Viral hepatitis remains a global health challenge and immune status affects outcomes. In patients with haematological malignancies, including haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation recipients, viral hepatitis can be life-threatening due to the direct effects of the virus or the need to modify or delay chemotherapy. Additionally, haematopoietic stem-cell donors with past or current viral hepatitis infections might transmit the virus to recipients. The growing recognition of hepatitis E virus (HEV), advances in haematological therapies, and the availability of direct-acting antivirals for hepatitis C virus (HCV), led the 2022 9th European Conference on Infections in Leukaemia (ECIL-9) to update the 2013 ECIL-5 guidelines on viral hepatitis. The ECIL organising committee convened a panel of 13 impartial international experts (all authors of this Review) in viral hepatitis, both within and outside the fields of haematological malignancies and immunosuppression. The ECIL-9 panel conducted a review of the literature on hepatitis B virus (HBV), HCV, and HEV, grading the evidence based on the European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases system. The panel identified key clinical questions and outcomes and built on the recommendations established during ECIL-5. A consensus conference was held in Sofia Antipolis, France, from Sept 15-17, 2022, bringing together 49 experts from 19 countries. The ECIL-9 panel presented the proposed recommendations, which were revised following expert discussions. A final consensus on updated guidelines was reached in a second plenary session. The updated ECIL-9 guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations on the prevention, screening, treatment, and long-term surveillance of viral hepatitis in patients with haematological malignancies and haematopoietic cell transplantation recipients.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is the most common neurological cause of disability in young adults. Off-label rituximab for MS is used in most countries surveyed by the International Federation of MS, including high-income countries where on-label disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) are available. This updates the 2021 version of the review.

To assess the benefits and harms of rituximab as 'first choice' and 'switching' treatment for adults with any form of MS.

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and three trials registers on 31 December 2023, together with reference checking and contacting study authors to identify unpublished studies.

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) comparing rituximab with placebo or another DMT for adults with any form of MS.

We followed standard Cochrane methods. We used RoB 1 to assess risk of bias in RCTs and ROBINS-I in NRSIs. We assessed the certainty of evidence for critical and important prioritised outcomes using GRADE: disability worsening, relapse, serious adverse events (SAEs), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), common infections, cancer, and mortality. We conducted separate analyses for rituximab as 'first choice' or as 'switching' treatment, relapsing or progressive MS, comparison with placebo or another DMT, and RCTs or NRSIs.

In this update, the number of study participants increased from 16,429 (15 studies) to 37,443 (28 studies; 13 new studies: 1 RCT and 12 NRSIs). The studies were conducted worldwide; most originated from high-income countries (25 studies). Public institutions funded 22 (79%) of the studies. Most studies investigated the effects of rituximab on people with relapsing MS (19 studies; 27,500 (73%) participants). We identified 12 ongoing studies. Rituximab as 'first choice' for active relapsing MS None of the included studies compared rituximab to placebo. One RCT compared rituximab to dimethyl fumarate, with 24 months' follow-up. Rituximab may reduce the recurrence of relapse (odds ratio (OR) 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.57; 195 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain on disability worsening and SAEs. Rituximab may result in little to no difference in upper respiratory tract infections (rate ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.34; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain for urinary tract, skin, and viral infections. HRQoL, cancer, and mortality were not reported. One NRSI compared rituximab to other DMTs, with 24 months' follow-up. Disability worsening was not reported. Compared with interferon beta or glatiramer acetate, rituximab likely delays relapse (hazard ratio (HR) 0.14, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.39; 1 study, 335 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared with dimethyl fumarate and natalizumab, rituximab may delay relapse (dimethyl fumarate: HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.00; 1 study, 206 participants; low-certainty evidence; natalizumab: HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.00; 1 study, 170 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence for relapse is very uncertain when comparing rituximab to fingolimod. The effect on SAEs is uncertain due to very few events in all the comparison groups. No deaths were reported. HRQoL, common infections, and cancer were not reported. Rituximab as 'first choice' for primary progressive MS One RCT compared rituximab to placebo, with 24 months' follow-up. Rituximab likely results in little or no difference in disability worsening (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.11; 439 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain on relapse, SAEs, common infections, cancer, and mortality. HRQoL was not reported. None of the included studies compared rituximab as 'first choice' treatment to other DMTs for primary or secondary progressive MS. Rituximab as 'switching' treatment for relapsing MS One small RCT compared rituximab to placebo, with 12 months' follow-up. Disability worsening was not reported. Rituximab may reduce recurrence of relapses (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.93; 1 study, 104 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain regarding SAEs, common infections, cancer, and mortality. HRQoL was not reported. Twelve NRSIs compared rituximab to other DMTs, with 24 months' follow-up. The evidence on disability worsening is very uncertain in comparison with interferons or glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, alemtuzumab, and ocrelizumab. Rituximab likely delays time to relapse in comparison with interferons or glatiramer acetate (HR 0.18, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; 1 study, 1383 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), fingolimod (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.32; 1 study, 256 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may result in little or no difference compared with natalizumab (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.10; 3 studies, 1922 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain on relapse in comparison with alemtuzumab. There is uncertainty regarding SAEs when comparing rituximab to natalizumab and fingolimod. Rituximab likely increases serious common infections when compared with interferon beta or glatiramer acetate (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.62; 1 study, 5477 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and natalizumab (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.32; 2 studies, 5001 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence for common infections is very uncertain when comparing rituximab to fingolimod and ocrelizumab. Rituximab may slightly reduce the risk of cancer compared with natalizumab (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.99; 2 studies, 6202 participants; low-certainty evidence), whereas the evidence is very uncertain in comparison with fingolimod. The effect of rituximab on mortality is very uncertain due to very few events in all the comparison groups. HRQoL was not reported.

