Nucleos(t)ide analogues for preventing HBV reactivation in immunosuppressed patients with hematological malignancies: a network meta-analysis

Prevention and management of hepatitis B virus reactivation in patients with hematological malignancies in the targeted therapy era

Hepatitis due to hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation can be serious and potentially fatal, but is preventable. HBV reactivation is most commonly reported in patients receiving chemotherapy, especially rituximab-containing therapy for hematological malignancies and those receiving stem cell transplantation. Patients with inactive and even resolved HBV infection still have persistence of HBV genomes in the liver. The expression of these silent genomes is controlled by the immune system. Suppression or ablation of immune cells, most importantly B cells, may lead to reactivation of seemingly resolved HBV infection. Thus, all patients with hematological malignancies receiving anticancer therapy should be screened for active or resolved HBV infection by blood tests for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and antibody to hepatitis B core antigen. Patients found to be positive for HBsAg should be given prophylactic antiviral therapy. For patients with resolved HBV infection, there are two approaches. The first is pre-emptive therapy guided by serial HBV DNA monitoring, and treatment with antiviral therapy as soon as HBV DNA becomes detectable. The second approach is prophylactic antiviral therapy, particularly for patients receiving high-risk therapy, especially anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Entecavir and tenofovir are the preferred antiviral choices. Many new effective therapies for hematological malignancies have been introduced in the past decade, for example, chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell therapy, novel monoclonal antibodies, bispecific antibody drug conjugates, and small molecule inhibitors, which may be associated with HBV reactivation. Although there is limited evidence to guide the optimal preventive measures, we recommend antiviral prophylaxis in HBsAg-positive patients receiving novel treatments, including Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors, B-cell lymphoma 2 inhibitors, and CAR-T cell therapy. Further studies are needed to determine the risk of HBV reactivation with these agents and the best prophylactic strategy.

Hepatitis B virus reactivation in rheumatoid arthritis

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

Inferior survival and frequent hepatic dysfunction in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients with HBV infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

No clear consensus has been reached about the clinical features in hepatitis B virus (HBV)-associated non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the clinical characteristics and prognosis of NHL patients with chronic HBV infection (HBsAg+).

METHODS

Seven electronic databases were searched for relevant studies up to 31 January 2021. Hazard ratio (HR) or odds ratio (OR) corresponding to 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated to estimate the outcomes. The primary outcome was survival outcome, including overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Subgroup analysis was performed in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients.

RESULTS

Twenty-three retrospective studies, comprising of 1202 HBsAg+ NHL patients and 4448 HBsAg- NHL patients, were included. Twenty-two studies were conducted on Chinese patients. Compared with HBsAg- NHL patients, significantly shorter OS (HR 1.68; 95% CI 1.48-1.91) and PFS (HR 1.80; 95% CI 1.20-2.71), lower rate of complete remission (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.44-0.80) and higher frequency of hepatic dysfunction during chemotherapy (OR 3.46; 95% CI 2.61-4.57) were demonstrated in HBsAg+ NHL patients. Moreover, HBsAg+ patients were characterized by a younger age of disease onset, advanced disease stage, higher level of LDH and more frequent presence of B symptoms, and involvement of spleen and liver at diagnosis. Furthermore, subgroup analysis in DLBCL patients was also showed similar results.

CONCLUSION

Our study implicated that NHL patients, especially DLBCL, with chronic HBV infection displayed inferior prognosis, higher incidence of hepatic dysfunction during chemotherapy and distinct clinical features.

