Abstract
Background & Aims:
Acute liver failure (ALF) due to hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection can occur after immunosuppressive treatment and be fatal, although it might be preventable. We aimed to characterize the causes, clinical course, and short-term outcomes of HBV-associated ALF after immune suppressive therapy, compared to patients with HBV-associated ALF without immunosuppression (controls).
Methods:
We performed a retrospective multi-center study of 156 consecutive patients diagnosed with HBV-associated ALF (22 with a solid or blood malignancy) enrolled in the Acute Liver Failure Study Group registry from January 1998 through April 2015. We collected data on results of serologic and hepatic biochemistry analyses, grade of hepatic encephalopathy, model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, and King’s College criteria. We also collected data on clinical features, medical therapies, and complications in the first 7 days following study enrollment. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with transplant-free survival 21 days in HBV-associated ALF (the primary outcome).
Results:
Among patients with HBV-associated ALF, 28 cases (18%) occurred after immunosuppressive therapy (15 patients received systemic corticosteroids and 21 received chemotherapy); and 128 cases did not (controls, 82%). Significantly greater proportions of patients with Hepatitis B-associated ALF after immunosuppression were non-white, and had anemia or thrombocytopenic than controls (P<.02 for all). The serologic profile of HBV infection, severity of liver failure (based on MELD score), and complications (hepatic encephalopathy or need for mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, or renal replacement therapy) were similar between the groups (P>.17 for all). Significantly smaller proportions of patients with ALF after immunosuppression than controls survived for 21 days (42.9% vs 62.5% of controls; P=.0096). Factors associated with 21 day transplant-free survival (c-statistic = 0.866) were increased MELD score (odds ratio, 0.894 per increment), requirement for mechanical ventilation (odds ratio, 0.111), and immunosuppressive therapy (odds ratio, 0.274).
Conclusion:
Within a cohort study of HBV-associated ALF patients, 18% had received immunosuppressive therapy. Significantly smaller proportions of HBV-associated ALF patients after immunosuppression survive beyond 21 days than patients with HBV-associated ALF who did not receive immunosuppression. Patients undergoing chemotherapy should be screened for HBV infection and given appropriate anti-viral therapies to reduce preventable mortality.
Keywords: Acute liver failure, Hepatitis B, Chemotherapy, Immunosuppression
INTRODUCTION
Acute liver failure (ALF) is a rare disease associated with high short-term morbidity and mortality 1. In the United States (US), hepatitis B (HBV)-associated ALF represents about 7% of all ALF events 2. It may develop following acute or reactivation of chronic HBV infection. Amongst causes of reactivation, the use of immunosuppressive agents, mostly to treat autoimmune diseases or cancer, have been recognized as an increasingly important issue 3, 4 In a recent American Gastroenterological Association technical review, patients who were HbsAg/anti-HBc positive had a reactivation rate of up to 30% if receiving anthracycline based chemotherapy while those who received b-cell depleting agents (rituximab) achieved reactivation rates as high as 60%5 These patients are potentially at risk for ALF, and furthermore, given their own comorbidities, they may have contra-indications that could preclude liver transplantation (LT). Fortunately, the risk of reactivation of chronic HBV infection in this context may be mitigated with appropriate antiviral prophylaxis 6, 7
Studies have suggested that HBV-associated ALF due to immunosuppression treatment may have a specific pathophysiology, as it has been noted that these patients frequently display specific HBV surface antigen (HBsAg) mutations that may enhance the virus’ capability of evading the immune system response8, 9. Other mechanisms that have been postulated include loss of immune control of viral replication via inhibition of gamma interferons, upregulated cytotoxic T-cell mediated hepatocyte necrosis, and B-cell depletion 7, 10, 11. The outcomes of patients with HBV-associated ALF due to immunosuppression have been poorly studied9.
Taking into account the increasing burden of all immunosuppressive treatments for the health-care systems worldwide, this study aimed to evaluate the following
The proportion of HBV-associated ALF patients in a large North American cohort due to immunosuppression (US ALFSG)
Determine if there is an association between immunosuppression/chemotherapy (exposure) with decreased transplant-free (TFS) (and overall) survival in 156 HBV-associated ALF patients from the US ALFSG registry
Determine if the presence of immunosuppression is associated with worse TFS to HBV-associated ALF controls after adjusting for other significant covariates (multivariable logistic regression)
METHODS
Design, setting, participants,
We performed a retrospective cohort study of all adjudicated HBV-associated ALF patients within the US ALF Study Group (US-ALFSG) prospective registry between January 1998 and April 2015. Patients not fulfilling criteria for ALF (see operational definitions) or with unknown primary outcome data were excluded. All participating sites were tertiary academic liver transplant referral centers 12. This study’s protocol has been approved by the institutional review boards or health research ethics boards of all enrolling US-ALFSG sites (see acknowledgements). Informed consent was obtained from next of kin for all patients as subjects were unable to provide consent (hepatic encephalopathy ~ HE). All research procedures were conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki13.
Data collection
Patients were enrolled prospectively into a database (coordinating center at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center) where demographic, clinical, and outcome data on ALF patients were recorded. Baseline clinical data on HBV-associated ALF patients included serological testing, hepatic panel biochemistry, hepatic encephalopathy grade (West Haven criteria) on admission, Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, King’s College criteria fulfillment (admission), serological profile of HBV and hepatitis D virus (HDV) (admission and on history if available), history of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and previous use of immunosuppressive treatments. Clinical data, medical therapies and complications in the first 7 days post- study enrollment were recorded. Data retrieved on outcomes at 21 days post-study enrollment TFS, LT, and overall survival.
