Hepatitis B virus reactivation in HBsAg-positive patients with rheumatic diseases undergoing anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy or DMARDs

The Saudi consensus recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis (2023)

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a complex inflammatory disease characterized by musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal manifestations. It is a distinct disease entity at the interface between rheumatology and dermatology, making it challenging to manage. The diverse clinical presentation and severity of PsA require a multidisciplinary approach for optimal care. Early diagnosis and management are necessary to improving quality of life for patients. In Saudi Arabia, there is currently no unified national consensus on the best practices for managing PsA. This lack of consensus leads to debate and uncertainty in the treatment of the disease, resulting in over or under prescribing of biological agents. To address this issue, a multidisciplinary work group was formed by the Saudi Ministry of Health. This group, consisting of dermatologists, rheumatologists, and pharmacists, aimed to develop evidence-based consensus recommendations for he use and monitoring of biological therapy in PsA management. The work group conducted five consensus workshops between December 2021 to March 2022. Using the nominal group technique, they discussed various aspects of PsA management, including eligibility criteria for biological treatment, monitoring of disease activity, treatment goals, screening, precautions, and management of PsA with biologic therapies. The group also considered special considerations for patients with comorbidities, pregnant and lactating women, as well as pediatric and adolescent populations. The resulting consensus document provides recommendations that are applicable to the Saudi setting, taking into account international guidelines and the specific needs of PsA patients in the country. The consensus document will be regularly updated to incorporate new data and therapeutic agents as they become available. Key Points • In Saudi Arabia, there is a lack of unified national consensus on the optimal management of PsA, therefore, this article aims to provide up-to-date evidence-based consensus recommendations for the optimal use and monitoring of biologic therapy in the management of PsA in Saudi Arabia. • The consensus development process was undertaken by a multidisciplinary work group of 13 experts, including two dermatologists, six rheumatologists, and five pharmacists. • There is more than one disease activity tool used in PsA disease, depending on the disease domain - peripheral arthritis Disease Activity Index in Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) or Minimal Disease Activity (MDA), axial PsA Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS), and dactylitis and enthesitis MDA. • The main goal of therapy in all patients with PsA is to achieve the target of remission, or alternatively, low disease activity in all disease domains and improve quality of life (QoL).

Use of IBD Drugs in Patients With Hepatobiliary Comorbidities: Tips and Tricks

Advanced therapies (biologic agents and small molecules) for inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) have radically changed the management of these diseases during the last decade. Data about these drugs in patients with hepatic disorders derive mainly from real-life studies, as these conditions often represent an exclusion criterion from pivotal drug developmental trials. However, IBD patients sometimes have concomitant liver diseases. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is the most prevalent hepatic comorbidity, whereas viral hepatitis, primary sclerosing cholangitis, primary biliary cholangitis, autoimmune hepatitis, and hepatic vascular disorders are less frequent. This review aimed at describing the real-life data about the use of advanced therapies for IBD in patients with concomitant hepatobiliary disorders. Hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus infections do not represent an absolute contraindication for novel IBD therapeutic agents. Data from the literature suggest a safe hepatobiliary profile of biologic agents and small molecules in the case of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, autoimmune hepatitis, primary sclerosing cholangitis, primary biliary cholangitis, and portal vein thrombosis. Consequently, although the liver disease does not affect a different therapeutic approach in patients with concomitant IBD and liver disease, a close risk/benefit analysis for each drug should be performed in these patients, especially in cirrhotic patients and in the postliver transplant setting.

Past, Present and (Foreseeable) Future of Biological Anti-TNF Alpha Therapy

Due to the key role of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) in the pathogenesis of immunoinflammatory diseases, TNF-α inhibitors have been successfully developed and used in the clinical treatment of autoimmune disorders. Currently, five anti-TNF-α drugs have been approved: infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, certolizumab pegol and etanercept. Anti-TNF-α biosimilars are also available for clinical use. Here, we will review the historical development as well as the present and potential future applications of anti-TNF-α therapies, which have led to major improvements for patients with several autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), Crohn's disease (CD), ulcerative colitis (UC), psoriasis (PS) and chronic endogenous uveitis. Other therapeutic areas are under evaluation, including viral infections, e.g., COVID-19, as well as chronic neuropsychiatric disorders and certain forms of cancer. The search for biomarkers able to predict responsiveness to anti-TNF-α drugs is also discussed.

Killing in self-defense: proapoptotic drugs to eliminate intracellular pathogens

Intracellular infections rely on host cell survival for replication and have evolved several mechanisms to prevent infected cells from dying. Drugs that promote apoptosis, a noninflammatory form of cell death, can dysregulate these survival mechanisms to kill infected cells via a mechanism that resists the evolution of drug resistance. Two such drug classes, known as SMAC mimetics and BH3 mimetics, have shown preclinical efficacy at mediating clearance of liver-stage malaria and chronic infections such as hepatitis-B virus and Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Emerging toxicity and efficacy data have reinforced the broad applicability of these drugs and form the foundations for preclinical and clinical studies into their various usage cases.

Hepatitis B virus reactivation in patients undergoing immune checkpoint inhibition: systematic review with meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been explored as first-line treatment in various types of previously untreatable malignancies, while limited evidence is available on the management of hepatitis B virus (HBV) in patients undergoing immunotherapy. We systematically reviewed data concerning challenges of hepatic adverse events including HBV reactivation and hepatitis in patients with chronic HBV infection undergoing immunotherapy.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in Medline, web of science, Embase and Cochrane library up to May 31, 2022. Studies reporting the safety profile of ICIs in patients with HBV infection were eligible. Meta-analyses were conducted to generate odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies including 2561 patients were included for meta-analysis. The overall incidence rates of HBV reactivation in patients with chronic HBV infection and past HBV infection were 1.0% (95% CI 0-3%) and 0% (95% CI 0-0%), respectively. Among patients with chronic HBV infection, the incidence rates of HBV reactivation were 1.0% (95% CI 0-2%) and 10.0% (95% CI 4-18%) for patients with and without antiviral prophylaxis, respectively. Patients with chronic HBV infection were at a higher risk of HBV reactivation compared with those with past HBV infection [OR = 8.69, 95% CI (2.16-34.99)]. Antiviral prophylaxis significantly reduced the risk of HBV reactivation [OR = 0.12, 95% CI (0.02-0.67)] and HBV-associated hepatitis [OR = 0.05, 95% CI (0.01-0.28)] in patients with chronic HBV infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic antiviral therapy should be administered to patients with chronic HBV infection undergoing anticancer immunotherapy. Patients with past HBV infection are at lower risk of HBV reactivation compared with those with chronic HBV infection, they could be initiated with antiviral prophylaxis or monitored with the intent of on-demand antiviral therapy.

