Infectious Diseases

SEATTLE – Descovy [emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (F/TAF]) was noninferior to Truvada [emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (F/TDF)] for preexposure HIV prophylaxis in a blinded, randomized trial involving more than 5,000 men at high risk for the infection.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

Both nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors are made by Gilead, and the company funded the trial.

F/TDF (Truvada) has been a blockbuster for the company, both for HIV treatment and, since 2012, for preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP); it’s the only medication to carry the indication. However, F/TDF is set to go off patent in 2021, so the company has turned its development efforts to a successor, F/TAF (Descovy), a prodrug of tenofovir that is already approved for HIV treatment.

The new study builds a case for F/TAF for PrEP, but whether the results are strong enough to persuade people to opt for it over a much less expensive generic version of F/TDF remains to be seen.

The trial randomized 2,694 men who have sex with men to F/TAF, and 2,693 to F/TDF for up to 96 weeks. Entrance criteria included at least two episodes of unprotected anal sex in the previous 12 weeks, or a diagnosis of rectal gonorrhea, chlamydia, or syphilis in the previous 6 months.

More than half the men contracted at least one sexually transmitted infection during the trial, “which indicated to us that these were the right patients to be enrolled in the study,” lead investigator Charles Hare, MD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, said at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections.

There were 15 new HIV infections in the F/TDF group (0.34 per 100 person-years), versus 7 in the F/TAF group (0.16 per 100 person-years). Almost all of the new infections were due to poor adherence – as proven by blood levels and dry blood spot testing – and most of the rest were in men who probably entered the trial with newly acquired HIV.

When those subjects were excluded, there were just two new onset HIV cases in subjects adherent to dosing, one in each arm. Infection rates were far lower than would have been expected had the subjects not been on PrEP.

One of Gilead’s main selling points for F/TAF over F/TDF is that the newer drug has better bone and renal safety, and there were slight biomarker differences in the trial that supported the assertion.

For instance, spine bone mineral density decreased 3% or greater from baseline in 10 F/TAF patients, but 27 men on F/TDF (P less than .001). Results were similar with hip bone density.

On the renal front, estimated glomerular filtration rates fell a median of 2.3 mL/min per 1.73 m² in the F/TDF arm, but rose 1.8 mL/min per 1.73 m² in men on F/TAF (P less than .001). Proximal tubular protein to creatinine ratios were largely unchanged from baseline with F/TAF, but slightly higher in the F/TDF group, at 48 weeks.

There were no statistically significant differences on actual safety outcomes – as opposed to biomarkers – between the two drugs or discontinuations due to side effects, which were rare and most often due to gastrointestinal issues. F/TAF patients gained about 1.1 kg in the trial, while weight held steady in the F/TDF arm. The study team plans to analyze lipid profile differences between the groups, since concern has been raised about F/TAF’s effect on them.

In a press conference at the conference, there was quite a bit of discussion about whether the results would justify using F/TAF for PrEP when less expensive generic versions of F/TDF become available.

“That’s a great question,” Dr. Hare said. “Both drugs actually performed quite well,” and both “do pretty well in terms of safety in this population.”

It’s not known at this point if the biomarker differences will prove to be clinically relevant. Hip fractures, kidney failure, and other problems are so rare in young, relatively healthy PrEP users that a trial to demonstrate clinical relevance would have to be huge, with years-long follow-up, Dr. Hare noted.

The average age of the men in this study was 36 years. Most were white, and about 60% lived in the United States. Other participants were from Canada or Europe.

The work was funded by Gilead; five investigators, including the senior investigator, were employees. Dr. Hare is an investigator for the company.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hare CB et al. CROI 2019, Abstract 104 LB.

SEATTLE – Descovy [emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (F/TAF]) was noninferior to Truvada [emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (F/TDF)] for preexposure HIV prophylaxis in a blinded, randomized trial involving more than 5,000 men at high risk for the infection.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

Both nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors are made by Gilead, and the company funded the trial.

F/TDF (Truvada) has been a blockbuster for the company, both for HIV treatment and, since 2012, for preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP); it’s the only medication to carry the indication. However, F/TDF is set to go off patent in 2021, so the company has turned its development efforts to a successor, F/TAF (Descovy), a prodrug of tenofovir that is already approved for HIV treatment.

The new study builds a case for F/TAF for PrEP, but whether the results are strong enough to persuade people to opt for it over a much less expensive generic version of F/TDF remains to be seen.

The trial randomized 2,694 men who have sex with men to F/TAF, and 2,693 to F/TDF for up to 96 weeks. Entrance criteria included at least two episodes of unprotected anal sex in the previous 12 weeks, or a diagnosis of rectal gonorrhea, chlamydia, or syphilis in the previous 6 months.

More than half the men contracted at least one sexually transmitted infection during the trial, “which indicated to us that these were the right patients to be enrolled in the study,” lead investigator Charles Hare, MD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, said at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections.

There were 15 new HIV infections in the F/TDF group (0.34 per 100 person-years), versus 7 in the F/TAF group (0.16 per 100 person-years). Almost all of the new infections were due to poor adherence – as proven by blood levels and dry blood spot testing – and most of the rest were in men who probably entered the trial with newly acquired HIV.

When those subjects were excluded, there were just two new onset HIV cases in subjects adherent to dosing, one in each arm. Infection rates were far lower than would have been expected had the subjects not been on PrEP.

One of Gilead’s main selling points for F/TAF over F/TDF is that the newer drug has better bone and renal safety, and there were slight biomarker differences in the trial that supported the assertion.

For instance, spine bone mineral density decreased 3% or greater from baseline in 10 F/TAF patients, but 27 men on F/TDF (P less than .001). Results were similar with hip bone density.

On the renal front, estimated glomerular filtration rates fell a median of 2.3 mL/min per 1.73 m² in the F/TDF arm, but rose 1.8 mL/min per 1.73 m² in men on F/TAF (P less than .001). Proximal tubular protein to creatinine ratios were largely unchanged from baseline with F/TAF, but slightly higher in the F/TDF group, at 48 weeks.

There were no statistically significant differences on actual safety outcomes – as opposed to biomarkers – between the two drugs or discontinuations due to side effects, which were rare and most often due to gastrointestinal issues. F/TAF patients gained about 1.1 kg in the trial, while weight held steady in the F/TDF arm. The study team plans to analyze lipid profile differences between the groups, since concern has been raised about F/TAF’s effect on them.

In a press conference at the conference, there was quite a bit of discussion about whether the results would justify using F/TAF for PrEP when less expensive generic versions of F/TDF become available.

“That’s a great question,” Dr. Hare said. “Both drugs actually performed quite well,” and both “do pretty well in terms of safety in this population.”

It’s not known at this point if the biomarker differences will prove to be clinically relevant. Hip fractures, kidney failure, and other problems are so rare in young, relatively healthy PrEP users that a trial to demonstrate clinical relevance would have to be huge, with years-long follow-up, Dr. Hare noted.

The average age of the men in this study was 36 years. Most were white, and about 60% lived in the United States. Other participants were from Canada or Europe.

The work was funded by Gilead; five investigators, including the senior investigator, were employees. Dr. Hare is an investigator for the company.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hare CB et al. CROI 2019, Abstract 104 LB.

SEATTLE – Descovy [emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (F/TAF]) was noninferior to Truvada [emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (F/TDF)] for preexposure HIV prophylaxis in a blinded, randomized trial involving more than 5,000 men at high risk for the infection.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

Both nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors are made by Gilead, and the company funded the trial.

F/TDF (Truvada) has been a blockbuster for the company, both for HIV treatment and, since 2012, for preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP); it’s the only medication to carry the indication. However, F/TDF is set to go off patent in 2021, so the company has turned its development efforts to a successor, F/TAF (Descovy), a prodrug of tenofovir that is already approved for HIV treatment.

The new study builds a case for F/TAF for PrEP, but whether the results are strong enough to persuade people to opt for it over a much less expensive generic version of F/TDF remains to be seen.

The trial randomized 2,694 men who have sex with men to F/TAF, and 2,693 to F/TDF for up to 96 weeks. Entrance criteria included at least two episodes of unprotected anal sex in the previous 12 weeks, or a diagnosis of rectal gonorrhea, chlamydia, or syphilis in the previous 6 months.

More than half the men contracted at least one sexually transmitted infection during the trial, “which indicated to us that these were the right patients to be enrolled in the study,” lead investigator Charles Hare, MD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, said at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections.

There were 15 new HIV infections in the F/TDF group (0.34 per 100 person-years), versus 7 in the F/TAF group (0.16 per 100 person-years). Almost all of the new infections were due to poor adherence – as proven by blood levels and dry blood spot testing – and most of the rest were in men who probably entered the trial with newly acquired HIV.

When those subjects were excluded, there were just two new onset HIV cases in subjects adherent to dosing, one in each arm. Infection rates were far lower than would have been expected had the subjects not been on PrEP.

One of Gilead’s main selling points for F/TAF over F/TDF is that the newer drug has better bone and renal safety, and there were slight biomarker differences in the trial that supported the assertion.

For instance, spine bone mineral density decreased 3% or greater from baseline in 10 F/TAF patients, but 27 men on F/TDF (P less than .001). Results were similar with hip bone density.

On the renal front, estimated glomerular filtration rates fell a median of 2.3 mL/min per 1.73 m² in the F/TDF arm, but rose 1.8 mL/min per 1.73 m² in men on F/TAF (P less than .001). Proximal tubular protein to creatinine ratios were largely unchanged from baseline with F/TAF, but slightly higher in the F/TDF group, at 48 weeks.

There were no statistically significant differences on actual safety outcomes – as opposed to biomarkers – between the two drugs or discontinuations due to side effects, which were rare and most often due to gastrointestinal issues. F/TAF patients gained about 1.1 kg in the trial, while weight held steady in the F/TDF arm. The study team plans to analyze lipid profile differences between the groups, since concern has been raised about F/TAF’s effect on them.

In a press conference at the conference, there was quite a bit of discussion about whether the results would justify using F/TAF for PrEP when less expensive generic versions of F/TDF become available.

“That’s a great question,” Dr. Hare said. “Both drugs actually performed quite well,” and both “do pretty well in terms of safety in this population.”

It’s not known at this point if the biomarker differences will prove to be clinically relevant. Hip fractures, kidney failure, and other problems are so rare in young, relatively healthy PrEP users that a trial to demonstrate clinical relevance would have to be huge, with years-long follow-up, Dr. Hare noted.

The average age of the men in this study was 36 years. Most were white, and about 60% lived in the United States. Other participants were from Canada or Europe.

The work was funded by Gilead; five investigators, including the senior investigator, were employees. Dr. Hare is an investigator for the company.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hare CB et al. CROI 2019, Abstract 104 LB.

SEATTLE – People with HIV are more likely to die from an opioid overdose than the general public, according to investigators from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

M.Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“We looked into this because we know persons with HIV are more likely to have chronic pain and more likely to receive opioid analgesic treatments, and receive higher doses. In addition, they are more likely to have substance use disorders and mental illness than the U.S. general populations,” CDC epidemiologist Karin A. Bosh, PhD, said at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections.

To see how that played out in terms of unintentional opioid overdose deaths, they turned to the National HIV Surveillance System and focused on overdose deaths during 2011-2015, the latest data available at the time of the work.

There were 1,363 overdose deaths among persons with HIV during that period, with the rate increasing 42.7% – from 23.2/100,000 HIV patients in 2011 to 33.1/100,000 in 2015.

Although the rate of increase was comparable to the general population, the crude rate was “actually substantially higher among persons with HIV,” Dr. Bosh said. Deaths were highest among persons aged 50-59 years (41.9/100,000), whites (49.1/100,000), injection drug users (137.4/100,000), and people who live in the Northeast (60.6/100,000).

Surprisingly, there was no increase in the rate of overdose deaths among HIV patients on the West Coast, possibly because heroin there was less likely to be cut with fentanyl.

Also, the rate of opioid overdose deaths was higher among women with HIV (35.2/100,000) than among men, perhaps because women are more likely to contract HIV by injection drug use, so they are more likely to be injection drug users at baseline, while the vast majority of men are infected through male-male sex, the investigators said.

The findings underscore the importance of intensifying overdose prevention in the HIV community, and better integrating HIV and substance use disorder treatment, they concluded.

M. Alexander Otto//MDedge News

That comes down to screening people for problems, especially in the subgroups identified in the study, and connecting them to drug treatment services. If HIV and substance disorder services were in the same clinic it would help, as would an increase in the number of buprenorphine providers, according to Sheryl B. Lyss, PhD, a coinvestigator and CDC epidemiologist.

“Obviously, when substance use is addressed, people can be much more adherent with their [HIV] medications,” she noted.

The work was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The investigators had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bosh KA et al. CROI 2019, Abstract 147.

SEATTLE – People with HIV are more likely to die from an opioid overdose than the general public, according to investigators from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

M.Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“We looked into this because we know persons with HIV are more likely to have chronic pain and more likely to receive opioid analgesic treatments, and receive higher doses. In addition, they are more likely to have substance use disorders and mental illness than the U.S. general populations,” CDC epidemiologist Karin A. Bosh, PhD, said at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections.

To see how that played out in terms of unintentional opioid overdose deaths, they turned to the National HIV Surveillance System and focused on overdose deaths during 2011-2015, the latest data available at the time of the work.

There were 1,363 overdose deaths among persons with HIV during that period, with the rate increasing 42.7% – from 23.2/100,000 HIV patients in 2011 to 33.1/100,000 in 2015.

Although the rate of increase was comparable to the general population, the crude rate was “actually substantially higher among persons with HIV,” Dr. Bosh said. Deaths were highest among persons aged 50-59 years (41.9/100,000), whites (49.1/100,000), injection drug users (137.4/100,000), and people who live in the Northeast (60.6/100,000).

Surprisingly, there was no increase in the rate of overdose deaths among HIV patients on the West Coast, possibly because heroin there was less likely to be cut with fentanyl.

Also, the rate of opioid overdose deaths was higher among women with HIV (35.2/100,000) than among men, perhaps because women are more likely to contract HIV by injection drug use, so they are more likely to be injection drug users at baseline, while the vast majority of men are infected through male-male sex, the investigators said.

The findings underscore the importance of intensifying overdose prevention in the HIV community, and better integrating HIV and substance use disorder treatment, they concluded.

M. Alexander Otto//MDedge News

That comes down to screening people for problems, especially in the subgroups identified in the study, and connecting them to drug treatment services. If HIV and substance disorder services were in the same clinic it would help, as would an increase in the number of buprenorphine providers, according to Sheryl B. Lyss, PhD, a coinvestigator and CDC epidemiologist.

“Obviously, when substance use is addressed, people can be much more adherent with their [HIV] medications,” she noted.

The work was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The investigators had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bosh KA et al. CROI 2019, Abstract 147.

SEATTLE – People with HIV are more likely to die from an opioid overdose than the general public, according to investigators from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

M.Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“We looked into this because we know persons with HIV are more likely to have chronic pain and more likely to receive opioid analgesic treatments, and receive higher doses. In addition, they are more likely to have substance use disorders and mental illness than the U.S. general populations,” CDC epidemiologist Karin A. Bosh, PhD, said at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections.

To see how that played out in terms of unintentional opioid overdose deaths, they turned to the National HIV Surveillance System and focused on overdose deaths during 2011-2015, the latest data available at the time of the work.

