Tenofovir therapy in hepatitis B virus-positive solid-organ transplant recipients. Transplantation. 2011;91:916-920. [PMID: 21325995 DOI: 10.1097/tp.0b013e3182100f59]

The Impact of Antiviral Treatment of Hepatitis B Virus after Kidney Transplant and the Latest Insights

BACKGROUND

The current frequency of hepatitis B virus infection in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) (including patients on maintenance dialysis and kidney transplant recipients) is low but not negligible worldwide. HBV has a deleterious effect on survival after a kidney transplant; antiviral treatments improved the short-term outcomes of kidney transplant recipients, but their long-term impact remains uncertain.

AIM

The aim of this review is to assess the role of antiviral therapy for HBV in improving survival after a kidney transplant. The recent publication of large surveys has prompted us to update the available evidence on the impact of HBV on patient and graft survival after a kidney transplant.

METHODS

We have conducted an extensive review of the medical literature, and various research engines have been used.

RESULTS

We retrieved several studies (n = 11; n = 121,436 unique patients) and found an association between positive serologic HBsAg status and diminished patient and graft survival after a kidney transplant; the adjusted relative risk (aRR) of all-cause mortality and graft loss was 2.85 (95% CI, 2.36; 3.33, p < 0.0001) and 1.26 (95% CI, 1.02; 1.51, p < 0.0001), respectively. To our knowledge, at least six studies reported improved patient and graft survival after the adoption of antiviral therapies for HBV (this result was reported with both survival curves and multivariable regression). According to novel clinical guidelines, entecavir has been suggested as a 'first line' antiviral agent for the treatment of HBV after a kidney transplant.

CONCLUSIONS

The recent availability of safe and effective antiviral drugs for the treatment of HBV has meant that the survival curves of HBsAg-positive patients on antiviral therapy and HBsAg-negative patients after a kidney transplant can be comparable. Antiviral therapy should be systematically proposed to HBV-positive kidney transplant recipients and candidates to avoid the deleterious hepatic and extra-hepatic effects of chronic HBV replication.

Evaluation of safety and efficacy of tenofovir disoproxil in hemodialysis and renal transplant patients monoinfected with hepatitis B virus based on real life data

Introduction

There are limited data about the safety of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in chronic renal failure (CRF). In this study, we aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of TDF in renal transplant recipients and hemodialysis patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) during long-term follow-up.

Material and methods

CHB patients undergoing hemodialysis (group 1), renal transplant recipients (group 2) and patients with normal renal function were included in the study. All patients were treated with TDF for at least 6 months. The groups were compared with regards to safety and efficacy. HBV-DNA levels were studied using a Cobas-TaqMan 96 system.

Results

A total of 217 patients with CHB (group 1: 8 patients, group 2: 9 patients, group 3: 200 patients) were enrolled in this study. The frequency of clinical adverse effects was significantly higher in groups 1 and 2compared with group 3 (37.5% vs. 11.1% vs. 0.5%, respectively, p < 0.001). However, no patients discontinued the drug due to the adverse effects. Serum creatinine levels were similar at baseline and at the end of follow-up in groups 1 and 2 (6.5 ±1.8 mg/dl and 6.9 ±1.5 mg/dl; 1.3 ±0.2 and 1.4 ±0.4 mg/dl, respectively, p < 0.05). HBV-DNA negativity rates were comparable at the 12^th month and at the end of follow-up (50-83% for group 1, 60-67% for group 2 and 70-75% for group 3, respectively, p > 0.05).

Conclusions

Clinical adverse effects of TDF were more common in patients with CRF in comparison with patients without CRF. However, the occurrence of adverse effects did not necessitate discontinuation of the drug. TDF was safe and effective for this group of patients.

INASL-ISN Joint Position Statements on Management of Patients with Simultaneous Liver and Kidney Disease

