A Comparison of Entecavir and Lamivudine for the Prophylaxis of Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation in Solid Tumor Patients Undergoing Systemic Cytotoxic Chemotherapy

Risk of hepatitis B virus reactivation in cancer patients undergoing treatment with tyrosine kinase-inhibitors

This editorial commented on an article in the World Journal of Gastroenterology titled "Risks of Reactivation of Hepatitis B Virus in Oncological Patients Using Tyrosine Kinase-Inhibitors: Case Report and Literature Analysis" by Colapietro et al. In this editorial, we focused on providing a more comprehensive exploration of hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr) associated with the usage of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). It includes insights into the mechanisms underlying HBV reactivation, the temporal relationship between TKIs and HBV reactivation, and preventive measures. The aim is to understand the need for nucleos(t)ide analogs (NAT) and serial blood tests for early recognition of reactivation and acute liver injury, along with management strategies. TKIs are considered to be an intermediate (1%-10%) of HBVr. Current guidelines stipulate that patients receiving therapy with high or moderate risks of reactivation or recent cancer diagnosis must have at least tested hepatitis B surface antigen, anti-hepatitis B core antigen (HBc), and anti-hepatitis B surface antibody. Anti-HBc screening in highly endemic areas means people with negative tests should be vaccinated against HBV. Nucleoside or nucleotide analogs (NAs) like entecavir (ETV), tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), and tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) form the basis of HBV reactivation prophylaxis and treatment during immunosuppression. Conversely, lamivudine, telbivudine, and adefovir are generally discouraged due to their reduced antiviral efficacy and higher risk of fostering drug-resistant viral strains. However, these less effective NAs may still be utilized in cases where ETV, TDF, and TAF are not feasible treatment options.

Navigating the complex terrain of hepatitis B virus reactivation in the era of Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors

In this editorial, we offer a summary of the risk associated with hepatitis B reactivation (HBVr) in the setting of both solid and hematologic malignancies treated with Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors, with insights derived from current studies. Furthermore, we emphasize the critical need for a framework regarding robust risk evaluation in patients undergoing such treatments. This framework is essential for identifying those at increased risk of HBVr, enabling healthcare providers to implement proactive measures to prevent reactivation and ensure the safe administration of BTK inhibitor therapy.

Consensus Guidelines: Best Practices for the Prevention, Detection and Management of Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation in Clinical Trials with Immunosuppressive/Immunomodulatory Therapy

Hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr) during and after immunosuppressive/immunomodulatory (IS/IM) therapy is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, including hepatic decompensation and acute liver failure. The risk of HBVr with IS/IM has been heterogeneous and often unpredictable. As a result, patients with active or previous HBV infection are often excluded from clinical drug trials of such agents. Thorough screening for HBV infection, antiviral prophylaxis, and careful monitoring for HBVr have proven to be effective in reducing the rate of HBVr and improving its outcome in the context of IS/IM. Therefore, safe enrollment and management of certain HBV-marker-positive patients in clinical trials is possible. There is a great, unmet need for consistent, evidence-based recommendations for best practices pertaining to enrollment, monitoring, and management of HBVr in clinical trial participants receiving IS/IM. The aim of these consensus guidelines is to provide a step-by-step blueprint to safely enroll, monitor and manage the patient with inactive chronic or resolved HBV in IS/IM clinical trials from the time of screening through to the end of post-treatment follow up.

Long-term comparisons of the durability of 6 months versus 12 months antiviral therapy for hepatitis B after chemotherapy cessation

BACKGROUND

Prophylaxis antiviral therapy is recommended for patients with hepatitis B receiving chemotherapy but the ideal treatment duration after chemotherapy cessation needs more evidence for clarification.

AIMS

This study aimed to compare the relapse rate of short finite intervals of 6 months and 12 months of -nucleos(t)ide analogue (NA) therapy in patients stratified by low hepatitis B virus (HBV)-DNA of < 2000 IU/ml or high HBV DNA of ≥ 2000 IU/ml.

METHODS

Patients started tenofovir or entecavir treatment 1 week before chemotherapy and were assigned to different treatment duration groups randomly after stratified by HBV DNA pretreatment: (1) HBV DNA of < 2000 IU/ml at 6-month or 12-month duration; (2)HBV DNA of ≥ 2000 IU/ml at 6-month or 12-month duration. Virological relapse (VR) was defined as HBV DNA of > 2000 IU/ml, and clinical relapse (CR) was defined as HBV DNA of > 2000 IU/ml and alanine aminotransferase of > 80 IU/L during the follow-up period. The primary endpoint was to compare the durability between groups 1 year after antiviral therapy cessation. The secondary endpoint was VR and CR rate at long-term follow-up after antiviral therapy cessation.

