Efficacy of antiviral prophylaxis in HBsAg-negative, anti-HBc positive patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Isolated anti-HBc is an independent risk factor for tumor recurrence in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma after curative resection

BACKGROUND

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is a poorly understood and aggressive malignancy with increasing incidence and mortality. Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is recognized as one of the important risk factors of ICC. There are few reports focusing on whether isolated antibody to hepatitis B core antigen (isolated anti-HBc, IAHBc) have prognostic role in ICC, while positive hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) has been reported to be associated with the prognosis of ICC. The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic value of IAHBc in ICC patients after curative resection, in order to identify those who have the high risk of ICC recurrence in the early stage.

METHODS

We divided 209 ICC patients who underwent curative resection into 4 groups: group I (n = 40), HBsAg (-)/antibody to hepatitis B surface antigen (anti-HBs) (-)/anti-HBc (+); group II (n = 70), HBsAg (+)/anti-HBc (-); group III (n = 55), HBsAg (-)/anti-HBs (+)/anti-HBc (+); and group IV (n = 44), HBsAg (-)/anti-HBc (-). We compared the recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) among these four groups.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time was 16.93 months (range 1-34.6 months). The 1- and 2-year RFS and OS rates were 60% and 42%, and 78% and 63% respectively in all patients. Compared to the whole non-IAHBc patients (group II + group III + group IV), IAHBc patients (group I) showed significantly lower RFS at 1 year (39.8% vs. 64.4%, P = 0.001) and 2 years (20.7% vs. 46.7%, P = 0.001). When compared to other three individual groups, IAHBc patients (group I) also had the lowest RFS. We did not find significant difference in OS among the four groups. Further multivariate analysis revealed that IAHBc was an independent risk factor of RFS.

CONCLUSIONS

IAHBc is an independent poor prognostic factor for tumor recurrence in ICC patients after curative resection.

Hepatitis B virus vaccination after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation prevents post-transplant HBV reactivation

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in allogeneic hematopoietic-cell transplant (HCT) recipients with evidence of pre-transplantation resolved HBV infection is an important cause of morbidity, usually occurring a year or later after HCT.

OBJECTIVES

We retrospectively studied a cohort of allogeneic HCT recipients with resolved HBV infection, some of whom were vaccinated for HBV following transplantation, to understand if post-HCT HBV vaccination influenced the risk of HBV reactivation.

STUDY DESIGN

The study included all patients with resolved HBV who underwent allogeneic HCT at our institution between 1/1/2000 and 12/31/2015, where HBV vaccination starting at 1 year after HCT became standard in 2012 and antiviral prophylaxis is not utilized. Resolved HBV infection was defined as positive HBV-core IgG (HBcAb), negative HBV-surface antigen (HBsAg) and undetectable HBV DNA before HCT. HBV reactivation was defined as development of detectable HBsAg and HBV DNA after HCT. Follow up for outcomes concluded 1/1/2018.

RESULTS

Among 136 patients with resolved HBV before HCT, 19 developed reactivation during follow up (cumulative incidence 14%). Median time to HBV reactivation was 21 months (range, 2-47 months). The cumulative probability of HBV reactivation among HCT recipients who survived for a year or more after transplant without early HBV reactivation and were HBV-vaccinated versus those who were unvaccinated was 2.9% vs. 10.0 % at two years and 6.6% vs. 26.5% at 4 years post-HCT (P = 0.03, Gray's test). In a time-dependent Cox model, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of HBV reactivation in patients with pre-transplant HBsAb levels greater than 10 IU/L was 0.34 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13-0.90). The aHR of HBV reactivation in patients who were vaccinated with 2 or more doses of recombinant HBV vaccine after HCT was 0.18 (95% CI, 0.04-0.80) compared to those who received 1 or no post-HCT vaccine doses.

CONCLUSIONS

HBV reactivation is a late complication of allogeneic HCT in at-risk recipients, particularly in those with low pre-HCT HBsAb. HBV vaccination starting 1 year after HCT may be protective.

