Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation Research Articles

Risk of Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation in COVID-19 Patients Receiving Immunosuppressive Treatment: A Prospective Study.

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the risk of hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr) in COVID-19 patients receiving immunosuppressive treatment, which has been insufficiently studied to date. Secondarily, we aimed to evaluate the seroprevalence of HBV infection in COVID-19 patients. Methods: We performed HBV screening on all Romanian adults hospitalized in four COVID-19 wards between October 2021 and September 2022. We enrolled patients with positive hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc) without protective hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs), HBV treatment, or baseline immunosuppressive conditions, and we conducted a virological follow-up on these patients at 3 months. Results: We identified 333/835 (39.9%) anti-HBc-positive patients. Follow-up was performed for 13 patients with positive hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and 19 HBsAg-negative/anti-HBc-positive patients. Among those who received immunosuppressants, 4/23 (17.4%) patients experienced HBVr: 1 out of 8 (12.5%) HBsAg-positive patients (with 1.99 log increase in HBV DNA level) and 3 out of 15 (20%) HBsAg-negative/anti-HBc-positive patients (with a de novo detectable HBV DNA level). Conclusions: Administration of COVID-19 immunosuppressants may result in a significant risk of HBVr in co-infected patients. We recommend performing an HBV triple screen panel (HBsAg, anti-HBs, anti-HBc) for all COVID-19 patients receiving immunosuppressive treatment. HBV prophylaxis may be indicated in certain patients. Larger studies are needed in order to establish appropriate and cost-effective management for these patients.

Novel protocol for prevention from hepatitis B reactivation following living-donor liver transplantation.

Reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) after liver transplantation (LT) remains a problem; thus, development of more effective HBV reactivation prophylaxis is desirable. We evaluated the efficacy of a combination of a long-term nucleotide analog (NA), such as entecavir (ETV) or tenofovir alafenamide (TAF), and short-term hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) in preventing HBV reactivation and compared it with conventional HBV prophylaxis. Between February 1999 and August 2023, 135 patients underwent living-donor liver transplantation for liver cirrhosis or acute liver failure caused by HBV infection or received an LT from a hepatitis B core antibody-positive donor. Recipients who had undergone LT were classified as being in the first or second era (namely until September 2017 and from October 2017), respectively, and outcomes of prophylaxis against HBV reactivation were compared between the two eras. In the second era, recipients with HBV-related disease or who had received hepatitis B core antibody-positive liver received combination therapy with short-term HBIG and an NA such as TAF and ETV long-term. The duration of HBIG treatment was markedly shorter than in the first era in both categories of patients and HBIG could be discontinued in all cases. Surprisingly, we observed HBV reactivation in the first era, but not in the second era, in both groups. We have established a protocol for prophylaxis against HBV reactivation using a combination of short-term HBIG and long-term NA. This protocol was found to be sufficient to prevent HBV reactivation after LT.

Assessing hepatitis B virus serologies when transitioning patients from intravenous immune globulin therapy to rituximab for the treatment of autoimmune neuromuscular diseases.

Intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) has been used as early treatment for autoimmune neuromuscular diseases, but due to cost and frequency, may be switched to rituximab. Rituximab and other B-cell-depleting medications require screening of hepatitis B virus (HBV) serologies given the risk of HBV reactivation (HBVr). We aimed to describe the incidence and characteristics of passively transferred antiviral serologies from IVIG and how to differentiate between passive antibody transfer and resolved HBV infection. This was a single-center descriptive study of neurology patients prescribed rituximab and IVIG. Retrospective medical record reviews were performed and patient-specific variables were collected. Twelve patients had reactive anti-HBc results after starting IVIG, but only 9 were confirmed to have reactive anti-HBc from passive transfer. Whether reactive anti-HBc in the remaining three patients was from passive IVIG transfer could not be confirmed. Five patients with reactive anti-HBc results during rituximab screening did not have pre-IVIG anti-HBc results for comparison and were started on antiviral prophylaxis. Reactive anti-HBc serologies changed to nonreactive after IVIG discontinuation 44-321 days after the last IVIG infusion. This study confirms IVIG can passively transfer anti-HBc serologies in a neurologic cohort. Ideally, HBV serologies would be checked before starting IVIG to help later determine if passive transfer occurred. With the increasing use of B-cell-depleting medications for neuromuscular conditions, it is important for providers to be knowledgeable on the interpretation of HBV serologies for patients on IVIG and to ensure implementation of an HBVr prophylaxis management strategy for patients when appropriate.