Operational definitions: Inclusion criteria
ALF was defined according to the following criteria: a) HE of any degree, b) evidence of coagulopathy with international normalized ratio (INR) ≥ 1.5, c) acute illness onset <26 weeks, and d) no evidence of cirrhosis14. Patients were considered to have HBV-associated ALF when serological testing for HBsAg and/or IgM anti-HBc were positive2. HBV-associated ALF due to immunosuppression was defined in the setting of clinical or serological evidence of HBV-associated ALF (reactivation) and a history of immunosuppressive treatment9. The MELD score is described elsewhere, has been applied previously to predict outcomes of ALF patients15–17. The King’s College criteria (KCC) have been widely used for prognostication in ALF and to determine which patients will most likely benefit from emergent LT18. The non-acetaminophen-induced ALF criteria were used in this analysis19.
Outcomes
The exposure of interest in the study was exposure to chemotherapy or immunosuppression. The primary outcome was defined as TFS at 21 days post-study enrollment as this was thought to better depict the clinical course of Hepatitis B-associated ALF after immunosuppression, given that it does not take into account the effect of LT. Secondary outcomes were LT rate and overall survival at 21 days post study enrollment.
Statistical analysis
Categorical variables were presented as proportions while comparisons were performed using the Chi-square or Fisher’s exact test where appropriate (< 5 cases). Continuous variables are presented as medians with inter-quartile ranges (IQR). Univariate comparisons were performed using the Kruskall-Wallis test. Statistical significance was defined as a p value < 0.05 for all comparisons. Multivariate analysis was performed with logistic regression. Covariates initially considered for modeling were chosen based on clinical relevance or a p<0.10 on univariate comparisons. Collinearity was determined and avoided where appropriate. Final model performance was assessed by c-statistic. All statistical analysis were done using SAS-STAT software, Version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina, US).
RESULTS
Baseline characteristics of HBV-ALF patients
A total of 156 consecutive patients with HBV-associated ALF were identified in the US-ALFSG registry for the period of time considered. There were 28 (17.9%) patients with Hepatitis B-associated ALF after immunosuppression and 128 (82.1%) were HBV-associated ALF controls. Of the 28 Hepatitis B-associated ALF after immunosuppression, complete listing of HBV serologies, diagnoses (e.g. malignancy) and immunosuppressant therapy (chemotherapy, corticosteroids, etc.) are listed in Table 1. Within this subgroup, 15 patients received systemic corticosteroids as part of therapy, while 21 patients received chemotherapy. Twenty two patients had solid or blood malignancy.
TABLE 1.
Case | Medications | Diagnosis | Cancer | Chemo | Anti-CD20/33 | Steroids | +HBs Ag | Prior +HBsAg | +Anti-HBc | +HBV DNA | Listed for LT | Received LT | Spontaneous Survivor? |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Prednisone | Autoimmune (CREST syndrome) | NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | · | YES | YES | NO | NO | NO |
2 | Chemotherapy (specific drugs not specified) | Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma | YES | YES | Unknown | Unknown | YES | · | · | · | NO | NO | YES |
3 | Chemotherapy (specific drugs not specified) | Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma | YES | YES | Unknown | Unknown | YES | · | YES | YES | YES | YES | NO |
4 | Chemotherapy (specific drugs not specified) | Breast Cancer | YES | YES | Unknown | Unknown | YES | · | YES | · | YES | YES | NO |
5 | Prednisone, tacrolimus | Stem Cell Transplant for AML, GVHD | NO | NO | NO | YES | YES | · | YES | YES | NO | NO | YES |
6 | Gemtuzimab | Acute myelogenous leukemia | YES | YES | YES | NO | YES | · | YES | YES | NO | NO | NO |
7 | Prednisone | Chronic lung disease | NO | NO | NO | YES | YES | · | YES | · | YES | NO | NO |
8 | CHOP | Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma | YES | YES | NO | YES | YES | · | · | YES | YES | NO | NO |
9 | Methylprednisone | Autoimmune disorder | NO | NO | NO | YES | YES | · | YES | · | YES | NO | NO |
10 | Prednisone, mycophenolate mofetil, IVIg | Guillane Barre | NO | YES | NO | YES | YES | · | YES | YES | YES | YES | NO |
11 | Prednisone | CLL/hemolytic anemia | YES | NO | NO | YES | YES | · | YES | YES | NO | NO | NO |
12 | Hydroxyu rea | Chronic lymphocytic leukemia | YES | YES | NO | NO | YES | · | YES | NO | YES | NO | YES |
13 | Bleomycin | Metastatic testicular cancer | YES | YES | NO | NO | YES | · | YES | YES | NO | NO | YES |
