Randomized prospective study evaluating tenofovir disoproxil fumarate prophylaxis against hepatitis B virus reactivation in anti-HBc-positive patients with rituximab-based regimens to treat hematologic malignancies: The Preblin study

EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on the management of hepatitis B virus infection

The updated EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on the management of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection provide comprehensive, evidence-based recommendations for its management. Spanning ten thematic sections, the guidelines address diagnostics, treatment goals, treatment indications, therapeutic options, hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance, management of special populations, HBV reactivation prophylaxis, post-transplant care, HBV prevention strategies, and finally address open questions and future research directions. Chronic HBV remains a global health challenge, with over 250 million individuals affected and significant mortality due to cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. These guidelines emphasise the importance of early diagnosis, risk stratification based on viral and host factors, and tailored antiviral therapy. Attention is given to simplified algorithms, vaccination, and screening to support global HBV elimination targets. The guidelines also discuss emerging biomarkers and evolving definitions of functional and partial cure. Developed through literature review, expert consensus, and a Delphi process, the guidelines aim to equip healthcare providers across disciplines with practical tools to optimise HBV care and outcomes worldwide.

HBV Reactivation in Immunosuppressed Patients: Screening, Prevention, and Management Including Solid Organ Transplant Recipients

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection remains a global health challenge, affecting over 254 million individuals chronically and contributing significantly to cirrhosis, liver failure, and hepatocellular carcinoma. Despite advancements in antiviral therapy, HBV reactivation remains a critical concern, particularly in immunosuppressed individuals, including non-transplant patients undergoing immunosuppressive therapy and solid organ transplant recipients. This review provides screening and management strategies for HBV reactivation in these populations.

AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on the Prevention and Treatment of Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation in At-Risk Individuals

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Hepatitis B reactivation (HBVr) can occur due to a variety of immune-modulating exposures, including multiple drug classes and disease states. Antiviral prophylaxis can be effective in mitigating the risk of HBVr. In select cases, clinical monitoring without antiviral prophylaxis is sufficient for managing the risk of HBVr. This clinical practice guideline update aims to inform frontline health care practitioners by providing evidence-based practice recommendation for the management of HBVr in at-risk individuals.

METHODS

The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework was used to assess evidence and make recommendations. The panel conducted a systematic evidence review to identify new studies since publication of the first version of this clinical practice guideline in 2014. The Evidence to Decision framework was used to develop recommendations regarding the role of antiviral prophylaxis and monitoring without antiviral prophylaxis for management of HBVr. Clinical recommendations were based on the balance between desirable and undesirable effects, patient values, costs, and health equity considerations.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on 4 recommendations. Based on evidence and baseline risk assessment, the panel made a strong recommendation in favor of antiviral prophylaxis for individuals at high risk of HBVr. For individuals at moderate risk of HBVr, a conditional recommendation was made in favor of antiviral prophylaxis. For individuals at low risk of HBVr, a conditional recommendation was made in favor of monitoring alone without antiviral prophylaxis. Monitoring should be performed at 1- to 3-month intervals, and must include assessment of hepatitis B viral load in addition to assessment of alanine aminotransferase. For individuals deemed to be at-risk of HBVr, the panel agreed on a strong recommendation in favor of testing for HBV; given universal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention screening guidance for hepatitis B for all adults 18 years and older by testing for HBV surface antigen, hepatitis B surface antibody, and total hepatitis B core antibody, stratifying screening practices by magnitude of HBVr risk is no longer needed.

CONCLUSIONS

This document provides updated guidance for the management of HBVr in at-risk individuals. Limitations and gaps in the evidence are highlighted. This guideline is expected to require updating in 5 years from publication.

Update of the guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of rheumatoid arthritis by the Mexican College of Rheumatology 2023

OBJECTIVE

To develop updated guidelines for the pharmacological management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

A group of experts representative of different geographical regions and various medical services catering to the Mexican population with RA was formed. Questions based on Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) were developed, deemed clinically relevant. These questions were answered based on the results of a recent systematic literature review (SLR), and the evidence's validity was assessed using the GRADE system, considered a standard for these purposes. Subsequently, the expert group reached consensus on the direction and strength of recommendations through a multi-stage voting process.

RESULTS

The updated guidelines for RA treatment stratify various therapeutic options, including different classes of DMARDs (conventional, biologicals, and JAK inhibitors), as well as NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, and analgesics. By consensus, it establishes the use of these in different subpopulations of interest among RA patients and addresses aspects related to vaccination, COVID-19, surgery, pregnancy and lactation, and others.

CONCLUSIONS

This update of the Mexican guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of RA provides reference points for evidence-based decision-making, recommending patient participation in joint decision-making to achieve the greatest benefit for our patients. It also establishes recommendations for managing a variety of relevant conditions affecting our patients.

Preventing viral relapse with prophylactic tenofovir in hepatitis B carriers receiving chemotherapy: a phase IV randomized study in Taiwan

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

This study aimed to compare the efficacy of shorter vs. longer tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) prophylaxis in preventing hepatitis B virus (HBV) relapse in cancer patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) undergoing chemotherapy.

METHODS

This phase IV, prospective randomized trial enrolled cancer patients with CHB from 2014 to 2019 in Taiwan. Included patients were randomized to receive either 24- (Arm A) or 48-week (Arm B) post-chemotherapy TDF and compared for cumulative incidence of virological and clinical relapse. Logistic regressions were conducted to determine the factors associated with HBV relapse.

