of dose and duration of corticosteroid on the risk of hepatitis flare in patients with chronic hepatitis B

BACKGROUND

Systemic corticosteroid is used for different medical conditions and may cause hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation.

AIMS

To study the impact of duration and peak dose of corticosteroid on the risk of hepatitis flare in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB).

METHODS

All patients who received corticosteroid from January 2001 to December 2004 were retrieved from the Hospital Authority, Hong Kong. We stratified patients by daily dose prednisolone equivalents (<20 mg, 20-40 mg, >40 mg) and durations (<7; 7-28; >28 days). The primary endpoint was hepatitis flare (alanine aminotransferase >2×upper limit of normal, ie 80 IU/L) at 1 year.

RESULTS

A total of 85 763 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria (5254 CHB, 80 509 non-CHB). CHB patients had higher risk of hepatitis flare (388/5254 [7.8%]) than those without CHB (2728/80 509 [4.2%]; P < 0.001 by log-rank test). Among CHB patients, peak daily dose >40 mg compared to <20 mg prednisolone equivalents (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.64, 95% CI 1.26-2.14; P < 0.001) was an independent risk factor of hepatitis flare. Risk of hepatitis flare started to increase in those receiving corticosteroid of peak daily dose >40 mg prednisolone equivalents even for <7 days (aHR 1.55, P = 0.026), which was also increased for 7-28 days and >28 days (aHR 1.90 and 1.64 respectively, both P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Even short courses of high-dose corticosteroid increase the risk of hepatitis flare in CHB patients. Patients receiving high-dose corticosteroid should be considered for antiviral prophylaxis regardless of the duration of treatment.

Commensurate incidence and outcomes of liver enzyme elevation between anti-tumor necrosis factor users with or without prior hepatitis B virus infections

Background and objective

Potential hepatoxicity is an important clinical concern when administering immunosuppressive therapies to patients infected by hepatitis B virus (HBV). Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (anti-TNF) increase the likelihood of hepatitis consequent to HBV reactivation, but reported risks and outcomes vary. We determined the risks of liver enzyme elevation in anti-rheumatic drug users from an HBV-endemic region with differing HBV serostatus.

Methods

We established retrospective cohorts with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, or psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis who: 1) received anti-TNF agents from 1 January 2004 to 30 June 2013; 2) received care from 1 June 2011 to 30 June 2013 but only ever used conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Serology results defined three subgroups: HBV surface antigen positive (HBsAg+), HBsAg negative/HBV core antibody positive (HBsAg−/HBcAb+), or uninfected. We compared incidences of serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) exceeding twice the upper reference limit between HBV serostatus subgroups in each treatment cohort.

Results

Among 783 patients treated with anti-TNF (n = 472) or DMARDs only (n = 311), HBsAg−/HBcAb+ anti-TNF users had incidence of ALT elevation commensurate with uninfected counterparts (6.1 vs. 6.0/100 person-years), compared to 19.6/100 person-years in HBsAg+ patients (standardized rate ratio 3.3, 95% CI 1.3–8.2); none effected had severe or fatal hepatitis and ALT levels in all HBsAg−/HBcAb+ patients remained stable, mostly normalizing spontaneously, or after moderating treatment. Patterns of of ALT elevation associated with differing HBV serostatus in the DMARD cohort, resembled those in anti-TNF users.

Conclusions

In this large HBV-endemic cohort, the absolute incidence of ALT elevation in anti-TNF users was more than three-fold higher in HBsAg+ patients than in uninfected counterparts; however, no such association was evident in patients with HBsAg−/HBcAb+ serotype, whose risk and outcomes of liver enzyme elevation were similar to uninfected patients, suggesting that anti-TNF use by HBsAg−/HBcAb+ patients is probably safe.

