Risk stratification and clinical course of hepatitis B virus reactivation in rheumatoid arthritis patients with resolved infection: final report of a multicenter prospective observational study at Japanese Red Cross Hospital

What is the benefit of prophylaxis to prevent HBV reactivation in HBsAg-negative anti-HBc-positive patients? Meta-analysis and decision curve analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Patients with overt or occult hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection receiving immunosuppressive treatments have a wide risk of HBV reactivation (HBVr). We performed meta-analysis with decision curve analyses (DCA) to estimate the risk of HBVr in HBsAg-negative anti-HBc-positive patients naïve to nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs) receiving immunosuppressive treatments.

APPROACH AND RESULTS

Studies were identified through literature search until October 2022. Pooled estimates were obtained using random-effects model. Subgroup analyses were performed according to underlying disease and immunosuppressive treatments. DCA was used to identify the threshold probability associated with the net benefit of antiviral prophylaxis in HBsAg-negative anti-HBc-positive patients. We selected 68 studies (40 retrospective and 28 prospective), including 8034 patients with HBsAg negative anti-HBc positive. HBVr was 4% (95% CI 3%-6%) in HBsAg-negative anti-HBc-positive patients, with a significantly high heterogeneity (I2 69%; p < .01). The number-needed-to-treat (NNT) by DCA ranged from 8 to 24 for chemotherapy plus rituximab, from 12 to 24 for targeted therapies in cancer patients and from 13 to 39 for immune-mediated diseases. Net benefit was small for monoclonal antibodies.

CONCLUSIONS

Our DCA in HBsAg-negative anti-HBc-positive patients provided evidence that NA prophylaxis is strongly recommended in patients treated with chemotherapy combined with rituximab and could be appropriate in patients with cancer treated with targeted therapies and in patients with immune-mediated diseases. Finally, in patients with cancer treated with monoclonal antibodies or with chemotherapy without rituximab, the net benefit is even lower.

The Risk of Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Receiving Tocilizumab: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Tocilizumab has demonstrated optimal efficacy and safety in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from clinical trials. However, the risk of hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr) in these patients remains uncertain because patients with underlying HBV have been excluded in phase III studies.

METHODS

Systematical reviews were conducted on PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to 21 February 2023. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate the pooled incidence of HBV reactivation.

RESULTS

We included 0 clinical trials and 11 observational studies with a total of 25 HBsAg+ and 322 HBsAg-/anti-HBc+ RA patients. Among the HBsAg+ patients without antiviral prophylaxis, the pooled rate was 69.4% (95% CI, 32.9-91.3), with a median time of 4 months (range, 1-8 months) from tocilizumab initiated. Half of these patients with HBVr experienced hepatitis flare-up but no deaths. HBVr was eliminated with prophylaxis in this population. Among HBsAg-/anti-HBc+ patients, the pooled incidence of reactivation was 3.3% (95% CI, 1.6-6.7), with a median time of 10 months (range, 2-43 months) from tocilizumab initiated. HBVr was not associated with hepatitis flare-up and death. HBsAg-/anti-HBc+ patients without anti-HBs antibodies had a significantly higher risk of HBVr (Odds ratio, 12.20; 95% CI, 1.16-128.06).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review indicated that the risk of HBVr in RA patients with anti-HBs-, HBsAg+, or HBsAg-/anti-HBc+ cannot be ignored but may be avoided. Clinicians should consider implementing appropriate antiviral prophylaxis and monitoring policies for RA patients to avoid unnecessary hepatic side effects from tocilizumab treatment.

2022 EULAR recommendations for screening and prophylaxis of chronic and opportunistic infections in adults with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases

Objectives

To develop EULAR recommendations for screening and prophylaxis of chronic and opportunistic infections in patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD).

Methods

An international Task Force (TF) (22 members/15 countries) formulated recommendations, supported by systematic literature review findings. Level of evidence and grade of recommendation were assigned for each recommendation. Level of agreement was provided anonymously by each TF member.

Results

Four overarching principles (OAP) and eight recommendations were developed. The OAPs highlight the need for infections to be discussed with patients and with other medical specialties, in accordance with national regulations. In addition to biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for which screening for latent tuberculosis (TB) should be performed, screening could be considered also before conventional synthetic DMARDs, glucocorticoids and immunosuppressants. Interferon gamma release assay should be preferred over tuberculin skin test, where available. Hepatitis B (HBV) antiviral treatment should be guided by HBV status defined prior to starting antirheumatic drugs. All patients positive for hepatitis-C-RNA should be referred for antiviral treatment. Also, patients who are non-immune to varicella zoster virus should be informed about the availability of postexposure prophylaxis should they have contact with this pathogen. Prophylaxis againstPneumocystis jiroveciiseems to be beneficial in patients treated with daily doses >15–30 mg of prednisolone or equivalent for >2–4 weeks.

