Low level of hepatitis B virus screening among patients receiving chemotherapy

Delayed Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation at 33 Months after the Completion of Rituximab-based Chemotherapy

We herein report a case of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in a female patient in her 70s with isolated anti-hepatitis B core (IAHBc) antibodies (HB surface antigen (HBsAg)-negative, HB surface antibody (HBsAb)-negative, and HB core antibody (HBcAb)-positive), receiving rituximab-based chemotherapy for follicular lymphoma. Her serum HBV DNA was negative. The patient was treated with rituximab for 21 months, and 33 months after completion of treatment, her HBV DNA level increased to 5.1 Log IU/mL, and the patient developed hepatic failure. Tenofovir alafenamide fumarate treatment was initiated for HBV reactivation, and DNA was not detected 9 months later.

Hepatitis B Surface Antibody (Anti-HBs) Kinetics during Rituximab Chemotherapy and Performance of Hepatitis B Vaccine before Immunosuppression: Two Prospective Studies

Rituximab promotes strong immunosuppression leading to a high risk of hepatitis B reactivation (HBV-R) and chronic infection. Current recommendations on HBV-R prevention are expensive and poorly individualized. In resolved hepatitis B patients, previous studies suggest that anti-HBs titers before immunosuppression can predict HBV-R risk. However, guidelines claim that additional data are necessary before recommending spare drug prophylaxis in patients with high anti-HBs titers. On the other hand, in patients with no previous contact with HBV, guidelines recommend vaccine before immunosuppression despite minimal evidence available. To shed light on these knowledge gaps, two prospective studies were conducted to evaluate anti-HBs in hematological cancer patients treated with rituximab. In the first study, anti-HBs-positive patients were referred for following up antibody titers before and during immunosuppression. Patients with anti-HBs ≥ 100 mIU/mL before immunosuppression had no negative seroconversion (anti-HBs loss), in contrast to 18% of those with anti-HBs < 100 mIU/mL. In the second study, patients with no previous contact with HBV were invited to receive HBV vaccine before rituximab chemotherapy. None seroconverted with anti-HBs. In conclusion, both studies reinforce the need to review concepts about HBV prevention during immunosuppression on current guidelines. Narrowing the use of drug prophylaxis and improving vaccine indications are recommended.

Hepatitis B Virus Screening Before Cancer Chemotherapy in Taiwan: A Nationwide Population-Based Study

Background: Reactivation of the hepatitis B virus (HBV) during cancer chemotherapy is a severe and sometimes fatal complication. In 2009, the National Health Insurance (NHI) in Taiwan recommended and reimbursed screening for HBV infection and prophylactic antiviral therapy before cancer chemotherapy. In this study, we determined the HBV screening rate in patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy in Taiwan.

Methods: We retrospectively collected data from the National Health Insurance Research Database on patients who received systemic chemotherapy for solid or hematologic cancers from January 2000 through December 2012. We defined HBV screening based on testing for serum HBsAg within 2 years of the first chemotherapy commencement. We calculated overall and annual HBV screening rates in all patients and subgroups of age, gender, cancer type, hospital level, physician's department, and implementation of NHI reimbursement for HBV screening before cancer chemotherapy.

Results: We enrolled 379,639 patients. The overall HBV screening rate was 45.9%. The screening rates were higher in males, those with hematological cancer, those at non-medical centers and medical departments. The HBV screening rates before (2000–2008) and after the implementation of NHI reimbursement (2009–2012) were 38.1 and 57.5%, respectively (p < 0.0001). The most common practice pattern of HBV screening was only HBsAg (64.6%) followed by HBsAg/HBsAb (22.1%), and HBsAg/HBcAb/HBsAb (0.7%) (p < 0.0001). The annual HBV screening rate increased from 31.5 to 66.3% (p < 0.0001). The screening rates of solid and hematological cancers significantly increased by year; however, the trend was greater in solid cancer than in hematological cancer (35.9 and 26.2%, p < 0.0001).

Conclusions: The HBV screening rate before cancer chemotherapy was fair but increased over time. These figures improved after implementing a government-based strategy; however, a mandatory hospital-based strategy might improve awareness of HBV screening and starting prophylactic antiviral therapy before cancer chemotherapy.

