Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) affects different patient populations that require unique considerations in their management. However, no HS guidelines for these populations exist.

To provide evidence-based consensus recommendations for patients with HS in 7 special patient populations: (i) pregnancy, (ii) breastfeeding, (iii) pediatrics, (iv) malignancy, (v) tuberculosis infection, (vi) hepatitis B or C infection, and (vii) HIV disease.

Recommendations were developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system to ascertain level of evidence and selected through a modified Delphi consensus process.

One hundred eighteen expert consensus statements are provided for the management of patients with HS across these 7 special patient populations.

Hepatitis B reactivation (HBVr) can occur due to a variety of immune-modulating exposures, including multiple drug classes and disease states. Antiviral prophylaxis can be effective in mitigating the risk of HBVr. In select cases, clinical monitoring without antiviral prophylaxis is sufficient for managing the risk of HBVr. This clinical practice guideline update aims to inform frontline health care practitioners by providing evidence-based practice recommendation for the management of HBVr in at-risk individuals.

The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework was used to assess evidence and make recommendations. The panel conducted a systematic evidence review to identify new studies since publication of the first version of this clinical practice guideline in 2014. The Evidence to Decision framework was used to develop recommendations regarding the role of antiviral prophylaxis and monitoring without antiviral prophylaxis for management of HBVr. Clinical recommendations were based on the balance between desirable and undesirable effects, patient values, costs, and health equity considerations.

The panel agreed on 4 recommendations. Based on evidence and baseline risk assessment, the panel made a strong recommendation in favor of antiviral prophylaxis for individuals at high risk of HBVr. For individuals at moderate risk of HBVr, a conditional recommendation was made in favor of antiviral prophylaxis. For individuals at low risk of HBVr, a conditional recommendation was made in favor of monitoring alone without antiviral prophylaxis. Monitoring should be performed at 1- to 3-month intervals, and must include assessment of hepatitis B viral load in addition to assessment of alanine aminotransferase. For individuals deemed to be at-risk of HBVr, the panel agreed on a strong recommendation in favor of testing for HBV; given universal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention screening guidance for hepatitis B for all adults 18 years and older by testing for HBV surface antigen, hepatitis B surface antibody, and total hepatitis B core antibody, stratifying screening practices by magnitude of HBVr risk is no longer needed.

This document provides updated guidance for the management of HBVr in at-risk individuals. Limitations and gaps in the evidence are highlighted. This guideline is expected to require updating in 5 years from publication.

This meta-analysis will evaluate the risk of hepatitis B reactivation in patients treated with ustekinumab for inflammatory bowel disease and psoriasis. We aim to determine the true incidence of this adverse event, reconcile discrepancies in reported reactivation rates, and elucidate the associated risk.

We conducted a rigorous systematic review adhering to established guidelines. Major databases like MEDLINE, Google Scholar, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched. Studies involving patients with documented hepatitis B infection undergoing ustekinumab therapy were included. Patients receiving concurrent antiviral medications were excluded. To account for potential underreporting, studies without reactivation events or with sample sizes ≥3 were also considered by using generalized linear mixed models and Clopper-Pearson confidence intervals. This review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023418130).

We analyzed data from nine studies involving 104 hepatitis B virus (HBV)-infected patients. The pooled HBV reactivation (HBVr) incidence among hepatitis B surface antigen-positive patients was 10% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0-31%], with low heterogeneity (I2 = 7.13%, τ2 = 0.4) and a nonsignificant Q-statistic (Q = 5.38, P = 0.37). For the occult HBV-infected patients, the pooled HBVr incidence was 3% (95% CI: 0-11%), with no heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, τ2 = 0.0) and a nonsignificant Q-statistic (Q = 2.7, P = 0.61). The reactivation rates showed high consistency across studies, with no significant difference between the two groups.

While our data suggest lower HBVr risk with ustekinumab, confirmation is needed due to limited sample size and retrospective design.

Patients with overt or occult hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection receiving immunosuppressive treatments have a wide risk of HBV reactivation (HBVr). We performed meta-analysis with decision curve analyses (DCA) to estimate the risk of HBVr in HBsAg-negative anti-HBc-positive patients naïve to nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs) receiving immunosuppressive treatments.

Studies were identified through literature search until October 2022. Pooled estimates were obtained using random-effects model. Subgroup analyses were performed according to underlying disease and immunosuppressive treatments. DCA was used to identify the threshold probability associated with the net benefit of antiviral prophylaxis in HBsAg-negative anti-HBc-positive patients. We selected 68 studies (40 retrospective and 28 prospective), including 8034 patients with HBsAg negative anti-HBc positive. HBVr was 4% (95% CI 3%-6%) in HBsAg-negative anti-HBc-positive patients, with a significantly high heterogeneity (I2 69%; p < .01). The number-needed-to-treat (NNT) by DCA ranged from 8 to 24 for chemotherapy plus rituximab, from 12 to 24 for targeted therapies in cancer patients and from 13 to 39 for immune-mediated diseases. Net benefit was small for monoclonal antibodies.

Our DCA in HBsAg-negative anti-HBc-positive patients provided evidence that NA prophylaxis is strongly recommended in patients treated with chemotherapy combined with rituximab and could be appropriate in patients with cancer treated with targeted therapies and in patients with immune-mediated diseases. Finally, in patients with cancer treated with monoclonal antibodies or with chemotherapy without rituximab, the net benefit is even lower.

