Yi-Chia Su1, Pei-Chin Lin1,2, Hsien-Chung Yu3, Chih-Chien Wu4,5. 1. Department of Pharmacy, Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 2. Department of Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 3. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 4. Division of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. pauleoswu@gmail.com. 5. Faculty of Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan. pauleoswu@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Until recently, the role of antiviral prophylaxis in preventing hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation during immunosuppressive therapy or chemotherapy in patients with resolved HBV infection was unclear. The aim of the study reported here was to compare the efficacy of antiviral prophylaxis versus that of non-prophylaxis in resolved HBV-infected patients undergoing chemotherapy or immunosuppressive therapy. METHODS: PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the ClinicalTrials.gov website were searched from inception until December 2017. Studies comparing reactivation in prophylaxis versus non-prophylaxis in patients undergoing immunosuppressive therapy or chemotherapy were included. The meta-analysis was performed to calculate the relative risk (RR) and the pooled estimates. RESULTS: A meta-analysis was conducted of 13 studies (2 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 11 cohort studies). The summary RR for HBV reactivation was 0.47 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-1.69) for antiviral prophylaxis versus non-prophylaxis. Both of the RCTs included in the meta-analysis enrolled patients treated with rituximab. Subgroup analyses showed that the two RCTs ± high-quality cohort studies showed a decreased risk of HBV reactivation among the antiviral prophylaxis groups (RCT 1: RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02-0.70; P = 0.02; RCT 2: 0.28, 95% CI 0.08-0.98; P = 0.05). Subgroup analyses further showed that the cohort studies did not support an association between the antiviral prophylaxis groups and HBV reactivation (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.14-2.83; P = 0.54); adjusting for confounding factors, such as detectable anti-HBs antibodies, failed to produce a significant association (RR,0.29, 95% CI 0.07-1.28; P = 0.10). CONCLUSION: Our meta-analyses did not show an association between antiviral prophylaxis use and risk of HBV reactivation. As using only the RCTs ± high-quality cohort studies data rendered this association significant, clinicians can consider providing antiviral prophylaxis to patients with resolved HBV infection who are undergoing rituximab-based therapy.
BACKGROUND: Until recently, the role of antiviral prophylaxis in preventing hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation during immunosuppressive therapy or chemotherapy in patients with resolved HBV infection was unclear. The aim of the study reported here was to compare the efficacy of antiviral prophylaxis versus that of non-prophylaxis in resolved HBV-infectedpatients undergoing chemotherapy or immunosuppressive therapy. METHODS: PubMed, the Cochrane library, and the ClinicalTrials.gov website were searched from inception until December 2017. Studies comparing reactivation in prophylaxis versus non-prophylaxis in patients undergoing immunosuppressive therapy or chemotherapy were included. The meta-analysis was performed to calculate the relative risk (RR) and the pooled estimates. RESULTS: A meta-analysis was conducted of 13 studies (2 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 11 cohort studies). The summary RR for HBV reactivation was 0.47 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-1.69) for antiviral prophylaxis versus non-prophylaxis. Both of the RCTs included in the meta-analysis enrolled patients treated with rituximab. Subgroup analyses showed that the two RCTs ± high-quality cohort studies showed a decreased risk of HBV reactivation among the antiviral prophylaxis groups (RCT 1: RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02-0.70; P = 0.02; RCT 2: 0.28, 95% CI 0.08-0.98; P = 0.05). Subgroup analyses further showed that the cohort studies did not support an association between the antiviral prophylaxis groups and HBV reactivation (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.14-2.83; P = 0.54); adjusting for confounding factors, such as detectable anti-HBs antibodies, failed to produce a significant association (RR,0.29, 95% CI 0.07-1.28; P = 0.10). CONCLUSION: Our meta-analyses did not show an association between antiviral prophylaxis use and risk of HBV reactivation. As using only the RCTs ± high-quality cohort studies data rendered this association significant, clinicians can consider providing antiviral prophylaxis to patients with resolved HBV infection who are undergoing rituximab-based therapy.
Authors: Rohit Loomba; Ayana Rowley; Robert Wesley; T Jake Liang; Jay H Hoofnagle; Frank Pucino; Gyorgy Csako Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-04-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Wai-Kay Seto; Thomas S Y Chan; Yu-Yan Hwang; Danny Ka-Ho Wong; James Fung; Kevin Sze-Hang Liu; Harinder Gill; Yuk-Fai Lam; Albert K W Lie; Ching-Lung Lai; Yok-Lam Kwong; Man-Fung Yuen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-10-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: María Buti; María L Manzano; Rosa M Morillas; Montserrat García-Retortillo; Leticia Martín; Martín Prieto; María L Gutiérrez; Emilio Suárez; Mariano Gómez Rubio; Javier López; Pilar Castillo; Manuel Rodríguez; José M Zozaya; Miguel A Simón; Luis E Morano; José L Calleja; María Yébenes; Rafael Esteban Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-09-12 Impact factor: 3.240