Prevention of hepatitis B virus reactivation under rituximab therapy

Systematic review with network meta-analysis: Comparative efficacy of oral nucleos(t)ide analogues for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced hepatitis B virus reactivation

Objectives

Currently, no consensus exists regarding the optimal oral prophylactic regimens for hepatitis B surface antigen seropositive patients undergoing chemotherapy. We aimed to compare the efficacy of oral nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs), including lamivudine, entecavir, adefovir, telbivudine and tenofovir, for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation and its related morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic HBV (CHB) infection.

Results

Fifty-two eligible articles consisting of 3892 participants were included. For HBV reactivation, prophylactic treatment with NAs were all significantly superior to no prophylaxis, with odds ratio (OR) from 0.00 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.00~0.04) for the most effective intervention (tenofovir) to 0.10 (95% CI 0.06~0.14) for the least effective intervention (lamivudine). For secondary outcomes, prophylaxis with NAs also significantly outperformed observation. The results suggested that entecavir reduced the risk of HBV related hepatitis (predicted probability, 83%), HBV related death (68%) and all causes of hepatitis (97%) most efficaciously. It ranked second in decreasing all causes of death (34%).

Materials and Methods

PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library database were searched for controlled trials up to March 31, 2015. Primary outcome was the incidence of HBV reactivation. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of HBV-related hepatitis and death, all causes of hepatitis and death. Network meta-analysis combined direct and indirect evidence to estimate ORs for the clinical outcomes. A mean ranking and the probability of optimal therapeutic regime was obtained for each treatment based on clinical outcomes.

Conclusions

Available evidence suggests that prophylatic therapy with tenofovir and entecavir may be the most potent interventions in prevention of HBV reactivation and HBV-related morbidity and mortality for CHB infection patients undergoing chemotherapy.

Nucleos(t)ide analogues for preventing HBV reactivation in immunosuppressed patients with hematological malignancies: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of five oral nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs), including lamivudine, entecavir, adefovir, telbivudine and tenofovir, for the prevention of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation and HBV-related complications in chronic hepatitis B virus (CHB) infected patients with hematological malignancies receiving chemotherapy or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) by network meta-analysis.

METHODS

The search identified 28 articles involving 5 different prophylactic regimens covering 1478 participants.

RESULTS

Among five prophylactic regimes, tenofovir (predicted probability, 90%), was the most effective intervention followed by entecavir (88%) in preventing HBV reactivation. There was no significant difference between tenofovir and entecavir for preventing HBV reactivation. With regards to other outcomes, tenofovir and telbivudine was not included to evaluate due to lack of relevant studies. Entecavir was the most effective intervention in reducing the risk of HBV related hepatitis (100%), HBV related death (61%) and all other causes of hepatitis (98%).

CONCLUSION

Tenofovir and entecavir might be the most potent regimes in prevention of HBV reactivation for CHB infected patients with hematological malignancies undergoing chemotherapy or HSCT.

Screening for hepatitis B in patients with lymphoma

Chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection can be reactivated during lymphoma chemotherapy, specifically with rituximab. In 2008, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and, in 2010, the American Society of Clinical Oncology made recommendations that anyone who received cytotoxic or immunosuppressive therapy should be tested for serologic markers of HBV infection. In our study, we wanted to determine the screening rates for HBV infection at our institution and if simply adding a checkbox onto the rituximab order would improve HBV screening. We performed a retrospective chart review of two cohorts of lymphoma patients at Scott & White Health Clinic. Cohort 1 included patients from 1993 to 2008. Cohort 2 included patients who received rituximab after an institutionwide protocol (rituximab order checkbox) was initiated in 2011. A total of 452 patients treated for lymphoma were reviewed. Only 15 of the 404 Cohort 1 patients received HBV screening (3.7%; 95% confidence interval, 2.1%-6.1%). Screening rates were statistically higher if baseline liver laboratory values were elevated (P < 0.0001). HBV was also checked more frequently if patients' liver function tests became elevated while on chemotherapy, 85.7% (12/14). Of the 48 patients in Cohort 2, 33 patients (68.7%) received HBV screening. No patients in either cohort had a positive HBV surface antigen or developed reactivation of HBV during chemotherapy. The addition of a checkbox on the rituximab order form significantly increased our screening for HBV infection in lymphoma patients initiating chemotherapy.