Prevalence of Hepatitis B Serology and Reactivation in Rheumatology Patients Receiving Biologic or Targeted Synthetic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate hepatitis B virus (HBV) serology and the frequency of HBV reactivation (HBVr) in rheumatology patients with resolved hepatitis B infection (HBsAg-/Anti-HBc+) who were treated with biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs). Materials and Methods: Data from rheumatology patients treated with b/tsDMARDs were retrospectively reviewed from the electronic records. The demographic data, the anti-rheumatic drugs used, and the hepatitis serologies (HBsAg, anti-HBc IgG, anti-HBs, and anti-HCV) of the patients were analyzed. Results: The study included a total of 316 patients, of whom 217 (68.7%) were diagnosed with ankylosing spondylitis, 74 (23.4%) with rheumatoid arthritis, and 25 (7.9%) with psoriatic arthritis. Evaluation of the patients' viral serologies revealed that four (1.2%) were HBsAg+, and 18 (5.7%) were HBsAg-/anti-HBc+. Anti-HCV positivity was observed in one (0.3%) patient. All serologies were negative in 153 (48.4%) patients. No HBVr was detected during the follow-up of the patients. Conclusion: The rate of resolved hepatitis B infection is relatively high in patients under rheumatologic follow-up. However, the use of biologics in these patients poses a low risk of HBVr.

The evaluation of neurologists’ awareness on hepatitis B virus reactivation before launching immunosuppressive treatment

Background: Individuals encountering hepatitis B virus (HBV) are at risk of hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr) when exposed to immunosuppressive (IS) therapy. Here, we aimed to evaluate neurologists’ knowledge on HBVr in patients receiving IS treatment and draw attention to importance of the issue. Methods: Eighty-six physicians from neurology departments throughout Turkey between 1st March- 30th April 2020 were enrolled. Results: Of 86 physicians (average age 37.2±7.6 years), 34 (39.5%) were affiliated with university hospitals, 23 (26.7%) in training and research hospitals, and 29 (33.6%) in secondary healthcare centers. While 28 (32.5%) stated following a guideline, 58 (67.4%) declared following no guidelines. Physicians receiving postgraduate training on HBVr administered prophylaxis before IS treatment at a higher rate (p=0.04), and 69 (80.2%) considered all patients receiving any IS treatment should be screened for HBVr. To all participants, patients selected for screening should be tested for HBsAg; 83 (96.6%) and 29 (33.3%) stated patients should be tested for anti-HBs and anti-HBc IgG, respectively. Conclusion: Given our study findings, rate of screening performed by neurologists to give IS treatment for HBVr and their awareness level on the situation were not found to be sufficient. In addition, two more important factors required to be raised awareness were detected in our study: First, the rate of using anti-HBc in screening is low, and the awareness should be increased in this direction. Secondly, the risk of HBVr should be categorized in terms of IS treatment and host in our country where HBV infection is seen at a high rate, and determining the prophylactic approach is insufficient.

Risk of rituximab-induced hepatitis B flare after antiviral discontinuation in rheumatic patients with chronic hepatitis B virus.

