RISK FACTORS AND MANAGEMENT OF HEPATITIS B VIRUS REACTIVATION IN PATIENTS WITH HEMATOLOGICAL DISORDERS

Year 2018, Volume: 5 Issue: 1, 1 - 4, 25.02.2018

Fatih Erkan Akay , Berfin Tan , Mahmut Alper Güldağ , Hilal Sena Çifcibaşı , Kubilay Elmacı , Elif Gülsüm Ümit

Abstract

Aims: The aim of this study is to evaluate hepatitis B virus serological status and to categorize the risks of our treatment
modalities in patients with both benign and malignant hematological disorders.

Methods: This was a retrospective study of 552 patients who were admitted to the Trakya University Hospital Hematology
unit between 01.01.2017 and 31.12.2017. All data regarding the diagnosis, treatment and HBV serological
status were collected from patient files. Data were analyzed with IBM SPSS V.20 using descriptive statistical analysis.

Results: Hepatitis B surface antigen was positive in 45 (8.2%) patients, antibody to the hepatitis B surface antigen
was positive in 279 (50.5%) patients and antibody to the hepatitis B core antigen was positive in 247 (44.7%) patients.
According to these results, 32 patients were found to be vaccinated for hepatitis B virus. Reactivation was observed in
4 (0.7%) patients who have been hepatitis B surface antigen positive and have received adequate duration of antiviral
prophylaxis with tenofovir. These 4 patients have received monoclonal antibody for immunosuppressive treatment.

Conclusion: To conclude, although the rate of hepatitis B surface antigen reactivation is quite low, as many patients
as possible should be vaccinated to reduce the costs of antiviral treatments and monitorization. If there is no
time to vaccinate, patients should be categorized according to guidelines by their hepatitis B surface antigen serological
status and by the planned immunosuppressive treatments.

Keywords

Hepatitis, hematology, immunotherapy

References

• 1. Reddy KR, Beavers KL, Hammond SP et al. American Gastroenterological Association Institute guideline on the prevention and treatment of hepatitis B virus reactivation during immunosuppressive drug therapy. Gastroenterology 2015;148:215-9.
• 2. European Association For The Study Of The Liver. EASL clinical practice guidelines: management of chronic hepatitis B virus infection. J Hepatol 2017;67(2):370- 98.
• 3. Di Bisceglie AM, Lok AS, Martin P et al. Recent US Food and Drug Administration warnings on hepatitis B reactivation with immune-suppressing and anticancer drugs: just the tip of the iceberg? Hepatology 2015; 61:703-11.
• 4. Hwang JP, Somerfield MR, Alston-Johnson DE et al. hepatitis B virus screening for patients with cancer before therapy: American Society of Clinical Oncology provisional clinical opinion update. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33:2212-20.
• 5. Perrillo RP, Gish R, Falck-Ytter YT. American Gastroenterological Association Institute technical review on prevention and treatment of hepatitis B virus reactivation during immunosuppressive drug therapy. Gastroenterology 2015; 148:221-4.
• 6. Perrillo RP, Martin P, Lok AS. Preventing hepatitis B reactivation due to immunosuppressive drug treatments. JAMA 2015;313:1617-8.
• 7. Mozessohn L, Chan KK, Feld JJ et al. Hepatitis B reactivation in HBsAg-negative/HBcAb-positive patients receiving rituximab for lymphoma: a meta-analysis. J Viral Hepat 2015;22:842-9.
• 8. Huang H, Li X, Zhu J et al. Entecavir vs lamivudine for prevention of hepatitis B virus reactivation among patients with untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma receiving R-CHOP chemotherapy: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2014;312:2521-30.
• 9. Hui CK, Cheung WW, Au WY et al. Hepatitis B reactivation after withdrawal of pre-emptive lamivudine in patients with haematological malignancy on completion of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Gut 2005;54:1597-603.