| Literature DB >> 31450680 |
Valentina Svicher1, Romina Salpini1, Vincenzo Malagnino2, Lorenzo Piermatteo1, Mohammad Alkhatib1, Carlotta Cerva2, Loredana Sarmati3.
Abstract
Hepatitis B virus (HBV) persistence is at the basis of HBV reactivation as a consequence of chemotherapy and immunosuppressive treatments. The identification of early viral replication indicators and markers of effective HBV immunological control would be useful in monitoring patients who are at risk of potential viral reactivation during the course of immunosuppressive treatment. Currently, international guidelines have shared some criteria to identify patients with a low, medium or high risk of HBV reactivation; however, permanently placing a patient in a definitive category is not always easy. More often, patients move from one category to another during the course of their immunosuppressive treatment; therefore, in many cases, there are no precise indicators or tools for monitoring possible reactivation and establishing the duration and suspension of antiviral prophylaxis. Historically, the sequence of HBV antigens and antibodies and HBV DNA levels has been used to evaluate the different stages of the acute and chronic phases of an HBV infection. In the last few years, new biomarkers, such as anti-HBs and anti-HBc titres, HBV core-related antigen (HBcrAg), ultra-sensitive HBsAg evaluation and HBV RNA, have been used in patients with an HBV infection to evaluate their diagnostic and prognostic potential. The aim of this review is to evaluate the published results on the use of new infection markers in the diagnosis and monitoring of HBV reactivation over the course of immunosuppressive treatments. Moreover, the importance of viral genotypic studies was emphasized, given the diagnostic and therapeutic implications of the mutational profiles of HBsAg during the HBV reactivation phase.Entities:
Keywords: HBV; HBV core related antigen; HBV markers; HBV-DNA; HBV-RNA; HBcrAg; HBsAg; anti-HBcAb; hepatitis B infection; immunocompromised host
Year: 2019 PMID: 31450680 PMCID: PMC6784136 DOI: 10.3390/v11090783
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Viruses ISSN: 1999-4915 Impact factor: 5.048
Summary of studies led in patients with resolved hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection addressing the role of HBV biomarkers in predicting HBV reactivation.
| Advantages of New HBV Markers Tests | Reference | No. of Patients | Clinical Setting | % of HBV-R * | Association of Biomarker with Risk of HBV-R |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| HBsAg detection at lower limit (0.5 mIU/mL) predictive of HBV-R | Skinkai et al. Liver Int. 2017 [ | 120 (13 with HBV-RNA detectable) | Oncohematological HBV-resolved patients | 100% | Architect HBsAg-QT (detection limit:50 mIU/mL), HBsAg-HQ (5 mIU/mL) and ICT-CLEIA (0.5 mIU/mL) were used to test stored samples. ICT-CLEIA was detected in all 12 patients (100%) with a sensitivity comparable to HBV-DNA |
|
| |||||
| Low anti-HBsAg levels (<100 UI/mL) and major risk of HBV-R | Seto et al. 2014 [ | 260 | Oncohematological patients receiving rituximab | 30.2% | Anti-HBs negativity at baseline: |
| Cho Y et al. 2016 [ | 108 | B-cell lymphoma receiving rituximab not antiviral prophylaxis | 11.6% | Anti-HBs < 100 IU/mL | |
| Fukuda et al. 2016 [ | 1042 | Rheumatic diseases | 3.3% | Anti-HBs < 100 IU/mL | |
| Lee et al. 2018 [ | 366 | Kidney-transplanted patients using rituximab for desensitization | 2.5% | Anti-HBs < 100 IU/L at transplantation: | |
| Kotake et al. 2018 [ | 243 | Patients with solid tumors | 2.1% | Anti-HBs negativity at baseline: | |
| Tien et al. 2018 [ | 380 | Rheumatic diseases treated with biologic therapy | 4.4% | Anti-HBs > 100 IU/mL at baseline | |
|
| |||||
| Combination of anti-HBc/anti-HBs low levels identify high risk of HBV-R | Matsubara et al. 2017 [ | 77 | Lymphoma patients | 12.9% | Anti-HBcAb < 10 (S/CO) at baseline |
| Yang et al. 2018 [ | 197 | Oncohematological patients | 12.2% | AntiHBs < 56.48 mIU/mL + anti-HBc ≥ 6.41IU/mL at baseline: HR (95% CI):17.29 (3.9–76.3), | |
|
| |||||
| HBcrAg positivity associated with HBV-R | Seto et al. 2016 [ | 124 | Oncohematological patients | 25% | HBcrAg positivity at baseline: |
| 62 | Oncohematological patients receiving rituximab | 29% | HBcrAg positivity at baseline: | ||
* HBV-R = HBV reactivation; ICT-CLEIA: immune complex transfer chemiluminescence enzyme technique.