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

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

New directions for patient-centred care in scleroderma : the Scleroderma Patient-centred Intervention Network (SPIN)

Systemic sclerosis (SSc), or scleroderma, is a chronic multisystem autoimmune disorder characterised by thickening and fibrosis of the skin and by the involvement of internal organs such as the lungs, kidneys, gastrointestinal tract, and heart. Because there is no cure, feasibly-implemented and easily accessible evidence-based interventions to improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are needed. Due to a lack of evidence, however, specific recommendations have not been made regarding non-pharmacological interventions (e.g. behavioural/psychological, educational, physical/occupational therapy) to improve HRQoL in SSc. The Scleroderma Patient-centred Intervention Network (SPIN) was recently organised to address this gap. SPIN is comprised of patient representatives, clinicians, and researchers from Canada, the USA, and Europe. The goal of SPIN, as described in this article, is to develop, test, and disseminate a set of accessible interventions designed to complement standard care in order to improve HRQoL outcomes in SSc.The initial organisational meeting for SPIN was funded by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Meetings, Planning, and Dissemination grant to B.D. Thombs (KPE-109130), Sclerodermie Quebec, and the Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research of the Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec. SPIN receives finding support from the Sclemderma Society of Ontario, the Scleroderma Society of Canada, and Sclerodermie Quebec. B.D. Thombs and M. Hudson are supported by New Investigator awards from the CIHR, and Etablissement de Jeunes Chercheurs awards from the Fonds de la Recherche en Sante Quebec (FRSQ). M. Baron is the director of the Canadian Scleroderma Research Group, which receives grant folding from the CIHR, the Scleroderma Society of Canada and its provincial chapters, Scleroderma Society of Ontario, Sclerodermie Quebec, and the Ontario Arthritis Society, and educational grants from Actelion Pharmaceuticals and Pfizer. M.D. Mayes and S. Assassi are supported by the NIH/NIAMS Scleroderma Center of Research Translation grant no. P50-AR054144. S.J. Motivala is supported by an NIH career development grant (K23 AG027860) and the UCLA Cousins Center for Psychoneuroimmunology. D. Khanna is supported by a NIH/NIAMS K23 AR053858-04) and NIH/NIAMS U01 AR057936A, the National Institutes of Health through the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research Grant (AR052177), and has served as a consultant or on speakers bureau for Actelion, BMS, Gilead, Pfizer, and United Therapeutics