Renal dysfunction is very common among patients with chronic liver disease, and concomitant liver disease can occur among patients with chronic kidney disease. The spectrum of clinical presentation and underlying etiology is wide when concomitant kidney and liver disease occur in the same patient. Management of these patients with dual onslaught is challenging and requires a team approach of hepatologists and nephrologists. No recent guidelines exist on algorithmic approach toward diagnosis and management of these challenging patients. The Indian National Association for Study of Liver (INASL) in association with Indian Society of Nephrology (ISN) endeavored to develop joint guidelines on diagnosis and management of patients who have simultaneous liver and kidney disease. For generating these guidelines, an INASL-ISN Taskforce was constituted, which had members from both the societies. The taskforce first identified contentious issues on various aspects of simultaneous liver and kidney diseases, which were allotted to individual members of the taskforce who reviewed them in detail. A round-table meeting of the Taskforce was held on 20-21 October 2018 at New Delhi to discuss, debate, and finalize the consensus statements. The evidence and recommendations in these guidelines have been graded according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system with minor modifications. The strength of recommendations (strong and weak) thus reflects the quality (grade) of underlying evidence (I, II, III). We present here the INASL-ISN Joint Position Statements on Management of Patients with Simultaneous Liver and Kidney Disease.

Prophylaxis and treatment in liver transplantation. VII Consensus Document of the Spanish Society of Liver Transplantation

Whilst prophylaxis of hepatitis B is universally accepted after liver transplantation (LT), national recommendations for the prophylaxis and treatment of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection after LT are lacking in Spain. The aim of the VII consensus meeting organised by the Spanish Society of Liver Transplantation (SETH) was to set recommendations on the prophylaxis and treatment of hepatitis B after LT. The scientific evidence and strength of recommendations was evaluated by using the "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation" (GRADE) system. This document describes the recommendations and their level of evidence for: the definition and risk factors for hepatitis B recurrence after LT, monitoring and prophylaxis of hepatitis B recurrence at different periods after LT, treatment of hepatitis B before and after LT, and the prophylaxis of HBV infection by the recipients of LT with hepatitis B core antigen positive donors.

Long-term data on entecavir treatment for treatment-naive or lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B infection in kidney transplant recipients

INTRODUCTION

Entecavir (ETV) showed short-term efficacy and safety in HBsAg-positive kidney transplant recipients (KTRs), but long-term data are lacking.

METHODOLOGY

We retrospectively reviewed 30 HBsAg-positive KTRs who received ETV during 2007-2017.

RESULTS

Eighteen treatment-naïve (Group I) and 12 lamivudine-resistant (Group II) patients received ETV for 48.4 ± 35.2 and 66.0 ± 26.0 months, respectively. Both groups show significant HBV DNA decline, but Group I achieved earlier undetectability after 11.9 ± 9.6 months (compared with 28.8 ± 24.2 months in Group II, P = .033). Group I showed higher rates of undetectable HBV DNA (89%, 94%, 94%, 100%, and 100% at 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months, respectively, compared with 25%, 50%, 50%, 91%, and 91% in Group II, P = .003). ALT normalized after 6.0 ± 1.9 and 6.8 ± 2.1 months in Group I and Group II, respectively. Four patients (33.3%) in Group II developed drug resistance (2 had persistent viraemia and 2 had virological breakthrough, at 40.3 ± 15.0 months). Group II showed higher liver stiffness after 5 years (7.7 ± 4.1 kPa, compared with 5.0 ± 1.6 kPa in Group I, P = .046) and incidence of cirrhosis (4 patients [33.3%], compared with 1 [5.6%] patient in Group I, P = .049). Two patients (one in each group) developed hepatocellular carcinoma. Renal allograft function remained stable during follow-up of 63.2 ± 33.4 months for both groups. There was no difference in patient and graft survival between two groups at 5 years (P = .62 and .36, respectively).

CONCLUSION

ETV showed favorable long-term efficacy and tolerability in treatment-naïve KTRs. One-third of lamivudine-resistant subjects showed non-response or viral breakthrough after ETV treatment.

INASL Guidelines on Management of Hepatitis B Virus Infection in Patients receiving Chemotherapy, Biologicals, Immunosupressants, or Corticosteroids

Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) reactivation in patients receiving chemotherapy, biologicals, immunosupressants, or corticosteroids is emerging to be an important cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with current or prior exposure to HBV infection. These patients suffer a dual onslaught of illness: one from the primary disease for which they are receiving the culprit drug that led to HBV reactivation, and the other from HBV reactivation itself. The HBV reactivation not only leads to a compromised liver function, which may culminate into hepatic failure; it also adversely impacts the treatment outcome of the primary illness. Hence, identification of patients at risk of reactivation before starting these drugs, and starting treatment aimed at prevention of HBV reactivation is the best strategy of managing these patients. There are no Indian guidelines on management of HBV infection in patients receiving chemotherapy, biologicals, immunosupressants, or corticosteroids for the treatment of rheumatologic conditions, malignancies, inflammatory bowel disease, dermatologic conditions, or solid-organ or bone marrow transplantation. The Indian National Association for Study of the Liver (INASL) had set up a taskforce on HBV in 2016, with a mandate to develop consensus guidelines for management of various aspects of HBV infection, relevant to India. In 2017 the taskforce had published the first INASL guidelines on management of HBV infection in India. In the present guidelines, which are in continuation with the previous guidelines, the issues on management of HBV infection in patients receiving chemotherapy, biologicals, immunosupressants, or corticosteroids are addressed.

