Evaluation of Hepatitis B screening and reactivation in patients receiving rituximab containing chemotherapy: A single-centre study

Screening for viral hepatitis B infection in cancer patients before receiving chemotherapy - A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the hepatitis B virus (HBV) screening rate in cancer patients before systemic chemotherapy, aiming to identify those needing antiviral prophylaxis for HBV reactivation.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar for relevant studies. The pooled screening rate was estimated using a random effects model. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on malignancy types, chemotherapy regimens, study period, and HBV endemic regions.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 29 studies from various endemic regions (19 low-endemic, three lower intermediate-endemic, and seven higher intermediate-endemic). These studies encompassed hematologic malignancies (n = 10), solid-organ tumors (n = 4), and combinations (n = 15). Seven studies used rituximab-containing regimens, four did not, and the remaining 11 did not specify chemotherapy regimens. The pooled screening rate was 57% (95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 46%-68%, I2 = 100%). Over time, screening rates improved from 37% (95%CI: 23%-53%) in 2006-2010 to 68% (54%-80%) in 2011-2015 and 69% (48%-84%) in 2016-2020. Screening rates were highest at 89% (74%-96%) in high endemic countries, followed by 60% (45-73%) in lower-intermediate and 49% (34-64%) in low-endemic countries. Patients with hematological malignancies had a higher screening rate than those with solid organ tumors, 65% (55%-74%) versus 37% (21%-57%), respectively. A screening rate was higher in patients receiving rituximab-containing chemotherapy than non-rituximab regimens, 68% (55%-79%) versus 45% (27%-65%).

CONCLUSION

Despite existing guidelines, pre-chemotherapy HBV screening rate remains unsatisfactory, with substantial heterogeneous rates globally. These findings underscore the need for effective strategies to align practices with clinical guidelines.

HBsAg (-)/HBsAb (-)/HBeAg (-)/HBeAb (+)/HBcAb (+) predicts a high risk of hepatitis B reactivation in patients with B-cell lymphoma receiving rituximab based immunochemotherapy

Patterns of hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBV-R) in HBsAg (-)/HBcAb (+) patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) receiving rituximab based immunochemotherapy have not been well described. The retrospective study included 222 HBsAg (-)/HBcAb (+) NHL patients as training cohort and 127 cases as validation cohort. The incidence of HBV-R in HBsAg (-)/HBcAb (+) B-cell NHL patients was 6.3% (14/222), of which that in HBsAg (-)/HBsAb (-)/HBeAg (-)/HBeAb (+)/HBcAb (+) population was 23.7% (9/38). Multivariate analysis showed that HBsAg (-)/HBsAb (-)/HBeAg (-)/HBeAb (+)/HBcAb (+) correlated with a high risk of HBV-R in B-cell lymphoma patients (training phase hazard ratio [HR], 10.123; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.389-30.239; p < 0.001; validation phase HR, 18.619; 95% CI, 1.684-205.906; p = 0.017; combined HR, 12.264; 95% CI, 4.529-33.207; p < 0.001). In the training cohort, the mortality rate of HBsAg (-)/HBcAb (+) B-cell NHL caused by HBV-R was 14.3% (2/14) while that for HBV reactivated HBsAg (-)/HBsAb (-)/HBeAg (-)/HBeAb (+)/HBcAb (+) population was up to 44.4% (4/9). As a high incidence of HBV-R and high mortality after HBV-R was found in HBsAg (-)/HBsAb (-)/HBcAb (+)/HBeAg (-)/HBeAb (+) patients with B-cell NHL receiving rituximab based immunochemotherapy, prophylactic antiviral therapy is recommended for these patients.

Patients treated with rituximab are poorly screened for hepatitis B infection: Data from a low-incidence country

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Patients with chronic or resolved hepatitis B are at risk of hepatitis B reactivation (HBVr) when treated with high-risk immunosuppressive therapy such as rituximab. Therefore, international guidelines recommend HBV screening prior to rituximab treatment and subsequent antiviral prophylaxis among patients with a (resolved) infection. In this study, we evaluated the adherence to those recommendations.

METHODS

This is a retrospective multicentre study including patients treated with rituximab between 2000-2021. Performance of correct screening was assessed, defined as the measurement of hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and hepatitis B core antibodies (anti-HBc). Next, initiation of antiviral prophylaxis and HBVr rate among patients with a chronic or resolved HBV infection was studied.

RESULTS

We enrolled 3,176 patients of whom 1,448 (46%) were screened correctly. Screening rates differed significantly between academic and non-academic hospitals; respectively 65% vs 32% (p<0.001). In addition, screening rates differed across specialties and improved throughout the years; from 32% before 2012 to 75% after 2020 among academic prescribers, versus 1% to 60% among non-academic prescribers (both p<0.001). Antiviral prophylaxis was initiated in 58% vs 36% of the patients with a chronic or resolved HBV infection. Seven patients experienced HBVr, including one fatal liver decompensation.

CONCLUSIONS

Many patients treated with rituximab were not correctly screened for HBV infection and antiviral prophylaxis was often not initiated. Although screening rates improved over time, rates remain suboptimal. With the increasing number of indications for rituximab and other immunosuppressive agents these findings could raise awareness among all medical specialties prescribing these agents.

Late Hepatitis B reactivation after treatment with rituximab

•

Patients with past hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections that undergo immunosuppression are in risk of HBV reactivation.

•

Antiviral prophylaxis in patient with previous contact with HBV treated with rituximab is recommended by current guidelines.

•

The duration of antiviral prophylaxis in patients with hematologic malignancies treated with rituximab remains controversial.

There is a large reservoir of individuals with past hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection that are in risk for HBV reactivation when immunosuppressed. On the setting of hematologic malignancy, the malignancy itself and currently used treatments, especially anti-CD20 agents, have risk of HBV reactivation. Antiviral prophylaxis is recommended by some international societies. We present a case of HBV reactivation more than 12 months after stopping rituximab containing treatment and 6 months of antiviral prophylaxis with entecavir, in a patient with HBV functional cure. The patient was restarted on antivirals and again obtain functional cure. The antiviral was stopped 1 year after seroconversion and the patient followed for another year without evidence of new reactivation. Most literature supports the use of antiviral prophylaxis in patients treated with rituximab. However, there are still conflicting indications and no consensus regarding the duration of prophylaxis. This clinical case and review of the literature supports a longer prophylaxis duration (more than 18 months after finishing rituximab treatments) instead of standard 12 months prophylaxis.