Search

Increasing evidences suggest that HBsAg-production varies across HBV-genotypes. HBsAg C-terminus plays a crucial role for HBsAg-secretion. Here, we evaluate HBsAg-levels in different HBV-genotypes in HBeAg-negative chronic infection, the correlation of specific mutations in HBsAg C-terminus with HBsAg-levels in-vivo, their impact on HBsAg-secretion in-vitro and on structural stability in-silico .HBsAg-levels were investigated in 323 drug-naïve HBeAg-negative patients chronically infected with HBV genotype-D( N  = 228), -A( N  = 65) and -E( N  = 30). Genotype-D was characterized by HBsAg-levels lower than genotype-A and -E (3.3[2.7-3.8]IU/ml; 3.8[3.5-4.2]IU/ml and 3.9[3.7-4.2]IU/ml, P  < 0.001). Results confirmed by multivariable analysis correcting for patients'demographics, HBV-DNA, ALT and infection-status.In genotype-D, specific C-terminus mutations (V190A-S204N-Y206C-Y206F-S210N) significantly correlate with HBsAg<1000IU/ml( P -value from <0.001 to 0.04). These mutations lie in divergent pathways involving other HBsAg C-terminus mutations: V190A + F220L (Phi = 0.41, P  = 0.003), S204N + L205P (Phi = 0.36, P  = 0.005), Y206F + S210R (Phi = 0.47, P  < 0.001) and S210N + F220L (Phi = 0.40, P  = 0.006). Notably, patients with these mutational pairs present HBsAg-levels 1log lower than patients without them( P -value from 0.003 to 0.02). In-vitro , the above-mentioned mutational pairs determined a significant decrease in HBsAg secretion-efficiency compared to wt( P -value from <0.001 to 0.02). Structurally, these mutational pairs reduced HBsAg C-terminus stability and determined a rearrangement of this domain.In conclusion, HBsAg-levels in genotype-D are significantly lower than in genotype-A and -E in HBeAg-negative patients. In genotype-D, specific mutational clusters in HBsAg C-terminus correlate with lower HBsAg-levels in-vivo , hamper HBsAg-release in-vitro and affect its structural stability, supporting their detrimental role on HBsAg-secretion. In this light, genotypic-testing can be a valuable tool to optimize the clinical interpretation of HBsAg in genotype-D and to provide information on HBV-pathogenicity and disease-progression.

Background: Although several cases of hepatitis B virus reactivation have been described in patients with a history of hepatitis B virus infection while undergoing treatment for hepatitis C virus infection with direct acting antivirals, the question of whether hepatitis B virus surface antigen immune-escape mutations might play a role has not been addressed so far., Case Presentation: We report a case of hepatitis B virus reactivation in a Caucasian patient infected with hepatitis C virus during treatment with sofosbuvir and velpatasvir. A 50-year-old man with a genotype 1a hepatitis C virus infection was considered for therapy. His serological profile was hepatitis B virus surface antigen-negative, hepatitis B virus core antibody-positive, hepatitis B virus surface antibody-negative, and anti-hepatitis D virus-positive. The detection of hepatitis B virus deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) indicated active viral replication during the direct acting antiviral treatment that spontaneously returned to undetectable levels after treatment completion. Starting from week 12 after the end of treatment, hepatitis B virus surface antibody titers and hepatitis B virus e antibody developed. Sequencing analysis revealed the hepatitis B virus genotype D3 and the presence of two relevant immune-escape mutations (P120S and T126I) in the major hydrophilic region by analyzing the S region., Conclusions: We speculate that the presence of the hepatitis B virus surface antigen mutations, endowed with the enhanced capability to elude the immune response, could play a role in hepatitis B virus reactivation. This observation confirms that occult hepatitis B infection should also be carefully monitored, through surveillance of the hepatitis B virus viral load before and during direct acting antiviral treatment of hepatitis C virus.