Among immunosuppressants, rituximab is most strongly associated with the risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in chronic HBV individuals. Current guidelines recommending antiviral prophylaxis for these patients on rituximab are predominantly based on studies in oncology. However, limited data existed for the precise risk of HBV flares, effectiveness and optimal duration of antiviral prophylaxis in rituximab-treated rheumatic patients, whose immune status and treatment regimen differ significantly from those of oncology patients. Therefore, we aimed to assess the incidence and clinical outcome of HBV reactivation in HBsAg-positive patients receiving rituximab for various autoimmune diseases who discontinue the antiviral agents. A retrospective analysis was performed on 95 hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-positive patients treated with rituximab for autoimmune diseases in a single centre in Taiwan. HBV related hepatitis, defined as alanine aminotransferase (ALT) more than 3 times of baseline level and concurrent HBV reactivation, after anti-viral discontinuation, was the primary endpoint. Factors associated with HBV hepatitis flare and off-antiviral hepatitis flare were also analysed. With nucleos(t)ide analogues (NA) prophylaxis, no hepatitis flares occurred. However, without prophylaxis, 59% had flare (24.5 per 100 person-years) and 8% experienced liver decompensation. Concurrent steroid use was a dose-dependent risk factor for flare. After NA discontinuation, rituximab "retreatment" led to flares in 75% of cases and liver decompensation in 63% of patients. Stopping NAs within one-year post-rituximab, even without further rituximab treatment, resulted in a 38% flare rate. This study offers the direct evidence for the necessity of universal antiviral prophylaxis in rheumatic patients with chronic HBV receiving rituximab. After NA discontinuation, rituximab "retreatment" led to even higher flare rate and worse outcome. Patients who completed rituximab treatment should also keep antiviral agents for at least one more year to prevent hepatitis flare.

What is the benefit of prophylaxis to prevent HBV reactivation in HBsAg-negative anti-HBc-positive patients? Meta-analysis and decision curve analysis.

Patients with overt or occult hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection receiving immunosuppressive treatments have a wide risk of HBV reactivation (HBVr). We performed meta-analysis with decision curve analyses (DCA) to estimate the risk of HBVr in HBsAg-negative anti-HBc-positive patients naïve to nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs) receiving immunosuppressive treatments. Studies were identified through literature search until October 2022. Pooled estimates were obtained using random-effects model. Subgroup analyses were performed according to underlying disease and immunosuppressive treatments. DCA was used to identify the threshold probability associated with the net benefit of antiviral prophylaxis in HBsAg-negative anti-HBc-positive patients. We selected 68 studies (40 retrospective and 28 prospective), including 8034 patients with HBsAg negative anti-HBc positive. HBVr was 4% (95% CI 3%-6%) in HBsAg-negative anti-HBc-positive patients, with a significantly high heterogeneity (I2 69%; p < .01). The number-needed-to-treat (NNT) by DCA ranged from 8 to 24 for chemotherapy plus rituximab, from 12 to 24 for targeted therapies in cancer patients and from 13 to 39 for immune-mediated diseases. Net benefit was small for monoclonal antibodies. Our DCA in HBsAg-negative anti-HBc-positive patients provided evidence that NA prophylaxis is strongly recommended in patients treated with chemotherapy combined with rituximab and could be appropriate in patients with cancer treated with targeted therapies and in patients with immune-mediated diseases. Finally, in patients with cancer treated with monoclonal antibodies or with chemotherapy without rituximab, the net benefit is even lower.

Rituximab carries high risks of hepatitis B virus reactivation in hematologic and rheumatic patients with chronic or resolved hepatitis B.

Rituximab therapy is associated with a high risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation. We aimed to assess whether the risk of reactivation differed among various underlying diseases and between hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) carriers and patients with resolved HBV infection. We retrospectively analyzed patients with chronic or resolved HBV infection who received rituximab without prophylactic anti-HBV therapy at a tertiary medical center. The risks of HBV reactivation, hepatitis, and hepatic decompensation were compared between the patients with hematologic and rheumatic diseases. There were 78 patients with hematologic diseases and 39 patients with rheumatic diseases included. Among them, 43 (59%) HBsAg-positive patients and 24 (55%) patients with resolved HBV infection experienced HBV reactivation at a median of 14.6months after rituximab therapy. After rituximab treatment, the 1-year HBV reactivation rate among patients with hematologic and rheumatic diseases was 29% and 45% in HBsAg-positive patients, respectively, while the rates were 38% and 17% in patients with resolved HBV infection. The reactivation risk continued to increase even 2years after rituximab therapy and was comparable between hematologic and rheumatic patients. A higher baseline HBV DNA level (≥20IU/mL vs <20IU/mL) was an independent predictor for HBV reactivation (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 10.9, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1-107) and HBV-associated hepatitis (aHR: 14.8, 95% CI: 1.4-158). Rituximab therapy is associated with a 50-64% risk of HBV reactivation regardless of underlying diseases and HBsAg status. HBV DNA levels should be assessed before initiating rituximab.