Reactivation rates of hepatitis B or C or HIV in patients with psoriasis using biological therapies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Some biological therapies for psoriasis can cause the reactivation of viral infections. Although recent studies suggest no increased rate of reactivation with biological therapies, some life-threatening cases have been reported. Therefore, this meta-analysis examined the rate of virus reactivation in patients with psoriasis with biological therapies and concurrent hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for available papers from inception to December 2021. The outcome was the number of patients with virus reactivation after using biological therapies. The random-effect model was used in all analyses. Fourteen reports (1033 patients) were included. The pooled overall rate of virus reactivation was 0.04 (95%CI 0.01-0.09; I² = 67.7%, P < 0.001). The pooled rates of HBV, HCV, and HIV reactivation were 0.04 (95%CI 0.00-0.10; I² = 79.9%, P < 0.001), 0.07 (95%CI 0.02-0.14; I² = 23.7%, P = 0.24), and 0.12 (95%CI 0.00-0.40), respectively. The pooled rates of HBV and HCV reactivation were 0.10 (95%CI 0.03-0.19) and 0.08 (95%CI 0.03-0.15) in Asia, but 0.00 (95%CI 0.00-0.01) and 0.04 (95%CI 0.00-0.21) in Europe. The publication type also influenced the results. The use of biological therapy in patients with psoriasis and HBV, HCV, or HIV infection might be associated with the rate of viral reactivation, but this meta-analysis had limitations, and the evidence might be weak. Nevertheless, it might suggest that at least a consultation with an infection specialist might be warranted in patients with psoriasis in whom biological therapies are considered.

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 of Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) Reactivation in Patients with Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases Receiving Biologics: Focus on the Timing of Biologics after Anti-HBV Treatment

Background/Aims

Anti-hepatitis B virus (HBV) therapy is required for patients with HBV infection receiving biologics because of the high risk of HBV reactivation. However, it is unclear when to start biologics after anti-HBV treatment. We investigated the risk of HBV reactivation according to the timing of biologics initiation after anti-HBV treatment in immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID) patients with HBV infection.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated the incidence of HBV reactivation in IMID patients who received biologics between July 2005 and April 2020. The patients were divided into two groups (within 1-week and after 1-week) according to the timing of biologics initiation after anti-HBV treatment. The cumulative probabilities and factors associated with HBV reactivation were evaluated.

Results

A total of 60 hepatitis B surface antigen-positive patients with IMID received biologics (within 1-week group, n=23 [38%]; after 1-week group, n=37 [62%]). During a median follow-up of 34 months (interquartile range, 20 to 74 months), three patients (5%) developed HBV reactivation. In univariate analysis, the timing of biologics after anti-HBV treatment was not significantly associated with the risk of HBV reactivation (hazard ratio, 0.657; 95% confidence interval, 0.059 to 7.327; p=0.733). The cumulative probabilities of HBV reactivation did not significantly differ according to the timing of biologics (p=0.731).

Conclusions

The risk of HBV reactivation was not significantly associated with the timing of biologics administration after anti-HBV treatment. Thus, biologics may be initiated early in patients with IMID undergoing treatment for HBV.

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.

APASL clinical practice guideline on hepatitis B reactivation related to the use of immunosuppressive therapy

BACKGROUND & AIM

Hepatitis B reactivation related to the use of immunosuppressive therapy remains a major cause of liver-related morbidity and mortality in hepatitis B endemic Asia-Pacific region. This clinical practice guidelines aim to assist clinicians in all disciplines involved in the use of immunosuppressive therapy to effectively prevent and manage hepatitis B reactivation.

METHODS

All publications related to hepatitis B reactivation with the use of immunosuppressive therapy since 1975 were reviewed. Advice from key opinion leaders in member countries/administrative regions of Asian-Pacific Association for the study of the liver was collected and synchronized. Immunosuppressive therapy was risk-stratified according to its reported rate of hepatitis B reactivation.

RECOMMENDATIONS

We recommend the necessity to screen all patients for hepatitis B prior to the initiation of immunosuppressive therapy and to administer pre-emptive nucleos(t)ide analogues to those patients with a substantial risk of hepatitis and acute-on-chronic liver failure due to hepatitis B reactivation.

Evaluation of Hepatitis B Reactivation Among Patients With Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Treated With Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors

Hepatitis B reactivation (HBVr) in cancer patients is a well-established complication due to chemotherapy-induced immunosuppression. Studies have reported HBVr associated with immunosuppressive medications, such as rituximab, methotrexate, and high dose steroids. There are different risks for different types of chemotherapy with rituximab carrying one of the highest risks for hepatitis B reactivation. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are the standard of care in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). The risk of HBVr in chronic myeloid leukemia has been reported in many studies, but to this date, there are no clear guidelines or recommendations regarding screening and monitoring of HBV in CML patients receiving TKIs. We conducted this review to identify the risk of HBVr in patients with CML who are treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors. We recommend testing for HBV status in patients who are to be treated with TKIs and to consider giving prophylaxis in those who are positive for HBsAg at baseline. More studies are needed to assess the risk of reactivation in patients with Hepatitis B core antibody positive receiving TKIs. Currently, monitoring such patients for reactivation may be the best strategy.