Outcomes of kidney transplantation in patients with hepatitis B virus infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To assess outcomes of kidney transplantation including patient and allograft outcomes in recipients with hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, and the trends of patient's outcomes overtime.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Database from inception through October 2017. Studies that reported odds ratios (OR) of mortality or renal allograft failure after kidney transplantation in patients with HBV [defined as hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) positive] were included. The comparison group consisted of HBsAg-negative kidney transplant recipients. Effect estimates from the individual study were extracted and combined using random-effect, generic inverse variance method of DerSimonian and Laird. The protocol for this meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; no. CRD42017080657).

RESULTS

Ten observational studies with a total of 87623 kidney transplant patients were enrolled. Compared to HBsAg-negative recipients, HBsAg-positive status was significantly associated with increased risk of mortality after kidney transplantation (pooled OR = 2.48; 95%CI: 1.61-3.83). Meta-regression showed significant negative correlations between mortality risk after kidney transplantation in HBsAg-positive recipients and year of study (slopes = -0.062, P = 0.001). HBsAg-positive status was also associated with increased risk of renal allograft failure with pooled OR of 1.46 (95%CI: 1.08-1.96). There was also a significant negative correlation between year of study and risk of allograft failure (slopes = -0.018, P = 0.002). These associations existed in overall analysis as well as in limited cohort of hepatitis C virus-negative patients. We found no publication bias as assessed by the funnel plots and Egger's regression asymmetry test with P = 0.18 and 0.13 for the risks of mortality and allograft failure after kidney transplantation in HBsAg-positive recipients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Among kidney transplant patients, there are significant associations between HBsAg-positive status and poor outcomes including mortality and allograft failure. However, there are potential improvements in patient and graft survivals in HBsAg-positive recipients overtime.

Hepatitis B in renal transplant patients

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) poses a significant challenge for both dialysis patients and kidney transplant recipients despite its decreasing rates, especially in developed countries. The best preventive method is vaccination. Patients with chronic renal disease should ideally be vaccinated prior to dialysis, otherwise, reinforced vaccination practices and close antibody titer monitoring should be applied while on dialysis. HBV infected dialysis patients who are renal transplant candidates must be thoroughly examined by HBV-DNA, and liver enzyme testing and by liver biopsy. When needed, one must consider treating patients with tenofovir or entecavir rather than lamivudine. Depending on the cirrhosis stage, dialysis patients are eligible transplant recipients for either a combined kidney-liver procedure in the case of decompensated cirrhosis or a lone kidney transplantation since even compensated cirrhosis after sustained viral responders is no longer considered an absolute contraindication. Nucleoside analogues have led to improved transplantation outcomes with both long-term patient and graft survival rates nearing those of HBsAg(-) recipients. Moreover, in the cases of immunized HBsAg(-) potential recipients with concurrent prophylaxis, we are enabled today to safely use renal grafts from both HBsAg(+) and HBsAg(-)/anti-HBc(+) donors. In so doing, we avoid unnecessary organ discarding. Universal prophylaxis with entecavir is recommended in HBV kidney recipients and should start perioperatively. One of the most important issues in HBV(+) kidney transplantation is the duration of antiviral prophylaxis. In the absence of robust data, it seems that prophylactic treatment may be discontinued in selected stable, low-risk recipients during maintenance immunosuppression and should be reintroduced when the immune status is altered. All immunosuppressive agents in kidney transplantation can be used in HBV(+) recipients. Immunosuppression is intimately associated with increased viral replication; thus it is important to minimize the total immunosuppression burden long term.

