anti-HBV Prophylaxis Research Articles

Hepatitis B Reactivation and Liver Failure Because of COVID-19 Infection

ABSTRACT Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been associated with liver injury incidence reported between 15% and 53%. Viral binding to ACE2 receptors in hepatobiliary cells is believed to cause liver inflammation. The relationship between hepatitis B and COVID-19 is poorly understood, but patients treated with immunosuppressive therapy for COVID-19 are at higher risk of hepatitis B reactivation (HBVr). We present a case of a patient with HBVr because of COVID-19, in the absence of any immunosuppressive treatment, leading to fulminant liver failure and subsequent requiring liver transplantation. Given low incidence, limited data, and no current guidelines, further studies are needed to evaluate the benefit and cost-effectiveness of anti-HBV prophylaxis in a patient with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) and COVID-19. Meanwhile, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases guidelines for patients with CHB and immunosuppressant use can be considered for anti-HBV prophylaxis for patients with CHB and COVID-19 to prevent HBVr on a case-by-case basis.

Two Concepts of Hepatitis B Core-Related Antigen Assay: A Highly Sensitive and Rapid Assay or an Effective Tool for Widespread Screening.

Hepatitis B core-related antigen (HBcrAg) reflects the activity of intrahepatic covalently closed circular DNA. HBcrAg can be detected even in chronic hepatitis B patients in whom serum HBV DNA or hepatitis B surface antigen is undetectable. The HBcrAg measurement system was developed based on two concepts. One is a fully-automated and highly-sensitive HBcrAg assay (iTACT-HBcrAg) and the other is a point-of-care testing (POCT) that can be used in in resource-limited areas. iTACT-HBcrAg is an alternative to HBV DNA for monitoring HBV reactivation and predicting the development of hepatocellular carcinoma. This validated biomarker is available in routine clinical practice in Japan. Currently, international guidelines for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission recommend anti-HBV prophylaxis for pregnant women with high viral loads. However, over 95% of HBV-infected individuals live in countries where HBV DNA quantification is widely unavailable. Given this situation, a rapid and simple HBcrAg assay for POCT would be highly effective. Long-term anti-HBV therapy may have potential side effects and appropriate treatment should be provided to eligible patients. Therefore, a simple method of determining the indication for anti-HBV treatment would be ideal. This review provides up-to-date information regarding the clinical value of HBcrAg in HBV management, based on iTACT-HBcrAg or POCT.

Impact of Mogamulizumab-Containing Chemotherapy on HBV Reactivation in Patients with T-Cell Lymphoma: A Multicenter Retrospective Observational Study (PROACTIVE-MOGA)

INTRODUCTION Reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is a potentially lethal complication, but may be preventable in patients with chronic HBV infection or resolved HBV infection who receive systemic chemotherapy.The risk of HBV reactivation (HBVR) depends on not only HBV infectious status but also type of systemic chemotherapy. An anti-CCR4 antibody, mogamulizumab (Moga), has been developed for the treatment of peripheral T-cell lymphomas. Moga is known to suppress CCR4-positive regulatory T cells and helper T cells, which can lead to immunological dysfunction. However, there is little evidence regarding the risk of HBVR in patients with chronic HBV infection or resolved HBV infection who receive Moga-containing systemic chemotherapy. We conducted a retrospective observational study to evaluate the risk of HBVR and clinical outcome in those patients. METHODS & MATERIALS: Patients treated with Moga-containing chemotherapy for T-cell lymphoma between May 2012 and March 2021, who were chronic HBV infection (defined as seropositive for HBsAg) or resolved HBV infection (defined as seronegative for HBsAg, but seropositive for anti-HBc or anti-HBs), were included. The primary endpoint was the rate of HBVR; HBVR in HBsAg-positive patients was defined as any of the following three criteria: 1) 2 log or more increase in HBV DNA from baseline, 2) 3.0 Log IU/ml or more of HBV DNA in patients with undetectable HBV DNA at baseline, 3) 4.0 Log IU/ml or more of HBV DNA in patients not available for HBV DNA at baseline. HBVR in HBsAg-negative patients was defined as any of following three criteria: 1) detectable for HBV DNA in patients with undetectable HBV DNA at baseline, 2) 1.3 Log IU/mL or more of HBV DNA in patients not available for HBV DNA at baseline, 3) seroconversion of HBsAg. RESULTS: A total of 23 HBsAg-positive patients and 246 resolved HBV-infected patients were retrospectively reviewed. Among the 23 HBsAg-positive patients, the median age was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 63-73) and 19 patients (82%) had adult T-cell leukemia-lymphoma (ATL). Baseline HBV DNA was undetectable level, detectable not quantifiable, and detectable in 9 (39%), 2 (9%), and 12 (52%) patients, respectively. All 23 HBsAg-positive patients received anti-HBV prophylaxis prior to Moga treatment. One of 23 (4.3%) patients experienced HBVR who led to HBV-related hepatitis. Among the 241 patients with resolved HBV infection, the median age was 65 years (IQR, 63-73) and 223 patients (91%) had ATL. Baseline serostatus of anti-HBc and anti-HBs were as follows: anti-HBc positive and anti-HBs positive in 177 patients (72%), anti-HBc-positive but anti-HBs negative in 50 (20%), the remaining 9 were anti-HBc negative but anti-HBs positive. Baseline HBV DNA was undetectable in 233 (95%), detectable not quantifiable in 5 (2%), and the remaining 3 were detectable for HBV DNA. Only 3 patients received anti-HBV prophylaxis. HBVR occurred in 11 patients, and the 2-year cumulative HBVR rate was 3.5% (95% CI, 1.6-16.5). Among the 11 patients with HBVR, the median peak HBV DNA level was 2.1 Log IU/mL (IQR, 1.7-5.0), the median time from first dose of Moga to HBVR was 140 days (IQR, 82-765) and 2 had HBV-related hepatitis. CONCLUSION: Our current study showed that the risk of HBVR was 4.3% (1 of 23) among HBsAg-positive patients with antiviral prophylaxis and 4.6% (11 of 238) among resolved HBV-infected patients without antiviral prophylaxis following Moga-containing chemotherapy. Anti-HBV prophylaxis and HBV DNA monitoring guided preemptive anti-HBV therapy are recommended to prevent HBV-related hepatitis for HBsAg-positive and resolve HBV-infected patients, respectively.