High Risk of Viral Reactivation in Hepatitis B Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

HBV reactivation (HBVr) can occur in hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-positive and negative patients. Here, we determined the incidence of HBVr and its related hepatitis in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). From 2000 to 2017, 3307 SLE cases were retrospectively reviewed for episodes of hepatitis. The incidence, long-term outcomes and risk factors associated with HBVr, including HBsAg reverse seroconversion (RS) were analyzed. Among them, 607 had available HBsAg status. Fifty-five (9.1%) patients were positive for HBsAg and 63 (11.4%) were HBsAg-negative/antibody to hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc)-positive (resolved hepatitis B infection, RHB). None of them received antiviral prophylaxis before immunosuppressive treatment. During a mean 15.4 years of follow-up, 30 (54.5%) HBsAg-positive patients developed HBVr and seven (23.3%) died of liver failure, whereas only two (3.2%) RHB cases experienced HBsAg reverse seroconversion (RS). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that age ≥ 40 years at diagnosis of SLE (HR 5.30, p < 0.001), receiving glucocorticoid-containing immunosuppressive therapy (HR 4.78, p = 0.003), and receiving glucocorticoid ≥ 10 mg prednisolone equivalents (HR 3.68, p = 0.003) were independent risk factors for HBVr in HBsAg-positive patients. Peak level of total bilirubin ≥ 5 mg/dL during HBVr was an independent factor of mortality (p = 0.002). In conclusion, the risk of HBVr was associated with glucocorticoid daily dose. Antiviral prophylaxis is mandatory for SLE patients diagnosed at age of ≥40 years who receive ≥ 10 mg daily dose of oral prednisone or equivalent.

Prevention of hepatitis B reactivation in patients requiring chemotherapy and immunosuppressive therapy

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation can lead to severe acute hepatic failure and death in patients with HBV infection. HBV reactivation (HBVr) most commonly develops in patients undergoing cancer chemotherapy, especially B cell-depleting agent therapy such as rituximab and ofatumumab for hematological or solid organ malignancies and that receiving hematopoietic stem cell transplantation without antiviral prophylaxis. In addition, the potential consequences of HBVr is particularly a concern when patients are exposed to either immunosuppressive or biologic therapies for the management of rheumatologic diseases, inflammatory bowel disease and dermatologic diseases. Thus, screening with HBV serological markers and prophylactic or pre-emptive antiviral treatment with nucleos(t)ide analogues should be considered in these patients to diminish the risk of HBVr. This review discusses the clinical manifestation, prognosis and management of HBVr, risk stratifications of cancer chemotherapy and immunosuppressive therapy and international guideline recommendations for the prevention of HBVr in patients with HBV infection and resolved hepatitis B.

Viral infections in inflammatory bowel disease: Tips and tricks for correct management

Over the past decades, the treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) has become more targeted, anticipating the use of immune-modifying therapies at an earlier stage. This top-down approach has been correlated with favorable short and long-term outcomes, but it has also brought with it concerns regarding potential infectious complications. This large IBD population treated with immune-modifying therapies, especially if combined, has an increased risk of severe infections, including opportunistic infections that are sustained by viral, bacterial, parasitic, and fungal agents. Viral infections have emerged as a focal safety concern in patients with IBD, representing a challenge for the clinician: they are often difficult to diagnose and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The first step is to improve effective preventive strategies, such as applying vaccination protocols, adopt adequate prophylaxis and educate patients about potential risk factors. Since viral infections in immunosuppressed patients may present atypical signs and symptoms, the challenges for the gastroenterologist are to suspect, recognize and diagnose such complications. Appropriate treatment of common viral infections allows us to minimize their impact on disease outcomes and patients’ lives. This practical review supports this standard of care to improve knowledge in this subject area.

Effect of Low-Dose Corticosteroid Use on HBV Reactivation in HBsAg-positive Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients

Background:

It is well known that the use of corticosteroids (CS) results in increased viral replication and elevated alanine aminotransferase in hepatitis B virus (HBV) patients. However, only a few studies have investigated the effect of low-dose CS on HBV reactivation. In addition, there are few studies on the effects of synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs on HBV reactivation.

Objective:

We investigated the reactivation of HBV in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients treated with long-term low-dose corticosteroids. In addition, we analyzed factors affecting HBV reactivation, including disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs.

Methods:

We retrospectively reviewed medical records and analyzed the incidence of HBV reactivation in RA patients who were hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) positive and who were receiving ≤10 mg of prednisolone over 4 weeks. Logistic regression analysis was performed to investigate the factors that increase the risk of HBV reactivation.

Results:

A total of 141 patients were included in the study, out of which 24 (17.0%) patients had HBV reactivation. The administration of low-dose corticosteroids did not affect HBV reactivation in HBsAg-positive RA patients (odds ratio: 0.807, 95% confidence interval: 0.143–4.546, p = 0.808), nor did the duration of corticosteroid administration, average daily corticosteroid dose, and cumulative corticosteroid dose. Administration of leflunomide was found to significantly increase the risk of HBV reactivation (odds ratio: 3.851, 95% confidence interval: 1.026–14.459, p = 0.046).

Conclusion:

The administration of low-dose corticosteroids did not affect the rate of HBV reactivation, suggesting that it can be used safely. Leflunomide may increase the risk of HBV reactivation; therefore, HBV patients should be carefully monitored when receiving this drug.

Abatacept is second to rituximab at risk of HBsAg reverse seroconversion in patients with rheumatic disease

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) reverse seroconversion (RS) can happen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with resolved hepatitis B (RHB) undergoing biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). But the incidence and risk factors need to be delineated.