We aimed to evaluate the risk of hepatitis B virus reactivation in rheumatic patients using anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha drugs and the awareness of physicians about hepatitis B virus reactivation.

Demographic characteristics, pre- and post-treatment hepatitis markers, and laboratory parameters of patients receiving anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha therapy in our rheumatology clinic were retrospectively examined.

A total of 448 patients, 240 (53.6%) female and 208 (46.4%) male, were evaluated. Their mean age was 48.02±14.64 years. While HBsAg was examined in 443 (98.9%) patients before treatment, 7 (1.6%) patients were found to be HBsAg positive. While anti-HBc IgG was examined in 405 (90.4%) patients, it was positive in 69 (17%) patients. HBs Ag (total 446-99.6%) test was performed in three patients who were not tested for HBsAg before the treatment, and anti-HBc total (431-96.2% total) test was performed in 26 patients who were not tested for anti-HBc total. All HBsAg positive patients and 17 (24.6%) of those with previous hepatitis B received antiviral treatment. While the median follow-up period of the patients was 24 (6-60) months, no patient developed hepatitis B virus reactivation.

The screening rates and awareness of physicians providing anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha therapy for hepatitis B virus infection were found to be higher compared to similar studies. Hepatitis B virus reactivation did not develop in any patient. Since the risk of hepatitis B virus reactivation is low, especially in patients with previous hepatitis B, it would be more appropriate to follow up the patients without giving antiviral prophylaxis.

To develop updated guidelines for the pharmacological management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

A group of experts representative of different geographical regions and various medical services catering to the Mexican population with RA was formed. Questions based on Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) were developed, deemed clinically relevant. These questions were answered based on the results of a recent systematic literature review (SLR), and the evidence's validity was assessed using the GRADE system, considered a standard for these purposes. Subsequently, the expert group reached consensus on the direction and strength of recommendations through a multi-stage voting process.

The updated guidelines for RA treatment stratify various therapeutic options, including different classes of DMARDs (conventional, biologicals, and JAK inhibitors), as well as NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, and analgesics. By consensus, it establishes the use of these in different subpopulations of interest among RA patients and addresses aspects related to vaccination, COVID-19, surgery, pregnancy and lactation, and others.

This update of the Mexican guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of RA provides reference points for evidence-based decision-making, recommending patient participation in joint decision-making to achieve the greatest benefit for our patients. It also establishes recommendations for managing a variety of relevant conditions affecting our patients.

Patients with a history of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection who are receiving immunosuppressive therapy are at risk of HBV reactivation and disease. Therefore, HBV screening is required prior to administering antirheumatic drugs with immunosuppressive effects. This study aimed to determine the status of hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), hepatitis B core antibody (HBcAb), and hepatitis B surface antibody (HBsAb) screening prior to the initiation of drug therapy, including new antirheumatic drugs, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

This retrospective cross-sectional study used data from April 2014 to August 2022 from the Japanese hospital-based administrative claims database. The inclusion criteria were rheumatoid arthritis and first prescription date of antirheumatic drugs.

A total of 82,282 patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were first prescribed antirheumatic drugs between April 2016 and August 2022 were included. Of the eligible patients, 9.7% (n=7,959) were screened for all HBV (HBsAg, HBsAb, and HbcAb) within 12 months prior to the date of initial prescription. The HBsAg test was performed in 30.0% (n=24,700), HBsAb test in 11.8% (n=9,717), and HBcAb test in 13.1% (n=10,824) of patients. The proportion of patients screened for HBV infection has been increasing since 2018; however, the proportion of patients screened for rheumatoid arthritis remains low.

Our findings suggest that HBV screening may be insufficient in patients who received antirheumatic drugs. With the increasing use of new immunosuppressive antirheumatic drugs, including biological agents, healthcare providers should understand the risk of HBV reactivation and conduct appropriate screening.

Hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr) during and after immunosuppressive/immunomodulatory (IS/IM) therapy is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, including hepatic decompensation and acute liver failure. The risk of HBVr with IS/IM has been heterogeneous and often unpredictable. As a result, patients with active or previous HBV infection are often excluded from clinical drug trials of such agents. Thorough screening for HBV infection, antiviral prophylaxis, and careful monitoring for HBVr have proven to be effective in reducing the rate of HBVr and improving its outcome in the context of IS/IM. Therefore, safe enrollment and management of certain HBV-marker-positive patients in clinical trials is possible. There is a great, unmet need for consistent, evidence-based recommendations for best practices pertaining to enrollment, monitoring, and management of HBVr in clinical trial participants receiving IS/IM. The aim of these consensus guidelines is to provide a step-by-step blueprint to safely enroll, monitor and manage the patient with inactive chronic or resolved HBV in IS/IM clinical trials from the time of screening through to the end of post-treatment follow up.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients seropositive for hepatitis B core antibody (HBcAb) and negative for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) are at risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation when treated with biologic or targeted synthetic (b/ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). The study aims to investigate the risk in this population.

From January 2004 through December 2020, 1068 RA patients undergoing b/tsDMARDs therapy and 416 patients with HBsAg-/HBcAb+ were enrolled. Factors associated with HBV reactivation were analysed.