Risk of hepatitis B reactivation in patients treated with direct-acting antivirals for hepatitis C

The recent introduction of direct-acting antiviral drugs (DAAs) for treatment of the hepatitis C virus (HCV) has greatly improved the management of HCV for infected patients. These viral protein inhibitors act rapidly, allowing HCV clearance and increasing the sustained virological response rates. However, hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation has been reported in HCV/HBV co-infected patients. Hepatitis B reactivation refers to an abrupt increase in the HBV and is well-documented in patients with previously undetected HBV DNA due to inactive or resolved HBV infection. Reactivation can occur spontaneously, but in most cases, it is triggered by various factors. Reactivation can be transient, without clinical symptoms; however, it usually causes a hepatitis flare. HBV reactivation may occur regardless of HCV genotype and type of DAA regimen. HBV screening is strongly recommended for co-infected HCV/HBV patients before initiation and during DAA therapy regardless of HBV status, HCV genotype and class of DAAs used. HBV reactivation can be prevented with pretreatment screening and prophylactic treatment when necessary. Additional data are required to evaluate the underlying mechanisms of HBV reactivation in this setting.

Chronic hepatitis B in children with or without malignancies: A 13-year follow-up

AIM: To evaluate the outcome of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) in children with or without malignancies.

METHODS: Twenty four children (15 boys and 9 girls) with malignancies, followed up by the pediatric gastroenterology outpatient clinic for CHB between January 2000 and December 2013, were enrolled in the study (Group 1). Group 2 was formed with twenty five children (11 girls and 14 boys) diagnosed with CHB without malignancies. The data from the patients’ records were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS: Hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)/antiHBe seroconversion was observed in 3 patients (12.5%) in group 1 and 15 patients (60%) in group 2, with annual seroconversion rates of 1.61% and 16.6%, respectively, and the difference was significant (P < 0.01). One patient (6.6%) in Group 1 and 9 patients (53%) in Group 2 showed HBeAg/antiHBe seroconversion after treatment and the difference between the two groups was significant (P < 0.06) Loss of hepatitis B surface antigen was observed in one patient in each of group 1 and 2. No clinical, laboratory and imaging findings of liver disease were observed in any of the patients at the end of the study.

CONCLUSION: HBeAg/antiHBe seroconversion rate was lower in patients who had recovered from cancer.

Hepatitis B and inflammatory bowel disease: Role of antiviral prophylaxis

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) is a very common infection worldwide. Its reactivation in patients receiving immunosuppression has been widely described as being associated with significant morbidity and mortality unless anti-viral prophylaxis is administered. Treatment in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients has changed in recent years and immunosuppression and biological therapies are now used more frequently than before. Although current studies have reported an incidence of hepatitis B in inflammatory bowel disease patients similar to that in the general population, associated liver damage remains an important concern in this setting. Liver dysfunction may manifest in several ways, from a subtle change in serum aminotransferase levels to fulminant liver failure and death. Patients undergoing double immunosuppression are at a higher risk, and reactivation usually occurs after more than one year of treatment. As preventive measures, all IBD patients should be screened for HBV markers at diagnosis and those who are positive for the hepatitis B surface antigen should receive antiviral prophylaxis before undergoing immunosuppression in order to avoid HBV reactivation. Tenofovir/entecavir are preferred to lamivudine as nucleos(t)ide analogues due to their better resistance profile. In patients with occult or resolved HBV, viral reactivation does not appear to be a relevant issue and regular DNA determination is recommended during immunosuppression therapy. Consensus guidelines on this topic have been published in recent years. The prevention and management of HBV infection in IBD patients is addressed in this review in order to address practical recommendations

Dermatologists' awareness of and screening practices for hepatitis B virus infection before initiating tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitor therapy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to assess dermatologists' awareness of available guidelines and drug package insert information on the screening for and management of hepatitis B (HBV) infection in patients receiving tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitor (TNF-αI) drug therapies for dermatological disorders.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic descriptive cross-sectional questionnaire was administered to a random, nationwide sample of physician members of the American Academy of Dermatology. Each participating physician answered 8 questions regarding his or her awareness of the risk of HBV reactivation.

