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... Show moreBackground 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. Show less
Dougados, M.; Devauchelle-Pensec, V.; Ferlet, J.F.; Jousse-Joulin, S.; D'Agostino, M.A.; Backhaus, M.; ... ; Szkudlarek, M. 2013
Objectives To evaluate different global ultrasonographic (US) synovitis scoring systems as potential outcome measures of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) according to the Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid... Show moreObjectives To evaluate different global ultrasonographic (US) synovitis scoring systems as potential outcome measures of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) according to the Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials (OMERACT) filter. Methods To study selected global scoring systems, for the clinical, B mode and power Doppler techniques, the following joints were evaluated: 28 joints (28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28)), 20 joints (metacarpophalangeals (MCPs) + metatarsophalangeals (MTPs)) and 38 joints (28 joints + MTPs) using either a binary (yes/no) or a 0-3 grade. The study was a prospective, 4-month duration follow-up of 76 patients with RA requiring anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) therapy (complete follow-up data: 66 patients). Intraobserver reliability was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), construct validity was evaluated using the Cronbach a test and external validity was evaluated using level of correlation between scoring system and C reactive protein (CRP). Sensitivity to change was evaluated using the standardised response mean. Discriminating capacity was evaluated using the standardised mean differences in patients considered by the doctor as significantly improved or not at the end of the study. Results Different clinimetric properties of various US scoring systems were at least as good as the clinical scores with, for example, intraobserver reliability ranging from 0.61 to 0.97 versus from 0.53 to 0.82, construct validity ranging from 0.76 to 0.89 versus from 0.76 to 0.88, correlation with CRP ranging from 0.28 to 0.34 versus from 0.28 to 0.35 and sensitivity to change ranging from 0.60 to 1.21 versus from 0.96 to 1.36 for US versus clinical scoring systems, respectively. Conclusion This study suggests that US evaluation of synovitis is an outcome measure at least as relevant as physical examination. Further studies are required in order to achieve optimal US scoring systems for monitoring patients with RA in clinical trials and in clinical practice. Show less