During 2845 person-years of follow-up, 27 of 416 (6.5%,9.5 per 1000 person-years) patients developed HBV reactivation, with a cumulative rate of HBV reactivation of 3.5% at 5 years, 6.1% at 10 years and 24.2% at 17 years. The median interval from beginning b/tsDMARDs to HBV reactivation was 85 months (range: 9-186 months). The risk of HBV reactivation varied by type of b/tsDMARD, with rituximab having the highest risk (incidence rate: 48.3 per 1000 person-years), followed by abatacept (incidence rate: 24.0 per 1000 person-years). In multivariate analysis, rituximab (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 15.77, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.12-60.32, p = .001), abatacept (aHR: 9.30, 1.83-47.19, p = .007), adalimumab (aHR: 3.86, 1.05-14.26, p = .04) and negative baseline HBV surface antibody (anti-HBs, <10 mIU/mL) (aHR: 3.89, 1.70-8.92, p < .001) were independent risk factors for HBV reactivation.

HBsAg-/HBcAb+ RA patients are susceptible to HBV reactivation during b/tsDMARD therapy. Those with negative baseline anti-HBs and those on certain b/tsDMARDs, such as rituximab, abatacept and adalimumab, have high reactivation risks. Risk stratification and management should be based on the patient's baseline anti-HBs titre and type of therapy.

Tocilizumab has demonstrated optimal efficacy and safety in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from clinical trials. However, the risk of hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr) in these patients remains uncertain because patients with underlying HBV have been excluded in phase III studies.

Systematical reviews were conducted on PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to 21 February 2023. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate the pooled incidence of HBV reactivation.

We included 0 clinical trials and 11 observational studies with a total of 25 HBsAg+ and 322 HBsAg-/anti-HBc+ RA patients. Among the HBsAg+ patients without antiviral prophylaxis, the pooled rate was 69.4% (95% CI, 32.9-91.3), with a median time of 4 months (range, 1-8 months) from tocilizumab initiated. Half of these patients with HBVr experienced hepatitis flare-up but no deaths. HBVr was eliminated with prophylaxis in this population. Among HBsAg-/anti-HBc+ patients, the pooled incidence of reactivation was 3.3% (95% CI, 1.6-6.7), with a median time of 10 months (range, 2-43 months) from tocilizumab initiated. HBVr was not associated with hepatitis flare-up and death. HBsAg-/anti-HBc+ patients without anti-HBs antibodies had a significantly higher risk of HBVr (Odds ratio, 12.20; 95% CI, 1.16-128.06).

This systematic review indicated that the risk of HBVr in RA patients with anti-HBs-, HBsAg+, or HBsAg-/anti-HBc+ cannot be ignored but may be avoided. Clinicians should consider implementing appropriate antiviral prophylaxis and monitoring policies for RA patients to avoid unnecessary hepatic side effects from tocilizumab treatment.

To present recommendations based on the available evidence and the consensus of experts, for risk management of biological treatment and JAK inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Clinical research questions relevant to the purpose of the document were identified. These questions were reformulated in PICO format (patient, intervention, comparison, outcome or outcome) by a panel of experts, selected based on their experience in the area. A systematic review of the evidence was carried out, grading according to the GRADE criteria (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). Specific recommendations were then formulated.

6 PICO questions were proposed by the panel of experts based on their clinical relevance and the existence of recent information regarding the risk of occurrence of serious infections, the risk of reactivation of the hepatitis B virus, the risk of reactivation of the virus varicella-zoster, the risk of appearance of skin (melanoma and non-melanoma) or haematological cancer, the risk of appearance of thromboembolic disease and the risk of progression of the human papilloma virus. A total of 28 recommendations were formulated, structured by question, based on the evidence found and the consensus of the experts.

The SER recommendations on risk management of treatment with biologic therapies and JAK inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis are presented.

We and others have previously described that hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs) seems to protect against clinically significant HBV reactivation in cohort studies of patients undergoing anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy. However, there were too few cases of HBV reactivation within cohort studies to assess the role of anti-HBs titer on reactivation. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the correlation between anti-HBs titer and the degree of clinically relevant HBV reactivation in patients undergoing anti-TNF therapy.

We systemically reviewed all studies discussing anti-TNF therapy in patients with resolved HBV infection, defined as hepatitis surface antigen (HBsAg) negative and hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc) positive. We identified a total of 48 cases of reactivation from 5 cohort studies and 10 case reports or case series; 21 were anti-HBs negative, 7 were only reported as anti-HBs positive, 16 were anti-HBs positive with titer below 100, and 4 were anti-HBs positive with titer above 100. HBsAg sero-reversion was dominantly seen in patients with negative, low and/or declining anti-HBs titers. There was a significant trend toward less clinically relevant form of reactivation with increase in baseline anti-HBs titer (p = 0.022).

Anti-HBs titers greater than 100 iU/L protect against clinically relevant HBV reactivation, while patients with low anti-HBs titers or negative anti-HBs had more clinically relevant HBV reactivation and higher rates of HBsAg sero-reversion. This suggests the importance of baseline quantitative anti-HBs prior to starting anti-TNF therapy and consideration vaccination for boosting anti-HBs titers prior to and/or during therapy.

The objective of this study was to assess the possibility of HBV reactivation (HBVr) in patients with RA under anti-IL-6 treatment.