Hepatitis B virus reactivation risk associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in tumor treatment: a retrospective study.

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation is a recognized complication of cytotoxic chemotherapy in patients with chronic hepatitis B. However, the risk of HBV reactivation with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) remains uncertain due to their exclusion from clinical trials. This study aimed to assess the incidence of HBV reactivation in patients with cancer undergoing ICI therapy, exploring associated risk factors. This retrospective study included patients with cancer who tested positive for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg). The primary endpoint was incidence of HBV reactivation, whereas the secondary endpoint was occurrence of hepatic adverse events during ICI therapy. Among the 162 eligible patients (median age 59years; 85.8% men), HBV reactivation occurred in 4.3% at a median of 13weeks post-treatment initiation. At baseline, HBV DNA was undetectable in 78 patients; 88 received antiviral prophylaxis, while 74 patients did not. Reactivation rates were 3.5% in HBsAg-positive and 10% in hepatitis B core antibody (HBcAb)-positive individuals, with an overall rate of 4.3%. These rates were 1.1% with prophylaxis and 8.1% without. Twenty-two patients had grade 3-4 hepatitis, and 25 tested HBsAg-negative but HBcAb-positive. No HBV-related fatalities occurred. The absence of antiviral treatment was a significant risk factor for HBV reactivation. Our study underscores the risk of HBV reactivation in patients with cancer undergoing ICI therapy, especially among those lacking antiviral prophylaxis. Regular HBV DNA testing and antiviral prophylaxis are crucial preventive measures for HBV reactivation. These findings emphasize the importance of monitoring HBV status in patients receiving ICIs.

Risk factors of HBV reactivation in leukemia patients with resolved HBV infection after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

BackgroundThe hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)–negative and antibody to hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc)–positive patients after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) are at risk of HBV reactivation (HBVr). MethodsTo analyze the risk factors for HBVr, a total of 1,042 leukemia patients(≥18years of age), who underwent allo-HSCT from January 2016 to April 2022 in The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, were enrolled in the study. Finally, 193 leukemia patients with resolved HBV infection were included into the study. ResultsHBVr occurred in 22 patients (11.39 %), and the median time to HBVr was 24 months (with a range of 11-51months). Hepatitis flares developed in 22.73 % of patients with HBVr, and hepatic failure occurred in 1 patient. During the follow-up period, only 1(1.3 %) patient experienced HBVr among 79 patients with antiviral prophylaxis. While 21(18.42 %) patients experienced HBVr among 114 patients without antiviral prophylaxis. The cumulative incidence of HBV reactivation at 3 years was 44.4. % for anti-HBs-negative donors/recipients with a low anti-HBs titer (<100IU/L) and 7.1 % for anti-HBs-positive donors/recipients with a high anti-HBs titer (≥100IU/L) respectively. In addition, univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses confirmed the use of rituximab as a risk factor for HBV reactivation. ConclusionThe univariate and multivariate analyses confirmed that the anti-HBs titer in both recipients and donors are protective indicators to prevent incidence of HBVr. In addition, antiviral prophylaxis can significantly reduce the incidence of HBVr.