For preventing relapses in relapsing MS, rituximab as 'first choice' and 'switching' treatment compares favourably with a wide range of approved DMTs. The protective effect of rituximab against disability worsening is uncertain. There is limited information to determine the effect of rituximab on primary progressive MS. There is limited evidence for long-term adverse events of rituximab in people with MS. Evidence for serious adverse events, cancer, and mortality was of very low certainty due to few events. There is an increased risk of serious (hospital-treated) infections with rituximab compared with other DMTs, although the absolute risk is low. High-quality (prospectively registered) NRSIs should be conducted to draw more reliable conclusions about the potential benefits and harms of rituximab in people with MS.

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection remains a global health challenge, affecting over 254 million individuals chronically and contributing significantly to cirrhosis, liver failure, and hepatocellular carcinoma. Despite advancements in antiviral therapy, HBV reactivation remains a critical concern, particularly in immunosuppressed individuals, including non-transplant patients undergoing immunosuppressive therapy and solid organ transplant recipients. This review provides screening and management strategies for HBV reactivation in these populations.

HBV reactivation (HBVr) constitutes a side effect of the treatment of autoimmune rheumatic diseases. Even though HBVr risk of conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) and anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents has long been established, the risk of targeted synthetic (ts)DMARDs and anti-interleukin (anti-IL) agents remains largely unknown.

We conducted a SLR (PubMed, Scopus and EMBASE) and meta-analysis to examine the HBVr risk for the following: anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23 and JAK-inhibitors in patients with chronic HBV infection (HBsAg presence or detectable HBV-DNA) and in patients with prior HBV infection (HBcAb-positive and HBsAg-negative). Meta-analysis was performed using both the fixed and random effects method and was conducted using the R computing language.

Overall, our study revealed a low HBVr risk of <6% in all agents; the risk was significantly higher for people having chronic compared with those with resolved HBV (14.4% vs 5.1%, respectively P < 0.01). There was no difference among different drugs in the HBVr rates [anti-IL-17: 4% (95% CI: 1-9%), anti-IL-12/IL-23: 2% (95% CI: 0-5%), JAK-inhibitors: 4% (95% CI: 1-8%), anti-IL23: 0%]. Of note, HBVr rate reached 28% in patients with chronic HBV who did not receive anti-viral treatment. For patients with resolved hepatitis, the respective percentage was 4.7%.

Overall, our meta-analysis shows that patients with chronic HBV receiving anti-IL-17, anti-IL-12/23, anti-IL-23 and JAK-inhibitors have significant risk for HBVr, especially if they are not under anti-viral treatment. In contrast, resolved HBV seems to offer minor risk for HBVr even without anti-viral treatment.

The pivotal role of antibody-producing B cells in controlling hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is well-established. However, the antiviral role of B cells extends beyond antibody production, which has been insufficiently studied for HBV infection.

Using an HBV hydrodynamic injection (HDI) mouse model with B cell depletion or functional blockade, we detected HBV infection markers and assessed T cell function through enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, RT-PCR and flow cytometry.

We observed significantly delayed serum and intrahepatic HBV clearance in permanently B cell-deficient and transiently B cell-depleted mice as well as mice with a functional B cell blockade. Blocking B cell function prior to or soon after HBV HDI resulted in delayed HBV clearance indicating that B cells contribute to initiating anti-HBV immune responses after following HBV exposure. Additionally, we also found an early activation of B cells following HBV exposure, characterized by an upregulation of MHC-II, CXCR5, and PD-1. Critically, the proliferation and activation of both CD4 + and CD8 + T cells were impaired after B cell depletion prior to HBV challenge. Consistently, depleting B cells reduced the generation of Th1, Th2, and Th17 cells in the spleen and hindered HBV-specific CD8 + T cell responses in the liver. Along these lines, the HBV-exposed B cells were more efficient in inducing HBcAg-specific CD8 + T cell responses in vitro.

Collectively, our data indicate that B cells, in addition to antibody production, are essential for the development of anti-HBV cellular responses and intrahepatic HBV clearance during the early stage of HBV antigen exposure.

Panitumumab has been extensively applied in antitumor therapy, and the regulation of its adverse drug reactions (ADRs) has become extremely important. This study utilized the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database to extract real-world panitumumab ADR signals and provide relevant information for drug safety.

ROR, PRR, BCPNN, and MGPS were used to identify real-world ADR signals associated with panitumumab.

Analysis of 9,033 patients identified 263 ADR signals across 20 MedDRA System Organ Classifications. New signals including peripheral sensory neuropathy, gene mutation, decreased neutrophil count, polyneuropathy, ileus, neutropenia, and febrile neutropenia. Age and sex subgroup analyses revealed specific risks, such as polyneuropathy and gene mutation in those under 65 years of age, decreased neutrophil count and peripheral sensory neuropathy in those over 65 years of age, and febrile neutropenia in men. Ileus was highlighted as a novel ADR in gastrointestinal disorders, with no significant age or sex differences.

