Implementation of regulatory guidance for JAK inhibitors use in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: An international appropriateness study
Virginia Solitano,Paola Facheris,Magnus Petersen,Ferdinando D'Amico,Michela Ortoncelli,Daniel Aletaha,Pablo A Olivera,Thomas Bieber,Sofia Ramiro,Subrata Ghosh,Maria Antonietta D'Agostino,Britta Siegmund,Isabelle Chary-Valckenaere,Ailsa Hart,Lorenzo Dagna,Fernando Magro,Renaud Felten,Paulo Gustavo Kotze,Vipul Jairath,Antonio Costanzo,Lars Erik Kristensen,Laurent Peyrin Biroulet,Silvio Danese
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autrev.2023.103504
Abstract: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.