METHODS

From 2003 to 2019, 1937 patients with RA with available HBsAg and antibody to hepatitis B virus (HBV) core antigen data were retrospectively reviewed, and 489 patients with RHB undergoing bDMARDs treatment were identified. Factors associated with HBsAg RS were analysed.

RESULTS

During 67 828 person-months of follow-up, 27 (5.5%) patients developed HBsAg RS after bDMARD treatment. As compared with those without HBsAg RS, patients with HBsAg RS were older, had lower frequency of antibody to HBsAg (anti-HBs), and lower baseline anti-HBs levels. In multivariate analysis, rituximab, abatacept and baseline negative for anti-HBs were the independent risk factors for HBsAg RS (adjusted HR: 87.76, 95% CI: 11.50 to 669.73, p<0.001; adjusted HR: 60.57, 95% CI: 6.99 to 525.15, p<0.001; adjusted HR: 5.15, 95% CI: 2.21 to 12.02, p<0.001, respectively). The risk of HBsAg RS was inversely related to the level of anti-HBs. Both rituximab and abatacept might result in anti-HBs loss, and abatacept had a cumulative incidence of HBsAg RS of 35.4%-62.5% in patients with low titers or negative of anti-HBs.

CONCLUSIONS

Not only rituximab, but also abatacept has a high risk of HBV reactivation in patient with RA with RHB. Anti-HBs positivity cannot confer HBV reactivation-free status if the anti-HBs levels are not high enough for patients with RHB on rituximab and abatacept treatment.

Monitoring by viral load and quantitative hepatitis B surface antigen in patients with hepatitis B virus infection receiving immunosuppressive therapy

OBJECTIVES

Hepatitis B virus reactivation in patients on immunosuppressive therapy is a critical issue. We aimed to verify the monitoring strategies of hepatitis B virus DNA and quantitative hepatitis B surface antigen in patients receiving therapies with moderate risk.

METHODS

We enrolled 25 patients with autoimmune diseases receiving immunosuppressive therapy. Liver function, hepatitis B virus DNA, and quantitative hepatitis B surface antigen were followed-up every 2 months for 24 months. The hepatitis B virus reactivation was defined as hepatitis B virus DNA reappearance or increase of >1 log IU/mL.

RESULTS

Patients who were hepatitis B surface antigen positive with (n = 12) or without (n = 6) antiviral prophylaxis and hepatitis B surface antigen negative (n = 7) were analyzed, and the reactivation rates were 0%, 50% and 14%, respectively. Antiviral prophylaxis prevented hepatitis B virus reactivation in hepatitis B surface antigen-positive patients (P = 0.025). Administration of high-risk steroid doses was the sole factor related to the sign of quantitative hepatitis B surface antigen increase of >0.5 log IU/mL in the first 12 months (P = 0.035, risk ratio = 0.098, 95% confidence interval = 0.011-0.847). Furthermore, no patient experienced hepatic decompensation or failure.

CONCLUSION

Monitoring hepatitis B virus DNA and quantitative hepatitis B surface antigen every 2 months is safe. However, antiviral prophylaxis can prevent hepatitis B virus reactivation. For patients under steroid therapy in high-risk doses, quantitative hepatitis B surface antigen increase of >0.5 log IU/mL may signify hepatitis B virus reactivation.

Reconsidering the management of patients with cancer with viral hepatitis in the era of immunotherapy

In the evolving immune-oncology landscape, numerous patients with cancer are constantly treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICPIs) but among them, only sporadic cases with pre-existing hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) are recorded. Despite the global dissemination of HBV and HCV infections, viral hepatitis-infected patients with cancer were traditionally excluded from ICPIs containing trials and current evidence is particularly limited in case reports, retrospective cohort studies and in few clinical trials on advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Thus, many concerns still remain about the overall oncological management of this special subpopulation, including questions about the efficacy, toxicity and reactivation risks induced by ICPIs. Here, we examine the natural course of both HBV and HCV in cancer environment, review the latest antiviral guidelines for patients undergoing systematic cancer therapies, estimating treatment-related immunosuppression and relocate immunotherapy in this therapeutic panel. Among the ICPIs-treated cases with prior viral hepatitis, we focus further on those experienced HBV or HCV reactivation and discuss their host, tumor and serological risk factors, their antiviral and immunological management as well as their hepatitis and tumor outcome. Based on a low level of evidence, immunotherapy in these specific cancer cases seems to be associated with no inferior efficacy and with a relevantly low reactivation rate. However, hepatitis reactivation and subsequent irreversible complications appeared to have poor response to deferred antiviral treatment. While, the prophylactic use of modern antiviral drugs could eliminate or diminish up front the viral load in most cases, leading to cure or long-term hepatitis control. Taking together the clinical significance of preventive therapy, the low but existing reactivation risk and the potential immune-related hepatotoxicity, a comprehensive baseline assessment of liver status, including viral hepatitis screening, before the onset of immunotherapy should be suggested as a reasonable and maybe cost-effective strategy but the decision to administer ICPIs and the necessity of prophylaxis should always be weighed at a multidisciplinary level and be individualized in each case, up to be established by future clinical trials.

A Case of Fulminant Liver Failure in a 24-Year-Old Man with Coinfection with Hepatitis B Virus and SARS-CoV-2

Patient: Male, 24-year-old

Final Diagnosis: Acute kidney injury • coagulopathy • liver failure • SARS-CoV-2

Symptoms: Cough • fever

Medication: —

Clinical Procedure: —

Specialty: Gastroenterology and Hepatology • Infectious Diseases

Association between plasminogen activator inhibitor‑1 (PAI-1) 4G/5G polymorphism and circulating PAI-1 level in systemic lupus erythematosus and rheumatoid arthritis : A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study systemically reviewed the evidence regarding the association between plasminogen activator inhibitor‑1 (PAI‑1) 4G/5G polymorphism and susceptibility to systemic lupus erythematous (SLE)/lupus nephritis (LN) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and the relationship between circulating PAI‑1 levels and SLE/LN and RA.