RESULTS

This study enrolled 61 patients, and 5 patients were lost to follow-up or tumor recurrence. VR and CR rates were 46.4% and 14.3% at 1-year and 55.3% and 16.1%, at long-term follow-up, respectively. VR and CR rates demonstrated no difference between the groups. Pretreatment HBV DNA at ≥ 2000 IU/ml and end-of-treatment hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) at ≥ 500 IU/ml were the predictor of VR (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.98; p = 0.010 and HR: 2.38; p = 0.037).

CONCLUSIONS

Prolongation from 6 months to 12 months of NA consolidation after chemotherapy cessation did not affect the VR or CR of HBV. High pretreatment HBV DNA and end-of-treatment HBsAg levels could predict VR after antiviral therapy cessation for chemotherapy.

The Impact of Clinical Prognosis of Viral Hepatitis in Head and Neck Cancer Patients Receiving Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy

This study evaluated the clinical characteristics of head and neck cancer (HNC) patients with hepatitis B (HBV) or hepatitis C (HCV) who underwent concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) and examined the prognostic impact of antiviral therapies. In a 19-year retrospective analysis of 8224 HNC patients treated with CCRT, 29.8% (2452) were diagnosed with HBV or HCV, of whom 714 received antiviral therapy. For non-metastatic HNC patients on CCRT, factors such as gender, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), liver cirrhosis markers (Fibrosis-4, APRI), and initial tumor stage were significant determinants of their overall survival. However, the presence of HBV or HCV and the administration of antiviral treatments did not yield distinct survival outcomes. In summary, antiviral therapy for HBV or HCV did not affect the 5-year survival rates of non-metastatic HNC patients undergoing CCRT, while gender, tumor stage, CCI, and liver cirrhosis were notable prognostic indicators.

Prevention and management of hepatitis B virus reactivation in patients with hematological malignancies in the targeted therapy era

Hepatitis due to hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation can be serious and potentially fatal, but is preventable. HBV reactivation is most commonly reported in patients receiving chemotherapy, especially rituximab-containing therapy for hematological malignancies and those receiving stem cell transplantation. Patients with inactive and even resolved HBV infection still have persistence of HBV genomes in the liver. The expression of these silent genomes is controlled by the immune system. Suppression or ablation of immune cells, most importantly B cells, may lead to reactivation of seemingly resolved HBV infection. Thus, 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. Patients found to be positive for HBsAg should be given prophylactic antiviral therapy. For patients with resolved HBV infection, there are two approaches. The first is pre-emptive therapy guided by serial HBV DNA monitoring, and treatment with antiviral therapy as soon as HBV DNA becomes detectable. The second approach is prophylactic antiviral therapy, particularly for patients receiving high-risk therapy, especially anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Entecavir and tenofovir are the preferred antiviral choices. Many new effective therapies for hematological malignancies have been introduced in the past decade, for example, chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell therapy, novel monoclonal antibodies, bispecific antibody drug conjugates, and small molecule inhibitors, which may be associated with HBV reactivation. Although there is limited evidence to guide the optimal preventive measures, we recommend antiviral prophylaxis in HBsAg-positive patients receiving novel treatments, including Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors, B-cell lymphoma 2 inhibitors, and CAR-T cell therapy. Further studies are needed to determine the risk of HBV reactivation with these agents and the best prophylactic strategy.

Hepatitis B virus reactivation: overview and management

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) can hide in the liver in the form of covalently closed circular DNA. When the body’s immunity changes, HBV reactivation (HBV-R) can occur. The risk of HBV-R is determined by the complex interaction among virological factors, medication factors and host factors. However, many patients do not know that they are infected with HBV, and doctors often do not invest enough time to systematically evaluate the patient’s HBV-R risk factors before immunosuppressive treatment. Therefore, HBV clinical screening should be vigorously promoted to achieve early detection and early prevention for patients with high risk of HBV-R. The mechanism, clinical features, risk factors, HBV-R under different disease etiologies, prevention and treatment of HBV-R were summarized to improve the in-depth understanding and awareness.

Prevention of hepatitis B reactivation in patients requiring chemotherapy and immunosuppressive therapy

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation can lead to severe acute hepatic failure and death in patients with HBV infection. HBV reactivation (HBVr) most commonly develops in patients undergoing cancer chemotherapy, especially B cell-depleting agent therapy such as rituximab and ofatumumab for hematological or solid organ malignancies and that receiving hematopoietic stem cell transplantation without antiviral prophylaxis. In addition, the potential consequences of HBVr is particularly a concern when patients are exposed to either immunosuppressive or biologic therapies for the management of rheumatologic diseases, inflammatory bowel disease and dermatologic diseases. Thus, screening with HBV serological markers and prophylactic or pre-emptive antiviral treatment with nucleos(t)ide analogues should be considered in these patients to diminish the risk of HBVr. This review discusses the clinical manifestation, prognosis and management of HBVr, risk stratifications of cancer chemotherapy and immunosuppressive therapy and international guideline recommendations for the prevention of HBVr in patients with HBV infection and resolved hepatitis B.