Long-term outcomes of busulfan plus melphalan-based versus melphalan 200 mg/m2 conditioning regimens for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

High-dose melphalan (HDMEL, 200 mg/m²) is considered as the standard conditioning regimen for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) in multiple myeloma (MM). However, whether the combination of melphalan with busulfan (BUMEL) conditioning outperforms HDMEL remains controversy. Accordingly, a systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out to compare the outcomes of HDMEL and BUMEL-based conditioning regimens in newly diagnosed MM patients having undergone auto-HSCT.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library database until July 31, 2021, to identify all eligible studies comparing progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), optimal treatment response after auto-HSCT, duration of stem cell engraftment and incidence of toxic events between patients undergoing BUMEL-based and HDMEL conditioning regimens. Hazard ratio (HR), mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR) corresponding to 95% confidence interval (CI) were determined to estimate outcomes applying RevMan 5.4 software. Publication biases were assessed by performing Egger’s test and Begg’s test by Stata 15 software.

Results

Ten studies with a total of 2855 MM patients were covered in the current meta-analysis. The results of this study demonstrated that patients having received BUMEL-based regimen was correlated with longer PFS (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.67~0.89, P = 0.0002) but similar OS (HR 1.08; 95% CI 0.92~1.26, P = 0.35) compared with those having received HDMEL. The differences of best treatment response after auto-HSCT and duration of neutrophil or platelet engraftment did not have statistical significance between the two groups of patients. With respect to adverse effects, the patients in BUMEL-based group were less frequently subject to gastrointestinal toxicity while the patients in HDMEL group less often experienced mucositis and infection. No significant difference was observed in hepatic toxicity between the two groups of patients.

Conclusions

In the present study, BUMEL-based conditioning was identified as a favorable regimen for a better PFS and equivalent OS as compared with HDMEL, which should be balanced against higher incidences of mucositis and infection. BUMEL-based conditioning is likely to act as an alternative strategy to more effectively improve auto-HSCT outcomes in MM.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12935-021-02313-z.

Distinct clinical features and prognostic factors of hepatitis C virus-associated non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Increasing evidence suggests that hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is associated with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). However, no clear consensus has been reached about the clinical features and effective treatment of HCV-associated NHL patients. We therefore performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the clinical characteristics and effectiveness of antiviral treatment or rituximab administration among NHL patients with HCV infection.

METHODS

Eight electronic databases, including PubMed, OVID, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials, WANFANG, CNKI, and VIP, were searched for eligible studies up to July 31, 2021. The hazard ratio (HR) or odds ratio (OR) corresponding to the 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated to estimate the outcomes. Publication bias was assessed by Egger's and Begg's tests. Statistical analysis was performed with RevMan 5.4 software and Stata version 15.

RESULTS

There were 27 shortlisted articles out of a total of 13,368 NHL patients included in the current meta-analysis. Our results demonstrated that NHL patients with HCV infection had a significantly shorter overall survival (OS: HR 1.89; 95% CI 1.42-2.51, P < 0.0001) and progression-free survival (PFS: HR 1.58; 95% CI 1.26-1.98, P < 0.0001), a lower overall response rate (ORR: OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.46-0.73, P < 0.00001) and a higher incidence of hepatic dysfunction during chemotherapy (OR 5.96; 95% CI 2.61-13.62, P < 0.0001) than NHL patients without HCV infection. HCV-positive NHL patients exhibited an advanced disease stage, an elevated level of LDH, a high-intermediate and high IPI/FLIPI risk as well as a higher incidence of spleen and liver involvement. Moreover, antiviral treatment prolonged survival (OS: HR 0.38; 95% CI 0.24-0.60, P < 0.0001), reduced disease progression [PFS/DFS (disease-free survival): HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.46-0.86, P = 0.003] and reinforced the treatment response (ORR: OR 2.62; 95% CI 1.34-5.11, P = 0.005) among the HCV-infected NHL patients. Finally, rituximab administration was associated with a favourable OS, while liver cirrhosis and low levels of albumin predicted a poor OS for HCV-positive NHL patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study provided compelling evidence about an inferior prognosis and distinct clinical characteristics among HCV-associated NHL patients. Antiviral treatment and rituximab-containing regimens were shown to be efficacious in improving the clinical outcomes of NHL patients with HCV infection.