14 | Paclitaxel, bevacizumab, prednisone | Breast Cancer | YES | YES | NO | YES | · | · | · | YES | NO | NO | YES |
15 | Steroids (specific drugs not specified) | Autoimmune hemolytic anemia | NO | NO | NO | YES | NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | NO |
16 | Chemotherapy (specific drugs not specified) | Diffuse large b-cell lymphoma | YES | YES | Unknown | Unknown | YES | YES | YES | YES | NO | NO | NO |
17 | Docetaxel, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, trastuzumab, dexamethasone | Breast cancer | YES | YES | NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | NO |
18 | Rituximab-CHOP | Diffuse large b-cell lymphoma | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | NO |
19 | Linalidomide, Bortezomib | Multiple myeloma | YES | YES | NO | NO | YES | NO | YES | YES | NO | NO | NO |
20 | Dexamethasone, doxorubicin, cyclophosphomide, paclitaxel | Breast Cancer | YES | YES | NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | NO |
21 | Chemotherapy (specific drugs not specified) | CLL/lymphoma | YES | YES | Unknown | Unknown | YES | YES | YES | YES | NO | NO | NO |
22 | Bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, prednisone, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine | Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma | YES | YES | NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | · | · | · | NO |
23 | Cisplatin, etopiside, bleomycin | Testicular cancer | YES | YES | NO | NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | NO | NO | NO |
24 | Rituximab-CHOP | Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | NO | · | · | NO | NO | YES |
25 | Rituximab-CHOP, IVIg | Diffuse large b-cell lymphoma | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | NO | YES | YES | · | · | NO |
26 | Chemotherapy (specific drugs not specified) | Chronic lymphocytic leukemia | YES | YES | Unknown | Unknown | YES | YES | YES | YES | NO | NO | NO |
27 | Rituximab | Chronic lymphocytic leukemia | YES | NO | YES | NO | NO | NO | · | YES | NO | NO | NO |
28 | Methotrexate, rituximab, temozolomide | CNS lymphoma | YES | YES | YES | NO | YES | NO | YES | · | NO | NO | NO |
AML ~ Acute myelogenous Leukemia, Anti-HBc: hepatitis B virus core antibody. Anti-HBs: hepatitis B virus surface antibody, CHOP ~ cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, prednisone; CLL ~ Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia, CNS ~ Central Nervous System, GVHD ~ Graft vs. host disease, HBsAg: hepatitis B virus surface antigen. HBV-DNA: hepatitis B virus deoxyribonucleic acid, IVIg ~ Intravenous immunoglobulin
Table 2 summarizes the baseline characteristics of all patients with HBV-associated ALF included stratified by group: HBV-associated ALF after immunosuppressive therapy vs. controls. Immunosuppressed patients were significantly older (51.5 vs. 41.0 years, P = 0.0014), more often non-white and non-African-American (50.0% vs. 14.1%, P = 0.0001) and had lower levels of platelets (118 vs. 165 ×109/L, P <0.0001) at admission in comparison to controls. Significantly more patients in the Immunosuppressed group were previously identified (prior to the index hospital admission, available in 53 patients) as being HBsAg positive (64.3% vs. 15.4%, P = 0.0005). HBV serological profile (see Table 2) for the index hospital admission was similar between groups (P >0.17 for all comparisons) with the exception that significantly less HBV-associated ALF after immunosuppressive therapy patients were Anti-HBc IgM positive (42.9% vs. 51.6%, p < 0.0001).
TABLE 2.
HBV-associated ALF due to Immunosuppression (N = 28) | Controls (N = 128) | P | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | N (%) or median (IQR) | N | N (%) or median (IQR) | ||
Age | 28 | 51.5 (40.0–60.0) | 128 | 41.0 (30.5–53.0) | 0.0014 |
Sex (female) | 28 | 12 (42.9%) | 128 | 62 (48.4%) | 0.59 |
Race | 28 | 128 | 0.0001 | ||
White | 10 (35.7%) | 73 (57.0%) | |||
African-american | 4 (14.3%) | 37 (28.9%) | |||
Other | 14 (50.0%) | 18 (14.1%) | |||
Blood biochemistry (admission) | |||||
Hemoglobin (g/dL) | 27 | 11.0 (9.8–12.4) | 124 | 12.1 (10.8–13.6) | 0.019 |
White blood cells (109/L) | 27 | 7.6 (5.4–12.3) | 124 | 9.3 (7.1–12.3) | 0.14 |
Platelets (109/L) | 26 | 117.5 (70.0–152.0) | 122 | 165.0 (125.0–226.0) | <0.0001 |
INR | 27 | 3.2 (2.4–6.1) | 121 | 2.8 (2.1–5.3) | 0.37 |
Bilirubin (mg/dL) | 27 | 19.2 (13.4–22.9) | 125 | 18.4 (10.4–25.2) | 0.80 |
ALT (IU/L) | 26 | 1852.0 (701.0–2926.0) | 125 | 1671.0 (670.0–3244.0) | 0.95 |
Creatinine (mg/dL) | 27 | 0.9 (0.6–1.1) | 126 | 1.1 (0.7–2.0) | 0.059 |
Lactate (mmol/L) | 10 | 3.6 (2.3–5.2) | 43 | 4.6 (2.6–6.3) | 0.39 |
MELD (admission) | 27 | 34.0 (28.6–43.9) | 118 | 34.5 (28.1–42.7) | 0.94 |
