Clinical and economic evaluation of a surveillance protocol to manage hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation among lymphoma patients with resolved HBV infection receiving rituximab

HBsAg (-)/HBsAb (-)/HBeAg (-)/HBeAb (+)/HBcAb (+) predicts a high risk of hepatitis B reactivation in patients with B-cell lymphoma receiving rituximab based immunochemotherapy

Patterns of hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBV-R) in HBsAg (-)/HBcAb (+) patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) receiving rituximab based immunochemotherapy have not been well described. The retrospective study included 222 HBsAg (-)/HBcAb (+) NHL patients as training cohort and 127 cases as validation cohort. The incidence of HBV-R in HBsAg (-)/HBcAb (+) B-cell NHL patients was 6.3% (14/222), of which that in HBsAg (-)/HBsAb (-)/HBeAg (-)/HBeAb (+)/HBcAb (+) population was 23.7% (9/38). Multivariate analysis showed that HBsAg (-)/HBsAb (-)/HBeAg (-)/HBeAb (+)/HBcAb (+) correlated with a high risk of HBV-R in B-cell lymphoma patients (training phase hazard ratio [HR], 10.123; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.389-30.239; p < 0.001; validation phase HR, 18.619; 95% CI, 1.684-205.906; p = 0.017; combined HR, 12.264; 95% CI, 4.529-33.207; p < 0.001). In the training cohort, the mortality rate of HBsAg (-)/HBcAb (+) B-cell NHL caused by HBV-R was 14.3% (2/14) while that for HBV reactivated HBsAg (-)/HBsAb (-)/HBeAg (-)/HBeAb (+)/HBcAb (+) population was up to 44.4% (4/9). As a high incidence of HBV-R and high mortality after HBV-R was found in HBsAg (-)/HBsAb (-)/HBcAb (+)/HBeAg (-)/HBeAb (+) patients with B-cell NHL receiving rituximab based immunochemotherapy, prophylactic antiviral therapy is recommended for these patients.

Cost-effectiveness of managing HBV reactivation in patients with resolved HBV infection treated with anti-CD20 antibody for B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma

There is no universal recommendation for managing the reactivation of HBV in patients with resolved HBV infection treated with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies for B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of two commonly used strategies: prophylactic anti-HBV nucleos(t)ide analog therapy (Pro NAT), and HBV DNA monitoring followed by on-demand antiviral therapy (HBV DNA monitoring). Using a decision tree model, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained was calculated. The threshold for cost-effectiveness was set at 5,000,000 JPY, equivalent to 45,662 USD. In a base–case analysis, HBV DNA monitoring was found to be more cost-effective based on the calculation of ICER as 132,048 USD per QALY, a value that far exceeds 45,662 USD. The same results were consistently obtained by a one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis, even after changing each parameter value within the predetermined range. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis with 10,000 simulations also revealed that HBV DNA monitoring is more cost-effective than Pro NAT in 96.8% of cases. Therefore, this study suggests that HBV DNA monitoring is an appropriate managing measure in Japan from a cost-effectiveness perspective.

Case Report: Post-CAR-T Infusion HBV Reactivation in Two Lymphoma Patients Despite Entecavir Preventive Therapy

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation is a common complication in chronic or resolved HBV infection patients undergoing immunosuppressive chemotherapy. Furthermore, few articles have been published regarding the risk of HBV reactivation in lymphoma patients receiving chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy and anti-HBV prophylaxis. Few guidelines or clear optimal strategies are available for managing these patients. Here, we present two cases of patients who underwent CAR-T-cell cocktail therapy with anti-CD19 and anti-CD22 CAR (CAR19/22) T cell for lymphoma. Patients had previous history of HBV infection, and blood tests on initial admission indicated positive results for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), antibody to hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc), and antibody to hepatitis B e antigen (anti-HBe), while serum HBV DNA level was undetectable. Therefore, two patients received entecavir as antiviral prophylactic therapy during their entire treatment. They were diagnosed with HBV reactivation based on positive serum HBV DNA test results, 2 weeks after CAR-T-cell infusion. Liver function assay indicated elevated levels of alanine transaminase (ALT) and aspartate transaminase (AST), combined with increased levels of total bilirubin (TBIL) and direct bilirubin (DBIL). Subsequently, they received anti-HBV treatment with entecavir and tenofovir. As a result, their serum HBV DNA copies and AST/ALT levels returned to normal after 1 week. These cases show that there is a risk of HBV reactivation in lymphoma patients with CAR-T-cell therapy despite entecavir preventive therapy, and combination treatment of entecavir and tenofovir may be an effective treatment option for such patients with HBV reactivation.