This study identified new signals of ADR associated with panitumumab, providing valuable information for the clinical use of panitumumab.

Rituximab therapy is associated with a high risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation. We aimed to assess whether the risk of reactivation differed among various underlying diseases and between hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) carriers and patients with resolved HBV infection.

We retrospectively analyzed patients with chronic or resolved HBV infection who received rituximab without prophylactic anti-HBV therapy at a tertiary medical center. The risks of HBV reactivation, hepatitis, and hepatic decompensation were compared between the patients with hematologic and rheumatic diseases.

There were 78 patients with hematologic diseases and 39 patients with rheumatic diseases included. Among them, 43 (59%) HBsAg-positive patients and 24 (55%) patients with resolved HBV infection experienced HBV reactivation at a median of 14.6 months after rituximab therapy. After rituximab treatment, the 1-year HBV reactivation rate among patients with hematologic and rheumatic diseases was 29% and 45% in HBsAg-positive patients, respectively, while the rates were 38% and 17% in patients with resolved HBV infection. The reactivation risk continued to increase even 2 years after rituximab therapy and was comparable between hematologic and rheumatic patients. A higher baseline HBV DNA level (≥20 IU/mL vs <20 IU/mL) was an independent predictor for HBV reactivation (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 10.9, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1-107) and HBV-associated hepatitis (aHR: 14.8, 95% CI: 1.4-158).

Rituximab therapy is associated with a 50-64% risk of HBV reactivation regardless of underlying diseases and HBsAg status. HBV DNA levels should be assessed before initiating rituximab.

Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are a difficult health challenge for immunocompromised patients. Patients treated for several haematological malignancies have further compromised immune systems. Furthermore, many chemotherapies, alone or associated with haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation, make the body's natural barriers extremely fragile. STIs can negatively impact both patient morbidity and mortality. In this Series paper, we discuss Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, syphilis, human immunodeficiency virus, herpes simplex virus, human papilloma virus, and hepatitis B virus, as we found them to be associated with increased risks for haematological malignancy treatments, either by incidence or by severity. Protective measures and vaccines for patients with haematological malignancies are also discussed. Large, well conducted studies should be encouraged, with the aim to systematically analyse the impacts of STIs in patients with haematological malignancies, especially given the difficulties that antimicrobial resistance can confer to patient management.

Biological therapies have revolutionized medical treatment by targeting the key mediators or receptors involved in inflammatory responses, thereby effectively suppressing inflammation and achieving beneficial outcomes. They are more advanced than conventional therapies using corticosteroids and immunosuppressants, offering effective solutions for autoimmune diseases, cancer, transplant rejection, and various infectious diseases, including coronavirus disease 2019. Although they exert low immunosuppressive effects, biological therapies can reactivate specific biological targets associated with infections. This review summarizes the currently available biological therapies and discusses their immunosuppressive mechanisms and clinical applications, highlighting the variations in the types and frequencies of infection recurrence induced by different biological agents. Additionally, this review describes the risk factors associated with various biological agents, thus aiding clinicians in selecting the most appropriate biological therapy.

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the hepatitis B virus (HBV) screening rate in cancer patients before systemic chemotherapy, aiming to identify those needing antiviral prophylaxis for HBV reactivation.

We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar for relevant studies. The pooled screening rate was estimated using a random effects model. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on malignancy types, chemotherapy regimens, study period, and HBV endemic regions.

The meta-analysis included 29 studies from various endemic regions (19 low-endemic, three lower intermediate-endemic, and seven higher intermediate-endemic). These studies encompassed hematologic malignancies (n = 10), solid-organ tumors (n = 4), and combinations (n = 15). Seven studies used rituximab-containing regimens, four did not, and the remaining 11 did not specify chemotherapy regimens. The pooled screening rate was 57% (95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 46%-68%, I2 = 100%). Over time, screening rates improved from 37% (95%CI: 23%-53%) in 2006-2010 to 68% (54%-80%) in 2011-2015 and 69% (48%-84%) in 2016-2020. Screening rates were highest at 89% (74%-96%) in high endemic countries, followed by 60% (45-73%) in lower-intermediate and 49% (34-64%) in low-endemic countries. Patients with hematological malignancies had a higher screening rate than those with solid organ tumors, 65% (55%-74%) versus 37% (21%-57%), respectively. A screening rate was higher in patients receiving rituximab-containing chemotherapy than non-rituximab regimens, 68% (55%-79%) versus 45% (27%-65%).

Despite existing guidelines, pre-chemotherapy HBV screening rate remains unsatisfactory, with substantial heterogeneous rates globally. These findings underscore the need for effective strategies to align practices with clinical guidelines.

No study has comparing hepatitis B virus (HBV) relapse rates among patients with both cancer and hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-negative chronic hepatitis B (CHB) who completed anti-viral prophylaxis for chemotherapy and then stopped taking entecavir or tenofovir alafenamide (TAF).

A total of 227 HBeAg-negative cancer patients without cirrhosis who previously took entecavir (n = 144) or TAF (n = 83) for antiviral prophylaxis were enrolled.