Conclusions

These recommendations provide guidance on the screening and prevention of chronic and opportunistic infections. Their adoption in clinical practice is recommended to standardise and optimise care to reduce the burden of opportunistic infections in people living with AIIRD.

Systematic literature review informing the 2022 EULAR recommendations for screening and prophylaxis of chronic and opportunistic infections in adults with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) on the screening and prophylaxis of opportunistic and chronic infections in autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD).

METHODS

SLR (inception-12/2021) based on the following search domains: (1) infectious agents, (2) AIIRD, (3) immunosuppressives/immunomodulators used in rheumatology, (4) screening terms and (5) prophylaxis terms. Articles were retrieved having the terms from (1) AND (2) AND (3) plus terms from (4) OR(5). Databases searched: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

studies on postoperative infections, paediatric AIIRD, COVID-19, vaccinations and non-Εnglish literature. Study quality was assessed with Newcastle-Ottawa scale for non-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), RoB-Cochrane for RCTs, AMSTAR2 for SLRs.

RESULTS

From 5641 studies were retrieved, 568 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, with 194 articles finally included. For tuberculosis, tuberculin skin test (TST) is affected by treatment with glucocorticoids and conventional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and its performance is inferior to interferon gamma release assay (IGRA). Agreement between TST and IGRA is moderate to low. For hepatitis B virus (HBV): risk of reactivation is increased in patients positive for hepatitis B surface antigen. Anti-HBcore positive patients are at low risk for reactivation but should be monitored periodically with liver function tests and/or HBV-viral load. Risk for Hepatitis C reactivation is existing but low in patients treated with biological DMARDs. For Pneumocystis jirovecii, prophylaxis treatment should be considered in patients treated with prednisolone ≥15-30 mg/day for >2-4 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Different screening and prophylaxis approaches are described in the literature, partly determined by individual patient and disease characteristics.

Prophylactic effect of tenofovir on viral reactivation in immunocompromised pregnant women living with hepatitis B virus

The appropriate prophylaxis for hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr) during gestation for immunocompromised pregnant women has yet to be determined. The prophylactic efficacy and safety of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)–positive patients and the HBVr risk in hepatitis B core antibody (HBcAb)–positive patients during gestation were investigated. Eligible pregnant women were diagnosed with rheumatic diseases and were administered prednisone (≤10 mg daily) with permitted immunosuppressants at screening. HBsAg‐positive participants were instructed to take TDF; those unwilling to take TDF were followed up as the control group. Propensity score matching was applied to control for differences in confounding factors between the HBcAb‐positive and uninfected groups. Hepatopathy, maternal, pregnancy, and safety outcomes were documented as endpoints. A cohort of 1292 women was recruited from 2017 to 2020, including 58 HBsAg‐positive patients (29 in each group). A total of 120 pairs in the HBcAb‐positive and noninfection groups were analyzed. Among HBsAg‐positive patients, 6 (20.7%) cases of hepatitis flare (hazard ratio [HR]: 7.44; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.50–36.89; p = 0.014) and 12 (41.4%) cases of HBVr (HR: 8.71; 95% CI: 2.80–27.17; p < 0.001) occurred in the control group, while 0 occurred in the TDF prophylaxis group. The HBV level at delivery was the lowest (1.6 log₁₀ IU/ml) for those who received TDF during the pregestation period with a good safety profile. More adverse maternal outcomes were observed in the control group (odds ratio: 0.19, 95% CI: 0.05–0.77, p = 0.021), including one death from fulminant hepatitis and two cases of vertical transmission. No HBVr was recorded in HBcAb‐positive participants. Among immunocompromised pregnant women, prophylactic TDF during pregestation was necessary for HBsAg‐positive women, whereas regular monitoring was recommended for HBcAb‐positive women.

Management of hepatitis B virus reactivation due to treatment of COVID-19

The world has made significant progress in developing novel treatments for COVID-19 since the pandemic began. Some treatments target the patient's dysregulated inflammatory response during COVID-19 infection and may cause hepatitis B reactivation (HBVr) in patients with current or past hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. This review summarizes the risk and management of HBVr due to different treatments of COVID-19 in patients who have current or past HBV infection. Abnormal liver function tests are common during COVID-19 infection. Current evidence suggests that current or past HBV infection is not associated with an increased risk of liver injury and severe disease in COVID-19 patients. Among patients who received high-dose corticosteroids, various immunosuppressive monoclonal antibodies and inhibitors of Janus kinase, the risk of HBVr exists, especially among those without antiviral prophylaxis. Data, however, remain scarce regarding the specific use of immunosuppressive therapies in COVID-19 patients with HBV infection. Some results are mainly extrapolated from patients receiving the same agents in other diseases. HBVr is a potentially life-threatening event following profound immunosuppression by COVID-19 therapies. Future studies should explore the use of immunosuppressive therapies in COVID-19 patients with HBV infection and the impact of antiviral prophylaxis on the risk of HBVr.