Comparison of Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate and Entecavir in the Prophylaxis of HBV Reactivation

INTRODUCTION

Current guidelines recommend starting antiviral prophylaxis to prevent hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in patients receiving immunosuppressive treatments (IST). The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) for prophylaxis.

METHODS

Patients, who were HBsAg and/or anti-HBc IgG positive and scheduled to receive IST for oncologic and hematologic diseases, were enrolled into the study. Those who were already receiving an antiviral treatment for HBV or had an associated HIV, hepatitis C, D were excluded. The remaining patients with a prophylaxis indication according to the AGA guideline were randomized to receive either ETV (0.5 mg/day) or TDF (245 mg/day). Prophylaxis was continued for 6-12 months after completion of IST. Patients were followed up for 1 year after completion of prophylaxis. The HBV reactivation rates and side effects of the drugs were compared.

RESULTS

The study group included 120 patients. There was no significant difference between the demographic data, viral serologic parameters and reactivation risk profiles of the ETV (n = 60) and TDF (n = 60) groups. Forty-one patients in the ETV and 36 in the TDF group completed the antiviral prophylaxis, and no HBV reactivation was observed. HBV reactivation was observed in 4 of 37 patients (10.8%) in the ETV group and 5 of 35 (14.3%) patients in the TDF group (including one with flare) during the follow-up after completion of prophylaxis. Ten patients in the ETV group (16.7%) and 14 patients (23.3%) in the TDF group experienced side effects (p = 0.77). One patient in the TDF group had to switch to ETV due to severe itchy, maculopapular rash-like lesions.

CONCLUSIONS

ETV and TDF had a similar efficacy in the prophylaxis of HBV reactivation in patients undergoing IST, with none of the patients experiencing reactivation.

Management of Hepatitis-B Virus Infection in Immunocompromised Children: A Single Center Experience

OBJECTIVES

The aims of the study was to expand the pediatric experience on hepatitis-B virus (HBV) reactivation, a known complication in patients with hematologic malignancies or on immunosuppression.

METHODS

Retrospective appraisal of HBV therapy/prophylaxis in immunocompromised children, studied from April 2006 to March 2020.

RESULTS

Eighteen HBV-positive patients, 5 girls, median age 11.1 (4.1--17.9) years were included. Seventeen of 18 were immunosuppressed at HBV-infection diagnosis. Seventeen were at high risk of reactivation, 1 at moderate risk. Five of 18 had acute hepatitis B as first infection or reactivation, 6 had HBeAg-positive infection, 1 an HBeAg-negative infection and 6 HBsAg-negative infection. Median follow-up was 2.7 (0.7--12.5) years. No HBV-related mortality was observed. Prophylaxis had to be repeated in 1. Lamivudine was used in 6/12 viremic patients and HBV-DNA negativization obtained in 2/6 (33%). Tenofovir-DF was used in 2/12 and entecavir in 4/12: 100% attained HBV-DNA negativization. Therapy had to be switched from tenofovir-DF to entecavir in 1 patient because of renal impairment. Virological breakthroughs were observed in 1 lamivudine-treated patient, leading to a hepatitis flare; 1 patient on entecavir had a hepatitis flare at immunoreconstitution. Mortality was 33% in the HBsAg-positive group. Seven prophylactic treatments were administered to 6 patients with HBsAg-negative infection: tenofovir-DF in 2 HBV-DNA-positive, lamivudine in 5 HBV-DNA-negative, without reverse HBsAg seroconversion, morbidity or mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a residual risk of acute hepatitis B in immunocompromised children, mortality rate was substantial, potentially related to the delays in commencing chemotherapy caused by liver dysfunction. Tenofovir-DF or entecavir are the drugs of choice for HBV treatment in immunocompromised children.

High Risk of Clinical Relapse in Patients With Chronic Hepatitis B Virus Infection After Cessation of Prophylactic Antiviral Therapy for Rituximab-Containing Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Prophylaxis with nucleos(t)ide analogue (NA) is recommended to prevent hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-positive patients receiving rituximab-based B-cell depletion therapy. However, little is known about the risk of clinical relapse after withdrawal of NA.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 77 noncirrhotic HBsAg carriers with hematological cancer who received rituximab-containing chemotherapy. All of them received either prophylactic entecavir or tenofovir therapy. The risk of clinical relapse and hepatic decompensation after cessation of NA was explored.

