Perception of hepatitis B virus infection reactivation-related issues among specialists managing hematologic malignancies: result of an Italian survey

HBV Reactivation in Patients with Past Infection Affected by Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Treated with Anti-CD20 Antibody Based Immuno-Chemotherapy: A Multicenter Experience

Hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr) can develop in HBV surface antigen (HBsAg) positive or HBsAg-negative and anti-hepatitis B core antigen antibodies (anti-HBc) positive (past HBV infection) patients receiving immuno-chemotherapy for hematological malignancies. A higher rate of HBVr is associated with the use of rituximab (R) in patients with past HBV infection, thus justifying an antiviral prophylaxis. In this study we evaluated the incidence of HBVr in a real-life cohort of 362 anti-HBc-positive subjects affected by non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), mainly receiving lamivudine (LAM) prophylaxis (93%) and all undergoing a R-containing regimen. A retrospective, multicenter, observational study was conducted in 4 Italian Hematology Departments. The primary endpoint was the incidence of virologic (HBV DNA-positive), serologic (HBsAg-positive) and clinical (ALT increase > 3 × upper limit of normal) HBVr, which occurred in five, four and one patients, respectively, with a total HBVr rate of 1.4%. None of them had to discontinue the chemotherapy program, while two patients required a delay. Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were reported during LAM prophylaxis in three patients (0.9%). In conclusion, this study confirms the efficacy and safety of LAM prophylaxis in anti-HBc-positive patients undergoing R-containing regimens.

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.

A snapshot of virological presentation and outcome of immunosuppression-driven HBV reactivation from real clinical practice: Evidence of a relevant risk of death and evolution from silent to chronic infection

The study was undertaken in order to provide a snapshot from real clinical practice of virological presentation and outcome of patients developing immunosuppression-driven HBV reactivation. Seventy patients with HBV reactivation were included (66.2% treated with rituximab, 10% with corticosteroids and 23.8% with other immunosuppressive drugs). Following HBV reactivation, patients received anti-HBV treatment for a median (IQR) follow-up of 31(13-47) months. At baseline-screening, 72.9% of patients were HBsAg-negative and 27.1% HBsAg-positive. About 71.4% had a diagnosis of biochemical reactivation [median (IQR) HBV DNA and ALT: 6.9 (5.4-7.8) log IU/mL and 359 (102-775) U/L]. Moreover, 10% of patients died from hepatic failure. Antiviral prophylaxis was documented in 57.9% and 15.7% of HBsAg-positive and HBsAg-negative patients at baseline-screening (median [IQR] prophylaxis duration: 24[15-33] and 25[17-36] months, respectively). Notably, HBV reactivation occurred 2-24 months after completing the recommended course of anti-HBV prophylaxis in 35.3% of patients. By analysing treatment outcome, the cumulative probability of ALT normalization and of virological suppression was 97% and 69%, respectively. Nevertheless, in patients negative to HBsAg at baseline-screening, only 27% returned to HBsAg-negative status during prolonged follow-up, suggesting the establishment of chronic infection. In conclusion, most patients received a diagnosis of HBV reactivation accompanied by high ALT and 10% died for hepatic failure, supporting the importance of strict monitoring for an early HBV reactivation diagnosis. Furthermore, HBV reactivation correlates with high risk of HBV chronicity in patients negative for HBsAg at baseline-screening, converting a silent into a chronic infection, requiring long-term antiviral treatment. Finally, a relevant proportion of patients experienced HBV reactivation after completing the recommended course of anti-HBV prophylaxis, suggesting the need to reconsider proper duration of prophylaxis particularly in profound immunosuppression.

AISF position paper on HCV in immunocompromised patients

This report summarizes the clinical features and the indications for treating HCV infection in immunocompromised and transplanted patients in the Direct Acting Antiviral drugs era.

