The Low Incidence of Viral Hepatitis Reactivation Among Subjects on Immunotherapy Reduces the Impact of Suboptimal Screening Rate.

Background and Aims: Immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is a pillar of many advanced tumors. However, there is scarce data concerning the rate of viral hepatitis screening in this population or the risk of viral reactivation. Methods: Retrospective-prospective study that includes all patients who began ICIs between January/2019 and December/2020 in a University Hospital. Data on viral hepatitis screening prior to the beginning of ICIs were collected. In subjects lacking information, serological tests were requested prospectively. Among HBsAg, anti-HBc, or anti-HCV positive subjects, reactivation was prospectively assessed. Results: During the 2-year period of study, 595 subjects received ICIs (61.2% male, mean age 63 years). The most prevalent cancers found were 35.5% lung cancer, 12.1% melanoma, and 8.2% head and neck; ICIs schemes were mainly anti-PD1 (65.7%), followed by anti-PD-L1 (19.2%), and combined therapy (13.6%). Prior to immunotherapy, anti-HCV screening was performed in 462 (77.6%) subjects, HBsAg in 462 (77.6%), anti-HBc in 335 (56.3%), and the complete screening in 328 (55.1%). The anti-HBc screening was more frequently ordered among patients treated with concomitant systemic therapy (p = 0.003), especially in the case of chemotherapy (p = 0.015), though HCV screening was more commonly performed in concomitant therapies different from chemotherapy (p = 0.001). Serological tests were completed prospectively in those alive, leading to an overall prevalence for anti-HCV of 3.5%, HBsAg at 1.3%, and anti-HBc of 15.2%. HCV-RNA was detected in 2/19 (both patients with hepatocellular carcinoma), HBV-DNA in 4/7 HBsAg positive, and in 1/75 anti-HBc positive subject. Five out of the 7 HBsAg carriers and 1/75 anti-HBc+ subjects (due to concomitant antiretroviral therapy) received antiviral prophylaxis. Neither cases of HBV reactivation nor changes in HCV viral load were observed. Discussion: HBV and HCV screening prior to immunotherapy is suboptimal. Though the rate of viral hepatitis reactivation seems extremely low, efforts should be made to optimize viral hepatitis screening prior to immunotherapy for the selection of candidates for either antiviral prophylaxis or periodical follow-up.

An electronic alert system increases screening for hepatitis B and C and improves management of patients with haematological disorders.

Treatment of haematological disorders in patients with chronic hepatitis B or resolved infection (anti-HBc-positive) is associated with a risk of hepatitis B reactivation. Moreover, patients with chronic hepatitis C have a higher risk of haematological malignancies than general population. An electronic alert system was developed to promote screening of hepatitis B (HBV) and C (HCV) in patients starting haematological therapies. The system included screening and linkage to care and a request for testing in those without data. From March, 2017 to March, 2018 data from 420 consecutive patients with haematological diseases were included. At first prescription before the alerts, the HCV and HBV screening rate was 60.5%. Following the alerts, an additional 115 were screened, increasing the overall screening rate to 87.9%. Anti-HBc alone was detected in 57, anti-HCV in 13, and HBsAg in 2 patients. Overall, 68% of patients with any viral hepatitis markers were previously not know, and the impact was particularly important for anti-HBc detection (47/57 unknown). Nucleoside analogues were prescribed in 28 (49.1%) anti-HBc-positive and the 2 HBsAg-positive patients. Prospective follow-up with HBV DNA and HBsAg testing showed no cases of HBV reactivation. An estimated 1.2 HBV reactivations were avoided as consequence of the alert system. In summary, an electronic alert system increased viral hepatitis screening in patients receiving haematological treatment and led to improvements in the management of these patients, including avoided HBV reactivation.

Achieving biodiversity benefits with offsets: Research gaps, challenges, and needs.

Biodiversity offsets are becoming increasingly common across a portfolio of settings: national policy, voluntary programs, international lending, and corporate business structures. Given the diversity of ecological, political, and socio-economic systems where offsets may be applied, place-based information is likely to be most useful in designing and implementing offset programs, along with guiding principles that assure best practice. We reviewed the research on biodiversity offsets to explore gaps and needs. While the peer-reviewed literature on offsets is growing rapidly, it is heavily dominated by ecological theory, wetland ecosystems, and U.S.-based research. Given that majority of offset policies and programs are occurring in middle- and low-income countries, the research gaps we identified present a number of risks. They also present an opportunity to create regionally based learning platforms focused on pilot projects and institutional capacity building. Scientific research should diversify, both topically and geographically, in order to support the successful design, implementation, and monitoring of biodiversity offset programs.