Risk of hepatitis B virus reactivation in people with multiple sclerosis treated with ocrelizumab: an observational study from Turkey

BACKGROUND

The risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation remains unclear in people with multiple sclerosis (MS) receiving ocrelizumab. We aimed to assess HBV seroprevalence and reactivation risk in MS patients on ocrelizumab and to evaluate the effectiveness of antiviral prophylaxis against HBV reactivation.

METHODS

In this single-center, cross-sectional study, 400 people with MS receiving ocrelizumab were screened for HBV at baseline and antiviral prophylaxis was implemented based on serological results. Patients were monitored for HBV reactivation, and outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Among 56 (14%) patients who had serology compatible with occult or resolved HBV infection, 49 (85.7%) received antiviral prophylaxis regularly and had no HBV reactivation during the follow-up. Reactivation of HBV occurred in 2 out of 7 (28.6%) patients who did not receive antiviral prophylaxis and in one patient who did not adhere to the prophylaxis regimen. All patients with reactivation had anti-HBs levels below 100 mIU/mL and the median titer was significantly lower than the patients with no HBV reactivation (p = 0.034).

CONCLUSION

This study highlights a 14% anti-HBc positivity, indicating a potential risk for HBV reactivation in people with MS receiving ocrelizumab. This suggests the importance of vigilant monitoring and the implementation of prophylactic measures. Our recommendation emphasizes antiviral prophylaxis, particularly for patients with low anti-HBs, and a pre-emptive strategy for others.

Real-Life Data on the Efficacy and Safety of Letermovir for Primary Prophylaxis of Cytomegalovirus in Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Recipients: A Single-Center Analysis

Objective

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation is a life-threatening complication after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Introduction of letermovir (LMV) seems to improve post-transplant outcomes, but delayed-onset CMV reactivation still remains a challenge. In this study, we report on our first experience with LMV prophylaxis in 93 CMV-seropositive adult patients receiving HSCT in our center.

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the data of 93 adult CMV-seropositive recipients receiving LMV as CMV prophylaxis after HSCT for hematological malignancies between 2019 and 2023. The starting LMV dose was 480 mg daily, reduced to 240 mg daily for those receiving cyclosporin A co-administration. CMV DNA in the blood was measured by real-time polymerase chain reaction weekly for the first 2 months after transplantation, then every other week until the end of immunosuppressive treatment. LMV was continued to day +100 or to CMV reactivation.

Results

The median recipient age at the time of transplant was 51 (range: 20-71) years. All patients received grafts from peripheral blood, mostly for acute myeloid leukemia (60%). The median time from transplantation to LMV initiation was 3 (range: 0-24) days. While 55% of patients were transplanted from matched related donors, 32% had unrelated donors and 13% underwent haploidentical HSCT. Four patients (4%) had CMV “blips” while on LMV, but the drug was continued and repeated assays were negative. Only 2 patients (2%) experienced CMV reactivation while on LMV, on days 48 and 34 after HSCT, respectively. Seven patients (7%) developed late-onset CMV reactivation after a median of 124 days after HSCT (range: 118-152 days) and they were successfully treated with ganciclovir. CMV disease was not observed. Grade III-IV acute graft-versus-host disease occurred in 6 patients (6%) during LMV treatment. LMV treatment was free of side effects.

Conclusion

LMV prophylaxis was effective in preventing CMV reactivation with a favorable safety profile. CMV reactivation occurred mostly after LMV discontinuation; thus, extending the duration of prophylaxis beyond 100 days could be beneficial.

Prevention of hepatitis B reactivation in patients with hematologic malignancies treated with novel systemic therapies: Who and Why?

The risk of reactivation in patients with chronic or past/resolved hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection receiving chemotherapy or immunosuppressive drugs is a well-known possibility. The indication of antiviral prophylaxis with nucleo(t)side analogue is given according to the risk of HBV reactivation of the prescribed therapy. Though the advent of new drugs is occurring in all the field of medicine, in the setting of hematologic malignancies the last few years have been characterized by several drug classes and innovative cellular treatment. As novel therapies, there are few data about the rate of HBV reactivation and the decision of starting or not an antiviral prophylaxis could be challenging. Moreover, patients are often treated with a combination of different drugs, so evaluating the actual role of these new therapies in increasing the risk of HBV reactivation is difficult. First results are now available, but further studies are still needed. Patients with chronic HBV infection [hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) positive] are reasonably all treated. Past/resolved HBV patients (HBsAg negative) are the actual area of uncertainty where it could be difficult choosing between prophylaxis and pre-emptive strategy.

