Prevention of hepatitis B virus reactivation in patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy or chemotherapy

With the increasing use of potent immunosuppressive therapy, reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) in endemic regions is becoming a clinical problem requiring special attention. A recent annual nationwide survey clarified that HBV reactivation related to immunosuppressive therapy has been increasing in patients with malignant lymphoma, other hematological malignancies, oncological or rheumatological disease. In the survey, rituximab plus steroid‐containing chemotherapy was identified as a risk factor for HBV reactivation in hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) negative patients with malignant lymphoma. In this setting, HBV reactivation resulted in fatal fulminant hepatitis regardless of the treatment of nucleoside analog. The Intractable Hepatobiliary Disease Study Group and the Study Group for the Standardization of Treatment of Viral Hepatitis Including Cirrhosis jointly developed guidelines for preventing HBV reactivation. The essential features of the guideline are as follows. All patients should be screened for HBsAg by a sensitive method before the start of immunosuppressive therapy. Second, hepatitis B core antigen (HBcAb) and hepatitis B surface antibody (HBsAb) testing should be performed in HBsAg negative patients, especially those receiving intensive immunosuppressive therapy. Prophylaxis with nucleoside analogs is essential for preventing HBV reactivation in HBsAg positive patients. In contrast, HBsAg negative with HBcAb and/or HBsAb positive patients should be monitored monthly for an increase in serum HBV DNA during and 12 months after completion of chemotherapy. Nucleoside analogs should be administrated immediately when HBV DNA becomes positive during this period. This strategy facilitates commencement of nucleoside analogs at an early stage of HBV reactivation and results in prevention of severe hepatitis.     

High risk of hepatitis B‐virus reactivation after hematopoietic cell transplantation in hepatitis B core antibody‐positive patients

We investigated the serological changes in hepatitis B virus (HBV)‐related markers in 55 and 26 hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)‐negative patients undergoing allogeneic and autologous stem cell transplantation, respectively, over the past 4 yr. Five of the 17 allogeneic and one of the five autologous patients with pretransplant anti‐hepatitis B core antigen antibodies (anti‐HBc) were HBsAg‐positive after transplantation, whereas none of the patients negative for anti‐HBc were HBsAg‐positive in both groups. All patients who became HBsAg‐positive received steroid‐containing immunosuppressive therapy for chronic graft versus host disease (GVHD) or myeloma. Four of the six patients developed flare of HBV hepatitis, and two patients did not. One patient developed fulminant hepatitis treated with lamivudine and plasma exchange. Other five patients received entecavir from the detection of HBsAg. Although HBV‐DNA levels became below the limit of detection in all patients, HBsAg positivity remained in three patients after 6 months of treatment. We concluded that anti‐HBc positivity is a risk factor for reactivation of HBV after both autologous and allogeneic transplantation, and HBV‐related markers should be monitored regularly in these patients. We also stress the efficacy of pre‐emptive use of antiviral agents in controlling HBV replication and limiting hepatic injury due to reactivation of HBV in these patients.     

Comparing the risk of hepatitis B virus reactivation between direct‐acting antiviral therapies and interferon‐based therapies for hepatitis C

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation has been reported during antihepatitis C treatment in patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) and HBV co‐infection. We aimed to evaluate the frequency and risk factors of HBV reactivation during anti‐HCV therapy and compared those between interferon (IFN)‐free direct‐acting antiviral (DAA) therapies and IFN‐based therapies. Three hundred and twenty‐two patients with HCV infection receiving anti‐HCV therapy were retrospectively screened. The baseline HBV infection statuses of all eligible patients and the HBV‐DNA level of all patients with current or previous HBV infection were examined at the end of treatment. In patients with baseline anti‐HBs positivity, changes in anti‐HBs titre were evaluated. Of 287 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 157 had current (n=4) or previous (n=153) HBV infection; 85 were treated with IFN‐free DAA therapies and 72 were treated with IFN‐based therapies. Six patients experienced HBV reactivation (n=2) or HBV reappearance (n=4) after IFN‐free DAA therapies, while no patient developed HBV reactivation after IFN‐based therapies. The risk factors of HBV reactivation or reappearance were DAA therapies and a reduction in anti‐HBs titre to <12 mIU mL^?1 by the end of treatment. The decline changes of anti‐HBs titre were significantly higher in patients treated with DAA therapies. Although HBV reactivation hepatitis was not observed, three of four patients with HBV reactivation or reappearance after achieving HCV eradication had viremia 8 weeks after completion of therapy. A significant proportion of patients develop HBV reactivation or reappearance without hepatitis after IFN‐free DAA therapies. Low levels of anti‐HBs and their decrease to <12 mIU mL^?1 after treatment are significant risk factors for HBV reactivation or reappearance.     