Hepatitis B virus infection, infertility, and assisted reproduction.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis B virus (HBV) is one of the most widespread viruses worldwide and a major cause of hepatitis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. Previous studies have revealed the impacts of HBV infection on fertility. An increasing number of infertile couples with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) virus infection choose assisted reproductive technology (ART) to meet their fertility needs. Despite the high prevalence of HBV, the effects of HBV infection on assisted reproduction treatment remain limited and contradictory. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive overview of the effect of HBV infection on fertility and discuss its effects on pregnancy outcomes, vertical transmission, pregnancy complications, and viral activity during ART treatment. METHODS: We conducted a literature search in PubMed for studies on HBV infection and ART published from 1996 to 2022. RESULTS: HBV infection negatively affected fertility in both males and females. Existing research shows that HBV infection may increase the risk of pregnancy complications in couples undergoing assisted reproduction treatment. The impact of HBV infection on the pregnancy outcomes of ART is still controversial. Current evidence does not support that ART increases the risk of vertical transmission of HBV, while relevant studies are limited. With the development of ART, the risk of HBV reactivation (HBVr) is increasing, especially due to the wide application of immunosuppressive therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Regular HBV infection screening and HBVr risk stratification and management are essential to prevent HBVr during ART. The determination of optimal strategy and timing of prophylactic anti-HBV therapy during ART still needs further investigation.

Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation in Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy – A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BackgroundHepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation is a critical concern for patients with a diagnosis of cancer receiving chemotherapy worldwide. Our aim was to assess the rate of HBV reactivation during chemotherapy globally. MethodsWe systematically reviewed PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases for chemotherapy-related HBV reactivation studies from inception until July 2023. A random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled reactivation rate. Results86 studies involving 21,297 patients were included, comprising 62 and 24 studies from Eastern and Western regions. Pooled results indicated a 9% reactivation rate (95%CI: 7%–13%, I2=95%). Reactivation rates were 10% (95%CI: 7%–14%, I2=92%) for hematological malignancies and 5% (95%CI: 3%–9%, I2=94%) for solid tumors. Presence of HBV DNA, HBeAg, and HBsAg were correlated with reactivation rates of 29% (95%CI: 10%–60%, I2=91%), 23% (95%CI: 14%–36%, I2=78%), and 15% (95%CI: 11%–20%, I2=90%), respectively. For patients with positive anti-HBe Ab, anti-HBc, and anti-HBs Ab serology, pooled reactivation rates were 7% (95%CI: 3%–14%, I2=81%), 4% (95%CI: 3%–7%, I2=85%), and 3% (95%CI: 2%–6%, I2=80%), respectively. With antiviral prophylaxis, reactivation rates were 1% (95%CI: 0%–17%, I2=59%), 1% (95%CI: 0%–5%, I2=0%), 4% (95%CI: 2%–9%, I2=85%), and 6% (95%CI: 3%–12%, I2=32%) for patients receiving tenofovir, entecavir, lamivudine, and telbivudine, respectively. ConclusionPatients with a diagnosis of cancer undergoing chemotherapy face increased risk of HBV reactivation. This analysis raises public awareness and serves as a resource for future clinical trials.

Impact of universal hepatitis B virus (HBV) screening using chemotherapy orders on the HBV reactivation in cancer patients.

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation (HBVr) induced by chemotherapy in patients with resolved or chronic infection can lead to severe consequences. Despite recommendations, rates of HBV screening before chemotherapy are low due to poor recognition of risk factors by clinicians. The aim of the study is to assess whether routine HBV screening using universal HBV screening on chemotherapy orders (CO) could reduce HBVr incidence. This is a 1-year retrospective single-center observational study of patients who received intravenous chemotherapy post implementation of CO. We compared the incidence of HBVr in three groups of patients: those screened through CO (group 1), those screened by the medical team (group 2), and those not screened (group 3). On a total of 1374 patients, 179 of 206 patients were screened as requested on CO (group 1) and 421 by the medical team (group 2), whereas 747 patients were not screened (group 3). Only one HBVr occurred, and no difference was seen on the incidence of HBVr between group 1 and group 3 (0% vs 0.1%; p = 1.00), probably because of a lack of follow-up after chemotherapy. Follow-up for HBVr was imperfect in group 1 and group 2 (16.7% vs 5.6%; p = 0.32). Screening was done for 92% of patients on anti-CD20 therapy. In group 3, 89 patients had ALT elevation during chemotherapy but only 17 (19%) were tested for HBVr. Systematic HBV detection requested on CO is an effective way to obtain a high percentage of patients with adequate screening, particularly when chemotherapy is at high risk of HBVr. Nevertheless, this screening method do not guarantee optimal follow-up and requires improvements.