Hepatic encephalopathy* (first 7 days) | |||||
Grade III/IV | 20 | 14 (60.0%) | 106 | 70 (66.0%) | 0.92 |
King’s College criteria** (admission) | 27 | 9 (33.3%) | 121 | 43 (35.5%) | 0.83 |
Organ support (first 7 days) | |||||
Mechanical ventilation | 28 | 12 (42.9%) | 128 | 66 (51.6%) | 0.40 |
Vasopressors | 28 | 8 (28.6%) | 128 | 29 (22.7%) | 0.51 |
Renal replacement therapy | 28 | 6 (21.4%) | 128 | 18 (14.1%) | 0.33 |
Hepatitis B serology (admission) | |||||
Positive HBsAg | 28 | 24 (85.7%) | 127 | 108 (85.0%) | 0.17 |
Prior positive HbsAg | 14 | 9 (64.3%) | 39 | 6 (15.4%) | 0.0005 |
Positive Anti-HBc (total) | 28 | 24 (85.7%) | 128 | 123 (96.1%) | 0.055 |
Positive Anti-HBc (IgM) | 28 | 12 (42.9%) | 125 | 107 (85.6%) | <0.0001 |
Positive Anti-HBs | 27 | 6 (22.2%) | 128 | 37 (28.9%) | 0.12 |
Positive HBV-DNA | 26 | 18 (69.2%) | 122 | 78 (63.9%) | 0.82 |
HBV-DNA (copies/mL) | 10 | 188704 (61075–116569367) | 28 | 110020 (307–1059273) | 0.35 |
Positive Anti-HDV | 28 | 1 (3.6%) | 123 | 1 (0.8%) | 0.48 |
Nucleoside therapy (admission) | 28 | 12 (43%) | 128 | 36 (28%) | 0.17 |
Lamivudine | 5 | 29 | |||
Entecavir | 2 | 5 | |||
Tenofovir | 5 | 2 | |||
Adefovir | 0 | 2 | |||
N-acetyl-cysteine (first 7 days) | 28 | 7 (25.0%) | 128 | 39 (30.5%) | 0.57 |
ICP therapies (first 7 days) | |||||
ICP monitor | 26 | 1 (3.9%) | 119 | 13 (10.9%) | 0.27 |
Mannitol | 28 | 2 (7.1%) | 128 | 17 (13.3%) | 0.37 |
Hypertonic saline | 28 | 0 (0.0%) | 128 | 6 (4.7%) | 0.24 |
Hypothermia | 28 | 0 (0.0%) | 128 | 3 (2.3%) | 0.41 |
Complications (first 7 days) | |||||
Seizures | 28 | 0 (0.0%) | 128 | 2 (1.6%) | 0.50 |
Gastro-intestinal bleeding | 28 | 1 (3.6%) | 128 | 7 (5.5%) | 0.68 |
Blood infection | 28 | 1 (3.6%) | 128 | 7 (5.5%) | 0.68 |
Outcomes (first 21 days) | |||||
Waitlisted for transplant | 26 | 11 (42.3%) | 127 | 60 (47.2%) | 0.65 |
Transplanted | 28 | 7 (25.0%) | 128 | 45 (35.2%) | 0.40 |
Overall survival | 28 | 12 (42.9%) | 128 | 80 (62.5%) | 0.0096 |
Spontaneous survival | 28 | 6 (21.4%) | 121 | 46 (38.0%) | 0.097 |
Cause of death*** | 16 | 31 | 0.85 | ||
Hepatic failure | 6 (37.5%) | 9 (29.0%) | |||
Multiorgan failure | 7 (43.8%) | 11 (35.5%) | |||
Septic shock | 1 (6.3%) | 4 (12.9%) | |||
Neurological event | 2 (12.5%) | 5 (16.1%) | |||
Intraoperative | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (3.2%) | |||
Cardiac event | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (3.2%) |
N: frequency. IQR: interquartile range. INR: international normalized ratio. AST: aspartate aminotransferase. ALT: alanine aminotransferase. MELD: Model for End-stage Liver Disease. HBsAg: hepatitis B virus surface antigen. Anti-HBc: hepatitis B virus core antibody. Anti-HBs: hepatitis B virus surface antibody. HBV-DNA: hepatitis B virus deoxyribonucleic acid. Anti-HDV: hepatitis D virus antibody. ICP: intracranial pressure.
Hepatic encephalopathy evaluated according to West-Haven criteria.
King’s College criteria for non-acetaminophen acute liver failure [10].
n=16 deaths in the IMX-HBV-ALF group and n=48 in the control group. Causes of death in 17 control patients were unavailable.
Overall and TFS at 21 days following hospital admission for all HBV-associated ALF patients in the overall cohort were 59.0% and 34.9%, respectively. On unadjusted (crude) analysis, HBV-associated ALF after immunosuppressive therapy patients had significantly decreased overall 21-day survival (42.9% vs. 62.5%, P = 0.0096) compared with controls. There was evidence of decreased unadjusted TFS at 21 days for immunosuppressed patients (21.4% vs. 38.0%, P = 0.097), although this was not statistically significant. The proportion of HBV-associated ALF patients in the overall cohort who were listed for and who received LT during the 21-day study period were 46.4% and 33.3% (72.3% of the waitlisted patients), respectively. Rates of listing and receipt of LT were similar between groups (Table 2, P >0.4 for both comparisons). Of the 7 HBV-associated ALF after immunosuppressive therapy patients who underwent LT, 3 patients were treated with chemotherapy for breast cancer, 2 for lymphoma, one patients had been treated with steroids for Guillane Barre syndrome and one with steroids for autoimmune hemolytic anemia (Table 1).
Transplant-free survival at 21 days post-study enrollment
Amongst the 156 patients with HBV-associated ALF initially included, 149 (95.5%) had available data on the primary outcome and were therefore considered for this analysis. Table 3 summarizes the baseline characteristics of these patients stratified by outcome at 21 days post- study enrollment: TFS vs. LT or death. Fifty-two (34.9%) patients spontaneously survived and 97 (65.1%) patients either underwent LT or died.
TABLE 3.