Infectious Complications in Autoimmune Hemolytic Anemia: A Multi-Center Italian Experience

Introduction: Infections may play an important role in the development or relapse of autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA) as well as possible complications of long-term immunosuppression secondary to its management. The prevalence and severity of infection in AIHA are still under-investigated. Methods: Hereby we studied retrospectively 324 patients older than 18 years old, diagnosed with AIHA and followed at 10 Italian centers between 1981 and 2022, focusing on infectious complications and their predictors. Results: At diagnosis, median age was 60 years (range 18-94), with 27% of patients older than 70 years and with a slight male predominance (65%) and classified as warm AIHA in 53% (Table 1). Median Hb was 7.3 g/dL (2-14), median WBC of 7,5x10 9/L (1,4-94) and median platelets of 260x10 9/L (4-695). Sixty-two (60%) out of 103 patients presented lymphopenia. Among 111 evaluable patients, reduced serum IgG/IgA/IgM levels were detected in 37%, 27%, and 23%, respectively. Twenty-nine (9%) patients had Evans Syndrome. During a median follow-up of 35 months (1-553 months), patients received a median of 1 line of therapy (1-7), including steroids, rituximab, chemotherapy, and immunosuppressive (IS) drugs in 90%, 45%, 10% and 12% of cases, respectively. Twenty (6%) patients underwent splenectomy and 43 (13%) received intravenous Ig supplementation. Sixty-five (20%) patients presented at least one infection episodes, with 17 experiencing recurrences. Pneumonia was the most frequent (44 cases), followed by 11 sepsis and 4 urinary tract infections, requiring hospitalization in 37 (71%) of cases. Pathogens were isolated in 23 patients (62% viral and 38% bacterial agents). Overall, 17 (16%) suffered from SARS-CoV-2 infection, of whom 8 requiring specific therapy. Eleven (18%) patients were receiving prophylaxis at the time of infection, including acyclovir (18%), cotrimoxazole (18%), both (55%) or anti-HBV prophylaxis (18%). Forty-seven (77%) patients were on active treatment for AIHA at the time of infection (32 steroids, 8 rituximab, 1 IS and 11 not specified), and 16 (25%) also experienced a thrombotic event. Patients receiving more than one therapy lines had 2-fold higher probability of developing infections (RR 2.03, 1.27-3.25, p=0,0017), particularly for those treated with IS (RR 1.77, 1.04-3.01, p=0,041) and with rituximab (RR 1.96, 1.20-3.20, p=0,0048). Among patients with infections, median time from the last dose of rituximab was 15 months (range 1-147 months). Moreover, patients with thrombotic events were more likely to experience infection episodes (RR 2.41, 1.52-3.83, p=0,001). During observation, 55 patients (23%) died, among them 10 for AIHA complications, including 6 infections. Conclusions: In conclusion, infections complicate about 20% of AIHA. Most episodes occurred during active AIHA-therapy and were more common in patients with prior exposure to rituximab or IS, suggesting an iatrogenic effect. The association with thrombotic events may indicate a relationship with more severe AIHA. Strategies to reduce the burden of IS in AIHA should be pursued.

Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation in Patients Receiving Bruton Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors.

Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors are used to treat B-cell hematologic malignancies. Ibrutinib has been associated with hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation. We sought to identify patients with hematologic malignancies who developed HBV reactivation after receiving first-generation (ibrutinib) or second-generation (acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib) BTK inhibitors. We retrospectively studied all consecutive patients with hematologic malignancies with past HBV infection (HBV surface antigen [HBsAg] negative and hepatitis B core antibody [anti-HBc] positive) or chronic HBV infection (HBsAg positive and anti-HBc positive) treated with BTK inhibitors at our institution from November 1, 2015, through November 1, 2022. Of 82 patients initially identified, 53 were excluded (11 because of false-positive anti-HBc results, and 42 because they were receiving anti-HBV prophylaxis owing to recent receipt of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies). The 29 remaining patients were further analyzed and 3 (10%; 2/28 with past and 1/1 with chronic HBV infection) were found to have HBV reactivation. One patient received ibrutinib, and 2 received acalabrutinib. All developed HBV-associated hepatitis requiring anti-HBV therapy and survived. One patient continued receiving acalarutinib. Among the patients with past HBV infection, 13 received ibrutinib and 1 (8%) had HBV reactivation; 14 received acalabrutinib and 1 (7%) had HBV reactivation (P=1.0). HBV reactivation risk is intermediate in patients with past HBV infection who receive BTK inhibitors. For patients with past HBV infection who received BTK inhibitors, data are insufficient to recommend universal anti-HBV prophylaxis, but monitoring for HBV reactivation is warranted.