Hepatitis B reactivation in HBsAg‐negative/HBcAb‐positive patients receiving rituximab for lymphoma: a meta‐analysis

Patients with chronic hepatitis B (HBsAg‐positive) are at risk of viral reactivation if rituximab is administered without antiviral treatment, a potentially fatal complication of treatment. Patients with so‐called ‘resolved hepatitis B virus infection’ (HBsAg‐negative/cAb‐positive) may also be at risk. We performed a systematic review of the English and Chinese language literature to estimate the risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in HBsAg‐negative/cAb‐positive patients receiving rituximab for lymphoma. A pooled risk estimate was calculated for HBV reactivation. The impact of HBsAb status and study design on reactivation rates was explored. Data from 578 patients in 15 studies were included. ‘Clinical HBV reactivation’, (ALT >3 × normal and either an increase in HBV DNA from baseline or HBsAg seroreversion), was estimated at 6.3% (I² = 63%, P = 0.006). Significant heterogeneity was detected. Reactivation rates were higher in prospective vs retrospective studies (14.2% vs 3.8%; OR = 4.39, 95% CI 0.83–23.28). Exploratory analyses found no effect of HBsAb status on reactivation risk (OR = 0.083; P = 0.151). Our meta‐analysis confirms a measurable and potentially substantial risk of HBV reactivation in HBsAg‐negative/cAb‐positive patients exposed to rituximab. However, heterogeneity in the existing literature limits the generalizability of our findings. Large, prospective studies, with uniform definitions of HBV reactivation, are needed to clarify the risk of HBV reactivation in HBsAg‐negative/cAb‐positive patients.     

Lamivudine prophylaxis is effective in reducing hepatitis B reactivation and reactivation‐related mortality in chemotherapy patients: a meta‐analysis

Background: Hepatitis B viral (HBV) reactivation in patients undergoing chemotherapy is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Lamivudine has been suggested to be useful as a prophylaxis for HBV reactivation; however, its impact on overall survival and HBV reactivation‐related liver disease survival is unclear. Objective: To determine the effect of lamivudine prophylaxis on the rate of HBV reactivation, overall survival and HBV reactivation‐related survival in patients with HBV undergoing chemotherapy. Methods: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Cochrane Collaboration Database, reference lists and abstracts from national meetings. Statistical analysis was performed using revman . Results: Eleven studies met the defined inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. Two‐hundred and twenty patients received lamivudine prophylaxis and 400 did not receive prophylaxis. Patients given lamivudine prophylaxis had an 87% decrease in HBV reactivation [risk ratio (RR) 0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.07–0.24] than patients not given prophylaxis [absolute risk reduction (ARR) ?0.46, 95% CI, ?0.61 to ?0.31]. The number needed to treat to prevent one reactivation was 3. The Lamivudine prophylaxis group was also associated with a 70% reduction in reactivation‐related mortality (RR 0.30, 95% CI, 0.1–0.94) compared with controls (ARR ?0.03, 95% CI, 0.07–0.00). There was a reduction in treatment delays and premature termination of chemotherapy in the lamivudine prophylaxis arm (RR 0.41, 95% CI, 0.27–0.63; ARR ?0.33, 95% CI, ?0.33 to ?0.15). There was no significant heterogeneity in the comparisons. Conclusion: Lamivudine prophylaxis during chemotherapy is effective in reducing the rate of HBV reactivation, and reactivation‐related liver mortality. Patients with lamivudine prophylaxis had less chemotherapy treatment delays and premature termination of their chemotherapy. Few patients need to be treated to prevent reactivation. Patients with HBV undergoing chemotherapy should be started on lamivudine prophylaxis.     

Accelerated hepatitis C virus replication with rituximab treatment in a non‐Hodgkin's lymphoma patient

The treatment of patients with non‐Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) may be complicated by concomitant chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Recent data suggest that HCV may also be a contributing factor to the development of this disease. Although antiviral treatment has occasionally been reported to result in the regression of lymphoma in patients with HCV infection, the importance of the control of this infection on the prognosis of lymphoma needs to be defined. Here we report a patient with diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma who presented with a mass in her left breast. She had had HCV‐related liver cirrhosis for 6 years. She was given rituximab monotherapy for three consecutive weeks, but treatment had to be discontinued as a result of hematological toxicity. HCV viral load also increased, but then decreased gradually after rituximab was stopped. She could be given no further therapy. Six months later she presented with spinal involvement with infiltration of the cauda equina. Though cranial–spinal radiotherapy and steroids were started, she died shortly thereafter. Though rituximab is an invaluable drug in the treatment of B‐cell lymphomas, we believe that the use of such agents with potentially long‐lasting effects on B lymphocytes requires extended vigilance for accelerated replication of hepatitis B and C viruses.     