Transplant free survival (N = 52) | Death or transplant (N = 97) | P | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | N (%) or median (IQR) | N | N (%) or median (IQR) | ||
Age | 52 | 45.0 (34.0–53.0) | 97 | 42.0 (36.0–55.0) | 0.72 |
Sex (female) | 52 | 31 (59.6%) | 97 | 43 (44.3%) | 0.38 |
Race | 52 | 97 | 0.77 | ||
White | 27 (51.9%) | 51 (52.6%) | |||
African-American | 16 (30.7%) | 25 (25.8%) | |||
Other | 9 (17.7%) | 21 (21.7%) | |||
Blood biochemistry (admission) | |||||
Hemoglobin (g/dL) | 49 | 11.9 (10.8–13.1) | 95 | 11.6 (10.4–13.2) | 0.95 |
White blood cells (109/L) | 49 | 8.3 (5.9–11.8) | 95 | 10.0 (7.4–13.8) | 0.019 |
Platelets (109/L) | 49 | 157.0 (120.0–218.0) | 92 | 144.5 (115.0–206.0) | 0.33 |
INR | 49 | 2.2 (2.0–2.9) | 91 | 3.9 (2.5–7.1) | <0.0001 |
Bilirubin (mg/dL) | 50 | 18.1 (10.6–24.7) | 94 | 19.4 (10.5–25.2) | 0.61 |
ALT (IU/L) | 50 | 1469.0 (697.0–2857.0) | 93 | 1768.0 (634.0–3338.0) | 0.66 |
Creatinine (mg/dL) | 51 | 1.0 (0.7–1.7) | 95 | 1.1 (0.8–2.1) | 0.19 |
Phosphate (mg/dL) | 41 | 3.0 (2.7–4.1) | 82 | 3.0 (2.2–5.0) | 0.76 |
pH | 16 | 7.4 (7.4–7.5) | 67 | 7.5 (7.4–7.5) | 0.014 |
Lactate (mmol/L) | 13 | 2.8 (2.2–5.2) | 39 | 4.6 (2.8–6.3) | 0.17 |
Ammonia (venous) μmol/L) | 15 | 98.0 (65.0–108.0) | 38 | 95.0 (58.0–169.0) | 0.42 |
MELD (admission) | 48 | 30.1 (25.5–35.3) | 90 | 40.7 (32.0–46.7) | <0.0001 |
Hepatic encephalopathy* (first 7 days) | |||||
Grade III/IV | 31 | 11 (35.5%) | 90 | 71 (78.9%) | <0.0001 |
King’s College criteria** (admission) | 49 | 10 (20.4%) | 91 | 42 (46.2%) | 0.0026 |
Organ support (first 7 days) | |||||
Mechanical ventilation | 51 | 11 (21.6%) | 97 | 65 (67.0%) | <0.0001 |
Vasopressors | 50 | 5 (10.0%) | 97 | 31 (32.0%) | 0.014 |
Renal replacement therapy | 51 | 1 (2.0%) | 97 | 23 (23.7%) | 0.0008 |
Immunosuppression | 52 | 6 (11.5%) | 97 | 22 (22.7%) | 0.097 |
Hepatitis B serology (admission) | |||||
Positive HBsAg | 51 | 42 (82.4%) | 96 | 83 (86.5%) | 0.71 |
Prior positive HBsAg | 21 | 3 (14.3%) | 29 | 11 (37.9%) | 0.066 |
Positive Anti-HBc (total) | 52 | 49 (94.2%) | 97 | 92 (94.9%) | 1.0 |
Positive Anti-HBc (IgM) | 49 | 43 (87.8%) | 95 | 69 (72.6%) | 0.11 |
Positive Anti-HBs | 51 | 19 (37.3%) | 96 | 24 (25.0%) | 0.17 |
Positive HBV DNA | 50 | 37 (74.0%) | 90 | 56 (62.2%) | 0.34 |
HBV-DNA (copies/mL) | 14 | 7286 (105–1112318) | 21 | 286607 (61075–2690000) | 0.13 |
Positive Anti-HDV | 49 | 1 (2.0%) | 94 | 1 (1.1%) | 0.82 |
Nucleoside therapy (admission) | 52 | 12 (23%) | 97 | 35 (36%) | 0.14 |
N-acetyl-cysteine (first 7 days) | 51 | 15 (29.4%) | 97 | 29 (29.9%) | 0.99 |
ICP therapies (first 7 days) | |||||
ICP monitor | 50 | 2 (4.0%) | 88 | 11 (12.5%) | 0.10 |
Mannitol | 51 | 3 (5.9%) | 97 | 15 (16.5%) | 0.061 |
Hypertonic saline | 51 | 1 (2.0%) | 97 | 5 (5.2%) | 0.33 |
Hypothermia | 51 | 1 (2.0%) | 97 | 2 (2.1%) | 0.95 |
Blood products (first 7 days) | |||||
Fresh frozen plasma | 51 | 4 (7.8%) | 97 | 51 (52.6%) | <0.0001 |
Recombinant Vila factor | 51 | 0 (0.0%) | 97 | 2 (2.1%) | 0.29 |
Platelets | 51 | 1 (2.0%) | 97 | 6 (6.2%) | 0.24 |
Red-blood cells | 50 | 2 (4.0%) | 97 | 8 (8.3%) | 0.33 |
Complications (first 7 days) | |||||
Seizures | 51 | 0 (0.0%) | 97 | 2 (2.1%) | 0.29 |
Gastro-intestinal bleeding | 51 | 0 (0.0%) | 97 | 8 (8.3%) | 0.033 |
Blood infection | 50 | 2 (4.0%) | 97 | 6 (6.2%) | 0.58 |
ARDS | 51 | 1 (2.0%) | 97 | 2 (2.1%) | 0.95 |
See Table 2 legend for abbreviations
TFS patients had significantly lower INR (2.2 vs. 3.9) and MELD score (30.1 vs. 40.7, p <0.0001 for both) at admission than deceased/transplanted HBV-ALF patients. TFS patients had fewer extra-hepatic organ failures during the first seven days post-study enrollment, including grade III-IV HE (35.5% vs. 78.9%, P <0.0001), need for mechanical ventilation (21.6% vs. 67.0%, P <0.0001), vasopressor support (10.0% vs. 32.0%, P = 0.014), and renal replacement therapy (2.0% vs. 23.7%, P = 0.0008). TFS patients fulfilled KCC significantly less often (20.4% vs. 46.2%, P = 0.0026).
