Hepatitis B virus reactivation after renal transplantation: report of two cases

Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation in Kidney Transplant Recipients Treated With Belatacept

Introduction

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in kidney transplant recipients has been reported in 3% to 9% of anti-HBc antibody (HBcAb)-positive HBs antigen (HBsAg)-negative patients. It has not been studied in patients receiving belatacept, a selective costimulation blocker.

Methods

We performed a retrospective study of all transplant recipients receiving belatacept in 2 kidney transplantation centers in France. Among HBcAb-positive patients, we analyzed HBV reactivation rate, outcomes, and risk factors.

Results

A total of 135 patients treated with belatacept were included: 32 were HBcAb-positive and 2 were HBsAg-positive. Seven patients reactivated HBV (21.9% of HBcAb-positive patients), including 5 HBsAg-negative patients (16.7% of HBcAb-positive HBsAg-negative patients). Reactivation occurred 54.8 (± 70.9) months after transplantation. One patient presented with severe hepatitis and 1 patient developed cirrhosis. There was no significant difference in survival between patients that reactivated HBV and patients that did not: 5-year patient survival of 100% (28.6; 100) and 83.4% (67.6; 100), respectively (P = 0.363); and 5-year graft survival of 100% (28.6; 100) and 79.8% (61.7; 100), respectively (P = 0.335). No factor, including HBsAb positivity and antiviral prophylaxis, was statistically associated with the risk of HBV reactivation.

Conclusion

HBV reactivation rate was high in patients treated with belatacept when compared with previous transplantation studies. HBV reactivation did not impact survival. Further studies are needed to confirm these results. A systematic antiviral prophylaxis for these patients should be considered and evaluated.

Management of Hepatitis C Virus and Hepatitis B Virus Infection in the Setting of Kidney Disease

Treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) and hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection poses unique challenges in patients with kidney disease. Direct-acting antivirals have been a major breakthrough in eradicating HCV infection, and several pangenotypic regimens are available for patients with chronic kidney disease or end-stage kidney disease requiring dialysis with high cure rates and no need for dose adjustment. Direct-acting antiviral therapy alone can treat HCV-associated cryoglobulinemic glomerulonephritis; concurrent antiviral and immunosuppressive therapy is needed for cases of severe, organ-threatening manifestations of cryoglobulinemia. Immunosuppression may be needed for HBV-associated kidney disease (polyarteritis nodosa or membranous nephropathy) when there is evidence of severe immune-mediated injury while weighing the risk of potential viral activation. Most HBV antiviral agents need to be dose-adjusted in patients with chronic kidney disease or end-stage kidney disease requiring dialysis, and drug-drug interactions need to be carefully evaluated in patients with kidney transplants. Considerations for accepting HCV- and HBV-infected donors for kidney transplantation are discussed.

Hepatitis B virus reactivation during belatacept treatment after kidney transplantation

We report a case of HBV reactivation following belatacept treatment in a patient who underwent kidney transplantation in 2015 for HIV-associated nephropathy (HIVAN). Human immunodeficiency virus viral load was undetectable prior to transplantation, and CD4+ lymphocyte count was greater than 300/mL. Baseline HBV serology at transplantation was HBsAg negative, anti-HBcAb positive, anti-HBsAb 312 UI/L, and HBeAg negative/anti-HBeAb positive. Liver function tests were normal, and viral DNA was undetectable. Two years later, the patient presented with severe acute hepatitis after a progressive disappearance of anti-HbsAb, quickly followed by HBV reactivation. Immunosuppressive treatment was drastically reduced, and treatment with entecavir was started. The outcome was favorable, and HBV DNA became undetectable after 9 weeks of treatment. This is the first report of acute hepatitis related to HBV reactivation in a kidney transplant recipient treated with belatacept. The risk for HBV reactivation in patients treated with belatacept should not be underestimated, especially in those with resolved HBV infection.

Durability of Antibody Response Against the Hepatitis B Virus in Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Proposed Immunization Guideline From a 3-Year Follow-up Clinical Study

Background

Despite the importance of hepatitis B virus (HBV) immunization in kidney transplantation (KT), data are lacking on fluctuations in hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBsAb) levels and optimal levels for KT recipients.

Methods

The study consisted of anti-HBsAb-positive recipients aged 18–70 years at the time of the KT. Recipients with anti-HBsAb <100 IU/L received a single booster HBV vaccination, and anti-HBsAb was measured at baseline and 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months post-KT. Anti-HBsAb, quantitative HBV deoxyribonucleic acid testing (12 and 24 months post-KT), and hepatitis B core-related antigen (24 months post-KT) were evaluated in recipients with anti-HBsAb >100 IU/L who received a hepatitis B surface antigen positive renal allograft.