Liver failure from delayed hepatitis B reactivation in anti-HBc-positive patient following rituximab for B-cell lymphoma

A 93-year-old man was admitted with 1 week of frank jaundice and abdominal pain. His medical history included diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with rituximab and cyclophosphamide, hydroxydaunomycin, oncovin and prednisolone (R-CHOP) chemotherapy 10 months prior. His investigations revealed marked hyperbilirubinemia with a total bilirubin of 355 μmol/L, along with a 17-fold elevation in alanine transaminase and impaired hepatic synthetic function. He tested hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and hepatitis B surface antibody (HBsAb) negative, hepatitis B core antibody (HBcAb) positive and had elevated hepatitis B virus DNA level at 13 691 IU/L. This was in the setting of radiological evidence of suspected cirrhosis. He was later found to have tested positive for HBcAb and negative for HBsAg and HBsAb prior to chemotherapy, but had not received antiviral prophylaxis. He was diagnosed with fulminant hepatitis secondary to delayed hepatitis B reactivation in the setting of rituximab. Hepatitis B reactivation and the role of screening and antiviral prophylaxis in isolated HBcAb-positive patients is reviewed.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Screening for Hepatitis B Virus Infection in Patients With Solid Tumors Before Initiating Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Patients with solid tumors who undergo chemotherapy have an increased risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation, but a low proportion of these patients are screened for HBV infection and guidelines make conflicting recommendations. Further, the cost-effectiveness of newer treatments for HBV prophylaxis has not been examined for this population. We aimed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of HBV screening before chemotherapy for patients with solid tumors.

METHODS

We compared 3 HBV screening strategies (screen all, screen only high-risk patients, or screen none) using a Markov model of a population of adults in the United States who initiated chemotherapy for a solid tumor. We modeled use of entecavir prophylaxis for HB surface antigen (HBsAg)-positive patients and surveillance for HBsAg-negative patients who are positive for HBV core antibody. The Markov cycle length was 1 year, with model simulation for up to 5 years.

RESULTS

The screen all strategy was the most cost effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $42,761 compared to screening only high-risk patients. The screen none strategy was less effective and less costly than screening all patients or only high-risk patients. The screen-all strategy was the most cost effective for all estimates of prevalence of HBsAg-positive patients and estimates of HBV reactivation in HBsAg-positive patients. Screening only high-risk patients was the most cost-effective strategy when more than 25% of high-risk patients were screened for HBV infection.

CONCLUSIONS

In a Markov model analysis, we found screening all patients with solid tumors for HBV infection before chemotherapy to be the most cost-effective strategy. Guidelines should consider recommending HBV tests for patients initiating chemotherapy.

High hepatitis B virus screening rate among patients receiving systemic anticancer treatment in Japan

BACKGROUND

Patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection have a risk of reactivation after chemotherapy. All patients undergoing chemotherapy should be screened for HBV infection. No large-scale studies have been conducted to examine HBV screening practice in Japan.

METHODS

We analyzed health insurance claims equivalent data linked with a nationwide hospital-based cancer registry. Patients diagnosed with cancer in 2014, who were aged 20 years and older and those who underwent systemic anticancer treatment in 2014-15 were included. We assessed the HBV screening rates by the HBsAg or anti-HBc tests, HBV-DNA tests, and entecavir prescriptions. Multiple logistic regression models were used to identify factors related to the receipt of screening.

RESULTS

Of 177,597 patients (mean [SD] age, 65.6 [12.2] years), 82.6% and 12.9% patients had a solid tumor and hematologic malignancy, respectively. Among them, 88.1%, 6.3%, and 5.5% received cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and anti-CD20 antibodies, respectively. Overall, 70.6% of patients were screened. The positive predictor of HBV screening was receiving anti-CD20 antibodies [odds ratio (OR); 2.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.06-2.41, p < 0.001] and negative predictors were age ≥ 85 (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.71-0.81), age 75-84 (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.75-0.79) and targeted therapy (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.67-0.72). Among the screened patients, 13.2% were tested for HBV-DNA, and 1.49% were prescribed entecavir.

CONCLUSIONS

The HBV screening rate in Japan is higher than in other countries. Further improvement of the HBV screening rate is needed to prevent reactivation and avoidable deaths of patients with HBV infection.

