Safety of Monitoring Viral and Liver Function Markers in Patients With Prior Resolved Hepatitis B Infection After Kidney Transplantation

Guidelines for Infection Control in the Urological Field, including Urinary Tract Management (revised second edition)

The Committee for the Development of Guidelines for Infection Control in the Urological Field, including Urinary Tract Management of the Japanese Urological Association, together with its systematic review team and external reviewers, have prepared a set of practice guidelines, an abridged version of which is published herein. These guidelines cover the following topics: (i) foundations of infection control, standard precautions, route-specific precautions, and occupational infection control (including vaccines); (ii) the relationship between urologists and infection control; (iii) infection control in urological wards and outpatient clinics; (iv) response to hepatitis B virus reactivation; (v) infection control in urological procedures and examinations; (vi) prevention of infections occurring in conjunction with medical procedures and examinations; (vii) responses to urinary tract tuberculosis and bacillus Calmette-Guérin; (viii) aseptic handling, cleaning, disinfection, and sterilization of urinary tract endoscopes (principles of endoscope manipulation, endoscope lumen cleaning, and disinfection); (ix) infection control in the operating room (principles of hand washing, preoperative rubbing methods, etc.); (x) prevention of needlestick and blood/bodily fluid exposure and response to accidental exposure; (xi) urinary catheter-associated urinary tract infection and purple urinary bag syndrome; and (xii) urinary catheter-associated urinary tract infections in conjunction with home care. In addressing these topics, the relevant medical literature was searched to the extent possible, and content was prepared for the purpose of providing useful information for clinical practice.

Hepatitis B virus reactivation in kidney transplant patients with resolved hepatitis B virus infection: Risk factors and the safety and efficacy of preemptive therapy

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation is associated with complications and adverse outcomes in patients with clinically resolved HBV infection who are seronegative for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBs Ag), and seropositive for hepatitis B core antibody (HBc Ab) and/or hepatitis B surface antibody (HBs Ab) before kidney transplantation (KT).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 52 patients with resolved HBV infection who were HBV-DNA negative. HBV-DNA after KT was evaluated, and the occurrence of HBV reactivation and outcomes were monitored. We defined HBV reactivation as seropositivity for HBV-DNA at or above the minimal detection level of 1.0 log IU/mL and treated preemptively (using entecavir) when the HBV-DNA level was at or above 1.3 log IU/mL, in accordance with the Japanese Guidelines for HBV treatment.

RESULTS

Among the 52 patients, the mean age was 57.2 ± 10.8 years. The median HBc Ab titer was 12.8 (interquartile range, 4.6-42.6) cutoff index, and five (9.6%) cases of HBV reactivation occurred. No patients developed graft loss and died due to HBV reactivation. Statistical analysis showed that age and HBc Ab titer were significant risk factors for HBV reactivation (P = .037 and P = .042, respectively). No significant differences were found between graft survival and the presence or absence of HBV reactivation.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that HBc Ab titer and age could be significant risk factors for HBV reactivation. Resolution of HBV infection did not appear to be associated with patient or graft survival, regardless of whether HBV reactivation occurred, when following our preemptive strategy.

Risk of hepatitis B reactivation in hepatitis B surface antigen seronegative and core antibody seropositive kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Previous contact with Hepatitis B virus (HBV) is common in patients undergoing hemodialysis. Literature has shown conflicting results on the risk of HBV reactivation in kidney transplant (KT) recipients with serologic evidence of past HBV infection.

METHODS

We reviewed 631 consecutive KT recipients and selected 70 patients simultaneously HBsAg negative and anti-HBc positive before KT, regardless of hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs) status. Demographic characteristics, coinfection with other viruses, the presence of a previous KT, induction and maintenance immunosuppression, length of follow up, biopsy-proven acute rejection episodes, incidence of impaired liver function, and causes of graft loss and mortality were collected. Hepatitis B virus reactivation was defined as detection of HBV DNA viral load >2000 IU/mL during follow up. Outcome data included HBV reactivation episodes, graft function, and patient survival.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 151 months; 91.4% of patients were positive to anti-HBs prior to KT. No patient received HBV prophylaxis and 11 patients (15.7%) received rituximab as part of induction therapy. Anti-HBs titers remained stable in all patients throughout the observation period but two patient showed evidence of HBV reactivation after KT.

