Prevention of HBV reactivation in patients treated with biologic agents

Long-term safety of rituximab in rheumatic patients with previously resolved hepatitis B virus infection

Conflicting results can be found in the literature on the frequency of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation (HBVr) on rituximab (RTX) in rheumatic patients with previously resolved HBV (prHBV) infection. Here, we report the frequency of HBVr in a large historical cohort of caucasian rheumatic patients with prHBV receiving RTX. Registry data of rheumatic patients treated with RTX were retrospectively analysed. Demographic and clinical characteristics including evaluation of anti-HCV and HBV markers, annual HBV-DNA determination and aminotransferase levels assessed every three months, were recorded. Kaplan-Meier estimate was used to compare the risk of being still under therapy at different time points in patients with or without prHBV infection. Cox regression analysis was used to determine the association between recorded variables and treatment discontinuation. A total of 311 patients treated with RTX, 44 (14.1%) with and 267 (85.9%) without prHBV were analysed. No significant difference between the two groups regarding demographic and clinical characteristics was observed. During RTX treatment, detectable HBV-DNA and reappearance of HBsAg in patients with prHBV (seroreversion) were never observed. Kaplan-Meier functions were similar in patients with or without prHBV infection which was not associated with RTX discontinuation neither at univariate nor at multivariate analysis. These data are in favor of the concept that patients with rheumatologic diseases have a very low risk of reactivation of the HBV infection under RTX treatment. However, future prospective studies, including a larger number of patients, are still necessary to draw definitive conclusions.

Safety of therapies using ustekinumab in patients with psoriasis who have had hepatitis B virus infection

Biological therapies used in psoriasis treatment pose a risk of reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. This risk occurs not only in patients with HB surface antigen (HBsAg) (+) but also in patients with past or occult HBV infection (with negative HBsAg, positive HB core antibodies (HBcAb), and positive HBV deoxyribonucleic acid [DNA]). Ustekinumab (UST) is a biologic agent acts by blocking the IL-12/23 pathway. Thus, hindering this response may lead to HBV reactivation. UST therapy is associated with mild HBV-r risk; however, there is insufficient data to confirm that hypothesis. Herein, we present observations on the safety of UST therapy in patients with psoriasis and serologically proved past HBV infection. One-hundred and six consecutive patients with moderate to severe psoriasis treated with biological therapy between May 2013 and January 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Out of 106 patients, there were five who reported having past HBV. Those five patients were tested for the presence of HBsAg, HBcAb, HBsAb as well as HBV DNA at baseline and at the end of the follow-up period. HBV reactivation was defined as changing of "undetectable" to "detectable" viremia. All five patients were treated with UST. Five patients in our cohort group were found to have resolved HBV infection: HBsAg (-), HBcAb (+), and HBV DNA (-); 4/5 were HBsAb (+) and 1/5 HBsAb (-). None of the patients experienced an increase in their liver function tests values and no signs of hepatitis or HBV reactivation were observed at any point during the study. All the patients were HBsAg and HBV DNA negative at the end of the follow-up period. The average treatment time was 82.4 (28, 96) weeks. The average follow-up time was 75.2 (31, 176) weeks. Based on the available literature and the results from our observations, UST therapy seems to be a safe option for patients with resolved HBV infection.

Review article: safety of new biologic agents for inflammatory bowel disease in the liver

New biologic agents (vedolizumab, ustekinumab and tofacitinib) represent an effective treatment for inflammatory bowel diseases and have been recently approved. However, with a rapidly evolving complement of advanced targeted therapies, new concerns about their potentially undesirable effects on liver function emerge. In particular, little is known about safety data in patients with hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus chronic infections, cirrhosis and in transplanted patients who are accumulating. In addition, these new agents have also been associated with drug-induced liver injury. Limited data on the efficacy of vedolizumab in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis are also available. This article reviews available data about hepatic safety concerns in patients receiving vedolizumab, ustekinumab and tofacitinib with and without preexistent hepatic diseases.

