Patients treated with rituximab are poorly screened for hepatitis B infection: Data from a low-incidence country.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients with chronic or resolved hepatitis B are at risk of hepatitis B reactivation (HBVr) when treated with high-risk immunosuppressive therapy such as rituximab. Therefore, international guidelines recommend HBV screening prior to rituximab treatment and subsequent antiviral prophylaxis among patients with a (resolved) infection. In this study, we evaluated the adherence to those recommendations. METHODS: This is a retrospective multicentre study including patients treated with rituximab between 2000-2021. Performance of correct screening was assessed, defined as the measurement of hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and hepatitis B core antibodies (anti-HBc). Next, initiation of antiviral prophylaxis and HBVr rate among patients with a chronic or resolved HBV infection was studied. RESULTS: We enrolled 3,176 patients of whom 1,448 (46%) were screened correctly. Screening rates differed significantly between academic and non-academic hospitals; respectively 65% vs 32% (p<0.001). In addition, screening rates differed across specialties and improved throughout the years; from 32% before 2012 to 75% after 2020 among academic prescribers, versus 1% to 60% among non-academic prescribers (both p<0.001). Antiviral prophylaxis was initiated in 58% vs 36% of the patients with a chronic or resolved HBV infection. Seven patients experienced HBVr, including one fatal liver decompensation. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients treated with rituximab were not correctly screened for HBV infection and antiviral prophylaxis was often not initiated. Although screening rates improved over time, rates remain suboptimal. With the increasing number of indications for rituximab and other immunosuppressive agents these findings could raise awareness among all medical specialties prescribing these agents.

Lower Risk of Recurrence with a Higher Induction Dose of Mesalazine and Longer Duration of Treatment in Ulcerative Colitis: Results from the Dutch, Non-Interventional, IMPACT Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The dose and duration of mesalazine treatment for ulcerative colitis (UC) is a potentially important determinant of effectiveness, with evidence suggesting that continuing the induction dose for 6-12 months may improve outcomes; however, real-world data are lacking. We assessed mesalazine use in Dutch clinical practice, including how differences in dose and duration affected UC outcomes. METHODS: Adults with mild-to-moderate UC who received oral prolonged-release mesalazine de novo or had a dose escalation for an active episode were followed for 12 months in this non-interventional study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02261636). The primary endpoint was time from start of treatment to dose reduction (TDR). Secondary endpoints included recurrence rate, adherence, and work productivity. RESULTS: In total, 151 patients were enrolled, of whom 108 (71.5%) were newly diagnosed with UC. The majority (120; 79.5%) received a dose of ≥4 g/day. Nearly one-third (48; 31.8%) underwent dose reduction, with mean TDR being 8.3 months. Disease extent and endoscopic appearance did not influence duration of induction therapy, while TDR increased with higher baseline UCDAI scores. TDR was longer in patients without (mean 8.8 months) than with (4.1 months) recurrence, although not significantly (p=0.09). Patients on ≥4 g/day had a significantly lower chance of recurrence versus those on 2-<4 g/day (26.6% vs 62.5%, respectively; p=0.04). Longer treatment duration was associated with significantly reduced recurrence risk [hazard ratio >6 months vs 3-6 months: 0.19 (95%CI: 0.08-0.46); p<0.05], particularly for those on ≥4 g/day [0.15 (0.06-0.40) vs 0.26 (0.01-11.9) for 2-<4 g/day). Patients reported significantly increased work productivity, which was maintained throughout follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Mesalazine was effective induction therapy, with treatment duration not meaningfully influenced by disease extent and endoscopic appearance at initiation. A higher induction dose of oral mesalazine (≥4 g/day) and longer duration of treatment (>6 months) was associated with a lower recurrence risk.

Effects of escitalopram prophylaxis during antiviral treatment for chronic hepatitis C in patients with a history of intravenous drug use and depression.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify those patients with hepatitis C virus who benefit most from prophylactic treatment with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) during antiviral therapy. METHOD: We performed post hoc analyses on a prospective randomized controlled trial (n = 79) of escitalopram versus placebo during antiviral therapy with pegylated interferon and ribavirin, conducted between August 2005 and June 2008. Our primary outcome measure was the association of baseline characteristics with the development of depression and/or depressive symptoms. Further, we studied effects of prophylactic escitalopram on depressive symptoms. Presence of a major depression was diagnosed using Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), a short, structured interview used to diagnose DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10 disorders. Depressive symptoms were monitored during treatment by using the depression scale of Symptom Checklist-90 (SCL-90), Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) at baseline and weeks 4, 12, and 24 of antiviral therapy. RESULTS: Depression occurred in 14 patients receiving placebo and in 5 patients receiving escitalopram (Pearson χ², P = .01). Combination of history of depression and intravenous drug use was associated with depression (odds ratio = 12.60; 95% CI, 2.47-64.34; P < .01). Moreover, treatment with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor compared to placebo was associated with a significant reduction in estimated mean depressive symptoms measured by SCL-90 (P = .03) and BDI (P = .048), but not with MADRS (P = .64). CONCLUSIONS: Patients infected by hepatitis C virus with a history of depression and intravenous drug use carry the highest risk to develop interferon-induced depression. In this subset of patients, prophylaxis with escitalopram results in the most substantial decrease of interferon-induced depressive symptoms on the SCL-90 depression scale and the BDI.

Long-term effects of treatment and response in patients with chronic hepatitis C on quality of life. An international, multicenter, randomized, controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C decreases health related quality of life (HRQL) which is further diminished by antiviral therapy. HRQL improves after successful treatment. This trial explores the course of and factors associated with HRQL in patients given individualized or standard treatment based on early treatment response (Ditto-study). METHODS: The Short Form (SF)-36 Health Survey was administered at baseline (n = 192) and 24 weeks after the end of therapy (n = 128). RESULTS: At baseline HRQL was influenced by age, participating center, severity of liver disease and income. Exploring the course of HRQL (scores at follow up minus baseline), only the dimension general health increased. In this dimension patients with a relapse or sustained response differed from non-responders. Men and women differed in the dimension bodily pain. Treatment schedule did not influence the course of HRQL. CONCLUSIONS: Main determinants of HRQL were severity of liver disease, age, gender, participating center and response to treatment. Our results do not exclude a more profound negative impact of individualized treatment compared to standard, possibly caused by higher doses and extended treatment duration in the individualized group. Antiviral therapy might have a more intense and more prolonged negative impact on females.