Autoimmunity reviews · 2023
Implementation of regulatory guidance for JAK inhibitors use in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: An international appropriateness study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Solitano Virginia, Facheris Paola, Petersen Magnus, D'Amico Ferdinando, Ortoncelli Michela, Aletaha Daniel, Olivera Pablo A, Bieber Thomas, Ramiro Sofia, Ghosh Subrata, D'Agostino Maria Antonietta, Siegmund Britta, Chary-Valckenaere Isabelle, Hart Ailsa, Dagna Lorenzo, Magro Fernando, Felten Renaud, Kotze Paulo Gustavo, Jairath Vipul, Costanzo Antonio, Kristensen Lars Erik, Biroulet Laurent Peyrin, Danese Silvio
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) proposed measures to address severe side effects linked to Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID). Use of these medications in individuals aged 65 and older, those at high cardiovascular risk, active or former long-term smokers, and those with increased cancer risk should be considered only if no alternatives exist. Caution is advised when administering JAKi to patients at risk of venous thromboembolism. We aim to implement recommendations from regulatory guidelines based on areas of uncertainty identified.
METHODS: A two-round modified Research and Development/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness methodology study was conducted. A panel of 21 gastroenterologists, dermatologists and rheumatologists used a 9-point Likert scale to rate the appropriateness of administering a JAKi for each proposed clinical scenario. Scores for appropriateness were categorized as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate. Two rounds were performed, each with online surveys and a virtual meeting to enable discussion and rating of each best practice.
RESULTS: Round 1 involved participants rating JAKi appropriateness and suggesting descriptors to reduce uncertainty. Survey results were discussed in a virtual meeting, identifying areas of disagreement. In round 2, participants rated their agreement with descriptors from round 1, and the level of uncertainty and disagreement reduced. Age flexibility is recommended in the absence of other risk factors. Active counseling on modifiable risks (e.g., overweight, mild hyperlipidemia and hypertension) and smoking cessation is advised. Uncertainty persists regarding cancer risk due to various factors.
CONCLUSIONS: We outlined regulatory guidance without a personalized evaluation of the patient's risk profile might lead to uncertainty and become an arid technicality. Therefore, we identified gaps and implemented PRAC recommendations to help health professionals in clinical practice.
METHODS: A two-round modified Research and Development/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness methodology study was conducted. A panel of 21 gastroenterologists, dermatologists and rheumatologists used a 9-point Likert scale to rate the appropriateness of administering a JAKi for each proposed clinical scenario. Scores for appropriateness were categorized as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate. Two rounds were performed, each with online surveys and a virtual meeting to enable discussion and rating of each best practice.
RESULTS: Round 1 involved participants rating JAKi appropriateness and suggesting descriptors to reduce uncertainty. Survey results were discussed in a virtual meeting, identifying areas of disagreement. In round 2, participants rated their agreement with descriptors from round 1, and the level of uncertainty and disagreement reduced. Age flexibility is recommended in the absence of other risk factors. Active counseling on modifiable risks (e.g., overweight, mild hyperlipidemia and hypertension) and smoking cessation is advised. Uncertainty persists regarding cancer risk due to various factors.
CONCLUSIONS: We outlined regulatory guidance without a personalized evaluation of the patient's risk profile might lead to uncertainty and become an arid technicality. Therefore, we identified gaps and implemented PRAC recommendations to help health professionals in clinical practice.