Using PubMed, Scopus and EMBASE, we performed a systematic literature search for articles related to HBVr in RA patients under anti-IL-6 treatment. The search was performed with no date limits and was last updated 28 January 2023. The results from all the databases were combined and duplicates were excluded, as were non-English articles, case reports, position articles, comments, and paediatric studies.

Our initial search led to 427 articles; 28 were duplicates, 46 non-English, 169 reviews, 31 books/letters, 25 case reports, and 88 irrelevant to the meta-analysis aim; 21 were excluded due to inadequate information, leaving 19 articles, with a sum of 372 RA patients with chronic HBV (CHB) or resolved HBV infection, for further analysis. The overall risk for HBVr in RA patients with CHB was 6.7%, increasing to 37% when only RA patients with CHB and no antiviral prophylaxis were included. On the contrary, HBVr was close to 0% in RA patients with resolved HBV infection, irrespective of antiviral prophylaxis. All RA patients experiencing HBVr in these studies were successfully managed with antiviral treatment and/or drug withdrawal.

Overall, anti-IL-6 treatment comes with a significant risk of HBVr in RA patients with CHB; risk is diminished when antiviral prophylaxis is used. In contrast, in RA patients with resolved HBV infection, the risk of HBVr seems to be extremely low. Large, well-designed studies (either controlled trials or multicentre/international observational studies) are warranted to further validate these results.

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in kidney transplant recipients has been reported in 3% to 9% of anti-HBc antibody (HBcAb)-positive HBs antigen (HBsAg)-negative patients. It has not been studied in patients receiving belatacept, a selective costimulation blocker.

We performed a retrospective study of all transplant recipients receiving belatacept in 2 kidney transplantation centers in France. Among HBcAb-positive patients, we analyzed HBV reactivation rate, outcomes, and risk factors.

A total of 135 patients treated with belatacept were included: 32 were HBcAb-positive and 2 were HBsAg-positive. Seven patients reactivated HBV (21.9% of HBcAb-positive patients), including 5 HBsAg-negative patients (16.7% of HBcAb-positive HBsAg-negative patients). Reactivation occurred 54.8 (± 70.9) months after transplantation. One patient presented with severe hepatitis and 1 patient developed cirrhosis. There was no significant difference in survival between patients that reactivated HBV and patients that did not: 5-year patient survival of 100% (28.6; 100) and 83.4% (67.6; 100), respectively (P = 0.363); and 5-year graft survival of 100% (28.6; 100) and 79.8% (61.7; 100), respectively (P = 0.335). No factor, including HBsAb positivity and antiviral prophylaxis, was statistically associated with the risk of HBV reactivation.

HBV reactivation rate was high in patients treated with belatacept when compared with previous transplantation studies. HBV reactivation did not impact survival. Further studies are needed to confirm these results. A systematic antiviral prophylaxis for these patients should be considered and evaluated.

Immunomodulatory therapies improve the management of chronic diseases but can be associated with infectious risk. The present study was undertaken to examine the laboratory screening practices for hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), and tuberculosis (TB) and rates of vaccination for pneumococcal and influenza in patients prescribed select immunosuppressive agents at our institution.

A retrospective analysis was conducted to review patients who were prescribed a select immunosuppressive over 3 years. Data were extracted from electronic health records to identify rates of screening and vaccination prior to initiation or at any time. Logistic regression models were developed to identify predictors of screening and vaccination.

We identified 2,396 patients prescribed immunosuppressive medications by rheumatology (52.6%) and non-rheumatology specialties. Rates of screening at any time point were 84.5% (2,025 of 2,396) for HBV, 76.7% (1,838 of 2,396) for HCV, and 71.8% (1,720 of 2,396) for TB. Patients who had either in-system primary care providers (PCPs) or rheumatologists were more likely to receive pneumococcal vaccinations (odds ratio [OR] 1.98 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.55-2.54] and OR 4.08 [95% CI 2.76-6.02], respectively). Patients with dermatologic (OR 1.67 [95% CI 1.14-2.45]) or rheumatologic providers (OR 2.5 [95% CI 1.86-3.36]) were more likely to be vaccinated for influenza.

More than 70% of patients were screened for either HBV, HCV, or TB at some point. Rates of pneumococcal vaccination were better than rates of influenza vaccination. Patients with in-system PCPs were more likely to be screened and vaccinated. Establishing and executing consistent processes for screening and vaccination prior to immunosuppressive treatment remains a priority in ambulatory settings.

The risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation after biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) combined with HBsAg-/HBcAb+ is still inconsistent.

We conducted a systematic review of existing databases from 1977 to August 22, 2021. Studies of RA patients combined with HBsAg-/HBcAb +, treated with b/tsDMARDs and the reported number of HBV reactivation were included.

We included 26 studies of 2252 HBsAg-/HBcAb+ RA patients treated with b/tsDMARDs. The pooled HBV reactivation rate was 2.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.01-0.04; I2  = 66%, p < .01). In the subgroup analysis, the HBV reactivation rate of rituximab (RTX), abatacept, and inhibitors of Janus kinase (JAK), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) were 9.0% (95% CI: 0.04-0.15; I2  = 61%, p = .03), 6.0% (95% CI: 0.01-0.13; I2  = 40%, p = .19), 1.0% (95% CI: 0.00-0.03; I2  = 41%, p = .19), 0.0% (95% CI: 0.00-0.02; I2  = 0%, p = .43), 0.0% (95% CI: 0.00-0.01; I2  = 0%, p = .87), respectively. While HBsAb- patients have a significant risk of reactivation (odds ratio [OR] = 4.56, 95% CI = 2.45-8.48; I2  = 7%, p = .37), low HBsAb+ group also display a significant risk of reactivation (OR = 5.45, 95% CI: 1.35-21.94; I2  = 0%, p = .46).