Safety of secukinumab in the treatment of patients with axial spondyloarthritis and concurrent hepatitis B virus infection or latent tuberculosis infection.

To evaluate the safety of secukinumab (SEC) in the treatment of patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and concurrent hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection or latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI). This is a retrospective cohort study. Adult axSpA patients with HBV infection or LTBI receiving SEC treatment for at least 3months from March 2020 to July 2022 in Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital were included. Patients were screened for HBV infection and LTBI before SEC treatment. During follow-up, reactivation of HBV infection and LTBI was monitored. Relevant data were collected and analyzed. A total of 43 axSpA patients with HBV infection or LTBI were included, of whom 37 were with HBV infection, 6 were with LTBI. Six out of thirty-seven (16.2%) patients with axSpA and concurrent HBV infection exhibited HBV reactivation after 9.0 ± 5.7months of SEC treatment. Among them, 3 patients had chronic HBV infection and received anti-HBV prophylaxis, 2 patients had chronic HBV infection but did not receive anti-HBV prophylaxis, and 1 patient had occult HBV infection and did not receive antiviral prophylaxis. None of the 6 axSpA patients with LTBI developed reactivation of LTBI, whether received anti-TB prophylaxis or not. HBV reactivation can occur in axSpA patients with different types of HBV infection undergoing SEC treatment, whether receive antiviral prophylaxis or not. Close monitoring of HBV reactivation in axSpA patients with HBV infection undergoing SEC treatment is mandatory. Anti-HBV prophylaxis may be beneficial. In contrast, SEC may be safe in axSpA patients with LTBI, even in patients not receiving anti-TB prophylaxis. Key Points •Currently, most evidence about the safety of SEC in patients with HBV infection and LTBI were from patients with psoriasis. Our study adds data about the safety of SEC in Chinese axSpA patients with concurrent HBV infection or LTBI in real-world clinical setting. •Our study showed that HBV reactivation can occur in axSpA patients with different types of HBV infection undergoing SEC treatment, whether receive antiviral prophylaxis or not. •Close monitoring of serum HBV markers, HBV DNA load, and liver function is mandatory in axSpA patients with chronic, occult, and resolved HBV infection undergoing SEC treatment. Anti-HBV prophylaxis may be beneficial in all HBsAg-positive patients and HBsAg-negative, HBcAb-positive patients at high risk of HBV reactivation who are receiving SEC therapy. •None of the axSpA patients with LTBI, whether received anti-TB prophylaxis or not, developed reactivation of LTBI in our study. SEC may be safe in axSpA patients with LTBI, even in patients not receiving anti-TB prophylaxis.

Hepatitis B core-related antigen: a novel and promising surrogate biomarker to guide anti-HBV therapy.

The current requirement for biomarkers to detect hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is polarized. One is a fully-automated and highly sensitive measurement system; the other is a simple system for point-of-care testing (POCT) in resource-limited areas. Hepatitis B core-related antigen (HBcrAg) reflects intrahepatic covalently closed circular DNA and serum HBV DNA. Even in patients with undetectable serum HBV DNA or HBsAg loss, HBcrAg may remain detectable. Decreased HBcrAg levels are associated with reduction of the occurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in chronic hepatitis B (CHB). Recently, a fully-automated, novel high-sensitivity HBcrAg assay (iTACT-HBcrAg, cut-off value: 2.1 log U/mL) has been developed. This attractive assay has been released in Japan very recently. iTACT-HBcrAg can be useful for monitoring HBV reactivation and prediction of HCC occurrence, as an alternative to HBV DNA. Moreover, monitoring HBcrAg may be suitable for determining the therapeutic effectiveness of approved drugs and novel drugs under development. Presently, international guidelines recommend anti-HBV prophylaxis for pregnant women with high viral loads to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HBV. However, >95% of HBV-infected individuals live in countries where HBV DNA quantification is not available. Worldwide elimination of HBV needs the scaling-up of examination and medication services in resource-limited areas. Based on this situation, a rapid and easy HBcrAg assay as a POCT is valuable. This review provides the latest information regarding the clinical use of a new surrogate marker, HBcrAg, in HBV management, based on iTACT-HBcrAg or POCT, and introduces novel agents targeting HBV RNA/protein.

OCRELIZUMAB THERAPY IN PATIENTS WITH ANTI-HBC ANTIBODIES - A PRELIMINARY STUDY.

