AGA clinical practice guideline on the prevention and treatment of hepatitis B virus reactivation in at-risk individuals

• Autores: Piscoya, Alejandro, Ali, Faisal S., Nguyen, Mindie H., Hernaez, Ruben, Huang, Daniel Q., Wilder, Julius, Simon, Tracey G., Falck-Ytter, Yngve
• Formato: artículo
• Fecha de Publicación: 2025
• Institución: Universidad Tecnológica del Perú
• Repositorio: UTP-Institucional
• Lenguaje: inglés
• OAI Identifier: oai:repositorio.utp.edu.pe:20.500.12867/14645
• Enlace del recurso: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12867/14645; https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2024.11.008
• Nivel de acceso: acceso abierto
• Materia: Hepatitis B reactivation; Antiviral prophylaxis; Autoimmune disease; Immunosuppression; https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#3.02.19

[BACKGROUND & AIMS]: Hepatitis B reactivation (HBVr) can occur due to a variety of immune-modulating exposures, including multiple drug classes and disease states. Antiviral prophylaxis can be effective in mitigating the risk of HBVr. In select cases, clinical monitoring without antiviral prophylaxis is sufficient for managing the risk of HBVr. This clinical practice guideline update aims to inform frontline health care practitioners by providing evidence-based practice recommendation for the management of HBVr in at-risk individuals. [METHODS]: The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework was used to assess evidence and make recommendations. The panel conducted a systematic evidence review to identify new studies since publication of the first version of this clinical practice guideline in 2014. The Evidence to Decision framework was used to develop recommendations regarding the role of antiviral prophylaxis and monitoring without antiviral prophylaxis for management of HBVr. Clinical recommendations were based on the balance between desirable and undesirable effects, patient values, costs, and health equity considerations. [RESULTS]: The panel agreed on 4 recommendations. Based on evidence and baseline risk assessment, the panel made a strong recommendation in favor of antiviral prophylaxis for individuals at high risk of HBVr. For individuals at moderate risk of HBVr, a conditional recommendation was made in favor of antiviral prophylaxis. For individuals at low risk of HBVr, a conditional recommendation was made in favor of monitoring alone without antiviral prophylaxis. Monitoring should be performed at 1- to 3-month intervals, and must include assessment of hepatitis B viral load in addition to assessment of alanine aminotransferase. For individuals deemed to be at-risk of HBVr, the panel agreed on a strong recommendation in favor of testing for HBV; given universal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention screening guidance for hepatitis B for all adults 18 years and older by testing for HBV surface antigen, hepatitis B surface antibody, and total hepatitis B core antibody, stratifying screening practices by magnitude of HBVr risk is no longer needed. [CONCLUSIONS]: This document provides updated guidance for the management of HBVr in at-risk individuals. Limitations and gaps in the evidence are highlighted. This guideline is expected to require updating in 5 years from publication.