The morbidity and mortality rates of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-hepatitis B virus (HBV) coinfection are higher than that of either infection alone. Outcomes and the virological response to antiretrovirals (combination antiretroviral therapy, cART) were explored in HIV/HBV subjects in a cohort of Italian patients treated with cART. A single-center retrospective analysis of patients enrolled from January 2007 to June 2018 was conducted by grouping patients by HBV status and recording baseline viro-immunological features, the history of virological failure, the efficacy of cART in achieving HIV viral undetectability, viral blip detection and viral rebound on follow up. Among 231 enrolled patients, 10 (4.3%) were HBV surface (s) antigen (HBsAg)-positive, 85 (36.8%) were positive for antibodies to HBV c antigen (HBcAb) and with or without antibodies to HBV s antigen (HBsAb), and 136 were (58.9%) HBV-negative. At baseline, HBcAb/HBsAb +/- -positive patients had lower CD4+ cell counts and CD4+ nadirs (188 cell/mmc, IQR 78-334, p = 0.02 and 176 cell/mmc, IQR 52-284, p = 0,001, respectively). There were significantly higher numbers of AIDS and non-AIDS events in the HBcAb + /HBsAb +/- -positive subjects than in the HBV-negative patients (41.1% vs 19.1%, p = 0.002 and 56.5% vs 28.7%, respectively, p ≤ 0.0001); additionally, HIV viremia undetectability was achieved a significantly longer time after cART was begun in the former than in the latter population (6 vs 4 months, p = 0.0001). Cox multivariable analysis confirmed that after starting cART, an HBcAb + /HBsAb +/- -positive status is a risk factor for a lower odds of achieving virological success and a higher risk of experiencing virological rebound (AHR 0.63, CI 95% 0.46-0.87, p = 0.004 and AHR 2.52, CI 95% 1.09-5.80, p = 0.030). HBcAb-positive status resulted in a delay in achieving HIV < 50 copies/mL and the appearance of viral rebound in course of cART, hence it is related to a poor control of HIV infection in a population of coinfected patients.

The study was undertaken in order to provide a snapshot from real clinical practice of virological presentation and outcome of patients developing immunosuppression-driven HBV reactivation. Seventy patients with HBV reactivation were included (66.2% treated with rituximab, 10% with corticosteroids and 23.8% with other immunosuppressive drugs). Following HBV reactivation, patients received anti-HBV treatment for a median (IQR) follow-up of 31(13-47) months. At baseline-screening, 72.9% of patients were HBsAg-negative and 27.1% HBsAg-positive. About 71.4% had a diagnosis of biochemical reactivation [median (IQR) HBV DNA and ALT: 6.9 (5.4-7.8) log IU/mL and 359 (102-775) U/L]. Moreover, 10% of patients died from hepatic failure. Antiviral prophylaxis was documented in 57.9% and 15.7% of HBsAg-positive and HBsAg-negative patients at baseline-screening (median [IQR] prophylaxis duration: 24[15-33] and 25[17-36] months, respectively). Notably, HBV reactivation occurred 2-24 months after completing the recommended course of anti-HBV prophylaxis in 35.3% of patients. By analysing treatment outcome, the cumulative probability of ALT normalization and of virological suppression was 97% and 69%, respectively. Nevertheless, in patients negative to HBsAg at baseline-screening, only 27% returned to HBsAg-negative status during prolonged follow-up, suggesting the establishment of chronic infection. In conclusion, most patients received a diagnosis of HBV reactivation accompanied by high ALT and 10% died for hepatic failure, supporting the importance of strict monitoring for an early HBV reactivation diagnosis. Furthermore, HBV reactivation correlates with high risk of HBV chronicity in patients negative for HBsAg at baseline-screening, converting a silent into a chronic infection, requiring long-term antiviral treatment. Finally, a relevant proportion of patients experienced HBV reactivation after completing the recommended course of anti-HBV prophylaxis, suggesting the need to reconsider proper duration of prophylaxis particularly in profound immunosuppression., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Low CD4+ cell