RESULTS

One hundred patients were randomized, and 41 patients in Arm A and 46 in Arm B completed the TDF treatment. No significant difference was found in cumulative incidence of virological relapse (Arm A: 94.4%, Arm B: 93.1%, p = 0.110) or clinical relapse among patients with baseline HBV DNA > 2000 IU/mL (Arm A: 38.9%, Arm B: 26.7%, p = 0.420) between the two arms. High baseline HBV DNA ≥ 10,000 IU/mL (OR = 51.22) and HBsAg ≥ 1000 IU/mL (OR = 8.64) were independently associated with an increased virological relapse. Alanine aminotransferase (ALT), serum phosphorus, vitamin D, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) remained stable throughout the study.

CONCLUSIONS

The 24-week preventative TDF has comparable efficacy to the 48-week treatment in virologic and clinical relapse. High baseline HBsAg or HBV DNA is associated with a higher risk of HBV relapse. These findings imply a 24-week duration of TDF treatment with a close monitor for patients with a high baseline viral load. Hepatitis B virus infection is a prominent cause of liver cancer and chronic liver disease and affected millions of people worldwide. When HBV-infected people are exposed to immunosuppressive medication or chemotherapy for cancer, the chance of HBV reactivation rises considerably. This trial showed 24-week tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) may be sufficient for preventing HBV relapse in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02081469.

Refractory pembrolizumab immunotherapy-related colitis requiring biological therapy in an inactive HBcAb carrier

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are a class of cancer immunotherapy, with a constellation of side effects that require early recognition and management. We present a patient with metastatic adenocarcinoma started on pembrolizumab a month prior, who was admitted to the hospital for bloody diarrhoea. He underwent flexible sigmoidoscopy with biopsy proven grade 3 immune-mediated diarrhoea and colitis. He developed progressively worsening diarrhoea despite appropriate intravenous corticosteroids therapy, and initiation of corticosteroid-sparing therapy was complicated by discovery of hepatitis B core antibodies indicating a chronic hepatitis B carrier state. We discuss our work-up of new onset haemorrhagic diarrhoea in a patient on immunotherapy for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer, as well as a review of current guidelines for antiviral prophylaxis in these patients.

Efficacy of Antiviral Prophylaxis up to 6 or 12 Months From Completion of Rituximab in Resolved Hepatitis B Patients: A Multicenter, Randomized Study

BACKGROUND

Rituximab occasionally induces reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) in patients with resolved HBV, at times with fatal consequences. The optimal duration of prophylactic antiviral therapy in this situation is unclear. We aimed to investigate the difference in HBV reactivation according to the duration of prophylactic tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in patients with resolved HBV and receiving rituximab.

METHODS

A multicenter, randomized, open-label, prospective study was conducted in hepatitis B surface antigen-negative and anti-HBc-positive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients treated with rituximab-based chemotherapy. A total of 90 patients were randomized and received prophylactic TDF from the initiation of rituximab until 6 months (the 6-month group) or 12 months (the 12-month group) after the completion of rituximab. The primary outcome was the difference in HBV reactivation and the secondary outcomes were the difference in hepatitis flare and adverse events between the two groups.

RESULTS

In an intention to treat (ITT) analysis, HBV reactivation occurred in 1 of 43 patients (2.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-12%) at a median of 13.3 months in the 6-month group and 2 of 41 patients (4.9%; 95% CI, 1.4-16%) at a median of 13.7 months in the 12-month group. In a per protocol (PP) analysis, HBV reactivation occurred in 1 of 18 patients (5.6%; 95% CI, 0.99-26%) at 13.3 months in the 6-month group and 1 of 13 patients (7.7%; 95% CI, 1.4-33%) at 9.7 months in the 12-month group. The cumulative incidence of HBV reactivation was not significantly different between the two groups in ITT and PP analyses (P = 0.502 and 0.795, respectively). The occurrence of adverse events was not significantly different between the two groups in ITT (9.3% in the 6-month group, 22.0% in the 12-month group, P = 0.193) and PP analyses (5.6% in the 6-month group, 7.7% in the 12-month group, P > 0.999).

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic TDF up to 6 months after completion of rituximab-based chemotherapy is sufficient in terms of the efficacy and safety of reducing HBV reactivation in patients with resolved HBV.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02585947.

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.

Efficacy of nucleos(t)ide analogues(NAs) in preventing virus reactivation in oncology patients with HBV infection after chemotherapy or surgery: A network meta-analysis

Objective

In this study, we aimed to perform a network meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of NAs in decreasing the reactivation of HBV, reducing chemotherapy disruption, and improving survival in oncology patients.

Methods

Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the impact of NAs in HBV infected-related oncology patients were retrieved from electronic databases. The outcome indicators included reactivation rate, survival rate of 1 to 3 years after treatment, and chemotherapy disruption rate. The studies were evaluated for bias using the RCT risk of bias assessment tool recommended in the Cochrane Handbook. The risk ratio (RR) was used to compare the outcome indicators for the anti-viral treatment, and the surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) was used to identify the optimal therapeutic regime.