RESULTS

Clinical relapse and hepatic decompensation developed in 25 (32.5 %) and 11 (14.3 %) of the patients, respectively, and 2 patients died of hepatic decompensation. Most of the hepatic events occurred within 1 year (20 of 25; 80.0%) after stopping NA. A higher pretreatment viral load (≥2000 vs <2000 IU/mL) was associated with increased risks of clinical relapse (hazard ratio, 3.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.56-7.73) and hepatic decompensation (9.91; 2.14-45.92). Of 51 patients with pretreatment viral load <2000 IU/mL, clinical relapse occurred in 10 (19.6 %) and hepatic decompensation in 2 (3.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Pretreatment HBV DNA ≥2000 IU/mL is associated with increased risk of liver-related disease after cessation of prophylactic NA therapy in patients who received rituximab-containing chemotherapy.

Efficacy of telbivudine and entecavir against virus reactivation in HBeAg-patients undergoing chemotherapy

The renal protective effect of telbivudine (LdT) was verified by a previous meta-analysis. It was left unclear, however if this effect offsets the associated risk of virological breakthrough in hepatitis B e-antigen-negative (HBeAg-) patients receiving chemotherapy (C/T).Records of 260 HBeAg-, non-cirrhotic cancer patients undergoing systemic C/T with prophylactic LdT or entecavir (ETV) were retrospectively investigated. The investigation was conducted 6 months after completion of C/T, patient death from cancer, or antiviral modification. Treatment duration, outcome, change of renal function, and reason for antiviral modification were analyzed. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of virological breakthrough during prophylaxis C/T and the change in renal function.Of the 126 HBeAg- patients treated with LdT, 3 (2.38%) experienced HBV virological breakthroughs, whereas none of the patients treated with ETV (P = .07) did. The estimated glomerular filtration rate for the patients treated with LdT was essentially unaltered, decreasing only slightly from 87.5 ± 23.1 to 87.3 ± 21.3 ml/minute/1.73 m (P = .55), while the rate for the ETV-treated patients was significantly lowered from 95.7 ± 32.2 to 85.5 ± 85.7 ml/minute/1.73 m (P = .0009).The absolute risk reduction ARR is 27.8% - 21.2% = 6.6%, comparing ETV with LdT for reduction of renal function impairment and the absolute risk increase for virological breakthrough during C/T, the absolute risk increase (ARI) is 2.38% - 0% = 2.38%. The overall likelihood of being helped over being harmed was 2.77. With careful selection of patients with the criteria of HBeAg-status and non-hematologic cancer, it is feasible that telbivudine raise lower probability of virological breakthroughs during prophylaxis treatment.

Management of Hepatitis B Virus Infection and Prevention of Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation in Children With Acquired Immunodeficiencies or Undergoing Immune Suppressive, Cytotoxic, or Biological Modifier Therapies

Reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) is a known complication of immune-suppressive, cytotoxic, and biological modifier therapies in patients currently infected with HBV or who have had past exposure to HBV. Nowadays, newer and emerging forms of targeted biologic therapies are available for the management of rheumatologic conditions, malignancies, inflammatory bowel disease, dermatologic conditions and solid-organ, bone marrow, or haematologic stem cell transplant but there is currently a lack of a systematic approach to the care of patients with or at risk of HBV reactivation. The Hepatology Committee of the European Society of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) together with a working group of ESPGHAN members with clinical and research expertise in viral hepatitis developed an evidence-based position paper on reactivation of HBV infection in children identifying pertinent issues addressing the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of this condition. Relevant clinical questions were formulated and agreed upon by all the members of the working group. Questions were answered and positions were based on evidence resulting from a systematic literature search on PubMed and Embase from their inception to July 1, 2019. A document was produced and the working group and ESPGHAN Hepatology Committee members voted on each recommendation, using a formal voting technique. A recommendation was accepted provided upon agreement by at least 75% of the working group members. This position paper provides a comprehensive update on the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of HBV reactivation in children.

Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation in the Setting of Immunosuppressive Drug Therapy

Chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection remains a global health burden, affecting an estimated 257 million people, and is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality due to cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Reactivation of HBV infection among individuals with resolved and/or chronic HBV infection may result in clinical hepatitis with a rise in serum HBV DNA and serum alanine aminotransferase, and delayed identification may result in fulminant hepatitis and fatal liver failure. Routine screening for HBV is recommended in patients undergoing immunosuppressive drug regimens known to be associated with HBV reactivation (HBVr). A subset of patients identified to have positive hepatitis B surface antigen and/or hepatitis B core antibody may require preemptive antiviral therapy to reduce the risk of HBVr. This article summarizes the current evidence and society guidelines governing the evaluation and management of HBVr in the context of cancer chemotherapy and immunosuppressive drug therapy.

