Trends in hepatitis B virus screening at the onset of chemotherapy in a large US cancer center

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.

The Low Incidence of Viral Hepatitis Reactivation Among Subjects on Immunotherapy Reduces the Impact of Suboptimal Screening Rate

Background and Aims

Immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is a pillar of many advanced tumors. However, there is scarce data concerning the rate of viral hepatitis screening in this population or the risk of viral reactivation.

Methods

Retrospective–prospective study that includes all patients who began ICIs between January/2019 and December/2020 in a University Hospital. Data on viral hepatitis screening prior to the beginning of ICIs were collected. In subjects lacking information, serological tests were requested prospectively. Among HBsAg, anti-HBc, or anti-HCV positive subjects, reactivation was prospectively assessed.

Results

During the 2-year period of study, 595 subjects received ICIs (61.2% male, mean age 63 years). The most prevalent cancers found were 35.5% lung cancer, 12.1% melanoma, and 8.2% head and neck; ICIs schemes were mainly anti-PD1 (65.7%), followed by anti-PD-L1 (19.2%), and combined therapy (13.6%). Prior to immunotherapy, anti-HCV screening was performed in 462 (77.6%) subjects, HBsAg in 462 (77.6%), anti-HBc in 335 (56.3%), and the complete screening in 328 (55.1%). The anti-HBc screening was more frequently ordered among patients treated with concomitant systemic therapy (p = 0.003), especially in the case of chemotherapy (p = 0.015), though HCV screening was more commonly performed in concomitant therapies different from chemotherapy (p = 0.001). Serological tests were completed prospectively in those alive, leading to an overall prevalence for anti-HCV of 3.5%, HBsAg at 1.3%, and anti-HBc of 15.2%. HCV-RNA was detected in 2/19 (both patients with hepatocellular carcinoma), HBV-DNA in 4/7 HBsAg positive, and in 1/75 anti-HBc positive subject. Five out of the 7 HBsAg carriers and 1/75 anti-HBc+ subjects (due to concomitant antiretroviral therapy) received antiviral prophylaxis. Neither cases of HBV reactivation nor changes in HCV viral load were observed.

Discussion

HBV and HCV screening prior to immunotherapy is suboptimal. Though the rate of viral hepatitis reactivation seems extremely low, efforts should be made to optimize viral hepatitis screening prior to immunotherapy for the selection of candidates for either antiviral prophylaxis or periodical follow-up.

HBV Reactivation During the Treatment of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Management Strategies

Hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBV-R), which can lead to HBV-related morbidity and mortality, is a common and well-known complication that occurs during the treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients with current or past exposure to HBV infection. HBV-R is thought to be closely associated with chemotherapeutic or immunosuppressive therapies. However, immunosuppressive agents such as anti-CD20 antibodies (e.g., rituximab and ofatumumab), glucocorticoids, and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) administered to NHL patients during treatment can cause deep immunodepression and place them at high risk of HBV-R. In this review, we explore the current evidence, the guidelines of several national and international organizations, and the recommendations of expert panels relating to the definition, risk factors, screening and monitoring strategies, whether to use prophylaxis or pre-emptive therapy, and the optimal antiviral agent and duration of antiviral therapy for HBV-R.

High hepatitis B virus screening rate among patients receiving systemic anticancer treatment in Japan

BACKGROUND

Patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection have a risk of reactivation after chemotherapy. All patients undergoing chemotherapy should be screened for HBV infection. No large-scale studies have been conducted to examine HBV screening practice in Japan.

METHODS

We analyzed health insurance claims equivalent data linked with a nationwide hospital-based cancer registry. Patients diagnosed with cancer in 2014, who were aged 20 years and older and those who underwent systemic anticancer treatment in 2014-15 were included. We assessed the HBV screening rates by the HBsAg or anti-HBc tests, HBV-DNA tests, and entecavir prescriptions. Multiple logistic regression models were used to identify factors related to the receipt of screening.