Hepatitis B virus reactivation associated with new classes of immunosuppressants and immunomodulators: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and expert opinion

HBV reactivation (HBVr) can be prevented by nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the risk of HBVr associated with new classes of immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory therapies and developed guidance on NA prophylaxis. An expert panel reviewed the data and categorised the risk of HBVr associated with each class of drugs into low (<1%), intermediate (1-10%), and high (>10%). Our search uncovered 59 studies, including 3,424 HBsAg+ and 5,799 HBsAg-/anti-HBc+ patients, which met our eligibility criteria. Based on medium-high quality evidence, immune checkpoint inhibitors, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, cytokine inhibitors, chimeric antigen receptor T-cell immunotherapies, and corticosteroids were associated with high HBVr risk in HBsAg+ patients; cytokine inhibitors, chimeric antigen receptor T-cell immunotherapies, and corticosteroids with intermediate risk in HBsAg-/anti-HBc+ patients; and anti-tumour necrosis factor agents and immune checkpoint inhibitors with low risk in HBsAg-/anti-HBc+ patients. Provisional recommendations are provided for drugs with low quality evidence. NA prophylaxis is recommended when using drugs associated with a high HBVr risk, while monitoring with on-demand NAs is recommended for low-risk drugs - either approach may be appropriate for intermediate-risk drugs. Consensus on definitions and methods of reporting HBVr, along with inclusion of HBsAg+, and HBsAg-/anti-HBc+ patients in clinical trials, will be key to gathering reliable data on the risk of HBVr associated with immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory therapies.

Long-term incidence of varicella zoster virus disease in adults receiving single-unit cord blood transplantation

BACKGROUND

Varicella zoster virus (VZV) disease is a common complication after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). However, research into the long-term incidence of VZV disease in adults receiving cord blood transplantation (CBT) has been limited.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the incidence, risk factors, and clinical impact of VZV disease after CBT with a long-term follow-up in our institute.

STUDY DESIGN

We retrospectively analyzed the data for 156 adult patients who received single-unit CBT at our institute between 2007 and 2020, who achieved neutrophil engraftment and survived at least 100 days without recurrence of the underlying disease.

RESULTS

VZV disease occurred in 61 patients at a median of 608 days (range, 36 - 4090 days) after CBT. The cumulative incidence of VZV disease was 14% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9% to 20%) at 1 year and 40% (95% CI, 31% to 48%) at 5 years after CBT. Multivariate analysis showed that the cessation of antiviral prophylaxis was an independent risk factor for a higher risk of VZV disease (hazard ratio: 15.65, 95% CI: 6.59-37.21, P<0.001). The cumulative incidence of VZV disease was significantly lower in the long-term antiviral prophylaxis group given for around 1 year after CBT or the end of immunosuppressive therapy compared to the short-term antiviral prophylaxis group given for 35 days after CBT (P=0.005). Among patients who developed VZV disease, the median onset of VZV disease was significantly delayed in the long-term antiviral prophylaxis group compared to the short-term antiviral prophylaxis group (694 days vs 130 days, P<0.001), but the median onset of VZV disease after the cessation of antiviral prophylaxis was not significantly different between long-term and short-term antiviral prophylaxis (166 days vs 95 days, P=0.087).

CONCLUSION

These data demonstrated that the long-term incidence of VZV disease was relatively high in adult patients receiving CBT. Given that the incidence of VZV disease after the cessation of antiviral prophylaxis remained high, additional interventions, such as recombinant zoster vaccine administration, could be required to prevent VZV disease in long-term adult survivors after CBT.