COVID-19 Pandemic Impact on Cord Blood Collection for Stem Cell Use and Actual Perspectives

Objective: The aim of the current study is to assess the prevalence of hepatitis B and the risk of hepatitis reactivation in carriers of hepatitis B virus (HBV) cancer patients who underwent chemotherapy for gynecologic and/or breast cancers in a single institution, during a period of five years, and to identify a relationship to some particular chemotherapy regimen, more prone to lead to reactivation. Material and methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review on all consecutive oncological patients treated for a gynecologic and/or breast cancers who presented for the first time to the Gynecologic Oncology Department of Filantropia Hospital, Bucharest, Romania, between January 2016 and December 2020. Results: A total of 1 895 patients diagnosed with ovarian, cervical, endometrial or breast cancers were admitted to hospital for systemic therapy during the mentioned period. Among these, only four patients (two patients with breast cancers, one cervical cancer and one endometrial carcinoma) were chronic carriers of HBV surface antigen (HBsAg positive). Patients received a variety of chemotherapeutic regimens including corticosteroids, gemcitabine, cisplatin, carboplatin, taxanes and anthracyclines. We report one reactivation that occurred in one occult carrier of hepatitis B virus diagnosed with breast cancer (HBsAg negative, hepatitis B core antibody positive - HBcAb), initially excluded from this study, as being screened negative for HBV, treated with taxanes-based chemotherapy and corticosteroids. Conclusion: HBV reactivation had a low incidence in our population of patients diagnosed with gynecologic or breast cancer who received systemic chemotherapy. The HBV reactivation risk was positively correlated with breast cancer and to taxanes-based regimens and glucocorticoids. Further studies to identify additional risk factors of HBV infection reactivation in gynecologic oncology patients and possible risk reducing measures are warranted.

Prevention of hepatitis B virus reactivation in patients with hematological malignancies and resolved hepatitis B virus infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Patients with resolved hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection are at risk of HBV reactivation during treatment for hematological malignancies. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the data on the efficacy of antiviral prophylaxis for the prevention of HBV reactivation in this group of patients.

METHODS

We conducted a systemic literature search of PubMed including MEDLINE and EMBASE databases to 31 January 2019 to identify studies published in English comparing antiviral prophylaxis with no prophylaxis for HBV reactivation in patients treated for hematological malignancies. The search terms used were ("occult hepatitis B" OR "resolved hepatitis B") AND ("reactivation") AND ("haematological malignancy" OR "hematological malignancy" OR "chemotherapy" OR "immunotherapy" OR "chemoimmunotherapy" OR "lymphoma" OR "leukemia" OR "transplant"). The primary outcome was the reactivation of HBV infection. Pooled estimates of relative risk (RR) were calculated.

RESULTS

We identified 13 relevant studies including two randomized controlled trials (RCT), one post hoc analysis from RCT and 10 cohort studies. There was a trend towards a lower rate of HBV reactivation using antiviral prophylaxis, but the difference was not significant (RR 0.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23-1.40, P = 0.22). When limiting the analysis to the three prospective studies of patients receiving anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, we found antiviral prophylaxis was associated with a significantly lower risk of HBV reactivation (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06-0.49, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Antiviral prophylaxis reduced the risk of HBV reactivation in patients receiving anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies for hematological malignancies but not in a broader group of patients receiving anticancer therapy.

2018 Korean Association for the Study of the Liver (KASL) Clinical Practice Guidelines of Chronic Hepatitis B: What's Different?

The clinical practice guideline for the management of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) was originally enacted in 2004 by the Korean Association for the Study of the Liver in order to provide medical practitioners with specific medical information regarding CHB to help them facilitate their understanding of the disease and treatment of the infected patients. Other than an update on the treatment of antiviral resistance in 2014, which is a partial revision, the guidelines for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B have been revised entirely three times in 2007, 2011, and 2015. Although several major international liver association have established and revised clinical practice guidelines, since the medical environment in each country is somewhat different depending on race, region, institution, and economic conditions, it is necessary to revise the Korean guidelines to that reflect our medical environment and own research results. In this review, major change and its background will be summarized about 2018 updated clinical practice guidelines for the management of CHB.

HBV Reactivation in Patients Undergoing Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: A Narrative Review

HBV reactivation (HBVr) can occur due to the ability of HBV to remain latent in the liver as covalently closed circular DNA and by the capacity of HBV to alter the immune system of the infected individuals. HBVr can occur in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) with a clinical spectrum that ranges from asymptomatic infection to fulminant hepatic failure. The risk of HBVr is determined by a complex interplay between host immunity, virus factors, and immunosuppression related to HSCT. All individuals who undergo HSCT should be screened for HBV. HSCT patients positive for HBsAg and also those HBcAb-positive/HBsAg-negative are at high risk of HBV reactivation (HBVr) due to profound and prolonged immunosuppression. Antiviral prophylaxis prevents HBVr, decreases HBVr-related morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic or previous HBV. The optimal duration of antiviral prophylaxis remains to be elucidated. The vaccination of HBV-naïve recipients and their donors against HBV prior to HSCT has an important role in the prevention of acquired HBV infection. This narrative review provides a comprehensive update on the current concepts, risk factors, molecular mechanisms, prevention, and management of HBVr in HSCT.