There were 1,363 overdose deaths among persons with HIV during that period, with the rate increasing 42.7% – from 23.2/100,000 HIV patients in 2011 to 33.1/100,000 in 2015.

Although the rate of increase was comparable to the general population, the crude rate was “actually substantially higher among persons with HIV,” Dr. Bosh said. Deaths were highest among persons aged 50-59 years (41.9/100,000), whites (49.1/100,000), injection drug users (137.4/100,000), and people who live in the Northeast (60.6/100,000).

Surprisingly, there was no increase in the rate of overdose deaths among HIV patients on the West Coast, possibly because heroin there was less likely to be cut with fentanyl.

Also, the rate of opioid overdose deaths was higher among women with HIV (35.2/100,000) than among men, perhaps because women are more likely to contract HIV by injection drug use, so they are more likely to be injection drug users at baseline, while the vast majority of men are infected through male-male sex, the investigators said.

The findings underscore the importance of intensifying overdose prevention in the HIV community, and better integrating HIV and substance use disorder treatment, they concluded.

M. Alexander Otto//MDedge News

That comes down to screening people for problems, especially in the subgroups identified in the study, and connecting them to drug treatment services. If HIV and substance disorder services were in the same clinic it would help, as would an increase in the number of buprenorphine providers, according to Sheryl B. Lyss, PhD, a coinvestigator and CDC epidemiologist.

“Obviously, when substance use is addressed, people can be much more adherent with their [HIV] medications,” she noted.

The work was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The investigators had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bosh KA et al. CROI 2019, Abstract 147.

The number of new measles cases was down by more than half last week, but another state has been added to the list of those with reported cases in 2019, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

There were 21 new measles cases reported to the CDC during the week ending March 7 – down from 47 the week before. The total for the year is 228 cases, which moves 2019 ahead of 2011 for third place over the last decade, the CDC reported March 11. Going back even further in time, the 206 measles cases reported through January and February is the highest 2-month total in a quarter of a century, the Washington Post said.

New Hampshire became the 12th and latest state to report a case of measles this year, joining California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. California’s situation is now considered an outbreak (defined as three or more cases), but one of the three outbreaks in New York has been taken off the list, so total outbreaks for 2019 remain at six, the CDC said.

For the third consecutive week, New York City produced the most measles cases, with Brooklyn’s Williamsburg neighborhood recording 11 of the U.S. total of 21. The outbreak in King County, Wash., – totaling 70 cases this year – may be winding down as only one new case was reported last week, and no new cases are being investigated, the county’s public health service reported.

[email protected]

The number of new measles cases was down by more than half last week, but another state has been added to the list of those with reported cases in 2019, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

There were 21 new measles cases reported to the CDC during the week ending March 7 – down from 47 the week before. The total for the year is 228 cases, which moves 2019 ahead of 2011 for third place over the last decade, the CDC reported March 11. Going back even further in time, the 206 measles cases reported through January and February is the highest 2-month total in a quarter of a century, the Washington Post said.

New Hampshire became the 12th and latest state to report a case of measles this year, joining California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. California’s situation is now considered an outbreak (defined as three or more cases), but one of the three outbreaks in New York has been taken off the list, so total outbreaks for 2019 remain at six, the CDC said.

For the third consecutive week, New York City produced the most measles cases, with Brooklyn’s Williamsburg neighborhood recording 11 of the U.S. total of 21. The outbreak in King County, Wash., – totaling 70 cases this year – may be winding down as only one new case was reported last week, and no new cases are being investigated, the county’s public health service reported.

[email protected]

The number of new measles cases was down by more than half last week, but another state has been added to the list of those with reported cases in 2019, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

There were 21 new measles cases reported to the CDC during the week ending March 7 – down from 47 the week before. The total for the year is 228 cases, which moves 2019 ahead of 2011 for third place over the last decade, the CDC reported March 11. Going back even further in time, the 206 measles cases reported through January and February is the highest 2-month total in a quarter of a century, the Washington Post said.

New Hampshire became the 12th and latest state to report a case of measles this year, joining California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. California’s situation is now considered an outbreak (defined as three or more cases), but one of the three outbreaks in New York has been taken off the list, so total outbreaks for 2019 remain at six, the CDC said.

For the third consecutive week, New York City produced the most measles cases, with Brooklyn’s Williamsburg neighborhood recording 11 of the U.S. total of 21. The outbreak in King County, Wash., – totaling 70 cases this year – may be winding down as only one new case was reported last week, and no new cases are being investigated, the county’s public health service reported.

[email protected]

CASE A 53-year-old woman you are seeing for the first time has been taking 10 mg of prednisone daily for a month, prescribed by another practitioner for polymyalgia rheumatica. Testing is negative for hepatitis B surface antigen but is positive for hepatitis B core antibody total, indicating a resolved hepatitis B infection. The absence of hepatitis B DNA is confirmed.

How would you proceed with this patient?

Patients with resolved hepatitis B virus (HBV) or chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infections are at risk for HBV reactivation (HBVr) if they undergo immunosuppressive therapy for a condition such as cancer. HBVr can in turn lead to delays in treatment and increased morbidity and mortality.

HBVr is a well-documented adverse outcome in patients treated with rituximab and in those undergoing stem cell transplantation. Current oncology guidelines recommend screening for HBV prior to initiating these treatments.^1,2 More recent evidence shows that many other immunosuppressive therapies can also lead to HBVr.³ Such treatments are now used across a multitude of specialties and conditions. For many of these conditions, there are no consistent guidelines regarding HBV screening.

In 2013, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the requirement of a Boxed Warning for the immunosuppressive drugs ofatumumab and rituximab. In 2016, the FDA announced the same requirement for certain direct-acting antiviral medicines for hepatitis C virus.

Among patients who are positive for hepatitis-B surface antigen (HBsAg) and who are treated with immunosuppression, the frequency of HBVr has ranged from 0% to 39%.^4,5

As the list of immunosuppressive therapies that can cause HBVr grows, specialty guidelines are evolving to address the risk that HBVr poses.

Continue to: An underrecognized problem

An underrecognized problem. CHB affects an estimated 350 million people worldwide⁶ but remains underrecognized and underdiagnosed. An estimated 1.4 million Americans⁶ have CHB, but only a minority of them are aware of their positive status and are followed by a hepatologist or receive medical care for their disease.⁷ Compared with the natural-born US population, a higher prevalence of CHB exists among immigrants to this country from the Asian Pacific and Eastern Mediterranean regions, sub-Saharan Africa, and certain parts of South America.^8-10 In 2008, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated its recommendations on screening for HBV to include immigrants to the United States from intermediate and high endemic areas.⁶ Unfortunately, data published on physicians’ adherence to the CDC guidelines for screening show that only 60% correctly screened at-risk patients.¹¹

Individuals with CHB are at risk and rely on a robust immune system to keep their disease from becoming active. During infection, the virus gains entry into the hepatocytes and the double-stranded viral genome is imported into the nucleus of the cell, where it is repaired into covalently closed circular DNA (cccDNA). Research has demonstrated the stability of cccDNA and its persistence as a latent reservoir for HBV reactivation, even decades after recovery from infection.¹²

Also at risk are individuals who have unrecovered from HBV infection and are HBsAg negative and anti-HBc positive. To avert reverse seroconversion, they also rely on a robust immune system.¹³ Reverse seroconversion is defined as a reappearance of HBV DNA and HBsAg positivity in individuals who were previously negative.¹³ In these individuals, HBV DNA may not be quantifiable in circulation, but trace amounts of viral DNA found in the liver are enough to pose a reactivation risk in the setting of immune suppression.¹⁴

Moreover, often overlooked is the fact that reactivation or reverse seroconversion can necessitate disruptions and delays in immunosuppressive treatment for other life-threatening disease processes.^14,15

Universal screening reduces risk for HBVr. Patients with CHB are at risk for reactivation, as are patients with resolved HBV infection. Many patients, however, do not know their status. By screening all patients before beginning immunosuppressive therapy, physicians can provide effective prophylaxis, which has been shown to significantly reduce the risk for HBVr.^8.15

Continue to: Recognizing the onset of HBVr

Recognizing the onset of HBVr

In patients with CHB, HBVr is defined as at least a 3-fold increase in aspart aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and at least a 10-fold increase from baseline in HBV DNA. In patients with resolved HBV infection, there may be reverse seroconversion from HbsAg-negative to HBsAg-positive status (TABLE 1^13,16).

Not all elevations in AST/ALT in patients undergoing chemotherapy or immunosuppressive therapy indicate HBVr. Very often, derangements in AST/ALT may be related to the toxic effects of therapy or to the underlying disease process. However, as immunosuppressive therapy is now used for a wide array of medical conditions, consider HBVr as a potential cause of abnormal liver function in all patients receiving such therapy.

A patient is at risk for HBVr when starting immunosuppression and up to a year following the completion of therapy. With suppression of the immune system, HBV replication increases and serum AST/ALT concentrations may rise. HBVr may also present with the appearance of HBV DNA in patients with previously undetectable levels.^12,17

Most patients remain asymptomatic, and abnormal AST/ALT levels eventually resolve after completion of immunosuppression. However, some patients' liver enzymes may rise, indicating a more severe hepatic flare. These patients may present with right upper-quadrant tenderness, jaundice, or fatigue. In these cases, recognizing HBVr and starting antivirals may reduce hepatitis flare.

Unfortunately, despite early recognition of HBVr and initiation of appropriate therapy, some patients can progress to hepatic decompensation and even fulminant hepatic failure that may have been prevented with prophylaxis.

Continue to: The justification for universal screening

Although nongastroenterology societies differ in their recommendations on screening for HBV, universal screening before implementing prolonged immunosuppressive treatment is recommended by the CDC,⁶ the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases,¹⁸ the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver,¹⁹ the European Association for the Study of the Liver,²⁰ and the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).²¹

Older guidelines recommended screening only high-risk populations. But such screening has downfalls. It requires that patients or their physicians recognize that they are at high risk. In one study, nearly 65% of an infected Asian-American population was unaware of their positive HBV status.²² Risk-based screening also requires that physicians ask the appropriate questions and that patients admit to high-risk behavior. Screening patients based only on risk factors may easily overlook patients who need prophylaxis against HBVr.

Common arguments against universal screening include the cost of testing, the possibility of false-positive results, and the implications of a new diagnosis of hepatitis B. However, the potential benefits of screening are significant, and HBV screening in the general population has been shown to be cost effective when the prevalence of HBV is 0.3%.²¹ In the United States, conservative estimates are a prevalence of HBsAg positivity of 0.4% and past infection of 3%, making screening a cost-effective recommendation.¹⁶ It is therefore prudent to screen all patients before starting immunosuppressive therapy.

How to screen

All guidelines agree on how to test for HBV. Measuring levels of HBsAg and hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc total) allows the clinician to ascertain whether the patient’s HBV infection status is acute, chronic, or resolved (TABLE 2²³) and to perform HBVr risk stratification (discussed later).

Patients with acute infections should be referred to a hepatologist. With chronic or resolved HBV, stratify patients into a prophylaxis group or monitoring group (FIGURE¹⁴). Stratification involves identifying HBV status (chronic or resolved) and selecting a type of immunosuppressive therapy. Whether the patient falls into prophylaxis or monitoring, obtain a baseline level of viral DNA, as this has proven to be the best predictor of HBV reactivation.¹⁶

Continue to: In screening, be sure the appropriate...

In screening, be sure the appropriate anti-HBc testing is covered. Common usage of the term anti-HBc may refer to immunoglobulin G (IgG) or immunoglobulin M (IgM)or total core antibody, containing both IgG and IgM. But in this context, accurate screening requires either total core antibody or anti-HBc IgG. Anti-IgM alone is inadequate. Many commercial laboratories offer acute hepatitis panels or hepatitis profiles (TABLE 3^24,25), and it is important to confirm that such order sets contain the tests necessary to allow for risk stratification.

Testing for hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs) is not useful in screening. Although it was hypothesized that the presence of this antibody lowered risk, recent studies have proven no change in risk based on this value.²¹

How to assess HBVr risk

Assessing risk for HBVr takes into account both the patient’s serology and intended treatment. Reddy et al delineated patient groups into high, moderate, and low risk (TABLES 4 and 5).²¹ The high-risk group was defined by anticipated incidence of HBVr in > 10% of cases; the moderate-risk group had an anticipated incidence of 1% to 10%; and the low-risk group had an anticipated incidence of <1%.²¹ Evidence was strongest in the high-risk group.

Patients with CHB (HBsAg positive and anti-HBc positive) are considered high risk for reactivation with a wide variety of immunosuppressive therapies. Such patients are 5 to 8 times more likely to develop HBVr than patients with an HBsAg-negative status signifying a resolved infection.¹⁶

Immunosuppressive agents and associated risks. The AGA guidelines consider treatment with B-cell-depleting agents, such as rituximab and ofatumumab, to be high risk, regardless of a patient’s surface antigen status. Additionally, for patients who are HBsAg positive, high-risk treatments include anthracycline derivatives, such as doxorubicin and epirubicin, or high- or moderate-dose steroids. These treatments are considered moderate risk when used in patients who have resolved HBV infection (HBsAg negative/anti-HBc positive). Moderate-risk modalities also include tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and tyrosine kinase inhibitors, regardless of surface antigen status; and low-dose steroids or cytokine or integrin inhibitors in HbsAg-positive individuals.²¹

Continue to: Other immunosuppression modalities...

Other immunosuppression modalities considered to be moderate risk independent of HBV serology include proteasome inhibitors, such as bortezomib, used for multiple myeloma treatment, and histone deacetylase inhibitors, such as romidepsin, used to treat T-cell lymphoma.¹³ Low-dose steroids or cytokine or integrin inhibitors are considered to be low risk in surface antigen-negative individuals; azathioprine, mercaptopurine, or methotrexate are low risk regardless of HBsAg status.²¹ Intra-articular steroid injections are considered extremely low risk in HbsAg-positive individuals, and are unclassified for HbsAg-negative individuals.¹³

More recent evidence has implicated other medication classes in triggering HBVr — (eg, direct-acting antivirals.)²⁶

Prophylaxis options: High to moderate risk vs low risk

The consensus of major guideline issuers is to offer prophylaxis to high-risk patients and to monitor low-risk patients. The AGA additionally recommends prophylaxis for patients at moderate risk.

Controversy surrounding the moderate-risk group. Some authors argue that monitoring HBV DNA in the moderate-risk group is preferable to committing patients to long periods of prophylaxis, and that rescue treatment could be initiated as needed. However, the ideal monitoring period has not been determined, and the effectiveness of prophylaxis over monitoring is so significant that monitoring is losing favor.

Perrillo et al performed a meta-analysis of 5 randomized controlled trials evaluating antiviral agents vs no prophylaxis.¹⁶ The analysis included 139 patients receiving prophylaxis and 137 controls. The pooled results demonstrated an 87% relative risk reduction with prophylaxis, supporting the trend toward treating patients with moderate risk.¹⁶

Continue to: Prophylactic treatment options are safe...

Prophylactic treatment options are safe and well tolerated. For this reason, committing a high- or moderate-risk patient to a course of treatment should be less of a concern than the risk for HBVr.

A recent meta-analysis demonstrated that tenofovir and entecavir are preferable to lamivudine in preventing HBVr.