This meta-analysis demonstrates the highest potential risk of HBV reactivation in HBsAg-/HBcAb+ RA patients receiving RTX treatment, especially HBsAb- patients. Our study furthers the understanding of the prophylactic use of anti-HBV drugs in such patients. However, it is relative safety to use the inhibitors of IL-6, TNF-α, and JAK in these patients.

Background: TNFα inhibitors are regularly used to treat autoimmune diseases. Tuberculosis (TB) and viral hepatitis B are considered potential infectious complications, and screening and surveillance are therefore recommended. Current guidelines do not take into account regional differences in endemicity of these infections. Methods: A systematic literature review of TB and viral hepatitis in patients receiving TNFα-inhibitors was performed, searching in PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE and Web of Science databases. Studies were selected against predefined eligibility criteria and assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The number of TB and viral hepatitis cases/1,000 TNFα-inhibitor patients were evaluated, and regional variation compared. Results: 105 observational studies involving over 140,000 patients were included. Overall, 1% of patients developed TB or viral hepatitis B. TB cases/1,000 TNFα-inhibitor patients were 4-fold higher in Asia, Africa, and South America than in Europe, North America, and Australasia where only 0%-0.4% of patients developed TB. Hepatitis B cases/1,000 patients were over 15-fold higher in countries with high prevalence (China, Taiwan, South Korea, Thailand) compared with low prevalence (p < 0.00001) where only 0.4% of patients developed hepatitis B. Only three of 143 patients developed viral hepatitis C, and there was insufficient data to allow regional sub-analysis. Conclusion: TB and viral hepatitis B infections in patients treated with TNFα inhibitors are largely confined to countries with high prevalence of these infections. As only 1/2,500 patients in low prevalence countries treated with TNFα inhibitors develop TB or viral hepatitis B, we suggest an individualized, risk-based approach, rather than universal screening for all patients.

There is growing evidence that patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) frequently present with liver impairment. Hepatitis B virus (HBV) remains a major public health threat in current society. Both severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and HBV can cause liver damage, and current findings on whether HBV infection increases disease severity in COVID-19 patients are inconsistent, and whether SARS-CoV-2 infection accelerates hepatitis B progression or leads to a worse prognosis in hepatitis B patients has not been adequately elucidated.

To explore the complex relationship between COVID-19 and hepatitis B in order to inform the research and management of patients co-infected with SARS-CoV-2 and HBV.

An experienced information specialist searched the literature in the following online databases: PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Google Scholar, Scopus, Wiley, Web of Science, Cochrane, and ScienceDirect. The literature published from December 2019 to September 1, 2022 was included in the search. We also searched medRxiv and bioRxiv for gray literature and manually scanned references of included articles. Articles reporting studies conducted in humans discussing hepatitis B and COVID-19 were included. We excluded duplicate publications. News reports, reports, and other gray literature were included if they contained quantifiable evidence (case reports, findings, and qualitative analysis). Some topics that included HBV or COVID-19 samples but did not have quantitative evidence were excluded from the review.

A total of 57 studies were eligible and included in this review. They were from 11 countries, of which 33 (57.9%) were from China. Forty-two of the 57 studies reported abnormalities in liver enzymes, three mainly reported abnormalities in blood parameters, four indicated no significant liver function alterations, and another eight studies did not provide data on changes in liver function. Fifty-seven studies were retrospective and the total number of co-infections was 1932, the largest sample size was 7723, and the largest number of co-infections was 353. Most of the studies suggested an interaction between hepatitis B and COVID-19, while 12 studies clearly indicated no interaction between hepatitis B and COVID-19. Six of the 57 studies clearly reported HBV activation. Six studies were related to liver transplant patients.

There is some association between COVID-19 and hepatitis B. Future high-quality randomized trials are needed to further elucidate the interaction between COVID-19 and hepatitis B.

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.

To conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) on the screening and prophylaxis of opportunistic and chronic infections in autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD).

SLR (inception-12/2021) based on the following search domains: (1) infectious agents, (2) AIIRD, (3) immunosuppressives/immunomodulators used in rheumatology, (4) screening terms and (5) prophylaxis terms. Articles were retrieved having the terms from (1) AND (2) AND (3) plus terms from (4) OR(5). Databases searched: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library.

studies on postoperative infections, paediatric AIIRD, COVID-19, vaccinations and non-Εnglish literature. Study quality was assessed with Newcastle-Ottawa scale for non-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), RoB-Cochrane for RCTs, AMSTAR2 for SLRs.

From 5641 studies were retrieved, 568 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, with 194 articles finally included. For tuberculosis, tuberculin skin test (TST) is affected by treatment with glucocorticoids and conventional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and its performance is inferior to interferon gamma release assay (IGRA). Agreement between TST and IGRA is moderate to low. For hepatitis B virus (HBV): risk of reactivation is increased in patients positive for hepatitis B surface antigen. Anti-HBcore positive patients are at low risk for reactivation but should be monitored periodically with liver function tests and/or HBV-viral load. Risk for Hepatitis C reactivation is existing but low in patients treated with biological DMARDs. For Pneumocystis jirovecii, prophylaxis treatment should be considered in patients treated with prednisolone ≥15-30 mg/day for >2-4 weeks.

