scholarly journals Hepatitis B Virus Screening Before Cancer Chemotherapy in Taiwan: A Nationwide Population-Based Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei-Chih Sun ◽  
Pei-Ling Tang ◽  
Wen-Chi Chen ◽  
Feng-Woei Tsay ◽  
Huay-Min Wang ◽  
...  

Background: Reactivation of the hepatitis B virus (HBV) during cancer chemotherapy is a severe and sometimes fatal complication. In 2009, the National Health Insurance (NHI) in Taiwan recommended and reimbursed screening for HBV infection and prophylactic antiviral therapy before cancer chemotherapy. In this study, we determined the HBV screening rate in patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy in Taiwan.Methods: We retrospectively collected data from the National Health Insurance Research Database on patients who received systemic chemotherapy for solid or hematologic cancers from January 2000 through December 2012. We defined HBV screening based on testing for serum HBsAg within 2 years of the first chemotherapy commencement. We calculated overall and annual HBV screening rates in all patients and subgroups of age, gender, cancer type, hospital level, physician's department, and implementation of NHI reimbursement for HBV screening before cancer chemotherapy.Results: We enrolled 379,639 patients. The overall HBV screening rate was 45.9%. The screening rates were higher in males, those with hematological cancer, those at non-medical centers and medical departments. The HBV screening rates before (2000–2008) and after the implementation of NHI reimbursement (2009–2012) were 38.1 and 57.5%, respectively (p < 0.0001). The most common practice pattern of HBV screening was only HBsAg (64.6%) followed by HBsAg/HBsAb (22.1%), and HBsAg/HBcAb/HBsAb (0.7%) (p < 0.0001). The annual HBV screening rate increased from 31.5 to 66.3% (p < 0.0001). The screening rates of solid and hematological cancers significantly increased by year; however, the trend was greater in solid cancer than in hematological cancer (35.9 and 26.2%, p < 0.0001).Conclusions: The HBV screening rate before cancer chemotherapy was fair but increased over time. These figures improved after implementing a government-based strategy; however, a mandatory hospital-based strategy might improve awareness of HBV screening and starting prophylactic antiviral therapy before cancer chemotherapy.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 158-158
Author(s):  
Lisa K. Hicks ◽  
Patricia Leung ◽  
Jennifer Cape

158 Background: Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation is a well-recognized and serious complication of chemotherapy which can be prevented with prophylactic antiviral therapy. St. Michael’s Hospital (SMH) is an academic hospital in Toronto, Canada, serving an inner city population. The prevalence of chronic HBV in populations such as ours is estimated to be > 8%, compared to 2% of all Canadians. In this context, surveillance for HBV prior to chemotherapy is very important. Aim: To increase the HBV screening rate among patients starting IV chemotherapy at SMH to greater than 90% by December 2013. Methods: Repeated plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles targeting HBV screening in our chemotherapy unit were initiated in January 2013 and are on-going. Appropriate HBV screening was defined as at least one HBsAg test up to 3 months prior to, or 3 weeks after starting chemotherapy. Interventions included education sessions, posters, standardized HBV lab order sets, and pharmacist review of lab data prior to first chemotherapy with reminders to physicians when HBV testing was absent. Pre and post-intervention HBV screening rates were compared using process control charting. Results: Between January 1, 2012, and June 15, 2013, 407 unique patients started IV chemotherapy at SMH. Prior to our interventions a stable HBV screening rate of approximately 30% was observed. Sequential process improvements were introduced in January and April 2013. Process control charting demonstrated the presence of special cause variation subsequent to our interventions with a significant improvement in the HBV testing rate (post-intervention rate of 70%). The HBV testing rate began to improve in January 2013 and met criteria for special cause variation by February 2013. Conclusions: It is possible to dramatically increase the rate of HBV testing prior to chemotherapy through relatively simple, low tech process improvements. Further improvements are necessary to reach our goal of a 90% HBV screening rate prior to IV chemotherapy. Additional planned interventions include individualized physician report cards on HBV screening rates using achievable benchmark criteria and an education campaign directed at empowering patients to ask about HBV testing.