The cumulative incidence of virological and clinical relapse at 2 years was 37% and 10.4%, respectively, in the entecavir group, and 46.7% and 19.5%, respectively, in the TAF group. The multivariate analysis revealed that the use of hematologic malignancy, TAF use, and high-viremia group at baseline were independent risk factors for virological relapse, and use of rituximab, TAF use, higher FIB-4 index and high-viremia group at baseline were independent risk factors for clinical relapse. After propensity score-matching, the patients who discontinued TAF therapy still exhibited higher virological (P = 0.031) and clinical relapse rates (P = 0.012) than did those who discontinued entecavir therapy. The patients were allocated to high- (> 2000 IU/mL), moderate- (between 20 and 2000 IU/mL) and low- (< 20 IU/mL) viremia groups. In the high-viremia group, those who had taken TAF for antiviral prophylaxis had higher rates of virological and clinical relapse than did those who had taken entecavir; in the moderate- and low-viremia groups, no significant difference in virological and clinical relapse rates was detected between the entecavir and TAF groups. Three patients experienced hepatic decompensation upon clinical relapse. All three patients were lymphoma and underwent rituximab therapy. One patient developed acute on chronic liver failure and died even though timely retreatment.

In patients with both cancer and CHB who underwent antiviral prophylaxis, TAF use was associated with a higher chance of HBV relapse than entecavir use after nucleos(t)ide analogue cessation, particularly in the high-viremia group. Patients who are hematologic malignancy and undergo a rituximab-containing cytotoxic therapy should be monitored closely after withdrawal from prophylactic NA treatment.

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation poses a significant clinical challenge, especially in patients undergoing immunosuppressive therapies, including monoclonal antibody treatments. This manuscript briefly explores the complex relationship between monoclonal antibody therapy and HBV reactivation, drawing upon current literature and clinical case studies. It delves into the mechanisms underlying this phenomenon, highlighting the importance of risk assessment, monitoring, and prophylactic measures for patients at risk. The manuscript aims to enhance the understanding of HBV reactivation in the context of monoclonal antibody therapy, ultimately facilitating informed clinical decision-making and improved patient care. This paper will also briefly review the definition of HBV activation, assess the risks of reactivation, especially in patients treated with monoclonal antibodies, and consider management for patients with regard to screening, prophylaxis, and treatment. A better understanding of patients at risk can help clinicians provide optimum management to ensure successful patient outcomes and prevent morbidity.

The objective of this two-part review is to present a current and comprehensive understanding of the diagnosis and management of plasmablastic lymphoma. The first part, which was published previously, focused on the study of epidemiology, etiology, clinicopathological characteristics, differential diagnosis, prognostic variables, and the impact of plasmablastic lymphoma on specific populations. This second part addresses the difficult topic of the treatment of plasmablastic lymphoma, specifically examining both the conventional, consolidated approach and the novel therapeutic strategy.

Venetoclax is a small molecule inhibitor of BCL-2 used in the treatment of acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Recent postmarketing studies of ibrutinib, another small molecule inhibitor, suggested that these agents may predispose to opportunistic infections. We sought to systematically review the randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence of venetoclax to assess whether it predisposes patients to infectious adverse events (IAEs) and neutropenia. We systematically reviewed RCTs comparing venetoclax therapy with active or placebo controls for patients with hematologic malignancies. Data on IAEs and neutropenia were pooled by Bayesian meta-analysis, and we computed the probability of any increased risk (P[risk ratio (RR) > 1]) of IAEs or neutropenic complications. Seven RCTs were included, comprising 2067 patients. In CLL (n = 1032), there was a low probability of increased risk of high-grade (P[RR > 1] = 71.2%) and fatal IAEs (P[RR > 1] = 64.5%) and high-grade neutropenia (P[RR > 1] = 63.4%). There were insufficient data to perform a meta-analysis of IAEs in AML; however, 1 trial suggested an increased risk of IAEs with venetoclax. Furthermore, in AML (n = 642), venetoclax was associated with a high probability of increased risk of high-grade neutropenia (P[RR > 1] = 94.6%) and febrile neutropenia (P[RR > 1] = 90.6%). Our results suggest that venetoclax has a low probability of increased risk of IAEs or neutropenia in CLL. By contrast, there is likely increased risk of high-grade neutropenia and febrile neutropenia in AML. Importantly, our analyses did not identify any specific IAEs that would benefit from routine antimicrobial prophylaxis or pre-emptive testing.

Hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr) is a well-known complication of systemic chemotherapy for particularly hematologic malignancies in HBV carriers. We performed a multicenter retrospective study to investigate the incidence and risk factors of HBVr in patients with hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-positive multiple myeloma (MM).

We included 123 patients with HBsAg-positive MM who had received systemic therapy. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the incidence of HBVr in patients with HBsAg-positive MM.

The median age was 59 years, and 72 patients were male. With a median follow-up duration of 41.4 months, there were 43 instances of HBVr in 35 patients (28.5%): 29 treatment-related HBVr occurred during 424 treatments. Treatments containing antiviral prophylaxis were associated with a significantly lower incidence of HBVr compared to those without (14.4% vs. 1.9%, P < 0.001). Moreover, treatment with cyclophosphamide (P = 0.002) and doxorubicin (P = 0.053) were risk factors for HBVr; stem cell transplantation was not associated with HBVr. There was no significant difference in overall survival between patients with and without HBVr (P = 0.753) and myeloma progression was the major cause of death.

Considering the low incidence of HBVr in patients who had received antiviral prophylaxis, HBsAg-positivity should not impede patients from receiving optimal antimyeloma treatment or participating in clinical trials.

