Hepatitis B reactivation after kidney transplantation in hepatitis B surface antigen-negative, core antibody-positive recipients

Transplantation and immigration: Comparing infectious complications and outcomes between foreign-born and US-born kidney transplant recipients in Minnesota

BACKGROUND

Foreign-born kidney transplant recipients (FBKTRs) are at increased risk for reactivation of latent infections that may impact outcomes. We aimed to compare the etiology of infections and outcomes between FBKTR and United States KTRs (USKTR).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of patients who underwent kidney transplantation between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2018 at two transplant centers in Minnesota. Frequency and etiology of infections as well as outcomes (graft function, rejection, and patient survival) at 1-year post-transplant between FBKTR and USKTR were compared.

RESULTS

Of the 573 transplant recipients, 124 (21.6%) were foreign-born and 449 (78.4%) US-born. At least one infection occurred in 411 (71.7%) patients (38.2% bacterial, 55% viral, 9.4% fungal). Viral infections were more frequent in FBKTR, particularly BK viremia (38.7% vs. 21.2%, p < .001). No statistical differences were found for bacterial or fungal infections; no parasitic infections were identified in either group. No geographically-restricted infections were noted aside from a single case of Madura foot in a FBKTR. Rejection episodes were more common in USKTR (p = .037), but stable/improving graft function (p = .976) and mortality (p = .451) at 1-year posttransplantation were similar in both groups. After adjusting for covariates, previous transplantation was associated with a higher number of infections (IRR 1.35, 95% confidence intervals 1.05-1.73, p = .020).

CONCLUSION

Although viral infections were more frequent in FBKTR, overall frequency and etiology of most infections and outcomes were similar between FBKTR and USKTR suggesting that comprehensive transplant care is providing timely prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of latent infections in FBKTR.

Incidence, risk factors, and clinical outcomes of HBV reactivation in non-liver solid organ transplant recipients with resolved HBV infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines do not recommend routine antiviral prophylaxis to prevent hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in non-liver solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients with resolved HBV infection, even in anti-hepatitis B surface antigen (anti-HBs)-negative recipients and those receiving intense immunosuppression. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the incidence, risk factors, and clinical outcomes of HBV reactivation in non-liver SOT recipients.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Three databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library) were systematically searched up to December 31, 2022. Clinical studies reporting HBV reactivation in non-liver SOT recipients were included. Case reports, case series, and cohort studies with a sample size of less than 10 patients were excluded. Random-effects analysis was used for all meta-analyses. We included 2,913 non-liver SOT recipients with resolved HBV infection from 16 retrospective cohort studies in the analysis. The overall HBV reactivation rate was 2.5% (76/2,913; 95% confidence interval [95% CI 1.6%, 3.6%]; I2 = 55.0%). Higher rates of reactivation were observed in recipients with negative anti-HBs (34/421; 7.8%; 95% CI [5.2%, 10.9%]; I2 = 36.0%) by pooling 6 studies, experiencing acute rejection (13/266; 5.8%; 95% CI [2.3%, 14.5%]; I2 = 63.2%) by pooling 3 studies, receiving ABO blood type-incompatible transplantation (8/111; 7.0%; 95% CI [2.9%, 12.7%]; I2 = 0%) by pooling 3 studies, receiving rituximab (10/133; 7.3%; 95% CI [3.4%, 12.6%]; I2 = 0%) by pooling 3 studies, and receiving anti-thymocyte immunoglobulin (ATG, 25/504; 4.9%; 95% CI [2.5%, 8.1%]; I2 = 49.0%) by pooling 4 studies. Among recipients with post-transplant HBV reactivation, 11.0% (7/52; 95% CI [4.0%, 20.8%]; I2 = 0.3%) developed HBV-related hepatic failure, and 11.0% (7/52; 95% CI [4.0%, 20.8%]; I2 = 0.3%) had HBV-related death. Negative anti-HBs (crude odds ratio [OR] 5.05; 95% CI [2.83, 9.00]; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%), ABO blood type-incompatible transplantation (crude OR 2.62; 95% CI [1.05, 6.04]; p = 0.040; I2 = 0%), history of acute rejection (crude OR 2.37; 95% CI [1.13, 4.97]; p = 0.022; I2 = 0%), ATG use (crude OR 3.19; 95% CI [1.48, 6.87]; p = 0.003; I2 = 0%), and rituximab use (crude OR 3.16; 95% CI [1.24, 8.06]; p = 0.016; I2 = 0%) increased the risk of reactivation. Adjusted analyses reported similar results. Limitations include moderate heterogeneity in the meta-analyses and that most studies were conducted in kidney transplant recipients.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-liver SOT recipients with resolved HBV infection have a high risk of HBV-related hepatic failure and HBV-related death if HBV reactivation occurs. Potential risk factors for HBV reactivation include rituximab use, anti-thymocyte immunoglobulin use, anti-HBs negative status, acute rejection history, and ABO blood type-incompatible transplantation. Further research on monitoring and routine antiviral prophylaxis of non-liver SOT recipients at higher risk of HBV reactivation is required.