Lamivudine for the treatment of hepatitis B virus reactivation following chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma

Chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection may be accompanied by severe hepatitis. Of 86 consecutive NHL patients, 11 (12.8%) exhibited a positive serum HBsAg. Six of these patients (54.5%) developed acute exacerbation of chronic HBV infection following chemotherapy and received lamivudine. Five of the six patients demonstrated a clinical improvement, one patient died from fulminant hepatic failure owing to delayed lamivudine therapy and poor compliance. These data suggest that HBsAg screening is necessary before commencing chemotherapy for NHL patients in a hyperendemic area and that lamivudine is effective in treating hepatitis B reactivation during chemotherapy.     

Late onset of hepatitis B virus reactivation following hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: successful treatment with combined entecavir plus tenofovir therapy

L. Milazzo, M. Corbellino, A. Foschi, V. Micheli, A. Dodero, A. Mazzocchi, V. Montefusco, G. Zehender, S. Antinori. Late onset of hepatitis B virus reactivation following hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: successful treatment with combined entecavir plus tenofovir therapy.
Transpl Infect Dis 2011. All rights reserved Abstract: Prophylaxis with lamivudine (LAM) is recommended for hepatitis B core antibody‐positive allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients, but the optimal timing for the institution and duration of the prophylaxis is still unknown. Furthermore, considering the high rate of mortality associated with hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBV‐R), the most potent and long‐term effective antiviral regimen should be considered. We report here a case of late onset of HBV‐R after a long‐term prophylaxis with LAM in a patient who underwent HSCT for non‐Hodgkin lymphoma and who was successfully treated with a combination antiviral regimen including entecavir and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.     

Stratified management based on surface antibody for the prevention of hepatitis B virus reactivation in lymphoma patients

This study aimed to investigate a stratified approach based on hepatitis B virus (HBV) surface antibody (anti-HBs) for managing HBV reactivation (HBVr) in lymphoma patients with serological protection against HBV. A retrospective analysis was conducted on 209 lymphoma patients with a baseline anti-HBs titre of ≥10 iu/L, who were either positive or negative for HBV core antibody (anti-HBc). The results revealed that 15.7% of patients lost serological protection following 6-month anti-lymphoma therapy. With a median follow-up of 28.1 months, the cumulative rates of HBVr at 6 months, 2 years and 4 years were 2.9%, 4.7% and 6.3% respectively. Without intervention, the overall rate of reactivation was 2.0% for patients with isolated anti-HBs and 10.5% for those with positive anti-HBs and anti-HBc. To identify patients at high risk of losing seroprotection and susceptible to HBVr, a predictive model was developed. The high-risk group had significantly higher rates of serological protection loss (27.8% vs. 2.2%) and cumulative incidence of HBVr (22.0% vs. 0%) compared to the low-risk group. Overall, this study highlights the risk of HBVr in lymphoma patients with positive anti-HBs, with or without positive anti-HBc, and recommends periodic monitoring for low-risk patients and early intervention for high-risk patients.     

Eighteen‐month lamivudine prophylaxis on preventing occult hepatitis B virus infection reactivation in patients with haematological malignancies receiving immunosuppression therapy

This study evaluated the long‐term efficacy and safety of an 18‐month lamivudine prophylaxis in 68 HBsAg‐negative/anti–HBc‐positive patients with oncohaematological disease. All 68 consecutive HBsAg‐negative/anti–HBc‐positive patients with an oncohaematological disease and naïve for chemotherapy observed from April 2008 to December 2012 at 2 Hematology Units in Naples were treated with lamivudine for 18 months after stopping chemotherapy and monitored for HBsAg at months 1 and 3 during chemotherapy and then every 3 months after its discontinuation. During follow‐up, 13 (19.1%) of the 68 patients died of complications related to their oncohaematological disease, and 3 (4%) showed a virological HBV reactivation (retroconversion to HBsAg positivity) 1‐7 months after the discontinuation of lamivudine prophylaxis (2 treated for chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and one for Waldenstrom's disease); of these, 2 showed a biochemical reactivation. Comparing the demographic and clinical characteristics of the 3 patients with a virological HBV reactivation to the 65 without, the former were older (median age and range: 67 years [75‐78] vs. 61 [24‐88]; P = .05) and were less frequently treated for B‐cell non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (B‐NHL) (0 vs. 70.7%, P = .03). In conclusion, a 18 months of lamivudine prophylaxis was effective in preventing HBV reactivation in HBsAg‐negative/anti–HBc‐positive patients treated for B‐NHL. However, in patients with chronic and severe immunodepression, such as those with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and Waldenstrom's disease, prophylaxis should be continued for an indefinite period.     

