TY - JOUR
T1 - Randomized prospective study evaluating tenofovir disoproxil fumarate prophylaxis against hepatitis B virus reactivation in anti- HBc-positive patients with rituximab-based regimens to treat hematologic malignancies: The Preblin study
AU - Buti, Maria
AU - Manzano, María L.
AU - Morillas Cunill, Rosa Ma.
AU - García-Retortillo, Montserrat
AU - Martín, Leticia
AU - Prieto, Martín
AU - Gutiérrez-García, María-Luisa
AU - Suárez, Emilio
AU - Gómez Rubio, Mariano
AU - López, Javier
AU - Castillo, Pilar
AU - Rodríguez, Manuel
AU - Zozaya, José M.
AU - Simón, Miguel A.
AU - Morano Amado, Luis Enrique
AU - Calleja, Jose Luis
AU - Yébenes, María
AU - Esteban, Rafael
PY - 2017
Y1 - 2017
N2 - Background. Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in patients with resolved HBV infection (HBsAg negative, antiHBc positive) is uncommon, but potentially fatal. The role of HBV prophylaxis in this setting is uncertain. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) prophylaxis versus close monitoring in antiHBc-positive, HBsAg-negative patients under treatment with rituximab (RTX)-based regimens for hematologic malignancy. Methods. PREBLIN is a phase IV, randomized, prospective, open-label, multicenter, parallel-group trial conducted in 17 hospitals throughout Spain. Anti-HBc-positive, HBsAg-negative patients with undetectable HBV DNA were randomized to receive TDF 300 mg once daily (Group I) or observation (Group II). The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients showing HBV reactivation during 18 months following initiation of RTX treatment. Patientswith detectable HBV DNA (Group III) received the same dose of TDF and were analyzed together with Group I to investigate TDF safety. Results. Sixty-one patients were enrolled in the study, 33 in the TDF treatment group and 28 in the observation group. By ITT analysis, HBV reactivation was 0% (0/33) in the study group and 10.7% (3/28) in the observation group (p = 0.091). None of the patients in either group showed significant differences in liver function parameters between baseline and the last follow- up sample. TDF was generally well tolerated and there were no severe treatment related adverse events. Conclusion. In patients with hematological malignancy and resolved hepatitis B infection receiving RTXbased regimens, HBV reactivation did not occur in patients given TDF prophylaxis.
AB - Background. Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in patients with resolved HBV infection (HBsAg negative, antiHBc positive) is uncommon, but potentially fatal. The role of HBV prophylaxis in this setting is uncertain. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) prophylaxis versus close monitoring in antiHBc-positive, HBsAg-negative patients under treatment with rituximab (RTX)-based regimens for hematologic malignancy. Methods. PREBLIN is a phase IV, randomized, prospective, open-label, multicenter, parallel-group trial conducted in 17 hospitals throughout Spain. Anti-HBc-positive, HBsAg-negative patients with undetectable HBV DNA were randomized to receive TDF 300 mg once daily (Group I) or observation (Group II). The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients showing HBV reactivation during 18 months following initiation of RTX treatment. Patientswith detectable HBV DNA (Group III) received the same dose of TDF and were analyzed together with Group I to investigate TDF safety. Results. Sixty-one patients were enrolled in the study, 33 in the TDF treatment group and 28 in the observation group. By ITT analysis, HBV reactivation was 0% (0/33) in the study group and 10.7% (3/28) in the observation group (p = 0.091). None of the patients in either group showed significant differences in liver function parameters between baseline and the last follow- up sample. TDF was generally well tolerated and there were no severe treatment related adverse events. Conclusion. In patients with hematological malignancy and resolved hepatitis B infection receiving RTXbased regimens, HBV reactivation did not occur in patients given TDF prophylaxis.
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0184550
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0184550
M3 - Article
C2 - 28898281
SN - 1932-6203
VL - 12
SP - 1
EP - 14
JO - PLoS ONE
JF - PLoS ONE
IS - 9
ER -