Hepatitis B Reactivation and Vaccination Effectiveness after Solid Organ Transplantation: A Matched Case-Control Study.

Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients are at significant risk of hepatitis B (HB) virus (HBV) reactivation (HBVr). Despite the clinical significance of HBVr after solid organ transplantation, data on the risk factors for HBVr and vaccine effectiveness in SOT recipients with resolved HBV infection are limited. This study evaluated the risk factors for HBVr and the seroconversion rates after HBV vaccination in SOT recipients. Patients who had undergone solid organ transplantation and those with a resolved HBV infection were identified. We matched patients who experienced post-transplantation HBVr with those who did not. We also explored the characteristics and seroconversion rates of HBV-vaccinated patients following transplantation. In total, 1299 SOT recipients were identified as having a resolved HBV infection at the time of transplantation. Thirty-nine patients experienced HBVr. Pre-transplant HB surface antibodies (anti-HBs) positivity and allograft rejection within 3 months after transplantation were independently associated with HBVr. Among the 17 HBV-vaccinated patients, 14 (82.4%) received three or fewer vaccine doses, and 13 (76.5%) had seroconversion with positive anti-HBs results. Pre-transplant anti-HBs(-) status and allograft rejection were risk factors for HBVr in SOT recipients with a resolved HBV infection, and HBV vaccination after transplantation resulted in a high rate of anti-HBs seroconversion. HBV vaccination after transplantation should be considered to reduce the HBVr risk.

Biologics Versus JAK Inhibitors. Part II: Risk of Infections. A Narrative Review.

The risk of infections associated with biological drugs (BD) and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) has been extensively explored in the literature. However, there is a dearth of studies that evaluate both pharmacological groups together and, furthermore, compare them. Here, we review the risk of infections associated with BD and JAKi used in dermatology. A narrative review was performed. All relevant articles evaluating the risk of infection and opportunistic infections with BD and JAKi between January 2010 and February 2024 were selected. Overall, the incidence of infections, serious infections, and opportunistic infections associated with BD and JAKi is low, but higher than in the general population. JAKi approved for dermatological disorders (abrocitinib, baricitinib, deucravacitinib, upadacitinib, ritlecitinib, and topical ruxolitinib) have been shown to be safe, and present a low rate of infections. We found an elevated risk, especially with anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents, rituximab, and JAKi (particularly tofacitinib at high doses). Specific associations with infections include tuberculosis and tuberculosis reactivation with anti-TNF agents and tocilizumab; candidiasis with anti-interleukin (IL) 17 agents; hepatitisB virus reactivation with rituximab, anti-TNF, and JAKi; and herpes simplex and herpes zoster infections with JAKi (especially tofacitinib and upadacitinib at high doses). The incidence of infections with ustekinumab and anti-IL-23 was very low. Anti-IL-1, nemolizumab, tralokinumab, and omalizumab were not associated with an increased risk of infections. Dupilumab could decrease the incidence of cutaneous infections. Anti-TNF agents, rituximab, and JAKi (particularly tofacitinib) can increase the risk of infections. Close monitoring of patients undergoing these therapies is recommended. Prospective studies with long-term follow-up are needed to comparatively evaluate the risks of infection deriving from treatment with BD and JAKi.

Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation in Non-Liver Solid Organ Transplantation: Incidence and Risk Analysis.

Hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr) can occur in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients with previously inactive hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. Previous studies have reported that HBVr is generally less than 10% in nonliver SOT recipients with past HBV infection. We conducted a retrospective study from January 2018 to August 2023 at Mayo Clinic sites in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota. We examined the antiviral prophylaxis strategy used and the characteristics of HBVr in hepatitis B core antibody-positive (HBcAb +) nonliver SOT adult recipients. Past HBV infection was defined as HBcAb + / hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) -. Chronic HBV infection was defined as HBcAb + / HBsAg +. A total of 180 nonliver SOT recipients were identified during the study period. Indefinite antiviral prophylaxis was utilized in 77 recipients, and none developed HBVr after transplantation. In 103 recipients without antiviral prophylaxis, the incidence of HBVr was 12% (12/97) and 33% (2/6) in those with past HBV infection and chronic HBV infection. The incidence of HBVr in patients with past HBV infection is 16% (8/50), 15% (3/20), and 5% (1/22) in kidney, heart, and lungs, respectively. HBVr was more frequent in those who received alemtuzumab. Among 14 recipients with HBVr, none had HBV-associated liver failure or death. Our study observed a higher rate of HBVr (12%) in nonliver SOT recipients with past HBV infection compared to the previous studies. Further studies are needed to identify predictors of HBVr in nonliver SOT recipients and optimize antiviral prophylaxis guidance.

Risk of hepatitis B virus reactivation in cancer patients undergoing treatment with tyrosine kinase-inhibitors

This editorial commented on an article in the World Journal of Gastroenterology titled “Risks of Reactivation of Hepatitis B Virus in Oncological Patients Using Tyrosine Kinase-Inhibitors: Case Report and Literature Analysis” by Colapietro et al In this editorial, we focused on providing a more comprehensive exploration of hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr) associated with the usage of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). It includes insights into the mechanisms underlying HBV reactivation, the temporal relationship between TKIs and HBV reactivation, and preventive measures. The aim is to understand the need for nucleos(t)ide analogs (NAT) and serial blood tests for early recognition of reactivation and acute liver injury, along with management strategies. TKIs are considered to be an intermediate (1%-10%) of HBVr. Current guidelines stipulate that patients receiving therapy with high or moderate risks of reactivation or recent cancer diagnosis must have at least tested hepatitis B surface antigen, anti-hepatitis B core antigen (HBc), and anti-hepatitis B surface antibody. Anti-HBc screening in highly endemic areas means people with negative tests should be vaccinated against HBV. Nucleoside or nucleotide analogs (NAs) like entecavir (ETV), tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), and tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) form the basis of HBV reactivation prophylaxis and treatment during immunosuppression. Conversely, lamivudine, telbivudine, and adefovir are generally discouraged due to their reduced antiviral efficacy and higher risk of fostering drug-resistant viral strains. However, these less effective NAs may still be utilized in cases where ETV, TDF, and TAF are not feasible treatment options.

Prevalence of occult hepatitis B infection among treatment-naive persons living with HIV in Ghana.

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) constitutes a significant global health challenge, with more than 2 billion people infected globally and almost 291 million chronic cases. In Africa, coinfection of HBV with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) is high, yet the condition remains overlooked in many countries. While antiretroviral therapy (ART) has improved HIV survival, viral hepatitis continues to contribute to morbidity and mortality. Occult Hepatitis B infection (OBI), characterized by a low-level of HBV DNA in individuals with negative hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), is an emerging concern among HIV seropositive individuals due to the risk of HBV reactivation and associated complications, especially hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Ghana has an estimated HBV/HIV coinfection prevalence of 13.6% making it important to also determine potential cases of OBI. This study aims to assess OBI prevalence in persons living with HIV (PLHIV). A cross-sectional study was conducted in five health facilities in the Cape Coast Metropolis. HBV-related serological markers were determined among 116 PLHIV using the Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) method. HBV DNA was extracted from 30 participants found to be HBsAg negative but positive for hepatitis B core antibody (HBcAb+). Nested PCR was employed in detecting HBV DNA and HBV viral load was performed using qPCR. The median age of the participants was 37 years (IQR 22-65). Serologically, 7.8% (n = 9, 95% CI: 3.5-22.7), 12.1% (n = 14), and 25.9% (n = 30) tested positive for solely HBsAg, HBsAb, and HBcAb respectively. OBI prevalence among HBsAg-/HBcAb+ participants was 16.7% (n = 5, 95% CI: 6.5-23.7) with a median HBV DNA level of 139.2 IU/ml (IQR, 96.7-142.0). The prevalence of OBI among HIV-positive participants in the Cape Coast Metropolis highlights the need to consider screening for HBV among HIV patients using nucleic acid amplification tests. This can inform medical management and reduce the risk of liver complications, including HCC.