Multivariable analysis: Independent associations with 21-day transplant free survival
After performing logistic regression analysis, the best final model for spontaneous survival at 21 days post-study enrollment for all patients with HBV-associated ALF included 3 independent covariates (see Table 4). These were MELD (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) per unit increment = 0.894), mechanical ventilation (aOR = 0.111), and immunosuppression (aOR = 0.274) that were independently associated with primary outcome. The model performed well with a c-statistic of 0.866.
Table 4.
OR | Unadjusted 95% CI | P | OR | Adjusted 95% CI | P | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MELD | 0.878 | 0.833–0.926 | <0.0001 | 0.894 | 0.842–0.949 | 0.0003 |
Mechanical ventilation | 0.103 | 0.045–0.237 | <0.0001 | 0.111 | 0.041–0.300 | <0.0001 |
Immunosuppression | 0.445 | 0.168–1.178 | 0.1031 | 0.274 | 0.082–0.923 | 0.0366 |
OR: odds-ratio. CI: confidence interval. MELD: Model for End-stage Liver Disease. IMX-HBV-ALF: immunosuppression-related hepatitis B virus-related acute liver failure.
Model’s properties: N = 139; spontaneous survivors = 49 (35.3%); c-statistic = 0.866.
DISCUSSION
Key results and comparison with literature
Using a large North American cohort of HBV-associated ALF patients, we found that HBV-associated ALF after immunosuppressive therapy accounted for approximately one fifth of overall HBV-ALF cases enrolled in the ALFSG registry. This analysis demonstrated that immunosuppressed patients significantly differed from the other patients with HBV-associated ALF in being older, more often non-white and non-African-American, and were more frequently anemic and thrombocytopenic. Cytopenias may be related to these patients’ underlying conditions (auto-immune diseases or cancer) as well as immunosuppressive treatments resulting in bone marrow toxicity 20, 21. The HBV serological profiles for the index hospital admission were similar between immunosuppressed patients and controls with the exception of Anti-HBc IgM (higher in HBV-ALF controls). A recent study dedicated to evaluating differences in the HBV serological profile between new onset and reactivation-related HBV-associated ALF (all causes considered) demonstrated that high IgM anti-HBc titers and low HBV viral loads were characteristic of the new onset (acute hepatitis B) subgroup, whereas the opposite was true for the reactivation-related subgroup9. In our study we did not find a significant difference in the HBV viral loads between patients with HBV-associated ALF due to immunosuppression and controls and we did not have data on the IgM anti-HBc titers available. Nevertheless, while features of the HBV serological profile may be a surrogate for the immune response to the virus and help to distinguish between newly-onset and reactivation-related HBV-associated ALF 9, it remains unclear whether they have a direct prognostic value.
In terms of outcomes, we showed that HBV-associated ALF overall frequently showed a poor short-term prognosis, with only about one third of patients spontaneously surviving at 21 days post-study enrollment. Approximately one third of all patients underwent LT during this period. It has been previously reported elsewhere that patients with HBV-associated ALF demonstrate worse outcomes than other ALF etiologies 22, 23.
Despite severity of organ dysfunction being similar, patients with HBV-associated ALF after immunosuppressive therapy had significantly worse (unadjusted) overall 21-day survival compared with controls. Given that the LT rate was similar between both groups (5 patients that received LT had known treated malignancy), we sought to determine which covariates most influenced TFS at 21 days post- study enrollment for the entire cohort. In the univariate (unadjusted) analysis, we showed that the overall characteristics of the TFS group at 21 days post-study enrollment differed from patients who underwent LT or died in demonstrating less severe organ failures (requirement for mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, or renal replacement therapy), lower MELD scores and less frequently demonstrating high grade (III-IV) hepatic encephalopathy. These findings are in keeping with previous reports stating that the prognosis of patients with ALF largely depends on the severity of organ failures that ensues 24, 25
In the adjusted analysis, we found 3 factors that were independently associated with TFS at 21 days post-hospital admission for patients with HBV-associated ALF: MELD, mechanical ventilation, and receipt of immunosuppressive therapy. Of note, the prognostic ability of this model was deemed robust as c-statistic was 0.866. The predictive value of MELD and mechanical ventilation quantified in the final model reinforces the argument that the severity of hepatic failure (INR and bilirubin as part of MELD) and extra-hepatic organ failures, namely renal (creatinine as part of MELD), respiratory and neurological (mechanical ventilation may have been needed both for respiratory failure per se or due to coma) failures, are likely crucial for the short-term prognosis of patients with HBV-associated ALF. Two recent publications have emphasized the good prognostic ability of MELD in the setting of non-acetaminophen ALF16, 26
We demonstrated that receipt of immunosuppression was independently associated with lower spontaneous survival at 21 days in HBV-associated ALF. Potential explanations for this include a higher rate of prior/underlying liver disease correlating with chronic hepatitis B infection. While pre-hospital admission serology was known in only 53 patients, a higher percentage of immunosuppressed patients demonstrated a prior history of being HBsAg positive (9/14 ~ 64.3% vs. 6/39 ~ 15.4%, p=0.0005). This could potentially suggest that immunosuppressed patients had less hepatic reserve despite similar hepatic synthetic parameters at presentation. These patients may have other reasons that predispose them to reactivation. In a recent study, 76% of patients with immune suppression-related reactivation of a chronic HBV infection carried HBsAg mutations localized in the immune-active HBsAg regions8. These HBVsAg mutations are thought to potentiate the virus’ ability to evade the immune system which might be deleterious by possibly contributing to the development of ALF. Finally, immunosuppressive therapy, particularly cytotoxic cancer chemotherapy could potentially also interfere with hepatic regeneration.
