The summaries are free for public
use. The Chronic Liver Disease
Foundation will continue to add and
archive summaries of articles deemed
relevant to CLDF by the Board of
Trustees and its Advisors.
Abstract Details
Patients treated with rituximab are poorly screened for hepatitis B infection: Data from a low-incidence country
Eur J Intern Med. 2022 Nov 30;S0953-6205(22)00415-0. doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2022.11.024.Online ahead of print.
1Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: s.brakenhoff@erasmusmc.nl.
2Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
3Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
4Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Franciscus Gasthuis en Vlietland, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
5Department of Internal Medicine, Maasstad Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
6Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Ikazia Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract
Background & aims: Patients with chronic or resolved hepatitis B are at risk of hepatitis B reactivation (HBVr) when treated with high-risk immunosuppressive therapy such as rituximab. Therefore, international guidelines recommend HBV screening prior to rituximab treatment and subsequent antiviral prophylaxis among patients with a (resolved) infection. In this study, we evaluated the adherence to those recommendations.
Methods: This is a retrospective multicentre study including patients treated with rituximab between 2000-2021. Performance of correct screening was assessed, defined as the measurement of hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and hepatitis B core antibodies (anti-HBc). Next, initiation of antiviral prophylaxis and HBVr rate among patients with a chronic or resolved HBV infection was studied.
Results: We enrolled 3,176 patients of whom 1,448 (46%) were screened correctly. Screening rates differed significantly between academic and non-academic hospitals; respectively 65% vs 32% (p<0.001). In addition, screening rates differed across specialties and improved throughout the years; from 32% before 2012 to 75% after 2020 among academic prescribers, versus 1% to 60% among non-academic prescribers (both p<0.001). Antiviral prophylaxis was initiated in 58% vs 36% of the patients with a chronic or resolved HBV infection. Seven patients experienced HBVr, including one fatal liver decompensation.
Conclusions: Many patients treated with rituximab were not correctly screened for HBV infection and antiviral prophylaxis was often not initiated. Although screening rates improved over time, rates remain suboptimal. With the increasing number of indications for rituximab and other immunosuppressive agents these findings could raise awareness among all medical specialties prescribing these agents.