Reactivation of hepatitis B virus infection in rheumatic diseases: risk and management considerations

In patients with rheumatic diseases undergoing immunosuppressive treatment, hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr) has been long recognized as a major treatment-related adverse event with substantial morbidity and mortality. Because HBVr is easily preventable with appropriate screening and monitoring strategies, and, when indicated, prophylactic antiviral treatment, awareness of this complication is of the utmost importance, especially in the era of biologic treatments. As a condition, it continues to be topical, in view of the emergence of novel classes of immunosuppressive drugs (i.e. Janus kinase inhibitors) acquiring licenses for a variety of rheumatic diseases. The class-specific risk of these agents for HBVr has not yet been determined. Moreover, ambiguity still exists for the management of patients planned to be treated with traditional agents, such as cyclophosphamide and glucocorticoids, particularly in the setting of resolved HBV infection. Clinicians in the field of rheumatic diseases should be tailoring their practice according to the host's profile and treatment-specific risk for HBVr. In this review, the authors attempt to critically review the existing literature and provide practical advice on these issues.

Hepatitis B virus reactivation during belatacept treatment after kidney transplantation

We report a case of HBV reactivation following belatacept treatment in a patient who underwent kidney transplantation in 2015 for HIV-associated nephropathy (HIVAN). Human immunodeficiency virus viral load was undetectable prior to transplantation, and CD4+ lymphocyte count was greater than 300/mL. Baseline HBV serology at transplantation was HBsAg negative, anti-HBcAb positive, anti-HBsAb 312 UI/L, and HBeAg negative/anti-HBeAb positive. Liver function tests were normal, and viral DNA was undetectable. Two years later, the patient presented with severe acute hepatitis after a progressive disappearance of anti-HbsAb, quickly followed by HBV reactivation. Immunosuppressive treatment was drastically reduced, and treatment with entecavir was started. The outcome was favorable, and HBV DNA became undetectable after 9 weeks of treatment. This is the first report of acute hepatitis related to HBV reactivation in a kidney transplant recipient treated with belatacept. The risk for HBV reactivation in patients treated with belatacept should not be underestimated, especially in those with resolved HBV infection.

Concurrent and reactivation of hepatitis B virus infection in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: risk factors and survival outcome

Objective

To determine the clinical features and survival difference of HBV related and Non-HBV related diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and to evaluate the occurrence of HBV reactivation in DLBCL patients and related risk factors for HBV reactivation after R-CHOP therapy.

Methods

A total of 246 patients diagnosed with CD20+ DLBCL were enrolled from June 2010 to June 2015. The medical records and survival data were analysed. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of HBV reactivation. Survival curves were performed by the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results

Among patients enrolled, 80 patients were HBsAg sero-positive and 166 patients were HBsAg sero-negative. Findings showed that HBsAg sero-negative patients were significantly older than that of patients with HBsAg sero-positive (P <  0.001). Proportion of B symptom positive patients in HBsAg sero-positive were higher (p = 0.002). Higher LDH level (P = 0.019) and late Ann Arbor stage (P = 0.010) were more often observed in patients with HBsAg sero-positive. The rate of complete response, partial response, stable disease and progress disease in HBsAg sero-negative group were 63.9, 16.9, 1.1 and 18.1%, respective, which is significantly higher than that in HBsAg sero-positive group (36.2, 18.8, 1.2 and 43.8%). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that DLBCL patients with HBsAg sero-negative had better prognosis. In total, 17 patients showed HBV reactivation among 166 patients (10.2%) with HBsAg sero-negative after R-CHOP treatment, while a significant higher HBV reactivation 18.75% (9/48) in HBsAb negative group were observed, with 8.25% (8/97) patients in HBsAb level 10-100 U/mL group, and 0% patients in HBsAb level higher than 100 U/mL group. Multivariable analysis showed that serum HBsAb and serum HBcAb were independent risk factors for HBV reactivation in DLBCL patients.

