Cost-effectiveness of preventing hepatitis B virus reactivation in patients with lymphoma and resolved HBV infection

Prophylaxis for Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma undergoing R-CHOP21 in China: a meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

Rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone, once every 3 weeks (R-CHOP21) is commonly used in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), but accompanied by Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) as a fatal treatment complication. This study aims to estimate the specific effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of PCP prophylaxis in NHL undergoing R-CHOP21.

DESIGN

A two-part decision analytical model was developed. Prevention effects were determined by systemic review of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science from inception to December 2022. Studies reporting results of PCP prophylaxis were included. Enrolled studies were quality assessed with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Costs were derived from the Chinese official websites, and clinical outcomes and utilities were obtained from published literature. Uncertainty was evaluated through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSA and PSA). Willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set as US$31 315.23/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) (threefold the 2021 per capita Chinese gross domestic product).

SETTING

Chinese healthcare system perspective.

PARTICIPANTS

NHL receiving R-CHOP21.

INTERVENTIONS

PCP prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Prevention effects were pooled as relative risk (RR) with 95% CI. QALYs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of four retrospective cohort studies with 1796 participants were included. PCP risk was inversely associated with prophylaxis in NHL receiving R-CHOP21 (RR 0.17; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.67; p=0.01). Compared with no prophylaxis, PCP prophylaxis would incur an additional cost of US$527.61, and 0.57 QALYs gained, which yielded an ICER of US$929.25/QALY. DSA indicated that model results were most sensitive to the risk of PCP and preventive effectiveness. In PSA, the probability that prophylaxis was cost-effective at the WTP threshold was 100%.

CONCLUSION

Prophylaxis for PCP in NHL receiving R-CHOP21 is highly effective from retrospective studies, and routine chemoprophylaxis against PCP is overwhelmingly cost-effective from Chinese healthcare system perspective. Large sample size and prospective controlled studies are warranted.

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.

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.

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.

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

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a surveillance protocol in managing the risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation among lymphoma patients with resolved HBV infection receiving rituximab.

DESIGN

Prospective, single-arm study.

SETTING

National Cancer Centre, Singapore.

PATIENTS

Lymphoma patients with resolved HBV infection and scheduled to receive rituximab-based treatment.

INTERVENTION

Close monitoring of HBV DNA levels, ie. every 4-6 weeks during rituximab treatment, every 6-8 weeks in the first year post-treatment, and every 3-4 months in the second year post-treatment.

MEASUREMENTS

The efficacy of the surveillance protocol was examined by evaluating the rates of reactivation-related events. Feasibility was evaluated based on patient adherence. An economic analysis using a cost-minimization approach was conducted to compare the costs between the surveillance protocol and universal prophylaxis with entecavir 0.5 mg daily up to 1 year after cessation of rituximab.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 66 patients provided analyzable data with a follow-up period of 966.6 months. No hepatitis flare or reactivation-related events were detected. The median adherence rate to the surveillance protocol was 90.5%. Cost savings of US$946.40 per patient over the entire surveillance period were achieved if the surveillance protocol was adopted and was most affected by changes in prophylaxis duration and the cost of antiviral prophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

The surveillance protocol is an effective, feasible and cost-saving strategy to manage HBV reactivation among lymphoma patients with resolved HBV infection receiving rituximab.

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.

Hepatitis B reactivation: diagnosis and management

INTRODUCTION

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation can be induced by treatments that attenuate the immunological control over HBV, leading to increased morbidity and mortality. The risk of HBV reactivation is determined by host immunity, viral factors, and the type and dose of treatments. Nevertheless, the risk of HBV reactivation for a growing number of novel therapies remains uncertain and needs to be carefully examined. Identification of patients at risk and administration of prophylactic antiviral agents are critical to prevent HBV reactivation. Early diagnosis and initiation of antiviral treatment are the keys to avoid devastating outcomes.

AREA COVERED

We summarized the latest evidence and recommendations for risk stratification, early diagnosis, prophylaxis, and management of HBV reactivation.

EXPERT OPINION

Universal screening, adequate prophylaxis, and close monitoring are essential for the prevention of HBV reactivation. Risk stratification of patients at risk with appropriate antiviral prophylaxis can prevent HBV reactivation effectively. Several emerging biomarkers have been proved to help determine the risk precisely. Early detection and timely administration of antiviral agents are crucial for management. Further studies on the precision of risk stratification as well as the optimal duration of prophylaxis and treatment are needed to establish an individualized strategy.