Efficacy of lamivudine prophylaxis in preventing hepatitis B virus reactivation in patients with resolved infection undergoing allogeneic SCT and receiving rituximab

PURPOSE

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation during immunosuppressive therapy is common in patients with hematological malignancies, even in case of resolved infection. Prophylaxis of HBV reactivation is universally recommended in stem cell transplant (SCT) recipients and patients treated with anti-CD20 agents (i.e., rituximab). Despite its well-established favorable safety profile, lamivudine (LAM) use in prophylaxis has been debated because of the possible emergence of resistant viral strains. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of LAM in preventing HBV reactivation in allogeneic SCT recipients with a resolved HBV infection.

METHODS

Patients who received first allogeneic SCT in years 2009-2016 were evaluated. Sixty-three patients with resolved infection received LAM prophylaxis and were included in the study. Baseline and post-SCT characteristics were recorded, including rituximab exposure, length of LAM prophylaxis, and time from transplant to the last clinical and virological follow-up.

RESULTS

Overall, 39 patients (62%) were male, 39 (62%) had acute myeloid leukemia, 38 (60%) received transplant from haploidentical donor, 29 (53%) received myeloablative conditioning, and 15 (24%) received rituximab post-transplant. Median clinical follow-up was 24 months after SCT (range 0.3-97); median virological follow-up 16 months (range 0.3-78), and median length of LAM prophylaxis of 14.5 months (range 0.3-78). No patient experienced HBV reactivation while on LAM prophylaxis. One patient experienced reactivation 8 months after discontinuing prophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

In this high-risk population, LAM prophylaxis was effective in preventing HBV reactivation in patients with resolved infection. It should be considered a reasonable first-line prophylactic agent to be administered in this setting.

Antiviral prophylaxis during chemotherapy or immunosuppressive drug therapy to prevent HBV reactivation in patients with resolved HBV infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Until recently, the role of antiviral prophylaxis in preventing hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation during immunosuppressive therapy or chemotherapy in patients with resolved HBV infection was unclear. The aim of the study reported here was to compare the efficacy of antiviral prophylaxis versus that of non-prophylaxis in resolved HBV-infected patients undergoing chemotherapy or immunosuppressive therapy.

METHODS

PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the ClinicalTrials.gov website were searched from inception until December 2017. Studies comparing reactivation in prophylaxis versus non-prophylaxis in patients undergoing immunosuppressive therapy or chemotherapy were included. The meta-analysis was performed to calculate the relative risk (RR) and the pooled estimates.

RESULTS

A meta-analysis was conducted of 13 studies (2 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 11 cohort studies). The summary RR for HBV reactivation was 0.47 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-1.69) for antiviral prophylaxis versus non-prophylaxis. Both of the RCTs included in the meta-analysis enrolled patients treated with rituximab. Subgroup analyses showed that the two RCTs ± high-quality cohort studies showed a decreased risk of HBV reactivation among the antiviral prophylaxis groups (RCT 1: RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02-0.70; P = 0.02; RCT 2: 0.28, 95% CI 0.08-0.98; P = 0.05). Subgroup analyses further showed that the cohort studies did not support an association between the antiviral prophylaxis groups and HBV reactivation (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.14-2.83; P = 0.54); adjusting for confounding factors, such as detectable anti-HBs antibodies, failed to produce a significant association (RR,0.29, 95% CI 0.07-1.28; P = 0.10).

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analyses did not show an association between antiviral prophylaxis use and risk of HBV reactivation. As using only the RCTs ± high-quality cohort studies data rendered this association significant, clinicians can consider providing antiviral prophylaxis to patients with resolved HBV infection who are undergoing rituximab-based therapy.

HBsAg-Negative, Anti-HBc-Negative Patients Still Have a Risk of Hepatitis B Virus-Related Hepatitis after Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation for Multiple Myeloma or Malignant Lymphoma

Purpose

Although hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)–negative, hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc)–negative patients are not considered to be at risk for hepatitis B virus (HBV)–related hepatitis, the actual risk remains to be elucidated. This study aimed to evaluate the risk of HBV-related hepatitis in HBsAg-negative, anti-HBc–negative patients receiving autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) for multiple myeloma (MM) or malignant lymphoma.