Aim: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory neurodegenerative disease resulting in cognitive impairment, physical disabilities, and neurological symptoms. Ocrelizumab is an effective drug used in MS treatment. However, it causes a risk of hepatitis B reactivation in anti-HBc positive patients. We describe the impact of entecavir and tenofovir on HBV reactivation during treatment with ocrelizumab. Materials and methods: Our study included eight patients (aged 18-70 years) with positive anti-HBc antibodies who were diagnosed with MS based on the 2017 McDonald criteria. The subjects were treated with ocrelizumab and were given anti-HBV prophylaxis with nucleoside analogs. The mean time from the beginning of therapy with nucleoside analogs to the initiation of ocrelizumab treatment was 27.5 days. Patients were administered ocrelizumab and none of them was diagnosed with HBV reactivation. Results: None of the laboratory parameters worsened. No severe adverse effects were observed. These results suggest that entecavir and tenofovir are effective in HBV reactivation prophylaxis. Additionally, positive anti-HBc antibodies do not rule out treatment with ocrelizumab. Conclusions: In patients with positive anti-HBc antibodies, nucleoside analogs, such as entecavir or tenofovir, should be administered before ocrelizumab administration to reduce the risk of viral reactivation. Further studies on simultaneous treatment with ocrelizumab and nucleoside analogs are required to confirm our findings.

Highly Sensitive HBsAg, Anti-HBc and Anti HBsAg Titres in Early Diagnosis of HBV Reactivation in Anti-HBc-Positive Onco-Haematological Patients.

The role of novel HBV markers in predicting Hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBV-R) in HBsAg-negative/anti-HBc-positive oncohaematological patients was examined. One hundred and seven HBsAg-negative/anti-HBc-positive oncohaematological patients, receiving anti-HBV prophylaxis for >18 months, were included. At baseline, all patients had undetectable HBV DNA, and 67.3% were anti-HBs positive. HBV-R occurred in 17 (15.9%) patients: 6 during and 11 after the prophylaxis period. At HBV-R, the median (IQR) HBV-DNA was 44 (27–40509) IU/mL, and the alanine aminotransferase upper limit of normal (ULN) was 44% (median (IQR): 81 (49–541) U/L). An anti-HBc > 3 cut-off index (COI) plus anti-HBs persistently/declining to <50 mIU/mL was predictive for HBV-R (OR (95% CI): 9.1 (2.7–30.2); 63% of patients with vs. 15% without this combination experienced HBV-R (p < 0.001)). The detection of highly sensitive (HS) HBsAg and/or HBV-DNA confirmed at >2 time points, also predicts HBV-R (OR (95% CI): 13.8 (3.6–52.6); 50% of positive vs. 7% of negative patients to these markers experienced HBV-R (p = 0.001)). HS-HBs and anti-HBc titration proved to be useful early markers of HBV-R. The use of these markers demonstrated that HBV-R frequently occurs in oncohaematological patients with signs of resolved HBV infection, raising issues of proper HBV-R monitoring.

Low Risk for Viral Reactivation during Induction for Acute Myeloid Leukemia in Hepatitis B Silent Carriers Who Are Negativefor Hepatitis B Surface Antigen

Introduction: Latent hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is a well-recognized risk factor for viral reactivation and life-threatening hepatitis during chemotherapy. Chronic HBV carriers, identified by the presence of hepatitis B antigen (HBsAg) in their serum, have a well-established high risk for reactivation. Patients, exposed to HBV, who have not become true carriers [HBsAg-negative, but anti-hepatitis B core antigen (HBc)-positive] are usually considered to have a “resolved” HBV infection. Current recommendations state that during chemotherapy all patients exposed to HBV in the past are to receive anti-HBV prophylaxis. However, these recommendations are based on data mainly driven from unselected series of cancer patients previously exposed to HBV. It has been clearly demonstrated that HBV reactivation is common in cases where immune suppressive therapy is applied (e.g., patients treated with corticosteroids and/or rituximab or those undergoing stem cell transplantation). Information regarding the incidence and risk factors of HBV reactivation in patients treated for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is scarce. While some data support prophylaxis for chronic HBV carriers (HbSAg-positive) during chemotherapy for AML, it remains debatable whether this approach is required in AML patients with “resolved” HBV infection undergoing intensive chemotherapy.Methods: The current study reviewed medical files of 1200 patients who were diagnosed with AML between the years 2000-2017 and treated in three large hematology departments in Israel - at the Rambam Health Care Campus, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center and Shaare Zedek Medical Center. Clinical characteristics and laboratory data were retrospectively analyzed. Each patient, diagnosed with AML, was tested for HbSAg, HbSAb, anti-HBc, anti-hepatitis C virus (HCV). Only patients who had not received prophylaxis with anti-HBV agents were included in the analysis.Results: A total of 38 patients with “resolved” HBV infection at the time of leukemia diagnosis were identified, including 15 females (39.5%) and 23 males (60.5%), with a median age of 59.5 years (range 35-80). Six (15.7%) patients were diagnosed with AML secondary to myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). The following induction regimens were used: daunorubicin + cytarabine (“7+3”) in 34 patients (89.5%), clofarabine in two patients, and high-dose cytarabine (HIDAC) in two patients. Nine patients received re-induction with “7+3”. Twenty seven patients (71%) received consolidation - 26 with HIDAC and one with clofarabine (Table 1). Within 90 days following induction + consolidation therapy, no HBV reactivation was documented in any of the 38 patients. There was a mild and asymptomatic elevation in the levels of hepatocellular liver enzymes (up to 2.5 times the upper limit of normal) in some patients, which could also be attributed to other causes, such as drugs, sepsis, etc. In our cohort of patients, overall survival (OS) was identical to that observed in historical AML patients from our medical centers who were not HBV carriers (Fig. 1).Conclusions: AML patients with previous HBV infection (HBsAg-negative and anti-HBc-positive) undergoing intensive chemotherapy are not at an increased risk for virus reactivation. In the current study, none of the 38 patients had HBV reactivation, suggesting that omission of anti-HBV prophylaxis during induction and consolidation chemotherapy could be considered in select AML patients. Notably, two groups of AML patients with a higher risk of HBV reactivation, i.e., recipients of allogeneic stem cell transplantation and HbSAg-positive patients, were not included in the present study and the conclusions drawn are not applicable to these patient subsets. Larger studies are warranted to explore the role of HBV prophylaxis in “silent” carriers. [Display omitted] DisclosuresNo relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Antiviral prophylaxis against hepatitis B recurrence after liver transplantation: Current concepts.