Hepatitis B virus reactivation with a rituximab-containing regimen

Rituximab is currently used not only in the treatment of B-cell lymphoma but also for various other diseases, including autoimmune diseases, post-transplant graft vs host disease, and rejection following kidney transplants. Due to rituximab’s widespread use, great progress has been made regarding research into complications that arise from its use, one of the most serious being the reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV), and efforts continue to establish guidelines for preventive treatment against this occurrence. This report discusses preventive measures against rituximab-induced HBV reactivation and future objectives.

Antiviral prophylaxis in patients with solid tumours and haematological malignancies--update of the Guidelines of the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society for Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO)

Reactivation of viral infections is common in patients with solid tumour or haematological malignancy. Incidence and severity depend on the extent of cellular immunosuppression. Antiviral prophylaxis may be effective to prevent viral reactivation. In 2006, the Infectious Diseases Working Party of German Society for Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO) published guidelines for antiviral prophylaxis in these patient populations. Here, we present an update of these guidelines for patients with solid and haematological malignancies undergoing antineoplastic treatment but not allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Relevant literature for reactivation of different viruses (herpes simplex virus (HSV), varicella zoster virus (VZV), hepatitis B virus (HBV) and respiratory viruses) is discussed to provide evidence-based recommendations for clinicians taking care of this patient population. We recommend a risk-adapted approach with (val)acyclovir against HSV and VZV in patients treated with alemtuzumab, bortezomib or purine analogues. Seasonal vaccination against influenza is recommended for all patients with solid or haematological malignancies regardless of antineoplastic therapy. Hepatitis B screening is recommended in lymphoproliferative disorders, acute leukaemia, and breast cancer, and during treatment with monoclonal anti-B-cell antibodies, anthracyclines, steroids and in autologous stem cell transplantation. In those with a history of hepatitis B prophylactic lamivudine, entecavir or nucleotide analogues as adefovir are recommended to prevent reactivation.

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

Background

National organizations recommend screening for hepatitis B virus (HBV) before chemotherapy but differ regarding which patients should be screened. We aimed to determine contemporary screening rates at a cancer center and the possible influence on these rates of publication of national recommendations.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of HBV screening in cancer patients registered during the period from January 2004 through April 2011. Screening was defined as HBsAg and anti-HBc tests ordered around the time of initial chemotherapy. We compared screening rates for 3 periods: January 1, 2004, through December 18, 2008 (Food and Drug Administration and American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases 2007 recommendations); December 19, 2008, through September 30, 2010 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases 2009, Institute of Medicine, and American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations); and October 1, 2010, through April 30, 2011. Logistic regression models were used to identify predictors of screening.

Results

Of 141,877 new patients, 18,688 received chemotherapy, and 3020 (16.2%) were screened. HBV screening rates increased over the 3 time periods (14.8%, 18.2%, 19.9%; P < 0.0001), but <19% of patients with HBV risk factors were screened. Among patients with hematologic malignancies, over 66% were screened, and odds of screening nearly doubled after publication of the recommendations (P < 0.0001). Less than 4% of patients with solid tumors were screened, although odds of screening increased 70% after publication of the recommendations (P = 0.003). Other predictors of screening included younger age, planned rituximab therapy, and known risk factors for HBV infection.

Conclusions

Most patients with solid tumors or HBV risk factors remained unscreened, although screening rates increased after publication of national recommendations. Efforts are needed to increase awareness of the importance of HBV screening before chemotherapy to identify patients who should start antiviral prophylaxis.

Hepatitis B virus management to prevent reactivation after chemotherapy: a review

PURPOSE

Reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection after chemotherapy can lead to liver failure and death. Conflicting recommendations regarding HBV screening in cancer patients awaiting chemotherapy mean that some patients at risk for HBV reactivation are not being identified and treated with prophylactic antiviral therapy.