In the early randomized controlled trials for HBVr prophylaxis, lamivudine, although effective, unfortunately led to a high incidence of viral resistance after prolonged use, thus diminishing its desirability.¹⁸ Newer agents, such as entecavir and tenofovir, have proven just as effective as lamivudine and are largely unaffected by viral resistance.²⁷

In retrospective and prospective studies on HBVr prophylaxis, patients treated with entecavir had less HBV-related hepatitis, less delay in chemotherapy, and a lower rate of HBVr when compared with lamivudine.^28,29 Tenofovir is recommended, however, if patients were previously treated with lamivudine.³⁰

A recent meta-analysis demonstrated that tenofovir and entecavir are preferable to lamivudine in preventing HBVr.³¹

Looking ahead

Screening for HBsAg and anti-HBc total before starting immunosuppressive therapy can reduce morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing such treatment. The AGA recommends screening all patients about to begin high- or moderate-risk therapy or patients in populations with a prevalence of CHB ≥2%, per the CDC.^6,21

Continue to: Classes of medications...

Classes of medications other than immunosuppressants may also trigger HBVr. The FDA has issued a warning regarding direct-acting antivirals, but optimal management of these patients is still evolving.

Once HBV status is established, a patient’s risk for HBVr can be specified as high, moderate, or low using their HBV status and the type of therapy being initiated. The AGA recommends prophylactic treatment with well-tolerated and effective agents for patients classified as high or moderate risk. If a patient’s risk is low, regular monitoring of HBV DNA and AST and ALT levels is sufficient. Recommendations of monitoring intervals span from monthly to every 3 months.^13,14

CASE Given the patient’s status of resolved HBV infection and her current moderate-dose regimen of prednisone, her risk for HBV reactivation is moderate. She could either receive antiviral prophylaxis or undergo regular monitoring. Following a discussion of the options, she opts for referral to a hepatologist to discuss possible prophylactic treatment.

Increased awareness of HBVr risk associated with immunosuppressive therapy, coupled with a planned approach to appropriate screening and risk stratification, can help health care providers prevent the reactivation of HBV or initiate early intervention for CHB.

CORRESPONDENCE
Ronan Farrell, MD, Rhode Island Hospital, 593 Eddy Street, Providence, RI 02903; [email protected].

CASE A 53-year-old woman you are seeing for the first time has been taking 10 mg of prednisone daily for a month, prescribed by another practitioner for polymyalgia rheumatica. Testing is negative for hepatitis B surface antigen but is positive for hepatitis B core antibody total, indicating a resolved hepatitis B infection. The absence of hepatitis B DNA is confirmed.

How would you proceed with this patient?

Patients with resolved hepatitis B virus (HBV) or chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infections are at risk for HBV reactivation (HBVr) if they undergo immunosuppressive therapy for a condition such as cancer. HBVr can in turn lead to delays in treatment and increased morbidity and mortality.

HBVr is a well-documented adverse outcome in patients treated with rituximab and in those undergoing stem cell transplantation. Current oncology guidelines recommend screening for HBV prior to initiating these treatments.^1,2 More recent evidence shows that many other immunosuppressive therapies can also lead to HBVr.³ Such treatments are now used across a multitude of specialties and conditions. For many of these conditions, there are no consistent guidelines regarding HBV screening.

In 2013, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the requirement of a Boxed Warning for the immunosuppressive drugs ofatumumab and rituximab. In 2016, the FDA announced the same requirement for certain direct-acting antiviral medicines for hepatitis C virus.

Among patients who are positive for hepatitis-B surface antigen (HBsAg) and who are treated with immunosuppression, the frequency of HBVr has ranged from 0% to 39%.^4,5

As the list of immunosuppressive therapies that can cause HBVr grows, specialty guidelines are evolving to address the risk that HBVr poses.

Continue to: An underrecognized problem

An underrecognized problem. CHB affects an estimated 350 million people worldwide⁶ but remains underrecognized and underdiagnosed. An estimated 1.4 million Americans⁶ have CHB, but only a minority of them are aware of their positive status and are followed by a hepatologist or receive medical care for their disease.⁷ Compared with the natural-born US population, a higher prevalence of CHB exists among immigrants to this country from the Asian Pacific and Eastern Mediterranean regions, sub-Saharan Africa, and certain parts of South America.^8-10 In 2008, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated its recommendations on screening for HBV to include immigrants to the United States from intermediate and high endemic areas.⁶ Unfortunately, data published on physicians’ adherence to the CDC guidelines for screening show that only 60% correctly screened at-risk patients.¹¹

Individuals with CHB are at risk and rely on a robust immune system to keep their disease from becoming active. During infection, the virus gains entry into the hepatocytes and the double-stranded viral genome is imported into the nucleus of the cell, where it is repaired into covalently closed circular DNA (cccDNA). Research has demonstrated the stability of cccDNA and its persistence as a latent reservoir for HBV reactivation, even decades after recovery from infection.¹²

Also at risk are individuals who have unrecovered from HBV infection and are HBsAg negative and anti-HBc positive. To avert reverse seroconversion, they also rely on a robust immune system.¹³ Reverse seroconversion is defined as a reappearance of HBV DNA and HBsAg positivity in individuals who were previously negative.¹³ In these individuals, HBV DNA may not be quantifiable in circulation, but trace amounts of viral DNA found in the liver are enough to pose a reactivation risk in the setting of immune suppression.¹⁴

Moreover, often overlooked is the fact that reactivation or reverse seroconversion can necessitate disruptions and delays in immunosuppressive treatment for other life-threatening disease processes.^14,15

Universal screening reduces risk for HBVr. Patients with CHB are at risk for reactivation, as are patients with resolved HBV infection. Many patients, however, do not know their status. By screening all patients before beginning immunosuppressive therapy, physicians can provide effective prophylaxis, which has been shown to significantly reduce the risk for HBVr.^8.15

Continue to: Recognizing the onset of HBVr

Recognizing the onset of HBVr

In patients with CHB, HBVr is defined as at least a 3-fold increase in aspart aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and at least a 10-fold increase from baseline in HBV DNA. In patients with resolved HBV infection, there may be reverse seroconversion from HbsAg-negative to HBsAg-positive status (TABLE 1^13,16).

Not all elevations in AST/ALT in patients undergoing chemotherapy or immunosuppressive therapy indicate HBVr. Very often, derangements in AST/ALT may be related to the toxic effects of therapy or to the underlying disease process. However, as immunosuppressive therapy is now used for a wide array of medical conditions, consider HBVr as a potential cause of abnormal liver function in all patients receiving such therapy.

A patient is at risk for HBVr when starting immunosuppression and up to a year following the completion of therapy. With suppression of the immune system, HBV replication increases and serum AST/ALT concentrations may rise. HBVr may also present with the appearance of HBV DNA in patients with previously undetectable levels.^12,17

Most patients remain asymptomatic, and abnormal AST/ALT levels eventually resolve after completion of immunosuppression. However, some patients' liver enzymes may rise, indicating a more severe hepatic flare. These patients may present with right upper-quadrant tenderness, jaundice, or fatigue. In these cases, recognizing HBVr and starting antivirals may reduce hepatitis flare.

Unfortunately, despite early recognition of HBVr and initiation of appropriate therapy, some patients can progress to hepatic decompensation and even fulminant hepatic failure that may have been prevented with prophylaxis.

Continue to: The justification for universal screening

Although nongastroenterology societies differ in their recommendations on screening for HBV, universal screening before implementing prolonged immunosuppressive treatment is recommended by the CDC,⁶ the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases,¹⁸ the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver,¹⁹ the European Association for the Study of the Liver,²⁰ and the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).²¹

Older guidelines recommended screening only high-risk populations. But such screening has downfalls. It requires that patients or their physicians recognize that they are at high risk. In one study, nearly 65% of an infected Asian-American population was unaware of their positive HBV status.²² Risk-based screening also requires that physicians ask the appropriate questions and that patients admit to high-risk behavior. Screening patients based only on risk factors may easily overlook patients who need prophylaxis against HBVr.

Common arguments against universal screening include the cost of testing, the possibility of false-positive results, and the implications of a new diagnosis of hepatitis B. However, the potential benefits of screening are significant, and HBV screening in the general population has been shown to be cost effective when the prevalence of HBV is 0.3%.²¹ In the United States, conservative estimates are a prevalence of HBsAg positivity of 0.4% and past infection of 3%, making screening a cost-effective recommendation.¹⁶ It is therefore prudent to screen all patients before starting immunosuppressive therapy.

How to screen

All guidelines agree on how to test for HBV. Measuring levels of HBsAg and hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc total) allows the clinician to ascertain whether the patient’s HBV infection status is acute, chronic, or resolved (TABLE 2²³) and to perform HBVr risk stratification (discussed later).

Patients with acute infections should be referred to a hepatologist. With chronic or resolved HBV, stratify patients into a prophylaxis group or monitoring group (FIGURE¹⁴). Stratification involves identifying HBV status (chronic or resolved) and selecting a type of immunosuppressive therapy. Whether the patient falls into prophylaxis or monitoring, obtain a baseline level of viral DNA, as this has proven to be the best predictor of HBV reactivation.¹⁶

Continue to: In screening, be sure the appropriate...

In screening, be sure the appropriate anti-HBc testing is covered. Common usage of the term anti-HBc may refer to immunoglobulin G (IgG) or immunoglobulin M (IgM)or total core antibody, containing both IgG and IgM. But in this context, accurate screening requires either total core antibody or anti-HBc IgG. Anti-IgM alone is inadequate. Many commercial laboratories offer acute hepatitis panels or hepatitis profiles (TABLE 3^24,25), and it is important to confirm that such order sets contain the tests necessary to allow for risk stratification.

Testing for hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs) is not useful in screening. Although it was hypothesized that the presence of this antibody lowered risk, recent studies have proven no change in risk based on this value.²¹

How to assess HBVr risk

Assessing risk for HBVr takes into account both the patient’s serology and intended treatment. Reddy et al delineated patient groups into high, moderate, and low risk (TABLES 4 and 5).²¹ The high-risk group was defined by anticipated incidence of HBVr in > 10% of cases; the moderate-risk group had an anticipated incidence of 1% to 10%; and the low-risk group had an anticipated incidence of <1%.²¹ Evidence was strongest in the high-risk group.

Patients with CHB (HBsAg positive and anti-HBc positive) are considered high risk for reactivation with a wide variety of immunosuppressive therapies. Such patients are 5 to 8 times more likely to develop HBVr than patients with an HBsAg-negative status signifying a resolved infection.¹⁶

Immunosuppressive agents and associated risks. The AGA guidelines consider treatment with B-cell-depleting agents, such as rituximab and ofatumumab, to be high risk, regardless of a patient’s surface antigen status. Additionally, for patients who are HBsAg positive, high-risk treatments include anthracycline derivatives, such as doxorubicin and epirubicin, or high- or moderate-dose steroids. These treatments are considered moderate risk when used in patients who have resolved HBV infection (HBsAg negative/anti-HBc positive). Moderate-risk modalities also include tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and tyrosine kinase inhibitors, regardless of surface antigen status; and low-dose steroids or cytokine or integrin inhibitors in HbsAg-positive individuals.²¹

Continue to: Other immunosuppression modalities...

Other immunosuppression modalities considered to be moderate risk independent of HBV serology include proteasome inhibitors, such as bortezomib, used for multiple myeloma treatment, and histone deacetylase inhibitors, such as romidepsin, used to treat T-cell lymphoma.¹³ Low-dose steroids or cytokine or integrin inhibitors are considered to be low risk in surface antigen-negative individuals; azathioprine, mercaptopurine, or methotrexate are low risk regardless of HBsAg status.²¹ Intra-articular steroid injections are considered extremely low risk in HbsAg-positive individuals, and are unclassified for HbsAg-negative individuals.¹³

More recent evidence has implicated other medication classes in triggering HBVr — (eg, direct-acting antivirals.)²⁶

Prophylaxis options: High to moderate risk vs low risk

The consensus of major guideline issuers is to offer prophylaxis to high-risk patients and to monitor low-risk patients. The AGA additionally recommends prophylaxis for patients at moderate risk.

Controversy surrounding the moderate-risk group. Some authors argue that monitoring HBV DNA in the moderate-risk group is preferable to committing patients to long periods of prophylaxis, and that rescue treatment could be initiated as needed. However, the ideal monitoring period has not been determined, and the effectiveness of prophylaxis over monitoring is so significant that monitoring is losing favor.

Perrillo et al performed a meta-analysis of 5 randomized controlled trials evaluating antiviral agents vs no prophylaxis.¹⁶ The analysis included 139 patients receiving prophylaxis and 137 controls. The pooled results demonstrated an 87% relative risk reduction with prophylaxis, supporting the trend toward treating patients with moderate risk.¹⁶

Continue to: Prophylactic treatment options are safe...

Prophylactic treatment options are safe and well tolerated. For this reason, committing a high- or moderate-risk patient to a course of treatment should be less of a concern than the risk for HBVr.

A recent meta-analysis demonstrated that tenofovir and entecavir are preferable to lamivudine in preventing HBVr.

In the early randomized controlled trials for HBVr prophylaxis, lamivudine, although effective, unfortunately led to a high incidence of viral resistance after prolonged use, thus diminishing its desirability.¹⁸ Newer agents, such as entecavir and tenofovir, have proven just as effective as lamivudine and are largely unaffected by viral resistance.²⁷

In retrospective and prospective studies on HBVr prophylaxis, patients treated with entecavir had less HBV-related hepatitis, less delay in chemotherapy, and a lower rate of HBVr when compared with lamivudine.^28,29 Tenofovir is recommended, however, if patients were previously treated with lamivudine.³⁰

A recent meta-analysis demonstrated that tenofovir and entecavir are preferable to lamivudine in preventing HBVr.³¹

Looking ahead

Screening for HBsAg and anti-HBc total before starting immunosuppressive therapy can reduce morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing such treatment. The AGA recommends screening all patients about to begin high- or moderate-risk therapy or patients in populations with a prevalence of CHB ≥2%, per the CDC.^6,21

Continue to: Classes of medications...

Classes of medications other than immunosuppressants may also trigger HBVr. The FDA has issued a warning regarding direct-acting antivirals, but optimal management of these patients is still evolving.

Once HBV status is established, a patient’s risk for HBVr can be specified as high, moderate, or low using their HBV status and the type of therapy being initiated. The AGA recommends prophylactic treatment with well-tolerated and effective agents for patients classified as high or moderate risk. If a patient’s risk is low, regular monitoring of HBV DNA and AST and ALT levels is sufficient. Recommendations of monitoring intervals span from monthly to every 3 months.^13,14

CASE Given the patient’s status of resolved HBV infection and her current moderate-dose regimen of prednisone, her risk for HBV reactivation is moderate. She could either receive antiviral prophylaxis or undergo regular monitoring. Following a discussion of the options, she opts for referral to a hepatologist to discuss possible prophylactic treatment.

Increased awareness of HBVr risk associated with immunosuppressive therapy, coupled with a planned approach to appropriate screening and risk stratification, can help health care providers prevent the reactivation of HBV or initiate early intervention for CHB.

CORRESPONDENCE
Ronan Farrell, MD, Rhode Island Hospital, 593 Eddy Street, Providence, RI 02903; [email protected].