RESULTS

Of 177,597 patients (mean [SD] age, 65.6 [12.2] years), 82.6% and 12.9% patients had a solid tumor and hematologic malignancy, respectively. Among them, 88.1%, 6.3%, and 5.5% received cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and anti-CD20 antibodies, respectively. Overall, 70.6% of patients were screened. The positive predictor of HBV screening was receiving anti-CD20 antibodies [odds ratio (OR); 2.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.06-2.41, p < 0.001] and negative predictors were age ≥ 85 (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.71-0.81), age 75-84 (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.75-0.79) and targeted therapy (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.67-0.72). Among the screened patients, 13.2% were tested for HBV-DNA, and 1.49% were prescribed entecavir.

CONCLUSIONS

The HBV screening rate in Japan is higher than in other countries. Further improvement of the HBV screening rate is needed to prevent reactivation and avoidable deaths of patients with HBV infection.

An electronic alert system increases screening for hepatitis B and C and improves management of patients with haematological disorders

Treatment of haematological disorders in patients with chronic hepatitis B or resolved infection (anti-HBc-positive) is associated with a risk of hepatitis B reactivation. Moreover, patients with chronic hepatitis C have a higher risk of haematological malignancies than general population. An electronic alert system was developed to promote screening of hepatitis B (HBV) and C (HCV) in patients starting haematological therapies. The system included screening and linkage to care and a request for testing in those without data. From March, 2017 to March, 2018 data from 420 consecutive patients with haematological diseases were included. At first prescription before the alerts, the HCV and HBV screening rate was 60.5%. Following the alerts, an additional 115 were screened, increasing the overall screening rate to 87.9%. Anti-HBc alone was detected in 57, anti-HCV in 13, and HBsAg in 2 patients. Overall, 68% of patients with any viral hepatitis markers were previously not know, and the impact was particularly important for anti-HBc detection (47/57 unknown). Nucleoside analogues were prescribed in 28 (49.1%) anti-HBc-positive and the 2 HBsAg-positive patients. Prospective follow-up with HBV DNA and HBsAg testing showed no cases of HBV reactivation. An estimated 1.2 HBV reactivations were avoided as consequence of the alert system. In summary, an electronic alert system increased viral hepatitis screening in patients receiving haematological treatment and led to improvements in the management of these patients, including avoided HBV reactivation.

Hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus infection in immunocompromised patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide an update on recent studies of hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections in cancer patients with an emphasis on viral reactivation after cancer treatment, new antiviral therapies, and safety concerns.

RECENT FINDINGS

The diagnostic criteria for HBV reactivation in patients receiving cancer therapy were revised in 2018. HBV reactivation in these patients is preventable, even with the use of new cancer therapies. HCV reactivation also has been reported in cancer patients, particularly those with hematologic malignancies, and is not a virologic condition usually associated with poor outcome. Prophylaxis to prevent HCV reactivation is not recommended because therapy with direct-acting antivirals eradicates the infection in the majority of cancer patients.

SUMMARY

Cancer patients with HBV or HCV infection are at risk for viral reactivation, with many similarities between these two infections. Patients at high risk for reactivation will benefit significantly from taking oral antivirals, which will reduce the risk of HBV reactivation or prevent development of HCV reactivation following its virologic cure.

APASL HCV guidelines of virus-eradicated patients by DAA on how to monitor HCC occurrence and HBV reactivation

In the direct-acting antiviral (DAA) era for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, sustained virological response (SVR) is very high, but close attention must be paid to the possible occurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) in patients with co-infection who achieved SVR in short term. HCC occurrence was more often observed in patients with previous HCC history. We found occurrence of HCC in 178 (29.6%) of 602 patients with previous HCC history (15.4 months mean follow-up post-DAA initiation) but, in contrast, in only 604 (1.3%) of 45,870 patients without previous HCC history (18.2 months mean follow-up). Thus, in these guidelines, we recommend the following: in patients with previous HCC history, surveillance at 4-month intervals for HCC by ultrasonography (US) and tumor markers should be performed. In patients without previous HCC history, surveillance at 6- to 12-month intervals for HCC including US is recommended until the long-term DAA treatment effects, especially for the resolution of liver fibrosis, are confirmed. This guideline also includes recommendations on how to follow-up patients who have been infected with both HCV and HBV. When HCV was eradicated in these HBsAg-positive patients or patients with previous HBV infection (anti-HBc and/or anti-HBs-positive), it was shown that HBV reactivation or HBV DNA reappearance was observed in 67 (41.4%) of 162 or 12 (0.9%) of 1317, respectively. For these co-infected patients, careful attention should be paid to HBV reactivation for 24 weeks post-treatment.