Management of herpesvirus reactivations in patients with solid tumours and hematologic malignancies: update of the Guidelines of the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society for Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO) on herpes simplex virus type 1, herpes simplex virus type 2, and varicella zoster virus

Clinical reactivations of herpes simplex virus or varicella zoster virus occur frequently among patients with malignancies and manifest particularly as herpes simplex stomatitis in patients with acute leukaemia treated with intensive chemotherapy and as herpes zoster in patients with lymphoma or multiple myeloma. In recent years, knowledge on reactivation rates and clinical manifestations has increased for conventional chemotherapeutics as well as for many new antineoplastic agents. This guideline summarizes current evidence on herpesvirus reactivation in patients with solid tumours and hematological malignancies not undergoing allogeneic or autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation or other cellular therapy including diagnostic, prophylactic, and therapeutic aspects. Particularly, strategies of risk adapted pharmacological prophylaxis and vaccination are outlined for different patient groups. This guideline updates the guidelines of the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society for Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO) from 2015 "Antiviral prophylaxis in patients with solid tumours and haematological malignancies" focusing on herpes simplex virus and varicella zoster virus.

Comparison of HBV reactivation between patients with high HBV-DNA and low HBV-DNA loads undergoing PD-1 inhibitor and concurrent antiviral prophylaxis

BACKGROUND

Programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitor is recommended to treat advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the safety of PD-1 inhibitor in patients with high HBV-DNA load is unknown because of the potential risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation. This study was to compare the HBV reactivation between patients with low HBV-DNA loads and high HBV-DNA loads undergoing antiviral prophylaxis and PD-1 inhibitor.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study including consecutive hepatitis B surface antigen-positive HCC patients who received PD-1 inhibitor and concurrent antiviral prophylaxis for prevention of clinical hepatitis. Patients were divided into low HBV-DNA group (low group, ≤ 500 IU/ml) and high HBV-DNA group (high group, > 500 IU/ml) according to the baseline HBV-DNA level. The incidences of HBV reactivation, HBV-associated hepatitis, and PD-1 inhibitor disruption were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Two hundred two eligible patients were included: 94 in the low group and 108 in the high group. Seven patients (5 in the low group and 2 in the high group) developed HBV reactivation, and all recovered from HBV reactivation and HBV-associated hepatitis. The incidence of HBV reactivation in the two groups was low (5.3% vs 1.9%, P = 0.34). There was also no difference in the incidence of HBV-associated hepatitis (P = 0.56), or PD-1 inhibitor disruption (P = 0.82). The multivariable analysis showed PD-1 inhibitor with hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy was the only significant risk factor for HBV reactivation (P = 0.04) and hepatitis (P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

With concurrent antiviral prophylaxis, HBV-DNA load higher than 500 IU/ml should not be a contraindication for PD-1 inhibitor.

Maternal hepatitis B e antigen can be an indicator for antiviral prophylaxis of perinatal transmission of hepatitis B virus

As a high-risk factor of perinatal HBV transmission, the potential role of maternal hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) to guide antiviral prophylaxis has not yet been fully reported. This large prospective cohort study enrolled 1177 hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-positive pregnant women without antiviral treatment and their newborns. HBeAg, HBsAg, and viral load in maternal serum collected before delivery were measured. All the newborns were given standard passive-active immunoprophylaxis within 12 h after birth, and post-vaccination serologic testing was performed at 7 (±7d) months of age. The results revealed that 20 of the 1177 infants (1.70%) were immunoprophylaxis failure, and all their mothers were HBeAg positive. Maternal quantitative HBeAg was positively correlated with viral load (r = 0.83; P < .0001) and quantitative HBsAg (r = 0.68; P < .0001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for predicting immunoprophylaxis failure by maternal HBeAg was comparable to that by maternal viral load (0.871 vs 0.893; P = .441) and HBsAg (0.871 vs 0.871; P = .965). The optimal cutoff value of maternal quantitative HBeAg to predict perinatal infection was 2.21 log₁₀ PEI U/mL, and the sensitivity and specificity was 100.0% and 74.5%, respectively. According to maternal viral load >2 × 10⁵ IU/mL, the sensitivity and specificity of maternal qualitative HBeAg to identify the risk of HBV MTCT for pregnant women and determine the necessity for antiviral prophylaxis was 95.5% and 92.6%, respectively. This study showed that maternal HBeAg can be a surrogate marker of HBV DNA for monitoring and evaluating whether antiviral prophylaxis is necessary for preventing perinatal HBV transmission.

Factors associated with influenza-like illness in care homes in Cheshire and Merseyside during the 2017-2018 influenza season

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to identify care home characteristics associated with reported care home influenza outbreaks and factors associated with increased transmission of influenza-like illness (ILI) in care homes in Cheshire and Merseyside during the 2017-2018 influenza season.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a matched case-control study comparing characteristics between care homes with and without a declared influenza outbreak and a retrospective risk factor analysis of care home residents with ILI.