METHODS

We performed a narrative review of the existing evidence regarding screening for and management of HBV infection among patients with cancer using Ovid Medline, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library.

RESULTS

Our review showed inconsistencies in the definition and management strategies for HBV reactivation. The timeframe of reactivation is variable, and its molecular mechanisms are not clear. There are five effective antiviral agents that can be used as prophylaxis to prevent reactivation of HBV infection in cancer patients; however, the optimal drug and duration of therapy are unknown. Reactivation is more commonly reported in patients with hematologic malignancies receiving rituximab treatment, but reactivation can occur after other chemotherapies and in patients with solid tumors. Screening with all three screening tests-HBsAg, anti-HBc, and anti-HBs-allows the most thorough interpretation of a patient's serologic profile and assessment of reactivation risk; however, decision-making and cost-effectiveness studies are needed to determine optimal screening strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

Prevention of reactivation of HBV infection depends on identification of patients at risk and initiation of antiviral prophylaxis, but data to guide screening and treatment strategies are lacking. Additional research is necessary to accurately define and predict reactivation, identify best antiviral treatment strategies, and identify cost-effective HBV screening strategies.

HCV virus and lymphoid neoplasms

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is one of the viruses known to cause hepatic cancer. HCV is also believed to be involved in malignant lymphoma. In this paper, we investigated characteristics of malignant lymphoma cases that were anti-HCV antibody (HCV-Ab) positive. We were able to perform pathological examinations on 13 out of 14 HCV-positive cases. Of these, lymphoid tissues of 10 stained positive for HCV-Ab. There was no significant correlation between the degree of HCV staining and the rate of recurrence or resistance to treatment. However, there did appear to be a consistent decrease in the amount of HCV-RNA between pre- and posttreatment among HCV-Ab-positive cases; that is, treatment-resistant cases that exhibited resistance from the first treatment and recurrent cases more frequently had a higher HCV level at treatment termination compared to the pretreatment level. This suggests that the HCV virus either accelerates oncogenesis by direct interaction with B cells or indirectly affects lymphoma prognosis.

The impact of biologic response modifiers on hepatitis B virus infection

INTRODUCTION

The biologic response modifiers are a diverse group of medications that have emerged over the last decade. They target pro-inflammatory cytokines or cell surface molecules that drive illnesses such as rheumatoid arthritis. Despite the greater control afforded they have also ushered in a new spectrum of side effects. As the same immunologic machinery that helps control infections such as HBV contributes to the pathogenesis of rheumatologic diseases, persistence or reactivation of the virus remains an evolving concern.

AREAS COVERED

A systemic literature review was performed using the PubMed and Medline databases (1996 to January 2010) searching for the index term 'Hepatitis B' combined with the terms 'tumor necrosis factor', 'B cell', 'rituximab', 'IL-1', 'anakinra', 'IL-6', 'tocilizumab', 'CTLA-4', and 'abatacept'. All relevant articles in English were reviewed and secondary references of interest were also retrieved. This paper addresses the role of the various cytokines and cluster of differentiation molecules in controlling HBVinfection and the currently known effect that the biologic response modifiers have on viral control by the host immune response.

EXPERT OPINION

The risk of HBV reactivation is greatest in HBsAg positive patients. These patients should start antiviral therapy one week before receiving a biologic response modifier. The risk of HBV reactivation in HBsAg negative patients appears very low but when HBsAb titers are low use of rituximab or TNF-α antagonists may increase the risk of reactivation.

Rituximab administration and reactivation of HBV

Rituximab is a drug used for the treatment of B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and its range of use has expanded to the treatment of collagen diseases such as idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura and rheumatoid arthritis. One serious complication of rituximab use is the reactivation of dormant hepatitis B virus, and prevention of this phenomenon has become an urgent issue. This paper provides a general outline of the problem through an analysis of patient cases that we and other groups have experienced to date.