CASE A 53-year-old woman you are seeing for the first time has been taking 10 mg of prednisone daily for a month, prescribed by another practitioner for polymyalgia rheumatica. Testing is negative for hepatitis B surface antigen but is positive for hepatitis B core antibody total, indicating a resolved hepatitis B infection. The absence of hepatitis B DNA is confirmed.

How would you proceed with this patient?

Patients with resolved hepatitis B virus (HBV) or chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infections are at risk for HBV reactivation (HBVr) if they undergo immunosuppressive therapy for a condition such as cancer. HBVr can in turn lead to delays in treatment and increased morbidity and mortality.

HBVr is a well-documented adverse outcome in patients treated with rituximab and in those undergoing stem cell transplantation. Current oncology guidelines recommend screening for HBV prior to initiating these treatments.^1,2 More recent evidence shows that many other immunosuppressive therapies can also lead to HBVr.³ Such treatments are now used across a multitude of specialties and conditions. For many of these conditions, there are no consistent guidelines regarding HBV screening.

In 2013, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the requirement of a Boxed Warning for the immunosuppressive drugs ofatumumab and rituximab. In 2016, the FDA announced the same requirement for certain direct-acting antiviral medicines for hepatitis C virus.

Among patients who are positive for hepatitis-B surface antigen (HBsAg) and who are treated with immunosuppression, the frequency of HBVr has ranged from 0% to 39%.^4,5

As the list of immunosuppressive therapies that can cause HBVr grows, specialty guidelines are evolving to address the risk that HBVr poses.

Continue to: An underrecognized problem

An underrecognized problem. CHB affects an estimated 350 million people worldwide⁶ but remains underrecognized and underdiagnosed. An estimated 1.4 million Americans⁶ have CHB, but only a minority of them are aware of their positive status and are followed by a hepatologist or receive medical care for their disease.⁷ Compared with the natural-born US population, a higher prevalence of CHB exists among immigrants to this country from the Asian Pacific and Eastern Mediterranean regions, sub-Saharan Africa, and certain parts of South America.^8-10 In 2008, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated its recommendations on screening for HBV to include immigrants to the United States from intermediate and high endemic areas.⁶ Unfortunately, data published on physicians’ adherence to the CDC guidelines for screening show that only 60% correctly screened at-risk patients.¹¹

Individuals with CHB are at risk and rely on a robust immune system to keep their disease from becoming active. During infection, the virus gains entry into the hepatocytes and the double-stranded viral genome is imported into the nucleus of the cell, where it is repaired into covalently closed circular DNA (cccDNA). Research has demonstrated the stability of cccDNA and its persistence as a latent reservoir for HBV reactivation, even decades after recovery from infection.¹²

Also at risk are individuals who have unrecovered from HBV infection and are HBsAg negative and anti-HBc positive. To avert reverse seroconversion, they also rely on a robust immune system.¹³ Reverse seroconversion is defined as a reappearance of HBV DNA and HBsAg positivity in individuals who were previously negative.¹³ In these individuals, HBV DNA may not be quantifiable in circulation, but trace amounts of viral DNA found in the liver are enough to pose a reactivation risk in the setting of immune suppression.¹⁴

Moreover, often overlooked is the fact that reactivation or reverse seroconversion can necessitate disruptions and delays in immunosuppressive treatment for other life-threatening disease processes.^14,15

Universal screening reduces risk for HBVr. Patients with CHB are at risk for reactivation, as are patients with resolved HBV infection. Many patients, however, do not know their status. By screening all patients before beginning immunosuppressive therapy, physicians can provide effective prophylaxis, which has been shown to significantly reduce the risk for HBVr.^8.15

Continue to: Recognizing the onset of HBVr

Recognizing the onset of HBVr

In patients with CHB, HBVr is defined as at least a 3-fold increase in aspart aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and at least a 10-fold increase from baseline in HBV DNA. In patients with resolved HBV infection, there may be reverse seroconversion from HbsAg-negative to HBsAg-positive status (TABLE 1^13,16).

Not all elevations in AST/ALT in patients undergoing chemotherapy or immunosuppressive therapy indicate HBVr. Very often, derangements in AST/ALT may be related to the toxic effects of therapy or to the underlying disease process. However, as immunosuppressive therapy is now used for a wide array of medical conditions, consider HBVr as a potential cause of abnormal liver function in all patients receiving such therapy.

A patient is at risk for HBVr when starting immunosuppression and up to a year following the completion of therapy. With suppression of the immune system, HBV replication increases and serum AST/ALT concentrations may rise. HBVr may also present with the appearance of HBV DNA in patients with previously undetectable levels.^12,17

Most patients remain asymptomatic, and abnormal AST/ALT levels eventually resolve after completion of immunosuppression. However, some patients' liver enzymes may rise, indicating a more severe hepatic flare. These patients may present with right upper-quadrant tenderness, jaundice, or fatigue. In these cases, recognizing HBVr and starting antivirals may reduce hepatitis flare.

Unfortunately, despite early recognition of HBVr and initiation of appropriate therapy, some patients can progress to hepatic decompensation and even fulminant hepatic failure that may have been prevented with prophylaxis.

Continue to: The justification for universal screening

Although nongastroenterology societies differ in their recommendations on screening for HBV, universal screening before implementing prolonged immunosuppressive treatment is recommended by the CDC,⁶ the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases,¹⁸ the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver,¹⁹ the European Association for the Study of the Liver,²⁰ and the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).²¹

Older guidelines recommended screening only high-risk populations. But such screening has downfalls. It requires that patients or their physicians recognize that they are at high risk. In one study, nearly 65% of an infected Asian-American population was unaware of their positive HBV status.²² Risk-based screening also requires that physicians ask the appropriate questions and that patients admit to high-risk behavior. Screening patients based only on risk factors may easily overlook patients who need prophylaxis against HBVr.

Common arguments against universal screening include the cost of testing, the possibility of false-positive results, and the implications of a new diagnosis of hepatitis B. However, the potential benefits of screening are significant, and HBV screening in the general population has been shown to be cost effective when the prevalence of HBV is 0.3%.²¹ In the United States, conservative estimates are a prevalence of HBsAg positivity of 0.4% and past infection of 3%, making screening a cost-effective recommendation.¹⁶ It is therefore prudent to screen all patients before starting immunosuppressive therapy.

How to screen

All guidelines agree on how to test for HBV. Measuring levels of HBsAg and hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc total) allows the clinician to ascertain whether the patient’s HBV infection status is acute, chronic, or resolved (TABLE 2²³) and to perform HBVr risk stratification (discussed later).

Patients with acute infections should be referred to a hepatologist. With chronic or resolved HBV, stratify patients into a prophylaxis group or monitoring group (FIGURE¹⁴). Stratification involves identifying HBV status (chronic or resolved) and selecting a type of immunosuppressive therapy. Whether the patient falls into prophylaxis or monitoring, obtain a baseline level of viral DNA, as this has proven to be the best predictor of HBV reactivation.¹⁶

Continue to: In screening, be sure the appropriate...

In screening, be sure the appropriate anti-HBc testing is covered. Common usage of the term anti-HBc may refer to immunoglobulin G (IgG) or immunoglobulin M (IgM)or total core antibody, containing both IgG and IgM. But in this context, accurate screening requires either total core antibody or anti-HBc IgG. Anti-IgM alone is inadequate. Many commercial laboratories offer acute hepatitis panels or hepatitis profiles (TABLE 3^24,25), and it is important to confirm that such order sets contain the tests necessary to allow for risk stratification.

Testing for hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs) is not useful in screening. Although it was hypothesized that the presence of this antibody lowered risk, recent studies have proven no change in risk based on this value.²¹

How to assess HBVr risk

Assessing risk for HBVr takes into account both the patient’s serology and intended treatment. Reddy et al delineated patient groups into high, moderate, and low risk (TABLES 4 and 5).²¹ The high-risk group was defined by anticipated incidence of HBVr in > 10% of cases; the moderate-risk group had an anticipated incidence of 1% to 10%; and the low-risk group had an anticipated incidence of <1%.²¹ Evidence was strongest in the high-risk group.

Patients with CHB (HBsAg positive and anti-HBc positive) are considered high risk for reactivation with a wide variety of immunosuppressive therapies. Such patients are 5 to 8 times more likely to develop HBVr than patients with an HBsAg-negative status signifying a resolved infection.¹⁶

Immunosuppressive agents and associated risks. The AGA guidelines consider treatment with B-cell-depleting agents, such as rituximab and ofatumumab, to be high risk, regardless of a patient’s surface antigen status. Additionally, for patients who are HBsAg positive, high-risk treatments include anthracycline derivatives, such as doxorubicin and epirubicin, or high- or moderate-dose steroids. These treatments are considered moderate risk when used in patients who have resolved HBV infection (HBsAg negative/anti-HBc positive). Moderate-risk modalities also include tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and tyrosine kinase inhibitors, regardless of surface antigen status; and low-dose steroids or cytokine or integrin inhibitors in HbsAg-positive individuals.²¹

Continue to: Other immunosuppression modalities...

Other immunosuppression modalities considered to be moderate risk independent of HBV serology include proteasome inhibitors, such as bortezomib, used for multiple myeloma treatment, and histone deacetylase inhibitors, such as romidepsin, used to treat T-cell lymphoma.¹³ Low-dose steroids or cytokine or integrin inhibitors are considered to be low risk in surface antigen-negative individuals; azathioprine, mercaptopurine, or methotrexate are low risk regardless of HBsAg status.²¹ Intra-articular steroid injections are considered extremely low risk in HbsAg-positive individuals, and are unclassified for HbsAg-negative individuals.¹³

More recent evidence has implicated other medication classes in triggering HBVr — (eg, direct-acting antivirals.)²⁶

Prophylaxis options: High to moderate risk vs low risk

The consensus of major guideline issuers is to offer prophylaxis to high-risk patients and to monitor low-risk patients. The AGA additionally recommends prophylaxis for patients at moderate risk.

Controversy surrounding the moderate-risk group. Some authors argue that monitoring HBV DNA in the moderate-risk group is preferable to committing patients to long periods of prophylaxis, and that rescue treatment could be initiated as needed. However, the ideal monitoring period has not been determined, and the effectiveness of prophylaxis over monitoring is so significant that monitoring is losing favor.

Perrillo et al performed a meta-analysis of 5 randomized controlled trials evaluating antiviral agents vs no prophylaxis.¹⁶ The analysis included 139 patients receiving prophylaxis and 137 controls. The pooled results demonstrated an 87% relative risk reduction with prophylaxis, supporting the trend toward treating patients with moderate risk.¹⁶

Continue to: Prophylactic treatment options are safe...

Prophylactic treatment options are safe and well tolerated. For this reason, committing a high- or moderate-risk patient to a course of treatment should be less of a concern than the risk for HBVr.

A recent meta-analysis demonstrated that tenofovir and entecavir are preferable to lamivudine in preventing HBVr.

In the early randomized controlled trials for HBVr prophylaxis, lamivudine, although effective, unfortunately led to a high incidence of viral resistance after prolonged use, thus diminishing its desirability.¹⁸ Newer agents, such as entecavir and tenofovir, have proven just as effective as lamivudine and are largely unaffected by viral resistance.²⁷

In retrospective and prospective studies on HBVr prophylaxis, patients treated with entecavir had less HBV-related hepatitis, less delay in chemotherapy, and a lower rate of HBVr when compared with lamivudine.^28,29 Tenofovir is recommended, however, if patients were previously treated with lamivudine.³⁰

A recent meta-analysis demonstrated that tenofovir and entecavir are preferable to lamivudine in preventing HBVr.³¹

Looking ahead

Screening for HBsAg and anti-HBc total before starting immunosuppressive therapy can reduce morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing such treatment. The AGA recommends screening all patients about to begin high- or moderate-risk therapy or patients in populations with a prevalence of CHB ≥2%, per the CDC.^6,21

Continue to: Classes of medications...

Classes of medications other than immunosuppressants may also trigger HBVr. The FDA has issued a warning regarding direct-acting antivirals, but optimal management of these patients is still evolving.

Once HBV status is established, a patient’s risk for HBVr can be specified as high, moderate, or low using their HBV status and the type of therapy being initiated. The AGA recommends prophylactic treatment with well-tolerated and effective agents for patients classified as high or moderate risk. If a patient’s risk is low, regular monitoring of HBV DNA and AST and ALT levels is sufficient. Recommendations of monitoring intervals span from monthly to every 3 months.^13,14

CASE Given the patient’s status of resolved HBV infection and her current moderate-dose regimen of prednisone, her risk for HBV reactivation is moderate. She could either receive antiviral prophylaxis or undergo regular monitoring. Following a discussion of the options, she opts for referral to a hepatologist to discuss possible prophylactic treatment.

Increased awareness of HBVr risk associated with immunosuppressive therapy, coupled with a planned approach to appropriate screening and risk stratification, can help health care providers prevent the reactivation of HBV or initiate early intervention for CHB.

CORRESPONDENCE
Ronan Farrell, MD, Rhode Island Hospital, 593 Eddy Street, Providence, RI 02903; [email protected].

A second straight week of reduced influenza activity suggests that the 2018-2019 flu season is on the decline, according to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The proportion of outpatient visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) was 4.7% during the week ending March 2, which means that, thanks to a revision of the number for the previous week (Feb. 23) from 5.0% down to 4.9%, there have been two straight weeks of declines since outpatient visits reached a season-high 5.0% for the week ending Feb. 16, the CDC’s influenza division said March 8. The national baseline level is 2.2%.


This marks the second 2-week drop in ILI visits for the 2018-2019 season, as there was similar dip in the beginning of January before activity started rising again.

The latest drop in ILI visits is reflected in the activity map, which now has 21 states at level 10 on the CDC’s 1-10 scale. This compares with 24 the week before; 32 states were in the high range of 8-10, compared with the 33 reported last week, based on data from the Outpatient ILI Surveillance Network.


There were nine flu-related pediatric deaths reported during the week, with three occurring in the week ending March 2. To underscore the preliminary nature of these data, one of the deaths reported this week occurred in 2016. A total of 64 deaths in children have been associated with influenza so far for the 2018-2019 season, and the total for the 2015-2016 season is now 95, the CDC said.

[email protected]

A second straight week of reduced influenza activity suggests that the 2018-2019 flu season is on the decline, according to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The proportion of outpatient visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) was 4.7% during the week ending March 2, which means that, thanks to a revision of the number for the previous week (Feb. 23) from 5.0% down to 4.9%, there have been two straight weeks of declines since outpatient visits reached a season-high 5.0% for the week ending Feb. 16, the CDC’s influenza division said March 8. The national baseline level is 2.2%.


This marks the second 2-week drop in ILI visits for the 2018-2019 season, as there was similar dip in the beginning of January before activity started rising again.

The latest drop in ILI visits is reflected in the activity map, which now has 21 states at level 10 on the CDC’s 1-10 scale. This compares with 24 the week before; 32 states were in the high range of 8-10, compared with the 33 reported last week, based on data from the Outpatient ILI Surveillance Network.


There were nine flu-related pediatric deaths reported during the week, with three occurring in the week ending March 2. To underscore the preliminary nature of these data, one of the deaths reported this week occurred in 2016. A total of 64 deaths in children have been associated with influenza so far for the 2018-2019 season, and the total for the 2015-2016 season is now 95, the CDC said.