Incidence of Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation and Hepatotoxicity in Patients Receiving Long-term Treatment With Tumor Necrosis Factor Antagonists

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists are the first-line treatment for many autoimmune diseases. However, they have been associated with reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV). We determined the rate of HBV reactivation and hepatotoxicity grade 3 or 4 (HT ≥3) in patients treated with an anti-TNF agent for an autoimmune disease.

METHODS

We collected data from 8887 adult patients in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California database who began treatment with TNF antagonists for autoimmune diseases (dermatologic, rheumatologic, or gastrointestinal) from 2001 through 2010, followed through December 2012. We obtained data on HBV infection (52% of patients were screened for HBV before treatment), demographic features, comorbidities, and use of immunosuppressive agents. HBV reactivation was defined as 1 of the following: >1 log increase in HBV DNA, HBV DNA-positive when previously negative, HBV DNA >2000 IU/mL if no baseline level was available, or reverse seroconversion. HT ≥3 was defined according to the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria. We performed multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with HT ≥3.

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients tested positive for HB surface antigen (HBsAg) at baseline and 9 of these had HBV reactivation; of the 4267 patients with unknown HBV status at baseline, 2 had HBV reactivation. None of the 178 patients who were HBsAg negative and positive for the hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc+) had HBV reactivation. HBV reactivation occurred in 1/5 HBsAg+ patients who received prophylactic antiviral therapy and 8/18 who did not (P = .61). No one with HBV reactivation had liver failure. HT ≥3 occurred in 273 patients (2.7%), but only 3 cases were attributed to HBV. Cirrhosis was significantly associated with HT ≥3 (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

In a retrospective analysis of patients treated with TNF antagonists for autoimmune diseases, we found HBV reactivation in 39% of patients who were HBsAg+ before therapy, but not in any patients who were HBsAg-negative and anti-HBc+ before therapy. Patients should be screened for HBV infection before anti-TNF therapy; HBsAg+ patients should receive prophylactic antiviral therapy, but not HBsAg-negative, anti-HBc+ patients.

Models to Predict Hepatitis B Virus Infection Among Patients With Cancer Undergoing Systemic Anticancer Therapy: A Prospective Cohort Study

PURPOSE

Most patients with cancer are not screened for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection before undergoing anticancer therapy, and optimal screening strategies are unknown. We sought to develop selective HBV screening strategies for patients who require systemic anticancer therapy.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study included adults age ≥ 18 years with solid or hematologic malignancies who received systemic anticancer therapy at a comprehensive cancer center during 2013 and 2014. Patients underwent hepatitis B surface antigen, hepatitis B core antibody, and hepatitis B surface antibody testing, and completed a 19-question modified Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) HBV survey. Multivariable models that predict chronic or past HBV infection were developed and validated using bootstrapping.

RESULTS

A total of 2,124 patients (mean age, 58 ± 13 years) completed the risk survey and HBV testing. Of these, 54% were women; 77% were non-Hispanic white, 11% Hispanic, 8% black, and 4% Asian; and 20% had a hematologic malignancy and 80% a solid tumor. Almost 12% were born outside the United States. The prevalence was 0.3% for chronic HBV infection and 6% for past HBV infection. Significant predictors of positive hepatitis B surface antigen or hepatitis B core antibody tests were as follows: men who had sex with men, black or Asian race, birthplace outside the United States, parent's birthplace outside the United States, household exposure to HBV, age ≥ 50 years, and history of injection drug use. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the model on the basis of these seven predictors was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.73 to 0.82). The modified CDC survey and brief tools with fewer than seven questions yielded similar false-negative rates (0% and 0% to 0.7%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

An internally validated risk tool performed as well as the modified CDC survey; however, more than 90% of patients who completed the tool would still require HBV testing. Universal HBV testing is more efficient than risk-based screening.