Results

A total of 67 trials containing 5722 patients were included in this study. Regarding the reduction of reactivation rate, entecavir, lamivudine, adefovir alone were less effective than the combination of lamivudine and entecavir (94.9%), with RR values ranging from 3.16 to 3.73. However, based on SUCRA, the efficacy of telbivudine (80.3%) and the combination of lamivudine and adefovir dipivoxil (58.8%) were also acceptable. Entecavir (RR values ranging from 1.25 to 1.50) and lamivudine (RR values ranging from 1.27 to 1.35) can prolong the survival rate of patients at 1-3 years, and were better than adefovir dipivoxil in the comparison of 1-year survival rate. The RR values were 1.18 and 1.19, respectively. And entecavir 's ranking in SUCRA was more stable. Entecavir, lamivudine, and tenofovir all reduced chemotherapy interruption rates compared with no antiviral therapy, especially for tenofovir.

Conclusions

Current evidence shows that lamivudine combined with entecavir, telbivudine, and lamivudine combined with adefovir dipivoxil were the most effective in preventing virus reactivation in HBV infected-related cancer patients treated with chemotherapy. Entecavir had the most stable effect on survival, while tenofovir had the best impact on reducing the chemotherapy disruption rate. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high-quality studies are required to verify the above conclusions.

Systematic review registration

PROSPEROI [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/index.php], identifier CRD4202250685.

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.

Hepatitis B virus reactivation: overview and management

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) can hide in the liver in the form of covalently closed circular DNA. When the body’s immunity changes, HBV reactivation (HBV-R) can occur. The risk of HBV-R is determined by the complex interaction among virological factors, medication factors and host factors. However, many patients do not know that they are infected with HBV, and doctors often do not invest enough time to systematically evaluate the patient’s HBV-R risk factors before immunosuppressive treatment. Therefore, HBV clinical screening should be vigorously promoted to achieve early detection and early prevention for patients with high risk of HBV-R. The mechanism, clinical features, risk factors, HBV-R under different disease etiologies, prevention and treatment of HBV-R were summarized to improve the in-depth understanding and awareness.

Guidelines for Prevention and Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis B

To achieve the goal of the World Health Organization to eliminate viral hepatitis as a major public health threat by 2030, the Chinese Society of Infectious Diseases and the Chinese Society of Hepatology convened an expert panel in 2019 to update the guidelines for the prevention and treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB). The current guidelines cover recent advances in basic, clinical, and preventive studies of CHB infection and consider the actual situation in China. These guidelines are intended to provide support for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CHB.

Adverse Effects of Immunosuppression: Infections

Immunosuppressive therapies are currently indicated for a wide range of diseases. As new agents emerge and indications evolve the landscape grows increasingly complex. Therapies can target pathologic immune system over-activation in rheumatologic or autoimmune disease, or conditioning and graft versus host disease (GVHD) prophylactic regimens may eliminate or inhibit host immune function to improve graft survival and risk of complication in solid organ transplantation (SOT) or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). With immunosuppressive therapy, infections occur. Complex disease states, host factors, and concomitant therapies contribute to a "net state" of immunosuppression that must be considered and may confound perceived increased infection risks in patients receiving treatment.

APASL clinical practice guideline on hepatitis B reactivation related to the use of immunosuppressive therapy

BACKGROUND & AIM

Hepatitis B reactivation related to the use of immunosuppressive therapy remains a major cause of liver-related morbidity and mortality in hepatitis B endemic Asia-Pacific region. This clinical practice guidelines aim to assist clinicians in all disciplines involved in the use of immunosuppressive therapy to effectively prevent and manage hepatitis B reactivation.

METHODS

All publications related to hepatitis B reactivation with the use of immunosuppressive therapy since 1975 were reviewed. Advice from key opinion leaders in member countries/administrative regions of Asian-Pacific Association for the study of the liver was collected and synchronized. Immunosuppressive therapy was risk-stratified according to its reported rate of hepatitis B reactivation.

RECOMMENDATIONS

We recommend the necessity to screen all patients for hepatitis B prior to the initiation of immunosuppressive therapy and to administer pre-emptive nucleos(t)ide analogues to those patients with a substantial risk of hepatitis and acute-on-chronic liver failure due to hepatitis B reactivation.

Tenofovir alafenamide for prevention and treatment of hepatitis B virus reactivation and de novo hepatitis

Background and Aim

Administration of tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) as prevention or treatment of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation is not well known. The aim of this study is to reveal the efficacy and safety of TAF against HBV reactivation.

Methods

Entecavir (ETV) and TAF were given to 66 and 11 patients, respectively, as prophylaxis against or treatment of HBV reactivation during chemotherapy or immune suppression therapy from January 2010 to June 2020. The antiviral effects and safety were assessed.

Results

At week 24, the antiviral effects on patients receiving ETV and TAF were similar in terms of reduction of HBV DNA (-2.83 ± 1.45log IU/mL vs -3.05 ± 2.47log IU/mL; P = 0.857) and achieving undetectable levels of HBV DNA (78.8 vs 90.9%; P = 0.681). There was no significant difference in the decrease in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) between the two groups (-0.62 ± 11.2 mL/min/1.73 m² vs -3.67 ± 13.2 mL/min/1.73 m²; P = 0.291).

Conclusion

TAF is safe and effective against HBV reactivation.