Does the ultrasensitive HBsAg Next assay enhance Hepatitis B diagnosis? An evaluation of analytical performances

BackgroundAccurate laboratory confirmation for Hepatitis B diagnosis and monitoring are crucial. Recently an ultrasensitive immunoassay test, the HBsAg Next (HBsAgNx), has been reported approximately eight times more sensitive than current HBsAg assays. The aim of our study was to assess the analytical performances of this new test. Methodology253 clinical samples from Saint Louis University Hospital were analyzed, splitted into four panels: (1) routine prospectively screening serums (n = 196), (2) retrospective serum samples before HBV reactivation (HBV-R) (n = 18), (3) occult HBV infection (OBI) (n = 10) and (4) a selection of wild type HBV genotypes (n = 29) ResultsPanel 1, showed robust agreement with the HBsAg Qualitative II (HBsAgQII) assay (Cohen's kappa = 0.83). Despite this agreement, 7 false positive with the HBsAgQII assay were found negative with HBsAgNx. One OBI was detected only with HBsAgNx. Panel 2 showed potential time savings in diagnosing HBV-R using HBsAgNx among 4/18 HBsAg positives samples. Panel 3 highlighted the ability of HBsAgNx to detect HBsAg in OBI patients defined by negative for HBsAg with HBsAgQII assay and positive for HBV DNA. Furthermore, the HBsAgNx assay detected all different genotypes. ConclusionThe study highlights the effectiveness of the HBsAgNx assay, showing its performance. It excels in detecting weakly positive samples and addressing challenging cases. HBsAgNx assay demonstrates promising analytical performances, with improved sensitivity and specificity compared to standard HBsAgQII assay, able to detect all genotypes. Its potential impact on early detecting and monitoring reactivations, and occult infections could be very useful in clinical practice.

Hepatitis B transmission/reactivation associated with Hepatitis B core antibody and Hepatitis C nucleic acid testing positive organs: A report from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Disease Transmission Advisory Committee.

Better access to direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy has broadened the utilization of hepatitis C virus (HCV) nucleic acid testing (NAT) positive organs with excellent outcomes. However, DAA therapy has been associated with hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation. To determine the risk of HBV transmission or reactivation with utilization of HBV core antibody positive (HBcAb+) and HCV NAT positive (HCV+) organs, which presumably required DAA therapy. The number of HBcAb+ donors with delineated HCV NAT status was obtained from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) database. The number of unexpected HBV infections from transplanted organs adjudicated as "proven" or "probable" transmission was obtained from the OPTN Ad Hoc Disease Transmission Advisory Committee database. A chart review of the donors of "proven" or "probable" cases was conducted. From January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2021, 7735 organs were procured from 3767 HBcAb+ donors and transplanted into 7469 recipients; 545 (14.5%) donors were also HCV+. HBV transmission or reactivation occurred in seven recipients. The rate is not significantly different between recipients of HCV+ (0.18%, 2/1115) and the HCV NAT negative (HCV-) organs (0.08%, 5/6354) (p = 0.28) or between recipients of HCV+ and HCV- livers as well as non-liver organs. HBV transmission or reactivation occurred within a median of 319 (range, 41-1117) days post-transplant in the setting of missing, inadequate, or truncated prophylaxis. HBV reactivation associated with DAA therapy for HBcAb+ HCV+ organs is less frequent than reported in the non-transplant population, possibly due to the common use of HBV prophylaxis in the at-risk transplant population.