ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences2026
Hepatitis-B virus reactivation during Immunosuppressive therapy: Clinical observations from a tertiary care center.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study evaluated the incidence of hepatitis-B virus reactivation (HBVr) in patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy and examined the association between anti-HBs titers and reactivation risk in routine clinical practice. Methodology: This retrospective study was conducted at Duzce University Faculty of Medicine Hospital between 2017 and 2020. Adult patients (≥18 years) receiving immunosuppressive therapy and monitored for HBVr were included. A total of 166 patients who were either HBsAg (+) or HBsAg (-) with anti-HBc positivity were analyzed. Demographic and clinical characteristics, type of immunosuppressive therapy, antiviral prophylaxis use, HBV serological markers, HBV DNA levels, and HBVr episodes were obtained from medical records. Patients were categorized into three groups based on their serological status and prophylaxis use: HBsAg (-) / anti-HBc (+) patients not receiving antiviral prophylaxis constituted Group-1 (n=104), HBsAg (-) / anti-HBc (+) patients receiving antiviral prophylaxis constituted Group-2 (n=46), and HBsAg (+) patients receiving antiviral prophylaxis constituted Group-3 (n=16). Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 22.0, with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant. Results: The mean age of the cohort was 54 ± 12.7 years, and 42.1% were male. Most patients were HBsAg (-) / anti-HBc (+) (90.4%), while 9.6% were HBsAg (+). Antiviral prophylaxis was administered to 37.3% of patients. HBVr occurred in 17.3% of HBsAg (-) / anti-HBc (+) patients without prophylaxis and was significantly more frequent in those with anti-HBs titers <100 mIU/mL than in those with titers ≥100 mIU/mL (p = 0.049). Among HBsAg (-) / anti-HBc (+) patients receiving prophylaxis, HBVr was observed in 8.7%. Only one HBVr episode occurred among HBsAg (+) patients receiving prophylaxis. Conclusion: HBVr risk during immunosuppressive therapy is shaped by HBsAg status, antiviral prophylaxis, and anti-HBs titers. Prophylaxis markedly reduces risk, while anti-HBs titers ≥100 mIU/mL provide additional protection and may guide individualized prophylaxis strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.