Prevention of hepatitis B reactivation in patients requiring chemotherapy and immunosuppressive therapy

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation can lead to severe acute hepatic failure and death in patients with HBV infection. HBV reactivation (HBVr) most commonly develops in patients undergoing cancer chemotherapy, especially B cell-depleting agent therapy such as rituximab and ofatumumab for hematological or solid organ malignancies and that receiving hematopoietic stem cell transplantation without antiviral prophylaxis. In addition, the potential consequences of HBVr is particularly a concern when patients are exposed to either immunosuppressive or biologic therapies for the management of rheumatologic diseases, inflammatory bowel disease and dermatologic diseases. Thus, screening with HBV serological markers and prophylactic or pre-emptive antiviral treatment with nucleos(t)ide analogues should be considered in these patients to diminish the risk of HBVr. This review discusses the clinical manifestation, prognosis and management of HBVr, risk stratifications of cancer chemotherapy and immunosuppressive therapy and international guideline recommendations for the prevention of HBVr in patients with HBV infection and resolved hepatitis B.

Comparison of Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate and Entecavir in the Prophylaxis of HBV Reactivation

INTRODUCTION

Current guidelines recommend starting antiviral prophylaxis to prevent hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in patients receiving immunosuppressive treatments (IST). The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) for prophylaxis.

METHODS

Patients, who were HBsAg and/or anti-HBc IgG positive and scheduled to receive IST for oncologic and hematologic diseases, were enrolled into the study. Those who were already receiving an antiviral treatment for HBV or had an associated HIV, hepatitis C, D were excluded. The remaining patients with a prophylaxis indication according to the AGA guideline were randomized to receive either ETV (0.5 mg/day) or TDF (245 mg/day). Prophylaxis was continued for 6-12 months after completion of IST. Patients were followed up for 1 year after completion of prophylaxis. The HBV reactivation rates and side effects of the drugs were compared.

RESULTS

The study group included 120 patients. There was no significant difference between the demographic data, viral serologic parameters and reactivation risk profiles of the ETV (n = 60) and TDF (n = 60) groups. Forty-one patients in the ETV and 36 in the TDF group completed the antiviral prophylaxis, and no HBV reactivation was observed. HBV reactivation was observed in 4 of 37 patients (10.8%) in the ETV group and 5 of 35 (14.3%) patients in the TDF group (including one with flare) during the follow-up after completion of prophylaxis. Ten patients in the ETV group (16.7%) and 14 patients (23.3%) in the TDF group experienced side effects (p = 0.77). One patient in the TDF group had to switch to ETV due to severe itchy, maculopapular rash-like lesions.

CONCLUSIONS

ETV and TDF had a similar efficacy in the prophylaxis of HBV reactivation in patients undergoing IST, with none of the patients experiencing reactivation.

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.

[Ocrelizumab for treatment of multiple sclerosis]

Ocrelizumab ist ein monoklonaler Antikörper, der sich gegen das Differenzierungsantigen CD20 richtet und zu einer effektiven längerfristigen Depletion von Lymphozyten, insbesondere von B‑Zellen, führt. Unlängst publizierte Phase-3-Studien belegen, dass Ocrelizumab sowohl bei der Behandlung der schubförmigen als auch der primär progressiven Multiplen Sklerose (MS) wirksam ist. Darauf basierend wurde Ocrelizumab als erstes Medikament zur Behandlung der primär chronisch-progredienten MS zugelassen. Um diesen Durchbruch besser in den Kontext des heutigen MS-Therapiekanons einordnen zu können, lohnt sowohl ein Blick zurück auf die Entwicklung der antikörpervermittelten CD20-Depletion als auch auf die der Zulassung zugrunde liegenden Studien sowie deren Extensionsphasen. Diese Übersichtsarbeit diskutiert die verfügbaren Daten zur Wirksamkeit und Sicherheit der langfristigen B‑Zell-Depletion bei MS-Patienten und erörtert den aktuellen Kenntnisstand zur Rolle von B‑Lymphozyten in der Immunpathogenese der MS.

The Anti-Angiogenic Effects of Anti-Human Immunodeficiency Virus Drugs

The growth and metastasis of malignant tumors benefit from the formation of blood vessels within the tumor area. There, new vessels originate from angiogenesis (the sprouting of pre-existing neighboring vessels) and/or vasculogenesis (the mobilization of bone marrow-derived endothelial cell precursors which incorporate in tumor vasculature and then differentiate into mature endothelial cells). These events are induced by soluble molecules (the angiogenic factors) and modulated by endothelial cell interactions with the perivascular matrix. Given angiogenesis/vasculogenesis relevance to tumor progression, anti-angiogenic drugs are often employed to buttress surgery, chemotherapy or radiation therapy in the treatment of a wide variety of cancers. Most of the anti-angiogenic drugs have been developed to functionally impair the angiogenic vascular endothelial growth factor: however, this leaves other angiogenic factors unaffected, hence leading to drug resistance and escape. Other anti-angiogenic strategies have exploited classical inhibitors of enzymes remodeling the perivascular matrix. Disappointingly, these inhibitors have been found toxic and/or ineffective in clinical trials, even though they block angiogenesis in pre-clinical models. These findings are stimulating the identification of other anti-angiogenic compounds. In this regard, it is noteworthy that drugs utilized for a long time to counteract human immune deficiency virus (HIV) can directly and effectively hamper molecular pathways leading to blood vessel formation. In this review the mechanisms leading to angiogenesis and vasculogenesis, and their susceptibility to anti-HIV drugs will be discussed.