Practice Patterns in Hepatitis B Virus Screening Before Cancer Chemotherapy in a Major US Hospital Network

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients receiving chemotherapy face an increased risk of reactivation of chronic hepatitis B virus infection.

AIM

To determine the HBV screening rate in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy in various clinical settings.

METHOD

We identified 11,959 adult cancer patients (age ≥ 18 years) receiving parenteral chemotherapy between 2012 and 2015 within a major US hospital network, including a large university hospital, community teaching hospitals, and community oncology clinics.

RESULT

Two thousand and forty-five patients (17.1%) were screened for either HBV surface antigen (HBsAg) or HBV core antibody (HBcAb) before chemotherapy, and 1850 patients (15.5%) had both HBsAg and HBcAb tested before chemotherapy. 8.4% were exposed to HBV, and 0.9% had chronic HBV infection (both HBsAg/HBcAb positive). Patients with hematologic tumor were more often screened than with solid tumor (55.6 vs. 8.3%, p < 0.001). Patients receiving chemotherapy with higher HBV reactivation risk had higher yet suboptimal HBV screening rate (41.1% B-depleting agents, 21.5% anthracycline, 14.9% steroid, 64.7% anti-TNF alpha and 18.6% other chemotherapy, p < 0.001). Patients with age ≥ 50 years (old 16.2% vs. young 23.9%, p < 0.001) and Asian ethnicity (Asian 13.6 vs. Caucasian 16.6%, p < 0.001) were screened less for HBV despite higher prevalence of HBV exposure (old 9.3% vs. young 4.3%, p < 0.001 and Asian 27.8% vs. Caucasian 6.4%, p < 0.001). Patients receiving chemotherapy in community oncology clinics were less screened versus community teaching hospitals or university hospital (12.7 vs. 19.1 vs. 19.7%, p < 0.001), despite similar prevalence of HBV infection. On multivariate analysis, receiving chemotherapy at a community oncology clinic [odds ratio (OR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45-0.72, p < 0.001] was independently associated with less HBV screening compared to receiving chemotherapy at a university or community teaching hospital.

CONCLUSION

HBV screening among patients undergoing cancer chemotherapy was suboptimal and less commonly performed in community oncology clinics compared to teaching hospitals.

Impact of the timing of hepatitis B virus identification and anti-hepatitis B virus therapy initiation on the risk of adverse liver outcomes for patients receiving cancer therapy

BACKGROUND

Data on the incidence of adverse liver outcomes are limited for cancer patients with chronic (hepatitis B surface antigen [HBsAg]-positive/hepatitis B core antibody [anti-HBc]-positive) or past (HBsAg-negative/anti-HBc-positive) hepatitis B virus (HBV) after chemotherapy. This study was aimed at determining the impact of test timing and anti-HBV therapy on adverse liver outcomes in these patients.

METHODS

Patients with solid or hematologic malignancies who received chemotherapy between 2004 and 2011 were retrospectively studied. HBV testing and anti-HBV therapy were defined as early at the initiation of cancer therapy and as late after initiation. Outcomes included hepatitis flares, hepatic impairment, liver failure, and death. Time-to-event analysis was used to determine incidence, and multivariate hazard models were used to determine predictors of outcomes.

RESULTS

There were 18,688 study patients (80.4% with solid tumors). The prevalence of chronic HBV was 1.1% (52 of 4905), and the prevalence of past HBV was 7.1% (350 of 4905). Among patients with solid tumors, late identification of chronic HBV was associated with a higher risk of hepatitis flare (hazard ratio [HR], 4.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26-12.86), hepatic impairment (HR, 8.48; 95% CI, 1.86-38.66), liver failure (HR, 9.38; 95% CI, 1.50-58.86), and death (HR, 3.90; 95% CI, 1.19-12.83) in comparison with early identification. Among patients with hematologic malignancies and chronic HBV, the risk of death was 7.8 (95% CI, 1.73-35.27) times higher for persons with late initiation of anti-HBV therapy versus early initiation. Patients with late identification of chronic HBV had late or no anti-HBV therapy. Chronic HBV predicted liver failure in patients with solid or hematologic malignancies, whereas male sex and late identification were predictors for patients with solid tumors.