Results

Seventy-six of 257 (29.6%) KT recipients with anti-HBsAb <100 IU/L at the time of enrollment received a single booster of HBV vaccination. Anti-HBsAb levels increased (≥100 IU/L) 1 and 3 months post-booster dose in 86% and 93% of cases, respectively. Anti-HBsAb levels were ≥100 IU/L in 95% of these recipients 6 months post-booster dose. Among 181 (70%) recipients with anti-HBsAb ≥100 IU/L without a booster dose, anti-HBsAb gradually decreased after the KT from 588 IU/L at baseline to 440 and 382 IU/L 3 and 6 months post-KT, respectively (P < .01).

Conclusions

To ensure optimal immunity against HBV, KT recipients should first be stratified according to their risk of HBV reactivation. Kidney transplantation recipients of renal allografts from HBV nonviremic or viremic donors should be reimmunized when their anti-HBsAb titers are <250 IU/L. A cutoff level of 100 IU/L is recommended in other cases.

Rituximab and hepatitis B reactivation in HBsAg-negative/ anti-HBc-positive kidney transplant recipients

Background

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation is a well-known complication of immunosuppressive therapy. Although rituximab is increasingly used for desensitization of ABO-incompatible or positive crossmatch kidney transplantation, the risk of HBV reactivation in hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-negative/hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc)-positive kidney transplant patients receiving rituximab desensitization remains undetermined.

Methods

We analysed 172 resolved HBV patients who underwent living donor kidney transplantation between 2008 and 2014. Patients were divided into rituximab ( n  =  49) or control ( n  =  123) groups. All patients were observed for HBV reactivation, which was defined as the reappearance of hepatitis B surface antigen or HBV DNA.

Results

During the follow-up period (median, 58 months; range, 4-95 months), five patients (10.2%) in the rituximab group and two patients (1.6%) in the control group experienced HBV reactivation (P   =   0.003). In the rituximab group, two patients experienced HBV-related severe hepatitis, and one patient died due to hepatic failure. The median time from rituximab desensitization to HBV reactivation was 11 months (range, 5-22 months). By contrast, no patients in the control group experienced severe hepatitis. The status of hepatitis B surface antibody was similar between groups. Rituximab desensitization [hazard ratio (HR), 9.18; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.74-48.86; P   =   0.009] and hepatitis B surface antibody status (HR, 4.74; 95% CI, 1.05-21.23, P =   0.04) were significant risk factors for HBV reactivation.

Conclusions

Rituximab desensitization for incompatible kidney transplantation significantly increased the risk of HBV reactivation in HBsAg-negative/anti-HBc-positive patients. Therefore, close monitoring of HBV DNA is required in these patients.

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

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is a risk factor of mortality in kidney transplant recipients. However, information on the risk of HBV reactivation in kidney recipients with prior resolved HBV infection is limited. This study aimed to evaluate the safety of simply monitoring viral and liver markers in living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) recipients with prior resolved HBV infection.

METHODS

We retrospectively examined the clinical records of LDKT recipients. Changes in the levels of alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, hepatitis B surface antigen (HBs Ag), surface antibody, core antibody, and HBV-DNA after transplantation were evaluated, and the occurrence of de novo HBV-related hepatitis and allograft function were monitored.

RESULTS

Of 61 consecutive LDKT patients, seven had prior resolved HBV infection. Four patients underwent ABO-compatible LDKT, whereas two underwent ABO-incompatible LDKT. The median age was 64 years (range, 61-69 years), and two patients were women. The causes of end-stage kidney disease were diabetic nephropathy, hypertensive nephrosclerosis, and chronic glomerulonephritis. Five patients were referred to hepatologists. The history of HBV vaccination was not confirmed in all patients. Prophylaxis with entecavir was administered to two patients with ABO-incompatible LDKT before transplantation. All patients tested negative for HBs Ag and HBV-DNA throughout observation, and none developed de novo HBV-related hepatitis or graft loss.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with HBV infection without HBV DNA positivity are eligible for kidney transplants without antiviral therapy, even those on rituximab therapy. Monitoring viral and liver markers combined with hepatologist consultations may ensure safe follow-up in LDKT recipients with prior resolved HBV infection.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes in Hepatitis B Virus–Positive and –Negative Renal Transplant Recipients

Our aim was to compare the short- and long-term clinical outcomes of hepatitis B surface antigen–positive (HbsAg+) renal transplant recipients with HbsAg− recipients. A total of 204 patients who underwent renal transplantation in our center between 2001 and 2014 were included in the study. The patients were divided into 2 groups. Group 1 was the HbsAg− group (n = 136), and group 2 was the HbsAg+ group (n = 68). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of lymphocyte crossmatches, numbers of mismatches, immunosuppressive treatment protocols, and induction treatments. In the HbsAg+ group, 51 patients were hepatitis B virus DNA+, 64 patients were HbeAg−, and 4 patients were HbeAg+. A total of 57 patients (83.8%) were treated with lamivudine, 4 patients (5.9%) with entecavir, and 7 patients (10.3%) with tenofovir for hepatitis B infection. Graft and patient survival rates, graft functions, acute hepatitis rates, acute rejection rates, and other clinical outcomes of the groups were compared. Demographic data and immunologic risk profiles of the groups were similar. Acute rejection rates, graft survival rates, and patient survival rates were similar. Acute hepatitis rates, glomerular filtration rates on the last controls, and delayed graft function rates were higher in group 2, whereas chronic allograft dysfunction and new-onset diabetes mellitus after transplantation rates were similar between the groups. Our study revealed that graft and patient survival, and acute rejection rates were similar between HbsAg+ and HbsAg− recipients, whereas acute hepatitis rate was higher in HbsAg+ recipients.