[Prophylactic Antiviral Treatment in Immunosuppressed Chronic Hepatitis B Patients]

Improved management of chronic hepatitis B patients with oral nucleos(t)ide analogues has increased the number of these patients who are getting older and have other accompanying comorbidities. These comorbidities frequently require various immunosuppression treatments and/or cytotoxic chemotherapy. Not only the patients who are positive for HBsAg, but also the patients who are positive for isolated anti-HBc are at risk for hepatitis B reactivation during immunosuppression. Prophylactic antiviral treatment with oral nucleos(t)ide analogues with high genetic barriers can decrease the risks of HBV reactivation, HBV reactivation- associated hepatitis, and mortality in these patients. It is crucial to screen HBV markers in all of the patients who have to undergo immunosuppression, be administered prophylactic antiviral treatment in the high risk groups, and be monitored for HBV reactivation during and after immunosuppression and/or cytotoxic chemotherapy. This study summarizes the recommendations from the recently updated guidelines from Korea, United States, and Europe.

Role of hepatitis B antibody in predicting reactivation of resolved hepatitis B virus infection in leukemia patients

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Quantification of anti-HBs and anti-HBc predicts the risk of HBV reactivation (HBVr) in lymphoma patients receiving rituximab treatment. However, it remains unclear whether the quantification is predictive of HBVr in leukemia patients undergoing immunosuppression.

METHODS

and patients: Clinical and laboratory data of the leukemia patients with resolved HBV infection diagnosed between January 2013 and March 2018 were retrospectively collected. Data series of HBV seromarkers and HBV DNA levels before the patients receiving chemotherapy and/or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) and during follow-up duration were analyzed.

RESULTS

In total, 533 leukemia patients with resolved HBV infection were included. The incidences of HBVr were 5.7% (25/441) and 2.2% (2/92) in patients receiving HSCT and chemotherapy, respectively. In patients receiving HSCT, acute lymphoid leukemia had a significantly higher incidence of HBVr than acute myeloid leukemia (8.9% vs 3.9%, P < 0.05). The incidence varied almost zero to 40% due to the differences in the profiles of HBV antibodies. High anti-HBs (cut-off of 79.2 IU/L) or low anti-HBc levels (cut-off of 4.475, S/CO) at baseline were associated with a low risk of HBVr. Anti-HBe status did not affect the incidence of HBVr. However, the cut-offs were only predictive of HBVr in the patients who had negative anti-HBe.

CONCLUSION

The baseline profiles of HBV antibodies are predictive of the risk of HBVr in leukemia patients undergoing immunosuppression. However, seronegative anti-HBe is a prerequisite for using baseline anti-HBs and anti-HBc quantification to predict HBVr risk.

Prevention of hepatitis B virus reactivation in patients with hematological malignancies and resolved hepatitis B virus infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Patients with resolved hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection are at risk of HBV reactivation during treatment for hematological malignancies. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the data on the efficacy of antiviral prophylaxis for the prevention of HBV reactivation in this group of patients.

METHODS

We conducted a systemic literature search of PubMed including MEDLINE and EMBASE databases to 31 January 2019 to identify studies published in English comparing antiviral prophylaxis with no prophylaxis for HBV reactivation in patients treated for hematological malignancies. The search terms used were ("occult hepatitis B" OR "resolved hepatitis B") AND ("reactivation") AND ("haematological malignancy" OR "hematological malignancy" OR "chemotherapy" OR "immunotherapy" OR "chemoimmunotherapy" OR "lymphoma" OR "leukemia" OR "transplant"). The primary outcome was the reactivation of HBV infection. Pooled estimates of relative risk (RR) were calculated.

RESULTS

We identified 13 relevant studies including two randomized controlled trials (RCT), one post hoc analysis from RCT and 10 cohort studies. There was a trend towards a lower rate of HBV reactivation using antiviral prophylaxis, but the difference was not significant (RR 0.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23-1.40, P = 0.22). When limiting the analysis to the three prospective studies of patients receiving anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, we found antiviral prophylaxis was associated with a significantly lower risk of HBV reactivation (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06-0.49, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Antiviral prophylaxis reduced the risk of HBV reactivation in patients receiving anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies for hematological malignancies but not in a broader group of patients receiving anticancer therapy.

Serum alanine aminotransferase flares in chronic hepatitis B infection: the good and the bad

Chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection follows a dynamic and variable course. At different stages in the disease, hepatitis flares might occur, which can be challenging to predict and manage. Flares are believed to be primarily immune-mediated and might mark transitions to inactive disease or clearance of infection, but in certain scenarios they might also lead to hepatic decompensation or death. As such, understanding of the clinical significance of flares in different patient populations and different scenarios is important for optimal management. In this Review, we summarise what is known about flares in different stages of chronic HBV infection; describe flares in the context of the natural history of chronic infection; summarise the immunological mechanisms underlying flares, and describe flares in different clinical scenarios. Each section reviews existing knowledge and highlights key unanswered questions that need to be addressed to improve the understanding of flares, hopefully providing insights into their pathogenesis that can be used to improve current clinical management and ideally to further develop new curative therapeutic approaches for HBV infection. We also propose a working definition of an ALT flare to facilitate future research.

Reactivation of Hepatitis B Virus in Patients with Multiple Myeloma

Reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) is a well-known complication in patients with hematological malignancies during or after cytotoxic chemotherapy. If the initiation of antiviral therapy is delayed in patients with HBV reactivation, these patients can develop severe hepatitis and may die of fulminant hepatitis. The preventive strategy for HBV reactivation in patients with malignant lymphoma has already been established based on some prospective studies. As there was an increased number of novel agents being approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM), the number of reported cases of HBV reactivation among MM patients has gradually increased. We conducted a Japanese nationwide retrospective study and revealed that HBV reactivation in MM patients is not rare and that autologous stem cell transplantation is a significant risk factor. In this study, around 20% of all patients with HBV reactivation developed HBV reactivation after 2 years from the initiation of therapy, unlike malignant lymphoma. This might be due to the fact that almost all of the patients received chemotherapy for a long duration. Therefore, a new strategy for the prevention of HBV reactivation in MM patients is required.

