The role of tenofovir in preventing and treating hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in immunosuppressed patients. A real life experience from a tertiary center

Long-term comparisons of the durability of 6 months versus 12 months antiviral therapy for hepatitis B after chemotherapy cessation

BACKGROUND

Prophylaxis antiviral therapy is recommended for patients with hepatitis B receiving chemotherapy but the ideal treatment duration after chemotherapy cessation needs more evidence for clarification.

AIMS

This study aimed to compare the relapse rate of short finite intervals of 6 months and 12 months of -nucleos(t)ide analogue (NA) therapy in patients stratified by low hepatitis B virus (HBV)-DNA of < 2000 IU/ml or high HBV DNA of ≥ 2000 IU/ml.

METHODS

Patients started tenofovir or entecavir treatment 1 week before chemotherapy and were assigned to different treatment duration groups randomly after stratified by HBV DNA pretreatment: (1) HBV DNA of < 2000 IU/ml at 6-month or 12-month duration; (2)HBV DNA of ≥ 2000 IU/ml at 6-month or 12-month duration. Virological relapse (VR) was defined as HBV DNA of > 2000 IU/ml, and clinical relapse (CR) was defined as HBV DNA of > 2000 IU/ml and alanine aminotransferase of > 80 IU/L during the follow-up period. The primary endpoint was to compare the durability between groups 1 year after antiviral therapy cessation. The secondary endpoint was VR and CR rate at long-term follow-up after antiviral therapy cessation.

RESULTS

This study enrolled 61 patients, and 5 patients were lost to follow-up or tumor recurrence. VR and CR rates were 46.4% and 14.3% at 1-year and 55.3% and 16.1%, at long-term follow-up, respectively. VR and CR rates demonstrated no difference between the groups. Pretreatment HBV DNA at ≥ 2000 IU/ml and end-of-treatment hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) at ≥ 500 IU/ml were the predictor of VR (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.98; p = 0.010 and HR: 2.38; p = 0.037).

CONCLUSIONS

Prolongation from 6 months to 12 months of NA consolidation after chemotherapy cessation did not affect the VR or CR of HBV. High pretreatment HBV DNA and end-of-treatment HBsAg levels could predict VR after antiviral therapy cessation for chemotherapy.

Efficacy of Antiviral Prophylaxis up to 6 or 12 Months From Completion of Rituximab in Resolved Hepatitis B Patients: A Multicenter, Randomized Study

BACKGROUND

Rituximab occasionally induces reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) in patients with resolved HBV, at times with fatal consequences. The optimal duration of prophylactic antiviral therapy in this situation is unclear. We aimed to investigate the difference in HBV reactivation according to the duration of prophylactic tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in patients with resolved HBV and receiving rituximab.

METHODS

A multicenter, randomized, open-label, prospective study was conducted in hepatitis B surface antigen-negative and anti-HBc-positive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients treated with rituximab-based chemotherapy. A total of 90 patients were randomized and received prophylactic TDF from the initiation of rituximab until 6 months (the 6-month group) or 12 months (the 12-month group) after the completion of rituximab. The primary outcome was the difference in HBV reactivation and the secondary outcomes were the difference in hepatitis flare and adverse events between the two groups.

RESULTS

In an intention to treat (ITT) analysis, HBV reactivation occurred in 1 of 43 patients (2.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-12%) at a median of 13.3 months in the 6-month group and 2 of 41 patients (4.9%; 95% CI, 1.4-16%) at a median of 13.7 months in the 12-month group. In a per protocol (PP) analysis, HBV reactivation occurred in 1 of 18 patients (5.6%; 95% CI, 0.99-26%) at 13.3 months in the 6-month group and 1 of 13 patients (7.7%; 95% CI, 1.4-33%) at 9.7 months in the 12-month group. The cumulative incidence of HBV reactivation was not significantly different between the two groups in ITT and PP analyses (P = 0.502 and 0.795, respectively). The occurrence of adverse events was not significantly different between the two groups in ITT (9.3% in the 6-month group, 22.0% in the 12-month group, P = 0.193) and PP analyses (5.6% in the 6-month group, 7.7% in the 12-month group, P > 0.999).

