Prevalence of hepatitis B virus infection and risk of reactivation in rheumatic population undergoing biological therapy.

OBJECTIVES: Hepatitis B (HBV) is a common comorbidity among rheumatic patients. The prevalence of HBV infection and the rate of reactivation remain unclear. The literature data suggested a higher risk in chronic than in past infection. Currently, the literature data are mostly focused on anti-TNF and rituximab. This retrospective observational study aimed to analyse the prevalence of HBV infection and the risk of viral reactivation in a population of rheumatic patients undergoing anti-TNF and non-anti-TNF agents. METHODS: We analysed 1216 rheumatic patients, treated with both csDMARDs and bDMARDs between 2006 and 2017. Serologic markers for HBV (HBsAg, anti-HBs, anti-HBc) were performed prior and during biologic treatment. Patients with chronic or resolved infection were monitored every 3 months. RESULTS: The prevalence of HBV in our cohort was 15.7% (chronic infection: 0.4%, resolved infection: 12.6%, anti-HBc positivity alone: 2.6%). 12 (6.2%) out of 191 HBV infected patients experienced a reactivation. All of them showed markers of past infection. One patient experienced HBV reactivation despite lamivudine. Only one patient experienced acute hepatitis, probably due to the interruption of immunosuppressors in anticipation of surgery, not preceded by any HBV prophylactic treatment. CONCLUSIONS: HBV reactivation is a rare event in patients treated with a bDMARD and it can also occur while taking lamivudine, not only in chronic carriers (as per the literature data) but also in inactive ones. Regular screening followed by prompt treatment can prevent symptoms or complications. Due to the risk of hepatitis following the immune reconstitution, an antiviral therapy should be considered in the case of sudden discontinuation of csDMARDs or bDMARD.

Low Risk of Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation in HBsAg-negative/Anti-HBc-positive Carriers Receiving Rituximab for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Retrospective Multicenter Italian Study.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with resolved hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, i.e., hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-negative/antihepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc)-positive, undergoing rituximab (RTX)-based chemotherapy for hematological malignancies without anti-HBV prophylaxis are at risk of HBV reactivation, but the risk in such patients receiving RTX for rheumatological disorders is not clear. We evaluated this risk in HBsAg-negative/anti-HBc-positive patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) undergoing RTX without prophylaxis. METHODS: Thirty-three HBsAg-negative/anti-HBc-positive outpatients with RA with undetectable HBV DNA by sensitive PCR assay [73% women, median age 60 years, 85% with HBsAg antibodies (anti-HBs), 37% with antihepatitis B envelope antigen] received a median of 3 cycles of RTX (range 1-8) over 34 months (range 0-80) combined with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) without prophylaxis. All underwent clinical and laboratory monitoring during and after RTX administration, including serum HBsAg and HBV DNA measurements every 6 months or whenever clinically indicated. RESULTS: None of the patients seroreverted to HBsAg during RTX treatment, but 6/28 (21%) showed a > 50% decrease in protective anti-HBs levels, including 2 who became anti-HBs-negative. One patient (3%) who became HBV DNA-positive (44 IU/ml) after 6 months of RTX treatment was effectively rescued with lamivudine before any hepatitis flare occurred. Among the 14 patients monitored for 18 months (range 0-70) after RTX discontinuation, no HBV reactivation was observed. CONCLUSION: The administration of RTX + DMARD in patients with RA with resolved HBV infection leads to a negligible risk of HBV reactivation, thus suggesting that serum HBsAg and/or HBV DNA monitoring but not universal anti-HBV prophylaxis is justified.

Psoriatic Arthritis Registries.

The introduction of new biological drugs for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and spondyloarthritis has led to the creation of a number of registries in Europe and the United States. Most of them are sponsored by national rheumatology societies, and provide information that is useful in clinical practice concerning the clinical characteristics, efficacy, and safety of all licensed biological drugs. Their findings also help to improve our understanding of the quality of life and working ability of patients receiving biological drugs, and suggest methods for allocating resources. However, there are only a few registries for psoriatic arthritis, and efforts should be made to increase their number to obtain further reliable and useful data.

Investigating the potential side effects of anti-TNF therapy for rheumatoid arthritis: cause for concern?

There are now five anti-TNF drugs available for clinical use, and it will not be long before they are joined by biosimilar drugs. Some patients treated with selective TNF drugs may develop adverse events such as infections, malignancies, acute infusion and injection reactions, autoimmunity and cardiovascular effects. Registry data consistently show that, particularly during the first 6 months, anti-TNF drugs slightly increase the risk of serious infections of the skin, soft tissues and joints, but it does not seem to increase the risk of cancer other than nonmelanoma skin cancers. A number of studies have shown that the administration of biological agents can lead to the formation of neutralizing and nonneutralizing antibodies. Lipid levels increase, but the atherogenic index remains stable and qualitative changes to lipid particles may reduce the risk of cardiovascular diseases. Patients treated with anti-TNF drugs therefore need to be monitored regularly.

Identification of the clinical features distinguishing psoriatic arthritis and fibromyalgia.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the clinical features that can help to distinguish between psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and fibromyalgia (FM). METHODS: Our cross-sectional study was carried out in 10 Italian rheumatology centers between January and September 2009, and enrolled all consecutive patients with PsA and FM who agreed to participate. Standard clinical and laboratory data for PsA and FM were collected from all patients. Records were made of somatic symptoms, response to nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAID), self-evaluated pain, general health, disability, and responses to the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire. Data were statistically analyzed by univariate and multivariate analyses, and receiver-operating characteristic curves. The analysis concentrated on the clinical features shared by the 2 conditions. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-six patients with PsA (mean age 51.7 yrs; disease duration 10.2 yrs) and 120 patients with FM (mean age 50.2 yrs; disease duration 5.6 yrs) were evaluated. Univariate analysis showed that patients with FM had higher mean tender point and enthesitis scores, more somatic symptoms, and responded less to NSAID. Multivariate analysis showed that the presence of ≥ 6 FM-associated symptoms and ≥ 8 tender points was the best predictor of FM. CONCLUSION: The shared clinical features of PsA and FM that had the greatest discriminating power for FM were the number of FM-associated symptoms and tender point count.