CONCLUSIONS

Early identification correlates with early anti-HBV therapy and reduces the risk of liver failure and death in chronic HBV patients receiving chemotherapy. Cancer 2017;123:3367-76. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Improving testing for hepatitis B before treatment with rituximab

AIMS/OBJECTIVES/BACKGROUND

Individuals with current or previous infection with the hepatitis B virus (HBV) can experience viral reactivation when treated with immunosuppression. Rituximab, an anti-CD20 antibody used to treat many diseases, has potent immunosuppressant effects with a high risk of causing HBV reactivation. Reactivation can range from elevated liver enzymes to acute severe hepatitis with liver failure and a significant mortality risk. HBV screening and appropriate use of prophylactic antiviral therapy can prevent reactivation. This work describes the introduction of a local policy for HBV testing in patients before rituximab treatment and assesses its impact.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A baseline review (before policy introduction) of 90 patients showed that only 21 (23%) had hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and 17 (19%) had hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBcAb) tested before receiving rituximab. Following introduction of the policy (on the basis of international guidelines), improved laboratory reporting protocols and targeted education sessions, two further reviews of HBV testing rates among patients being initiated onto rituximab were performed. There was a marked increase in pre-rituximab testing for HBsAg from 23 to 79% and for anti-HBcAb from 19 to 78%. Throughout the study period, a total of one (0.8%) HBsAg-positive and six (4.7%) anti-HBcAb-positive patients were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

This work clearly indicates that simple strategies can markedly improve appropriate HBV screening. In our cohort, 6% (of whom only 43% had recognized HBV risk factors) required antiviral prophylaxis, which emphasizes the importance of universal screening before rituximab. Reinforcement of the guidelines and ongoing education is needed to further increase testing rates.

Persistent risk of HBV reactivation despite extensive lamivudine prophylaxis in haematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients who are anti-HBc-positive or HBV-negative recipients with an anti-HBc-positive donor

The overall rate of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation was evaluated in a population of 373 haematological stem cell transplant (HSCT) patients treated with lamivudine (LMV) if they were anti-HBc-positive/HBV-DNA-negative recipients or if they were HBV-negative recipients with an anti-HBc-positive donor. The incidence of HBV reactivation was calculated in two groups of autologous (auto) or allogeneic (allo) HSCT patients who were stratified according to their HBV serostatus. The former group included 57 cases: 10 auto-HSCT and 27 allo-HSCT anti-HBc-positive recipients, two auto-HSCT and three allo-HSCT inactive carriers, and 15 allo-HSCT recipients with an anti-HBc-positive donor. Forty-seven (82.4%) patients in this group received LMV prophylaxis (the median (interquartile range, IQR) of LMV treatment was 30 (20-38) months). The second group consisted of 320 anti-HBc-negative auto-HSCT and allo-HSCT recipients with anti-HBc-negative donors. None of these patients received any prophylaxis. Two patients in the first group and two in the second group experienced reactivation of HBV infection, with an incidence of 3.5% (95% CI 0.4-12.1%) and 0.6% (95% CI 0.1-2.2%), respectively. Only one out of four reactivated patients was LMV-treated. The cumulative probability of HBV reactivation at 6 years from HSCT was 15.8% (95% CI 15.2-16.4%). Three of four viral isolates obtained from the HBV-reactivated patients harboured mutations in the immune-active HBsAg-region. In a HSCT population carefully evaluated for HBV prophylaxis, a risk of HBV reactivation persisted in the group of patients who were not LMV-treated. Only one LMV-treated patient experienced reactivation of HBV with a resistant HBV isolate.