Objective: Pulmonary infection (PI), a severe complication of immunosuppressive therapy, affects patients' prognosis. As part of this study, we aimed to construct a pulmonary infection prediction (PIP) model and validate it in patients receiving immunosuppressive drugs (ISDs). Methods: Totally, 7,977 patients being treated with ISDs were randomised 7:3 to the developing (n = 5,583) versus validation datasets (n = 2,394). Our predictive nomogram was established using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) and multivariate COX regression analyses. With the use of the concordance index (C-index) and calibration curve, the prediction performance of the final model was evaluated. Results: Among the patients taking immunosuppressive medication, PI was observed in 548 (6.9%). The median time of PI occurrence after immunosuppressive therapy was 123.0 (interquartile range: 63.0, 436.0) days. Thirteen statistically significant independent predictors (sex, age, hypertension, DM, malignant tumour, use of biologics, use of CNIs, use of methylprednisolone at 500 mg, use of methylprednisolone at 40 mg, use of methylprednisolone at 40 mg total dose, use of oral glucocorticoids, albumin level, and haemoglobin level) were screened using the LASSO algorithm and multivariate COX regression analysis. The PIP model built on these features performed reasonably well, with the developing C-index of 0.87 (sensitivity: 85.4%; specificity: 81.0%) and validation C-indices of 0.837, 0.829, 0.832 and 0.830 for predicting 90-, 180-, 270- and 360-day PI probability, respectively. The decision curve analysis (DCA) and calibration curves displayed excellent clinical utility and calibration performance of the nomogram. Conclusion: The PIP model presented herein could aid in the prediction of PI risk in individual patients who receive immunosuppressive treatment and help personalise clinical decision-making.

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in the setting of immunosuppressive therapy is an increasingly recognized and preventable cause of elevated liver enzymes and clinical hepatitis in treated patients. However, not all immunosuppressive therapies confer the same risk. The purpose of this article was to review the literature on risks of HBV reactivation associated with immunosuppressive agents and propose a management algorithm. We searched Google Scholar, PubMed, and MEDLINE for studies related to hepatitis B reactivation and various immunosuppressive agents. The risk of HBV reactivation was found to differ by agent and depending on whether a patient had chronic HBV (HBsAg+) or past HBV (HBsAg-, anti-HBc+). The highest risk of reactivation (>10%) was associated with anti-CD20 agents and hematopoietic stem cell transplants. Multiple societies recommend HBV-specific anti-viral prophylaxis for patients with positive HBsAg prior to the initiation of immunosuppressive therapy, while the guidance for HBsAg- patients is more variable. Clinicians should check HBV status prior to beginning an immune-suppressive therapy. Patients with positive HBsAg should be initiated on antiviral prophylaxis in the majority of cases, whereas HBsAg- individuals should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Further research is required to determine the optimum duration of therapy.

Hepatitis due to hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation can be serious and potentially fatal, but is preventable. HBV reactivation is most commonly reported in patients receiving chemotherapy, especially rituximab-containing therapy for hematological malignancies and those receiving stem cell transplantation. Patients with inactive and even resolved HBV infection still have persistence of HBV genomes in the liver. The expression of these silent genomes is controlled by the immune system. Suppression or ablation of immune cells, most importantly B cells, may lead to reactivation of seemingly resolved HBV infection. Thus, all patients with hematological malignancies receiving anticancer therapy should be screened for active or resolved HBV infection by blood tests for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and antibody to hepatitis B core antigen. Patients found to be positive for HBsAg should be given prophylactic antiviral therapy. For patients with resolved HBV infection, there are two approaches. The first is pre-emptive therapy guided by serial HBV DNA monitoring, and treatment with antiviral therapy as soon as HBV DNA becomes detectable. The second approach is prophylactic antiviral therapy, particularly for patients receiving high-risk therapy, especially anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Entecavir and tenofovir are the preferred antiviral choices. Many new effective therapies for hematological malignancies have been introduced in the past decade, for example, chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell therapy, novel monoclonal antibodies, bispecific antibody drug conjugates, and small molecule inhibitors, which may be associated with HBV reactivation. Although there is limited evidence to guide the optimal preventive measures, we recommend antiviral prophylaxis in HBsAg-positive patients receiving novel treatments, including Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors, B-cell lymphoma 2 inhibitors, and CAR-T cell therapy. Further studies are needed to determine the risk of HBV reactivation with these agents and the best prophylactic strategy.

To investigate the general characteristics of litigation cases of medical malpractice liability disputes (MMLDs) related to novel antineoplastic drugs (NADs), the drugs involved, as well as the common types of medical errors related to NADs and their damages in the process of diagnosis and treatment, with the aims of improving the level of rational medication use in the clinical application of NADs and actively prevent medical disputes.

The China Judgments Online was searched for the cause of action using the key word "MMLDs" along with the name of 77 kinds of NADs. A total of 39 NAD litigation cases meeting the inclusion criteria from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2021 were analyzed, and each potential adverse drug reaction (ADR) was reviewed to determine a causality assessment using the Naranjo algorithm for non-drug-induced liver injury (DILI) cases and the updated Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM) for the DILI cases. Risk prevention and control strategies were recommended.