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.

Alteration in Hepatitis B Serology in Children Receiving Chemotherapy

Chemotherapy-induced immunosuppression can lead to hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in cancer patients. Both HBV carriers and individuals with serological signs of previously resolved HBV exposure are under the risk of severe hepatitis and liver failure during and after chemotherapy. The objective of this largest retrospective study was to analyze the consequences of HBV status in children receiving chemotherapy. A total of 479 patients (273 boys and 206 girls) aged 1-211 months diagnosed with acute hematologic malignancies and solid tumors were included in the study. Serological markers for HBV before and after chemotherapy and clinical data of the patients were evaluated retrospectively. Two hundred thirty-four of the participants were found to have protective antibody titers to HBV at admission. Five children were carrying HBV before chemotherapy. They received antiviral therapy during treatment and no reactivation was detected. Antibody against hepatitis B surface antigen (antiHBs) remained positive in 194 patients after chemotherapy. However, 17.09% (40/234) lost antiHBs positivity. In this group, three patients (1.28%) who initially had positive antiHBs and antihepatitis B core antibody experienced HBV reactivation and lost their protective antiHBs at the end of the therapy. Median antiHBs titer significantly decreased after chemotherapy (213.14 [range: 24-888] vs. 180.85 [range: 0-850]) (p = 0.0094). The current relatively large trial demonstrated that protective antibody titers remarkably altered after chemotherapy, and at least 17% of the pediatric oncology cases lost antiHBs positivity. Therefore, vaccine prevention and close monitoring of serology should be considered during chemotherapy.

The association of hepatitis B virus screening and antiviral prophylaxis with adverse liver outcomes in Chinese cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy: A retrospective study

Currently, the association of the initiation time of hepatitis B virus (HBV) screening and antiviral prophylaxis with adverse liver outcomes in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy remains conflicting.This retrospective study was designed to determine the association of HBV screening and antiviral prophylaxis with adverse liver outcomes, and then proposed optimal management strategies on HBV screening and antiviral prophylaxis.We analyzed the medical data of Chinese cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy between 2000 and 2015. Descriptive statistics and Chi square tests were performed to analyze the basic characteristics of patients. Time-to-event analysis was used to determine incidence, and competing risk analysis was used to determine the hazard ratios (HRs) for outcomes.A total of 12,158 patients (81.1% with solid tumors) were analyzed. Among solid tumors patients, late screening and late antiviral therapy of chronic HBV were associated with higher incidence of hepatitis flare (HR 3.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.26-4.79; HR 6.79, 95% CI 4.42-10.41), hepatic impairment (HR 2.96, 95% CI 2.03-4.32; HR 8.03, 95% CI 4.78-13.48), liver failure (HR 2.19, 95% CI 1.41-3.40; HR 14.81, 95% CI 6.57-33.42), and HBV-related death (HR 3.29, 95% CI 2.26-4.79; HR 8.30, 95% CI 4.95-13.91) in comparison with early screening and early therapy.Early HBV screening and antiviral therapy could reduce the risk of adverse liver outcomes among chronic HBV patients receiving chemotherapy. Hepatitis B surface antibody-positivity was associated with a decreased risk of liver failure and chronic HBV, late screening or late antiviral therapy were predictors of liver failure for patients with anti-tumor therapy. However, it should be applied cautiously into each types of solid tumors and hematologic malignancies because subgroup analysis according to type of cancer was not designed.

Association of Hepatitis B Virus DNA Level and Follow-up Interval With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Recurrence

IMPORTANCE

Antiviral treatment is important in hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) comprehensive therapy. A high HBV DNA level is an independent risk factor for HBV-related HCC, but no quantifiable clinical index is available to date.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the feasibility and availability of the novel HBV DNA quantitation-time index (HDQTI), which includes HBV DNA quantitation and follow-up, to predict HBV-related HCC prognosis.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective prognostic study of patients with HCC from multiple centers in China was performed from January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2016. The median follow-up time was 18 months, and the longest follow-up time was 147 months. Data analysis was performed from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2018.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Clinical characteristics, antitumor management, antiviral treatment, HDQTI scores, follow-up information, and overall survival were recorded and analyzed. A receiver operating characteristic curve and accompanying area under the curve were calculated for HDQTI.