The advance in treatment against hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection with the development of nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs) with high genetic barrier to resistance, including entecavir and tenofovir, has improved clinical outcomes of patients transplanted for HBV infection, by preventing HBV recurrence after liver transplantation (LT) effectively. Currently, after LT, the combination of hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) and a high-barrier NA is considered as the standard of care for prophylaxis against HBV recurrence. However, because of the high cost of intravenous high-dose HBIG, other routes of HBIG administration, such as intramuscular or subcutaneous, have come to the foreground. In addition, several transplant centres tend to use a NA as monoprophylaxis, following a short post-LT period of HBIG and NA combination. Lately, studies using HBIG-free prophylactic regimens with entecavir or tenofovir have shown promising outcomes in preventing HBV recurrence, mostly regarding patients with undetectable HBV DNA at the time of LT. Although vaccination against HBV has been an attractive prophylactic approach, its efficacy has been controversial. Moreover, further studies are needed regarding long-term outcomes of complete withdrawal anti-HBV prophylaxis. For patients transplanted for HBV/HDV co-infection, combined regimen should be administered for a longer period post-LT. Finally, the use of grafts from hepatitis B core antibody-positive donors is safe for HBV-negative recipients, with the administration of lifelong antiviral prophylaxis.

The Real-Life Data on the Outcome of Hepatitis B Infection in Patients with B-Cell Lymphoproliferative Neoplasms Treated with Ibrutinib

Background: Ibrutinib has become a widely used drug in the management of B-cell lymphoproliferative neoplasms (BLPNs). Past or active HBV infection is an exclusion criteria for the clinical trials of ibrutinib and for patients (pts) treated outside clinical trials there are contradictory data or suggestions concerning hepatitis B virus (HBV) prophylaxis. In this study, we evaluated the real-life data on the outcome of HBV infection status of pts with BLPNs receiving ibrutinib. Methods: Demographic features, previous treatments (including rituximab (RTX)) and follow-up durations, HBV infection and reactivation status, prophylaxis information, serum transaminase and total bilirubin levels of the pts were noted retrospectively. Past HBV infection was defined as concurrent detectable HBV core IgG antibody (Ab) (anti-HBc IgG) and undetectable HBV surface Ag (HbsAg) ± HBV surface Ab (anti-HBs). Active HBV infection was defined as HbsAg and/or HBV core IgM Ab (anti-HBc IgM) positivity. Quantitative HBV-DNA PCR results are also recorded, when available. Results: Twenty-seven consecutive pts were included, and pts' characteristics are displayed in Table 1. Median durations of ibrutinib therapy and entire follow-up were 9 and 108 months, respectively. All pts had received RTX prior to ibrutinib. Among the 27 patients, 8 had past HBV infection, while 2 had active HBV infection. HBV prophylaxis or treatment was started before ibrutinib in 5 pts, and simultaneously with ibrutinib in one. The remaining 4 pts with past HBV infection were not given any prophylaxis. Among these 4 cases with anti-HBc IgG positivity, three were also positive for anti-HBs. Currently, these 4 pts, including the one with a negative anti-HBs status, are at the 2nd, 4th, 12th, and 16th cycles of ibrutinib. To date, no signs of HBV reactivation was detected in our cohort. Discussion &amp; Conclusion: All pts in our cohort had received RTX containing regimens prior to ibrutinib. In our analysis, 5 pts were under HBV prophylaxis or treatment when ibrutinib was started. Two of these had active HBV infection. Simultaneous HBV prophylaxis was started with ibrutinib for one pt and the remaining 4 pts with past HBV infection (anti-HBs + anti-HBc IgG positivity) did not receive any prophylaxis, but they were planned to be followed by monitoring the anti-HBs titers. In a study, 21 BLPN pts (10 treated with RTX previously) with occult HBV infection with a median follow-up of 9.5 months treated with ibrutinib without anti-HBV prophylaxis, and only two HBV reactivations were reported (Hammond et al. Blood. 2018;131(17):1987-1989). In another study, no HBV reactivation was detected in 7 CLL pts with past HBV infection, with a median follow-up duration of 25 months under ibrutinib, without any anti-viral prophylaxis (Tedeschi et al. Leuk Lymphoma. 2017; 58(12):2966-2968). The increase in the number of pts treated with ibrutinib, is followed by the awareness about the infectious complications including HBV reactivation. The consecutive use of RTX and ibrutinib has increased the risk of HBV-related complications. This issue has become more important in areas with a higher prevalence of HBV. Although the number of pts is limited and follow-up periods are relatively short, our results may indicate that pts with occult HBV infection treated with ibrutinib for BLPNs, might only be closely followed for HBV reactivation, rather than routine anti-HBV prophylaxis. Since pts with previous RTX exposure are likely to lose anti-HBs antibodies, ibrutinib-treated pts with both anti-HBs and anti-HBc IgG positivity should be closely monitored for possible risk of HBV reactivation. Anti-viral prophylaxis under ibrutinib therapy might still be an option for the selected cases. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

288. Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation in Patients with Hematologic Malignancies after Anticancer Therapy Which Included Ibrutinib

BackgroundSeveral cases of severe bacterial, fungal, and viral infections have been reported following ibrutinib therapy. Here, we report a case of a patient with non-Hodgkin lymphoma who developed hepatitis B virus (HBV)–associated liver failure after anti-cancer treatment most recently with ibrutinib. We also review reported cases of HBV reactivation (HBVr) after ibrutinib.MethodsWe searched the Medline and Embase databases and identified 5 patients with HBVr related to ibrutinib for a total of 6 study patients, including our case (figure). HBV-related outcomes were defined according to the 2018 AASLD HBV guidance document.ResultsAll 6 patients were men and most (5 or 83%) had chronic lymphocytic leukemia and past HBV infection (table). Three patients (50%) developed HBV-related hepatitis and 2 of them progressed to liver failure. Four patients (67%) had a remote history (≥24 months) of other potential risk factors besides ibrutinib that could contribute to HBVr, including the use of direct-acting antivirals for hepatitis C co-infection (1 pt), hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) (1 pt) and rituximab use (4 patients). HBVr occurred at least 6 months after initiation of ibrutinib in most patients (4 or 67%), with a median of 9.7 months (range, 1.5–42). In all 4 patients pretreated with rituximab, that treatment was completed at least 24 months before HBVr. Two of these patients received anti-HBV prophylaxis that was stopped 12 months after the completion of rituximab; the other 2 patients were only monitored without antivirals. The HCT recipient received anti-HBV prophylaxis per guidelines. None of the 6 patients treated with ibrutinib were receiving anti-HBV prophylaxis at the time of HBVr, but 5 patients were started on anti-HBV drugs at the first sign of HBVr. Four received entecavir and 1, tenofovir. All treated patients recovered from HBVr. No pt died of HBVr.ConclusionLife-threatening HBVr can occur following ibrutinib therapy in patients with past or chronic HBV infection. The temporal association between ibrutinib therapy and reactivation indicates that ibrutinib is the likely cause of the HBVr, and clinicians should be aware of the risk of HBVr in these patients. A provisional approach could be HBV monitoring at regular intervals with initiation of antiviral therapy at the earliest sign of HBV reactivation. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Rituximab increases the risk of hepatitis B virus reactivation in non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients who are hepatitis B surface antigen-positive or have resolved hepatitis B virus infection in a real-world setting: a retrospective study.

BackgroundHepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation with a hepatitis flare is a common complication in lymphoma patients treated with immunotherapy and/or chemotherapy. Anti-HBV prophylaxis is suggested for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients undergoing rituximab therapy, even those with resolved HBV infection. Since anti-HBV prophylaxis for patients with resolved HBV infection is not covered by national health insurance in Taiwan, a proportion of these patients receive no prophylaxis. In addition, late HBV reactivation has emerged as a new issue in recent reports, and no consensus has been reached for the optimal duration of antiviral prophylaxis. Thus, the aim of our study was to investigate the incidence and outcomes of HBV reactivation in NHL patients in a real-world setting and to study the frequency of late HBV reactivation.MaterialsNon-Hodgkin lymphoma patients who received rituximab and/or chemotherapy at our institute between January 2011 and December 2015 and who were hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)- or hepatitis B core antibody (HBcAb)-positive were reviewed retrospectively.ResultsA total of 388 patients were screened between January 2011 and December 2015. In total, 196 patients were excluded because HBsAg was not assessed, HBcAb was negative or not assessed, or they were not treated with immunosuppressive therapy. Finally, the retrospective study included 62 HBsAg-positive NHL patients and 130 NHL patients with resolved HBV infection (HBsAg-negative and HBcAb-positive). During a median 30.5-month follow-up period, seven patients experienced HBV reactivation, five of whom had a hepatitis flare. The incidence of HBV reactivation did not significantly differ between the HBsAg-positive patients and the resolved HBV infection population without anti-HBV prophylaxis (4.8% vs. 3.1%, P = 0.683). All patients with HBV reactivation were exposed to rituximab. Notably, late HBV reactivation was not uncommon (two of seven patients with HBV reactivation events, 28.6%). Hepatitis B virus reactivation did not influence the patients’ overall survival. An age ≥65 years and an advanced disease stage were independent risk factors for poorer overall survival.ConclusionThe incidence of HBV reactivation was similar between the HBsAg-positive patients with antiviral prophylaxis and the resolved HBV infection population without anti-HBV prophylaxis. All HBV reactivation events occurred in NHL patients exposed to rituximab. Late reactivation was not uncommon. The duration of regular liver function monitoring for more than 1 year after immunosuppressive therapy or after withdrawal of prophylactic antiviral therapy should be prolonged. Determining the exact optimal duration of anti-HBV prophylaxis is warranted in a future prospective study for NHL patients treated with rituximab-containing therapy.