Conclusion

Our data revealed that characteristics and prognosis were significantly different between HBV related DLBCL than non-HBV related DLBCL patients. DLBCL patients with resolved hepatitis B are at a higher risk of developing HBV reactivation after R-CHOP chemotherapy compared with HBsAg-negative/HBcAb negative patients.

Special aspects of biologics treatment in psoriasis: management in pregnancy, lactation, surgery, renal impairment, hepatitis and tuberculosis

Background of the article: Biologics are modern immunomodulatory drugs, whose use in the treatment of psoriasis has led to remarkable results in psoriatic patients. The administration of these agents in special population groups, such as patients with chronic infections and renal impairment, as well as perioperative, pregnant or lactating patients, has not been thoroughly addressed, mostly because these patients are excluded from clinical studies. Materials and methods: This report is an updated systematic overview of the use of biologics in the above-mentioned types of patients and was conducted according to the PRISMA Guidelines for systematic reviews. Articles derived from the databases PubMed, EMBASE and SCOPUS, published between 1999 and 2018, were analyzed for the study. Results: Research efforts as well as clinical reporting are necessary in order to provide more insight on the management of these therapeutic dilemmas. Conclusion: The aim of this review, other than providing a summarized update on the clinical knowledge on this special topic, is also to raise awareness for the need to conduct larger systematic studies in order to adequately evaluate the use of biologics in these special patient categories and therefore draw definite conclusions on their safety profile.

Management of psoriasis patients with hepatitis B or hepatitis C virus infection

The systemic therapies available for the management of Psoriasis (PsO) patients who cannot be treated with more conservative options, such as topical agents and/or phototherapy, with the exception of acitretin, can worsen or reactivate a chronic infection. Therefore, before administering immunosuppressive therapies with either conventional disease-modifying drugs (cDMARDs) or biological ones (bDMARDs) it is mandatory to screen patients for some infections, including hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV). In particular, the patients eligible to receive an immunosuppressive drug must be screened for the following markers: antibody to hepatitis B core, antibody to hepatitis B surface antigen (anti-HBsAg), HBsAg, and antibody to HCV (anti-HCV). In case HBV or HCV infection is diagnosed, a close collaboration with a consultant hepatologist is needed before and during an immunosuppressive therapy. Concerning therapy with immunosuppressive drugs in PsO patients with HBV or HCV infection, data exist mainly for cyclosporine a (CyA) or bDMARDs (etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, ustekinumab). The natural history of HBV and HCV infection differs significantly as well as the effect of immunosuppression on the aforementioned infectious diseases. As a rule, in the case of active HBV infection, systemic immunosuppressive antipsoriatic therapies must be deferred until the infection is controlled with an adequate antiviral treatment. Inactive carriers need to receive antiviral prophylaxis 2-4 wk before starting immunosuppressive therapy, to be continued after 6-12 mo from its suspension. Due to the risk of HBV reactivation, these patients should be monitored monthly for the first 3 mo and then every 3 mo for HBV DNA load together with transaminases levels. Concerning the patients who are occult HBV carriers, the risk of HBV reactivation is very low. Therefore, these patients generally do not need antiviral prophylaxis and the sera HBsAg and transaminases dosing can be monitored every 3 mo. Concerning PsO patients with chronic HCV infection their management with immunosuppressive drugs is less problematic as compared to those infected by HBV. In fact, HCV reactivation is an extremely rare event after administration of drugs such as CyA or tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors. As a rule, these patients can be monitored measuring HCV RNA load, and ALT, aspartate transaminase, gamma-glutamyl-transferase, bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase, albumin and platelet every 3-6 mo. The present article provides an updated overview based on more recently reported data on monitoring and managing PsO patients who need systemic antipsoriatic treatment and have HBV or HCV infection as comorbidity.