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
Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of the infliximab biosimilar (sim-INF) CT-P13 with originator infliximab (orig-INF) over 24 months of follow-up in biological-naïve patients with rheumatoid... Show moreObjectives: To compare the effectiveness of the infliximab biosimilar (sim-INF) CT-P13 with originator infliximab (orig-INF) over 24 months of follow-up in biological-naïve patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). Methods: Biological-naïve patients from the Rheumatic Diseases Portuguese Register (Reuma.pt), with a clinical diagnosis of RA or axSpA, who were starting either the sim-INF CT-P13 or the orig-INF after 2014 (date of market entry of CT-P13 in Portugal), were included. Patients on biosimilar and originator were compared regarding different response outcomes at 3 and 6 months, adjusting for age, sex and baseline C Reactive Protein (CRP). The main outcome was the change in DAS28-Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) for RA and the ASDAS-CRP for axSpA. Additionally, the effect of sim-INF vs orig-INF on different response outcomes over 24 months of follow-up was tested with longitudinal generalized estimating equations (GEE) models. Results: In total, 140 patients were included, 66 (47%) of which with RA. The distribution of patients starting the sim-INF and the orig-INF was the same between the two diseases (approximately 60% and 40%, respectively). From the 66 patients with RA, 82% were females, mean age was 56 (SD 11) years and mean DAS28-ESR 4.9 (1.3) at baseline. As for the patients with axSpA, 53% were males, mean age was 46 (13.0) years and mean ASDAS-CRP 3.7 (0.9) at baseline. There were no differences in efficacy between RA patients treated with the sim-INF and the orig-INF, either at 3 months (∆DAS28-ESR: -0.6 (95% CI -1.3; 0.1) vs -1.2 (-2.0; -0.4)), or at 6 months (∆DAS28-ESR: -0.7 (-1.5; 0.0) vs -1.5 (-2.4; -0.7)). This was also true for patients with axSpA (∆ASDAS at 3 months: -1.6 (-2.0; -1.1) vs -1.4 (-1.8; -0.9) and at 6 months: -1.5 (-2.0; -1.1) vs -1.1 (-1.5; -0.7)). Results were similar with the longitudinal models over 24 months. Conclusion: There are no differences in effectiveness between the sim-INF CT-P13 and the orig-INF in the treatment of biological-naïve patients with active RA and axSpA in clinical practice. Show less
Najm, A.; Alunno, A.; Sivera, F.; Ramiro, S.; Haines, C.; Working Grp Training Rheumatology 2020
Objectives To gain insight into current methods and practices for the assessment of competences during rheumatology training, and to explore the underlying priorities and rationales for competence... Show moreObjectives To gain insight into current methods and practices for the assessment of competences during rheumatology training, and to explore the underlying priorities and rationales for competence assessment.Methods We used a qualitative approach through online focus groups (FGs) of rheumatology trainers and trainees, separately. The study included five countries-Denmark, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain and the United Kingdom. A summary of current practices of assessment of competences was developed, modified and validated by the FGs based on an independent response to a questionnaire. A prioritising method (9 Diamond technique) was then used to identify and justify key assessment priorities.Results Overall, 26 participants (12 trainers, 14 trainees) participated in nine online FGs (2 per country, Slovenia 1 joint), totalling 12 hours of online discussion. Strong nationally (the Netherlands, UK) or institutionally (Spain, Slovenia, Denmark) standardised approaches were described. Most groups identified providing frequent formative feedback to trainees for developmental purposes as the highest priority. Most discussions identified a need for improvement, particularly in developing streamlined approaches to portfolios that remain close to clinical practice, protecting time for quality observation and feedback, and adopting systematic approaches to incorporating teamwork and professionalism into assessment systems.Conclusion This paper presents a clearer picture of the current practice on the assessment of competences in rheumatology in five European countries and the underlying rationale of trainers' and trainees' priorities. This work will inform EULAR Points-to-Consider for the assessment of competences in rheumatology training across Europe. Show less
Moel, E.C. de; Derksen, V.F.A.M.; Trouw, L.A.; Bang, H.; Collee, G.; Lard, L.R.; ... ; Woude, D. van der 2019