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively reviewed data from 271 HBsAg-negative patients (161 anti-HBc–negative and 110 anti-HBc–positive at the time of ASCT) who received ASCT for MM or lymphoma. The risk of HBV-related hepatitis was analyzed according to the presence of anti-HBc. HBV serology results at the time of ASCT were compared with those at the time of diagnosis of MM or lymphoma.

Results

Three patients (two anti-HBc–negative MMs and one anti-HBc–positive MM) developed HBV-related hepatitis after ASCT. The rate of HBV-related hepatitis did not differ among patients with or without anti-HBc status (p=0.843). HBV-related hepatitis more frequently occurred in MM patients than in lymphoma patients (p=0.041). Overall, 9.1% of patients (16.7% with MM and 5.4% with lymphoma) who were HBsAg–negative and anti-HBc–positive at the time of diagnosis had lost anti-HBc positivity during chemotherapy prior to ASCT.

Conclusion

Our data suggest that HBsAg-negative, anti-HBc–negative patients at the time of ASCT for MM or lymphoma still might be at a risk for HBV-related hepatitis.

Screening, monitoring, prevention, prophylaxis and therapy for hepatitis B virus reactivation in patients with haematologic malignancies and patients who underwent haematologic stem cell transplantation: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The growth of new therapeutic options and practices increases the risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in patients with haematologic malignancies and/or patients undergoing haematologic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).

OBJECTIVES

To provide a systematic review supporting recommendations for prevention, monitoring, prophylaxis and therapy of HBV reactivation in patients with haematologic malignancies and HSCT.

DATA SOURCES

The systematic review was based on a strategy using PubMed and the Cochrane Library searching literature published from 1991 to December 31, 2016. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines were followed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized control trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies.

RISK-OF-BIAS ASSESSMENT

Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and Newcastle Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale.

RESULTS

Forty-two studies of fair or good quality were included in this systematic review. The following main results were obtained: haematologic patients should be screened for HBV before chemotherapy; HBV DNA levels should be monthly monitored in all HBV-positive patients not receiving prophylaxis; hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-positive haematologic patients and patients undergoing HSCT should receive prophylaxis and third-generation HBV drugs should be provided; and anti-hepatitis B core protein-positive lymphoma patients and patients who underwent HSCT should receive antiviral prophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

A higher quality of evidence is needed. However, the level of evidence was sufficient to support the recommendations published in this issue of the journal.

Reactivation of hepatitis B virus in cancer patients treated with chemotherapy for solid tumors. Is the prophylaxis really required?

BACKGROUND

Reactivation of hepatitis B virus during cancer chemotherapy for non-hematological tumors is not fully clear.

AIM

To evaluate the risk of hepatitis B virus reactivation in carriers of hepatitis B virus cancer patients treated with chemotherapy for solid tumors.

METHODS

Two hundred sixty-seven patients with solid tumors were consecutively enrolled: 13 (4.8%) were hepatitis B s-antigen positive, of whom 6 were documented inactive carriers and 7 had chronic liver disease. Thirty-two patients (12%) were hepatitis B s-antigen negative/hepatitis B c-antibody positive. Hepatitis B virus inactive carriers were followed every 3 months by alanine aminotransferases, hepatitis B virus-DNA; whereas hepatitis B virus occult carriers were followed every 3 months by alanine aminotransferases and hepatitis B s-antigen.

RESULTS

None of the 38 total patients with inactive or occult B infection who did not receive prophylaxis presented hepatitis B virus reactivation during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that, in hepatitis B s-antigen negative patients who undergo chemotherapy for solid tumors, hepatitis B and c-antibody screening results are not relevant to clinical decision and can be avoided. Larger studies are needed to establish whether the risk of reactivation of HBV during chemotherapy is negligible in this subset of patients and they could not be monitored for HBV reactivation.

Prevention and management of hepatitis B virus reactivation in patients with hematological malignancies treated with anticancer therapy