count in patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis B virus (HBV) coinfection during combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) has been described; however, notably few studies have investigated coinfected patients positive for antibodies to the HBV c antigen (HBcAb). An observational retrospective study enrolling 190 patients was conducted by grouping patients with respect to HBV status and recording CD4+ T cell counts and percentages (CD4%), CD8+ T cell counts and percentages (CD8%), and the CD4+ to CD8+ T cell ratio (CD4/CD8) at the time of HIV diagnosis, at the start of treatment and at months 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, and 24 after beginning cART. One hundred and twenty patients (63.2%) were negative for previous HBV infection, while 70 (36.8%) were HBcAb-positive. A significant increase in the CD4/CD8 ratio was recorded in HIV monoinfected subjects compared to HBV coinfected patients from months 4 to 12 from the beginning of cART (p value = 0.02 at month 4, p value = 0.005 at month 5, p value = 0.006 at month 6, and p value = 0.008 at month 12). A significant increase in the absolute count of CD8+ T lymphocytes was described from months 2 to 24 from the start of cART in the subgroup of HBV coinfected patients with an AIDS event at the onset of HIV infection. The presence of HBcAb was observed to be associated with reduced CD4/CD8 ratio growth and a significantly higher proportion of subjects with CD4/CD8 < 0.45 in the HIV/HBV coinfected group. A significant increase in the CD8 T cell count was shown up to 24 months after the initiation of effective cART in the subgroup of patients with the worst immune status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The role of novel HBV markers in predicting Hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBV-R) in HBsAg-negative/anti-HBc-positive oncohaematological patients was examined. One hundred and seven HBsAg-negative/anti-HBc-positive oncohaematological patients, receiving anti-HBV prophylaxis for >18 months, were included. At baseline, all patients had undetectable HBV DNA, and 67.3% were anti-HBs positive. HBV-R occurred in 17 (15.9%) patients: 6 during and 11 after the prophylaxis period. At HBV-R, the median (IQR) HBV-DNA was 44 (27–40509) IU/mL, and the alanine aminotransferase upper limit of normal (ULN) was 44% (median (IQR): 81 (49–541) U/L). An anti-HBc > 3 cut-off index (COI) plus anti-HBs persistently/declining to <50 mIU/mL was predictive for HBV-R (OR (95% CI): 9.1 (2.7–30.2); 63% of patients with vs. 15% without this combination experienced HBV-R (p < 0.001)). The detection of highly sensitive (HS) HBsAg and/or HBV-DNA confirmed at >2 time points, also predicts HBV-R (OR (95% CI): 13.8 (3.6–52.6); 50% of positive vs. 7% of negative patients to these markers experienced HBV-R (p = 0.001)). HS-HBs and anti-HBc titration proved to be useful early markers of HBV-R. The use of these markers demonstrated that HBV-R frequently occurs in oncohaematological patients with signs of resolved HBV infection, raising issues of proper HBV-R monitoring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

HBeAg is a marker of HBV-activity, and HBeAg-loss predicts a favorable clinical outcome. Here, we characterize HBeAg-levels across different phases of HBV infection, their correlation with virological/biochemical markers and the virological response to anti-HBV therapy. Quantitative HBeAg (qHBeAg, DiaSorin) is assessed in 101 HBeAg+ patients: 20 with acute-infection, 20 with chronic infection, 32 with chronic hepatitis and 29 with immunosuppression-driven HBV-reactivation (HBV-R). A total of 15/29 patients with HBV-R are monitored for >12 months after starting TDF/ETV. qHBeAg is higher in immunosuppression-driven HBV-R (median[IQR]:930[206–1945]PEIU/mL) and declines in chronic hepatitis (481[28–1393]PEIU/mL, p = 0.03), suggesting HBeAg production, modulated by the extent of immunological pressure. This is reinforced by the negative correlation between qHBeAg and ALT in acute infection (Rho = −0.66, p = 0.006) and chronic hepatitis (Rho = −0.35; p = 0.05). Interestingly, qHBeAg strongly and positively correlates