Hepatitis B Reactivation with Novel Agents in Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and Prevention Strategies

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection remains an endemic disease in most parts of the world despite available prophylactic vaccines. Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is the most common hematological malignancy, and certain patients undergoing therapy are at increased risk of HBV reactivation. Rituximab, a monoclonal antibody, is well studied in HBV reactivation, but newer agents have been implicated as well. Here, we review novel agents suspected in HBV reactivation and effective strategies to prevent HBV reactivation. Fifteen years of literature were reviewed in order to better understand the reactivation rates of hepatitis B in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Anti-CD20 antibodies continue to be the main medications that can lead to HBV reactivation, and HBV reactivation rates have decreased with increased awareness. HBV reactivation is uncommon when using other novel agents. Entecavir and lamivudine remain the agents of choice to prevent HBV reactivation in high risk patients. In conclusion, the immunosuppressive effect of NHL and its therapy provide a pathway for HBV reactivation, especially in patients treated with anti-CD20 antibody. Since many HBV positive patients are often excluded from clinical trials of novel agents in NHL, more aggressive post-market surveillance of new agents, well-designed best practice advisories, and timely case reports are needed to reduce the incidence of HBV reactivation. Lastly, large prospective investigations coupled with well-utilized best practice advisories need to be conducted to understand the impact of more potent novel NHL therapy on HBV reactivation.

Prevalence of hepatitis B and C and sensibility of a selective screening questionnaire in patients receiving chemotherapy for solid tumors

BACKGROUND

Reactivation of hepatitis B or C virus can occur in patients undergoing chemotherapy. Recommendations for selective or systematic hepatitis B virus testing prior chemotherapy for solid tumors differ. The primary aim was to determine the seroprevalence of hepatitis B or C in a low endemic country. The second objective was to assess the relevance of a questionnaire on hepatitis B/C risk factors to consider a selective screening.

METHODS

Patients were prospectively tested for hepatitis B/C markers. HBs antigen positive patients and isolated anti-HBc positive patients with detectable viral load received antiviral preventive treatment. Patients or physicians completed the questionnaire on infection risk factors.

RESULTS

Among the 450 patients included, 388 were tested for all serological markers and had gastrointestinal (63.7%), lung (31.2%) and skin (4.6%) cancers. The prevalence of subjects exposed to hepatitis B virus was 8.5% (33/388). One patient tested positive for HBs antigen and received preventive treatment. Prevalence of subjects exposed to hepatitis C was 1.3% (5/388). The questionnaire sensitivity was 45.5%, 100% and 50% for detecting carriers of hepatitis B, C and one or the other, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Seroprevalence of hepatitis B was low. Selective screening with the questionnaire was insufficiently sensitive. Systematic screening with serological tests prior to chemotherapy in patients with solid tumors is therefore relevant.

Outcomes of the implementation of the computer-assisted HBView system for the prevention of hepatitis B virus reactivation in chemotherapy patients: a retrospective analysis

Background

Screening for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is recommended worldwide for patients receiving systemic chemotherapy in accordance with clinical guidelines, but compliance varies by country and facility. Alert systems may be useful for promoting screening, but it is unclear how effective such systems are. In this study, we investigated HBV screening procedures and their incorporation into treatment regimens following the implementation of an alert system.

Methods

An alert system was introduced at our hospital in April 2012. The rates of HBV screening in the periods before and after the introduction of the alert system (September 2010 to March 2012 and April 2012 to October 2013, respectively) were investigated. We collected data on hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), hepatitis B surface antibody (HBsAb), hepatitis B core antibody (HBcAb), and HBV-DNA testing in patients. As a result of this analysis, we developed a system in which pharmacists would intervene to check and confirm whether HBV screening had occurred in patients scheduled to begin treatment with chemotherapy. We named our project the “HBView” project, and the rate of HBV screening and the number of times pharmacists intervened was studied during specific time periods before and after the HBView project commenced (July 2013 to December 2013 and January 2014 to June 2014, respectively).