CONCLUSION

Hepatitis B virus reactivation in HBsAg-negative and anti-HBc-positive after KT is rare but possible. We suggest evaluating HBV serologies, HBV DNA viral load, and liver enzymes before KT and routinely monitoring serologic HBV markers after KT. As only two patients experienced HBV reactivation, it is neither possible to define risk factors for HBV reactivation nor to evaluate the impact of different immunosuppressants or the benefit of prophylactic regimens. Further studies regarding HBV reactivation in solid organ transplant recipients are necessary.

Incidence of Hepatitis B Viral Reactivation After Kidney Transplantation With Low-Dose Rituximab Administration

BACKGROUND

In hematological malignancy patients intended to receive rituximab, hepatitis B virus (HBV) serology screening, viral reactivation monitoring, are recommended. However, the effect of single-dose rituximab (RIT) on HBV reactivation in kidney transplant patients with previous HBV infection is still unclear.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study consisting of 1294 kidney transplant patients, we identified 76 patients showing preoperative hepatitis B surface antigen-negative, hepatitis B core antibody-positive, and HBV-DNA-negative results. A rituximab dose of 200 mg/body was administered to 48 patients, 46 of whom did not receive prophylaxis (RIT+ group). Twenty-eight patients received neither rituximab nor prophylaxis (RIT- group). We monitored HBV-DNA by polymerase chain reaction every 1 to 3 months, and HBV reactivation was defined as detectable HBV-DNA.

RESULTS

HBV reactivation was found in 1 patient in the RIT+ group (2.2%) and 1 patient in the RIT- group (3.6%) at 6 weeks and 5.5 years posttransplant, respectively, but spontaneously cleared. Both patients showed positive hepatitis B surface antibody preoperatively. HBV reactivation was not found in 6 patients lacking anti-hepatitis B surface preoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose RIT administration in kidney transplant patients without prophylaxis is associated with low incidence of HBV reactivation. However, the comparisons among standard-dose RIT, low-dose RIT, and controls with high-quality study design is necessary.

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.

Antiviral prophylaxis during chemotherapy or immunosuppressive drug therapy to prevent HBV reactivation in patients with resolved HBV infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Until recently, the role of antiviral prophylaxis in preventing hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation during immunosuppressive therapy or chemotherapy in patients with resolved HBV infection was unclear. The aim of the study reported here was to compare the efficacy of antiviral prophylaxis versus that of non-prophylaxis in resolved HBV-infected patients undergoing chemotherapy or immunosuppressive therapy.

METHODS

PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the ClinicalTrials.gov website were searched from inception until December 2017. Studies comparing reactivation in prophylaxis versus non-prophylaxis in patients undergoing immunosuppressive therapy or chemotherapy were included. The meta-analysis was performed to calculate the relative risk (RR) and the pooled estimates.

RESULTS

A meta-analysis was conducted of 13 studies (2 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 11 cohort studies). The summary RR for HBV reactivation was 0.47 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-1.69) for antiviral prophylaxis versus non-prophylaxis. Both of the RCTs included in the meta-analysis enrolled patients treated with rituximab. Subgroup analyses showed that the two RCTs ± high-quality cohort studies showed a decreased risk of HBV reactivation among the antiviral prophylaxis groups (RCT 1: RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02-0.70; P = 0.02; RCT 2: 0.28, 95% CI 0.08-0.98; P = 0.05). Subgroup analyses further showed that the cohort studies did not support an association between the antiviral prophylaxis groups and HBV reactivation (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.14-2.83; P = 0.54); adjusting for confounding factors, such as detectable anti-HBs antibodies, failed to produce a significant association (RR,0.29, 95% CI 0.07-1.28; P = 0.10).

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analyses did not show an association between antiviral prophylaxis use and risk of HBV reactivation. As using only the RCTs ± high-quality cohort studies data rendered this association significant, clinicians can consider providing antiviral prophylaxis to patients with resolved HBV infection who are undergoing rituximab-based therapy.