Cases that met the inclusion criteria increased substantially each year during the last six years, from three cases in 2009-2015 to 36 cases in 2016-2021. There were more cases in Eastern China than in other geographic regions. Most cases involved tertiary hospitals, patients between 25 and 60 years of age, and patients who were predominately male. There were 18 kinds of NADs involved in medical errors. The most common consequences of NADs were closely related to the death, disability, and increased treatment costs caused by ADRs, inadequate indications, delayed diagnosis and treatment, and misdiagnosis and mistreatment. The most frequent medical errors were medical technology errors, medical ethics errors and medical record writing/safekeeping errors. In two cases involving DILI, one case was unable to undergo further RUCAM scoring because the liver function indicators of the patient before and after treatment were not published.

The establishment of mechanisms to reduce the risks associated with the clinical application of NADs is warranted. Healthcare services must maintain strict adherence to the specific requirements of GPCANADs and drug instructions and strictly grasp the indications, contraindications, usage, and dosage of drugs, and strengthen the notification and management of off-label drug use. Monitoring patients for ADRs and preparing rescue and treatment measures for high-risk drugs may serve to reduce damages related to NADs. For DILI cases, medical and appraisal institutions should use RUCAM score to assess causal relationships.

It is uncertain whether biological therapies would increase the risk of hepatitis among patients with past hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. This study aimed to evaluate the risk of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) flare in patients with past HBV infection while using biological therapies.

Patients who received biological therapies for ≥3 months from 2000 to 2019 were identified from a population-based database in Hong Kong. Patients with past HBV infection were compared with a control group without prior HBV exposure. The primary endpoint was development of ALT flare within 5 years of starting biological therapies, defined as ALT >80 IU/L.

There were 2471 and 2394 patients with and without past HBV infection respectively. There was a non-significant increase in risk of ALT flare among the HBV-exposed group (27.6% vs. 23.7%, p = .055). In multivariable analysis, using prednisolone-equivalent dose of >20 mg daily, male sex and concomitant immunosuppressants were risk factors for ALT flare. The risk of ALT flare was significantly higher with anti-CD20 when compared to other biological agents (36.1% vs. 14.5%, p < .01), but was not significantly different among anti-tumour necrosis factor, anti-cytokine, Janus kinase inhibitors and T cell/B cell inhibitors or anti-integrin (15.2% vs. 14.6% vs. 11.7% vs. 11.1%, p = .82). Among patients with documented hepatitis B surface antigen seroreversion, 96% were on anti-CD20.

Our study further supports the current suggestion of prophylactic anti-viral before starting anti-CD20 in HBV-exposed patients. While other biological therapies appear to have a lower risk for ALT flare, this result needs further confirmation.

Patterns of hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBV-R) in HBsAg (-)/HBcAb (+) patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) receiving rituximab based immunochemotherapy have not been well described. The retrospective study included 222 HBsAg (-)/HBcAb (+) NHL patients as training cohort and 127 cases as validation cohort. The incidence of HBV-R in HBsAg (-)/HBcAb (+) B-cell NHL patients was 6.3% (14/222), of which that in HBsAg (-)/HBsAb (-)/HBeAg (-)/HBeAb (+)/HBcAb (+) population was 23.7% (9/38). Multivariate analysis showed that HBsAg (-)/HBsAb (-)/HBeAg (-)/HBeAb (+)/HBcAb (+) correlated with a high risk of HBV-R in B-cell lymphoma patients (training phase hazard ratio [HR], 10.123; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.389-30.239; p < 0.001; validation phase HR, 18.619; 95% CI, 1.684-205.906; p = 0.017; combined HR, 12.264; 95% CI, 4.529-33.207; p < 0.001). In the training cohort, the mortality rate of HBsAg (-)/HBcAb (+) B-cell NHL caused by HBV-R was 14.3% (2/14) while that for HBV reactivated HBsAg (-)/HBsAb (-)/HBeAg (-)/HBeAb (+)/HBcAb (+) population was up to 44.4% (4/9). As a high incidence of HBV-R and high mortality after HBV-R was found in HBsAg (-)/HBsAb (-)/HBcAb (+)/HBeAg (-)/HBeAb (+) patients with B-cell NHL receiving rituximab based immunochemotherapy, prophylactic antiviral therapy is recommended for these patients.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Cryoglobulinemic vasculitis (CV) or mixed cryoglobulinemic syndrome (MCS) is a systemic small-vessel vasculitis characterized by the proliferation of B-cell clones producing pathogenic immune complexes, called cryoglobulins. It is often secondary to hepatitis C virus (HCV), autoimmune diseases, and hematological malignancies. CV usually has a mild benign clinical course, but severe organ damage and life-threatening manifestations can occur. Recently, evidence in favor of rituximab (RTX), an anti-CD 20 monoclonal antibody, is emerging in CV: nevertheless, questions upon the safety of this therapeutic approach, especially in HCV patients, are still being issued and universally accepted recommendations that can help physicians in MCS treatment are lacking. A Consensus Committee provided a prioritized list of research questions to perform a systematic literature review (SLR). A search was made in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane library, updated to August 2021. Of 1227 article abstracts evaluated, 27 studies were included in the SLR, of which one SLR, 4 RCTs, and 22 observational studies. Seventeen recommendations for the management of mixed cryoglobulinemia with rituximab from the Italian Study Group of Cryoglobulinemia (GISC) were developed to give a valuable tool to the physician approaching RTX treatment in CV.