Need to improve awareness and management of hepatitis B reactivation in patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy

Hepatitis B reactivation in patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy is not an uncommon event because of upsurge in the development of more potent and new immunosuppressive therapy (IST) including monoclonal antibodies leading to profound B cell depletion. However, this condition is still not being commonly made known to practising clinicians. More importantly, serious adverse outcomes including liver decompensation and death have been reported from time to time. This is likely related to the insufficient efforts to disseminate the knowledge or inattentive attitude from clinicians towards the need for hepatitis B virus screening before starting IST. It is of crucial importance, as these adverse outcomes are largely preventable by prophylactic or early treatment by antiviral agents. The risk of hepatitis B reactivation depends on the type and duration of the IST, patient characteristics and disease conditions. While we are eagerly waiting for a more cohesive consensual management recommendations from the different specialties who are involved in managing these patients, consolidated data are readily available for clinicians to define whether their patients would have a low or a high risk of hepatitis B reactivation. A management strategy without ambiguity should be formulated.

Screening for viral hepatitis prior to rituximab chemotherapy

In 2008, the CDC published guidelines recommending screening of all persons undergoing treatment with rituximab to identify persons at risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation. We evaluated implementation of this recommendation in veterans, who are at increased risk of HBV, and determined characteristics of those screened. We also evaluated a control setting, rates of hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening among the same rituximab-treated patients. There are no guidelines that recommend HCV screening prior to initiation of rituximab. Medical records of patients receiving rituximab between January 2006 and December 2012 were reviewed according to two time periods: 2006-2008 (period 1, pre-guidelines) and 2009-2012 (period 2, post-guidelines). Patient demographics, concomitant chemotherapy regimen (protocol, dose, duration), treatment indication, risk factors for hepatitis infection (substance abuse, homelessness, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)), and HBV/HCV screening status were documented. During the study period, 102 patients were treated with rituximab (49 in period 1 and 53 in period 2). During periods 1 and 2, 22 and 32 % of rituximab-treated patients were screened for HBV, respectively (p = 0.375). Treatment during 2009 was the only significant predictor of HBV screening in the adjusted model (p = 0.01). For HCV during periods 1 and 2, 22 and 21 % of patients were screened, respectively (p = 1.00). There were no significant predictors of HCV screening. Rates of screening for HBV among rituximab-treated patients were low, both before and after dissemination of guidelines recommending universal HBV screening of rituximab-treated patients.

Prevention of viral infections in patients with multiple myeloma: the role of antiviral prophylaxis and immunization

Viral infections are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with myeloma. Over the last decade, treatment of myeloma has undergone a paradigm shift with the use of immunomodulatory drugs, proteasome inhibitors and autologous stem cell transplantation, resulting in changes to risk periods and risk factors for viral infection. Viral infections affecting this patient group fall broadly into reactivation of latent viral infections (e.g., varicella zoster and hepatitis B) and acquisition of acute viral respiratory infections. The periods following autologous stem cell transplantation and progressive disease are identified as increased risk for viral infections. This review focuses on evidence-based prevention strategies for key viral infections, particularly approaches to prophylaxis and immunization. Recommended prevention strategies are summarized using a risk-stratified approach. Further studies evaluating preventative measures for newly identified risk periods are required.

Risk and prophylaxis strategy of hepatitis B virus reactivation in patients with lymphoma undergoing chemotherapy with or without rituximab

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation is a serious but preventable complication for patients with lymphoma receiving systemic therapy. Without antiviral prophylaxis, the HBV reactivation rate is estimated to be > 50% in patients who are positive for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), and fatal hepatic failure is not uncommon. Current guidelines suggest that routine antiviral prophylaxis should be administered to all HBsAg-positive patients until 6-12 months after completion of chemotherapy. For those who are negative for HBsAg and positive for hepatitis B core antibody, HBV reactivation is uncommon when a conventional dose of chemotherapy is administered. However, with rituximab-containing immunochemotherapy, the HBV reactivation rate is 18% and the clinical course can vary from asymptomatic viremia to fulminant hepatic failure that can be potentially fatal. In this review, we discuss the risk, clinical course and prophylactic strategy of HBV reactivation in patients with lymphoma treated with chemotherapy with or without rituximab.