Adverse effects of oral antiviral therapy in chronic hepatitis B

Oral nucleoside/nucleotide analogues (NAs) are currently the backbone of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infection treatment. They are generally well-tolerated by patients and safe to use. To date, a significant number of patients have been treated with NAs. Safety data has accumulated over the years. The aim of this article is to review and update the adverse effects of oral NAs. NAs can cause class adverse effects (i.e., myopathy, neuropathy, lactic acidosis) and dissimilar adverse effects. All NAs carry a “Black Box” warning because of the potential risk for mitochondrial dysfunction. However, these adverse effects are rarely reported. The majority of cases are associated with lamivudine and telbivudine. Adefovir can lead to dose- and time-dependent nephrotoxicity, even at low doses. Tenofovir has significant renal and bone toxicity in patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. However, bone and renal toxicity in patients with CHB are not as prominent as in HIV infection. Entecavir and lamivudine are not generally associated with renal adverse events. Entecavir has been claimed to increase the risk of lactic acidosis in decompensated liver disease and high Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores. However, current studies reported that entecavir could be safely used in decompensated cirrhosis. An increase in fetal adverse events has not been reported with lamivudine, telbivudine and tenofovir use in pregnant women, while there is no adequate data regarding entecavir and adefovir. Further long-term experience is required to highlight the adverse effects of NAs, especially in special patient populations, including pregnant women, elderly and patients with renal impairment.

Tenofovir and kidney transplantation: case report

Background: Hepatitis B viral infection (HBV) has been regarded as a contraindication for kidney transplantation because of the high risk of viral activation induced by immunosuppressive therapy. Anti-retroviral drugs have changed the prognosis of patients with hepatitis B viral infection (HBV+) who are candidates for renal transplant; indeed, therapy with antiretroviral drugs may ensure lower rates of morbidity and mortality compared to traditional therapies. Entecavir is the first-line antiviral therapy recommended for the treatment of HBV+ kidney-transplanted patients. In case of resistance to entecavir, tenofovir may be an alternative drug, either alone or in combination with entecavir. However, the best strategy of treatment is still unknown. In this case-report, a HBV+ kidney-transplanted patient who presented resistance to entecavir was initially treated by associating tenofovir to entecavir and with tenofovir alone afterward. This strategy induced complete remission of viral replication. Case presentation: In a HBV+ kidney-transplanted patient under monotherapy with entecavir, HBV flare (HBV DNA > 170.000 × 10³ UI/mL, HBeAg+, HbeAb–) occurred 9 months after transplantation; at that time, blood chemistry highlighted: creatinine 1.46 mg/dL, blood urea 65 mg/dL, e-GFR 50 mL/min, proteinuria 300 mg/24 h, calciuria 2,12 mmol/24 h, phosphaturia 0.56 g/24 h, vitamin D 11.5 ng/mL, PTH 130 pg/mL, calcemia 2.3 mmol/L, and phosphoremia 2 mg/dL. Liver elastometry (FibroScan) showed moderate fibrosis. Tenofovir was associated to entecavir. Three months after the combination therapy, reduction in HBV DNA replication (351 × 10³ UI/mL) was obtained. Creatinine and e-GFR were 1.48 mg/dL and 52 mL/min, respectively. At this point, entecavir was discontinued. After 13 months of tenofovir monotherapy, complete remission of viral replication was achieved but renal function deteriorated and proteinuria increased. Conclusion: This case-report indicates that tenofovir is effective in reducing viral replication of hepatitis B virus in a kidney-transplanted patient who presented resistance to previous treatment with entecavir. However, it should be taken into account that tenofovir could affect renal function.

Efficacy and safety of tenofovir, entecavir, and telbivudine for chronic hepatitis B in heart transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) with polymerase inhibitors is key to prevent disease flares and progression toward advanced liver disease. Efficacy and tolerability of newer agents has been reported anecdotally in transplant recipients.

METHODS

In this prospective, observational study, we assessed outcomes of therapy with tenofovir (TDF), entecavir (ETV), and telbivudine (LdT) in 13 heart transplant recipients (HTR) with CHB.

RESULTS

Most patients were hepatitis B e antigen negative, had low baseline hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA, and normal aminotransferases. Liver biopsy showed a median fibrosis score of 1.5 (range 0-4). Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was <50 mL/min in 7 patients (54%). Two patients were started on de novo ETV before transplant. Eleven previously treated patients were switched to TDF (n = 9) or LdT (n = 2). Median treatment duration was 33 months (range 1-71). HBV DNA remained suppressed in 6 patients and became undetectable in 5. Aminotransferases went down to the normal range in all patients, with a single flare in 1 patient. One patient lost hepatitis B surface antigen. No cases occurred of hepatic decompensation, hepatocellular carcinoma, or liver-related death. The GFR remained largely stable, and no cases of TDF-related hyper-phosphaturia were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that newer antivirals are effective and safe in HTR with CHB.

