Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Hepatitis B Virus Screening and Management in Patients With Hematologic or Solid Malignancies Anticipating Immunosuppressive Cancer Therapy

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.

Universal Viral Screening of Patients with Newly Diagnosed Cancer in the United States: A Cost-efficiency Evaluation

Recommendations for universal screening of patients with cancer for hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are inconsistent. A recent multisite screening study (S1204) from the SWOG Cancer Research Network found that a substantial number of patients with newly diagnosed cancer had previously unknown viral infections. The objective of this study was to determine the cost-efficiency of universal screening of patients with newly diagnosed cancer. We estimated the cost-efficiency of universal screening of new cancer cases for HBV, HCV, or HIV, expressed as cost per virus detected, from the health care payer perspective. The prevalence of each virus among this cohort was derived from S1204. Direct medical expenditures included costs associated with laboratory screening tests. Costs per case detected were estimated for each screening strategy. Secondary analysis examined the cost-efficiency of screening patients whose viral status at cancer diagnosis was unknown. Among the possible options for universal screening, screening for HBV alone ($581), HCV alone ($782), HBV and HCV ($631) and HBV, HCV, and HIV ($841) were most efficient in terms of cost per case detected. When screening was restricted to patients with unknown viral status, screening for HBV alone ($684), HBV and HCV ($872), HBV and HIV ($1,157), and all three viruses ($1,291) were most efficient in terms of cost per newly detected case. Efficient viral testing strategies represent a relatively modest addition to the overall cost of managing a patient with cancer. Screening for HBV, HCV, and HIV infections may be reasonable from both a budget and clinical standpoint.

SIGNIFICANCE

Screening patients with cancer for HBV, HCV, and HIV is inconsistent in clinical practice despite national recommendations and known risks of complications from viral infection. Our study shows that while costs of viral screening strategies vary by choice of tests, they present a modest addition to the cost of managing a patient with cancer.

Latent infection screening and prevalence in cancer patients born outside of Australia: a universal versus risk-based approach?

PURPOSE

Contention surrounds how best to screen patients for latent and undiagnosed infection prior to cancer treatment. Early treatment and prophylaxis against reactivation may improve infection-associated morbidity. This study sought to examine rates of screening and prevalence of latent infection in overseas-born patients receiving cancer therapies.

METHODS

A single-centre retrospective audit of 952 overseas-born patients receiving chemotherapy, targeted agents and immunotherapy between January 1 and December 31 2019 was undertaken at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre. Pre-treatment screening for hepatitis B (HBV), hepatitis C (HCV), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), latent tuberculosis (LTBI), toxoplasmosis and strongyloidiasis was audited.

RESULTS

Approximately half of our overseas-born patients were screened for HBV (58.9%) and HCV (50.7%). Fewer patients were screened for HIV (30.5%), LTBI (18.3%), strongyloidiasis (8.6%) or toxoplasmosis (8.1%). Although 59.7% of our patients were born in countries with high epidemiological risk for latent infection, according to World Health Organization data, 35% were not screened for any infection prior to commencement of therapy.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of latent infections amongst overseas-born patients with cancer, and complexities associated with risk-based screening, likely supports universal latent infection screening amongst this higher-risk cohort.

Hepatitis B Virus Screening and Management for Patients With Cancer Prior to Therapy: ASCO Provisional Clinical Opinion Update

PURPOSE

This Provisional Clinical Opinion update presents a clinically pragmatic approach to hepatitis B virus (HBV) screening and management.

