Published online Sep 21, 2015. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i35.10251
Peer-review started: March 4, 2015
First decision: April 13, 2015
Revised: April 21, 2015
Accepted: June 9, 2015
Article in press: June 9, 2015
Published online: September 21, 2015
Processing time: 200 Days and 4 Hours
We read with interest the case report by Liu et al and the correspondence by Tuna et al regarding this case. Liu et al described hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in a patient with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after withdrawal of lamivudine prophylaxis. When HBV reactivation was observed three months after lamivudine withdrawal, entecavir 0.5 mg daily was started. HBV DNA level was moderately elevated (104 copies/mL) at that time. So, we could not understand why a potent antiviral like entecavir was required for this case. In addition to this, entecavir must be used at a dose of 1 mg in patients with prior prophylactic treatment with lamivudine. As stated by Tuna et al duration of lamivudine prophylaxis in this case might be insufficient and HBV reactivation might have occured for this reason. So, we suppose that resolution of HBV reactivation might also be achieved with lamivudine instead of entecavir in this case.
Core tip: Lamivudine is used for the prevention of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in patients receiving immunochemotherapy. Following cessation of lamivudine prophylaxis, HBV reactivation can be observed because of insufficient duration of prophylaxis. If HBV DNA is moderately elevated at that moment, prophylaxis may be continued with lamivudine instead of entecavir.