METHODS

We conducted a meta-analysis on the association between the PAI‑1 4G/5G polymorphism and SLE/LN or RA risk and serum/plasma PAI‑1 levels in patients with SLE/LN and RA and healthy controls.

RESULTS

Nine articles including 657 patients with SLE and 668 controls and 567 patients with RA and 772 controls were included. No association was revealed between SLE and PAI‑1 4G allele in all study subjects (odds ratio [OR] = 0.944, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.808-1.102, p = 0.463). Ethnicity-based stratification showed no association between the PAI‑1 4G allele and SLE among Europeans and Asians. No association was detected between LN and RA and the PAI‑1 4G allele (OR = 0.886, 95% CI = 0.713-1.102, p = 0.278; OR = 0.8736, 95% CI = 0.747-1.020, p = 0.088, respectively) or between SLE/LN and RA and the PAI‑1 4G/5G polymorphism using the recessive and dominant models and homozygote contrast. The circulating PAI‑1 level was significantly higher in the SLE group than in the control group (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.337, 95% CI = 0.057-0.619, p = 0.019). However, serum/plasma PAI‑1 level showed no significant difference between RA and control group (SMD = 0.333, 95% CI = -0.6989-1.35, p = 0.527).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no association between the PAI‑1 4G/5G polymorphism and SLE/LN and RA development and significantly higher levels of circulating PAI‑1 were observed in patients with SLE but not in those with RA.

Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation: What Is the Issue, and How Should It Be Managed?

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation, in the background of cleared and overt chronic HBV infection, can be seen in patients receiving immunosuppressive agents. Risk of reactivation is variably associated with HBV serologic status and types of immunosuppressive therapy. Prevention of HBV reactivation by antiviral prophylaxis is an effective strategy to reduce morbidity and mortality in those with immunocompromised states. This article defines HBV reactivation, discusses risk stratification and common medications that can induce HBV reactivation as well as guideline recommendations for prevention of HBV reactivation, and describes the prognosis and management of patients who experience HBV reactivation.

Maintaining Hepatitis B Protection in Immunocompromised Pediatric Rheumatology and Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients

OBJECTIVE

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection remains a significant public health challenge, particularly for immunocompromised patients. Our aim was to evaluate the serologic immunity in immunocompromised rheumatology and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients, assess factors for serologic nonimmunity, and evaluate their response to 1 HBV booster dose.

METHODS

Immunocompromised rheumatology and IBD patients with completed HBV screening were identified. A chart review was performed to collect demographics, clinical information, baseline HBV serology results, and serologic response to booster vaccination. Serologic nonimmunity was defined as a negative/indeterminate hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs) level.

RESULTS

Among 580 patients, 71% were nonimmune. The highest portion of nonimmune patients were 11-18 years old (P = 0.004). There was no significant difference between immune and nonimmune patients with regards to diagnosis (P = 0.34), age at diagnosis (P = 0.64), duration of treatment (P = 0.07), or type of medications (P = 0.08). Sixty-two percent of those who received a booster vaccine were rescreened, and most (68%) seroconverted. In those 18 years or older, only half seroconverted.

CONCLUSION

Results of this study support the benefit of HBV screening in immunosuppressed patients. Beginning at age 11 years, most patients lacked serologic immunity to HBV. Seroconversion for most patients 11-18 years occurred after 1 booster vaccine. Thus, for immunocompromised patients without recent HBV serologic data, obtaining the HBV serology beginning at age 11 years might be considered. Those 18 years and older were least likely to seroconvert after 1 booster, indicating that they may benefit from receiving the 3-dose HBV vaccine series.

The anti-viral facet of anti-rheumatic drugs: Lessons from COVID-19

The outbreak of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has posed the world at a pandemic risk. Coronavirus-19 disease (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, which causes pneumonia, requires intensive care unit hospitalization in about 10% of cases and can lead to a fatal outcome. Several efforts are currently made to find a treatment for COVID-19 patients. So far, several anti-viral and immunosuppressive or immunomodulating drugs have demonstrated some efficacy on COVID-19 both in vitro and in animal models as well as in cases series. In COVID-19 patients a pro-inflammatory status with high levels of interleukin (IL)-1B, IL-1 receptor (R)A and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α has been demonstrated. Moreover, high levels of IL-6 and TNF-α have been observed in patients requiring intensive-care-unit hospitalization. This provided rationale for the use of anti-rheumatic drugs as potential treatments for this severe viral infection. Other agents, such as hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine might have a direct anti-viral effect. The anti-viral aspect of immunosuppressants towards a variety of viruses has been known since long time and it is herein discussed in the view of searching for a potential treatment for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Infectious Complications of Biological and Small Molecule Targeted Immunomodulatory Therapies

The past 2 decades have seen a revolution in our approach to therapeutic immunosuppression. We have moved from relying on broadly active traditional medications, such as prednisolone or methotrexate, toward more specific agents that often target a single receptor, cytokine, or cell type, using monoclonal antibodies, fusion proteins, or targeted small molecules. This change has transformed the treatment of many conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, cancers, asthma, and inflammatory bowel disease, but along with the benefits have come risks. Contrary to the hope that these more specific agents would have minimal and predictable infectious sequelae, infectious complications have emerged as a major stumbling block for many of these agents. Furthermore, the growing number and complexity of available biologic agents makes it difficult for clinicians to maintain current knowledge, and most review articles focus on a particular target disease or class of agent. In this article, we review the current state of knowledge about infectious complications of biologic and small molecule immunomodulatory agents, aiming to create a single resource relevant to a broad range of clinicians and researchers. For each of 19 classes of agent, we discuss the mechanism of action, the risk and types of infectious complications, and recommendations for prevention of infection.