Viral infection in renal transplant recipients

Viruses are among the most common causes of opportunistic infection after transplantation. The risk for viral infection is a function of the specific virus encountered, the intensity of immune suppression used to prevent graft rejection, and other host factors governing susceptibility. Although cytomegalovirus is the most common opportunistic pathogen seen in transplant recipients, numerous other viruses have also affected outcomes. In some cases, preventive measures such as pretransplant screening, prophylactic antiviral therapy, or posttransplant viral monitoring may limit the impact of these infections. Recent advances in laboratory monitoring and antiviral therapy have improved outcomes. Studies of viral latency, reactivation, and the cellular effects of viral infection will provide clues for future strategies in prevention and treatment of viral infections. This paper will summarize the major viral infections seen following transplant and discuss strategies for prevention and management of these potential pathogens.

Hepatitis B virus and renal transplantation

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection remains an important cause of liver disease in the renal transplant (RT) population, potentially diminishing survival. Consequences of HBV infection after RT include progression to decompensated cirrhosis and an increased risk of hepatocellular carcinoma. Although precautions initially recommended by the Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention 30 years ago have substantially reduced HBV transmission within hemodialysis units, acute HBV outbreaks continue to be reported in patients with chronic kidney disease on maintenance hemodialysis. In addition, immigration from areas of high HBV prevalence implies that HBV-infected organs with chronic kidney disease will continue to enter the RT pool. Fortunately, the advent of oral therapy for HBV infection now reduces the risk of HBV progression post-RT.

Successful use of entecavir for a severe case of reactivation of hepatitis B virus following polychemotherapy containing rituximab

BACKGROUNDS/AIMS

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation following treatment with rituximab has been reported in patients with either HBsAg-positive, or HBsAg-negative and anti-HBc positive infection. Patients with severe reactivation often have a fatal outcome despite treatment with lamivudine. The use of entecavir has not been reported in patients with severe HBV reactivation.

METHODS

We present a case of a HBsAg-negative patient diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukemia who received a chemotherapeutic regimen that included rituximab, who subsequently presented with severe HBV reactivation with ascites, jaundice and coagulopathy and was treated with entecavir. A review of the literature and underlying HBV associated mutations are discussed.

RESULTS

Entecavir produced a rapid and sustained suppression of HBV that was associated with rapid clinical improvement without any side effects.

CONCLUSION

Entecavir is an efficacious and safe treatment for severe HBV reactivation.

KDIGO clinical practice guideline for the care of kidney transplant recipients

The 2009 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) clinical practice guideline on the monitoring, management, and treatment of kidney transplant recipients is intended to assist the practitioner caring for adults and children after kidney transplantation. The guideline development process followed an evidence-based approach, and management recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant treatment trials. Critical appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations followed the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The guideline makes recommendations for immunosuppression, graft monitoring, as well as prevention and treatment of infection, cardiovascular disease, malignancy, and other complications that are common in kidney transplant recipients, including hematological and bone disorders. Limitations of the evidence, especially on the lack of definitive clinical outcome trials, are discussed and suggestions are provided for future research.

Comparison of liver stiffness, fibrotest and liver biopsy for assessment of liver fibrosis in kidney-transplant patients with chronic viral hepatitis

To assess the accuracy of the noninvasive tools, fibrotest (FT) and liver stiffness measurement (LSM) for assessing liver fibrosis in kidney-transplant patients with chronic hepatitis virus B (HBV) or C (HCV) infection. Thirty-eight consecutive kidney-transplant patients with HCV (n = 26) or HBV (n = 12) underwent liver biopsies followed by a FT and LSM. Liver biopsies gave the following fibrosis-grade distribution using METAVIR scores: F0/F1, n = 10 (26.9%); F2, n = 14 (36.8%), F3, n = 7 (18.42%); F4, n = 7 (18.4%). The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve for mild fibrosis stage <F2 was 0.69 (0.47-0.91) for the FT and 0.68 (0.45-0.90) for LSM; for severe fibrosis stage F3-F4, they were 0.55 (0.35-0.76) for the FT and 0.69 (0.50-0.87) for LSM. Eighty to 90% of patients with no significant liver fibrosis (<F2) were well-classified, with a cut-off value <0.5 for the FT and <7.1 kPa for LSM. Diagnosis of patients with severe liver fibrosis (F3/F4) by FT and LSM differed by 38.4% from the liver biopsy data. The FT and LSM are acceptably accurate for diagnosing mild liver fibrosis in kidney-transplant patients with chronic HCV or HBV infections, but their diagnostic value for predicting severe liver disease needs to be confirmed.