Occult hepatitis B infection (OBI) is a condition where replication-competent hepatitis B virus-DNA (HBV-DNA) is present in the liver, with or without HBV-DNA in the blood [<200 international units (IU)/ml or absent] in HB surface antigen (HBsAg)-negative/HB core antibody (HBcAb)-positive individuals. In patients with advanced stage diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) undergoing 6 cycles of R-CHOP-21+2 additional R, OBI reactivation is a frequent and severe complication. There is no consensus among recent guidelines on whether a pre-emptive approach or primary antiviral prophylaxis is the best solution in this setting of patients. In addition, questions still unresolved are the type of prophylactic drug against HBV and adequate prophylaxis duration.

In this case-cohort study, we compared a prospective series of 31 HBsAg-/HBcAb+ patients with newly diagnosed high-risk DLBCL receiving lamivudine (LAM) prophylaxis 1 week before R-CHOP-21+2R until 18 months after (24-month LAM series) versus 96 HBsAg-/HBcAb+ patients (from January 2005 to December 2011) undergoing a pre-emptive approach (pre-emptive cohort) and versus 60 HBsAg-/HBcAb+ patients, from January 2012 to December 2017, receiving LAM prophylaxis [1 week before immunochemotherapy (ICHT) start until 6 months after] (12-month LAM cohort). Efficacy analysis focused primarily on ICHT disruption and secondarily on OBI reactivation and/or acute hepatitis.

In the 24-month LAM series and in the 12-month LAM cohort, there were no episodes of ICHT disruption versus 7% in the pre-emptive cohort (P = 0.05). OBI reactivation did not occur in any of the 31 patients in the 24-month LAM series versus 7 out of 60 patients (10%) in the 12-month LAM cohort or 12 out of 96 (12%) patients in the pre-emptive cohort (P = 0.04, by χ ² test). No patients in the 24-month LAM series developed acute hepatitis compared with three in the 12-month LAM cohort and six in the pre-emptive cohort.

This is the first study collecting data regarding a consistent and homogeneous large sample of 187 HBsAg-/HBcAb+ patients undergoing standard R-CHOP-21 for aggressive lymphoma. In our study, 24-month-long prophylaxis with LAM appears to be the most effective approach with a null risk of OBI reactivation, hepatitis flare-up, and ICHT disruption.

Recently, there have been clinical reports of hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr) related with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. However, there were no studies to investigate the association between HBVr and different JAK inhibitors.

This study was a retrospective review utilizing the FAERS pharmacovigilance database and a systematic literature search for all cases of HBVr reported with JAK inhibitors. Disproportionality analysis and Bayesian analysis were used in data detection to screen the suspected HBVr after the administration of different JAK inhibitors, based on the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) pharmacovigilance database from Q4 2011 to Q1 2022.

There were a total number of 2097 (0.02%) reports of HBVr in FAERS, of which 41 (1.96%) were associated with JAK inhibitors. Baricitinib appeared to have the strongest signal among four JAK inhibitors, based on the highest reporting odds ratio (ROR = 4.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.67-11.89). Ruxolitinib also showed signals, whereas no signals were detected among Tofacitinib and Upadacitinib.

While there may be an association between JAK inhibitors and HBVr, it appears to be a numerically uncommon occurrence. Further studies are needed to optimize the safety profiles of JAK inhibitors.

HBV reactivation (HBVr) can be prevented by nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the risk of HBVr associated with new classes of immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory therapies and developed guidance on NA prophylaxis. An expert panel reviewed the data and categorised the risk of HBVr associated with each class of drugs into low (<1%), intermediate (1-10%), and high (>10%). Our search uncovered 59 studies, including 3,424 HBsAg+ and 5,799 HBsAg-/anti-HBc+ patients, which met our eligibility criteria. Based on medium-high quality evidence, immune checkpoint inhibitors, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, cytokine inhibitors, chimeric antigen receptor T-cell immunotherapies, and corticosteroids were associated with high HBVr risk in HBsAg+ patients; cytokine inhibitors, chimeric antigen receptor T-cell immunotherapies, and corticosteroids with intermediate risk in HBsAg-/anti-HBc+ patients; and anti-tumour necrosis factor agents and immune checkpoint inhibitors with low risk in HBsAg-/anti-HBc+ patients. Provisional recommendations are provided for drugs with low quality evidence. NA prophylaxis is recommended when using drugs associated with a high HBVr risk, while monitoring with on-demand NAs is recommended for low-risk drugs - either approach may be appropriate for intermediate-risk drugs. Consensus on definitions and methods of reporting HBVr, along with inclusion of HBsAg+, and HBsAg-/anti-HBc+ patients in clinical trials, will be key to gathering reliable data on the risk of HBVr associated with immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory therapies.

Among numerous causative agents recognized as oncogenic drivers, 13% of total cancer cases occur as a result of viral infections. The intricacy and diversity of carcinogenic processes, however, raise significant concerns about the mechanistic function of viruses in cancer. All tumor-associated viruses have been shown to encode viral oncogenes with a potential for cell transformation and the development of malignancies, including diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Given the difficulties in identifying single mechanistic explanations, it is necessary to combine ideas from systems biology and viral evolution to comprehend the processes driving viral cancer. The potential for more efficient and acceptable therapies lies in targeted medicines that aim at viral proteins or trigger immune responses to either avoid infection or eliminate infected or cancerous cells. In this review, we aim to describe the role of viral infections and their mechanistic approaches in DLBCL tumorigenesis. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first review summarizing the oncogenic potential of numerous viral agents in DLBCL development.