[Prophylactic Antiviral Treatment in Immunosuppressed Chronic Hepatitis B Patients]

Improved management of chronic hepatitis B patients with oral nucleos(t)ide analogues has increased the number of these patients who are getting older and have other accompanying comorbidities. These comorbidities frequently require various immunosuppression treatments and/or cytotoxic chemotherapy. Not only the patients who are positive for HBsAg, but also the patients who are positive for isolated anti-HBc are at risk for hepatitis B reactivation during immunosuppression. Prophylactic antiviral treatment with oral nucleos(t)ide analogues with high genetic barriers can decrease the risks of HBV reactivation, HBV reactivation- associated hepatitis, and mortality in these patients. It is crucial to screen HBV markers in all of the patients who have to undergo immunosuppression, be administered prophylactic antiviral treatment in the high risk groups, and be monitored for HBV reactivation during and after immunosuppression and/or cytotoxic chemotherapy. This study summarizes the recommendations from the recently updated guidelines from Korea, United States, and Europe.

Moderate Risk of Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation in HBsAg-/HBcAb+ Carriers Receiving Rituximab for Rheumatoid Arthritis

To investigate the incidence and risk factors of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in HBV surface antigen (HBsAg)-/ HBV core antibody (HBcAb)+ patients who underwent rituximab (RTX) therapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). From January 2000 through December 2017, a total of 134 RA patients with various HBV serostatuses who received RTX at Dalin Tzu Chi Hospital were screened. Finally, 50 HBsAg-/HBcAb+ patients were enrolled in this retrospective study. Baseline characteristics, comedications, and the occurrence of HBV reactivation were recorded. Four HBsAg-/HBcAb+ RA patients (8%; 4/50) experienced HBV reactivation after treatment with RTX. Hepatitis flare-up occurred in 2 of these 4 patients, with a fatal outcome in one. HBV reactivation occurred approximately 1-4 years after the first dose of RTX and 0.5-1.5 years after the last one. In HBsAg-/HBcAb+ patients, HBV reactivation was significantly more common in those who were HBV surface antibody (HBsAb)- at baseline than in those who were HBsAb+ (30% vs 4%; p = 0.02). A history of adalimumab use was associated with HBV reactivation (100% vs 39%; p = 0.02). A moderate risk of HBV reactivation was observed in HBsAg-/HBcAb+ RA patients receiving RTX therapy. The reactivation may induce acute hepatitis and even death. To reduce the risk of HBV reactivation, regular monitoring of liver function is insufficient; monitoring of viral load and HBsAg or prophylaxis with antiviral therapy should be considered.

The use of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for inflammatory arthritis in Korea: results of a Korean Expert Consensus

Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are highly effective agents for the treatment of inf lammatory arthritis; however, they also possess a potential risk for serious infection. Recently, with the rapid expansion of the bDMARDs market in Korea, reports of serious adverse events related to the agents have also increased, necessitating guidance for the use of bDMARDs. Current work entitled, "Expert consensus for the use of bDMARDs drugs for inflammatory arthritis in Korea," is the first to describe the appropriate use of bDMARDs in the management of inflammatory arthritis in Korea, with an aim to provide guidance for the local medical community to improve the quality of clinical care. Twelve consensus statements regarding the use of bDMARDs for the management of rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis were generated. In this review, we provide detailed guidance on bDMARDs use based on expert consensus, including who should prescribe, the role of education, indications for use, and monitoring strategies for safety.

Association between CD40 polymorphisms and systemic lupus erythematosus and correlation between soluble CD40 and CD40 ligand levels in the disease: a meta-analysis

Objective

The aim of this study was to systematically review evidence regarding the association between CD40 polymorphisms and systemic lupus erythematosus and between soluble CD40 (sCD40) and CD40 ligand (sCD40L) levels and systemic lupus erythematosus.

Methods

We performed a meta-analysis on the association between CD40 rs4810495, rs1883832, and rs376545 polymorphisms and systemic lupus erythematosus risk and sCD40/sCD40L levels in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and controls.

Results

Fourteen studies were included. Ethnicity-specific meta-analysis indicated a significant association between the T allele of CD40 rs4810485 polymorphism and systemic lupus erythematosus in Europeans (odds ratio = 0.715, 95% confidence interval = 0.641–0.832, p < 0.001) and a trend toward an association between the T allele and systemic lupus erythematosus in Asians (odds ratio = 1.255, 95% confidence interval = 0.978–1.810, p = 0.074). Furthermore, a significant association was reported between systemic lupus erythematosus and the C allele of CD40 rs1883832 polymorphism (odds ratio = 1.235, 95% confidence interval = 1.087–1.405, p = 0.001) and A allele of CD40 rs3765456 polymorphism and systemic lupus erythematosus in Asians (odds ratio = 1.184, 95% confidence interval = 1.040–1.348, p = 0.011). sCD40 and sCD40L levels were significantly higher in SLE than in controls (standardized mean difference = 1.564, 95% confidence interval = 0.256–2.872, p = 0.019 and standardized mean difference = 1.499, 95% confidence interval = 1.031–1.967, p < 0.001, respectively). Stratification based on ethnicity revealed higher sCD40L levels in the systemic lupus erythematosus group among European, Asian, North American, and Arab populations.

Conclusions

Our meta-analyses found associations between CD40 rs4810495, rs1883832, and rs376545 polymorphisms and systemic lupus erythematosus susceptibility and significantly higher sCD40 and sCD40L levels in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus than in controls.

Hepatitis B and C infection in patients undergoing biologic and targeted therapies for rheumatic diseases

Hepatitis B and C are common viral infections that affect more than 430 million population worldwide. In patients with rheumatic diseases, the prevalence of inactive/chronic hepatitis B infection ranges from 0.4% to 38% and that of past/resolved infection is much higher (7.3%-69%). The prevalence of hepatitis C infection in rheumatic disorders is less clear but probably lower than that of hepatitis B (1.7%-4%). With the increasing use of biologic and targeted disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapies, reactivation of past and chronic hepatitis B and C infection is increasingly recognized, with presentation ranging from asymptomatic viremia to serious clinical hepatitis with liver failure. The concomitant use of effective antiviral therapies helps reduce the risk of hepatitis B reactivation and control of active hepatitis C infection. This article summarizes the prevalence and risk factors of hepatitis B and C reactivation in patients with rheumatic diseases undergoing biologic and targeted therapies, as well as the recommendations for screening, monitoring, and treatment of these infections.