METHODS

Routinely collected outbreak surveillance data on symptomatic residents and staff, antiviral prophylaxis and influenza vaccination history, which were reported to Public Health England, were extracted from health protection electronic records. Further care home characteristics were extracted from the Care Quality Commission (CQC) website. Care homes with declared influenza outbreaks were matched with care homes without outbreaks. Chi-squared tests and logistic regression were used to examine associations between care home factors and ILI.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in characteristics between 77 care homes with declared influenza outbreaks and 77 matched care homes without outbreaks. Of 2,744 residents from the homes with a declared outbreak, 644 (24%) developed an ILI. The care home risk factors were having a low CQC score and activation of antiviral prophylaxis and the protective factors were having higher numbers of residents, specializing in dementia care and having the highest CQC score. Significantly more cases occurred in residential homes than in nursing homes, in homes with lower CQC scores and in homes where eligible residents were given antiviral prophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

In homes with declared outbreaks, certain characteristics including activation of antiviral prophylaxis were associated with an increased risk of ILI. Further research is needed, particularly focussing on temporality between provision of prophylactic antivirals and the onset of ILI.

Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation: What Is the Issue, and How Should It Be Managed?

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation, in the background of cleared and overt chronic HBV infection, can be seen in patients receiving immunosuppressive agents. Risk of reactivation is variably associated with HBV serologic status and types of immunosuppressive therapy. Prevention of HBV reactivation by antiviral prophylaxis is an effective strategy to reduce morbidity and mortality in those with immunocompromised states. This article defines HBV reactivation, discusses risk stratification and common medications that can induce HBV reactivation as well as guideline recommendations for prevention of HBV reactivation, and describes the prognosis and management of patients who experience HBV reactivation.

Hydroxychloroquine as antiviral prophylaxis for exposed caregivers to Covid-19: An urgent appraisal is needed

Background

Since the onset of the new coronavirus pandemic, the world is facing a public health emergency. Repositioning hydroxychloroquine (HQ) seems to be a promising option. Many emerging evidences have converged on the effectiveness of HQ in the treatment of Covid-19 infection. In a recent paper, Gautret et al. suggested that further works are needed to determine if HQ antiviral prophylaxis is useful, especially for healthcare workers.

Methods

The purpose of this paper is to assess the Covid-19 exposure and risks level among caregivers. For this, we performed research on internet and PubMed by crossing the following keywords: healthcare givers, healthcare workers, doctors, nurses, coronavirus, Covid-19, mortality, infection rate, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine.

Results

Data on healthcare worker's infection and mortality by Covid-19 are partial and are not systematically published. However, it seems that the infection rate varies between 3.8% and 9% depending on the country. Moreover, the mean age of this population is relatively old, especially in the OECD area.

Conclusions

Anti-Covid-19 HQ prophylaxis should be urgently accessed, especially for healthcare workers. It is to be hoped that HQ prophylaxis reduces the morbidity and mortality from Covid-19 infection among this population which is particularly exposed and relatively old.

The prevalence and significance of isolated hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc) in endemic population

OBJECTIVE

There are three major serologic markers for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection: hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg); hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs); and hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc). HBV screening programs, however, often test only HBsAg and anti-HBs, missing those individuals who have anti-HBc as the only detectable marker. Isolated anti-HBc can represent chronic infection in which HBsAg is not detectable by serology. We, therefore, investigated the prevalence of isolated anti-HBc in an ethnic community at moderate to high risk for HBV infection.

RESULTS

Of 7157 Korean American adults in New Jersey, 2736 (38.2%) lacked anti-HBs, potentially susceptible to HBV. Of these 2736 subjects, 771 subjects had anti-HBc. The prevalence of isolated anti-HBc increased with age: 0.8% (age 21-30); 2.4% (age 31-40); 6.05% (age 41-50); 11.7% (age 51-60); 18.3% (age 61-70); and 24.5% (age 71-91). Similarly, the percentage of the individuals with isolated anti-HBc in anti-HBs lacking subjects showed a striking age dependence. We conclude that serologic HBV screening should include anti-HBc to accurately assess the prevalence of HBV exposure. Serologic screening with only HBsAg and anti-HBs may overestimate the prevalence of non-immune population. It can also underestimate the prevalence of HBV and increase the risk of HBV reactivation during immunosuppression.

