Biologic Therapy Carries a Very Low Risk of Reactivation in Hepatitis B Surface Antigen-Negative Phase of Hepatitis B.

BACKGROUND: The risk of hepatitis B reactivation in hepatitis B surface antigen-negative phase of hepatitis B virus-infected patients exposed to biologic agents is not clear. We aimed to investigate the reactivation rate in hepatitis B surface antigen-negative phase of hepatitis B virus-infected patients after biologic therapy. METHODS: Patients followed at gastroenterology, rheumatology, and dermatology clinics with a diagnosis of immune-mediated inflam matory diseases were screened. Immune-mediated inflammatory diseases patients exposed to biologic agents with a negative hepatitis B surface antigen and positive hepatitis B core immunoglobulin G antibody were included in the study. RESULTS: We screened 8266 immune-mediated inflammatory disease patients, and 2484 patients were identified as exposed to biologic agents. Two hundred twenty-one patients were included in the study. The mean age was 54.08 ± 11.69 years, and 115 (52.0%) patients were female. The median number of different biologic subtype use was 1 (range: 1-6). The mean biologic agent exposure time was 55 (range: 2-179) months. One hundred and fifty-two (68.8%) patients used a concomitant immunomodulatory agent, and 84 (38.0%) patients were exposed to corticosteroids during biologic use. No hepatitis B reactivation with a reverse seroconversion of hepatitis B surface antigen positivity was seen. Antiviral prophylaxis for hepatitis B was applied to 48 (21.7%) patients. Hepatitis B virus-DNA was screened in 56 (25.3%) patients prior to the biologic exposure. Two patients without antiviral prophylaxis had hepatitis B virus-DNA reactivation with a negative hepatitis B surface antigen during exposure to the biologic agent. CONCLUSION: We found 2 reactivations and no hepatitis B surface antigen seroconversion in our cohort. Antiviral prophylaxis for patients exposed to biologic agents may need to be discussed in more detail.

Periprostatic nerve block alone versus combined with perineal pudendal nerve block or intrarectal local anesthesia during transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: A prospective randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy, safety and cost of combinations of perineal pudendal nerve block + periprostatic nerve block and intrarectal local anesthesia + periprostatic nerve block with the standard technique (periprostatic nerve block). METHODS: The study was designed as a randomized prospective controlled trial. Patients with elevated serum prostate-specific antigen values (prostate-specific antigen ≥4 ng/mL) and/or abnormal digital rectal examination findings were included in the study. Patients with anorectal diseases, chronic prostatitis, previous history of prostate biopsy and anorectal surgery were excluded from the study. A total of 148 patients (group 1 [periprostatic nerve block], n = 48; group 2 [intrarectal local anesthesia + periprostatic nerve block], n = 51; group 3 [perineal pudendal nerve block + periprostatic nerve block], n = 49) were included in the final analysis. Pain during insertion and manipulation of the transrectal ultrasound probe was recorded as visual analog scale 1, pain during penetration of the biopsy needle into the prostate and sampling was recorded as visual analog scale 2, and pain during the entire procedure recorded as visual analog scale 3. RESULTS: The mean visual analog scale 1 score was significantly lower in group 3, when compared with group 1 and group 2 (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the mean visual analog scale 2 score. The mean visual analog scale 3 score was significantly lower in group 3 when compared with other groups (P < 0.001). The total cost for transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy in the intrarectal local anesthesia + periprostatic nerve block group was significantly higher than the other two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of perineal pudendal nerve block and periprostatic nerve block provides more effective pain control than intrarectal local anesthesia plus periprostatic nerve block and periprostatic nerve block alone, with similar complication rates and without increasing cost.