RESULTS

More than half of the dermatologists surveyed (52%) were aware of guidelines regarding TNF-αI use in dermatological disorders. Dermatologists who were aware of the guidelines performed universal screening 81% of the time versus 3% of those who were unaware. Approximately 30% of the dermatologists were aware of drug manufacturers' package insert warnings for risk of HBV reactivation with TNF-αIs. Screening in their high-risk patients was highly variable because >90% performed screening in patients with a history of hepatitis or with elevated liver-associated enzymes. Most (73%) screened appropriately with HB surface antigen. One case of HBV reactivation was observed with infliximab use for psoriasis treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this survey, improving education among dermatologists regarding the risks of HBV reactivation and its prevention for patients receiving TNF-αI seems warranted. More specific consensus guidelines are recommended to achieve universal screening as the standard of care in these patients.

Should we routinely treat patients with autoimmune/rheumatic diseases and chronic hepatitis B virus infection starting biologic therapies with antiviral agents? NO

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection affects a large part of the world population. Different virological HBV categories have been identified and managing strategies for immunosuppressed patients with serological signs of current or past HBV infection has been proposed. Those strategies developed to manage patients in the haematology setting are based on strong evidence. Instead, management of such patients in the rheumatologic setting, especially those treated with biologic response modifiers, is mainly based on data derived by case reports and expert opinions. More data are needed to better manage these patients in case of signs of current or past HBV infection.

Reactivation of hepatitis B: pathogenesis and clinical implications

Chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) is estimated to be present in 350 million people worldwide. One of its major complications is reactivation of dormant HBV, which is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Although reactivation can occur spontaneously, the most common risk factor is initiation of immunosuppression. As the use of immunosuppressive therapy increases, the incidence of HBV reactivation is expected to rise. Screening with serologic markers for hepatitis B is recommended before initiating immunosuppressive therapy. In patients with no evidence of HBV infection, immunization is recommended. In chronic carriers, prophylactic antiviral treatment has been shown to decrease overall morbidity and mortality. Patients with inactive HBV should be monitored closely during immunosuppressive treatment with alanine transaminase and serum HBV-DNA levels and treated promptly if they develop HBV reactivation. Although HBV reactivation is a serious complication, it can be prevented with screening and prophylactic treatment.

Rheumatologists' awareness of and screening practices for hepatitis B virus infection prior to initiating immunomodulatory therapy

OBJECTIVE

To assess the degree of awareness of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines and package insert information on the screening for and management of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection by rheumatologists in patients receiving immunomodulation drug therapies.

METHOD

A questionnaire survey was administered to a nationwide sample of 1,000 members of the ACR. Each participating physician answered questions regarding their awareness of the risk of HBV reactivation, familiarity with published guidelines regarding HBV reactivation, their decision process in screening patients for HBV, knowledge of antiviral treatments for HBV, personal experience with HBV reactivation, and preferred approach to prophylaxis and subsequent monitoring of those patients.

RESULTS

Responses were highly variable with regard to awareness, screening, and treatment options. The overall response rate was 15.3%. Of those surveyed, 7.4% had seen HBV reactivation. Depending on the agent, 19-53% were aware of manufacturers' warnings for HBV reactivation within drug package inserts. Nearly three-quarters (72%) would screen for HBV reactivation regardless of the presence/absence of manufacturers' warnings. Only 69% reported performing universal screening prior to initiating therapy with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. The majority (81%) would defer to a gastroenterologist/hepatologist to determine prophylactic therapy for HBV. Only 22% had managed patients who were given prophylaxis against HBV reactivation while receiving immunosuppressants.

CONCLUSION

Based on this survey, improving education among rheumatologists regarding the risks of HBV reactivation and its prevention for patients receiving immunosuppressants seems warranted. More specific consensus guidelines are recommended to achieve universal screening as the standard of care in these patients, especially with the increasing prevalence of HBV infection estimated in the US.