Hepatitis due to hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation can be severe and potentially fatal, but is preventable. HBV reactivation is most commonly reported in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy, especially rituximab-containing therapy for hematological malignancies and those receiving stem cell transplantation. All patients with hematological malignancies receiving anticancer therapy should be screened for active or resolved HBV infection by blood tests for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and antibody to hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc). Patients found to be positive for HBsAg should be given prophylactic antiviral therapy to prevent HBV reactivation. For patients with resolved HBV infection, no standard strategy has yet been established to prevent HBV reactivation. There are usually two options. One is pre-emptive therapy guided by serial HBV DNA monitoring, whereby antiviral therapy is given as soon as HBV DNA becomes detectable. However, there is little evidence regarding the optimal interval and period of monitoring. An alternative approach is prophylactic antiviral therapy, especially for patients receiving high-risk therapy such as rituximab, newer generation of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, obinutuzumab or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. This strategy may effectively prevent HBV reactivation and avoid the inconvenience of repeated HBV DNA monitoring. Entecavir or tenofovir are preferred over lamivudine as prophylactic therapy. Although there is no well-defined guideline on the optimal duration of prophylactic therapy, there is growing evidence to recommend continuing prophylactic antiviral therapy for at least 12 mo after cessation of chemotherapy, and even longer for those who receive rituximab or who had high serum HBV DNA levels before the start of immunosuppressive therapy. Many novel agents have recently become available for the treatment of hematological malignancies, and these agents may be associated with HBV reactivation. Although there is currently limited evidence to guide the optimal preventive measures, we recommend antiviral prophylaxis in HBsAg-positive patients receiving novel treatments, especially the Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors and the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibitors, which are B-cell receptor signaling modulators and reduce proliferation of malignant B-cells. Further studies are needed to clarify the risk of HBV reactivation with these agents and the best prophylactic strategy in the era of targeted therapy for hematological malignancies.

Management of viral hepatitis in patients with haematological malignancy and in patients undergoing haemopoietic stem cell transplantation: recommendations of the 5th European Conference on Infections in Leukaemia (ECIL-5)

Viral hepatitis affects millions of people worldwide, and host immunity is the key determinant of patient outcome. Viral hepatitis can be life threatening in patients with haematological malignancy, including haemopoietic stem cell transplant recipients, because of the virus itself, or through a need to decrease the dose of chemotherapy. A past or currently infected haemopoietic stem cell donor could also transmit viral hepatitis. The burden of viral hepatitis in patients with haematological malignancies and the weak evidence on which previous guidelines are based has prompted the European Conference on Infection in Leukaemia (ECIL-5) to convene a group of experts in the fields of viral hepatitis and of haematological malignancy to specifically address previously unconsidered issues and grade the available quality of evidence according to the Infectious Diseases Society of America grading system. The group recommends that all patients should be screened for hepatotropic viruses before haematological treatment and that patients or haemopoietic stem cell donors with markers of past or current viral hepatitis should be assessed by an expert. Screening, vaccination, and treatment rules are reported in this Review.

Hepatitis B Reactivation During Immunosuppressive Therapy or Cancer Chemotherapy, Management, and Prevention: A Comprehensive Review-Screened

CONTEXT

Due to the close relationship between the immune system and the hepatitis B virus (HBV) replication, it is essential to monitor patients with current or past HBV infection under any type of immunosuppression. Cancer chemotherapy, immunosuppressive therapies in autoimmune diseases, and immunosuppression in solid organ and stem cell transplant recipients are the major reasons for hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr). In this review, the challenges associated with HBVr are discussed according to the latest studies and guidelines. We also discuss the role of treatments with different risks, including anti-CD20 agents, tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) inhibitors, and other common immunosuppressive agents in various conditions.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Through an electronic search of the PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus databases, we selected the studies associated with HBVr in different conditions. The most recent recommendations were collected in order to reach a consensus on how to manage patients at risk of HBVr.

RESULTS

It was found that the positive hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), the high baseline HBV DNA level, the positive hepatitis B virus e antigen (HBeAg), and an absent or low hepatitis B surface antibody (HBsAb) titer prior to starting treatment are the most important viral risk factors. Furthermore, rituximab, anthracycline, and different types of TNF-α inhibitors were identified as the high-risk therapies. By analyzing the efficiency of prophylaxis on the prevention of HBVr, it was concluded that those with a high risk of antiviral resistance should not be used in long-term immunosuppressants. Receiving HBV antiviral agents at the commencement of immunosuppressant therapy or chemotherapy was demonstrated to be effective in decreasing the risk of HBVr. Prophylaxis could also be initiated before the start of therapy. For most immune suppressive regimes, antiviral therapy should be kept up for at least 6 months after the cessation of immunosuppressive drugs. However, the optimal time of prophylaxis keeping should be increased in cases associated with rituximab or hematopoietic stem cell transplants. According to the latest studies and guidelines from different bodies, recommendations regarding screening, monitoring, and management of HBVr are outlined.

CONCLUSIONS

Identification of patients at the risk of HBVr before immunosuppressive therapy is an undeniable part of treatment. Starting the antiviral therapy, based on the type of immunosuppressive drugs and the underlying disease, could lead to better management of disease.