Different screening and prophylaxis approaches are described in the literature, partly determined by individual patient and disease characteristics.

The world has made significant progress in developing novel treatments for COVID-19 since the pandemic began. Some treatments target the patient's dysregulated inflammatory response during COVID-19 infection and may cause hepatitis B reactivation (HBVr) in patients with current or past hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. This review summarizes the risk and management of HBVr due to different treatments of COVID-19 in patients who have current or past HBV infection. Abnormal liver function tests are common during COVID-19 infection. Current evidence suggests that current or past HBV infection is not associated with an increased risk of liver injury and severe disease in COVID-19 patients. Among patients who received high-dose corticosteroids, various immunosuppressive monoclonal antibodies and inhibitors of Janus kinase, the risk of HBVr exists, especially among those without antiviral prophylaxis. Data, however, remain scarce regarding the specific use of immunosuppressive therapies in COVID-19 patients with HBV infection. Some results are mainly extrapolated from patients receiving the same agents in other diseases. HBVr is a potentially life-threatening event following profound immunosuppression by COVID-19 therapies. Future studies should explore the use of immunosuppressive therapies in COVID-19 patients with HBV infection and the impact of antiviral prophylaxis on the risk of HBVr.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune disease characterized by proliferative synovitis, which can cause cartilage and bone damage as well as functional limitations. Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs have significantly improved the prognosis of RA patients. However, people with RA, when combined with hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, may experience reactivation of HBV during treatment with anti-rheumatic drugs. The outcome of HBV reactivation (HBVr) varies from liver inflammation to liver failure, while insufficient HBV screening in RA patients has been reported in various countries. Therefore, it is necessary to identify patients at high risk before starting immunosuppressive therapy. The immune response plays an important role in anti-HBV infection. However, most anti-rheumatic drugs exert an inhibitory effect on the body's immune system, resulting in HBVr. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct a comprehensive evaluation based on host factors, viral factors, and drug factors. In this paper, we summarize the mechanism of HBVr, the risk of HBVr caused by anti-rheumatic drugs, and the appropriate diagnosis and treatment process for RA patients so that clinicians can have a more comprehensive understanding of HBVr in RA patients.

Hepatitis B reactivation related to the use of immunosuppressive therapy remains a major cause of liver-related morbidity and mortality in hepatitis B endemic Asia-Pacific region. This clinical practice guidelines aim to assist clinicians in all disciplines involved in the use of immunosuppressive therapy to effectively prevent and manage hepatitis B reactivation.

All publications related to hepatitis B reactivation with the use of immunosuppressive therapy since 1975 were reviewed. Advice from key opinion leaders in member countries/administrative regions of Asian-Pacific Association for the study of the liver was collected and synchronized. Immunosuppressive therapy was risk-stratified according to its reported rate of hepatitis B reactivation.

We recommend the necessity to screen all patients for hepatitis B prior to the initiation of immunosuppressive therapy and to administer pre-emptive nucleos(t)ide analogues to those patients with a substantial risk of hepatitis and acute-on-chronic liver failure due to hepatitis B reactivation.

The reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is currently a social problem. Our hospital has established a project team, which consisted of medical staff including doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and technicians, to prevent HBV reactivation and subsequent de novo hepatitis B in 2015. To verify the usefulness of the team, we aimed to examine the implementation rate of HBV screening tests in patients with RA in 2011, 2015, and 2018. We also examined the rate of HBV infection, as well as the rate of HBV reactivation during the course. In this study, medical records of patients who visited our hospital in 2011, 2015, and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. HBV screening was completed when hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), hepatitis B surface antibody (HBsAb), and hepatitis B core antibody (HBcAb) were all examined. The prevalence of patients who completed HBV screening dramatically increased from 2.4% in 2011 to 79.1% in 2015 and 86.9% in 2018. Patients who completed the screening had significantly higher rates of liver dysfunction, methotrexate use, and use of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs than those who did not. Of the 767 patients who completed HBV screening in 2018, 157 patients (20.5%) had previously resolved HBV infection (HBsAg-negative but HBsAb- and/or HBcAb-positive). During a mean follow-up of 41.0 months, reactivation of HBV was observed in 10 out of the 157 patients (6.4%); however, none developed de novo hepatitis B. In conclusion, our multidisciplinary approach to prevent de novo hepatitis B is considered useful.

Corona virus disease (COVID)-19 is caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (commonly referred to as SARS-CoV-2). In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic. Though the target organ for the virus is primarily the lungs, with the recent understanding of the pathobiology of this disease and the immune dysregulation associated with it, it is now clear that COVID-19 affects multiple organ systems. Several drugs and therapies have been tried or repurposed to combat the wrath posed by this disease. On October 22, 2020, the USA Food and Drug Administration approved remdesivir for use in adults and pediatric patients (12 years of age and older). Several of the drugs being tried against COVID-19 have hepatotoxicity as their potential side effect. This review aims to provide the latest insights on various drugs being used in the treatment of COVID-19 and their effects on the liver.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic, debilitating inflammatory skin disorder characterized by nodules, abscesses, fistulae, and significant scarring in intertriginous areas rich in apocrine glands. Immunomodulator drugs, including biologics, are a mainstay of treatment for this disease.