Antiviral prophylaxis for preventing reactivation of hepatitis B virus in rheumatic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

To estimate the risk of reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) and evaluate the effectiveness of antiviral prophylaxis (AVP) in patients with different status of HBV infection undergoing antirheumatic therapies. We searched Cochrane Library, Medline, and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, non-RCTs, cohort studies, or case series studies examining reactivation of HBV in patients undergoing antirheumatic therapy with or without AVP. We estimated the HBV reactivation rate (HRR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) among different patient groups (indirect comparison). We also calculated rate ratio (RR), rate difference (RD) with their 95% CIs, and the number needed to treat (NNT) of AVP (direct comparison). Fifty-three case series studies with 2162 patients were included. The RD of AVP was - 0.13 (95% CI - 0.21 to - 0.05) for all patients, - 0.16 (95% CI - 0.26 to - 0.06) for rheumatic patients with chronic HBV infection, but not statistically significant for patients with other status of HBV infection. Lamivudine (RD - 0.10, 95% CI - 0.25 to 0.05) was less effective than other prophylactic antiviral drugs (RD - 0.31, 95% CI - 0.52 to - 0.11). The HHR varied from 55 to 5% by HBV status and treatment. There is limited evidence that AVP was effective for preventing reactivation of HBV in patients undergoing antirheumatic therapy. The effectiveness varies by patient HBV status and antiviral regimens. Rheumatic HBV carriers may be more beneficial from AVP, and lamivudine may be inferior to other AVP regimens. Findings in this study warrant further investigation in rigorous RCTs.

Current evidence on the management of hepatitis B in pregnancy

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is one of the main public health problems across the globe, since almost one third of the world population presents serological markers of contact with the virus. A profound impact on the epidemiology has been exerted by universal vaccination programmes in many countries, nevertheless the infection is still widespread also in its active form. In the areas of high endemicity (prevalence of hepatitis B surface antigen positivity > 7%), mother-to-child transmission represents the main modality of infection spread. That makes the correct management of HBV in pregnancy a matter of utmost importance. Furthermore, the infection in pregnancy needs to be carefully assessed and handled not only with respect to the risk of vertical transmission but also with respect to gravid women health. Each therapeutic or preventive choice deserves to be weighed upon attentively. On many aspects evidence is scarce or controversial. This review will highlight the latest insights into the paramount steps in managing HBV in pregnancy, with particular attention to recommendations from recent guidelines and data from up-do-date research syntheses.

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.

Discontinuation of antiviral prophylaxis increased the risk of hepatitis B virus reactivation in glomerulonephritis patients under immunotherapy: a real-life observation

PURPOSE

Antiviral prophylaxis is proved to be effective in reducing the risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-positive patients under immunotherapy. But outcomes referring to discontinuation of antiviral prophylaxis in these patients are lacking.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of 105 HBsAg-positive patients under immunotherapy for glomerulonephritis and evaluated the incidence and risk factors for HBV reactivation.

RESULTS

Among 105 patients, 55.24% completed antiviral prophylaxis, while 20.00% discontinued and 24.76% rejected antiviral prophylaxis. HBV reactivation was significantly different among completion, discontinuation, and rejection of antiviral prophylaxis: 5.17% versus 38.10% versus 15.38% in the incidence of HBV reactivation (P = 0.001), 3.45% versus 23.81% versus 11.54% in HBV DNA ≥ 5 Log copies/ml (P = 0.023), and 0 versus 14.29% versus 3.85% in hepatitis B e antigen seroconversion from negative to positive (P = 0.014). Survival curve showed the median occurrence time of HBV reactivation in discontinuation group was 32 months (95% CI 24-39 months), earlier than 69 months (95% CI 65-72 months) of completion group and 43 months (95% CI 37-49 months) of rejection group (χ² = 13.780, P = 0.001). Univariate and multivariate analysis identified two independent risk factors for HBV reactivation: baseline HBV DNA detectable (OR 5.009, 95% CI 1.717-16.335, P = 0.012) and discontinuation of antiviral prophylaxis (OR 5.213, 95% CI 1.688-18.105, P = 0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

Discontinuation of antiviral prophylaxis increased the risk of HBV reactivation in HBsAg-positive patients under immunotherapy for glomerulonephritis.