A snapshot of virological presentation and outcome of immunosuppression-driven HBV reactivation from real clinical practice: Evidence of a relevant risk of death and evolution from silent to chronic infection.

The study was undertaken in order to provide a snapshot from real clinical practice of virological presentation and outcome of patients developing immunosuppression-driven HBV reactivation. Seventy patients with HBV reactivation were included (66.2% treated with rituximab, 10% with corticosteroids and 23.8% with other immunosuppressive drugs). Following HBV reactivation, patients received anti-HBV treatment for a median (IQR) follow-up of 31(13-47) months. At baseline-screening, 72.9% of patients were HBsAg-negative and 27.1% HBsAg-positive. About 71.4% had a diagnosis of biochemical reactivation [median (IQR) HBV DNA and ALT: 6.9 (5.4-7.8) logIU/mL and 359 (102-775) U/L]. Moreover, 10% of patients died from hepatic failure. Antiviral prophylaxis was documented in 57.9% and 15.7% of HBsAg-positive and HBsAg-negative patients at baseline-screening (median [IQR] prophylaxis duration: 24[15-33] and 25[17-36] months, respectively). Notably, HBV reactivation occurred 2-24months after completing the recommended course of anti-HBV prophylaxis in 35.3% of patients. By analysing treatment outcome, the cumulative probability of ALT normalization and of virological suppression was 97% and 69%, respectively. Nevertheless, in patients negative to HBsAg at baseline-screening, only 27% returned to HBsAg-negative status during prolonged follow-up, suggesting the establishment of chronic infection. In conclusion, most patients received a diagnosis of HBV reactivation accompanied by high ALT and 10% died for hepatic failure, supporting the importance of strict monitoring for an early HBV reactivation diagnosis. Furthermore, HBV reactivation correlates with high risk of HBV chronicity in patients negative for HBsAg at baseline-screening, converting a silent into a chronic infection, requiring long-term antiviral treatment. Finally, a relevant proportion of patients experienced HBV reactivation after completing the recommended course of anti-HBV prophylaxis, suggesting the need to reconsider proper duration of prophylaxis particularly in profound immunosuppression.

Hepatitis B virus reactivation in HBsAg-negative, anti-HBc-positive patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy: a systematic review.

Background:The optimal management of HBsAg-negative, anti-HBc-positive patients who receive immunosuppression remains unclarified. We systematically reviewed the available data on potential predictors of the risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in such patients.Methods:A literature search identified 55 studies with 3640 HBsAg-negative, anti-HBc-positive patients who received immunosuppressive regimens.Results:HBV reactivation was reported in 236 (6.5%) patients. The pooled HBV reactivation rates did not differ between patients with detectable or undetectable HBV DNA in studies with hematological diseases or regimens containing rituximab, but it was higher in patients with detectable than in those with undetectable HBV DNA who were taking rituximab-free regimens (14% vs. 2.6%; risk ratio [RR] 12.67, 95% CI: 95%CI 2.39-67.04, P=0.003) or had non-hematological diseases, although the latter was not confirmed by sensitivity analysis (RR 8.80, 95%CI 0.71-109.00, P=0.09). The pooled HBV reactivation rates were lower in patients with positive than in those with negative anti-HBs in studies with hematological (7.1% vs. 21.8%; RR 0.29, 95%CI 0.19-0.46, P<0.001) or non-hematological (2.5% vs. 10.7%; RR 0.28, 95%CI 0.11-0.76, P=0.012) diseases, and rituximab-containing (6.6% vs. 19.8%; RR 0.32, 95%CI 0.15-0.69, P=0.003) or rituximab-free (3.3% vs. 9.2%; RR 0.36, 95%CI 0.14-0.96, P=0.042) regimens.Conclusions:The risk of HBV reactivation is high; therefore, anti-HBV prophylaxis should be recommended in HBsAg-negative, anti-HBc-positive patients with hematological diseases and/or rituximab-containing regimens, regardless of HBV DNA and anti-HBs status. In contrast, patients with non-hematological diseases or rituximab-free regimens have a low risk of HBV reactivation and may not require anti-HBV prophylaxis if they have undetectable HBV DNA and positive anti-HBs.

Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Undergoing Biologics Treatment.

Immunosuppressants can induce hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation; however, informative data about the risk of different immunosuppressive regimens, including biologics, on HBV reactivation (HBVr) among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are incomplete. Among 2334 RA patients who had available hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) data, 123 patients positive for HBsAg who were not receiving anti-HBV prophylaxis were enrolled. These patients were undergoing varied mono or combination immunosuppressive therapy, including 36 who were receiving biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). During 3459 person-months of follow-up, 30 (24.4%) patients developed HBVr. The multivariate Cox proportional hazard models showed that glucocorticoid significantly increased the risk of HBVr. Among all kinds of immunosuppressive treatments, glucocorticoid in combination with bDMARDs and synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (sDMARDs) had the highest risk of HBVr (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 5.14; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.77-14.92; P = .003). Rituximab had the greatest risk for HBVr (adjusted HR = 16.51; 95% CI = 1.82-149.67; P = .01) among the patients who received bDMARDs. Glucocorticoid has a detrimental effect on HBVr in RA patients. Antiviral prophylactic strategies should be justified according to the risk of HBVr under different combinations of immunosuppressive therapy in rheumatic patients.