According to our findings, HBV-associated ALF after immunosuppressive therapy has a poor prognosis emphasizing once more that clinicians need to initiate appropriate screening and preventive strategies prior to use of chemo- or immunotherapies, particularly in high risk populations (prolonged steroids > 4 weeks/anthracycline/anti-CD 20 use)5. Medical societies worldwide have produced guidelines on the theme and, despite some differences as to which patients should be prioritized for screening for HBV infection, they all agree that patients at high risk for immunosuppression-related reactivation of chronic HBV infection should be screened before starting immunosuppressive treatments24, 27. In a recent metaanalysis, Paul and colleagues demonstrated that prophylaxis significantly reduced rates of reactivation (OR 0.12) and HBV-related hepatitis (OR 0.18)6. Institutional protocols such as this may represent a decisive step forward in the prevention of IMX-HBV-ALF.
Limitations
This study has limitations that warrant consideration. First, as this was a cohort from North America, a region known to be non-endemic for HBV infection, our findings may be difficult to generalize to endemic areas of HBV infection. We also did not have complete data on prior HBsAg status (chronic carrier status) nor data on Anti-HBc IgM titers. Second, supportive therapeutic approaches to ALF and criteria for LT not only have been evolving over time but also may be center dependent although a centre effect could not be identified on multivariable analysis (P= 0.6, data not shown). Third, although this was a large multicenter cohort where patients were prospectively enrolled into the registry, the retrospective nature of this study analysis implies that we can only comment on associations between covariates examined and not causation. Finally, rates of transplant in immunosuppressed patients were likely impacted by the fact that the majority of patients had underlying malignancy which could have precluded listing for LT. Nonetheless, this analysis was based on the largest Northern American cohort of HBV-associated ALF patients. In being a rare but potentially devastating disease, findings determined in the analysis raise an important public health issue.
Conclusion
In conclusion, HBV-associated ALF due to immunosuppression/chemotherapy represents approximately one fifth of all HBV-associated ALF patients in the US ALFSG registry. Only one fifth of immunosuppressed patients were alive at 21 days post-hospital admission in the absence of LT. Independent factors associated with TFS for patients in HBV-associated ALF were MELD, mechanical ventilation, and use of immunosuppression/chemotherapy. Taking into account the poor prognosis of patients with HBV-associated ALF due to immunosuppression and possible contra-indications for LT, this represents a significant public health issue where preventive strategies need to be reinforced.
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgements:
Members and institutions participating in the Acute Liver Failure Study Group 1998–2015 are as follows: W.M. Lee, M.D. (Principal Investigator); Anne M. Larson, M.D., Iris Liou, M.D., University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Oren Fix, M.D., Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, WA; Michael Schilsky, M.D., Yale University, New Haven, CT; Timothy McCashland, M.D., University of Nebraska, Omaha, NE; J. Eileen Hay, M.B.B.S., Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Natalie Murray, M.D., Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, TX; A. Obaid S. Shaikh, M.D., University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA; Andres Blei, M.D., Northwestern University, Chicago, IL (deceased), Daniel Ganger, M.D., Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Atif Zaman, M.D., University of Oregon, Portland, OR; Steven H.B. Han, M.D., University of California, Los Angeles, CA; Robert Fontana, M.D., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Brendan McGuire, M.D., University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL; Raymond T Chung, M.D., Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Alastair Smith, M.B., Ch.B., Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Robert Brown, M.D., Cornell/Columbia University, New York, NY; Jeffrey Crippin, M.D., Washington University, St Louis, MO; Edwin Harrison, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Adrian Reuben, M.B.B.S., Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC; Santiago Munoz, M.D., Albert Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA; Rajender Reddy, M.D., University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; R. Todd Stravitz, M.D., Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; Lorenzo Rossaro, M.D., University of California Davis, Sacramento, CA; Raj Satyanarayana, M.D., Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; and Tarek Hassanein, M.D., University of California, San Diego, CA; Constantine J. Karvellas MD, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB; Jodi Olson MD, University of Kansas, Kansas City, KA; Ram Subramanian MD, Emory, Atlanta, GA; James Hanje MD, Ohio State University, Columbus,OH. The University of Texas Southwestern Administrative Group included Grace Samuel, Ezmina Lalani, Carla Pezzia, and Corron Sanders, Ph.D., Nahid Attar, Linda S. Hynan, Ph.D., and the Medical University of South Carolina Data Coordination Unit included Valerie Durkalski, Ph.D., Wenle Zhao, Ph.D., Jaime Speiser, Catherine Dillon, Holly Battenhouse and Michelle Gottfried
Financial support: The study was sponsored by NIH grant U-01 58369 (from NIDDK).