RESULTS

A total of 842 patients (mean [SD] age, 61.80 [9.85] years; 513 [60.9%] male) were included in the study. Of all included patients, 734 received no antiviral therapy before diagnosis (no previous diagnosis of HBV infection), 43 underwent nonstandard antiviral therapy, and 65 received regular antiviral therapy. Compared with the group without antiviral treatment, the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage was earlier (A:B:C, 73.8%:26.2%:0% to 5.7%:65.5%:28.8%, P < .001), the mean (SD) tumor size was smaller (2.89 [1.26] to 7.56 [3.28] cm, P < .001), the ratio of baseline HBV DNA level of more than 105 copies/mL was lower (10.8% to 40.6%, P < .001), and the ratio of the α1-fetoprotein level more than 400 ng/mL was less (21.5% to 78.2%, P < .001) in the standard antiviral treatment group, whereas the nonstandard treatment group was between the 2 groups. Recurrence occurred in 39 of 109 BCLC stage A cases. Patients with HDQTI scores higher than 34 had high risk of recurrence; at this cutoff level, the sensitivity of the HDQTI was 76.9% and the specificity was 92.9%, with an area under curve of 0.928. Patients in various BCLC stages had similar trends in overall survival and HDQTI scores (BCLC stage A: HDQTI score <34, not applicable; HDQTI score ≥34, 44.0 months; 95% CI, 38.3-49.7 months; BCLC stage B: HDQTI score <34, 35.0 months; 95% CI, 33.3-36.7 months; HDQTI score ≥34, 17.0 months; 95% CI, 14.5-19.5 months; P = .002; BCLC stage C: HDQTI score <34, 18.0 months; 95% CI, 16.5-19.6 months; HDQTI scores ≥34, 10.0 months; 95% CI, 8.5-11.5 months; P = .005).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings suggest that the HDQTI can be used as an independent prognostic indicator of recurrence in HBV-related HCC. Shorter follow-up intervals and accurate imaging evaluation are recommended in patients with HDQTI scores of 34 or higher.

Antiviral prophylaxis for preventing reactivation of hepatitis B virus in rheumatic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

To estimate the risk of reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) and evaluate the effectiveness of antiviral prophylaxis (AVP) in patients with different status of HBV infection undergoing antirheumatic therapies. We searched Cochrane Library, Medline, and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, non-RCTs, cohort studies, or case series studies examining reactivation of HBV in patients undergoing antirheumatic therapy with or without AVP. We estimated the HBV reactivation rate (HRR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) among different patient groups (indirect comparison). We also calculated rate ratio (RR), rate difference (RD) with their 95% CIs, and the number needed to treat (NNT) of AVP (direct comparison). Fifty-three case series studies with 2162 patients were included. The RD of AVP was - 0.13 (95% CI - 0.21 to - 0.05) for all patients, - 0.16 (95% CI - 0.26 to - 0.06) for rheumatic patients with chronic HBV infection, but not statistically significant for patients with other status of HBV infection. Lamivudine (RD - 0.10, 95% CI - 0.25 to 0.05) was less effective than other prophylactic antiviral drugs (RD - 0.31, 95% CI - 0.52 to - 0.11). The HHR varied from 55 to 5% by HBV status and treatment. There is limited evidence that AVP was effective for preventing reactivation of HBV in patients undergoing antirheumatic therapy. The effectiveness varies by patient HBV status and antiviral regimens. Rheumatic HBV carriers may be more beneficial from AVP, and lamivudine may be inferior to other AVP regimens. Findings in this study warrant further investigation in rigorous RCTs.