2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (30_suppl) ◽  
pp. 169-169
Author(s):  
Lisa K. Hicks ◽  
Jordan J. Feld ◽  
Joshua Juan ◽  
Judy Truong ◽  
Urszula Zurawska ◽  
...  

169 Background: Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation is a potentially fatal complication of cancer therapy that is almost entirely preventable. Despite this, HBV screening rates remain low at many centers. We evaluated the effectiveness of an electronic prompt on HBV screening rates and compared this strategy with education alone. Methods: An education session on HBV reactivation was delivered to all oncology staff at two large, academic oncology centers in the fall of 2010. At one center (study center) an electronic prompt was also introduced. The electronic prompt reminded physicians to screen for HBV when booking a new patient’s first chemotherapy and automatically trigged an electronic order for HBsAg if the physician assented. The prompt was not implemented at the second (control) center. The primary endpoint was the rate of HBV screening. Actual HBV screening rates were determined in both centers for 10 months prior to and for 12 months following the interventions. HBV screening rates were assessed and compared with process control charts (p-charts); 3-sigma limits were employed to define special cause variation. Results: 6,116 new patients received their first chemotherapy during the study period (2,095 study center; 4,021 control center). In the pre-prompt period, the screening rate was stable at 16% at the study center and 25% in the control center. In the prompt period, the screening rate increased to 62% at the study center and was unchanged at 25% in the control center. Special cause variation suggesting a non-random improvement in HBV screening rate was detected at the Study Center two months after the introduction of the electronic prompt. Conclusions: An electronic prompt increased the rate of HBV screening, however screening rates remained relatively low. Education sessions did not appear to improve the HBV screening rate.


2021 ◽  
pp. jrheum.210257
Author(s):  
Amir M. Mohareb ◽  
Naomi J. Patel ◽  
Xiaoqing Fu ◽  
Arthur Y. Kim ◽  
Zachary S. Wallace ◽  
...  

Objective Hepatitis B virus (HBV) can reactivate among rheumatology patients initiating tocilizumab or tofacitinib. HBV screening is recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), and the Canadian Rheumatology Association but is not explicitly recommended by the American College of Rheumatology. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study to characterize HBV screening practices for adult rheumatology patients initiating tocilizumab or tofacitinib before December 31, 2018, in the Greater Boston area. We classified appropriate HBV screening patterns prior to tocilizumab or tofacitinib (i.e., HBV surface antigen [HBsAg], total core antibody [anti- HBcAb], and surface antibody [HBsAb]) as: complete (all 3 tested), partial (any 1 or 2 tests), or none. We determined the frequency of inappropriate HBV testing (HBeAg, anti-HBcAb IgM, or HBV DNA without a positive HBsAg or total anti-HBcAb) and used multivariable regression to assess factors associated with complete HBV screening. Results Among 678 subjects initiating tocilizumab, 194 (29%) completed appropriate HBV screening, 307 (45%) had partial screening, and 177 (26%) had none. Among 391 subjects initiating tofacitinib, 94 (24%) completed appropriate HBV screening, 195 (50%) had partial screening, and 102 (26%) had none. Inappropriate testing was performed in 22% of subjects. Race was associated with complete HBV screening (white versus non-white, OR 0.74; 95%CI: 0.57-0.95) while prior immunosuppression was not (csDMARDs, OR 1.05, 95%CI: 0.72-1.55; bDMARDs, OR 0.73, 95%CI: 0.48- 1.12). Conclusion Patients initiating tocilizumab or tofacitinib are infrequently screened for HBV despite recommendations from AASLD and CDC.


2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 1162-1166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masafumi Ikeda ◽  
Hiroki Yamamoto ◽  
Makiko Kaneko ◽  
Hiroshi Oshima ◽  
Hideaki Takahashi ◽  
...  