2018 update of the APLAR recommendations for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

AIM

To update recommendations based on current best evidence concerning the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), focusing particularly on the role of targeted therapies, to inform clinicians on new developments that will impact their current practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search of relevant literature from 2014 to 2016 concerning targeted therapies in RA was conducted. The RA Update Working Group evaluated the evidence and proposed updated recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach, to describe the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Recommendations were finalized through consensus using the Delphi technique.

RESULTS

This update provides 16 RA treatment recommendations based on current best evidence and expert clinical opinion. Recommendations 1-3 deal with the use of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. The next three recommendations (4-6) cover the need for screening and management of infections and comorbid conditions prior to starting targeted therapy, while the following seven recommendations focus on use of these agents. We address choice of targeted therapy, switch, tapering and discontinuation. The last three recommendations elaborate on targeted therapy for RA in special situations such as pregnancy, cancer, and major surgery.

CONCLUSION

Rheumatoid arthritis remains a significant health problem in the Asia-Pacific region. Patients with RA can benefit from the availability of effective targeted therapies, and these updated recommendations provide clinicians with guidance on their use.

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.

Hepatitis B virus reactivation in patients treated with immunosuppressive drugs: a practical guide for clinicians

Hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr) is emerging as an important clinical entity, with the advent of highly potent immunosuppression licensed for use as the treatment of a widening range of clinical indications. HBVr can lead to severe acute liver failure and death. Risk can be minimised through appropriate screening, monitoring and antiviral prophylaxis. Screening for serological markers at the -earliest opportunity is recommended. Risk stratification should then be performed on the basis of characteristics of the -underlying disease, markers of viral activity and the potency of proposed immunosuppression. In this review, we summarise the most recent recommendations from the relevant international societies. We also provide suggestions on how a robust multidisciplinary service can be delivered to prevent HBVr in UK clinical practice through optimisation of resources and introduction of checkpoints to prevent the inappropriate administration of immunosuppression to those at significant risk of HBVr.

Preparing patients for biologic medications for dermatologic and rheumatic diseases

Psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis are prevalent conditions that often require a team of primary care and specialist healthcare professionals for the most optimum patient outcomes. Primary care providers can facilitate referrals to dermatology and rheumatology specialists by obtaining the needed screening workup for patients who need treatment with immunosuppressive therapies. This article reviews tuberculosis screening, hepatitis screening, and vaccinations to be administered before patients begin biologic medications.

Risk of Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation in Patients With Inflammatory Arthritis Receiving Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation rates in patients with resolved or chronic HBV infection, receiving disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and with or without antiviral prophylaxis.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. Electronic searches were conducted in PubMed, Medline, and Embase using Ovid through December 31, 2015. A search strategy was developed for each database using the following inclusion criteria: for participants, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and resolved or chronic HBV infection; for intervention, tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors or non-TNF biologic or nonbiologic DMARDs; and for outcome, HBV reactivation. Four reviewers independently extracted study data and assessed study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. To determine the pooled HBV reactivation rate, the variances of the raw proportions were stabilized using a Freeman-Tukey-type arcsine square root transformation, using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. The overall pooled rate of HBV reactivation was 1.6% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.8-2.6) in patients with resolved HBV. Similar rates were observed in resolved patients taking TNF inhibitors (1.4% [95% CI 0.5-2.6]), non-TNF biologics (6.1% [95% CI 0.0-16.6]), and nonbiologic DMARDs (1.7% [95% CI 0.2-4.2]). We also found that the reactivation rate was lower in patients with chronic HBV infection who received antiviral prophylaxis (9.0% [95% CI 4.1-15.5]) than in those who did not (14.6% [95% CI 4.3-29.0]).

CONCLUSION

We found that the HBV reactivation rate in inflammatory arthritis patients receiving DMARDs was low in resolved patients and moderate in patients with chronic HBV infection. Further, lower rates were observed in patients with chronic HBV infection who were using antiviral prophylaxis.

Tuberculosis and viral hepatitis infection in Eastern Europe, Asia, and Latin America: impact of tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors in clinical practice

Tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) inhibitors are increasingly becoming the standard of care for treating a number of inflammatory diseases. However, treatment with TNF-α inhibitors carries an inherent risk of compromising the immune system, resulting in an increased susceptibility to infections and malignancies. This increased risk of infection is of particular concern in Asia, Eastern Europe, and Latin America where tuberculosis (TB) and viral hepatitis are endemic. In this brief review, we examine the literature and review the impact of TNF-α inhibitors on the incidence and the reactivation of latent disease with respect to TB, hepatitis C infection, and hepatitis B infection. Our findings show that TNF-α inhibitors are generally safe, if used with caution. Patients should be screened prior to the initiation of TNF-α inhibitor treatment and given prophylactic treatment if needed. In addition, patients should be monitored during treatment with TNF-α inhibitors and after treatment has stopped to ensure that infections, if detected, are treated promptly and effectively. Our analysis is consistent with other reports and guidelines.

Characteristics, Prevention, and Management of Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) Reactivation in HBV-Infected Patients Who Require Immunosuppressive Therapy

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation becomes a challenging issue with increasing use of immunosuppressive agents and cytotoxic chemotherapy for varied medical conditions, including cancer. The spectrum of HBV reactivation in the setting of immunosuppression may vary from asymptomatic reactivation to liver failure leading to death. HBV reactivation can hamper the course of planned therapies and diminish the effects of therapies; thus, it adversely affects the prognosis of the original disease and the survival of the patients. There is mounting evidence that HBV reactivation can be prevented and managed if patients are screened to determine their risk for HBV reactivation and are treated prophylactically before therapy with immunosuppressive agents or cytotoxic chemotherapy is initiated. In this article, we review the diagnostic criteria and clinical outcomes of HBV reactivation, discuss how immunosuppressive therapy may influence the risk of HBV reactivation, and outline strategies to prevent HBV reactivation.