Risk of infection associated with anti-TNF-α therapy

INTRODUCTION

The advent, more than two decades ago, of monoclonal antibodies and soluble receptors targeting tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α has revolutionized the therapeutic approach to otherwise difficult-to-treat autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. However, due to the pleiotropic functions played by this pro-inflammatory cytokine (with particular relevance in granuloma maintenance), TNF-α blockade may increase the incidence of serious infections. Areas covered: The present review summarizes the biological rationale supporting the impact of anti-TNF-α therapy on the host's susceptibility to infection. The structure, mode of action, and indications of available agents are reviewed, as well as the clinical evidence coming from clinical trials and observational registries. We discuss the impact of patient- and disease-related factors influencing the occurrence of infection. Finally, strategies for risk minimization are also covered, with particular attention to recommendations for screening of latent tuberculosis infection and management of chronic hepatitis B infection. Expert commentary: Methodological limitations (confounding by indication bias, patient dropout, or switching therapies) should be considered when interpreting observational data. Clinicians must individualize the infection risk assessment not only on the basis of the specific anti-TNF-α agent used or the expected duration of therapy, but also by taking into account the baseline susceptibility of a given patient.

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.

Prophylaxis for Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation after Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation in the Era of Drug Resistance and Newer Antivirals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Patients undergoing allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) are at a very high risk of hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr). Lamivudine is commonly used as prophylaxis against HBVr in high-risk patients undergoing allo-HSCT. Unfortunately, its efficacy is diminishing due to the development of HBV mutant drug-resistant strains. With the availability of newer antiviral agents such as entecavir, telbivudine, adefovir, and tenofovir, it is important to assess their role in HBVr prophylaxis. A comprehensive search of 7 databases was performed to evaluate efficacy of antiviral prophylaxis against HBVr in allo-HSCT patients (PubMed/Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov (June 21, 2017)). We identified 10 studies, with 2067 patients undergoing allo-HSCT; these primarily evaluated the use of lamivudine and entecavir as prophylaxis against HBVr in patients undergoing allo-HSCT because there were little or no data about adefovir, telbivudine, or tenofovir as prophylaxis in this specific patient population. Thus, included studies were categorized into 2 main prophylaxis groups: lamivudine and entecavir. Results of our meta-analysis suggest that entecavir is very effective against HBVr, although further clinical trials are required to test efficacy of new antivirals and explore the emerging threat of drug resistance.

Risk of hepatitis B reactivation in HBsAg-negative/HBcAb-positive patients with undetectable serum HBV DNA after treatment with rituximab for lymphoma: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-negative/hepatitis B core antibody (HBcAb)-positive patients with undetectable serum hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA have experienced and resolved hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. Lymphoma patients with resolved HBV infection have high risk of HBV reactivation when treated with robust immunosuppressive agents, but the reported rate varies extensively between different studies. This study aims to estimate the risk of HBV reactivation in HBsAg-negative/HBcAb-positive patients receiving rituximab-containing chemotherapy for lymphoma.

METHODS

Databases were searched for papers published in English until 8 August 2016. The pooled risk of HBV reactivation was estimated using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Data from 15 studies were retrieved, including a total of 1312 HBsAg-negative/HBcAb-positive lymphoma patients treated with rituximab-containing chemotherapy. The results revealed HBV reactivation rate of 9.0 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.05-0.15]. In subgroup analysis, the reactivation rates for prospective and retrospective studies were 17 % (I ² = 87.3 %; 95 % 0.08-0.39, p < 0.001) and 7 % (I ² = 43.1 %; 95 % CI 0.05-0.11, p = 0.07), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis confirms a measurable and potentially substantial risk of HBV reactivation in HBsAg-negative/HBcAb-positive patients with rituximab treatment for lymphoma. Prophylactic use of anti-HBV agents should be seriously considered for such patients.