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic TDF up to 6 months after completion of rituximab-based chemotherapy is sufficient in terms of the efficacy and safety of reducing HBV reactivation in patients with resolved HBV.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02585947.

Prophylactic tenofovir alafenamide for hepatitis B virus reactivation and reactivation-related hepatitis

No prospective study on the efficacy of tenofovir alafenamide (TAF), a novel tenofovir prodrug, in preventing hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation has yet been reported. This multicenter prospective study enrolled HBV-carriers who received TAF to prevent HBV reactivation before antitumor or immunosuppressive therapy, and patients with resolved HBV infection who experienced HBV-reactivation and received TAF to prevent HBV reactivation-related hepatitis. The efficacy of prophylactic TAF in preventing HBV reactivation and HBV reactivation-related hepatitis was evaluated at 6 and 12 months after initiating TAF. Overall, 110 patients were administered TAF to prevent HBV reactivation or HBV reactivation-related hepatitis. Three patients died owing to primary disease, whereas one patient was transferred to another hospital within 6 months after initiating TAF. Seven patients died due to primary disease, and five patients were transferred to another hospital within 12 months after initiating TAF. Therefore, 106 and 94 (77 patients with HBV infection, 17 with previous-HBV infection) patients were evaluated at 6 and 12 months after initiating TAF, respectively. No patient experienced HBV reactivation, HBV reactivation-related hepatitis, or treatment discontinuation due to HBV reactivation or adverse events of TAF after 6 and 12 months. TAF could effectively prevent HBV reactivation and HBV reactivation-related hepatitis.

Hepatitis B virus infection reactivation in patients under immunosuppressive therapies: Pathogenesis, screening, prevention and treatment

With a 5.3% of the global population involved, hepatitis B virus (HBV) is a major public health challenge requiring an urgent response. After a possible acute phase, the natural history of HBV infection can progress in chronicity. Patients with overt or occult HBV infection can undergo HBV reactivation (HBVr) in course of immunosuppressive treatments that, apart from oncological and hem-atological diseases, are also used in rheumatologic, gastrointestinal, neurological and dermatological settings, as well as to treat severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. The risk of HBV reactivation is related to the immune status of the patient and the baseline HBV infection condition. The aim of the present paper is to investigate the risk of HBVr in those not oncological settings in order to suggest strategies for preventing and treating this occurrence. The main studies about HBVr for patients with occult hepatitis B infection and chronic HBV infection affected by non-oncologic diseases eligible for immunosuppressive treatment have been analyzed. The occurrence of this challenging event can be reduced screening the population eligible for immunosuppressant to assess the best strategies according to any virological status. Further prospective studies are needed to increase data on the risk of HBVr related to newer immunomodulant agents employed in non-oncological setting.

Hepatitis B virus reactivation: overview and management

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) can hide in the liver in the form of covalently closed circular DNA. When the body’s immunity changes, HBV reactivation (HBV-R) can occur. The risk of HBV-R is determined by the complex interaction among virological factors, medication factors and host factors. However, many patients do not know that they are infected with HBV, and doctors often do not invest enough time to systematically evaluate the patient’s HBV-R risk factors before immunosuppressive treatment. Therefore, HBV clinical screening should be vigorously promoted to achieve early detection and early prevention for patients with high risk of HBV-R. The mechanism, clinical features, risk factors, HBV-R under different disease etiologies, prevention and treatment of HBV-R were summarized to improve the in-depth understanding and awareness.

Risk and Prevention of Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation during Immunosuppression for Non-Oncological Diseases

Reactivation of overt or occult HBV infection (HBVr) is a well-known, potentially life-threatening event which can occur during the course of immunosuppressive treatments. Although it has been described mainly in subjects receiving therapy for oncological or hematological diseases, the increasing use of immunosuppressant agents in non-oncological patients observed in recent years has raised concerns about the risk of reactivation in several other settings. However, few data can be found in the literature on the occurrence of HBVr in these populations, and few clear recommendations on its management have been defined. The present paper was written to provide an overview of the risk of HBV reactivation in non-neoplastic patients treated with immunosuppressive drugs, particularly for rheumatological, gastrointestinal, dermatological and neurological diseases, and for COVID-19 patients receiving immunomodulating agents; and to discuss the potential strategies for prevention and treatment of HBVr in these settings.