Risk Stratification for Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation in Kidney Transplant Recipients With Resolved HBV Infection

The prophylaxis strategy for hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) with resolved HBV infection remains unclear. In this hospital-based retrospective cohort study, consecutive KTRs with resolved HBV infection were screened from the years 2000 through 2020. After excluding confounding conditions, 212 and 45 patients were respectively recruited into Anti-HBs positive and Anti-HBs negative groups. Cumulative incidences of, and subdistribution hazard ratios (SHRs) for HBV reactivation were analyzed after adjusting the competing risk. During a median 8.3 (mean 8.4 ± 4.9) years of follow-up, the 10-year cumulative incidence of HBV reactivation was significantly higher in Anti-HBs negative group when compared to that in Anti-HBs positive group (15.2%, 95% CI: 3.6-26.7 vs. 1.3%, 95% CI: 0.0-3.0; p < 0.001). In multivariable regression analysis, absence of anti-HBs (SHR 14.2, 95% CI: 3.09-65.2; p < 0.001) and use of high-dose steroids, i.e., steroid dose ≥20 mg/day of prednisolone equivalent over 4 weeks (SHR 8.96, 95% CI: 1.05-76.2; p = 0.045) were independent risk factors related to HBV reactivation. Accordingly, the 10-year cumulative incidence of HBV reactivation occurring in patients with two, one and zero risk factors was 42.7% (95% CI: 0.0-87.1), 7.9% (95% CI: 1.2-14.7) and 0%, respectively (p < 0.001). In conclusion, the strategy of HBV antiviral prophylaxis may be defined according to the risk stratification.

A multi-center evaluation of hepatitis B reactivation with and without antiviral prophylaxis after kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) negative and hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc) positive kidney transplant recipients ranges between 1.4-9.6%. Limited evidence is available regarding routine antiviral prophylaxis and identifiable risk factors for HBV reactivation in this population.

METHODS

In this multi-center retrospective study, we evaluated the prevalence of HBV reactivation in HBsAg-negative anti-HBc-positive kidney transplant recipients who did or did not receive antiviral prophylaxis. The primary outcome assessed the prevalence of HBV reactivation, defined as a positive HBV DNA by PCR of any viral load at or above the minimal detection level. The principal safety outcomes assessed 1-year graft survival, 1-year all-cause mortality, biopsy proven acute rejection (BPAR), and antibody mediated rejection (AMR).

RESULTS

One-hundred sixty-one patients met inclusion criteria and comprised of two groups, antiviral prophylaxis (n=14) and no antiviral prophylaxis (n=147). Of patients who did not receive prophylaxis only five (3.4%) experienced HBV reactivation whereas one (7.1%) patient in the prophylaxis group experienced reactivation over a median follow-up of 1103 days (p= 0.43). Furthermore, there were no differences with respect to all secondary outcomes. Statistical analysis demonstrated delayed graft function to be a significant factor associated with HBV reactivation.

CONCLUSION

These study results suggest that the prevalence of HBV reactivation in HBsAg-negative anti-HBc-positive kidney transplant recipients is low, regardless of antiviral prophylaxis. Furthermore, there were no significant graft related outcomes among those that did experience reactivation. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Kidney transplant from donors with hepatitis B: A challenging treatment option

Utilizing kidneys from donors with hepatitis B is one way to alleviate the current organ shortage situation. However, the risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) transmission remains a challenge that undermines the chance of organs being used. This is particularly true with hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) positive donors despite the comparable long-term outcomes when compared with standard donors. To reduce the risk of HBV transmission, a comprehensive approach is needed. This includes assessment of donor risk, optimal allocation to the proper recipient, appropriate immunosuppressive regimen, optimizing the prophylactic therapy, and post-transplant monitoring. This review provides an overview of current evidence of kidney transplants from donors with HBsAg positivity and outlines the challenge of this treatment. The topics include donor risk assessment by adopting the nucleic acid test coupled with HBV DNA as the HBV screening, optimal recipient selection, importance of hepatitis B immunity, role of nucleos(t)ide analogues, and hepatitis B immunoglobulin. A summary of reported long-term outcomes after kidney transplantation and proposed criteria to utilize kidneys from this group of donors was also defined and discussed.

Rituximab-induced autoimmune hepatitis: A case study and literature review

Rituximab is a monoclonal antibody to CD20, often used to treat B-cell lymphomas and various autoimmune diseases. While there is extensive literature on rituximab-induced liver injury related to hepatitis B reactivation, there have been no reports to date of autoimmune-type idiopathic drug-induced liver injury from this drug. We present a case of necro-inflammatory hepatitis with autoimmune features in a 40-year-old female after receiving a second dose of rituximab for mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphoma, with a review of the literature.