Infection in people with multiple sclerosis (MS) is of major concern, particularly for those receiving disease-modifying therapies. This article explores the risk of infection in people with MS and provides guidance-developed by Delphi consensus by specialists involved in their management-on how to screen for, prevent and manage infection in this population.

Functional cure of hepatitis B is defined as sustained undetectable circulating HBsAg and HBV DNA after a finite course of treatment. Barriers to HBV cure include the reservoirs for HBV replication and antigen production (covalently closed circular DNA [cccDNA] and integrated HBV DNA), the high viral burden (HBV DNA and HBsAg) and the impaired host innate and adaptive immune responses against HBV. Current HBV therapeutics, 1 year of pegylated-interferon-α (PEG-IFNα) and long-term nucleos(t)ide analogues (NUCs), rarely achieve HBV cure. Stopping NUC therapy may lead to functional cure in some Caucasian patients but rarely in Asian patients. Switching from a NUC to IFN after HBV DNA suppression increases the chance of HBsAg clearance mainly in those with low HBsAg levels. Novel antiviral strategies that inhibit viral entry, translation and secretion of HBsAg, modulate capsid assembly, or target cccDNA transcription/degradation have shown promise in clinical trials. Novel immunomodulatory approaches including checkpoint inhibitors, metabolic modulation of T cells, therapeutic vaccines, adoptive transfer of genetically engineered T cells, and stimulation of innate and B-cell immune responses are being explored. These novel approaches may be further combined with NUCs or PEG-IFNα in personalised strategies, according to virologic and disease characteristics, to maximise the chance of HBV cure. The development of curative HBV therapies should be coupled with the development of standardised and validated virologic and immunologic assays to confirm target engagement and to assess response. In addition to efficacy, curative therapies must be safe and affordable to meet the goal of global elimination of hepatitis B.

Infections are among the main causes of death in patients with demyelinating diseases of the central nervous system (CNSDD). Vaccines are effective methods in reducing hospitalization and death from infectious diseases, but they are challenging in patients with CNSDD because of autoimmunity and immunosuppression.

To summarize the pathophysiological rationale and main evidence for vaccine recommendations in patients with CNSDD.

Specialists with different backgrounds on the subject: a neurologist specialized in demyelinating diseases, an infectious diseases specialist and an immunologist, presented a critical narrative review of vaccination literature in patients with CNSDD, highlighting which vaccines should or should not be administered and the best time for it.

Patients with DDSNC are at increased risk of vaccine-preventable viral and bacterial infections. Vaccines can prevent herpes zoster, hepatitis B reactivation, HPV-associated warts and tumors, viral and bacterial pneumonia, and meningitis. Live attenuated virus vaccines should not be used when the patient is on immunosuppression. Vaccines should be avoided during relapses. The greatest vaccine efficacy is given before treatment or at the end of medication.

Patients with DDSNC need differentiated immunization in relation to additional vaccines, contraindicated vaccines and timing of vaccination.

Secondary hypogammaglobulinemia (SHG) is characterized by reduced immunoglobulin levels due to acquired causes of decreased antibody production or increased antibody loss. Clarification regarding whether the hypogammaglobulinemia is secondary or primary is important because this has implications for evaluation and management. Prior receipt of immunosuppressive medications and/or presence of conditions associated with SHG development, including protein loss syndromes, are histories that raise suspicion for SHG. In patients with these histories, a thorough investigation of potential etiologies of SHG reviewed in this report is needed to devise an effective treatment plan focused on removal of iatrogenic causes (eg, discontinuation of an offending drug) or treatment of the underlying condition (eg, management of nephrotic syndrome). When iatrogenic causes cannot be removed or underlying conditions cannot be reversed, therapeutic options are not clearly delineated but include heightened monitoring for clinical infections, supportive antimicrobials, and in some cases, immunoglobulin replacement therapy. This report serves to summarize the existing literature regarding immunosuppressive medications and populations (autoimmune, neurologic, hematologic/oncologic, pulmonary, posttransplant, protein-losing) associated with SHG and highlights key areas for future investigation.

Conflicting results can be found in the literature on the frequency of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation (HBVr) on rituximab (RTX) in rheumatic patients with previously resolved HBV (prHBV) infection. Here, we report the frequency of HBVr in a large historical cohort of caucasian rheumatic patients with prHBV receiving RTX. Registry data of rheumatic patients treated with RTX were retrospectively analysed. Demographic and clinical characteristics including evaluation of anti-HCV and HBV markers, annual HBV-DNA determination and aminotransferase levels assessed every three months, were recorded. Kaplan-Meier estimate was used to compare the risk of being still under therapy at different time points in patients with or without prHBV infection. Cox regression analysis was used to determine the association between recorded variables and treatment discontinuation. A total of 311 patients treated with RTX, 44 (14.1%) with and 267 (85.9%) without prHBV were analysed. No significant difference between the two groups regarding demographic and clinical characteristics was observed. During RTX treatment, detectable HBV-DNA and reappearance of HBsAg in patients with prHBV (seroreversion) were never observed. Kaplan-Meier functions were similar in patients with or without prHBV infection which was not associated with RTX discontinuation neither at univariate nor at multivariate analysis. These data are in favor of the concept that patients with rheumatologic diseases have a very low risk of reactivation of the HBV infection under RTX treatment. However, future prospective studies, including a larger number of patients, are still necessary to draw definitive conclusions.