Hepatitis B virus screening in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma in clinical practice in Poland - a report of the Polish Lymphoma Research Group

INTRODUCTION

The risk of HBV reactivation is important in lymphoma patients receiving immunosuppressive chemotherapy containing steroids or anti-CD20 antibodies. We aimed to establish the prevalence of HBV Ag and anti-HBc serologic positive results in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in Poland before anti-CD20 therapy initiation; to assess the frequency of insufficient HBV screening; and to assess the association between inadequate HBV screening and diagnosis according to the WHO classification and age or gender.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We retrospectively collected data from 805 patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia treated in 2016-2018.

RESULTS

We found a positive result of HBsAg in 13 (1.16%), and a negative result in 633 (78.64%) patients. The test was not done in 159 (19.75%) patients. In the HBsAg negative subgroup of 633 patients, we found that the anti-HBc was positive in 52 (8.22%), negative in 303 (47.87%) and not done in 278 patients. In 136 out of 805 (16.9%) patients diagnostics tests were not performed before therapy initiation. We found that age is significantly associated (p = 0.0002) with the lack of HBV infection screening, and in CLL this risk is significantly (p = 0.024) higher (by 49%) compared with other WHO diagnosis subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

In Polish lymphoma patients the incidence of positive HBsAg and/or anti-HBc results is consistent with the prevalence in the United States or Australia. The adherence to appropriate HBV screening guidelines in Polish centers is not sufficient. We should intensify educational strategies in the global oncohematologic medical community.

Hepatitis B screening rates and reactivation in solid organ malignancy patients undergoing chemotherapy in Southern Thailand

Background/Aims

Hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr) following chemotherapy (CMT) is well-known among hematologic malignancies, and screening recommendations are established. However, HBVr data in solid organ malignancy (SOM) patients are limited. This study aims to determine hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) screening rates, HBV prevalence, and the rate of significant hepatitis caused by HBVr in SOM patients undergoing CMT.

Methods

Based on the Oncology unit’s registration database from 2009–2013, we retrospectively reviewed records of all SOM patients ≥18 years undergoing CMT at Songklanagarind Hospital who were followed until death or ≥6 months after CMT sessions. Exclusion criteria included patients without baseline liver function tests (LFTs) and who underwent CMT before the study period. We obtained and analyzed baseline clinical characteristics, HBsAg screening, and LFT data during follow-up.

Results

Of 3,231 cases in the database, 810 were eligible. The overall HBsAg screening rate in the 5-year period was 27.7%. Screening rates were low from 2009–2012 (7.8–21%) and increased in 2013 to 82.9%. The prevalence of HBV among screened patients was 7.1%. Of those, 75% underwent prophylactic antiviral therapy. During the 6-month follow-up period, there were three cases of significant hepatitis caused by HBVr (4.2% of all significant hepatitis cases); all were in the unscreened group.

Conclusions

The prevalence of HBV in SOM patients undergoing CMT in our study was similar to the estimated prevalence in general Thai population, but the screening rate was quite low. Cases of HBVr causing significant hepatitis occurred in the unscreened group; therefore, HBV screening and treatment in SOM patients should be considered in HBV-endemic areas.

Hepatitis B screening before rituximab therapy: a multicentre South Australian study of adherence

BACKGROUND

International guidelines recommend screening for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection prior to administration of rituximab, due to high risk of HBV reactivation in at-risk patients.

AIMS

To determine: (i) adherence to the South Australian (SA) protocol for HBV screening; (ii) HBV prevalence in patients receiving rituximab; and (iii) outcomes of patients at risk of HBV reactivation.

METHODS

All patients commenced on rituximab at the six major SA public hospitals during a 12-month period were included in the study. Adherence was assessed by documentation of both hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and hepatitis B core antibody (HBcAb) prior to initiation of rituximab. Patients were observed for a minimum of 6 months following rituximab initiation.

RESULTS

Four hundred and thirty eight patients were included in the study. The main indication for rituximab therapy was haematological malignancy (76.0%). Two hundred and nine (47.7%) failed to receive appropriate HBV screening, 86 (19.6%) had neither HBsAg nor HBcAb performed, and 119 (27.2%) had only HBsAg performed. The identified prevalence of at-risk cases (either HBsAg- or HBcAb-positive) within the study population was 4.6% (20/438 cases). One case of HBV reactivation was identified, but none led to acute liver failure, transplantation or death.

