OBJECT: To evaluate the safety and tolerability of lamivudine in patients with HBV infection needing immunosuppressive treatment for rheumatic diseases. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty patients with rheumatic diseases planned to receive immunosuppressive DMARDs or biological agents were screened for HBV markers. In all active carriers antiviral treatment was recommended. Inactive carriers (HBsAg positive, aminotrasferase and viremia persistently normal) were divided into two risk categories according to the type and the degree of immunosuppression, and antiviral prophylaxis was started only in patients of the high risk category. Antiviral treatment was recommended also in potential occult carriers (HBsAg negative, HBcAb positive) treated with rituximab. In twenty patients antiviral treatment was started: 1 was a potential occult carrier planned to receive rituximab; 9 were inactive carriers, in which prophylactic therapy was needed for a high risk of HBV reactivation (in 3, for the use of TNF blocking agents); 10 were treated for active viral replication. Prophylaxis and therapy were performed with lamivudine. In three patients adefovir was associated. RESULTS: Antiviral drugs were well tolerated. In all cases, immunosuppressive treatment was given for the planned duration of therapy, with good results on the rheumatic diseases. Median duration of antiviral treatment was 19 months (for a total of 386 month/person). No cases of viral reactivation were observed. CONCLUSION: Our experience demonstrates the feasibility of a prophylaxis and therapy of HBV infection in patients with rheumatic diseases. This approach reduces the risk of viral reactivation and allows the choice of the optimal immunosuppressive treatment in rheumatic patients.
OBJECT: To evaluate the safety and tolerability of lamivudine in patients with HBV infection needing immunosuppressive treatment for rheumatic diseases. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty patients with rheumatic diseases planned to receive immunosuppressive DMARDs or biological agents were screened for HBV markers. In all active carriers antiviral treatment was recommended. Inactive carriers (HBsAg positive, aminotrasferase and viremia persistently normal) were divided into two risk categories according to the type and the degree of immunosuppression, and antiviral prophylaxis was started only in patients of the high risk category. Antiviral treatment was recommended also in potential occult carriers (HBsAg negative, HBcAb positive) treated with rituximab. In twenty patients antiviral treatment was started: 1 was a potential occult carrier planned to receive rituximab; 9 were inactive carriers, in which prophylactic therapy was needed for a high risk of HBV reactivation (in 3, for the use of TNF blocking agents); 10 were treated for active viral replication. Prophylaxis and therapy were performed with lamivudine. In three patientsadefovir was associated. RESULTS: Antiviral drugs were well tolerated. In all cases, immunosuppressive treatment was given for the planned duration of therapy, with good results on the rheumatic diseases. Median duration of antiviral treatment was 19 months (for a total of 386 month/person). No cases of viral reactivation were observed. CONCLUSION: Our experience demonstrates the feasibility of a prophylaxis and therapy of HBV infection in patients with rheumatic diseases. This approach reduces the risk of viral reactivation and allows the choice of the optimal immunosuppressive treatment in rheumaticpatients.