Kidney Transplantation From Donors with Hepatitis B

The growing demand for organ donors to supply the increasing number of patients on kidney waiting lists has led most transplant centers to develop protocols that allow safe use of organs from donors with special clinical situations previously regarded as contraindications. Deceased donors with previous hepatitis B may be a safe resource to increase the donor pool even if there is still controversy among transplantation centers regarding the use of hepatitis B surface antigen-positive donors for renal transplantation. However, when allocated to serology-matched recipients, kidney transplantation from donors with hepatitis B may result in excellent short-term outcome. Many concerns may arise in the long-term outcome, and studies must address the evaluation of the progression of liver disease and the rate of reactivation of liver disease in the recipients. Accurate selection and matching of both donor and recipient and correct post-transplant management are needed to achieve satisfactory long-term outcomes.

Pharmaceutical management of hepatitis B and C in liver and kidney transplant recipients

The combination of hepatitis B immune globulin with entecavir or tenofovir (at least for a certain period of time) seems to be the most reasonable prophylaxis against recurrent hepatitis B after liver transplantation. Entecavir represents an attractive option for treatment of naïve kidney transplant recipients, because of its high efficacy and the low rates of resistance. However antiviral treatment should be individualized in the view of kidney function and the previous resistance. To date, new captivating therapeutic strategies could make interferon-free regimens viable for treatment of hepatitis C virus positive liver transplant recipients. The recent combinations of sofosbuvir with simeprevir or daclatasvir or ledipasvir plus/minus ribavirin have boosted the on treatment and sustained virological response to rates approaching 100% within liver transplant recipients with recurrent chronic hepatitis C (CHC). Preliminary data showed that the second generation direct oral antivirals could result to high treatment rates of recurrent CHC in kidney transplant recipients as well. Ongoing studies will clarify the optimal treatment of recurrent CHC in kidney transplant recipients.

Antiviral treatment for chronic hepatitis B in renal transplant patients

Chronic hepatitis B infection is frequent in renal transplant patients. It negatively impacts long term outcomes reducing graft and patient survival. Current guidelines clearly define who needs treatment, when to start, what is the first line therapy, how to monitor treatment response, when to stop, and how patients must be controlled for its safety. There is some data showing a favorable safety and efficacy profile of nucleos(t)ide analogue (NUC) treatment in the renal transplant setting. Entecavir, a drug without major signs of nephrotoxicity, appears to be the first option for NUC naïve patients and tenofovir remains the preferred choice for patients with previous resistance to lamivudine or any other NUC. Renal transplant recipients under antiHBV therapy should be monitored for its efficacy against HBV but also for its safety with a close renal monitoring. Studies including a large number of patients with long term treatment and follow up are still needed to better demonstrate the safety and efficacy of newer NUCs in this population.

Efficacy and safety of tenofovir in a kidney transplant patient with chronic hepatitis B and nucleos(t)ide multidrug resistance: a case report

INTRODUCTION

Five nucleos(t)ide analogs are used to treat chronic hepatitis B. Ideal nucleos(t)ide analog therapy in chronic hepatitis B patients with kidney transplantation must ensure virological suppression and minimize renal injury. However, resistance to nucleos(t)ide analogs frequently results in virological breakthrough, hepatitis flare, and complicated deterioration of the transplanted kidney. Inappropriate rescue therapy for drug resistance may subsequently cause hepatitis B virus multidrug resistance. Currently, tenofovir is used to treat chronic hepatitis B patients with kidney transplantation. In the field, we first reported combination therapy with tenofovir plus entecavir in a kidney transplant chronic hepatitis B patient with nucleos(t)ide analog multidrug resistance.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 50-year-old Chinese man with chronic hepatitis B and kidney transplantation received nucleos(t)ide analog therapy with sequential monotherapy and combination therapy. Virological parameters, hepatic enzymology and renal function were monitored. Drug-resistance mutations were detected by sequence analysis. Our patient received sequential nucleos(t)ide analog monotherapy and inappropriate combination therapy during 132 months, which caused multidrug resistance and renal functional injury. Entecavir plus adefovir was administered in month 106, resulting in decreased hepatitis B virus load, normal hepatic function, and stabilized creatinine clearance. As a result of rebounded viral load and significantly declining creatinine clearance, tenofovir plus entecavir was administered in month 133. After eight weeks, undetectable hepatitis B virus DNA, normal hepatic function and improved creatinine clearance were present. Compared with combination therapy with adefovir plus entecavir, tenofovir plus entecavir showed a potent antiviral effect for multidrug resistance and minimized renal injury.