Can Intra-articular Injection of Glucocorticoids Be an Alternative Intervention to Achieve Remission in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis Exhibiting Low Disease Activity? A Single-Center Longitudinal Study

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

This study aimed at investigating whether a single intra-articular (IA) injection of triamcinolone acetonide (TA) could facilitate to achieve clinical remission in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) exhibiting low disease activity (LDA).

METHODS

This longitudinal study included 22 patients with RA exhibiting LDA involving wrist arthritis at our institution between April 2016 and March 2019. A single IA injection of 20 mg TA was administered into the symptomatic wrist joint. Efficacy was assessed by the primary end point of proportion of patients reaching clinical remission. Secondary end points included Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI), Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index, adverse events, and ultrasonographic assessment of the injected wrist joints.

RESULTS

Remission rates were 40% and 50% at weeks 4 and 12, respectively, and were maintained at approximately 50% until week 24. The secondary outcomes of CDAI, SDAI, and Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index were improved significantly at week 4, and the improvements in CDAI and SDAI continued up to week 24. Ultrasonography showed that synovial hypertrophy, power Doppler signals, and the combined score were significantly reduced at weeks 4, 12, and 24 compared with the baseline. No patient developed severe, irreversible adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately half of the patients with RA exhibiting LDA who received a single IA injection of TA into the wrist joints achieved clinical remission without serious adverse events in the midterm period, suggesting that IA injection of TA might be considered as an alternative intervention to achieve remission in patients with RA exhibiting LDA.

Incidence and predictors of fragility fracture in postmenopausal rheumatoid arthritis patients receiving oral bisphosphonates: a longitudinal observational study

Background

Although many studies have reported the predictors of fractures in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who are not receiving anti-osteoporotic treatments or who are receiving unspecified treatments, studies focusing on the predictors of fracture in patients with RA who are currently being treated with oral bisphosphonates (BP) are quite scarce. This study aims to investigate the incidence and predictors of fragility fracture in postmenopausal patients with RA receiving oral BP.

Methods

This retrospective longitudinal observational study comprised 98 postmenopausal RA patients receiving oral BP for a minimum of 6 months between April 2015 and December 2020. The cumulative incidence of fragility fractures including vertebral and nonvertebral fractures was investigated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Cox proportional hazards analysis was used to analyze baseline predictors of future fragility fractures. To determine a cutoff value of continuous predictors, the receiver-operating characteristic curve was applied.

Results

Twenty patients developed fractures during the study period, with a cumulative incidence of 6.1% at 12 months, 10.5% at a median follow-up of 28 months, and 14.4% at 36 months. Multivariable Cox hazards analysis showed a history of prior vertebral fracture (hazard ratio [HR] 6.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.99‒19.68, P = 0.001) and dose of methotrexate (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.76‒0.99, P = 0.041) to be independent predictors. The cutoff value for methotrexate dose was 4 mg/week.

Conclusions

We found a cumulative incidence of any fractures of 10.5% at 28 months in patients with RA currently being treated with oral BP. A history of prior vertebral fractures and methotrexate dose were positive and negative predictors for fractures, respectively. Practitioners should consider selecting another anti-osteoporotic drug in patients with RA who remain at risk despite receiving oral BP.

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.

Multidisciplinary Approach to Prevent de novo Hepatitis B in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

The reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is currently a social problem. Our hospital has established a project team, which consisted of medical staff including doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and technicians, to prevent HBV reactivation and subsequent de novo hepatitis B in 2015. To verify the usefulness of the team, we aimed to examine the implementation rate of HBV screening tests in patients with RA in 2011, 2015, and 2018. We also examined the rate of HBV infection, as well as the rate of HBV reactivation during the course. In this study, medical records of patients who visited our hospital in 2011, 2015, and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. HBV screening was completed when hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), hepatitis B surface antibody (HBsAb), and hepatitis B core antibody (HBcAb) were all examined. The prevalence of patients who completed HBV screening dramatically increased from 2.4% in 2011 to 79.1% in 2015 and 86.9% in 2018. Patients who completed the screening had significantly higher rates of liver dysfunction, methotrexate use, and use of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs than those who did not. Of the 767 patients who completed HBV screening in 2018, 157 patients (20.5%) had previously resolved HBV infection (HBsAg-negative but HBsAb- and/or HBcAb-positive). During a mean follow-up of 41.0 months, reactivation of HBV was observed in 10 out of the 157 patients (6.4%); however, none developed de novo hepatitis B. In conclusion, our multidisciplinary approach to prevent de novo hepatitis B is considered useful.