CONCLUSIONS

Poor adherence to HBV screening protocols suggests the need for targeted clinician education and system redesign. While the rate of reactivation was low, the prevalence of at-risk patients in this population was high and justifies further initiatives to increase adherence rates to HBV screening pre-rituximab.

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation-The potential role of direct-acting agents for hepatitis C virus (HCV)

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is known to inhibit hepatitis B virus (HBV) replication in patients with HBV/HCV coinfection. Reactivation of HBV in patients treated for HCV with direct-acting agents (DAAs) has emerged recently as an important clinical consideration. A growing number of case reports and case series support the association between new HCV treatments and HBV reactivation. Yet, very little is known about the specific viral characteristics that facilitate reactivation as functional characterization of the reactivated HBV has been conducted only rarely. This review provides the most recent data on HBV reactivation in the context of DAA initiation and highlights the existing viral genomic data from reactivating viruses. Current functional studies of HBV reactivation are largely limited by the retrospective identification of cases, no standardization of genomic regions that are studied with respect to HBV reactivation, and the lack of inclusion of nonreactivating controls to establish specific viral mutations that are associated with HBV reactivation. Importantly, none of these sequencing studies included cases of HBV reactivation after initiation of DAAs. While new HCV treatments have revolutionized care for HCV infected patients, HBV reactivation will likely increase in frequency, as DAAs are more commonly prescribed. Pretreatment determination of HBV status and thoughtful management of HBV coinfections will be necessary and lead to improved patient safety and yield optimal treatment results.

Practice Patterns in Hepatitis B Virus Screening Before Cancer Chemotherapy in a Major US Hospital Network

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients receiving chemotherapy face an increased risk of reactivation of chronic hepatitis B virus infection.

AIM

To determine the HBV screening rate in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy in various clinical settings.

METHOD

We identified 11,959 adult cancer patients (age ≥ 18 years) receiving parenteral chemotherapy between 2012 and 2015 within a major US hospital network, including a large university hospital, community teaching hospitals, and community oncology clinics.

RESULT

Two thousand and forty-five patients (17.1%) were screened for either HBV surface antigen (HBsAg) or HBV core antibody (HBcAb) before chemotherapy, and 1850 patients (15.5%) had both HBsAg and HBcAb tested before chemotherapy. 8.4% were exposed to HBV, and 0.9% had chronic HBV infection (both HBsAg/HBcAb positive). Patients with hematologic tumor were more often screened than with solid tumor (55.6 vs. 8.3%, p < 0.001). Patients receiving chemotherapy with higher HBV reactivation risk had higher yet suboptimal HBV screening rate (41.1% B-depleting agents, 21.5% anthracycline, 14.9% steroid, 64.7% anti-TNF alpha and 18.6% other chemotherapy, p < 0.001). Patients with age ≥ 50 years (old 16.2% vs. young 23.9%, p < 0.001) and Asian ethnicity (Asian 13.6 vs. Caucasian 16.6%, p < 0.001) were screened less for HBV despite higher prevalence of HBV exposure (old 9.3% vs. young 4.3%, p < 0.001 and Asian 27.8% vs. Caucasian 6.4%, p < 0.001). Patients receiving chemotherapy in community oncology clinics were less screened versus community teaching hospitals or university hospital (12.7 vs. 19.1 vs. 19.7%, p < 0.001), despite similar prevalence of HBV infection. On multivariate analysis, receiving chemotherapy at a community oncology clinic [odds ratio (OR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45-0.72, p < 0.001] was independently associated with less HBV screening compared to receiving chemotherapy at a university or community teaching hospital.

CONCLUSION

HBV screening among patients undergoing cancer chemotherapy was suboptimal and less commonly performed in community oncology clinics compared to teaching hospitals.

Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation in the Setting of Cancer Chemotherapy and Other Immunosuppressive Drug Therapy

Hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr) is an important complication of immunosuppressive drug therapy (ISDT). It can occur with active or resolved hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection with a clinical spectrum that ranges from mild elevations in liver tests to fulminant hepatic failure. The risk of it occurring is determined by the interplay between HBV serological status, level of viremia, and the immunosuppressive potency of the drug(s) used. Reactivation is most common during treatment of hematologic malignancies but also occurs with chemotherapy for breast cancer and numerous other solid organ malignancies, organ transplant, and immune suppression for nonmalignant conditions. The expansion of new biologic treatments for malignant and nonmalignant disorders has enlarged the population at risk. Increased awareness of HBVr among healthcare providers who prescribe ISDT, adoption of routine HBV screening, and linking the results of screening to antiviral prophylaxis are needed to reduce the incidence of this potentially fatal but preventable disorder.