Hepatitis B virus-related mortality in rheumatoid arthritis patients undergoing long-term low-dose glucocorticoid treatment: A population-based study

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Glucocorticoids (GC) are commonly used in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients which bears a risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation. The purpose of this study was to investigate the risk of HBV-related mortality under long-term low-dose GCs in Taiwanese RA patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 45,423 RA patients using National Health Insurance Research Database from January 1999 to December 2011. Of them, 2204 patients had the diagnosis of HBV and were classified into four groups according to GCs regimens. Outcome comparison by Cox model analysis for liver-related mortality was performed.

RESULTS

In this cohort, 90.5% were older than 40. One hundred and five patients had been treated with short-term large-dose GCs (Group A); 862 patients received GCs ≥20 mg/day for ≥3 days or a variable dose but did not meet Group C criteria (Group B); 689 patients were continuously treated with low-dose (<20 mg/day) GCs for ≥3 months for at least one session (Group C); and 548 patients had never been exposed to GCs (Group D). Two hundred and sixty-one patients had been exposed to antiviral agents, which was significantly higher in Group C. Fifty-eight patients (2.63%) died of acute hepatic failure, while no statistically significant difference between each groups (p = 0.074). Groups C and D comparison by two-sample test showed that long-term low-dose GC treatment was not associated with liver-related death after adjusting for malignancy.

CONCLUSION

Long-term low-dose GC treatment was not associated with liver-related mortality in RA with concomitant HBV patients probably due to commonly applied antiviral therapy by rheumatologists.

Biological therapy in arthritis patients with hepatitis B or C infection: a multicenter retrospective case series

OBJECTIVE

Reactivation of viral hepatitis B (HBV) and C (HCV) has been reported in various case reports of patients with arthritis on biological therapy. The objective of this study was to describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of arthritis patients with HBV or HCV treated with biological therapy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a retrospective case series including all patients above 13 years of age with arthritis patients from four centers in Saudi Arabia with concurrent chronic viral hepatitis infection (HBV or HCV) who received biological agents in the rheumatology clinics during their course of their disease from duration of the disease onset until last outpatient visit up to November 2015. Demographic information, full details about the hepatitis status of each patient, rheumatic disease diagnosis and different therapies used were reviewed.

RESULTS

We identified 10 cases each with HBV and HCV on biological therapy. The mean age in the HBV group was 51 (34-85) years and 80% were females. Eight patients had rheumatoid arthritis (RA), one patient had RA/systemic lupus erythematosus, and one had human immunodeficiency virus related-arthritis. Seven were chronic inactive HBsAg carriers and three had chronic active HBV. Nine HBV patients received prophylactic antiviral therapy. Two cases with chronic HBV had reactivation with no elevation of the transaminases.The mean age in the HCV group was 54 (23-79) years and all were female RA patients. Three had detectable hepatitis C virus-ribonuecleic acid (HCV-RNA) before the start of biological therapy. Nine HCV patients received antiviral treatment and seven had a sustained virologic response (SVR) before start of biological treatment. Three patients had detectable HCV-RNA during the course of biological therapy. One of the three was a non-responder and two were relapsers. One of the patients with HCV relapse was started on sofosbuvir plus ribavirin and achieved SVR on follow-up.

CONCLUSION

We report the successful use of biological therapy in arthritis patients with hepatitis B infection with antiviral therapy with no detoriation of their viral status. Due to the lack of sufficient prospective studies demonstrating the rate of HCV flare on biological therapy, caution should be exercised and careful monitoring with liver enzymes and viral load is mandated in vulnerable HCV RNA patients. Treatment should be individualized by the rheumatologist in collaboration with the hepatologist to minimize complications.

Chronic Hepatitis B, C, and D

Chronic hepatitis B, C, and D virus infections contribute significantly to the morbidity and mortality of immunocompromised individuals. To contextualize discussion of these infections in immunocompromised patients, this paper provides an overview of aspects of infection in normal hosts. It then describes differences in disease, diagnostic testing, and therapeutic management observed in immunocompromised patients.

Increased risk of hepatitis B virus reactivation in systemic lupus erythematosus patients receiving immunosuppressants: a retrospective cohort study

Objective We aimed to investigate risk of hepatitis B virus reactivation in systemic lupus erythematosus patients with different hepatitis B virus infection statuses receiving immunosuppressive therapy. Methods We retrospectively analyzed systemic lupus erythematosus patients with positive hepatitis B surface antigen or anti-hepatitis B core IgG antibody who underwent immunosuppressive therapies from January 2001 to December 2012 at a medical center in Taiwan for evidence of hepatitis B virus reactivation. Results During this period, 906 out of 3125 patients who were diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus received screening tests for hepatitis B virus. Thirty-eight patients were identified as hepatitis B surface antigen-positive. Fifteen of 38 (39.5%) hepatitis B surface antigen-positive patients developed hepatitis B virus reactivation, and 53.3% of these patients experienced severe hepatitis flare. Three of 157 hepatitis B surface antigen-negative/anti-hepatitis B core IgG antibody-positive patients (1.9%) experienced hepatitis B surface antigen seroreversion after immunosuppressive therapy. Five patients received prophylactic or preemptive antiviral therapy and none of them developed hepatitis B virus flares. A daily dose of prednisolone greater than 5 mg was a risk factor for hepatitis B reactivation by multivariate logistic analysis. Conclusions The risk of hepatitis B virus reactivation is high in lupus patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy. Antiviral prophylaxis or preemption can effectively reduce the incidence of hepatitis B virus reactivation in lupus patients.