CONCLUSIONS

In chronic hepatitis B patients with kidney transplantation, sequential monotherapy with antiviral agents with low barriers to resistance should be avoided, and initial therapy with entecavir is a better option. Combination therapy with tenofovir plus entecavir in this setting with multidrug resistance is safe and effective.

Entecavir treatment in kidney transplant recipients infected with hepatitis B

Although nucleotide/side analogs improve the clinical outcome of hepatitis B surface antigen-positive (HBsAg+) kidney transplant recipients (KTR), a significant proportion of subjects have developed resistance to lamivudine (LAM). We retrospectively analyzed the efficacy and tolerability of entecavir (ETV) in HBsAg+ KTR at Queen Mary Hospital during 2005-2013. Twenty-one patients (10 treatment-naïve, 11 with LAM resistance) were included (duration of ETV treatment 34.7 ± 22.9 months, range 6-75 months). ETV treatment led to a decline of hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA titer compared to baseline and is more significant in the treatment-naïve group (treatment-naïve: p = 0.028, <0.001 and <0.001; LAM-resistant p = 0.273, 0.180, and 0.109 after 12, 24, and 36 months). The cumulative rate of HBV DNA undetectability at 12, 24, and 36 months was 60%, 100%, and 100% for treatment-naïve group, and 27%, 45%, and 45% for LAM-resistant group, respectively. Time-to-HBV DNA undetectability and time-to-alanine transaminase (ALT) normalization were 15.7 ± 4.6 and 12.6 ± 3.7 months for treatment-naïve patients, and 24.5 ± 4.2 and 28.2 ± 3.5 months for those with LAM resistance. Genotypic resistance to ETV emerged after 20.0 ± 3.5 months with increase in ALT and HBV DNA in two patients with LAM resistance, but was not observed in the treatment-naïve group. Allograft dysfunction, de novo cirrhosis, or hepatocellular carcinoma did not occur during follow-up.

Effect of prophylactic versus preemptive lamivudine treatment and tenofovir on HBsAg+ kidney transplant recipients

OBJECTIVES

Chronic hepatitis B virus infection remains a clinical problem for HBsAg (+) kidney transplant recipients. Lamivudine is the approved treatment; however, there are contrary views about optimal initiation. In case of resistance, novel nucleoside analogs should be considered but experience is limited.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was a retrospective cohort study that included 58 HBsAg (+) kidney transplant recipients. Medical records were reviewed for nucleoside analogs, viral replication, and graft/hepatic functions. Prophylactic and preemptive lamivudine modalities were compared to reveal optimal initiation. Additionally, novel nucleoside analogs were evaluated for safety and efficacy.

RESULTS

The graft/patient survival rates for HBsAg (+) recipients were the same as those of hepatitis-free recipients (P = .18). Prophylactic group had 24 and the preemptive had 34 patients. In the prophylactic group, there were fewer hepatic dysfunctions (12.5% vs. 30%, P = .12), viral breakthroughs (16% vs. 32%, P = .17) and elevated alanine aminotransferase concentrations (37% vs. 52%, P = .24), however these did not reach statistical significance. Progressive hepatic dysfunction was observed in 5 patients. Treatment was altered to tenofovir (n = 4) and adefovir (n = 1), and adequate virologic/biochemical response was achieved. These nucleoside analogs were almost as safe as lamivudine, as there were no significant differences among proteinuria (4740 ± 9480 vs 1250 ± 430 mg/L; P = .60) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (1.23 ± 0.37 vs 1.10 ± 0.35 mL/s; P = .33) CONCLUSIONS: Lamivudine is an efficient means of providing comparable graft/patient survival with hepatitis-free kidney transplant recipients. The prophylactic initiation of lamivudine may be better in preventing hepatic dysfunction. Tenofovir can be an effective and safe treatment for lamivudine-resistant kidney transplant recipients.