Comparison of Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate and Entecavir in the Prophylaxis of HBV Reactivation

INTRODUCTION

Current guidelines recommend starting antiviral prophylaxis to prevent hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in patients receiving immunosuppressive treatments (IST). The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) for prophylaxis.

METHODS

Patients, who were HBsAg and/or anti-HBc IgG positive and scheduled to receive IST for oncologic and hematologic diseases, were enrolled into the study. Those who were already receiving an antiviral treatment for HBV or had an associated HIV, hepatitis C, D were excluded. The remaining patients with a prophylaxis indication according to the AGA guideline were randomized to receive either ETV (0.5 mg/day) or TDF (245 mg/day). Prophylaxis was continued for 6-12 months after completion of IST. Patients were followed up for 1 year after completion of prophylaxis. The HBV reactivation rates and side effects of the drugs were compared.

RESULTS

The study group included 120 patients. There was no significant difference between the demographic data, viral serologic parameters and reactivation risk profiles of the ETV (n = 60) and TDF (n = 60) groups. Forty-one patients in the ETV and 36 in the TDF group completed the antiviral prophylaxis, and no HBV reactivation was observed. HBV reactivation was observed in 4 of 37 patients (10.8%) in the ETV group and 5 of 35 (14.3%) patients in the TDF group (including one with flare) during the follow-up after completion of prophylaxis. Ten patients in the ETV group (16.7%) and 14 patients (23.3%) in the TDF group experienced side effects (p = 0.77). One patient in the TDF group had to switch to ETV due to severe itchy, maculopapular rash-like lesions.

CONCLUSIONS

ETV and TDF had a similar efficacy in the prophylaxis of HBV reactivation in patients undergoing IST, with none of the patients experiencing reactivation.

HBV Reactivation During the Treatment of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Management Strategies

Hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBV-R), which can lead to HBV-related morbidity and mortality, is a common and well-known complication that occurs during the treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients with current or past exposure to HBV infection. HBV-R is thought to be closely associated with chemotherapeutic or immunosuppressive therapies. However, immunosuppressive agents such as anti-CD20 antibodies (e.g., rituximab and ofatumumab), glucocorticoids, and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) administered to NHL patients during treatment can cause deep immunodepression and place them at high risk of HBV-R. In this review, we explore the current evidence, the guidelines of several national and international organizations, and the recommendations of expert panels relating to the definition, risk factors, screening and monitoring strategies, whether to use prophylaxis or pre-emptive therapy, and the optimal antiviral agent and duration of antiviral therapy for HBV-R.

HBV flare associated with immunosuppressive treatments: it is still dangerous in the third-generation antivirals era

BACKGROUND

There are limited data about the mortality and morbidity of patients with HBV flare related to immunosuppressive treatments (IST) in the third-generation antivirals era. Herein, we performed a multi-centric study in patients treated with entecavir (ETV) or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and evaluated their clinical course.

METHODS

The study group included patients who were referred to gastroenterology or infectious disease specialists at eight different hospitals in Turkey. HBV flare was defined as at least a threefold elevation in alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels above the upper limit of normal range. The demographic data, IST protocol, virological markers, liver tests, international normalized ratio (INR), HBV DNA, reactivation risk profile according to AGA guideline, MELD and MELD-Na scores were retrospectively evaluated. The primary aim of the study was to determine the liver-related mortality, including transplantation, at 12 weeks and factors predicting it. Secondary aims were to compare ETV and TDF with respect to mortality and time to ALT, bilirubin normalization and HBV DNA undetectability.