This review details the safety profiles of various biologic therapies currently available commercially that have been tried for HS as assessed in clinical trials and observational studies. As the only Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved medication for the treatment of moderate-to-severe HS, adalimumab is discussed in the most detail. Additional biologic medications, including tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα) inhibitors, interleukin 1 (IL-1) inhibitors, IL-12 and IL-23 inhibitors, IL-17 inhibitors, and IL-23 inhibitors, are discussed as well. Safety concerns in special populations, including pregnant women and children, are outlined.

Existing data support excellent short-term and long-term safety profiles for adalimumab, although caution must be taken with use in high-risk patient populations, including those with chronic infections or increased risk of malignancy. Based on their safety data for other indications, additional biologic agents appear safe in HS as well. However, further research is needed to fully understand the safety profiles of these medications in the HS population.

Immunomodulatory therapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) carries risk for infectious complications. Understanding the risks of different therapeutic options is essential for making treatment decisions and appropriately monitoring patients. This review examines data on the risks for serious infections and other key infections of interest for the major classes of agents in use for RA: glucocorticoids, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. Conventional synthetic DMARDs have an excellent safety profile with recent data available supporting the relative safety of methotrexate. Tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors are associated with an increase in the risk of serious infections. Risk with other biological agents and with JAK inhibitors varies somewhat but overall appears similar to that of TNF inhibitors, with JAK inhibitors also associated with a greater risk of herpes zoster. Glucocorticoids have a dose-dependent effect on serious infection risk-at higher doses risk of infection with glucocorticoids is substantially greater than with other immunomodulatory therapies, and even low-dose therapy carries a risk of infection that appears to be similar to that of biological therapies.

To investigate the risk of hepatitis B virus reactivation in patients undergoing long-term tocilizumab therapy for rheumatoid arthritis.

From January 2011 through August 2019, a total of 97 patients were enrolled in this retrospective study. Clinical data, comedications, and the occurrence of HBV reactivation were recorded.

Seven patients were HBsAg+ (7.2%), 64 were HBsAg-/HBcAb+ (65.9%), and 26 were HBsAg-/HBcAb- (26.8%). The median disease follow-up time was 9 years. TCZ was administered for a median of 29 months. Four patients (4.1%) experienced HBV reactivation after tocilizumab therapy. Of the 7 HBsAg+ patients, 4 received antiviral prophylaxis and had no HBV reactivation; the remaining 3 patients did not receive antiviral prophylaxis, and all 3 (100%) experienced HBV reactivation and hepatitis flare-up. Hyperbilirubinemia occurred in 2 of these 3 patients, with mild prothrombin time prolongation in one. After salvage entecavir treatment, all patients had a favorable outcome. Of the 64 HBsAg-/HBcAb+ patients, only one became positive for serum HBV DNA (2.5 × 10⁷ IU/mL) after 18 months of tocilizumab treatment (1.6%; 1/64). This patient was immediately treated with entecavir, which prevented hepatitis flare-up.

Tocilizumab is widely used in treating rheumatoid arthritis and has the potential to reduce the mortality rate among severe COVID-19 patients. However, HBV reactivation needs to be considered. HBsAg+ patients have a high risk of HBV reactivation, which could be prevented by antiviral prophylaxis. Although the risk of reactivation is low in HBsAg-/HBcAb+ patients, strict monitoring is necessary.

A significant proportion of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 develop severe respiratory symptoms due to an excessive immune response. Treatment of this condition may include immunosuppressive therapies, such as IL-6 receptor antagonists and corticosteroids, which pose a risk for patients with active or past hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. In this prospective cohort study, we analysed the risk of HBV reactivation in patients with severe COVID-19 and resolved HBV infection undergoing immunosuppressive therapy. From 15th March to 30th April 2020, 600 patients with severe COVID-19 were admitted to our hospital and treated with immune modulators. Data regarding HBV infection were available in 484, of whom 69 (14%) were HBsAg negative/anti-HBc positive. For these patients, HBV reactivation prophylaxis with entecavir was strongly recommended. Complete follow-up was available in 61 patients: 72% were male, median age was 67 years, and anti-HBs was >10 IU/mL in 72%. The immunosuppressive drug most used was tocilizumab (72%). Despite HBV prophylaxis recommendation, 38 (62%) patients received entecavir and 23 (38%) did not. Baseline features of both groups were similar. At follow-up, we found no cases of HBsAg seroreversion and only 2 (3%) patients (no prophylaxis group) had detectable serum HBV-DNA (<15 IU/mL). Both were anti-HBs negative and had normal aminotransferase levels. Our data show that the risk of HBV reactivation in patients with severe COVID-19 and resolved HBV infection undergoing immunosuppressive treatment is low. However, if a systematic follow-up after hospital discharge is unfeasible in patients without anti-HBs, a short course of antiviral prophylaxis may be a safe option.

The purpose of this study was to determine hepatitis B virus (HBV) screening rates in patients receiving anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α therapy and the frequency of HBV reactivation in patients with resolved hepatitis B virus infection (hepatitis B surface antigen [HBsAg] negative, hepatitis B core antibody [Anti-HBc] positive).