Cost-effectiveness of antiviral prophylaxis during pregnancy for the prevention of perinatal hepatitis B infection in South Korea

BACKGROUND

In Korea, hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection accounts for approximately 65-75% of HBV-related diseases, such as chronic hepatitis and liver cancer, and mother-to-child transmission is presumed to be a major source of the infection. To tackle this issue, the Korean government launched the national Perinatal Hepatitis B Prevention Program (PHBPP) in 2002. This study analyzed the cost-effectiveness of the PHBPP with antiviral prophylaxis compared with the current PHBPP and/or universal vaccination, as well as identified the optimal strategy to eliminate mother-to-child transmission of HBV in Korea.

METHODS

A decision tree model with the Markov process was developed and simulated over the lifetime of a birth cohort in Korea during the year 2014. The current PHBPP providing HBV vaccine and hepatitis B immune globulin to neonates born to HBV positive mothers was compared against two other strategies, universal vaccination of HBV and PHBPP with antiviral prophylaxis, with respect to their costs and health outcomes. The Korean National Health Insurance database was investigated to estimate the costs of HBV-related diseases and utilization of health resources. Costs were assessed from the health care system perspective and converted to 2014 US dollars. Health outcome measures were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and number of HBV-related diseases and deaths. Both costs and QALYs were discounted at 5%, following the recommendation of the Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service in Korea. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) obtained from the analysis was evaluated using the willingness-to-pay (WTP) in the Korean society.

RESULTS

PHBPP with antiviral prophylaxis in Korea was cost-effective compared with the current PHBPP. An introduction of antiviral prophylaxis to pregnant women with a high viral load of HBV averted 13 HBV-related deaths per 100,000 people and saved 82 QALYs in total (ICER: $16,159/QALY).

CONCLUSIONS

Considering that WTP in Korea is $29,000, PHBPP with antiviral prophylaxis appears to be a cost-effective strategy. To further decrease the burden of perinatal hepatitis B in Korea, adding antiviral prophylaxis to PHBPP is recommended.

Hepatitis B reactivation among 1962 patients with hematological malignancy in Taiwan

BACKGROUND

The risk of Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in patients with different hematological malignancy except lymphoma were rarely known before.

METHODS

A total of 1962 patients with hematological malignancy were enrolled and followed-up at the National Taiwan University Hospital between 2008 and 2013. The clinical characteristics, HBV serology, and laboratory data were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 1962 patients comprising 1048 men and 914 women were studied. The median age of the patients was 55 years (range, 15-97 years). Chronic HBV carriage was documented at diagnosis of hematological malignancy in 286 (14.6%) patients. A total of 171 (59.8%) of the 286 HBV carriers received primary prophylaxis with anti-HBV agents. Of the HBV carriers, 97 (33.9%) developed hepatitis B reactivation during or after chemotherapy, including 59 patients who had discontinued antiviral therapy. The incidence of hepatitis B reactivation among patients with hematological malignancy and HBV carriage was 10.4 per 100 person-years. A multivariate analysis revealed hepatocellular carcinoma (p < 0.001) and antiviral prophylaxis use (p < 0.001) were independent risk factors of HBV reactivation in HBV carriers. Of the 1676 patients with initial negative hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) counts, 41 (2.4%) experienced hepatitis B reactivation, reverse seroconversion of HBsAg, and lost their protective hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs). A multivariate analysis revealed that diabetes mellitus (p = 0.005, odds ratio (OR): 0.218, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.076-0.629), allogeneic transplantation (p = 0.013, OR: 0.182, 95% CI: 0.047-0.701), liver cirrhosis (p < 0.001, OR: 0.002, 95% CI: 0-0.047), low anti-HBs titers (p = 0.016, OR: 0.020, 95% CI: 0.001-0.480), and positive hepatitis B core antibody (p = 0.013, OR: 0.070, 95% CI: 0.009-0.571) were independent risk factors of positive seroconversion of HBsAg in patients with hematological malignancy.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of HBV reactivation among the patients with varying subtypes of hematological malignancy is similar. Prophylaxis with anti-HBV agents critically reduced the risk of hepatitis B reactivation.