Outcome in a patient with systemic lupus erythematosus and concurrent chronic hepatitis B infection

A 35-year-old Caucasian woman with proven systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) had been effectively managed with hydroxychloroquine and methylprednisolone for many years. In 2005 she was admitted to the rheumatology clinic with a flare up of the disease and with proteinuria of 3.2 g/24 h. Renal biopsy was performed and revealed diffuse proliferative nephritis. Before the renal biopsy a positive HB(s)Ag was found with high virus replication (hepatitis B virus (HBV)-DNA-4 170 000 copies/ml). Liver biopsy revealed chronic hepatitis with minimal activity (TAIS=1). Lamivudine was administered with concomitant maintenance corticosteroid treatment, but without antimalarials. Pulsed methylprednisolone treatment for diffuse lupus nephritis was begun on the background of lamivudine therapy. The liver enzymes returned to normal values, HBV replication was suppressed, and the proteinuria disappeared. At present the patient is not being treated with lamivudine and there are no objective signs of nephritis and hepatitis, or HBV activation.

Reactivation of hepatitis B with reappearance of hepatitis B surface antigen after chemotherapy and immunosuppression

BACKGROUND & AIMS

HBV infection may reactivate in the setting of immunosuppression, although the frequency and consequences of HBV reactivation are not well known. We report 6 patients who experienced loss of serologic markers of hepatitis B immunity and reappearance of HBsAg in the serum as a result of a variety of acquired immune deficiencies.

METHODS

Between 2000 and 2005, six patients with reactivation of hepatitis B were seen in consultation by the Liver Diseases Branch at the Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health. The course and outcome of these 6 patients were reviewed.

RESULTS

All 6 patients developed reappearance of HBsAg and evidence of active liver disease after stem cell transplantation (n = 4), immunosuppressive therapy (n = 1), or change in human immunodeficiency virus antiretroviral regimen (n = 1), despite having antibody to HBsAg (anti-HBs) or antibody to hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc) without HBsAg before. All 6 patients developed chronic hepatitis B, 2 patients transmitted hepatitis B to their spouses, and 1 patient developed cirrhosis. The diagnosis of hepatitis B reactivation was frequently missed or delayed and often required interruption of the therapy for the underlying condition. None of the patients received antiviral prophylaxis against HBV reactivation.

CONCLUSIONS

Serologic evidence of recovery from hepatitis B infection does not preclude its reactivation after immunosuppression. Screening for serologic evidence of hepatitis B and prophylaxis of those with positive results by using nucleoside analogue antiviral therapy should be provided to individuals in whom immunosuppressive therapy is planned.

Prophylactic use of lamivudine with chronic immunosuppressive therapy for rheumatologic disorders

The objective of this study was to report our experience concerning the effectiveness of the prophylactic administration of lamivudine in hepatitis B virus surface antigen (HBs Ag) positive patients with rheumatologic disease. From June 2004 to October 2006, 11 HBs Ag positive patients with rheumatologic diseases, who were on both immunosuppressive and prophylactic lamivudine therapies, were retrospectively assessed. Liver function tests, hepatitis B virus (HBV) serologic markers, and HBV DNA levels of the patients during follow-up were obtained from hospital file records. Eleven patients (six male) with median age 47 years (range 27-73), median disease duration 50 months (range 9-178) and median follow-up period of patients 13.8 months (range 5-27) were enrolled in this study. Lamivudine therapy was started 3-7 days prior to immunosuppressive therapy in all patients. Baseline, liver function tests were elevated in two patients (fourth patient: ALT:122 IU/l, AST:111 IU/l, tenth patient:ALT:294 IU/l, AST:274 IU/l, with minimal changes in the liver biopsy in both). Shortly after treatment their tests normalized and during follow-up period none of the patients had abnormal liver function tests. In four patients HBV DNA levels were higher than normal at baseline. Two of these normalized and the others increased later. In three additional patients, HBV DNA levels were increased during follow-up. None of the patients had significant clinical sings of HBV activation. Lamivudine was well tolerated and was continued in all patients. Prophylactic administration of lamivudine in patients who required immunosuppressive therapy seems to be safe, well tolerated and effective in preventing HBV reactivation.