Results

After introducing the alert system, the percentage of patients tested for HBsAb/HBcAb and HBV-DNA increased significantly, from 71.6 % to 84.9 % and from 44.5 % to 69.7 %, respectively. However, the rate of compliance with HBV testing guidelines was not 100 % after interventions. The numbers of patients who were not screened but should have been before and after the introduction of HBView were 6 and 17, respectively. Two patients at risk of HBV reactivation were identified after intervention by pharmacists; their intervention thus prevented HBV reactivation.

Conclusions

Compliance with clinical HBV screening guidelines was not sufficiently improved after the introduction of the automatic alert system; however, the HBView project proved useful in reinforcing the automatic alert system.

Using Clinical Databases to Verify the Impact of Regulatory Agency Alerts in Japan: Hepatitis B Testing Behavior After an Alert Regarding Risk of Viral Reactivation

BACKGROUND

Measures of the effectiveness of risk minimization activities are necessary for the appropriate use of drugs, and clinical databases are a low-cost method of quickly producing such results.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to explore the secondary application of clinical databases in verifying the impact of risk minimization activities; specifically, whether such databases could be used to identify changes in hepatitis B virus testing behavior after an alert from the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) in Japan.

METHODS

Patient data from December 1, 2010 to November 30, 2012 were extracted from the Medical Data Vision clinical database. The percentages of patients tested for hepatitis B virus DNA (HBV-DNA), hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), and hepatitis B surface antibody (HBsAb)/hepatitis B core antibody (HBcAb) were compared 1 year before (consecutive 6-month periods A and B) and 1 year after (consecutive 6-month periods C and D) a PMDA alert regarding viral reactivation in patients receiving immunosuppressive agents.

RESULTS

Data for 9866 patients in the clinical database were analyzed. After the PMDA alert, the percentage of patients tested for HBV-DNA linearly increased in periods A to D: 4.70 % (n = 262/5571), 5.78 % (n = 330/5710), 6.52 % (n = 398/6101), and 7.59 % (n = 479/6315). However, no changes were observed in the rates of HBsAg and HBcAb/HBsAb testing (around 50 and 70 %, respectively). Overall testing rates appeared to differ depending on disease and drug type.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that the PMDA alert was effective at recommending HBV-DNA testing. This secondary application of clinical databases may be effective for verifying the impact of risk minimization activities.

Prevention of acute exacerbation of chronic hepatitis B infection in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy in a hepatitis B virus endemic area

Reactivation of hepatitis B viral (HBV) infection in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy may cause interruption of chemotherapy and lead to liver failure and death. In our institute, a computerized order entry-based alert system was introduced in September 2011 to remind healthcare providers of HBV testing when prescribing chemotherapy. Since August 2012, an order entry-based therapeutic control system has been applied to ensure HBV prophylaxis during chemotherapy. This retrospective cohort study included cancer patients receiving chemotherapy in the Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital from November 2009 to June 2013. The prechemotherapy HBV screening rate, HBV prophylactic rate, and severe HBV acute exacerbation rate were compared between stages with different order systems. Newly diagnosed cancer patients (n = 2512) were included. The HBV testing rate in the screening reminder stage was higher than that in the educational stage (93.5% versus 40.2%, P < 0.001), whereas the adequate HBV prophylactic rates in the two order entry-based stages were comparable (41.1% versus 39.2%). Patients in the order entry-based therapeutic control stage had a higher HBV screening rate (99.3% versus 40.2%, P < 0.001) and a higher HBV prophylactic rate (95.8% versus 39.2%, P < 0.001) than those in the educational stage. Additionally, the severe HBV acute exacerbation rate in the therapeutic control stage was lower than those in the educational and screening reminder stages (0% versus 1.2% and 1.2%, respectively; both P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

A computerized order entry-based therapeutic control system can provide excellent prechemotherapy HBV screening for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy and can effectively prevent severe acute exacerbation of HBV infection in hospitals among HBV endemic areas.

Hepatitis B Virus Screening for Patients With Cancer Before Therapy: American Society of Clinical Oncology Provisional Clinical Opinion Update

PURPOSE

This updated provisional clinical opinion presents a revised opinion based on American Society of Clinical Oncology panel consensus in the context of an evolving database.

