Safety of long-term biologic therapy in rheumatologic patients with a previously resolved hepatitis B viral infection

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

European and Asian studies report conflicting data on the risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in rheumatologic patients with a previously resolved HBV (prHBV) infection undergoing long-term biologic therapies. In this patient category, the safety of different immunosuppressive biologic therapies, including rituximab, was assessed. A total of 1218 Caucasian rheumatologic patients, admitted consecutively as outpatients between 2001 and 2012 and taking biologic therapies, underwent evaluation of anti-HCV and HBV markers as well as liver amino transferases every 3 months. Starting from January 2009, HBV DNA monitoring was performed in patients with a prHBV infection who had started immunosuppressive biologic therapy both before and after 2009. Patients were considered to have elevated aminotransferase levels if values were >1× upper normal limit at least once during follow-up. We found 179 patients with a prHBV infection (14 treated with rituximab, 146 with anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and 19 with other biologic therapies) and 959 patients without a prHBV infection or other liver disease (controls). The mean age in the former group was significantly higher than the controls. Patients with a prHBV infection never showed detectable HBV DNA serum levels or antibody to hepatitis B surface antigen/hepatitis B surface antigen seroreversion. However, when the prevalence of elevated amino transferases in patients with prHBV infection was compared to controls, it was significantly higher in the former group only for aminotransferase levels >1× upper normal limit but not when aminotransferase levels >2× upper normal limit were considered.

Related collections

Most cited references 27

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The PREMIER study: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind clinical trial of combination therapy with adalimumab plus methotrexate versus methotrexate alone or adalimumab alone in patients with early, aggressive rheumatoid arthritis who had not had previous methotrexate treatment.

Ferdinand C Breedveld, Michael Weisman, Arthur F Kavanaugh … (2006)

To compare the efficacy and safety of adalimumab plus methotrexate (MTX) versus MTX monotherapy or adalimumab monotherapy in patients with early, aggressive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had not previously received MTX treatment. This was a 2-year, multicenter, double-blind, active comparator-controlled study of 799 RA patients with active disease of < 3 years' duration who had never been treated with MTX. Treatments included adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneously every other week plus oral MTX, adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneously every other week, or weekly oral MTX. Co-primary end points at year 1 were American College of Rheumatology 50% improvement (ACR50) and mean change from baseline in the modified total Sharp score. Combination therapy was superior to both MTX and adalimumab monotherapy in all outcomes measured. At year 1, more patients receiving combination therapy exhibited an ACR50 response (62%) than did patients who received MTX or adalimumab monotherapy (46% and 41%, respectively; both P < 0.001). Similar superiority of combination therapy was seen in ACR20, ACR70, and ACR90 response rates at 1 and 2 years. There was significantly less radiographic progression (P < or = 0.002) among patients in the combination treatment arm at both year 1 and year 2 (1.3 and 1.9 Sharp units, respectively) than in patients in the MTX arm (5.7 and 10.4 Sharp units) or the adalimumab arm (3.0 and 5.5 Sharp units). After 2 years of treatment, 49% of patients receiving combination therapy exhibited disease remission (28-joint Disease Activity Score <2.6), and 49% exhibited a major clinical response (ACR70 response for at least 6 continuous months), rates approximately twice those found among patients receiving either monotherapy. The adverse event profiles were comparable in all 3 groups. In this population of patients with early, aggressive RA, combination therapy with adalimumab plus MTX was significantly superior to either MTX alone or adalimumab alone in improving signs and symptoms of disease, inhibiting radiographic progression, and effecting clinical remission.

0 comments Cited 394 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

A comparison of etanercept and methotrexate in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis.

J Bathon, R. W. Martin, R Fleischmann … (2000)

Etanercept, which blocks the action of tumor necrosis factor, reduces disease activity in patients with long-standing rheumatoid arthritis. Its efficacy in reducing disease activity and preventing joint damage in patients with active early rheumatoid arthritis is unknown. We treated 632 patients with early rheumatoid arthritis with either twice-weekly subcutaneous etanercept (10 or 25 mg) or weekly oral methotrexate (mean, 19 mg per week) for 12 months. Clinical response was defined as the percent improvement in disease activity according to the criteria of the American College of Rheumatology. Bone erosion and joint-space narrowing were measured radiographically and scored with use of the Sharp scale. On this scale, an increase of 1 point represents one new erosion or minimal narrowing. As compared with patients who received methotrexate, patients who received the 25-mg dose of etanercept had a more rapid rate of improvement, with significantly more patients having 20 percent, 50 percent, and 70 percent improvement in disease activity during the first six months (P<0.05). The mean increase in the erosion score during the first 6 months was 0.30 in the group assigned to receive 25 mg of etanercept and 0.68 in the methotrexate group (P= 0.001), and the respective increases during the first 12 months were 0.47 and 1.03 (P=0.002). Among patients who received the 25-mg dose of etanercept, 72 percent had no increase in the erosion score, as compared with 60 percent of patients in the methotrexate group (P=0.007). This group of patients also had fewer adverse events (P=0.02) and fewer infections (P= 0.006) than the group that was treated with methotrexate. As compared with oral methotrexate, subcutaneous [corrected] etanercept acted more rapidly to decrease symptoms and slow joint damage in patients with early active rheumatoid arthritis.