Hematological Malignancies and HBV Reactivation Risk: Suggestions for Clinical Management

It is well known that hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr) can occur among patients undergoing treatment for hematological malignancies (HM). The evaluation of HBVr risk in patients undergoing immunosuppressive treatments is a multidimensional process, which includes conducting an accurate clinical history and physical examination, consideration of the virological categories, of the medication chosen to treat these hematological malignancies and the degree of immunosuppression induced. Once the risk of reactivation has been defined, it is crucial to adopt adequate management strategies (should reactivation occur). The purpose of treatment is to prevent dire clinical consequences of HBVr such as acute/fulminant hepatitis, and liver failure. Treatment will be instituted according to the indications and evidence provided by current international recommendations and to prevent interruption of lifesaving anti-neoplastic treatments. In this paper, we will present the available data regarding the risk of HBVr in this special population of immunosuppressed patients and explore the relevance of effective prevention and management of this potentially life-threatening event. A computerized literature search was performed using appropriate terms to discover relevant articles. Current evidence supports the policy of universal HBV testing of patients scheduled to undergo treatment for hematological malignancies, and clinicians should be aware of the inherent risk of viral reactivation among the different virological categories and classes of immunosuppressive drugs.

Rituximab increases the risk of hepatitis B virus reactivation in non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients who are hepatitis B surface antigen-positive or have resolved hepatitis B virus infection in a real-world setting: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation with a hepatitis flare is a common complication in lymphoma patients treated with immunotherapy and/or chemotherapy. Anti-HBV prophylaxis is suggested for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients undergoing rituximab therapy, even those with resolved HBV infection. Since anti-HBV prophylaxis for patients with resolved HBV infection is not covered by national health insurance in Taiwan, a proportion of these patients receive no prophylaxis. In addition, late HBV reactivation has emerged as a new issue in recent reports, and no consensus has been reached for the optimal duration of antiviral prophylaxis. Thus, the aim of our study was to investigate the incidence and outcomes of HBV reactivation in NHL patients in a real-world setting and to study the frequency of late HBV reactivation.

MATERIALS

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients who received rituximab and/or chemotherapy at our institute between January 2011 and December 2015 and who were hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)- or hepatitis B core antibody (HBcAb)-positive were reviewed retrospectively.

RESULTS

A total of 388 patients were screened between January 2011 and December 2015. In total, 196 patients were excluded because HBsAg was not assessed, HBcAb was negative or not assessed, or they were not treated with immunosuppressive therapy. Finally, the retrospective study included 62 HBsAg-positive NHL patients and 130 NHL patients with resolved HBV infection (HBsAg-negative and HBcAb-positive). During a median 30.5-month follow-up period, seven patients experienced HBV reactivation, five of whom had a hepatitis flare. The incidence of HBV reactivation did not significantly differ between the HBsAg-positive patients and the resolved HBV infection population without anti-HBV prophylaxis (4.8% vs. 3.1%, P = 0.683). All patients with HBV reactivation were exposed to rituximab. Notably, late HBV reactivation was not uncommon (two of seven patients with HBV reactivation events, 28.6%). Hepatitis B virus reactivation did not influence the patients' overall survival. An age ≥65 years and an advanced disease stage were independent risk factors for poorer overall survival.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of HBV reactivation was similar between the HBsAg-positive patients with antiviral prophylaxis and the resolved HBV infection population without anti-HBV prophylaxis. All HBV reactivation events occurred in NHL patients exposed to rituximab. Late reactivation was not uncommon. The duration of regular liver function monitoring for more than 1 year after immunosuppressive therapy or after withdrawal of prophylactic antiviral therapy should be prolonged. Determining the exact optimal duration of anti-HBV prophylaxis is warranted in a future prospective study for NHL patients treated with rituximab-containing therapy.

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.

Scoring system for risk stratification of viral reactivation during prophylactic antiviral treatment in Korean patients with hepatitis B undergoing anticancer chemotherapy: A multicenter study

Prophylactic antiviral therapy is recommended for hepatitis B virus (HBV)-infected patients with malignancies who are undergoing systemic chemotherapy. In the current study, we aimed to develop a risk scoring system to guide the selection of prophylactic antiviral agents. In this retrospective analysis, we included consecutive chronic hepatitis B patients who received antiviral prophylaxis for chemotherapy of solid or hematologic malignancies at three large-volume hospitals in Korea. The primary endpoint was HBV reactivation. The inverse probability treatment weighting method was used to minimize selection bias in terms of antiviral assignments. A total of 419 patients were enrolled: 129 patients received lamivudine (LAM), 216 received telbivudine (LdT), and 74 received entecavir (ETV), respectively. Of these, 36 patients developed on-treatment HBV reactivation (LAM, 17; LdT, 18; ETV, 1). Multivariate analysis identified three independent predictors for reactivation: hepatitis B e-antigen positivity, HBV DNA level, and type of malignancy. Accordingly, a risk scoring system was developed wherein one point was assigned for each of the risk factors. HBV reactivation occurred more frequently in the high-risk group (score ≥ 2) than in the low-risk group (hazards ratio, 14.17; P < 0.001). ETV exhibited superior prophylactic efficacy over LdT or LAM in the high-risk group, whereas no significant difference was noted in the low-risk group. The prognostic scoring system was useful for risk stratification of chemotherapy-related HBV reactivation. High genetic barrier agents appear to be vital for high-risk patients, whereas cost-effectiveness may be more relevant for low-risk patients.