RESULTS

The study group included 40 patients (29 males, mean age: 57 ±12 years). Twenty-five patients (62.5%) had a high risk of reactivation. Twenty-six patients received TDF and 14 patients received ETV treatment. Eight (20%) patients developed acute liver failure and one patient (2.5%) underwent living donor liver transplantation. Seven patients died due to liver-related complications, revealing a mortality rate of 17.5%. In multivariate analysis, total bilirubin levels at the onset, ALT levels and delta-MELD score at the first week were the independent risk factors for liver related mortality (HR: 1.222, 1.003, 1.253 and 95% CI: 1.096, 1.362; 1.001, 1.004 and 1.065, 1.470, respectively). There was no significant difference between the TDF and ETV groups with respect to time to normalize ALT and bilirubin levels, HBV DNA undetectability and mortality rates (16% and 21.4%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

HBV flare associated with IST has a high mortality in the third-generation antivirals era. High total bilirubin at the onset and high ALT and delta-MELD score at the first week predict poor prognosis.

Clinical Profile and Efficacy of Antivirals in Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation, in Patients With Cancer Receiving Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVR) is common in patients withcancer. The aim of the present study was to find out clinical profile of patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy with HBVR and to study the efficacy of entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir in the treatment of HBVR.

METHODS

This is a prospective study in which all consecutive patients with cancer with evidence of HBVR were included. HBVR was defined as: New onset transaminitis with alanine aminotransferase (ALT) >3 times upper limit of normal and >10 fold increase in HBV DNA levels from baseline levels or detection of HBV DNA ≥100,000 IU/ml in patients with no baseline HBV DNA. Patients with HBVR were put on ETV or tenofovir and were closely monitored for efficacy and safety for minimum of 1 year.

RESULTS

Of 204 Hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-positive patients with different cancers, 92 met the inclusion criteria. Of 92, 46 received ETV 0.5 mg/day and 46 received tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) 300 mg/day. At 6 months, there was 4.7 log reduction in HBV DNA level in the ETV group and 5.2 log reduction in the TDF group (P = 0.029). Proportion of patients with undetectable HBV DNA (75.7% vs 87.5%), ALT normalization (89.2% Vs 87.5%), HBsAg negativity (25% vs 28.1%), and seroconversion (2.8% vs 3.1%) at 1 year were almost similar in both groups with P value > 0.05 for all efficacy end points. There was no HBVR-related mortality in any group.

CONCLUSION

Both ETV and tenofovir are very effective in the treatment of HBVR and reduce the liver-related mortality and morbidity in such patients.

Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation: Risk Factors and Current Management Strategies

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

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.

Eighteen-month lamivudine prophylaxis on preventing occult hepatitis B virus infection reactivation in patients with haematological malignancies receiving immunosuppression therapy

This study evaluated the long-term efficacy and safety of an 18-month lamivudine prophylaxis in 68 HBsAg-negative/anti-HBc-positive patients with oncohaematological disease. All 68 consecutive HBsAg-negative/anti-HBc-positive patients with an oncohaematological disease and naïve for chemotherapy observed from April 2008 to December 2012 at 2 Hematology Units in Naples were treated with lamivudine for 18 months after stopping chemotherapy and monitored for HBsAg at months 1 and 3 during chemotherapy and then every 3 months after its discontinuation. During follow-up, 13 (19.1%) of the 68 patients died of complications related to their oncohaematological disease, and 3 (4%) showed a virological HBV reactivation (retroconversion to HBsAg positivity) 1-7 months after the discontinuation of lamivudine prophylaxis (2 treated for chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and one for Waldenstrom's disease); of these, 2 showed a biochemical reactivation. Comparing the demographic and clinical characteristics of the 3 patients with a virological HBV reactivation to the 65 without, the former were older (median age and range: 67 years [75-78] vs. 61 [24-88]; P = .05) and were less frequently treated for B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL) (0 vs. 70.7%, P = .03). In conclusion, a 18 months of lamivudine prophylaxis was effective in preventing HBV reactivation in HBsAg-negative/anti-HBc-positive patients treated for B-NHL. However, in patients with chronic and severe immunodepression, such as those with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and Waldenstrom's disease, prophylaxis should be continued for an indefinite period.

Randomized prospective study evaluating tenofovir disoproxil fumarate prophylaxis against hepatitis B virus reactivation in anti-HBc-positive patients with rituximab-based regimens to treat hematologic malignancies: The Preblin study

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in patients with resolved HBV infection (HBsAg negative, antiHBc positive) is uncommon, but potentially fatal. The role of HBV prophylaxis in this setting is uncertain. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) prophylaxis versus close monitoring in antiHBc-positive, HBsAg-negative patients under treatment with rituximab (RTX)-based regimens for hematologic malignancy.