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.

Improvements in hepatitis B virus screening before rituximab therapy: A community-based, safety-net hospital experience

BACKGROUND

Individuals with chronic hepatitis B virus infection (HBV) or previously resolved HBV are at increased risk of HBV exacerbation or reactivation when they receive treatment with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies (against B-lymphocyte antigen cluster of differentiation 20 [CD20], an activated-glycosylated phosphoprotein) like rituximab (RTX). The objective of the current study was to evaluate the rates of appropriate HBV screening before patients started receiving RTX, at the initiation of HBV treatment, and during HBV flares among an underserved safety-net population.

METHODS

In total, 244 consecutive adults who received treatment with RTX from 2006 to 2015 at an urban safety-net hospital were evaluated to determine appropriate HBV screening (HBV surface antigen [HBsAg] and HBV total core antibody [HBcAb]) before starting RTX. The initiation of prophylactic antiviral therapy and the development of HBV flares after starting RTX were evaluated. Predictors of appropriate HBV screening were evaluated using multivariate logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Most patients were women (52.7%; n = 128) and of Hispanic ethnicity (30.7%; n = 74). Before starting RTX, 60.5% (n = 147) of patients received appropriate HBV screening. The HBV screening rates before RTX improved from 14.7% (2006-2009) to 74.7% (2010-2012), and to 87.1% (2013-2015; P < .01. Two of 7 (28.6%) HBsAg-positive patients who did not receive antiviral therapy experienced HBV flares and 1 died, and 2 of 27 patients (7.4%) HBcAb-positive/HBsAg-negative patients who did not receive antiviral therapy experienced HBV reactivation. No patient-specific or disease-specific predictors of receiving HBV screening before RTX therapy were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Among adults receiving RTX therapy in a single community-based hospital system, HBV screening rates were suboptimal, and 28.6% of HBsAg-positive patients and 7.4% of HBsAg-negative/HBcAb-positive patients who did not receive antiviral treatment experienced HBV reactivation or flare. Cancer 2017;123:650-656. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Improving testing for hepatitis B before treatment with rituximab

AIMS/OBJECTIVES/BACKGROUND

Individuals with current or previous infection with the hepatitis B virus (HBV) can experience viral reactivation when treated with immunosuppression. Rituximab, an anti-CD20 antibody used to treat many diseases, has potent immunosuppressant effects with a high risk of causing HBV reactivation. Reactivation can range from elevated liver enzymes to acute severe hepatitis with liver failure and a significant mortality risk. HBV screening and appropriate use of prophylactic antiviral therapy can prevent reactivation. This work describes the introduction of a local policy for HBV testing in patients before rituximab treatment and assesses its impact.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A baseline review (before policy introduction) of 90 patients showed that only 21 (23%) had hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and 17 (19%) had hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBcAb) tested before receiving rituximab. Following introduction of the policy (on the basis of international guidelines), improved laboratory reporting protocols and targeted education sessions, two further reviews of HBV testing rates among patients being initiated onto rituximab were performed. There was a marked increase in pre-rituximab testing for HBsAg from 23 to 79% and for anti-HBcAb from 19 to 78%. Throughout the study period, a total of one (0.8%) HBsAg-positive and six (4.7%) anti-HBcAb-positive patients were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

This work clearly indicates that simple strategies can markedly improve appropriate HBV screening. In our cohort, 6% (of whom only 43% had recognized HBV risk factors) required antiviral prophylaxis, which emphasizes the importance of universal screening before rituximab. Reinforcement of the guidelines and ongoing education is needed to further increase testing rates.

Gastroenterologists Have Suboptimal Hepatitis B Virus Screening Rates in Patients Receiving Immunosuppressive Therapy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Hepatitis B reactivation in patients undergoing immunosuppressive therapy can lead to liver failure and death. Prior studies have shown suboptimal hepatitis B screening rates, but few have compared screening rates across specialties or factors associated with screening.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed using a hospital-based chemotherapy database and outpatient pharmacy records from January 1999 to December 2013. HBV screening rates prior to initiation of immunosuppression were determined. Multivariate analysis was used to determine predictors of HBV screening.