An expert consensus for the management of chronic hepatitis B in Asian Americans

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is common with major clinical consequences. In Asian Americans, the HBsAg carrier rate ranges from 2% to 16% which approximates the rates from their countries of origin. Similarly, HBV is the most important cause of cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and liver related deaths in HBsAg positive Asians worldwide.

AIM

To generate recommendations for the management of Asian Americans infected with HBV.

METHODS

These guidelines are based on relevant data derived from medical reports on HBV from Asian countries as well as from studies in the HBsAg positive Asian Americans. The guidelines herein differ from other recommendations in the treatment of both HBeAg positive and negative chronic hepatitis B (CHB), in the approach to HCC surveillance, and in the management of HBV in pregnant women.

RESULTS

Asian American patients, HBeAg positive or negative, with HBV DNA levels >2000 IU/mL (>10⁴ copies/mL) and ALT values above normal are candidates for anti-viral therapy. HBeAg negative patients with HBV DNA >2000 IU/mL and normal ALT levels but who have either serum albumin <3.5 g/dL or platelet count <130 000 mm³ , basal core promoter (BCP) mutations, or who have first-degree relatives with HCC should be offered treatment. Patients with cirrhosis and detectable HBV DNA must receive life-long anti-viral therapy. Indications for treatment include pregnant women with high viraemia, coinfected patients, and those requiring immunosuppressive therapy. In HBsAg positive patients with risk factors, life-long surveillance for HCC with alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) testing and abdominal ultrasound examination at 6-month intervals is required. In CHB patients receiving HCC treatments, repeat imaging with contrast CT scan or MRI at 3-month intervals is strongly recommended. These guidelines have been assigned to a Class (reflecting benefit vs. risk) and a Level (assessing strength or certainty) of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Application of the recommendations made based on a review of the relevant literature and the opinion of a panel of Asian American physicians with expertise in HBV treatment will inform physicians and improve patient outcomes.

Management of chronic viral hepatitis in the hematological patient

INTRODUCTION

Infection with HBV and HCV represents a growing challenge in the management of patients with hematological malignancies. Recently, hepatitis E (HEV) was recognized as an endemic infection in developed countries and as an emerging health problem in immunocompromised patients. Areas covered: We reviewed the current knowledge on the impact of chronic viral hepatitis in the hematological setting. Epidemiological features, screening strategies and indications for treatment and monitoring have been explored and commented. Expert commentary: Knowing patient's complete HBV serostatus is mandatory in order to choose between treatment, prophylaxis or a pre-emptive approach. Recent guidelines favor treatment with high barrier molecules in all patients with chronic HBV infection and long lasting prophylaxis with those with inactive or resolved one. With regard to HCV, the new direct-acting antiviral agents have been safely administered in the hematological setting. Their use as first-line single treatment in indolent lymphomas, and combined with chemotherapy in aggressive ones, should be considered. Due to the existing risk of chronic HEV infection in the immunocompromised, screening with serum HEV-RNA should be performed in case of signs and symptoms indicative of hepatitis. In the event of HEV infection, reduction of immunosuppression and, if not feasible or unsuccessful, ribavirin treatment should be prescribed.

Hepatitis B in patients with hematological diseases: An update

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation (HBVr) in patients undergoing immunosuppressive therapy is still a hot topic worldwide. Its prevention and management still represents a challenge for specialists dealing with immunosuppressed patients. Aim of this paper is to provide a critical review of the relevant information emerged in the recent literature regarding HBV reactivation following immunosuppressive treatments for oncohematological tumors. A computerized literature search in MEDLINE was performed using appropriate terms arrangement, including English-written literature only or additional relevant articles. Articles published only in abstract form and case reports not giving considerable news were excluded. Clinical manifestation of HBVr can be manifold, ranging from asymptomatic self-limiting anicteric hepatitis to life-threatening fulminant liver failure. In clusters of patients adverse outcomes are potentially predictable. Clinicians should be aware of the inherent risk of HBVr among the different virological categories (active carriers, occult HBV carriers and inactive carriers, the most intriguing category), and classes of immunosuppressive drugs. We recommend that patients undergoing immunosuppressive treatments for hematological malignancies should undergo HBV screening. In case of serological sign(s) of current or past infection with the virus, appropriate therapeutic or preventive strategies are suggested, according to both virological categories, risk of HBVr by immunosuppressive drugs and liver status. Either antiviral drug management and surveillance and pre-emptive approach are examined, commenting the current international recommendations about this debated issue.