Updates in the management of hepatitis B in children

Introduction: Universal infant hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccination program has reduced HBV infection dramatically in vaccinated young generations. Management of chronically infected children is still challenging concerning high viral load with mostly mild diseases, yet with a nonnegligible proportion of advanced diseases, and long-term effect of antivirals. However, with more potent antivirals approved for pediatric patients, to start antivirals earlier in eligible patients may benefit their outcomes. This review aimed to update the current management of chronic hepatitis B in children.Areas covered: This review covered the natural history of chronic HBV infection, management of chronic hepatitis B in children from the past to the present, current consensus on the treatment of chronic hepatitis B in children, controversies in cessation of oral antivirals, and management of special populations such as pregnancy and co-infections.Expert opinions: Without contraindication, peginterferon is recommended for immune-active children ≥ 3 years old. For those intolerant, decompensating or preferring oral therapy, first-line Nucleos(t)ide analogs (NUC), Entecavir or Tenofovir, may be applied. For immune-tolerant or inactive carriers, close monitoring is crucial. When to stop NUCs and novel therapies for HBV cure await further research.

APASL HCV guidelines of virus-eradicated patients by DAA on how to monitor HCC occurrence and HBV reactivation

In the direct-acting antiviral (DAA) era for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, sustained virological response (SVR) is very high, but close attention must be paid to the possible occurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) in patients with co-infection who achieved SVR in short term. HCC occurrence was more often observed in patients with previous HCC history. We found occurrence of HCC in 178 (29.6%) of 602 patients with previous HCC history (15.4 months mean follow-up post-DAA initiation) but, in contrast, in only 604 (1.3%) of 45,870 patients without previous HCC history (18.2 months mean follow-up). Thus, in these guidelines, we recommend the following: in patients with previous HCC history, surveillance at 4-month intervals for HCC by ultrasonography (US) and tumor markers should be performed. In patients without previous HCC history, surveillance at 6- to 12-month intervals for HCC including US is recommended until the long-term DAA treatment effects, especially for the resolution of liver fibrosis, are confirmed. This guideline also includes recommendations on how to follow-up patients who have been infected with both HCV and HBV. When HCV was eradicated in these HBsAg-positive patients or patients with previous HBV infection (anti-HBc and/or anti-HBs-positive), it was shown that HBV reactivation or HBV DNA reappearance was observed in 67 (41.4%) of 162 or 12 (0.9%) of 1317, respectively. For these co-infected patients, careful attention should be paid to HBV reactivation for 24 weeks post-treatment.

Hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus infection in immunocompromised patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide an update on recent studies of hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections in cancer patients with an emphasis on viral reactivation after cancer treatment, new antiviral therapies, and safety concerns.

RECENT FINDINGS

The diagnostic criteria for HBV reactivation in patients receiving cancer therapy were revised in 2018. HBV reactivation in these patients is preventable, even with the use of new cancer therapies. HCV reactivation also has been reported in cancer patients, particularly those with hematologic malignancies, and is not a virologic condition usually associated with poor outcome. Prophylaxis to prevent HCV reactivation is not recommended because therapy with direct-acting antivirals eradicates the infection in the majority of cancer patients.

SUMMARY

Cancer patients with HBV or HCV infection are at risk for viral reactivation, with many similarities between these two infections. Patients at high risk for reactivation will benefit significantly from taking oral antivirals, which will reduce the risk of HBV reactivation or prevent development of HCV reactivation following its virologic cure.

Prophylaxis of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection reactivation - recommendations of the Working Group for prevention of HBV reactivation

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) is one of the main causes of chronic liver diseases and hepatocellular carcinoma. After infection the majority of HBV-infected patients achieve immune control leading to HBV-DNA stabilization at a low level. The risk of HBV reactivation rises significantly when HBV-infected patients receive immunosuppressive treatments. Presented recommendations provide guidelines for management of patients scheduled or undergoing therapies, which through their immunomodulatory activity contribute to the impairment of antiviral immunity, including chemotherapy, immunosuppressive treatment or biological therapy.

Reactivation of hepatitis B virus infection in patients with hemo-lymphoproliferative diseases, and its prevention

Reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) replication is characterized by increased HBV-DNA serum values of about 1 log or by HBV DNA turning positive if previously undetectable in serum, possibly associated with liver damage and seldom life-threatening. Due to HBV reactivation, hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-negative/anti-HBc-positive subjects may revert to HBsAg-positive. In patients with hemo-lymphoproliferative disease, the frequency of HBV reactivation depends on the type of lymphoproliferative disorder, the individual's HBV serological status and the potency and duration of immunosuppression. In particular, it occurs in 10%-50% of the HBsAg-positive and in 2%-25% of the HBsAg- negative/anti-HBc-positive, the highest incidences being registered in patients receiving rituximab-based therapy. HBV reactivation can be prevented by accurate screening of patients at risk and by a pharmacological prophylaxis with anti-HBV nucleo(t)sides starting 2-3 wk before the beginning of immunosuppressive treatment and covering the entire period of administration of immunosuppressive drugs and a long subsequent period, the duration of which depends substantially on the degree of immunodepression achieved. Patients with significant HBV replication before immunosuppressive therapy should receive anti-HBV nucleo(t)sides as a long-term (may be life-long) treatment. This review article is mainly directed to doctors engaged every day in the treatment of patients with onco-lymphoproliferative diseases, so that they can broaden their knowledge on HBV infection and on its reactivation induced by the drugs with high immunosuppressive potential that they use in the care of their patients.