[email protected]

A second straight week of reduced influenza activity suggests that the 2018-2019 flu season is on the decline, according to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The proportion of outpatient visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) was 4.7% during the week ending March 2, which means that, thanks to a revision of the number for the previous week (Feb. 23) from 5.0% down to 4.9%, there have been two straight weeks of declines since outpatient visits reached a season-high 5.0% for the week ending Feb. 16, the CDC’s influenza division said March 8. The national baseline level is 2.2%.


This marks the second 2-week drop in ILI visits for the 2018-2019 season, as there was similar dip in the beginning of January before activity started rising again.

The latest drop in ILI visits is reflected in the activity map, which now has 21 states at level 10 on the CDC’s 1-10 scale. This compares with 24 the week before; 32 states were in the high range of 8-10, compared with the 33 reported last week, based on data from the Outpatient ILI Surveillance Network.


There were nine flu-related pediatric deaths reported during the week, with three occurring in the week ending March 2. To underscore the preliminary nature of these data, one of the deaths reported this week occurred in 2016. A total of 64 deaths in children have been associated with influenza so far for the 2018-2019 season, and the total for the 2015-2016 season is now 95, the CDC said.

[email protected]

One of the most important commitments family physicians can undertake in protecting the health of their patients and communities is to ensure that their patients are fully vaccinated. This task is increasingly complicated as new vaccines are approved every year and recommendations change regarding new and established vaccines. To assist primary care providers, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) annually updates 2 immunization schedules—one for children and adolescents, and one for adults. These schedules are available on the CDC Web site (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/index.html).

These updates originate from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which meets 3 times a year to consider and adopt changes to the schedules. During 2018, relatively few new recommendations were adopted. The September 2018 Practice Alert¹ in this journal covered the updated recommendations for influenza immunization, which included reinstating live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) to the active list of influenza vaccines.

This current Practice Alert reviews 3 additional updates: 1) a new hepatitis B (HepB) vaccine; 2) updated recommendations for the use of hepatitis A (HepA) vaccine for post-exposure prevention and before travel; and 3) inclusion of the homeless among those who should be routinely vaccinated with HepA vaccine.

Hepatitis B: New 2-dose product

As of 2015, the annual incidence of new hepatitis B cases had declined by 88.5% since the first HepB vaccine was licensed in 1981 and recommendations for its routine use were issued in 1982.² The HepB vaccine products available in the United States are 2 single-antigen products, Engerix-B (GlaxoSmithKline) and Recombivax HB (Merck & Co.). Both can be used in all age groups, starting at birth, in a 3-dose series. HepB vaccine is also available in 2 combination products: Pediarix, containing HepB, diphtheria and tetanus toxoids, acellular pertussis, and inactivated poliovirus (GlaxoSmithKline), approved for use in children 6 weeks to 6 years old; and Twinrix (GlaxoSmithKline), which contains both HepB and HepA and is approved for use in adults 18 years and older.

The HepB vaccine is recommended for all children and unvaccinated adolescents as part of the routine vaccination schedule. It is also recommended for unvaccinated adults with specific risks (TABLE 1²). However, the rate of HepB vaccination in adults for whom it is recommended is suboptimal (FIGURE),³ and just a little more than half of adults who start a 3-dose series of HepB complete it.⁴A new vaccine against hepatitis B, HEPLISAV-B (Dynavax Technologies), was licensed by the US Food and Drug Administration in late 2017. ACIP now recommends it as an option along with other available HepB products. HEPLISAV-B is given in 2 doses separated by 1 month. It is hoped that this shortened 2-dose series will increase the number of adults who achieve full vaccination. In addition, it appears that HEPLISAV-B provides higher levels of protection in some high-risk groups—those with type 2 diabetes or chronic kidney disease.³ However, initial safety studies have shown a small absolute increase in cardiac events after vaccination with HEPLISAV-B. Post-marketing surveillance will be needed to show whether this is causal or coincidental.³

If a HepB series must be completed with different products, just be sure 3 doses are given—even if HEPLISAV-B is one of the agents.

As with other HepB products, use of HEPLISAV-B should follow the latest CDC directives on who to test serologically for prior immunity, and on post-vaccination testing to ensure protective antibody levels were achieved.² It is best to complete a HepB series with the same product, but, if necessary, a combination of products at different doses can be used to complete the HepB series. Any such combination should include 3 doses, even if one of the doses is HEPLISAV-B.

Hepatitis A: Vaccination assumes greater importance for more people

A Practice Alert in early 2018 described a series of outbreaks of hepatitis A around the country and the high rates of associated hospitalizations.⁵ These outbreaks have occurred primarily among the homeless and their contacts and those who use illicit drugs. This nationwide outbreak has now spread, resulting in more than 7500 cases since July 1, 2016.⁶ The progress of this epidemic can be viewed on the CDC Web site (https://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/outbreaks/2017March-HepatitisA.htm).⁷ At its October 2018 meeting, ACIP added homelessness to the list of those (previously unvaccinated) who should receive the HepA vaccine (TABLE 2).⁶

Continue to: Remember that the current recommendation...

Remember that the current recommendation is to vaccinate all children 12 to 23 months old with HepA, in 2 separate doses. Two single-antigen HepA products are available: Havrix (GSK) and Vaqta (Merck). For the 2-dose sequence, Havrix is given at 0 and 6 to 12 months; Vaqta at 0 and 6 to 18 months. Even a single dose will provide protection for up to 11 years. In addition to these vaccines, there is the combination HepA and HepB vaccine (Twinrix) mentioned earlier.

Previous recommendations for preventing hepatitis A after exposure, made in 2007, stated that HepA vaccine was preferred for healthy individuals ages 12 months through 40 years, while immune globulin (IG) was preferred for adults older than 40, infants before their first birthday, immunocompromised individuals, those with chronic liver disease, and those for whom HepA vaccine is contraindicated.⁸ The 2007 recommendations also advised vaccinating individuals traveling to countries with intermediate to high hepatitis A endemicity.

A single dose of HepA vaccine was recommended for all those 12 months or older, although older adults, immunocompromised individuals, and those with chronic liver disease or other chronic medical conditions planning to visit an endemic area in ≤ 2 weeks were supposed to receive the initial dose of vaccine and could also receive IG (0.02 mL/kg) if their provider advised it. Travelers who declined vaccination, those younger than 12 months, or those allergic to a vaccine component could receive a single dose of IG (0.02 mL/kg), which provides protection up to 3 months.

Consider prescribing daily pre-exposure prophylaxis for men and women at risk from sexual exposure to HIV or who inject illicit drugs.

Several factors influenced ACIP to reconsider both the pre- and post-exposure recommendations. Regarding IG, evidence of its decreased potency over time led the committee to increase the recommended dose (see below). IG also must be re-administered every 2 months, the supply of the product is questionable, and many health care facilities do not stock it. By comparison, HepA vaccine offers the advantages of easier administration, inducing active immunity, and providing longer protection. Another issue involved infants ages 6 to 11 months traveling to an area with endemic measles transmission and who must therefore receive the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. MMR and IG should not be co-administered, and, for infants, the health risk from measles outweighs that from hepatitis A.

Updated recommendations. After considering all this information, ACIP made the following changes to its hepatitis A virus (HAV) prevention recommendations (in addition to adding homeless people to the list of HepA vaccine recipients)⁹:

• Administer HepA vaccine as post-exposure prophylaxis to all individuals 12 months and older.
• IG may be administered, in addition to HepA vaccine, to those older than 40 years, depending on the provider’s risk assessment (degree of exposure and medical conditions that might lead to severe complications from HAV infection). The recommended IG dose is now 0.1 mL/kg for post-exposure prevention; it is 0.1 to 0.2 mL/kg for pre-exposure prophylaxis for travelers, depending on the length of planned travel.
• Administer HepA vaccine alone to infants ages 6 to 11 months traveling outside the United States when protection against hepatitis A is recommended.

These recommendations have been published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.⁹

One of the most important commitments family physicians can undertake in protecting the health of their patients and communities is to ensure that their patients are fully vaccinated. This task is increasingly complicated as new vaccines are approved every year and recommendations change regarding new and established vaccines. To assist primary care providers, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) annually updates 2 immunization schedules—one for children and adolescents, and one for adults. These schedules are available on the CDC Web site (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/index.html).

These updates originate from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which meets 3 times a year to consider and adopt changes to the schedules. During 2018, relatively few new recommendations were adopted. The September 2018 Practice Alert¹ in this journal covered the updated recommendations for influenza immunization, which included reinstating live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) to the active list of influenza vaccines.

This current Practice Alert reviews 3 additional updates: 1) a new hepatitis B (HepB) vaccine; 2) updated recommendations for the use of hepatitis A (HepA) vaccine for post-exposure prevention and before travel; and 3) inclusion of the homeless among those who should be routinely vaccinated with HepA vaccine.

Hepatitis B: New 2-dose product

As of 2015, the annual incidence of new hepatitis B cases had declined by 88.5% since the first HepB vaccine was licensed in 1981 and recommendations for its routine use were issued in 1982.² The HepB vaccine products available in the United States are 2 single-antigen products, Engerix-B (GlaxoSmithKline) and Recombivax HB (Merck & Co.). Both can be used in all age groups, starting at birth, in a 3-dose series. HepB vaccine is also available in 2 combination products: Pediarix, containing HepB, diphtheria and tetanus toxoids, acellular pertussis, and inactivated poliovirus (GlaxoSmithKline), approved for use in children 6 weeks to 6 years old; and Twinrix (GlaxoSmithKline), which contains both HepB and HepA and is approved for use in adults 18 years and older.

The HepB vaccine is recommended for all children and unvaccinated adolescents as part of the routine vaccination schedule. It is also recommended for unvaccinated adults with specific risks (TABLE 1²). However, the rate of HepB vaccination in adults for whom it is recommended is suboptimal (FIGURE),³ and just a little more than half of adults who start a 3-dose series of HepB complete it.⁴A new vaccine against hepatitis B, HEPLISAV-B (Dynavax Technologies), was licensed by the US Food and Drug Administration in late 2017. ACIP now recommends it as an option along with other available HepB products. HEPLISAV-B is given in 2 doses separated by 1 month. It is hoped that this shortened 2-dose series will increase the number of adults who achieve full vaccination. In addition, it appears that HEPLISAV-B provides higher levels of protection in some high-risk groups—those with type 2 diabetes or chronic kidney disease.³ However, initial safety studies have shown a small absolute increase in cardiac events after vaccination with HEPLISAV-B. Post-marketing surveillance will be needed to show whether this is causal or coincidental.³

If a HepB series must be completed with different products, just be sure 3 doses are given—even if HEPLISAV-B is one of the agents.

As with other HepB products, use of HEPLISAV-B should follow the latest CDC directives on who to test serologically for prior immunity, and on post-vaccination testing to ensure protective antibody levels were achieved.² It is best to complete a HepB series with the same product, but, if necessary, a combination of products at different doses can be used to complete the HepB series. Any such combination should include 3 doses, even if one of the doses is HEPLISAV-B.

Hepatitis A: Vaccination assumes greater importance for more people

A Practice Alert in early 2018 described a series of outbreaks of hepatitis A around the country and the high rates of associated hospitalizations.⁵ These outbreaks have occurred primarily among the homeless and their contacts and those who use illicit drugs. This nationwide outbreak has now spread, resulting in more than 7500 cases since July 1, 2016.⁶ The progress of this epidemic can be viewed on the CDC Web site (https://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/outbreaks/2017March-HepatitisA.htm).⁷ At its October 2018 meeting, ACIP added homelessness to the list of those (previously unvaccinated) who should receive the HepA vaccine (TABLE 2).⁶

Continue to: Remember that the current recommendation...

Remember that the current recommendation is to vaccinate all children 12 to 23 months old with HepA, in 2 separate doses. Two single-antigen HepA products are available: Havrix (GSK) and Vaqta (Merck). For the 2-dose sequence, Havrix is given at 0 and 6 to 12 months; Vaqta at 0 and 6 to 18 months. Even a single dose will provide protection for up to 11 years. In addition to these vaccines, there is the combination HepA and HepB vaccine (Twinrix) mentioned earlier.

Previous recommendations for preventing hepatitis A after exposure, made in 2007, stated that HepA vaccine was preferred for healthy individuals ages 12 months through 40 years, while immune globulin (IG) was preferred for adults older than 40, infants before their first birthday, immunocompromised individuals, those with chronic liver disease, and those for whom HepA vaccine is contraindicated.⁸ The 2007 recommendations also advised vaccinating individuals traveling to countries with intermediate to high hepatitis A endemicity.

A single dose of HepA vaccine was recommended for all those 12 months or older, although older adults, immunocompromised individuals, and those with chronic liver disease or other chronic medical conditions planning to visit an endemic area in ≤ 2 weeks were supposed to receive the initial dose of vaccine and could also receive IG (0.02 mL/kg) if their provider advised it. Travelers who declined vaccination, those younger than 12 months, or those allergic to a vaccine component could receive a single dose of IG (0.02 mL/kg), which provides protection up to 3 months.

Consider prescribing daily pre-exposure prophylaxis for men and women at risk from sexual exposure to HIV or who inject illicit drugs.

Several factors influenced ACIP to reconsider both the pre- and post-exposure recommendations. Regarding IG, evidence of its decreased potency over time led the committee to increase the recommended dose (see below). IG also must be re-administered every 2 months, the supply of the product is questionable, and many health care facilities do not stock it. By comparison, HepA vaccine offers the advantages of easier administration, inducing active immunity, and providing longer protection. Another issue involved infants ages 6 to 11 months traveling to an area with endemic measles transmission and who must therefore receive the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. MMR and IG should not be co-administered, and, for infants, the health risk from measles outweighs that from hepatitis A.

Updated recommendations. After considering all this information, ACIP made the following changes to its hepatitis A virus (HAV) prevention recommendations (in addition to adding homeless people to the list of HepA vaccine recipients)⁹:

• Administer HepA vaccine as post-exposure prophylaxis to all individuals 12 months and older.
• IG may be administered, in addition to HepA vaccine, to those older than 40 years, depending on the provider’s risk assessment (degree of exposure and medical conditions that might lead to severe complications from HAV infection). The recommended IG dose is now 0.1 mL/kg for post-exposure prevention; it is 0.1 to 0.2 mL/kg for pre-exposure prophylaxis for travelers, depending on the length of planned travel.
• Administer HepA vaccine alone to infants ages 6 to 11 months traveling outside the United States when protection against hepatitis A is recommended.

These recommendations have been published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.⁹

One of the most important commitments family physicians can undertake in protecting the health of their patients and communities is to ensure that their patients are fully vaccinated. This task is increasingly complicated as new vaccines are approved every year and recommendations change regarding new and established vaccines. To assist primary care providers, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) annually updates 2 immunization schedules—one for children and adolescents, and one for adults. These schedules are available on the CDC Web site (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/index.html).

These updates originate from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which meets 3 times a year to consider and adopt changes to the schedules. During 2018, relatively few new recommendations were adopted. The September 2018 Practice Alert¹ in this journal covered the updated recommendations for influenza immunization, which included reinstating live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) to the active list of influenza vaccines.

This current Practice Alert reviews 3 additional updates: 1) a new hepatitis B (HepB) vaccine; 2) updated recommendations for the use of hepatitis A (HepA) vaccine for post-exposure prevention and before travel; and 3) inclusion of the homeless among those who should be routinely vaccinated with HepA vaccine.