Chronic Hepatitis B, C, and D

Chronic hepatitis B, C, and D virus infections contribute significantly to the morbidity and mortality of immunocompromised individuals. To contextualize discussion of these infections in immunocompromised patients, this paper provides an overview of aspects of infection in normal hosts. It then describes differences in disease, diagnostic testing, and therapeutic management observed in immunocompromised patients.

Hepatitis B virus reactivation and antiviral prophylaxis during lung cancer chemotherapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Antiviral drugs have been recommended as prophylaxis for the reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. However, screening and antiviral prophylaxis for lung cancer remain controversial because of insufficient evidence.

Purpose

In this study, we investigate the absolute risk for HBV reactivation and the prophylactic effects of antiviral drugs in hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-positive lung cancer patients during chemotherapy.

Methods

We searched Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science and SinoMed from inception until 28 November 2016, and identified all potential relevant references with or without prophylactic use of antiviral therapy in HBsAg-positive lung cancer patients during chemotherapy. The primary outcome was the incidence of HBV reactivation, the secondary outcomes were the incidence of hepatitis, chemotherapy disruption and mortality.

Results

Eleven studies involving 794 patients were analyzed. The incidences of HBV reactivation in control group and antiviral prophylaxis group ranged from 0% to 38% (median, 21%, 95% CI: 0.17–0.25) and 0% to 7% (median, 4%, 95% CI: 0.02–0.06), respectively. Antiviral prophylaxis had significantly reduced the risk for HBV reactivation (RR, 0.22 [95% CI: 0.13–0.37], p< 0.0001), hepatitis (RR, 0.35 [95% CI: 0.22–0.56], p<0.0001) and chemotherapy disruption (RR: 0.29 [95% CI, 0.15–0.55], p<0.0002) compared to those without antiviral prophylaxis. There was no significant heterogeneity in the comparisons, and a fixed-model was used.

Conclusion

The risks of HBV reactivation and relevant complications are high in HBsAg-positive lung cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, and available evidences support HBV screening for antiviral prophylaxis before initiation of chemotherapy for lung cancer patients.

Hepatitis B Reactivation Associated With Immune Suppressive and Biological Modifier Therapies: Current Concepts, Management Strategies, and Future Directions

Hepatitis B reactivation associated with immune-suppressive and biological therapies is emerging to be an important cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with current or prior exposure to hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. The population at risk for HBV reactivation includes those who either currently are infected with HBV or have had past exposure to HBV. Because curative and eradicative therapy for HBV is not currently available, there is a large reservoir of individuals at risk for HBV reactivation in the general population. HBV reactivation with its potential consequences is particularly a concern when these people are exposed to either cancer chemotherapy, immunosuppressive or biologic therapies for the management of rheumatologic conditions, malignancies, inflammatory bowel disease, dermatologic conditions, or solid-organ or bone marrow transplantation. With the advent of newer and emerging forms of targeted biologic therapies, it has become important to understand the mechanisms whereby certain therapies are more prone to HBV reactivation. This review provides a comprehensive update on the current concepts, risk factors, molecular mechanisms, prevention, and management of hepatitis B reactivation. In addition, we provide recommendations for future research in this area.

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.

Recent advances in treatment of chronic hepatitis B with entecavir

Entecavir (ETV) is a potent hepatitis B virus inhibitor with a high barrier to resistance, and it has been recommended as one of the first-line drugs for treating chronic hepatitis B (CHB) by guidelines from several international and national societies. This paper reviews the recent advances in the treatment of CHB with ETV, in terms of treatment adherence, efficacy in the treatment of various kinds of patients with CHB, management of patients with partial virological response, viral resistance or treatment failure to ETV, treatment cessation, sequential or combination therapy with ETV and pegylated interferon, as well as the surveillance of hepatocellular carcinoma.

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.

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.

Prevention of Hepatitis B reactivation in the setting of immunosuppression

Advances in the treatment of malignant and inflammatory diseases have developed over time, with increasing use of chemotherapeutic and immunosuppressive agents of a range of drug classes with varying mechanism and potency in their effects on the immune system. These advances have been met with the challenge of increased risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in susceptible individuals. The magnitude of risk of HBV reactivation is associated with the individual’s HBV serological status and the potency and duration of immunosuppression. Individuals with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) and previously infected but serologically cleared HBV infection are both susceptible to HBV reactivation. HBV reactivation in the setting of immunosuppression is a potentially life threatening condition leading to liver failure and death in extreme cases. It is important to recognize that HBV reactivation in the setting of immunosuppression is potentially preventable. Therefore, identification of patients at risk of HBV reactivation and institution of prophylactic antiviral therapy prior to initiation of immunosuppression is essential.