Management of HBV reactivation in non-oncological patients

INTRODUCTION

HBV reactivation (HBVr) in patients undergoing immunosuppressive therapy is a well-known event. While there are clear directives on the management of current or resolved HBV infection in onco-hematological diseases, there are few data regarding patients with non-oncological diseases. Thus, the aim of the present review is to evaluate HBVr in patients with non-oncological diseases, and identify the management of these patients to prevent HBVr. Areas covered: Original papers, case reports and meta-analyses reporting data on HBVr of current or resolved infection in gastrointestinal, dermatological, rheumatologic and neurological diseases were evaluated. Expert commentary: In HBsAg-positive subjects, those with HBV-related hepatitis (both HBeAg-positive or negative) should be treated with a high genetic barrier nucleos(t)ide analog. The patients with HBV-infection (both HBeAg-positive and negative) an antiviral prophylaxis should be used, with lamivudine in those HBeAg-negative without signs of advanced liver disease, and with ETV, TDF or TAF in all the HBeAg-positive or in those HBeAg-negative with signs of advanced liver disease. In HBsAg-negative/anti-HBc positive subjects, when the risk of HBV reactivation is moderate (use of B-cell depleting agents), a prophylaxis-strategy may be considered; instead, in those with low risk of HBVr, a pre-emptive therapy strategy may be used.

INASL Guidelines on Management of Hepatitis B Virus Infection in Patients receiving Chemotherapy, Biologicals, Immunosupressants, or Corticosteroids

Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) reactivation in patients receiving chemotherapy, biologicals, immunosupressants, or corticosteroids is emerging to be an important cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with current or prior exposure to HBV infection. These patients suffer a dual onslaught of illness: one from the primary disease for which they are receiving the culprit drug that led to HBV reactivation, and the other from HBV reactivation itself. The HBV reactivation not only leads to a compromised liver function, which may culminate into hepatic failure; it also adversely impacts the treatment outcome of the primary illness. Hence, identification of patients at risk of reactivation before starting these drugs, and starting treatment aimed at prevention of HBV reactivation is the best strategy of managing these patients. There are no Indian guidelines on management of HBV infection in patients receiving chemotherapy, biologicals, immunosupressants, or corticosteroids for the treatment of rheumatologic conditions, malignancies, inflammatory bowel disease, dermatologic conditions, or solid-organ or bone marrow transplantation. The Indian National Association for Study of the Liver (INASL) had set up a taskforce on HBV in 2016, with a mandate to develop consensus guidelines for management of various aspects of HBV infection, relevant to India. In 2017 the taskforce had published the first INASL guidelines on management of HBV infection in India. In the present guidelines, which are in continuation with the previous guidelines, the issues on management of HBV infection in patients receiving chemotherapy, biologicals, immunosupressants, or corticosteroids are addressed.

Pharmacotherapy-Induced Hepatitis B Reactivation Among Patients With Prior Functional Cure: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To describe and quantify the incidence and morbidity of hepatitis B reactivation (HBVr) secondary to pharmaceutical agents (eg, rituximab, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, direct-acting antivirals [DAAs] for hepatitis C) among patients with previously resolved hepatitis B infection.

DATA SOURCES

The MEDLINE database was searched from inception through July 2018 using the terms hepatitis B + ( reactivation OR [drug or drug class linked to HBVr]).

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Relevant English-language cohort studies or randomized trials quantifying the incidence of HBVr secondary to pharmacotherapy among patients negative for hepatitis B surface antigen and DNA and positive for hepatitis B core antibody were included.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Among 2045 articles, 102 met inclusion criteria. Receipt of rituximab was associated with the highest risk of HBVr (for oncological indication: 6.2% rate [225/3601 patients]) and subsequent hepatitis (up to 52.4% of all HBVr cases). Biologic agents for autoimmune disease were uncommonly associated with HBVr (2.4%, 56/2338), with only 4 cases of hepatitis, all attributable to rituximab. Reactivation caused by DAAs was rare (0.3%, 28/8398), with no cases of hepatitis. Relevance to Patient Care/Clinical Practice: This review compares and contrasts the incidence and clinical relevance of HBVr for various pharmacotherapies among patients with functionally cured hepatitis B, with discussion of appropriate risk mitigation strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with prior functional cure of hepatitis B, prophylactic antiviral therapy is recommended with rituximab administration irrespective of indication because of a high risk for HBVr-associated morbidity. Enhanced monitoring alone is reasonable for patients receiving nonrituximab biologics or DAAs.

Correction: Randomized prospective study evaluating tenofovir disoproxil fumarate prophylaxis against hepatitis B virus reactivation in anti-HBc-positive patients with rituximab-based regimens to treat hematologic malignancies: The Preblin study

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0184550.].