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 970-970
Author(s):  
Jayde Bednarik ◽  
Karen Smethers ◽  
Delila Katz ◽  
Jennifer S Daly ◽  
Roy Guharoy ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 970 Background: The CD20 monoclonal antibody, rituximab, has been implicated in the reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) when given either combined with chemotherapy or as a single-agent. This potentially fatal complication has been documented in patients (pts) with high risk of HBV reactivation (i.e., HBV surface antigen (HBSAg) positive), and in lower risk populations (i.e., HBsAg negative, HBV core antibody (HBcAb) positive), the latter where the risk of reactivation with rituximab-based therapy is approximately 15–20% (Yeo W, et al. J Clin Oncol 2009; Evens AM et al, Ann Onc 2011). Published recommendations on HBV screening and anti-viral prophylaxis related to rituximab vary considerably, leaving practicing clinicians without clear consensus. In addition, HBV screening and prophylaxis have not been universally implemented into clinical practice. We sought to determine our institutional frequency of HBV screening and rates of HBV reactivation in Hematology/Oncology pts treated with rituximab-based therapy who underwent appropriate screening and prophylaxis. METHODS: We completed a single center, retrospective analysis at a large academic center to examine pts >17 years of age who received rituximab for a hematologic or oncologic disorder from January 1, 2005 through August 1, 2011. We reviewed drug administration records to identify pts who received rituximab for a malignancy or other hematological disorder. Pts were evaluated for documented HBV screening, HBV diagnosis, number of doses of rituximab received, vaccination status, baseline characteristics, and relevant past medical history and laboratory values. A ‘cycle’ of rituximab was defined as 1 dose given in combination with chemotherapy, 4 consecutive weeks given as a single agent, or 1 dose given q2-4 months as part of maintenance therapy. Data regarding use of prophylactic therapy for HBV were also collected. RESULTS: 212 pts were identified as having received rituximab; 109 were excluded as they received rituximab for other indications (n=86 multiple sclerosis, n=11 rheumatoid arthritis, and n=17 other), leaving a total of 103 pts who met study inclusion criteria. The median age was 63 years (19-90), median number of rituximab ‘cycles’ received was 3 (1-9); 45% of pts had diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), 15% other high-grade lymphoma, 14% follicular lymphoma (FL), and 26% other hematologic malignancy. Among the 103 pts, a total of 53 (51.4%) were screened for HBV at some point before or after initiation of therapy. Only 6.8% of pts were screened (within 9 months) prior to initiation of treatment, while 18.4% had HBV screening within 30 days of the 1st rituximab dose. Of the pts screened for HBV after 30 days, the median time to screening was 196 days (32-2660) after rituximab initiation. Notably, there were no differences in rates of HBV screening based on the year of therapy. Among the 53 pts screened for HBV prior to or within 30 days of rituximab initiation, eight (15.1%) were positive for HBV infection. Three pts were positive for HBsAg, all of whom received HBV anti-viral prophylaxis. Five pts were negative for HBsAg, but positive for HBcAb (1/5 also with positive HBV surface antibody); one HBcAb+ pt received anti-viral prophylaxis. These four pts received anti-viral prophylaxis for a median time of 17.1 months, which included a median of 7.9 months after the last rituximab dose. Among the 53 pts who underwent HBV screening, there were no cases of HBV reactivation observed with a median follow-up time of 15.6 months (5.9-16.5). CONCLUSION: At our academic institution, we identified an occult HBV infection rate of 15% in Hematology/Oncology pts who received rituximab treatment. A relatively low rate of pre-treatment HBV screening was performed, while approximately 45% of pts had screening after initiation of therapy. Among pts who were screened, appropriate anti-viral prophylaxis was instituted, and there were no cases of HBV reactivation. Altogether, there remains a critical need for standardized recommendations and consensus for screening and prophylaxis of HBV infection in pts who receive rituximab therapy. This is particularly evident given recent data regarding cost effectiveness of this approach (Zurawaska U, et al, J Clin Oncol 2012). In addition, continued efforts are needed to implement evidence-based HBV screening and prophylaxis guidelines in clinical practice. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document