Μanagement of patients with hepatitis B and C before and after liver and kidney transplantation

New nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs) with high genetic barrier to hepatitis B virus (HBV) resistance (such as entecavir, tenofovir) have improved the prognosis of patients with HBV decompensated cirrhosis and have prevented HBV recurrence after liver transplantation (LT). NAs are considered the most proper approach for HBV infection in patients under renal replacement therapy but their doses should be adjusted according to the patient's creatinine clearance. In addition, physicians should be aware of the potential nephrotoxicity. However, patients with chronic hepatitis C and decompensated cirrhosis can receive only one therapeutic option before LT, as well as for Hepatitis C virus (HCV) recurrence after LT, which is the combination of subcutaneous Peg-IFN and ribavirin. Generally, therapy for HCV after renal transplantation should be avoided. Although the optimal antiviral therapy for HCV infection has not been established, attention has turned to a new, oral direct acting antiviral treatment which marks a promising strategy in prognosis and in amelioration of these diseases.

Evolution of hepatitis B management in kidney transplantation

Chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection adversely influences the clinical outcomes of renal transplant recipients owing to increased hepatic complications. Management of HBV infection in kidney transplant recipients presents a challenge to clinicians, especially in endemic regions. Interferon precipitates renal allograft dysfunction. Treatment with lamivudine, the first oral nucleoside analogue available, resulted in effective viral suppression, reduced liver-related complications, and improved patient survival so that medium-term data showed comparable patient survival rates between hepatitis B surface antigen-positive and HBsAg-negative kidney transplant recipients in the era of effective antiviral therapies. Entecavir has replaced lamivudine as first-line therapy for treatment-naïve subjects in view of the propensity for drug resistance with the latter. Management of HBV infection in kidney transplant patients needs to take into consideration the nephrotoxicity of nucleoside/tide analogues such as adefovir and tenofovir. Prevention of HBV-related complications in kidney transplant recipients starts much earlier prior to transplantation, with vaccination of patients with chronic kidney disease and donor-recipient matching with regard to HBV status. In addition to anti-viral treatment, patients with chronic HBV infection must have regular surveillance for liver cancer and assessment for the development of cirrhosis.

Review article: nucleos(t)ide analogues in patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection and chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

The treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is based on nucleoside (lamivudine, telbivudine, entecavir) or nucleotide (adefovir, tenofovir) analogues (NAs), but it may be complex and the information is scarce. Entecavir and tenofovir represent the currently recommended first-line NAs for NA-naive CHB patients, while tenofovir is the NA of choice for CHB patients with resistance to nucleosides.

AIM

To review the efficacy and safety of NAs in adult CHB patients with CKD and to provide reasonable recommendations for their optimal management.

METHODS

Literature search in PubMed/Medline and manual search of relevant articles, reviews and book chapters.

RESULTS

NAs are cleared by kidneys and their dosage should be adjusted in patients with creatinine clearance <50 mL/min. There are concerns about nephrotoxic potential of the nucleotides, particularly adefovir, while improvements of creatinine clearance have been reported under telbivudine. Most existing data in CHB patients with CKD are for lamivudine and, less frequently, for other NAs, mostly entecavir. Besides CHB, NA should be used in case of immunosuppressive therapy in any HBsAg-positive patient with CKD including renal transplant (RT) recipients and in anti-HBs-positive recipients of kidney grafts from HBsAg-positive donors.

CONCLUSIONS

Chronic hepatitis B patients with chronic kidney disease receiving nucleoside analogues should be followed carefully for treatment efficacy and renal safety. Despite the absence of strong data, entecavir and telbivudine seem to be the preferred options for nucleoside analogue-naive CHB patients with chronic kidney disease, depending on viraemia and severity of renal dysfunction. More studies are certainly needed in this setting.

One year of hepatitis B immunoglobulin plus tenofovir therapy is safe and effective in preventing recurrent hepatitis B post-liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) given in combination with a nucleos(t)ide analogue has reduced the rate of recurrent hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection following liver transplantation (LT); however, the most effective protocol remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the use of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in combination with one year of low-dose HBIG.

METHODS

Twenty-four adults who underwent LT for HBV-related liver disease at the University Health Network (Toronto, Ontario) and received TDF (± lamivudine) and one year of HBIG to prevent recurrent HBV infection from June 2005 to June 2011 were evaluated.

