Environmental Scan of Web-based Consumer Information on the Risk of HPV-Related Diseases in Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

https://openworks.mdanderson.org/sumexp23/1118/thumbnail.jp

A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Cancer Screening in Patients with Autoimmune Diseases

https://openworks.mdanderson.org/sumexp23/1110/thumbnail.jp

Physician Views On the Provision of information On Immune Checkpoint inhibitor therapy to Patients With Cancer and Pre-Existing autoimmune Disease: a Qualitative Study

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have improved cancer outcomes but can cause severe immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and flares of autoimmune conditions in cancer patients with pre-existing autoimmune disease. The objective of this study was to identify the information physicians perceived as most useful for these patients when discussing treatment initiation with ICIs. Twenty physicians at a cancer institution with experience in the treatment of irAEs were interviewed. Qualitative thematic analysis was performed to organize and interpret data. The physicians were 11 medical oncologists and 9 non-oncology specialists. The following themes were identified: (1) current methods used by physicians to provide information to patients and delivery options; (2) factors to make decisions about whether or not to start ICIs in patients who have cancer and pre-existing autoimmune conditions; (3) learning points for patients to understand; (4) preferences for the delivery of ICI information; and (5) barriers to the implementation of ICI information in clinics. Regarding points to discuss with patients, physicians agreed that the benefits of ICIs, the probability of irAEs, and risks of underlying autoimmune condition flares with the use of ICIs were most important. Non-oncologists were additionally concerned about how ICIs affect the autoimmune disease (e.g., impact on disease activity, need for changes in medications for the autoimmune disease, and monitoring of autoimmune conditions)

Defining the optimal biological monotherapy in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

Objectives To summarize and compare the benefits and harms of biological agents used as monotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in order to inform decisions for patients who are intolerant to conventional DMARD therapy. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and other sources for randomised trials that compared biological monotherapy with methotrexate, placebo, or other biological monotherapies. Primary outcomes were ACR50 and the number of patients who discontinued due to adverse events. Our network meta-analysis was based on mixed-effects logistic regression, including both direct and indirect comparisons of the treatment effects, while preserving the randomised comparisons within each trial. PROSPERO identifier: CRD42012002800. Results The analysis comprises 28 trials (8602 patients), including all nine biological agents approved for RA. Eight trials included “DMARD-naïve”, and 20 “DMARD-Inadequate responder” (DMARD-IR) patients. All agents except anakinra and infliximab were superior (p 0.52). However, because rituximab was evaluated in just 40 patients, our confidence in the estimates is limited. When including only DMARD-IR trials, the same statistical pattern emerged; in addition etanercept and tocilizumab were superior to abatacept. At recommended doses, both etanercept and tocilizumab were superior to adalimumab and certolizumab. No statistically significant differences among biological agents were found with respect to discontinuation due to adverse events (p > 0.068). Conclusions Evidence from randomised trials suggests that most biological agents are effective as monotherapy. Although our confidence in the estimates is limited, etanercept or tocilizumab may be the optimal choice for most patients who need treatment with biological monotherapy. However, given our limited confidence in the estimates including possibility of bias, it is appropriate to strongly weight patients׳ preferences and values in the final treatment choice

Individualized decision aid for diverse women with lupus nephritis (IDEA-WON): A randomized controlled trial.

BackgroundTreatment decision-making regarding immunosuppressive therapy is challenging for individuals with lupus. We assessed the effectiveness of a decision aid for immunosuppressive therapy in lupus nephritis.Methods and findingsIn a United States multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial (RCT), adult women with lupus nephritis, mostly from racial/ethnic minority backgrounds with low socioeconomic status (SES), seen in in- or outpatient settings, were randomized to an individualized, culturally tailored, computerized decision aid versus American College of Rheumatology (ACR) lupus pamphlet (1:1 ratio), using computer-generated randomization. We hypothesized that the co-primary outcomes of decisional conflict and informed choice regarding immunosuppressive medications would improve more in the decision aid group. Of 301 randomized women, 298 were analyzed; 47% were African-American, 26% Hispanic, and 15% white. Mean age (standard deviation [SD]) was 37 (12) years, 57% had annual income of <$40,000, and 36% had a high school education or less. Compared with the provision of the ACR lupus pamphlet (n = 147), participants randomized to the decision aid (n = 151) had (1) a clinically meaningful and statistically significant reduction in decisional conflict, 21.8 (standard error [SE], 2.5) versus 12.7 (SE, 2.0; p = 0.005) and (2) no difference in informed choice in the main analysis, 41% versus 31% (p = 0.08), but clinically meaningful and statistically significant difference in sensitivity analysis (net values for immunosuppressives positive [in favor] versus negative [against]), 50% versus 35% (p = 0.006). Unresolved decisional conflict was lower in the decision aid versus pamphlet groups, 22% versus 44% (p < 0.001). Significantly more patients in the decision aid versus pamphlet group rated information to be excellent for understanding lupus nephritis (49% versus 33%), risk factors (43% versus 27%), medication options (50% versus 33%; p ≤ 0.003 for all); and the ease of use of materials was higher in the decision aid versus pamphlet groups (51% versus 38%; p = 0.006). Key study limitations were the exclusion of men, short follow-up, and the lack of clinical outcomes, including medication adherence.ConclusionsAn individualized decision aid was more effective than usual care in reducing decisional conflict for choice of immunosuppressive medications in women with lupus nephritis.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov, NCT02319525

Impact of the timing of hepatitis B virus identification and antiâ hepatitis B virus therapy initiation on the risk of adverse liver outcomes for patients receiving cancer therapy

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/138209/1/cncr30729_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/138209/2/cncr30729.pd

Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) 2020 clinical practice recommendations for the management of severe dermatological toxicities from checkpoint inhibitors

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) frequently result in cutaneous immune-related adverse events (IrAEs). Although the majority of these events are mild-to-moderate in severity, up to 5% are severe, which may lead to morbidity and dose interruption or discontinuation of ICI therapy. In addition, up to 25% of dermatologic IrAEs are corticosteroid-refractory or corticosteroid-dependent. These 2020 MASCC recommendations cover the diagnosis and management of cutaneous IrAEs with a focus on moderate-to-severe and corticosteroid-resistant events. Although the usage of immune-suppressive therapy has been advocated in this setting, there is a lack of randomized clinical trial data to provide a compelling level of evidence of its therapeutic benefit.NIH/NIAMS; the NIH/NCI Cancer Center; the Cancer Association of South Africa (CANSA) and the National Research Foundation (NRF) of South Africa.http://link.springer.com/journal/5202021-08-20hj2020Immunolog