METHODS

PREBLIN is a phase IV, randomized, prospective, open-label, multicenter, parallel-group trial conducted in 17 hospitals throughout Spain. Anti-HBc-positive, HBsAg-negative patients with undetectable HBV DNA were randomized to receive TDF 300 mg once daily (Group I) or observation (Group II). The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients showing HBV reactivation during 18 months following initiation of RTX treatment. Patients with detectable HBV DNA (Group III) received the same dose of TDF and were analyzed together with Group I to investigate TDF safety.

RESULTS

Sixty-one patients were enrolled in the study, 33 in the TDF treatment group and 28 in the observation group. By ITT analysis, HBV reactivation was 0% (0/33) in the study group and 10.7% (3/28) in the observation group (p = 0.091). None of the patients in either group showed significant differences in liver function parameters between baseline and the last follow-up sample. TDF was generally well tolerated and there were no severe treatment-related adverse events.

CONCLUSION

In patients with hematological malignancy and resolved hepatitis B infection receiving RTX-based regimens, HBV reactivation did not occur in patients given TDF prophylaxis.

Recommendations for screening, monitoring, prevention, prophylaxis and therapy of hepatitis B virus reactivation in patients with haematologic malignancies and patients who underwent haematologic stem cell transplantation-a position paper

SCOPE

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection reactivation is associated with high morbidity and mortality in patients with haematologic malignancy and/or haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). However, information on this issue is limited. The scope of this position paper is to provide recommendations on HBV screening, monitoring, prophylaxis, treatment and vaccination in the patients described above.

METHODS

These recommendations were developed from one meeting of experts attended by different Italian scientific societies as well as from a systematic literature review (of articles published through December 31, 2016) on HBV infection in haematologic patients and in patients who underwent haematopoietic stem cell transplantation published in the same issue of the journal. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess each recommendation's quality.

QUESTIONS ADDRESSED

These recommendations provide the answers to the following questions: (a) HBV screening and monitoring: Who should be screened before chemotherapy? Which screening tests should be used? Should HBV-DNA detection be used to monitor HBV reactivation before starting antivirals? What is the best timeline to monitor HBV reactivation? (b) Prophylaxis in HBsAg-positive patients: Which antiviral drugs should be used to treat HBsAg-positive patients? How long should antiviral prophylaxis be provided to HBsAg-positive patients? (c) Prophylaxis in patients with resolved HBV infection: Which patients with resolved HBV infection should receive antiviral prophylaxis? Which antiviral drug should be used? How long should antiviral prophylaxis be provided? (d) HBV infection management strategy in autologous (auto-HSCT) and allogeneic HSCT (allo-HSCT): Which HSCT recipients should receive antiviral prophylaxis? Which antiviral drug should be used? How long should antiviral prophylaxis be provided? (e) Choice of antiviral drugs in the treatment of HBV reactivation: Should third-generation anti-HBV drugs be preferred to first- or second-generation antiviral drugs in the treatment of HBV reactivation with or without hepatitis flare in haematologic patients? (f) Immunization against HBV in patients with haematologic malignancies and/or patients who underwent HSCT: Should these patients be vaccinated? Which HBV vaccination schedule should be adopted?

RECOMMENDATIONS

Haematologic patients should be screened for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) plus anti-hepatitis B core protein (HBc), and HBV DNA before chemotherapy. HBV DNA levels should be monitored monthly in all HBV-positive patients who do not receive prophylaxis. HBsAg-positive haematologic patients and those undergoing HSCT should receive third-generation antiviral therapy as prophylaxis. Anti-HBc-positive lymphoma patients and those receiving HSCT should receive antiviral prophylaxis. All HBV-negative haematologic patients should be vaccinated for HBV. The acquisition of data from well-designed studies is desirable in the near future.