RESULTS

The median length of follow-up post-LT was 29.1 months. Three patients died during the follow-up period. Patient survival was 100% and 84.1% at one and five years, respectively. None of the patients developed recurrent HBV infection. No significant adverse event was observed due to TDF administration; renal function pre- and post-LT were also acceptably preserved.

CONCLUSION

The present study demonstrated that a short, finite course of low-dose HBIG combined with maintenance of long-term TDF staring before LT is cost-effective and safe. However, further prospective study involving a larger patient cohort with a longer follow-up period is required to confirm the results.

Tenofovir-associated Fanconi syndrome in patients with chronic hepatitis B monoinfection

Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) is increasingly used in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infection. Although associated with renal toxicity in HIV-infected patients, renal dysfunction has been reported rarely in the monoinfected CHB population. To date, TDF-associated Fanconi syndrome has not been reported. Here, we present two cases of TDF-associated Fanconi syndrome with rapid resolution after its cessation. We then discuss risk factors for TDF nephrotoxicity and its implications for screening for renal disease in those patients with CHB monoinfection on TDF, and the use of TDF in at-risk populations.

Treatment of hepatitis B in patients with chronic kidney disease

Although the prevalence of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection in patients with chronic kidney disease remains low in developed countries, clinicians should be aware of the rationale for treatment in this setting. This patient population presents particular features and various complicating conditions requiring special treatment strategies. Interferon, the standard treatment for HBV infection, has been poorly tolerated by patients with chronic kidney disease, has presented relatively low efficacy, and has posed renal transplant recipients under the risk of acute rejection. The advent of effective nucleos(t)ide analogs (NAs) has offered the opportunity to minimize the consequences of HBV infection in HBV-positive patients with chronic kidney disease. Combination with immunosuppressive agents might be considered in cases of rapid renal function deterioration and/or severe proteinuria. Among the newer NAs, entecavir may be preferred, because of its high potency, high genetic barrier to resistance, and favorable renal safety profile. However, entecavir presented low efficacy in case of lamivudine or telbivudine resistance, and thus tenofovir may be a better option in that setting. All HBsAg-positive candidates should be treated with NAs before renal transplantation in order to maintain undetectable HBV DNA, reduce liver fibrosis, and prevent hepatic decompensation after renal transplantation. This review summarizes updated issues related to treatment of chronic HBV infection in all categories of population with chronic kidney disease (those exhibiting HBV-associated glomerular disease, those treated with hemodialysis, as well as renal transplant candidates, donors, and recipients).

Randomized trial of emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate after hepatitis B immunoglobulin withdrawal after liver transplantation

Long-term prophylaxis with hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) for the prevention of hepatitis B virus (HBV) recurrence after orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) in patients with chronic HBV infection is inconvenient and costly. This randomized, prospective phase 2 study compared emtricitabine (FTC)/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) after HBIG withdrawal to FTC/TDF plus HBIG for the prevention of HBV recurrence after OLT. Forty patients with a median time since liver transplantation of 3.4 years (interquartile range = 1.9-5.6 years) received 24 weeks of open-label FTC/TDF plus HBIG before randomization. Patients who maintained confirmed viral suppression were randomized to continue FTC/TDF plus HBIG (n = 19) or receive FTC/TDF alone (n = 18) for an additional 72 weeks. No patient experienced HBV recurrence through 72 weeks of the study while he or she was receiving the randomized treatment. Both treatment arms were safe and well tolerated; no serious or severe drug-related adverse events were observed. Renal function was consistent with that observed in a posttransplant population. The withdrawal of HBIG after 6 months' treatment with FTC/TDF should be considered in liver transplant recipients to prevent chronic HBV recurrence.

Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B monoinfection

INTRODUCTION

Resistance in nucleoside/nucleotide analog (NA) therapy has always been a challenge in the management of chronic hepatitis B (CHB).

CLINICAL STUDIES

Initially developed for the treatment of HIV infection, early in vitro and clinical observational studies had shown tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) to be also active against CHB. Recent data from various multicenter phase 3 and 4 clinical trials have confirmed TDF being able to achieve a high viral suppression in both NA-naive and -experienced CHB patients. There are also emerging data on the efficacy of TDF in decompensated CHB. Although there are in vitro studies identifying certain mutation loci associated with a reduced susceptibility to TDF, there have so far been no reports of virologic resistance to TDF in clinical studies. TDF has a favorable safety profile, although more long-term data would be needed.

CONCLUSIONS

TDF has the makings of an "ideal" first-line drug for the treatment of CHB.