Treatment or Prophylaxis against Hepatitis B Virus Infection in Patients with Rheumatic Disease Undergoing Immunosuppressive Therapy: An Update

Chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) flares or reactivations are serious causes of morbidity or mortality in rheumatologic patients undergoing immunosuppressive therapy. The recent insights in the pathogenesis of rheumatic diseases led to the use of new immunosuppressive therapies indicated in case of failure, partial response, or intolerance of conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. Based on these premises, this review examines and discusses the main rheumatologic treatments that could require the initiation of prophylactic treatment or close monitoring of occult HBV infection in patients beginning antiviral therapy at the first signs of HBV reactivation, or antiviral treatment in chronic HBV-infected patients. We searched for relevant studies published in the last five years. Studies suggested that the presence of HBV infection is common in rheumatic patients and HBV reactivation during these immunosuppressant treatments is quite frequent in these kinds of patients. Therefore, before starting an immunosuppressive therapy, patients should be screened for HBsAg, anti-HBs, and anti-HBc and, on the basis of markers positivity, they should be carefully characterized for HBV infection phases. In conclusion, screening of HBV infection in patients undergoing immunosuppressive therapy with subsequent HBV monitoring, prophylaxis or treatment consistently reduces the risk of clinical consequences.

Updates on management strategies of hepatitis B virus reactivation in patients with resolved hepatitis virus B infection undergoing immunosuppressive therapy in rheumatology and the current situation in Niigata Rheumatic Center

With the introduction of methotrexate, biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs), the disease activity of patients with rheumatoid arthritis has been dramatically ameliorated. However, these drugs have strong immunosuppressive effects and can cause reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) in patients with resolved HBV infection. Corticosteroids or immunosuppressants used for other connective tissue diseases or vasculitis also carry a risk of inducing reactivation of HBV. Therefore, every rheumatologist should know how to detect the resolved infection of HBV in patients with rheumatic diseases receiving immunosuppressive therapy and how to monitor it when resolved infection is revealed. Of note, the cut-off index was changed from 2.1 log copies/ml to 20 IU/ml (1.3 Log IU/ml) in 2017. Rheumatologists should start nucleic acid analog administration at reactivation of HBV while performing ongoing immunosuppressive therapy in order to prevent severe or fulminant hepatitis. A low titer of HBs antibody (Ab) or lack of HBs Ab is a risk factor of reactivation of HBV. However, the reactivation of HBV cannot be prevented by HBs Ab titers at baseline or changes overtime. Rheumatologists should recognize that every immunosuppressive therapy, regardless of the mode of action, has a potential risk of reactivation. To facilitate proper management of patients with HBV infection, collaboration between rheumatologists and hepatologists is strongly encouraged. Patients' education, systems for checking electronic medical charts, and multidisciplinary efforts are considered important for detecting HBV reactivation.

Efficient Prophylactic Management of HBV Reactivation by an Information Technology Encoding System: Results of a 6-year Prospective Cohort Study

Objective We started an information technology (IT) system that encodes the medical treatment status of hepatitis B virrus (HBV) with a 9-digit number, automatically checks for inappropriate situations occurring due to immunosuppression and chemotherapy that do not comply with the flowchart of the hepatitis B countermeasure guideline, and promotes correct HBV medical treatment in our hospital. We conducted a prospective study of HBV reactivation using this system. Methods Among 21,607 cases that were managed using this system, 1,206 patients who were HBs antigen-negative, HBc antibody- and/or HBs antibody-positive and in whom HBV DNA quantification was performed two times or more were examined for the occurrence of HBV reactivation. The study population included: malignant lymphoma patients using rituximab (n=40), patients with malignant tumors using anticancer agents (n=546), patients treated with steroids (n=274), rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients (n=144), patients using immunosuppressants/biologics (n=26), and patients undergoing hepatitis C direct acting antiviral (DAA) treatment (n=176). Results HBV reactivation was observed in 27 cases undergoing treatment with the following agents: rituximab (n=6), anticancer agents (n=8), steroids (n=10), anti-RA agents (n=1), and hepatitis C DAA (n=2). Among the 40 patients who were using rituximab, 6 (18.2%) showed a high rate of reactivation. In 10 in which HBV reactivation occurred at a median of 10 (range, 4-32) months after steroid administration, 6 occurred after the 7th month, and 1 patient showed HBs antigen positivity and severe hepatitis. Conclusion Continuing of the operation of an automatic check system using coded medical information to check for the reactivation enabled this prospective study of HBV reactivation. Careful attention should be paid to patients using steroids, as well as malignant lymphoma patients who are treated with rituximab. The results of the present study suggest that the present IT encoding system would be useful for preventing HBV reactivation.