Optimizing antiviral agents for hepatitis B management in malignant lymphomas

The global scale of hepatitis B infection is well known but its impact is still being understood. Missed hepatitis B infection impacts lymphoma therapy especially increased risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation and poor treatment outcomes. The presence of undiagnosed chronic hepatitis also undermines chronic HBV screening methods that are based on a positive HBsAg alone. The goal of this review is to evaluate the literature for optimizing antiviral therapy for lymphoma patients with HBV infection or at risk of HBV reactivation. Relevant articles for this review were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Ovid Medline, and Scopus using the following terms, alone and in combination: "chronic hepatitis B", "occult hepatitis B", "special groups", "malignant lymphoma", "non-Hodgkin's lymphoma", "Hodgkin's lymphoma", "immunocompromised host", "immunosuppressive agents", "antiviral", "HBV reactivation". The period of the search was restricted to a 15-year period to limit the search to optimizing antiviral agents for HBV infection in malignant lymphomas [2001-2016]. Several clinical practice guidelines recommend nucleos(t)ide analogues-entecavir, tenofovir and lamivudine among others. These agents are best initiated along with or prior to immunosuppressive therapy. Additional methods recommended for optimizing antiviral therapy include laboratory modalities such as HBV genotyping, timed measurements of HBsAg and HBV DNA levels to measure and predict antiviral treatment response. In conclusion, optimizing antiviral agents for these patients require consideration of geographic prevalence of HBV, cost of antiviral therapy or testing, screening modality, hepatitis experts, type of immunosuppressive therapy and planned duration of therapy.

Efficacy of prophylactic antiviral therapy and outcomes in HBsAg-negative, anti-HBc-positive patients receiving chemotherapy: a real-life experience

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-negative, anti-HBc-positive patients who received immunosuppressive therapies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated the medical records of HBsAg-negative, anti-HBc-positive patients with hematological diseases or solid tumors who underwent immunosuppressive therapies and were referred because of positive baseline hepatitis B virus (HBV) serology or HBV reactivation. The referral date was according to the judgment of the treating physician at the time of identification of any signs of HBV infection.

RESULTS

We included 55 HBsAg-negative, anti-HBc-positive patients. Of these, 31 received antiviral prophylaxis (group 1), whereas 24 patients did not receive any anti-HBV agent (group 2). The majority of patients [49/55 (89%)] had hematological malignancies and most of them 39/55 (71%) received rituximab-containing regimens. Lamivudine was used as antiviral prophylaxis in 13/31 (42%) patients of group 1. One patient in this group experienced HBV reactivation and was treated successfully with tenofovir add-on therapy. All patients in the second group experienced HBV reactivation and most of them [19/24 (79%)] were treated with tenofovir or entecavir as rescue therapy. Two of these patients (one of the tenofovir/entecavir subgroup and one of the lamivudine subgroup) eventually died because of hepatic failure despite rescue treatment.

CONCLUSION

Patients with serological markers of previous HBV infection are still at risk for HBV reactivation. Screening of both anti-HBs and anti-HBc is mandatory before chemotherapy. Pre-emptive antiviral prophylaxis, including lamivudine, is highly effective in all subgroups of such patients, whereas deferring treatment upon HBV reactivation is not enough to rescue all cases.

Treatment of chronic hepatitis B with tenofovir

Tenofovir (TDF) is a potent hepatitis B virus (HBV) inhibitor with a high barrier to drug resistance, and it has been recommended as one of the first-line drugs to treat chronic hepatitis B (CHB). This paper reviews the recent advances in the treatment of CHB with TDF, especially in terms of its efficacy as first-line and second-line antiviral therapies as well as its role in the prevention of mother-to-child HBV transmission.

Infectious diseases in allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation: prevention and prophylaxis strategy guidelines 2016

Infectious complications after allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT) remain a clinical challenge. This is a guideline provided by the AGIHO (Infectious Diseases Working Group) of the DGHO (German Society for Hematology and Medical Oncology). A core group of experts prepared a preliminary guideline, which was discussed, reviewed, and approved by the entire working group. The guideline provides clinical recommendations for the preventive management including prophylactic treatment of viral, bacterial, parasitic, and fungal diseases. The guideline focuses on antimicrobial agents but includes recommendations on the use of vaccinations. This is the updated version of the AGHIO guideline in the field of allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation utilizing methods according to evidence-based medicine criteria.