Delayed hepatitis B virus reactivation after cessation of preemptive lamivudine in lymphoma patients treated with rituximab plus CHOP

Preemptive lamivudine in lymphoma patients undergoing intensive chemotherapy can effectively prevent chemotherapy-related HBV reactivation. Nevertheless, the safety profile after withdrawal of lamivudine and the impact of rituximab-containing chemotherapy on HBV reactivation has not been defined. To illustrate the necessity of prolonged surveillance after cessation of preemptive lamivudine in lymphoma patients treated with rituximab and chemotherapy, four patients with B-cell NHL carrying HBV received rituximab plus CHOP. Preemptive lamivudine therapy was administered 1 week before chemotherapy until 4 weeks after completion of chemotherapy. Serial serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT), total bilirubin, and HBV-DNA levels were prospectively monitored in three patients. The fourth patient was closely monitored for ALT. The HBV DNA was checked after development of clinical overt hepatitis. The peripheral blood CD20⁺ B-lymphocyte counts were analyzed periodically in two patients. All of the three patients studied prospectively had virological relapses with surgence of HBV DNA 6–8 months after completion of rituximab-plus-CHOP (R+CHOP) therapy. Two of the three patients had biochemical relapses and one of them developed severe hepatitis. Sequencing for HBV polymerase gene in these patients failed to show evident emergence of lamivudine-resistant mutations. The fourth patient developed a hepatitis flare-up 6 months after completion of chemotherapy. The CD20⁺ lymphocytes were totally depleted when HBV DNA started to increase. Delayed HBV reactivation can occur in lymphoma patients receiving R+CHOP after withdrawal of preemptive lamivudine. More protracted lamivudine therapy may be an alternative to close monitoring following chemotherapy, and further studies are needed to define optimal duration of lamivudine therapy.     

Low incidence of hepatitis B virus reactivation during chemotherapy among diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma patients who are HBsAg‐negative/ HBcAb‐positive: a multicenter retrospective study

Background: Reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) is less common in lymphoma patients with prior resolved HBV infection [characterized by hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)‐negative/hepatitis B core antibody (HBcAb)‐positive status] compared with chronic HBV infection (HBsAg positive) when receiving chemotherapy alone. The use of rituximab in chemotherapy regimen might increase the risk of HBV reactivation in patients with prior resolved HBV infection. However, the incidence of HBV reactivation is uncertain, and prophylactic antiviral treatment for this group of patients during rituximab‐containing chemotherapy is controversial. The objective of this study was to determine the incidence of HBV reactivation in HBsAg‐negative/HBcAb‐positive patients diagnosed of diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and treated with CHOP‐like or RCHOP‐like regimen. In addition, this study also aims to explore the relationship of HBV reactivation and HBV serology. Methods: Patients were identified using data from six university hospitals collected between January 1998 and November 2008. Four hundred and thirty‐seven patients with complete data were selected based on the diagnosis of CD20+ DLBCL, availability of HBV serum markers prior to initiation of chemotherapy and during the development of hepatitis, completion of at least four cycles of chemotherapy using CHOP‐like or RCHOP‐like regimen, and follow‐up for at least 6 months after completion of treatment. The characteristics of the HBsAg‐negative/HBcAb‐positive patients treated with CHOP‐like regimen were compared to those treated with RCHOP‐like regimen. Results: Eighty‐eight patients of the total 437 patients had pretreatment serology of prior resolved hepatitis B, with a prevalence of 20.1%. Among them, 45 patients received CHOP‐like regimen while 43 patients received RCHOP‐like regimen. Five patients developed hepatitis during treatment, two from CHOP group and three from RCHOP group. Only one patient treated with RCHOP had hepatitis associated with HBV reactivation, while the other four patients did not have evidence of HBV reactivation. Those four patients also demonstrated positive HBsAb at baseline, while the only patient who suffered from HBV reactivation had negative HBsAb status. This patient was successfully treated with antiviral medications. There were no statistically significant risk factors predictive of HBV reactivation. Conclusions: The present study revealed a low HBV reactivation rate of 2.3% in prior resolved hepatitis B among DLBCL patients undergoing RCHOP‐like therapy.