Hepatitis B virus reactivation in patients treated with immunosuppressive drugs: a practical guide for clinicians

Hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr) is emerging as an important clinical entity, with the advent of highly potent immunosuppression licensed for use as the treatment of a widening range of clinical indications. HBVr can lead to severe acute liver failure and death. Risk can be minimised through appropriate screening, monitoring and antiviral prophylaxis. Screening for serological markers at the -earliest opportunity is recommended. Risk stratification should then be performed on the basis of characteristics of the -underlying disease, markers of viral activity and the potency of proposed immunosuppression. In this review, we summarise the most recent recommendations from the relevant international societies. We also provide suggestions on how a robust multidisciplinary service can be delivered to prevent HBVr in UK clinical practice through optimisation of resources and introduction of checkpoints to prevent the inappropriate administration of immunosuppression to those at significant risk of HBVr.

Antiviral prophylaxis during chemotherapy or immunosuppressive drug therapy to prevent HBV reactivation in patients with resolved HBV infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Until recently, the role of antiviral prophylaxis in preventing hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation during immunosuppressive therapy or chemotherapy in patients with resolved HBV infection was unclear. The aim of the study reported here was to compare the efficacy of antiviral prophylaxis versus that of non-prophylaxis in resolved HBV-infected patients undergoing chemotherapy or immunosuppressive therapy.

METHODS

PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the ClinicalTrials.gov website were searched from inception until December 2017. Studies comparing reactivation in prophylaxis versus non-prophylaxis in patients undergoing immunosuppressive therapy or chemotherapy were included. The meta-analysis was performed to calculate the relative risk (RR) and the pooled estimates.

RESULTS

A meta-analysis was conducted of 13 studies (2 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 11 cohort studies). The summary RR for HBV reactivation was 0.47 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-1.69) for antiviral prophylaxis versus non-prophylaxis. Both of the RCTs included in the meta-analysis enrolled patients treated with rituximab. Subgroup analyses showed that the two RCTs ± high-quality cohort studies showed a decreased risk of HBV reactivation among the antiviral prophylaxis groups (RCT 1: RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02-0.70; P = 0.02; RCT 2: 0.28, 95% CI 0.08-0.98; P = 0.05). Subgroup analyses further showed that the cohort studies did not support an association between the antiviral prophylaxis groups and HBV reactivation (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.14-2.83; P = 0.54); adjusting for confounding factors, such as detectable anti-HBs antibodies, failed to produce a significant association (RR,0.29, 95% CI 0.07-1.28; P = 0.10).

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analyses did not show an association between antiviral prophylaxis use and risk of HBV reactivation. As using only the RCTs ± high-quality cohort studies data rendered this association significant, clinicians can consider providing antiviral prophylaxis to patients with resolved HBV infection who are undergoing rituximab-based therapy.

Management of chronic viral hepatitis in the hematological patient

INTRODUCTION

Infection with HBV and HCV represents a growing challenge in the management of patients with hematological malignancies. Recently, hepatitis E (HEV) was recognized as an endemic infection in developed countries and as an emerging health problem in immunocompromised patients. Areas covered: We reviewed the current knowledge on the impact of chronic viral hepatitis in the hematological setting. Epidemiological features, screening strategies and indications for treatment and monitoring have been explored and commented. Expert commentary: Knowing patient's complete HBV serostatus is mandatory in order to choose between treatment, prophylaxis or a pre-emptive approach. Recent guidelines favor treatment with high barrier molecules in all patients with chronic HBV infection and long lasting prophylaxis with those with inactive or resolved one. With regard to HCV, the new direct-acting antiviral agents have been safely administered in the hematological setting. Their use as first-line single treatment in indolent lymphomas, and combined with chemotherapy in aggressive ones, should be considered. Due to the existing risk of chronic HEV infection in the immunocompromised, screening with serum HEV-RNA should be performed in case of signs and symptoms indicative of hepatitis. In the event of HEV infection, reduction of immunosuppression and, if not feasible or unsuccessful, ribavirin treatment should be prescribed.

Hepatitis B: Who and when to treat?

As current treatment options almost never achieve eradication of hepatitis B virus (HBV), the most realistic goal for HBV treatment is persistent inhibition of viral replication and ALT normalization. Thus, the decision to start treatment should be based on careful patient selection and individualized decisions. Treatment is generally indicated in chronic hepatitis B patients with HBV DNA >2000 IU/mL, elevated ALT and/or at least moderate histological lesions, while all patients with cirrhosis and detectable HBV DNA should be treated. Patients with HBV DNA >20 000 IU/mL and ALT >2xULN (upper limit of normal), HBV DNA >2000 IU/mL and liver stiffness >9 or >12 kPa in case of normal or ≤5xULN, HBV DNA >2000 IU/mL and a family history of cirrhosis and/or HCC as well as HBeAg-positive patients with HBV DNA >20 000 IU/mL and over 30 years old can begin treatment whatever the liver histology. Moreover, patients with HBV DNA >2000 IU/mL and at least moderate histological lesions can begin treatment whatever the ALT levels. Prophylactic treatment is indicated in HBV-related liver transplantation patients to prevent recurrence, in the last trimester of pregnancy in women with high viraemia to prevent vertical transmission and in patients receiving immunosuppression/chemotherapy to prevent the reactivation of HBV. Treatment is also indicated in patients with co-infections, extrahepatic manifestations and severe acute hepatitis B, or healthcare workers with viraemia. These treatment indications can only change if HBV eradication or at least HBsAg clearance can be achieved in the future in a significant proportion of patients.