RESULTS

Of the 4008 study patients, 47 % were screened prior to receiving immunosuppressive therapy; only 48 % on rituximab and 45 % of those on anti-TNF therapy were screened. Transplant specialists screened most frequently (85 %) while gastroenterologists screened the least (34 %). Factors significantly associated with HBV screening were younger age, Asian race, use of anti-rejection therapy, and treatment by a transplant specialist (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

HBV screening prior to immunosuppressive therapy is suboptimal, especially among gastroenterologists. Efforts to improve screening rates in at risk populations are needed.

Screening rate for hepatitis B virus infection in patients undergoing chemotherapy in Japan

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate the screening rate for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, which is recommended by some guidelines for the prevention of HBV reactivation, in patients undergoing chemotherapy for malignancy in Japan.

METHODS

The study subjects were 3302 patients who had received first-line chemotherapy for malignancy from Apr 2008 through Mar 2013 utilizing the Claims Database of the Japan Medical Data Center. The proportion of patients who had been tested for HBsAg (P-HBsAg) and the proportion of HBsAg-negative patients who had undergone tests for anti-HBc and anti-HBs (P-HBc/HBsAb) before chemotherapy were investigated.

RESULTS

P-HBsAg and P-HBc/HBsAb in all 3302 patients were 66.3 and 19.9 %, respectively. P-HBsAg in patients with solid tumors and those with hematological malignancies were 66.1 and 67.5 % (p = 0.61), respectively, and P-HBc/HBsAb were 12.3 and 75.8 % (p < 0.0001), respectively. P-HBsAg in patients from cancer centers and non-cancer centers were 66.9 and 65.5 % (p = 0.43), respectively, and P-HBc/HBsAb were 25.1 and 12.4 % (p < 0.0001), respectively. P-HBsAg in patients encountered before and after the announcement of the Japanese guideline were 51.3 and 67.1 % (p < 0.001), respectively, and P-HBc/HBsAb were 7.9 and 20.4 % (p = 0.01), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The screening rate for HBV among cancer patients scheduled for chemotherapy remains unsatisfactory, especially in patients with solid tumors and those from non-cancer centers. Although the figures are improving after the announcement of the Japanese guideline, intensive measures to improve awareness about HBV reactivation during/after chemotherapy are needed.

Outcomes of the implementation of the computer-assisted HBView system for the prevention of hepatitis B virus reactivation in chemotherapy patients: a retrospective analysis

Background

Screening for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is recommended worldwide for patients receiving systemic chemotherapy in accordance with clinical guidelines, but compliance varies by country and facility. Alert systems may be useful for promoting screening, but it is unclear how effective such systems are. In this study, we investigated HBV screening procedures and their incorporation into treatment regimens following the implementation of an alert system.

Methods

An alert system was introduced at our hospital in April 2012. The rates of HBV screening in the periods before and after the introduction of the alert system (September 2010 to March 2012 and April 2012 to October 2013, respectively) were investigated. We collected data on hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), hepatitis B surface antibody (HBsAb), hepatitis B core antibody (HBcAb), and HBV-DNA testing in patients. As a result of this analysis, we developed a system in which pharmacists would intervene to check and confirm whether HBV screening had occurred in patients scheduled to begin treatment with chemotherapy. We named our project the “HBView” project, and the rate of HBV screening and the number of times pharmacists intervened was studied during specific time periods before and after the HBView project commenced (July 2013 to December 2013 and January 2014 to June 2014, respectively).

Results

After introducing the alert system, the percentage of patients tested for HBsAb/HBcAb and HBV-DNA increased significantly, from 71.6 % to 84.9 % and from 44.5 % to 69.7 %, respectively. However, the rate of compliance with HBV testing guidelines was not 100 % after interventions. The numbers of patients who were not screened but should have been before and after the introduction of HBView were 6 and 17, respectively. Two patients at risk of HBV reactivation were identified after intervention by pharmacists; their intervention thus prevented HBV reactivation.

Conclusions

Compliance with clinical HBV screening guidelines was not sufficiently improved after the introduction of the automatic alert system; however, the HBView project proved useful in reinforcing the automatic alert system.

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.