Hepatitis B: New 2-dose product

As of 2015, the annual incidence of new hepatitis B cases had declined by 88.5% since the first HepB vaccine was licensed in 1981 and recommendations for its routine use were issued in 1982.² The HepB vaccine products available in the United States are 2 single-antigen products, Engerix-B (GlaxoSmithKline) and Recombivax HB (Merck & Co.). Both can be used in all age groups, starting at birth, in a 3-dose series. HepB vaccine is also available in 2 combination products: Pediarix, containing HepB, diphtheria and tetanus toxoids, acellular pertussis, and inactivated poliovirus (GlaxoSmithKline), approved for use in children 6 weeks to 6 years old; and Twinrix (GlaxoSmithKline), which contains both HepB and HepA and is approved for use in adults 18 years and older.

The HepB vaccine is recommended for all children and unvaccinated adolescents as part of the routine vaccination schedule. It is also recommended for unvaccinated adults with specific risks (TABLE 1²). However, the rate of HepB vaccination in adults for whom it is recommended is suboptimal (FIGURE),³ and just a little more than half of adults who start a 3-dose series of HepB complete it.⁴A new vaccine against hepatitis B, HEPLISAV-B (Dynavax Technologies), was licensed by the US Food and Drug Administration in late 2017. ACIP now recommends it as an option along with other available HepB products. HEPLISAV-B is given in 2 doses separated by 1 month. It is hoped that this shortened 2-dose series will increase the number of adults who achieve full vaccination. In addition, it appears that HEPLISAV-B provides higher levels of protection in some high-risk groups—those with type 2 diabetes or chronic kidney disease.³ However, initial safety studies have shown a small absolute increase in cardiac events after vaccination with HEPLISAV-B. Post-marketing surveillance will be needed to show whether this is causal or coincidental.³

If a HepB series must be completed with different products, just be sure 3 doses are given—even if HEPLISAV-B is one of the agents.

As with other HepB products, use of HEPLISAV-B should follow the latest CDC directives on who to test serologically for prior immunity, and on post-vaccination testing to ensure protective antibody levels were achieved.² It is best to complete a HepB series with the same product, but, if necessary, a combination of products at different doses can be used to complete the HepB series. Any such combination should include 3 doses, even if one of the doses is HEPLISAV-B.

Hepatitis A: Vaccination assumes greater importance for more people

A Practice Alert in early 2018 described a series of outbreaks of hepatitis A around the country and the high rates of associated hospitalizations.⁵ These outbreaks have occurred primarily among the homeless and their contacts and those who use illicit drugs. This nationwide outbreak has now spread, resulting in more than 7500 cases since July 1, 2016.⁶ The progress of this epidemic can be viewed on the CDC Web site (https://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/outbreaks/2017March-HepatitisA.htm).⁷ At its October 2018 meeting, ACIP added homelessness to the list of those (previously unvaccinated) who should receive the HepA vaccine (TABLE 2).⁶

Continue to: Remember that the current recommendation...

Remember that the current recommendation is to vaccinate all children 12 to 23 months old with HepA, in 2 separate doses. Two single-antigen HepA products are available: Havrix (GSK) and Vaqta (Merck). For the 2-dose sequence, Havrix is given at 0 and 6 to 12 months; Vaqta at 0 and 6 to 18 months. Even a single dose will provide protection for up to 11 years. In addition to these vaccines, there is the combination HepA and HepB vaccine (Twinrix) mentioned earlier.

Previous recommendations for preventing hepatitis A after exposure, made in 2007, stated that HepA vaccine was preferred for healthy individuals ages 12 months through 40 years, while immune globulin (IG) was preferred for adults older than 40, infants before their first birthday, immunocompromised individuals, those with chronic liver disease, and those for whom HepA vaccine is contraindicated.⁸ The 2007 recommendations also advised vaccinating individuals traveling to countries with intermediate to high hepatitis A endemicity.

A single dose of HepA vaccine was recommended for all those 12 months or older, although older adults, immunocompromised individuals, and those with chronic liver disease or other chronic medical conditions planning to visit an endemic area in ≤ 2 weeks were supposed to receive the initial dose of vaccine and could also receive IG (0.02 mL/kg) if their provider advised it. Travelers who declined vaccination, those younger than 12 months, or those allergic to a vaccine component could receive a single dose of IG (0.02 mL/kg), which provides protection up to 3 months.

Consider prescribing daily pre-exposure prophylaxis for men and women at risk from sexual exposure to HIV or who inject illicit drugs.

Several factors influenced ACIP to reconsider both the pre- and post-exposure recommendations. Regarding IG, evidence of its decreased potency over time led the committee to increase the recommended dose (see below). IG also must be re-administered every 2 months, the supply of the product is questionable, and many health care facilities do not stock it. By comparison, HepA vaccine offers the advantages of easier administration, inducing active immunity, and providing longer protection. Another issue involved infants ages 6 to 11 months traveling to an area with endemic measles transmission and who must therefore receive the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. MMR and IG should not be co-administered, and, for infants, the health risk from measles outweighs that from hepatitis A.

Updated recommendations. After considering all this information, ACIP made the following changes to its hepatitis A virus (HAV) prevention recommendations (in addition to adding homeless people to the list of HepA vaccine recipients)⁹:

• Administer HepA vaccine as post-exposure prophylaxis to all individuals 12 months and older.
• IG may be administered, in addition to HepA vaccine, to those older than 40 years, depending on the provider’s risk assessment (degree of exposure and medical conditions that might lead to severe complications from HAV infection). The recommended IG dose is now 0.1 mL/kg for post-exposure prevention; it is 0.1 to 0.2 mL/kg for pre-exposure prophylaxis for travelers, depending on the length of planned travel.
• Administer HepA vaccine alone to infants ages 6 to 11 months traveling outside the United States when protection against hepatitis A is recommended.

These recommendations have been published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.⁹

SAN DIEGO – North Carolina health care workers often failed to provide best-practice follow-up to patients who were released after hospitalization for sepsis, a small study has found. There may be a cost to this gap: Patients who received recommended postsepsis care were less likely to die or be readmitted within 90 days.

“It’s disappointing to see that we are not providing these seemingly common-sense care processes to our sepsis patients at discharge,” said study lead author Stephanie Parks Taylor, MD, of Atrium Health’s Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, in an interview following the presentation of the study findings at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine. “We need to develop and implement strategies to improve outcomes for sepsis patients, not just while they are in the hospital, but after discharge as well.”

A 2017 report estimated that 1.7 million adults were hospitalized for sepsis in the United States in 2014, and 270,000 died (JAMA. 2017;318[13]:1241-9). Age-adjusted sepsis death rates in the United States are highest in states in the Eastern and Southern regions, a 2017 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggested; North Carolina has the 32nd-worst sepsis death rate in the country (12.4 deaths per 100,000 population).

Dr. Taylor said some recent news about sepsis is promising. “We’ve seen decreasing mortality rates from initiatives that improve the early detection of sepsis and rapid delivery of antibiotics, fluids, and other treatment. However, there is growing evidence that patients who survive an episode of sepsis face residual health deficits. Many sepsis survivors are left with new functional, cognitive, or mental health declines or worsening of their underlying comorbidities. Unfortunately, these patients have high rates of mortality and hospital readmission that persist for multiple years after hospitalization.”

Indeed, a 2013 report linked sepsis to significantly higher mortality risk over 5 years, after accounting for comorbidities. Postsepsis patients were 13 times more likely to die over the first year after hospitalization than counterparts who didn’t have sepsis (BMJ Open. 2014;4:e004283).

For the new study, Dr. Taylor said, “we aimed to evaluate current care practices with the hope to identify a postsepsis management strategy that could help nudge these patients towards a more meaningful recovery.”

The researchers retrospectively tracked a random sample of 100 patients (median age, 63 years), who were discharged following an admission for sepsis in 2017. They were treated at eight acute care hospitals in western and central North Carolina and hospitalized for a median of 5 days; 75 were discharged to home (17 received home health services there), 17 went to skilled nursing or long-term care facilities, and 8 went to hospice or another location.

The researchers analyzed whether the patients received four kinds of postsepsis care within 90 days, as recommended by a 2018 review: screening for common functional impairments (53/100 patients received this screening); adjustment of medications as needed following discharge (53/100 patients); monitoring for common and preventable causes for health deterioration, such as infection, chronic lung disease, or heart failure exacerbation (37/100); and assessment for palliative care (25/100 patients) (JAMA. 2018;319[1]:62-75).

Within 90 days of discharge, 34 patients were readmitted and 17 died. The 32 patients who received at least two recommended kinds of postsepsis care were less likely to be readmitted or die (9/32) than those who got zero or one recommended kind of care (34/68; odds ratio, 0.26; 95% confidence ratio, 0.09-0.82).

In an interview, study coauthor Marc Kowalkowski, PhD, associate professor with Atrium Health’s Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, said he was hesitant to only allocate blame to hospitals or outpatient providers. “Transition out of the hospital is an extremely complex event, involving often fragmented care settings, and sepsis patients tend to be more complicated than other patients. It probably makes sense to provide an added layer of support during the transition out of the hospital for patients who are at high risk for poor outcomes.”

Overall, the findings are “a call for clinicians to realize sepsis is more than just an acute illness. The combination of a growing number of sepsis survivors and the increased health problems following an episode of sepsis creates an urgent public health challenge,” Dr. Taylor said.

Is more home health an important part of a solution? It may be helpful, Dr. Taylor said, but “our data suggest that there really needs to be better coordination to bridge between the inpatient and outpatient transition. We are currently conducting a randomized study to investigate whether these types of care processes can be delivered effectively through a nurse navigator to improve patient outcomes.”

Fortunately, she said, the findings suggest “we don’t have to reinvent the wheel. We just have to work on implementation of strategies for care processes that we are already familiar with.”

No funding was reported. None of the study authors reported relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Taylor SP et al. CCC48, Abstract 1320.

SAN DIEGO – North Carolina health care workers often failed to provide best-practice follow-up to patients who were released after hospitalization for sepsis, a small study has found. There may be a cost to this gap: Patients who received recommended postsepsis care were less likely to die or be readmitted within 90 days.

“It’s disappointing to see that we are not providing these seemingly common-sense care processes to our sepsis patients at discharge,” said study lead author Stephanie Parks Taylor, MD, of Atrium Health’s Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, in an interview following the presentation of the study findings at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine. “We need to develop and implement strategies to improve outcomes for sepsis patients, not just while they are in the hospital, but after discharge as well.”

A 2017 report estimated that 1.7 million adults were hospitalized for sepsis in the United States in 2014, and 270,000 died (JAMA. 2017;318[13]:1241-9). Age-adjusted sepsis death rates in the United States are highest in states in the Eastern and Southern regions, a 2017 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggested; North Carolina has the 32nd-worst sepsis death rate in the country (12.4 deaths per 100,000 population).

Dr. Taylor said some recent news about sepsis is promising. “We’ve seen decreasing mortality rates from initiatives that improve the early detection of sepsis and rapid delivery of antibiotics, fluids, and other treatment. However, there is growing evidence that patients who survive an episode of sepsis face residual health deficits. Many sepsis survivors are left with new functional, cognitive, or mental health declines or worsening of their underlying comorbidities. Unfortunately, these patients have high rates of mortality and hospital readmission that persist for multiple years after hospitalization.”

Indeed, a 2013 report linked sepsis to significantly higher mortality risk over 5 years, after accounting for comorbidities. Postsepsis patients were 13 times more likely to die over the first year after hospitalization than counterparts who didn’t have sepsis (BMJ Open. 2014;4:e004283).

For the new study, Dr. Taylor said, “we aimed to evaluate current care practices with the hope to identify a postsepsis management strategy that could help nudge these patients towards a more meaningful recovery.”

The researchers retrospectively tracked a random sample of 100 patients (median age, 63 years), who were discharged following an admission for sepsis in 2017. They were treated at eight acute care hospitals in western and central North Carolina and hospitalized for a median of 5 days; 75 were discharged to home (17 received home health services there), 17 went to skilled nursing or long-term care facilities, and 8 went to hospice or another location.

The researchers analyzed whether the patients received four kinds of postsepsis care within 90 days, as recommended by a 2018 review: screening for common functional impairments (53/100 patients received this screening); adjustment of medications as needed following discharge (53/100 patients); monitoring for common and preventable causes for health deterioration, such as infection, chronic lung disease, or heart failure exacerbation (37/100); and assessment for palliative care (25/100 patients) (JAMA. 2018;319[1]:62-75).

Within 90 days of discharge, 34 patients were readmitted and 17 died. The 32 patients who received at least two recommended kinds of postsepsis care were less likely to be readmitted or die (9/32) than those who got zero or one recommended kind of care (34/68; odds ratio, 0.26; 95% confidence ratio, 0.09-0.82).

In an interview, study coauthor Marc Kowalkowski, PhD, associate professor with Atrium Health’s Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, said he was hesitant to only allocate blame to hospitals or outpatient providers. “Transition out of the hospital is an extremely complex event, involving often fragmented care settings, and sepsis patients tend to be more complicated than other patients. It probably makes sense to provide an added layer of support during the transition out of the hospital for patients who are at high risk for poor outcomes.”

Overall, the findings are “a call for clinicians to realize sepsis is more than just an acute illness. The combination of a growing number of sepsis survivors and the increased health problems following an episode of sepsis creates an urgent public health challenge,” Dr. Taylor said.

Is more home health an important part of a solution? It may be helpful, Dr. Taylor said, but “our data suggest that there really needs to be better coordination to bridge between the inpatient and outpatient transition. We are currently conducting a randomized study to investigate whether these types of care processes can be delivered effectively through a nurse navigator to improve patient outcomes.”

Fortunately, she said, the findings suggest “we don’t have to reinvent the wheel. We just have to work on implementation of strategies for care processes that we are already familiar with.”

No funding was reported. None of the study authors reported relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Taylor SP et al. CCC48, Abstract 1320.

SAN DIEGO – North Carolina health care workers often failed to provide best-practice follow-up to patients who were released after hospitalization for sepsis, a small study has found. There may be a cost to this gap: Patients who received recommended postsepsis care were less likely to die or be readmitted within 90 days.

“It’s disappointing to see that we are not providing these seemingly common-sense care processes to our sepsis patients at discharge,” said study lead author Stephanie Parks Taylor, MD, of Atrium Health’s Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, in an interview following the presentation of the study findings at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine. “We need to develop and implement strategies to improve outcomes for sepsis patients, not just while they are in the hospital, but after discharge as well.”

A 2017 report estimated that 1.7 million adults were hospitalized for sepsis in the United States in 2014, and 270,000 died (JAMA. 2017;318[13]:1241-9). Age-adjusted sepsis death rates in the United States are highest in states in the Eastern and Southern regions, a 2017 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggested; North Carolina has the 32nd-worst sepsis death rate in the country (12.4 deaths per 100,000 population).

Dr. Taylor said some recent news about sepsis is promising. “We’ve seen decreasing mortality rates from initiatives that improve the early detection of sepsis and rapid delivery of antibiotics, fluids, and other treatment. However, there is growing evidence that patients who survive an episode of sepsis face residual health deficits. Many sepsis survivors are left with new functional, cognitive, or mental health declines or worsening of their underlying comorbidities. Unfortunately, these patients have high rates of mortality and hospital readmission that persist for multiple years after hospitalization.”