Data from 1834 patients who underwent anti-TNF-α therapy in the Rheumatology, Gastroenterology and Dermatology Departments of our hospital between 2010 and 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Within 6 months before the initial anti-TNF-α therapy, performing a HBsAg and/or anti-HBc test is defined as HBV screening. HBV reactivation is defined as the presence of detectable serum HBV DNA or HBsAg seroconversion from negative to positive.

The overall HBV screening rate was 82.3% before starting anti-TNF-α therapy. There was an increasing trend in HBV screening rates during the years analyzed (64% in 2010, 87.4% in 2019) (P < .001). Before anti-TNF-α therapy was initiated, 272 patients were HBsAg negative and anti-HBc positive. Among these patients, HBV reactivation did not occur in 31 patients who received antiviral prophylaxis, whereas HBV reactivation occurred in only 1 (0.4%) of the 241 patients who did not receive antiviral prophylaxis.

Hepatitis B virus screening rates prior to starting anti-TNF-α therapy were relatively high, and its trend was increased by year. HBV reactivation because of anti-TNF-α use rarely occurred in patients with resolved HBV infection. Further studies are needed on whether routine anti-HBc screening and/or HBV DNA follow-up are necessary in these patients aside from HBsAg.

With the introduction of methotrexate, biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs), the disease activity of patients with rheumatoid arthritis has been dramatically ameliorated. However, these drugs have strong immunosuppressive effects and can cause reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) in patients with resolved HBV infection. Corticosteroids or immunosuppressants used for other connective tissue diseases or vasculitis also carry a risk of inducing reactivation of HBV. Therefore, every rheumatologist should know how to detect the resolved infection of HBV in patients with rheumatic diseases receiving immunosuppressive therapy and how to monitor it when resolved infection is revealed. Of note, the cut-off index was changed from 2.1 log copies/ml to 20 IU/ml (1.3 Log IU/ml) in 2017. Rheumatologists should start nucleic acid analog administration at reactivation of HBV while performing ongoing immunosuppressive therapy in order to prevent severe or fulminant hepatitis. A low titer of HBs antibody (Ab) or lack of HBs Ab is a risk factor of reactivation of HBV. However, the reactivation of HBV cannot be prevented by HBs Ab titers at baseline or changes overtime. Rheumatologists should recognize that every immunosuppressive therapy, regardless of the mode of action, has a potential risk of reactivation. To facilitate proper management of patients with HBV infection, collaboration between rheumatologists and hepatologists is strongly encouraged. Patients' education, systems for checking electronic medical charts, and multidisciplinary efforts are considered important for detecting HBV reactivation.

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation, in the background of cleared and overt chronic HBV infection, can be seen in patients receiving immunosuppressive agents. Risk of reactivation is variably associated with HBV serologic status and types of immunosuppressive therapy. Prevention of HBV reactivation by antiviral prophylaxis is an effective strategy to reduce morbidity and mortality in those with immunocompromised states. This article defines HBV reactivation, discusses risk stratification and common medications that can induce HBV reactivation as well as guideline recommendations for prevention of HBV reactivation, and describes the prognosis and management of patients who experience HBV reactivation.

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection remains a significant public health challenge, particularly for immunocompromised patients. Our aim was to evaluate the serologic immunity in immunocompromised rheumatology and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients, assess factors for serologic nonimmunity, and evaluate their response to 1 HBV booster dose.

Immunocompromised rheumatology and IBD patients with completed HBV screening were identified. A chart review was performed to collect demographics, clinical information, baseline HBV serology results, and serologic response to booster vaccination. Serologic nonimmunity was defined as a negative/indeterminate hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs) level.

Among 580 patients, 71% were nonimmune. The highest portion of nonimmune patients were 11-18 years old (P = 0.004). There was no significant difference between immune and nonimmune patients with regards to diagnosis (P = 0.34), age at diagnosis (P = 0.64), duration of treatment (P = 0.07), or type of medications (P = 0.08). Sixty-two percent of those who received a booster vaccine were rescreened, and most (68%) seroconverted. In those 18 years or older, only half seroconverted.

Results of this study support the benefit of HBV screening in immunosuppressed patients. Beginning at age 11 years, most patients lacked serologic immunity to HBV. Seroconversion for most patients 11-18 years occurred after 1 booster vaccine. Thus, for immunocompromised patients without recent HBV serologic data, obtaining the HBV serology beginning at age 11 years might be considered. Those 18 years and older were least likely to seroconvert after 1 booster, indicating that they may benefit from receiving the 3-dose HBV vaccine series.

In patients with rheumatic diseases undergoing immunosuppressive treatment, hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr) has been long recognized as a major treatment-related adverse event with substantial morbidity and mortality. Because HBVr is easily preventable with appropriate screening and monitoring strategies, and, when indicated, prophylactic antiviral treatment, awareness of this complication is of the utmost importance, especially in the era of biologic treatments. As a condition, it continues to be topical, in view of the emergence of novel classes of immunosuppressive drugs (i.e. Janus kinase inhibitors) acquiring licenses for a variety of rheumatic diseases. The class-specific risk of these agents for HBVr has not yet been determined. Moreover, ambiguity still exists for the management of patients planned to be treated with traditional agents, such as cyclophosphamide and glucocorticoids, particularly in the setting of resolved HBV infection. Clinicians in the field of rheumatic diseases should be tailoring their practice according to the host's profile and treatment-specific risk for HBVr. In this review, the authors attempt to critically review the existing literature and provide practical advice on these issues.