PROVISIONAL CLINICAL OPINION

All patients anticipating systemic anticancer therapy should be tested for HBV by 3 tests-hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc) total immunoglobulin (Ig) or IgG, and antibody to hepatitis B surface antigen-but anticancer therapy should not be delayed. Findings of chronic HBV (HBsAg-positive) or past HBV (HBsAg-negative and anti-HBc-positive) infection require HBV reactivation risk assessment.Patients with chronic HBV receiving any systemic anticancer therapy should receive antiviral prophylactic therapy through and for minimum 12 months following anticancer therapy. Hormonal therapy alone should not pose a substantial risk of HBV reactivation in patients with chronic HBV receiving hormonal therapy alone; these patients may follow noncancer HBV monitoring and treatment guidance. Coordination of care with a clinician experienced in HBV management is recommended for patients with chronic HBV to determine HBV monitoring and long-term antiviral therapy after completion of anticancer therapy.Patients with past HBV infection undergoing anticancer therapies associated with a high risk of HBV reactivation, such as anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies or stem-cell transplantation, should receive antiviral prophylaxis during and for minimum 12 months after anticancer therapy completion, with individualized management thereafter. Careful monitoring may be an alternative if patients and providers can adhere to frequent, consistent follow-up so antiviral therapy may begin at the earliest sign of reactivation. Patients with past HBV undergoing other systemic anticancer therapies not clearly associated with a high risk of HBV reactivation should be monitored with HBsAg and alanine aminotransferase during cancer treatment; antiviral therapy should commence if HBV reactivation occurs.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

Hepatitis B reactivation: diagnosis and management

INTRODUCTION

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation can be induced by treatments that attenuate the immunological control over HBV, leading to increased morbidity and mortality. The risk of HBV reactivation is determined by host immunity, viral factors, and the type and dose of treatments. Nevertheless, the risk of HBV reactivation for a growing number of novel therapies remains uncertain and needs to be carefully examined. Identification of patients at risk and administration of prophylactic antiviral agents are critical to prevent HBV reactivation. Early diagnosis and initiation of antiviral treatment are the keys to avoid devastating outcomes.

AREA COVERED

We summarized the latest evidence and recommendations for risk stratification, early diagnosis, prophylaxis, and management of HBV reactivation.

EXPERT OPINION

Universal screening, adequate prophylaxis, and close monitoring are essential for the prevention of HBV reactivation. Risk stratification of patients at risk with appropriate antiviral prophylaxis can prevent HBV reactivation effectively. Several emerging biomarkers have been proved to help determine the risk precisely. Early detection and timely administration of antiviral agents are crucial for management. Further studies on the precision of risk stratification as well as the optimal duration of prophylaxis and treatment are needed to establish an individualized strategy.

Reactivation of hepatitis B virus infection in rheumatic diseases: risk and management considerations

In patients with rheumatic diseases undergoing immunosuppressive treatment, hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr) has been long recognized as a major treatment-related adverse event with substantial morbidity and mortality. Because HBVr is easily preventable with appropriate screening and monitoring strategies, and, when indicated, prophylactic antiviral treatment, awareness of this complication is of the utmost importance, especially in the era of biologic treatments. As a condition, it continues to be topical, in view of the emergence of novel classes of immunosuppressive drugs (i.e. Janus kinase inhibitors) acquiring licenses for a variety of rheumatic diseases. The class-specific risk of these agents for HBVr has not yet been determined. Moreover, ambiguity still exists for the management of patients planned to be treated with traditional agents, such as cyclophosphamide and glucocorticoids, particularly in the setting of resolved HBV infection. Clinicians in the field of rheumatic diseases should be tailoring their practice according to the host's profile and treatment-specific risk for HBVr. In this review, the authors attempt to critically review the existing literature and provide practical advice on these issues.

Serum alanine aminotransferase flares in chronic hepatitis B infection: the good and the bad

Chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection follows a dynamic and variable course. At different stages in the disease, hepatitis flares might occur, which can be challenging to predict and manage. Flares are believed to be primarily immune-mediated and might mark transitions to inactive disease or clearance of infection, but in certain scenarios they might also lead to hepatic decompensation or death. As such, understanding of the clinical significance of flares in different patient populations and different scenarios is important for optimal management. In this Review, we summarise what is known about flares in different stages of chronic HBV infection; describe flares in the context of the natural history of chronic infection; summarise the immunological mechanisms underlying flares, and describe flares in different clinical scenarios. Each section reviews existing knowledge and highlights key unanswered questions that need to be addressed to improve the understanding of flares, hopefully providing insights into their pathogenesis that can be used to improve current clinical management and ideally to further develop new curative therapeutic approaches for HBV infection. We also propose a working definition of an ALT flare to facilitate future research.