Indeed, a 2013 report linked sepsis to significantly higher mortality risk over 5 years, after accounting for comorbidities. Postsepsis patients were 13 times more likely to die over the first year after hospitalization than counterparts who didn’t have sepsis (BMJ Open. 2014;4:e004283).

For the new study, Dr. Taylor said, “we aimed to evaluate current care practices with the hope to identify a postsepsis management strategy that could help nudge these patients towards a more meaningful recovery.”

The researchers retrospectively tracked a random sample of 100 patients (median age, 63 years), who were discharged following an admission for sepsis in 2017. They were treated at eight acute care hospitals in western and central North Carolina and hospitalized for a median of 5 days; 75 were discharged to home (17 received home health services there), 17 went to skilled nursing or long-term care facilities, and 8 went to hospice or another location.

The researchers analyzed whether the patients received four kinds of postsepsis care within 90 days, as recommended by a 2018 review: screening for common functional impairments (53/100 patients received this screening); adjustment of medications as needed following discharge (53/100 patients); monitoring for common and preventable causes for health deterioration, such as infection, chronic lung disease, or heart failure exacerbation (37/100); and assessment for palliative care (25/100 patients) (JAMA. 2018;319[1]:62-75).

Within 90 days of discharge, 34 patients were readmitted and 17 died. The 32 patients who received at least two recommended kinds of postsepsis care were less likely to be readmitted or die (9/32) than those who got zero or one recommended kind of care (34/68; odds ratio, 0.26; 95% confidence ratio, 0.09-0.82).

In an interview, study coauthor Marc Kowalkowski, PhD, associate professor with Atrium Health’s Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, said he was hesitant to only allocate blame to hospitals or outpatient providers. “Transition out of the hospital is an extremely complex event, involving often fragmented care settings, and sepsis patients tend to be more complicated than other patients. It probably makes sense to provide an added layer of support during the transition out of the hospital for patients who are at high risk for poor outcomes.”

Overall, the findings are “a call for clinicians to realize sepsis is more than just an acute illness. The combination of a growing number of sepsis survivors and the increased health problems following an episode of sepsis creates an urgent public health challenge,” Dr. Taylor said.

Is more home health an important part of a solution? It may be helpful, Dr. Taylor said, but “our data suggest that there really needs to be better coordination to bridge between the inpatient and outpatient transition. We are currently conducting a randomized study to investigate whether these types of care processes can be delivered effectively through a nurse navigator to improve patient outcomes.”

Fortunately, she said, the findings suggest “we don’t have to reinvent the wheel. We just have to work on implementation of strategies for care processes that we are already familiar with.”

No funding was reported. None of the study authors reported relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Taylor SP et al. CCC48, Abstract 1320.

SAN DIEGO – A rounding team formed to oversee implementation of a bundle of ICU interventions reduced the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and the number of ventilation days, as well as the ICU and hospital length of stay, according to a new study conducted at a level 1 trauma center in California. The rounding team worked toward optimal implementation of the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s ABCDEF bundle, part of the society’s ICU liberation initiative.

ABCDEF stands for: Assessment, prevention, and management of pain; Both spontaneous awakening and breathing trials; Choice of analgesia and sedation; Delirium assessment, prevention, and management; Early mobility and exercise; and Family engagement and empowerment.

The Community Regional Medical Center in Fresno, Calif., where the study was conducted, was chosen in 2015 to participate in the ICU liberation initiative. The facility serves a population of 3.2 million and sees just under 4,000 trauma patients per year.

After a 6-month retrospective analysis, the team members at the medical center realized they needed to improve ABCDEF implementation with respect to evaluating sedation practices and improving delirium assessment.

Before the start of the 17-month collaborative period, they formed an ICU liberation team called SMART, short for Sedation, Mobilization, Assessment Rounding Team, which included representatives from ICU nursing, pharmacy, respiratory therapy, physical therapy, physicians, and administration. They developed a daily rounding tool to help the team implement procedures, with the goal of reducing the continuous infusion of benzodiazepines and increasing intermittent dosing, the use of short-acting medications, and conducting spontaneous awakening and breathing trials. The SMART team made daily rounds to ensure that the ABCDEF bundle was being implemented.

The researchers then continued the analysis for another 12 months after the end of the initiative. During this last phase, the benefits of the SMART team became evident.

“Stick with it. Don’t let up. Don’t quit,” Wade Veneman, a respiratory therapist at the medical center, said in an interview. He presented the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine. “It can be particularly difficult in the face of critical care providers who may be skeptical of new initiatives. They think it’s something new, and they hope that it goes away. But this is something we feel we’re going to keep for a long time,” he added.

Jim Kling/MDedge News

Mr. Veneman hopes to implement the SMART program in the neurological critical care ICU. The medical director of that unit did not participate in the initial collaborative, but Mr. Veneman hopes to change that. “The data is going to show that his VAP and ventilator days are going up, and everywhere else they’re going down,” he said.

The researchers analyzed data on 1,127 mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU. At total of 197 patients were treated 6 months before the implementation of the collaborative, 519 during 17 months of collaborative implementation, and 411 in the 12 months after implementation. There were some differences between the populations: The before group was slightly younger than the after-implementation group (mean 41 vs. 44, P = .04), and the mean Injury Severity Score score was 24 in the before group, 22 during, and 20 after (P = .002). The researchers noted that the differences were clinically significant.

Benzodiazepine use declined, but the effect was statistically significant only in the after population. Continuous use declined from 87% before implementation to 83% during (P = .21) and 53% after (P less than .001). Intermittent use was 57% before implementation, increased to 61% during (P = .44), and fell to 44% after (P less than .001). Delirium assessment performance improved throughout, from 9% before implementation to 42% during (P less than .001) to 73% after implementation (P less than .001).

The VAP rate increased from 3.4% before the SMART program to 4.5% during implementation (P = .53), and then dropped to 0.9% afterward (P = .001). Ventilation days started at a mean of 10.5, then dropped to 9.5 during implementation (P = .30), and 8.2 after implementation (P = .027).

ICU length of stay improved from 10.7 before implementation to 9.3 afterward (P = .021), and overall hospital length of stay went from 17.3 days to 16.3 (P = .005).

The study was not funded. Mr. Veneman has no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Veneman W et al. CCC48, Abstract 63.

SAN DIEGO – A rounding team formed to oversee implementation of a bundle of ICU interventions reduced the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and the number of ventilation days, as well as the ICU and hospital length of stay, according to a new study conducted at a level 1 trauma center in California. The rounding team worked toward optimal implementation of the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s ABCDEF bundle, part of the society’s ICU liberation initiative.

ABCDEF stands for: Assessment, prevention, and management of pain; Both spontaneous awakening and breathing trials; Choice of analgesia and sedation; Delirium assessment, prevention, and management; Early mobility and exercise; and Family engagement and empowerment.

The Community Regional Medical Center in Fresno, Calif., where the study was conducted, was chosen in 2015 to participate in the ICU liberation initiative. The facility serves a population of 3.2 million and sees just under 4,000 trauma patients per year.

After a 6-month retrospective analysis, the team members at the medical center realized they needed to improve ABCDEF implementation with respect to evaluating sedation practices and improving delirium assessment.

Before the start of the 17-month collaborative period, they formed an ICU liberation team called SMART, short for Sedation, Mobilization, Assessment Rounding Team, which included representatives from ICU nursing, pharmacy, respiratory therapy, physical therapy, physicians, and administration. They developed a daily rounding tool to help the team implement procedures, with the goal of reducing the continuous infusion of benzodiazepines and increasing intermittent dosing, the use of short-acting medications, and conducting spontaneous awakening and breathing trials. The SMART team made daily rounds to ensure that the ABCDEF bundle was being implemented.

The researchers then continued the analysis for another 12 months after the end of the initiative. During this last phase, the benefits of the SMART team became evident.

“Stick with it. Don’t let up. Don’t quit,” Wade Veneman, a respiratory therapist at the medical center, said in an interview. He presented the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine. “It can be particularly difficult in the face of critical care providers who may be skeptical of new initiatives. They think it’s something new, and they hope that it goes away. But this is something we feel we’re going to keep for a long time,” he added.

Jim Kling/MDedge News

Mr. Veneman hopes to implement the SMART program in the neurological critical care ICU. The medical director of that unit did not participate in the initial collaborative, but Mr. Veneman hopes to change that. “The data is going to show that his VAP and ventilator days are going up, and everywhere else they’re going down,” he said.

The researchers analyzed data on 1,127 mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU. At total of 197 patients were treated 6 months before the implementation of the collaborative, 519 during 17 months of collaborative implementation, and 411 in the 12 months after implementation. There were some differences between the populations: The before group was slightly younger than the after-implementation group (mean 41 vs. 44, P = .04), and the mean Injury Severity Score score was 24 in the before group, 22 during, and 20 after (P = .002). The researchers noted that the differences were clinically significant.

Benzodiazepine use declined, but the effect was statistically significant only in the after population. Continuous use declined from 87% before implementation to 83% during (P = .21) and 53% after (P less than .001). Intermittent use was 57% before implementation, increased to 61% during (P = .44), and fell to 44% after (P less than .001). Delirium assessment performance improved throughout, from 9% before implementation to 42% during (P less than .001) to 73% after implementation (P less than .001).

The VAP rate increased from 3.4% before the SMART program to 4.5% during implementation (P = .53), and then dropped to 0.9% afterward (P = .001). Ventilation days started at a mean of 10.5, then dropped to 9.5 during implementation (P = .30), and 8.2 after implementation (P = .027).

ICU length of stay improved from 10.7 before implementation to 9.3 afterward (P = .021), and overall hospital length of stay went from 17.3 days to 16.3 (P = .005).

The study was not funded. Mr. Veneman has no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Veneman W et al. CCC48, Abstract 63.

SAN DIEGO – A rounding team formed to oversee implementation of a bundle of ICU interventions reduced the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and the number of ventilation days, as well as the ICU and hospital length of stay, according to a new study conducted at a level 1 trauma center in California. The rounding team worked toward optimal implementation of the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s ABCDEF bundle, part of the society’s ICU liberation initiative.

ABCDEF stands for: Assessment, prevention, and management of pain; Both spontaneous awakening and breathing trials; Choice of analgesia and sedation; Delirium assessment, prevention, and management; Early mobility and exercise; and Family engagement and empowerment.

The Community Regional Medical Center in Fresno, Calif., where the study was conducted, was chosen in 2015 to participate in the ICU liberation initiative. The facility serves a population of 3.2 million and sees just under 4,000 trauma patients per year.

After a 6-month retrospective analysis, the team members at the medical center realized they needed to improve ABCDEF implementation with respect to evaluating sedation practices and improving delirium assessment.

Before the start of the 17-month collaborative period, they formed an ICU liberation team called SMART, short for Sedation, Mobilization, Assessment Rounding Team, which included representatives from ICU nursing, pharmacy, respiratory therapy, physical therapy, physicians, and administration. They developed a daily rounding tool to help the team implement procedures, with the goal of reducing the continuous infusion of benzodiazepines and increasing intermittent dosing, the use of short-acting medications, and conducting spontaneous awakening and breathing trials. The SMART team made daily rounds to ensure that the ABCDEF bundle was being implemented.

The researchers then continued the analysis for another 12 months after the end of the initiative. During this last phase, the benefits of the SMART team became evident.

“Stick with it. Don’t let up. Don’t quit,” Wade Veneman, a respiratory therapist at the medical center, said in an interview. He presented the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine. “It can be particularly difficult in the face of critical care providers who may be skeptical of new initiatives. They think it’s something new, and they hope that it goes away. But this is something we feel we’re going to keep for a long time,” he added.

Jim Kling/MDedge News

Mr. Veneman hopes to implement the SMART program in the neurological critical care ICU. The medical director of that unit did not participate in the initial collaborative, but Mr. Veneman hopes to change that. “The data is going to show that his VAP and ventilator days are going up, and everywhere else they’re going down,” he said.

The researchers analyzed data on 1,127 mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU. At total of 197 patients were treated 6 months before the implementation of the collaborative, 519 during 17 months of collaborative implementation, and 411 in the 12 months after implementation. There were some differences between the populations: The before group was slightly younger than the after-implementation group (mean 41 vs. 44, P = .04), and the mean Injury Severity Score score was 24 in the before group, 22 during, and 20 after (P = .002). The researchers noted that the differences were clinically significant.

Benzodiazepine use declined, but the effect was statistically significant only in the after population. Continuous use declined from 87% before implementation to 83% during (P = .21) and 53% after (P less than .001). Intermittent use was 57% before implementation, increased to 61% during (P = .44), and fell to 44% after (P less than .001). Delirium assessment performance improved throughout, from 9% before implementation to 42% during (P less than .001) to 73% after implementation (P less than .001).

The VAP rate increased from 3.4% before the SMART program to 4.5% during implementation (P = .53), and then dropped to 0.9% afterward (P = .001). Ventilation days started at a mean of 10.5, then dropped to 9.5 during implementation (P = .30), and 8.2 after implementation (P = .027).

ICU length of stay improved from 10.7 before implementation to 9.3 afterward (P = .021), and overall hospital length of stay went from 17.3 days to 16.3 (P = .005).

The study was not funded. Mr. Veneman has no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Veneman W et al. CCC48, Abstract 63.

SEATTLE – Treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) with new direct-acting antiviral (DAA) regimens is associated with improved glucose control and reduced incidence of type 2 diabetes when compared to treatment with pegylated interferon/ribavirin (PEG/RBV ) and untreated controls, according to a new analysis of the Electronically Retrieved Cohort of HCV Infected Veterans.

Jim Kling/MDedge News

“Previously, people who had diabetes were considered slightly more difficult to treat because their virologic response was a little lower, but now this is not the case, and we have the added benefit of reducing the incidence of diabetes,” said Adeel Butt, MD, professor of medicine and health care policy and research at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York and Qatar, in an interview. Dr. Butt presented the study at the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections.

The incidence of diabetes dropped in the overall treated cohort, compared with untreated patients, but this benefit was driven by the effect of DAAs, as there was no significant difference between PEG/RBV–treated patients and controls. “It’s another reason to argue with people who make it difficult to treat. Our biggest barriers to treating everyone with hepatitis C has to do with reimbursement and the capacity of the health care system, and this is another reason that we need to overcome those barriers. It’s an important insight that provides one more reason to try to continue to eradicate hepatitis C in our population,” said Robert Schooley, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, in an interview.

Patients may also need some reassurance, given concerns that have arisen over the potential for older regimens to cause diabetes. Dr. Butt cited an example of a patient who has an acute myocardial infarction, has a high body mass, and wants to know if DAAs will help or hurt them. “We see [such patients] frequently. This is pretty reassuring not only that DAAs don’t increase risk, but they actually decrease the risk of diabetes as opposed to older treatments. There is a growing body of evidence that non–liver [related conditions] significantly improve with treatment,” he said.

The results could also help prioritize patients for treatment. “It may be important to the patients who are at elevated risk of developing diabetes. They may need to be monitored more closely and offered treatment earlier, perhaps, but that requires more study,” said Dr. Butt.

The researchers excluded patients with HIV or hepatitis B virus, and those who had prevalent diabetes. The cohort included 26,043 treated patients and 26,043 propensity score–matched untreated control patients. Treated patients underwent at least 8 weeks of DAA or 24 weeks of PEG/RBV. Demographically, 54% of patients were white, 29% were black, 3% were Hispanic, and 96% of the patients were male. About one-third had a body mass index of 30 or above.