Risks of immunosuppressive therapies including biologic agents in patients with rheumatic diseases and co-existing chronic viral infections

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

A number of chronic viral infections could be reactivated by immunosuppressive agents used in rheumatic diseases. In this review, we will focus on the complex effect of immunosuppressive agents, including biologic agents, on the natural course of chronic viral infections as well as an approach to the prevention and management of therapy-induced viral reactivation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Chronic viral infections that are affected by immunosuppression in the setting of an underlying rheumatic disease include those due to hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, or human immunodeficiency virus, and latent infections from Epstein-Barr virus, JC virus, or varicella zoster virus. The most recent data of the effects of immunosuppressive agents are reviewed, with special emphasis on the effects of biologic therapies (anti-tumor necrosis factor, anti-B cell), on these viral agents.

SUMMARY

Clinicians should be aware of the risk for viral reactivation of an underlying chronic viral infection during immunosuppressive therapy. Despite the existence of such risk, the presence of chronic viral infection is not a contraindication to immunosuppressive therapy, given that appropriate pretherapy screening and close monitoring is applied.

Hepatitis B prophylaxis in patients undergoing chemotherapy for lymphoma: a decision analysis model

Hepatitis B reactivation is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing chemotherapy for lymphomas. These patients may experience direct liver-related complications or reduced cancer survival because of interruptions in chemotherapy. Our aim was to compare the costs and outcomes of 2 different chronic hepatitis B management strategies. In hepatitis B carriers undergoing chemotherapy, we pursued a decision analysis model to compare the costs and clinical outcomes of using lamivudine prophylaxis versus initiating lamivudine only when clinically overt hepatitis occurred. Our results indicate that the use of lamivudine prophylaxis is cost-effective. Even though the use of lamivudine prophylaxis was associated with an incremental cost of $1530 per patient ($18,707 versus $17,177), both the number and severity of hepatitis B reactivations were reduced. None of the patients in the prophylaxis group had liver-related deaths versus 20 who died in the no-prophylaxis group. Cancer deaths were also reduced from 47-39 with lamivudine prophylaxis, presumably because of the increased need for cessation or modification of chemotherapy in patients who had severe hepatitis B virus flares. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of using lamivudine prophylaxis was $33,514 per life year saved.

CONCLUSION

Our results provide pharmacoeconomic support for the use of lamivudine prophylaxis in patients undergoing chemotherapy for lymphoma treatment.

Outcomes of Chronic Hepatitis B Infection in Oriental Patients with Rheumatic Diseases

Introduction: The aim of this study was to ascertain the outcomes of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infection following immunosuppressive therapy in 38 consecutive oriental patients with systemic rheumatic diseases. Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective consecutive, non-comparative study. Results: The majority of patients were female (26, 68.4%), predominantly Chinese (92.1%), with a mean age 54 ± 14 years (range, 16 to 87). The mean duration of rheumatic disease was 9 ± 11 years (range, 0.1 to 48), with rheumatoid arthritis (52.6%) and systemic lupus erythematosus (23.7%) being the most common. The mean duration of CHB infection was 6 ± 5 years (range, 0.1 to 17), with the majority diagnosed during pre-methotrexate screening (50.0%) and asymptomatic transaminitis following initiation of immunosuppressive therapy (23.7%). Upon diagnosis of rheumatic disease, all patients had normal alanine aminotransferase (ALT). Of these, 18.2% were positive for hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) and 78.1% were positive for anti-HBe antibody. Twenty (52.6%) developed ALT elevation, which was more than twice the upper limit of normal in 12 patients. ALT normalised spontaneously in 12 patients without hepatic decompensation or change in therapy. Seven (18.4%) patients received lamivudine for 18 ± 22 months (range, 2 to 61). Two patients developed YMDD mutation subsequently treated with adefovir (1) and adefovir/lamivudine (1). There were 3 (7.9%) hepatitis B virus (HBV)-unrelated deaths [infection (2), genitourinary malignancy (1)], and 1 from HBV-reactivation complicated by septicaemia. None have developed hepatocellular carcinoma. Conclusion: Elevated ALT occurred in 52.6% of patients, with only 18.4% requiring anti-viral therapy for HBV reactivation. HBV-related mortality was low. With the appropriate precautionary measures, prednisolone and immunosuppressants (except methotrexate and leflunomide) may be used safely in patients where clinically indicated. Key words: Ankylosing spondylitis, Lamivudine, Rheumatoid arthritis, Spondyloarthropathies