Utilization of hepatitis B core antibody positive grafts in living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Utilization of liver grafts from hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc) positive donors carries the risk of reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) in recipients because of post-transplant immunosuppressive therapy.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of patients who had received liver grafts from anti-HBc positive live donors between 2006 and 2016 at our institute.

RESULTS

Out of 22 recipients [all males, mean age 45.4 years (range 18-64 years)], four patients were hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) positive preoperatively and received entecavir post-transplantation. One among these patients who temporarily stopped entecavir had a recurrence of hepatitis B 39 months post-transplantation. Among the 13 non-immune [hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs) < 10 mIU/mL] recipients, eight were prescribed lamivudine (100 mg daily) as monoprophylaxis. Four compliant patients remain negative for HBV so far. Out of the remaining four, two died secondary to sepsis unrelated to hepatitis B; two were non-compliant and developed reactivation of hepatitis B. Lamivudine was missed out in five non-immune patients; three of them developed hepatitis B reactivation while two remain negative. Anti-HBs titer was immune in five patients. Over a period of 4 to 8 years follow up, three remain immune without prophylaxis, while two expired due to causes unrelated to hepatitis B. Following the detection of hepatitis B infection, five patients have been started on tenofovir 300 mg once daily.

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-HBc positive liver grafts can be safely used for live donor liver transplantation. If the recipients are immune preoperatively, they can be merely followed up without HBV prophylaxis. However, it is extremely important to prophylactically treat the non-immune recipients with an antiviral agent lifelong.

Hepatitis B in renal transplant patients

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) poses a significant challenge for both dialysis patients and kidney transplant recipients despite its decreasing rates, especially in developed countries. The best preventive method is vaccination. Patients with chronic renal disease should ideally be vaccinated prior to dialysis, otherwise, reinforced vaccination practices and close antibody titer monitoring should be applied while on dialysis. HBV infected dialysis patients who are renal transplant candidates must be thoroughly examined by HBV-DNA, and liver enzyme testing and by liver biopsy. When needed, one must consider treating patients with tenofovir or entecavir rather than lamivudine. Depending on the cirrhosis stage, dialysis patients are eligible transplant recipients for either a combined kidney-liver procedure in the case of decompensated cirrhosis or a lone kidney transplantation since even compensated cirrhosis after sustained viral responders is no longer considered an absolute contraindication. Nucleoside analogues have led to improved transplantation outcomes with both long-term patient and graft survival rates nearing those of HBsAg(-) recipients. Moreover, in the cases of immunized HBsAg(-) potential recipients with concurrent prophylaxis, we are enabled today to safely use renal grafts from both HBsAg(+) and HBsAg(-)/anti-HBc(+) donors. In so doing, we avoid unnecessary organ discarding. Universal prophylaxis with entecavir is recommended in HBV kidney recipients and should start perioperatively. One of the most important issues in HBV(+) kidney transplantation is the duration of antiviral prophylaxis. In the absence of robust data, it seems that prophylactic treatment may be discontinued in selected stable, low-risk recipients during maintenance immunosuppression and should be reintroduced when the immune status is altered. All immunosuppressive agents in kidney transplantation can be used in HBV(+) recipients. Immunosuppression is intimately associated with increased viral replication; thus it is important to minimize the total immunosuppression burden long term.

Duration of Antiviral Prophylaxis and Risk of Herpes Zoster among Patients Receiving Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplants: A Retrospective, Observational Study

Introduction

There are no real-world data on antiviral prophylaxis (AP) duration and risk of herpes zoster (HZ) given AP duration in patients receiving autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplants (auto-HSCT). The objectives of this study are to describe the duration of AP and to compare incidence of HZ by AP duration in auto-HSCT patients.

Methods

This is a retrospective, observational database (Marketscan^®) study. This study included patients ≥18 years old who had auto-HSCT during 2009–2013, had chemotherapy within 60 days prior to auto-HSCT (latest chemotherapy date within the 60 days was the study enrollment date), and had continuous health plan enrollment for at least 365 days before and after the study enrollment date. AP duration was the sum of days supply of all AP prescriptions from 30 days before to 365 days after the study enrollment date. Patients were followed from the study enrollment date to the end of continuous health plan enrollment, death, or December 31, 2014 to assess HZ incidence. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to examine the association between the risk of HZ and AP duration.