The incidence of diabetes was 20.6 per 1,000 person-years of follow-up among untreated patients, compared with 15.5 among treated patients (P less than .0001). The incidence was 19.8 in patients treated with PEG/RBV (P =.39) and 9.9 in those treated with DAAs (P less than. 001; hazard ratio, 0.48; P less than .0001). The incidence of diabetes in those with a sustained viral response (SVR) was 13.3 per 1,000 person-years, compared with 19.2 in patients with no SVR (P less than .0001). The incidence of diabetes was lower in treated patients regardless of baseline FIB-4 (Fibrosis-4, a liver fibrosis score) levels.

The study was funded by Gilead. Dr. Butt has had research grants from Gilead and Dr. Schooley is on Gilead’s scientific advisory board.

SOURCE: A Butt et al. CROI 2019. Abstract 88.

SEATTLE – Treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) with new direct-acting antiviral (DAA) regimens is associated with improved glucose control and reduced incidence of type 2 diabetes when compared to treatment with pegylated interferon/ribavirin (PEG/RBV ) and untreated controls, according to a new analysis of the Electronically Retrieved Cohort of HCV Infected Veterans.

Jim Kling/MDedge News

“Previously, people who had diabetes were considered slightly more difficult to treat because their virologic response was a little lower, but now this is not the case, and we have the added benefit of reducing the incidence of diabetes,” said Adeel Butt, MD, professor of medicine and health care policy and research at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York and Qatar, in an interview. Dr. Butt presented the study at the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections.

The incidence of diabetes dropped in the overall treated cohort, compared with untreated patients, but this benefit was driven by the effect of DAAs, as there was no significant difference between PEG/RBV–treated patients and controls. “It’s another reason to argue with people who make it difficult to treat. Our biggest barriers to treating everyone with hepatitis C has to do with reimbursement and the capacity of the health care system, and this is another reason that we need to overcome those barriers. It’s an important insight that provides one more reason to try to continue to eradicate hepatitis C in our population,” said Robert Schooley, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, in an interview.

Patients may also need some reassurance, given concerns that have arisen over the potential for older regimens to cause diabetes. Dr. Butt cited an example of a patient who has an acute myocardial infarction, has a high body mass, and wants to know if DAAs will help or hurt them. “We see [such patients] frequently. This is pretty reassuring not only that DAAs don’t increase risk, but they actually decrease the risk of diabetes as opposed to older treatments. There is a growing body of evidence that non–liver [related conditions] significantly improve with treatment,” he said.

The results could also help prioritize patients for treatment. “It may be important to the patients who are at elevated risk of developing diabetes. They may need to be monitored more closely and offered treatment earlier, perhaps, but that requires more study,” said Dr. Butt.

The researchers excluded patients with HIV or hepatitis B virus, and those who had prevalent diabetes. The cohort included 26,043 treated patients and 26,043 propensity score–matched untreated control patients. Treated patients underwent at least 8 weeks of DAA or 24 weeks of PEG/RBV. Demographically, 54% of patients were white, 29% were black, 3% were Hispanic, and 96% of the patients were male. About one-third had a body mass index of 30 or above.

The incidence of diabetes was 20.6 per 1,000 person-years of follow-up among untreated patients, compared with 15.5 among treated patients (P less than .0001). The incidence was 19.8 in patients treated with PEG/RBV (P =.39) and 9.9 in those treated with DAAs (P less than. 001; hazard ratio, 0.48; P less than .0001). The incidence of diabetes in those with a sustained viral response (SVR) was 13.3 per 1,000 person-years, compared with 19.2 in patients with no SVR (P less than .0001). The incidence of diabetes was lower in treated patients regardless of baseline FIB-4 (Fibrosis-4, a liver fibrosis score) levels.

The study was funded by Gilead. Dr. Butt has had research grants from Gilead and Dr. Schooley is on Gilead’s scientific advisory board.

SOURCE: A Butt et al. CROI 2019. Abstract 88.

SEATTLE – Treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) with new direct-acting antiviral (DAA) regimens is associated with improved glucose control and reduced incidence of type 2 diabetes when compared to treatment with pegylated interferon/ribavirin (PEG/RBV ) and untreated controls, according to a new analysis of the Electronically Retrieved Cohort of HCV Infected Veterans.

Jim Kling/MDedge News

“Previously, people who had diabetes were considered slightly more difficult to treat because their virologic response was a little lower, but now this is not the case, and we have the added benefit of reducing the incidence of diabetes,” said Adeel Butt, MD, professor of medicine and health care policy and research at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York and Qatar, in an interview. Dr. Butt presented the study at the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections.

The incidence of diabetes dropped in the overall treated cohort, compared with untreated patients, but this benefit was driven by the effect of DAAs, as there was no significant difference between PEG/RBV–treated patients and controls. “It’s another reason to argue with people who make it difficult to treat. Our biggest barriers to treating everyone with hepatitis C has to do with reimbursement and the capacity of the health care system, and this is another reason that we need to overcome those barriers. It’s an important insight that provides one more reason to try to continue to eradicate hepatitis C in our population,” said Robert Schooley, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, in an interview.

Patients may also need some reassurance, given concerns that have arisen over the potential for older regimens to cause diabetes. Dr. Butt cited an example of a patient who has an acute myocardial infarction, has a high body mass, and wants to know if DAAs will help or hurt them. “We see [such patients] frequently. This is pretty reassuring not only that DAAs don’t increase risk, but they actually decrease the risk of diabetes as opposed to older treatments. There is a growing body of evidence that non–liver [related conditions] significantly improve with treatment,” he said.

The results could also help prioritize patients for treatment. “It may be important to the patients who are at elevated risk of developing diabetes. They may need to be monitored more closely and offered treatment earlier, perhaps, but that requires more study,” said Dr. Butt.

The researchers excluded patients with HIV or hepatitis B virus, and those who had prevalent diabetes. The cohort included 26,043 treated patients and 26,043 propensity score–matched untreated control patients. Treated patients underwent at least 8 weeks of DAA or 24 weeks of PEG/RBV. Demographically, 54% of patients were white, 29% were black, 3% were Hispanic, and 96% of the patients were male. About one-third had a body mass index of 30 or above.

The incidence of diabetes was 20.6 per 1,000 person-years of follow-up among untreated patients, compared with 15.5 among treated patients (P less than .0001). The incidence was 19.8 in patients treated with PEG/RBV (P =.39) and 9.9 in those treated with DAAs (P less than. 001; hazard ratio, 0.48; P less than .0001). The incidence of diabetes in those with a sustained viral response (SVR) was 13.3 per 1,000 person-years, compared with 19.2 in patients with no SVR (P less than .0001). The incidence of diabetes was lower in treated patients regardless of baseline FIB-4 (Fibrosis-4, a liver fibrosis score) levels.

The study was funded by Gilead. Dr. Butt has had research grants from Gilead and Dr. Schooley is on Gilead’s scientific advisory board.

SOURCE: A Butt et al. CROI 2019. Abstract 88.

Universal one-time screening for hepatitis C virus infection is cost effective, compared with birth cohort screening alone, according to the results of a study published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommend testing all individuals born between 1945 and 1965 in addition to injection drug users and other high-risk individuals. But so-called birth cohort screening does not reflect the recent spike in hepatitis C virus (HCV) cases among younger persons in the United States, nor the current recommendation to treat nearly all chronic HCV cases, wrote Mark H. Eckman, MD, of the University of Cincinnati, and his associates.

Using a computer program called Decision Maker, they modeled the cost-effectiveness of universal one-time testing, birth cohort screening, and no screening based on quality-adjusted life-years (QALYS) and 2017 U.S. dollars. They assumed that all HCV-infected patients were treatment naive, treatment eligible, and asymptomatic (for example, had no decompensated cirrhosis). They used efficacy data from the ASTRAL trials of sofosbuvir-velpatasvir as well as the ENDURANCE, SURVEYOR, and EXPEDITION trials of glecaprevir-pibrentasvir. In the model, patients who did not achieve a sustained viral response to treatment went on to complete a 12-week triple direct-acting antiviral (DAA) regimen (sofosbuvir, velpatasvir, and voxilaprevir).

Based on these assumptions, universal one-time screening and treatment of infected individuals cost less than $50,000 per QALY gained, making it highly cost effective, compared with no screening, the investigators wrote. Universal screening also was highly cost effective when compared with birth cohort screening, costing $11,378 for each QALY gained.

“Analyses performed during the era of first-generation DAAs and interferon-based treatment regimens found birth-cohort screening to be ‘cost effective,’ ” the researchers wrote. “However, the availability of a new generation of highly effective, non–interferon-based oral regimens, with fewer side effects and shorter treatment courses, has altered the dynamic around the question of screening.” They pointed to another recent study in which universal one-time HCV testing was more cost effective than birth cohort screening.

Such findings have spurred experts to revisit guidelines on HCV screening, but universal testing is controversial when some states, counties, and communities have a low HCV prevalence. In the model, universal one-time HCV screening was cost effective (less than $50,000 per QALY gained), compared with birth cohort screening as long as prevalence exceeded 0.07% among adults not born between 1945 and 1965. The current prevalence estimate in this group is 0.29%, which is probably low because it does not account for the rising incidence among younger adults, the researchers wrote. In an ideal world, all clinics and hospitals would implement an HCV testing program, but in the real world of scarce resources, “data regarding the cost-effectiveness threshold can guide local policy decisions by directing testing services to settings in which they generate sufficient benefit for the cost.”

Partial funding came from the National Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC Foundation), with funding provided through multiple donors to the CDC Foundation’s Viral Hepatitis Action Coalition. Dr. Eckman reported grant support from Merck and one coinvestigator reported ties to AbbVie, Gilead, Merck, and several other pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Eckman MH et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Sep 7. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.08.080.

Universal one-time screening for hepatitis C virus infection is cost effective, compared with birth cohort screening alone, according to the results of a study published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommend testing all individuals born between 1945 and 1965 in addition to injection drug users and other high-risk individuals. But so-called birth cohort screening does not reflect the recent spike in hepatitis C virus (HCV) cases among younger persons in the United States, nor the current recommendation to treat nearly all chronic HCV cases, wrote Mark H. Eckman, MD, of the University of Cincinnati, and his associates.

Using a computer program called Decision Maker, they modeled the cost-effectiveness of universal one-time testing, birth cohort screening, and no screening based on quality-adjusted life-years (QALYS) and 2017 U.S. dollars. They assumed that all HCV-infected patients were treatment naive, treatment eligible, and asymptomatic (for example, had no decompensated cirrhosis). They used efficacy data from the ASTRAL trials of sofosbuvir-velpatasvir as well as the ENDURANCE, SURVEYOR, and EXPEDITION trials of glecaprevir-pibrentasvir. In the model, patients who did not achieve a sustained viral response to treatment went on to complete a 12-week triple direct-acting antiviral (DAA) regimen (sofosbuvir, velpatasvir, and voxilaprevir).

Based on these assumptions, universal one-time screening and treatment of infected individuals cost less than $50,000 per QALY gained, making it highly cost effective, compared with no screening, the investigators wrote. Universal screening also was highly cost effective when compared with birth cohort screening, costing $11,378 for each QALY gained.

“Analyses performed during the era of first-generation DAAs and interferon-based treatment regimens found birth-cohort screening to be ‘cost effective,’ ” the researchers wrote. “However, the availability of a new generation of highly effective, non–interferon-based oral regimens, with fewer side effects and shorter treatment courses, has altered the dynamic around the question of screening.” They pointed to another recent study in which universal one-time HCV testing was more cost effective than birth cohort screening.

Such findings have spurred experts to revisit guidelines on HCV screening, but universal testing is controversial when some states, counties, and communities have a low HCV prevalence. In the model, universal one-time HCV screening was cost effective (less than $50,000 per QALY gained), compared with birth cohort screening as long as prevalence exceeded 0.07% among adults not born between 1945 and 1965. The current prevalence estimate in this group is 0.29%, which is probably low because it does not account for the rising incidence among younger adults, the researchers wrote. In an ideal world, all clinics and hospitals would implement an HCV testing program, but in the real world of scarce resources, “data regarding the cost-effectiveness threshold can guide local policy decisions by directing testing services to settings in which they generate sufficient benefit for the cost.”

Partial funding came from the National Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC Foundation), with funding provided through multiple donors to the CDC Foundation’s Viral Hepatitis Action Coalition. Dr. Eckman reported grant support from Merck and one coinvestigator reported ties to AbbVie, Gilead, Merck, and several other pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Eckman MH et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Sep 7. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.08.080.

Universal one-time screening for hepatitis C virus infection is cost effective, compared with birth cohort screening alone, according to the results of a study published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommend testing all individuals born between 1945 and 1965 in addition to injection drug users and other high-risk individuals. But so-called birth cohort screening does not reflect the recent spike in hepatitis C virus (HCV) cases among younger persons in the United States, nor the current recommendation to treat nearly all chronic HCV cases, wrote Mark H. Eckman, MD, of the University of Cincinnati, and his associates.

Using a computer program called Decision Maker, they modeled the cost-effectiveness of universal one-time testing, birth cohort screening, and no screening based on quality-adjusted life-years (QALYS) and 2017 U.S. dollars. They assumed that all HCV-infected patients were treatment naive, treatment eligible, and asymptomatic (for example, had no decompensated cirrhosis). They used efficacy data from the ASTRAL trials of sofosbuvir-velpatasvir as well as the ENDURANCE, SURVEYOR, and EXPEDITION trials of glecaprevir-pibrentasvir. In the model, patients who did not achieve a sustained viral response to treatment went on to complete a 12-week triple direct-acting antiviral (DAA) regimen (sofosbuvir, velpatasvir, and voxilaprevir).

Based on these assumptions, universal one-time screening and treatment of infected individuals cost less than $50,000 per QALY gained, making it highly cost effective, compared with no screening, the investigators wrote. Universal screening also was highly cost effective when compared with birth cohort screening, costing $11,378 for each QALY gained.

“Analyses performed during the era of first-generation DAAs and interferon-based treatment regimens found birth-cohort screening to be ‘cost effective,’ ” the researchers wrote. “However, the availability of a new generation of highly effective, non–interferon-based oral regimens, with fewer side effects and shorter treatment courses, has altered the dynamic around the question of screening.” They pointed to another recent study in which universal one-time HCV testing was more cost effective than birth cohort screening.

Such findings have spurred experts to revisit guidelines on HCV screening, but universal testing is controversial when some states, counties, and communities have a low HCV prevalence. In the model, universal one-time HCV screening was cost effective (less than $50,000 per QALY gained), compared with birth cohort screening as long as prevalence exceeded 0.07% among adults not born between 1945 and 1965. The current prevalence estimate in this group is 0.29%, which is probably low because it does not account for the rising incidence among younger adults, the researchers wrote. In an ideal world, all clinics and hospitals would implement an HCV testing program, but in the real world of scarce resources, “data regarding the cost-effectiveness threshold can guide local policy decisions by directing testing services to settings in which they generate sufficient benefit for the cost.”

Partial funding came from the National Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC Foundation), with funding provided through multiple donors to the CDC Foundation’s Viral Hepatitis Action Coalition. Dr. Eckman reported grant support from Merck and one coinvestigator reported ties to AbbVie, Gilead, Merck, and several other pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Eckman MH et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Sep 7. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.08.080.