The effect of anticancer therapy on anti-hepatitis B antibody titres in patients with haematological malignancies and solid tumours

Objective

To investigate the effect of immunosuppressive anticancer therapy on titre levels of anti-hepatitis B surface antibodies (anti-HBs) in hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) negative and anti-HBs positive patients with haematological malignancies or solid tumours.

Methods

This retrospective study reviewed the medical records of patients with haematological malignancies or solid tumours. Pretreatment HBsAg negative and anti-HBs positive patients were included in the analysis. Anti-hepatitis B core antibody status was used to evaluate vaccinated patients and those with resolved HBV infections.

Results

The medical records of 237 patients were reviewed retrospectively. The median anti-HBs titre decreased significantly after anticancer therapy compared with the pretreatment median anti-HBs titre in all patients (71 mIU/ml versus 57 mIU/ml). Anti-HBs titre decreased significantly in patients with haematological malignancies (70 mIU/m versus 37 mIU/ml) and in patients administered rituximab-based chemotherapy (67 mIU/ml versus 33 mIU/ml) following chemotherapy, whereas there was no significant change in patients with solid tumours. After chemotherapy, patients with low pretreatment anti-HBs titres (<100 mIU/ml) were more likely to become seronegative (<10 mIU/ml).

Conclusion

High levels of anti-HBs may have a protective effect against the reactivation of HBV especially in patients with haematological malignancies who received immunosuppressive anticancer therapy.

Progress in prevention and treatment of HBV reactivation associated with chemotherapy in malignant tumor patients

It is believed that malignant tumor patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection show a higher incidence of reactivation of HBV after receiving chemotherapy, which is fatal, suggesting that awareness of HBV reactivation and the principles of prevention and treatment is important. There are many studies on HBV reactivation, however, the data are scattered. Here, we summarize the current understanding of the prevention and treatment of HBV reactivation in malignant tumor patients with HBV after receiving chemotherapy, aiming at providing routine screening and treatment for these patients which protect them against reactivation of HBV and improve the quality of life of patients.

Prevention and management of hepatitis B virus reactivation in cancer patients

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation during immunosuppressive therapy is common in patients with solid tumor or hematological malignancies. It is associated with significant morbidity and mortality due to hepatitis flare and/or hepatic decompensation. These consequences arising from HBV reactivation are, however, largely preventable. Routine screening for HBV serologic status is recommended for all cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy or biologics. By recognizing different serological patterns (which represent either overt or occult HBV infection) and the types of immunosuppressive therapies prescribed, a risk-adapted approach can be established. Prophylactic therapy with nucleos(t)ide analogues (prior to or concomitantly with the commencement of immunosuppressive therapies) is more effective than pre-emptive therapy (starting antiviral when HBV DNA level is rising) in high-risk individuals. Entecavir has been proven to be more effective than lamivudine according to recent studies. Close monitoring of serum HBV level is the preferred strategy in low-risk patients. However, the optimal interval of DNA monitoring and the duration of therapy remain unknown.

Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation and Prophylaxis During Solid Tumor Chemotherapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Solid tumor chemotherapy regimens pose a risk for hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation, but screening and antiviral prophylaxis remains controversial because of insufficient evidence.

PURPOSE

To determine the risk for HBV reactivation with and without antiviral prophylaxis and the effectiveness of prophylaxis in adults with solid tumors and chronic or resolved HBV infection.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE through 1 July 2015 and Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, TOXNET, and Scopus through 1 March 2015.

STUDY SELECTION

26 English-language observational studies and randomized, controlled trials in patients with chronic or resolved HBV receiving chemotherapy for solid tumors.

DATA EXTRACTION

Study characteristics, quality, and risk of bias were assessed by 1 researcher and verified by another independent researcher.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Random-effects model meta-analyses were used to estimate the risk and odds ratio (OR) of reactivation with versus without antiviral prophylaxis. Reactivation in chronic HBV without prophylaxis ranged from 4% to 68% (median, 25%) with substantial heterogeneity. Prophylaxis reduced the risk for HBV reactivation (OR, 0.12 [95% CI, 0.06 to 0.22]), HBV-related hepatitis (OR, 0.18 [CI, 0.10 to 0.32]), and chemotherapy interruption (OR, 0.10 [CI, 0.04 to 0.27]). In 3 studies of patients with resolved HBV infection, none received HBV prophylaxis and reactivation risk ranged from 0.3% to 9.0%.

LIMITATIONS

Significant heterogeneity in underlying study populations and treatment regimens, incomplete baseline data, possibility of publication bias, and limited study quality. Most studies were observational and from Asia.

CONCLUSION

In patients with chronic HBV receiving solid tumor chemotherapy, the risk for HBV reactivation is similar to the risk with other types of immunosuppressive therapy. Results support HBV screening and antiviral prophylaxis before initiation of chemotherapy for solid tumors.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and National Institutes of Health.