Prevention of Hepatitis B reactivation in the setting of immunosuppression

Advances in the treatment of malignant and inflammatory diseases have developed over time, with increasing use of chemotherapeutic and immunosuppressive agents of a range of drug classes with varying mechanism and potency in their effects on the immune system. These advances have been met with the challenge of increased risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in susceptible individuals. The magnitude of risk of HBV reactivation is associated with the individual’s HBV serological status and the potency and duration of immunosuppression. Individuals with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) and previously infected but serologically cleared HBV infection are both susceptible to HBV reactivation. HBV reactivation in the setting of immunosuppression is a potentially life threatening condition leading to liver failure and death in extreme cases. It is important to recognize that HBV reactivation in the setting of immunosuppression is potentially preventable. Therefore, identification of patients at risk of HBV reactivation and institution of prophylactic antiviral therapy prior to initiation of immunosuppression is essential.

Hepatitis B Reactivation During Immunosuppressive Therapy or Cancer Chemotherapy, Management, and Prevention: A Comprehensive Review-Screened

CONTEXT

Due to the close relationship between the immune system and the hepatitis B virus (HBV) replication, it is essential to monitor patients with current or past HBV infection under any type of immunosuppression. Cancer chemotherapy, immunosuppressive therapies in autoimmune diseases, and immunosuppression in solid organ and stem cell transplant recipients are the major reasons for hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr). In this review, the challenges associated with HBVr are discussed according to the latest studies and guidelines. We also discuss the role of treatments with different risks, including anti-CD20 agents, tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) inhibitors, and other common immunosuppressive agents in various conditions.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Through an electronic search of the PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus databases, we selected the studies associated with HBVr in different conditions. The most recent recommendations were collected in order to reach a consensus on how to manage patients at risk of HBVr.

RESULTS

It was found that the positive hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), the high baseline HBV DNA level, the positive hepatitis B virus e antigen (HBeAg), and an absent or low hepatitis B surface antibody (HBsAb) titer prior to starting treatment are the most important viral risk factors. Furthermore, rituximab, anthracycline, and different types of TNF-α inhibitors were identified as the high-risk therapies. By analyzing the efficiency of prophylaxis on the prevention of HBVr, it was concluded that those with a high risk of antiviral resistance should not be used in long-term immunosuppressants. Receiving HBV antiviral agents at the commencement of immunosuppressant therapy or chemotherapy was demonstrated to be effective in decreasing the risk of HBVr. Prophylaxis could also be initiated before the start of therapy. For most immune suppressive regimes, antiviral therapy should be kept up for at least 6 months after the cessation of immunosuppressive drugs. However, the optimal time of prophylaxis keeping should be increased in cases associated with rituximab or hematopoietic stem cell transplants. According to the latest studies and guidelines from different bodies, recommendations regarding screening, monitoring, and management of HBVr are outlined.

CONCLUSIONS

Identification of patients at the risk of HBVr before immunosuppressive therapy is an undeniable part of treatment. Starting the antiviral therapy, based on the type of immunosuppressive drugs and the underlying disease, could lead to better management of disease.

Prevention and management of hepatitis B virus reactivation in cancer patients

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation during immunosuppressive therapy is common in patients with solid tumor or hematological malignancies. It is associated with significant morbidity and mortality due to hepatitis flare and/or hepatic decompensation. These consequences arising from HBV reactivation are, however, largely preventable. Routine screening for HBV serologic status is recommended for all cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy or biologics. By recognizing different serological patterns (which represent either overt or occult HBV infection) and the types of immunosuppressive therapies prescribed, a risk-adapted approach can be established. Prophylactic therapy with nucleos(t)ide analogues (prior to or concomitantly with the commencement of immunosuppressive therapies) is more effective than pre-emptive therapy (starting antiviral when HBV DNA level is rising) in high-risk individuals. Entecavir has been proven to be more effective than lamivudine according to recent studies. Close monitoring of serum HBV level is the preferred strategy in low-risk patients. However, the optimal interval of DNA monitoring and the duration of therapy remain unknown.