with qHBsAg across the study groups, suggesting cccDNA as a major source of both proteins in the setting of HBeAg positivity (with limited contribution of integrated HBV-DNA to HBsAg production). Focusing on 15 patients with HBV-R starting TDF/ETV, virological suppression and HBeAg-loss are achieved in 60% and 53.3%. Notably, the combination of qHBeAg > 2000 PEIU/mL + qHBsAg > 52,000 IU/mL at HBV-R is the only factor predicting no HBeAg loss (HBeAg loss: 0% with vs. 72.7% without qHBeAg > 2000 PEIU/mL + qHBsAg > 52,000 IU/mL, p = 0.03). In conclusion, qHBeAg varies over the natural course of HBV infection, according to the extent of immunological pressure. In the setting of HBV-R, qHBeAg could be useful in predicting the treatment response under immunosuppression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Immune-suppression driven Hepatitis B Virus (HBV)-reactivation poses serious concerns since it occurs in several clinical settings and can result in severe forms of hepatitis. Previous studies showed that HBV strains, circulating in patients with HBV-reactivation, are characterized by an enrichment of immune-escape mutations in HBV surface antigen (HBsAg). Here, we focused on specific immune-escape mutations associated with the acquisition of N-linked glycosylation sites in HBsAg (NLGSs). In particular, we investigated profiles of NLGSs in 47 patients with immunosuppression-driven HBV-reactivation and we evaluated their impact on HBsAg-antigenicity and HBV-replication in vitro. At HBV-reactivation, despite a median serum HBV-DNA of 6.7 [5.3–8.0] logIU/mL, 23.4% of patients remained HBsAg-negative. HBsAg-negativity at HBV-reactivation correlated with the presence of >1 additional NLGSs (p < 0.001). These NLGSs are located in the major hydrophilic region of HBsAg (known to be the target of antibodies) and resulted from the single mutation T115N, T117N, T123N, N114ins, and from the triple mutant S113N+T131N+M133T. In vitro, NLGSs strongly alter HBsAg antigenic properties and recognition by antibodies used in assays for HBsAg-quantification without affecting HBsAg-secretion and other parameters of HBV-replication. In conclusion, additional NLGSs correlate with HBsAg-negativity despite HBV-reactivation, and hamper HBsAg-antigenicity in vitro, supporting the role of NGSs in immune-escape and the importance of HBV-DNA for a proper diagnosis of HBV-reactivation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) persistence is at the basis of HBV reactivation as a consequence of chemotherapy and immunosuppressive treatments. The identification of early viral replication indicators and markers of effective HBV immunological control would be useful in monitoring patients who are at risk of potential viral reactivation during the course of immunosuppressive treatment. Currently, international guidelines have shared some criteria to identify patients with a low, medium or high risk of HBV reactivation; however, permanently placing a patient in a definitive category is not always easy. More often, patients move from one category to another during the course of their immunosuppressive treatment; therefore, in many cases, there are no precise indicators or tools for monitoring possible reactivation and establishing the duration and suspension of antiviral prophylaxis. Historically, the sequence of HBV antigens and antibodies and HBV DNA levels has been used to evaluate the different stages of the acute and chronic phases of an HBV infection. In the last few years, new biomarkers, such as anti-HBs and anti-HBc titres, HBV core-related antigen (HBcrAg), ultra-sensitive HBsAg evaluation and HBV RNA, have been used in patients with an HBV infection to evaluate their diagnostic and prognostic potential. The aim of this review is to evaluate the published results on the use of new infection markers in the diagnosis and monitoring of HBV reactivation over the course of immunosuppressive treatments. Moreover, the importance of viral genotypic studies was emphasized, given the diagnostic and therapeutic implications of the mutational profiles of HBsAg during the HBV reactivation phase. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]