CONTEXT

Despite the 2010 provisional clinical opinion recommendation, there is still evidence of suboptimal hepatitis B virus (HBV) screening among patients at high risk for HBV infection or HBV reactivation after chemotherapy. This updated provisional clinical opinion introduces a risk-adaptive strategy to identify and treat patients with HBV infection to reduce their risk of HBV reactivation.

PROVISIONAL CLINICAL OPINION

Medical providers should screen by testing patients for HBV infection before starting anti-CD20 therapy or hematopoietic cell transplantation. Providers should also screen patients with risk factors for HBV infection. Screening should include both hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc), because reactivation can occur in patients who are HBsAg positive/anti-HBc positive or HBsAg negative/anti-HBc positive. Either total anti-HBc or anti-HBc immunoglobulin G (not immunoglobulin M) test should be used. Clinicians should start antiviral therapy for HBsAg-positive/anti-HBc-positive patients before or contemporaneously with cancer therapy and monitor HBsAg-negative/anti-HBc-positive patients for reactivation with HBV DNA and ALT levels, promptly starting antivirals if reactivation occurs. Clinicians can initiate antivirals for HBsAg-negative/anti-HBc-positive patients anticipating cancer therapies associated with a high risk of reactivation, or they can monitor HBV DNA and ALT levels and initiate on-demand antivirals. For patients who neither have HBV risk factors nor anticipate cancer therapy associated with a high risk of reactivation, current evidence does not support HBV screening before initiation of cancer therapy. Two panel members provided a minority viewpoint, involving a strategy of universal HBsAg and selective anti-HBc testing.

The compliance of doctors with viral hepatitis B screening and antiviral prophylaxis in cancer patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy using a hospital-based screening reminder system

Background and Aim

Screenings for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and antiviral prophylaxis are recommended for HBsAg-positive patients before the start of cytotoxic chemotherapy; however, compliance with these recommendations varies among doctors. We investigated the compliance of doctors with these recommendations using a reminder system and assessed the outcomes of HBsAg-positive patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy.

Methods

Using a computer-assisted reminder system, doctors were alerted of both HBsAg screening and antiviral prophylaxis prior to prescribing chemotherapy. The compliance between different doctors and outcomes of patients were investigated during the period of execution of this system. The rates of compliance with both recommendations were compared among various cancer types.

Results

A total of 1053 patients were enrolled, of which only 88 had previous data pertaining to HBsAg status. Using this reminder system, an overall screening rate of 85.5% (825/965) was achieved and did not significantly differ according to cancer type. However, the overall antiviral prophylactic rate was only 45.5% (61/134). The rates of antiviral prophylaxis were lower for doctors treating lung, breast and colorectal cancers than for those treating hematological malignancies (all p<0.05). Consequently, the rate of HBV reactivation was lower in patients who received antiviral prophylaxis than in those who did not (1.6% vs. 15.1%; p<0.01). Multivariate analysis revealed that male gender and antiviral prophylaxis were both related to reactivation of hepatitis B (p<0.05).

Conclusions

By using this reminder system, the overall screening rate for HBsAg was satisfactory, whereas the antiviral prophylaxis was inadequate in patients with solid tumors due to the varying compliance of the attending doctors. Further strategies to improve both screening and prophylaxis are needed to minimize HBV-related events during cytotoxic chemotherapy.

Lesson of the month 2: Severe reactivation of hepatitis B after immunosuppressive chemotherapy

Patients with current or past hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection are at risk of viral reactivation if they receive immune-modulating treatment or chemotherapy. This can range from subclinical elevation in HBV DNA levels, to abnormal liver function tests, to severe hepatitis with liver failure and risk of death. All patients should be screened for hepatitis B with surface antigen and core antibody before receiving immunosuppression. Patients with positive hepatitis B serology should be referred for specialist advice. Prophylactic antiviral treatment is recommended for patients with current/past hepatitis B who receive immunosuppressive chemotherapy.