Comprehensive outcomes of on- and off-antiviral prophylaxis in hepatitis B patients undergoing cancer chemotherapy: A competing risks analysis.

Although antiviral prophylaxis is essential in hepatitis B patients in the context of cancer chemotherapy, there is little evidence-based consensus regarding the appropriate prevention strategy depending on the underlying type of cancer and viral status. This retrospective study included a comprehensive cohort of 302 hepatitis B surface antigen-positive patients with various cancers undergoing chemotherapy and antiviral prophylaxis. The rates of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation during antiviral therapy (>1 log10 IU/mL increase or positive conversion of serum HBV DNA) and relapse when off antivirals ([re]appearance of HBV DNA >2,000 IU/ml with related alanine aminotransferase elevation) were evaluated, together with the associated risk factors, in a competing risks analysis where cancer death was considered as the competing event. During antiviral prophylaxis, HBV was reactivated in six patients (1.9%), who had leukemia (n = 4) or lymphoma (n = 2) and were treated with lamivudine (n = 4) or entecavir (n = 2). The incidence rate of HBV relapse in 127 off-prophylaxis patients was 21.3% during a median post-antiviral period of 11.7 months. Lymphoma, pre-prophylactic HBV DNA ≥2,000 IU/ml, and age ≥50 years were independent predictors of off-treatment HBV relapse (adjusted hazard ratios 5.25, 3.07, and 0.34, respectively; Ps < 0.05). Antiviral and anticancer drugs, duration of consolidation on antiviral prophylaxis, and HBeAg positivity were not independent predictors. In conclusion, hepatitis B flare-ups are not rare in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy during and after anti-HBV prophylaxis, even when potent antivirals are used. Patients with hematopoietic or lymphoid neoplasms or high viral burdens should receive prolonged and powerful HBV prophylaxis. J. Med. Virol. 88:1576-1586, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Human Cytokine Genetic Variants Associated With HBsAg Reverse Seroconversion in Rituximab-Treated Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Patients.

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation has been noted in HBV surface antigen (HBsAg)-seronegative patients with CD20 B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) undergoing rituximab treatment. Clinically, hepatitis flares are usually associated with the reappearance of HBsAg (reverse seroconversion of HBsAg, HBV-RS). It is unclear whether human genetic factors are related to rituximab-associated HBV reactivation. Unvaccinated HBsAg-seronegative adults (n = 104) with CD20 NHL who had received rituximab-containing therapy without anti-HBV prophylaxis were enrolled. Eighty-nine candidate single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of 49 human cytokine genes were chosen and were analyzed using the iPLEX technique. Competing risk regression was used to identify the factors associated with HBV-RS. Participants had a median age of 66.1 years and 56.7% were male (n = 59). The anti-HBs and anti-HBc positivity rates were 82.4% and 94.1%, respectively, among patients for whom data were available (approximately 81%). A mean of 7.14 cycles of rituximab therapy were administered, and a total of 14 (13.4%) patients developed HBV-RS. Nine SNPs showed significant differences in frequency between patients with or without HBV-RS: CD40 rs1883832, IL4 rs2243248 and rs2243263, IL13 rs1295686, IL18 rs243908, IL20 rs1518108, and TNFSF13B rs12428930 and rs12583006. Multivariate analysis showed that ≥6 cycles of rituximab therapy, IL18 rs243908, and the IL4 haplotype rs2243248∼rs2243263 were independently associated with HBV-RS. The IL4 haplotype rs2243248∼rs2243263 was significantly associated with HBV-RS regardless of anti-HBs status. Polymorphisms in human cytokine genes impact the risk of rituximab-associated HBV-RS.

Low Risk of Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation in HBsAg-negative/Anti-HBc-positive Carriers Receiving Rituximab for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Retrospective Multicenter Italian Study.

Patients with resolved hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, i.e., hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-negative/antihepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc)-positive, undergoing rituximab (RTX)-based chemotherapy for hematological malignancies without anti-HBV prophylaxis are at risk of HBV reactivation, but the risk in such patients receiving RTX for rheumatological disorders is not clear. We evaluated this risk in HBsAg-negative/anti-HBc-positive patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) undergoing RTX without prophylaxis. Thirty-three HBsAg-negative/anti-HBc-positive outpatients with RA with undetectable HBV DNA by sensitive PCR assay [73% women, median age 60 years, 85% with HBsAg antibodies (anti-HBs), 37% with antihepatitis B envelope antigen] received a median of 3 cycles of RTX (range 1-8) over 34 months (range 0-80) combined with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) without prophylaxis. All underwent clinical and laboratory monitoring during and after RTX administration, including serum HBsAg and HBV DNA measurements every 6 months or whenever clinically indicated. None of the patients seroreverted to HBsAg during RTX treatment, but 6/28 (21%) showed a > 50% decrease in protective anti-HBs levels, including 2 who became anti-HBs-negative. One patient (3%) who became HBV DNA-positive (44 IU/ml) after 6 months of RTX treatment was effectively rescued with lamivudine before any hepatitis flare occurred. Among the 14 patients monitored for 18 months (range 0-70) after RTX discontinuation, no HBV reactivation was observed. The administration of RTX + DMARD in patients with RA with resolved HBV infection leads to a negligible risk of HBV reactivation, thus suggesting that serum HBsAg and/or HBV DNA monitoring but not universal anti-HBV prophylaxis is justified.