List of Abbreviations
- ALF
Acute Liver Failure
- ALFSG
Acute Liver Failure Study Group
- Anti-HBc (IgM)
Anti-Hepatitis B core antibody (IgM if indicated)
- HBsAg
Hepatitis B Surface antigen
- HBV
Hepatitis B
- HE
Hepatic Encephalopathy
- ICU
Intensive Care Unit
- INR
International normalized ratio
- IQR
Interquartile range
- KCC
King’s College Criteria
- LT
Liver transplantation
- MELD
Model for End-stage Liver Disease
- OR
Odds Ratio
- TFS
Transplant-free survival
Footnotes
Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Disclosures/Conflict of interest:
All authors (CK, FSC, MG, KRR, AJH, DG, WML) have no personal or funding conflicts of interest.
Format: This paper followed the STROBE guideline for reporting cohort studies (BMJ 2007): See Supplementary File #1.
REFERENCES
- 1.Fontana RJ, Ellerbe C, Durkalski VE, et al. Two-year outcomes in initial survivors with acute liver failure: results from a prospective, multicentre study. Liver Int. 2015;35(2):370–80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Teo EK, Ostapowicz G, Hussain M, et al. Hepatitis B infection in patients with acute liver failure in the United States. Hepatology. 2001;33(4):972–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Hoofnagle JH. Reactivation of hepatitis B. Hepatology. 2009;49(5 Suppl):S156–65. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Reddy KR, Beavers KL, Hammond SP, et al. American Gastroenterological Association Institute guideline on the prevention and treatment of hepatitis B virus reactivation during immunosuppressive drug therapy. Gastroenterology. 2015;148(1):215–9; quiz e16–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Perrillo RP, Gish R, Falck-Ytter YT. American Gastroenterological Association Institute technical review on prevention and treatment of hepatitis B virus reactivation during immunosuppressive drug therapy. Gastroenterology. 2015;148(1):221–44 e3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Paul S, Saxena A, Terrin N, et al. Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation and Prophylaxis During Solid Tumor Chemotherapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(1):30–40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Loomba R, Rowley A, Wesley R, et al. Systematic review: the effect of preventive lamivudine on hepatitis B reactivation during chemotherapy. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(7):519–28. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Salpini R, Colagrossi L, Bellocchi MC, et al. Hepatitis B surface antigen genetic elements critical for immune escape correlate with hepatitis B virus reactivation upon immunosuppression. Hepatology. 2015;61(3):823–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Dao DY, Hynan LS, Yuan HJ, et al. Two distinct subtypes of hepatitis B virus-related acute liver failure are separable by quantitative serum immunoglobulin M anti-hepatitis B core antibody and hepatitis B virus DNA levels. Hepatology. 2012;55(3):676–84. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Di Bisceglie AM, Lok AS, Martin P, et al. Recent US Food and Drug Administration warnings on hepatitis B reactivation with immune-suppressing and anticancer drugs: just the tip of the iceberg? Hepatology. 2015;61(2):703–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Yang PL, Althage A, Chung J, et al. Immune effectors required for hepatitis B virus clearance. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107(2):798–802. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Ostapowicz G, Fontana RJ, Schiodt FV, et al. Results of a prospective study of acute liver failure at 17 tertiary care centers in the United States. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(12):947–54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Association WM. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Polson J, Lee WM, American Association for the Study of Liver D. AASLD position paper: the management of acute liver failure. Hepatology. 2005;41(5): 1179–97. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Yantorno SE, Kremers WK, Ruf AE, et al. MELD is superior to King’s college and Clichy’s criteria to assess prognosis in fulminant hepatic failure. Liver Transpl. 2007;13(6):822–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Speiser JL, Lee WM, Karvellas CJ, et al. Predicting outcome on admission and postadmission for acetaminophen-induced acute liver failure using classification and regression tree models. PLoS One. 2015;10(4):e0122929. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Kamath PS, Wiesner RH, Malinchoc M, et al. A model to predict survival in patients with end-stage liver disease. Hepatology. 2001;33(2):464–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.O’Grady JG. Prognostication in acute liver failure: a tool or an anchor? Liver Transpl. 2007;13(6):786–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.O’Grady JG, Alexander GJ, Hayllar KM, et al. Early indicators of prognosis in fulminant hepatic failure. Gastroenterology. 1989;97(2):439–45. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Devitt KA, Lunde JH, Lewis MR. New onset pancytopenia in adults: a review of underlying pathologies and their associated clinical and laboratory findings. Leuk Lymphoma. 2014;55(5): 1099–105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Strati P, Wierda W, Burger J, et al. Myelosuppression after frontline fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia: analysis of persistent and new-onset cytopenia. Cancer. 2013;119(21):3805–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Bernal W, Lee WM, Wendon J, et al. Acute liver failure: A curable disease by 2024? J Hepatol. 2015;62(1 Suppl):S112–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Park SJ, Lim YS, Hwang S, et al. Emergency adult-to-adult living-donor liver transplantation for acute liver failure in a hepatitis B virus endemic area. Hepatology. 2010;51 (3):903–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Reddy KR, Ellerbe C, Schilsky M, et al. Determinants of outcome among patients with acute liver failure listed for liver transplantation in the United States. Liver Transpl. 2016;22(4):505–15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Urrunaga NH, Magder LS, Weir MR, et al. Prevalence, Severity, and Impact of Renal Dysfunction in Acute Liver Failure on the US Liver Transplant Waiting List. Dig Dis Sci. 2016;61 (1):309–16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.McPhail MJ, Farne H, Senvar N, et al. Ability of King’s College Criteria and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Scores to Predict Mortality of Patients With Acute Liver Failure: A Meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14(4):516–25 e5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.European Association For The Study Of The L. EASL clinical practice guidelines: Management of chronic hepatitis B virus infection. J Hepatol. 2012;57(1):167–85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.