Results

This study identified 1959 eligible auto-HSCT patients, of whom 93.0% were prescribed AP. Average AP duration was 220 days (SD = 122), while 200 (11%) patients had AP for ≥1 year. HZ incidence was 42.4/1000 person-years (PY) (95% CI 36.5, 49.0) for the overall auto-HSCT cohort. Among patients who received AP, duration of AP prescriptions and HZ incidence were inversely related. Compared with patients who were on AP for 1–89 days, patients with AP duration of 180–269 days [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.576, p = 0.019], 270–359 days (HR = 0.594, p = 0.023), and ≥360 days (HR = 0.309, p < 0.001) had significantly lower risk of HZ.

Conclusion

Auto-HSCT patients are at increased risk for HZ, even when prescribed AP. A safe and effective vaccine against HZ for auto-HSCT patients could be a useful adjunctive prevention strategy.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-017-0553-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Oseltamivir for influenza infection in children: risks and benefits

Influenza is a common disease affecting many children each year. In a number of cases, particularly in children <2 years old and in those with severe chronic underlying disease, influenza can be complicated by lower respiratory tract infections, acute otitis media, rhinosinusitis, febrile seizures, dehydration or encephalopathy. Oseltamivir is the influenza virus drug that is most commonly studied in children for both the treatment and prevention of influenza. To avoid the risk that children with mild influenza or patients suffering from different viral infections receive oseltamivir, oseltamivir treatment should be recommended only in severe influenza cases, especially if confirmed by reliable laboratory tests. However, therapy must be initiated considering the risk of complications and the presence of severe clinical manifestations at age- and weight-appropriate doses. Because the vaccine remains the best option for preventing influenza and its complications, prophylaxis using oseltamivir should only be considered in select patients.

Use of entecavir in hepatitis B virus reactivation of a patient with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma

We read with interest the case report by Liu et al and the correspondence by Tuna et al regarding this case. Liu et al described hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in a patient with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after withdrawal of lamivudine prophylaxis. When HBV reactivation was observed three months after lamivudine withdrawal, entecavir 0.5 mg daily was started. HBV DNA level was moderately elevated (10⁴ copies/mL) at that time. So, we could not understand why a potent antiviral like entecavir was required for this case. In addition to this, entecavir must be used at a dose of 1 mg in patients with prior prophylactic treatment with lamivudine. As stated by Tuna et al duration of lamivudine prophylaxis in this case might be insufficient and HBV reactivation might have occured for this reason. So, we suppose that resolution of HBV reactivation might also be achieved with lamivudine instead of entecavir in this case.

Hepatitis B reactivation and timing for prophylaxis

It is known that immunotherapy and cancer chemotherapy may cause hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in hepatitis B surface antigen carriers and inactive chronic hepatitis B patients. Guidelines recommend antiviral prophylaxis regardless of HBV DNA levels to prevent reactivation. We read from the article written by Liu et al that Lamivudine was given inadequate time for antiviral prophylaxis.

Impact of antiviral preventive strategies on the incidence and outcomes of cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplant recipients

We assessed the impact of antiviral prophylaxis and preemptive therapy on the incidence and outcomes of cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease in a nationwide prospective cohort of solid organ transplant recipients. Risk factors associated with CMV disease and graft failure-free survival were analyzed using Cox regression models. One thousand two hundred thirty-nine patients transplanted from May 2008 until March 2011 were included; 466 (38%) patients received CMV prophylaxis and 522 (42%) patients were managed preemptively. Overall incidence of CMV disease was 6.05% and was linked to CMV serostatus (D+/R- vs. R+, hazard ratio [HR] 5.36 [95% CI 3.14-9.14], p < 0.001). No difference in the incidence of CMV disease was observed in patients receiving antiviral prophylaxis as compared to the preemptive approach (HR 1.16 [95% CI 0.63-2.17], p = 0.63). CMV disease was not associated with a lower graft failure-free survival (HR 1.27 [95% CI 0.64-2.53], p = 0.50). Nevertheless, patients followed by the preemptive approach had an inferior graft failure-free survival after a median of 1.05 years of follow-up (HR 1.63 [95% CI 1.01-2.64], p = 0.044). The incidence of CMV disease in this cohort was low and not influenced by the preventive strategy used. However, patients on CMV prophylaxis were more likely to be free from graft failure.