Medicines stewardship.

Medicines stewardship refers to coordinated strategies and interventions to optimise medicines use, usually within a specific therapeutic area. Medicines stewardship programs can reduce variations in practice and improve patient outcomes. Therapeutic domains for medicines stewardship are chosen to address frequently used drug classes associated with a high risk of adverse outcomes. Some examples include antimicrobial, opioid analgesic, anticoagulation and psychotropic stewardship. Common elements of successful stewardship programs include multidisciplinary leadership, stakeholder engagement, tailored communication strategies, behavioural changes, implementation science methodologies, and ongoing program monitoring, evaluation and reporting. Medicines stewardship is a continual quality improvement process that requires ongoing support and resources, as well as clinician and consumer engagement, to remain sustainable. It is critical for hospital-based medicines stewardship programs to consider impacts on care in the community when making and communicating changes to patient therapy. This ensures that stewardship efforts are sustained across transitions of care.

Real-time prescription monitoring: helping people at risk of harm.

Misuse of opioid analgesics and other psychoactive medicines is a serious and increasing problem in Australia. Measures are being taken to try and prevent this progressing to a public health crisis like the opioid overdose epidemic seen in the USA One measure is real-time prescription monitoring. This provides real-time information about the patient's supply of psychoactive medicines which have a high risk of being misused Having identified a patient at risk, many factors may delay appropriate management or result in the patient being discharged from care. These factors include subconscious negative stereotyping, a focus on preventing 'doctor shoppers' diverting psychoactive medicines, and a fear of sanction by regulators The Medical Board of Australia provides guidance about good practice. Patients should be treated with respect, free from bias and discrimination, and without prejudicing care because of the belief that their behaviour has contributed to their problems

Waiting for JAK inhibitor safety data.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently added a new 'black box warning' on all currently approved Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors indicated for the treatment of arthritis and other inflammatory conditions based on results from the ORAL Surveillance study of tofacitinib versus tumour necrosis factor alpha inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis. This is a warning difficult to ignore because the data, being from a randomised controlled trial, are of high fidelity and hard to reproach. It is especially problematic because safety data for all the other JAK inhibitors will be pending for several years. So how might we proceed, without being bound by our stasis? The lack of absolute certainty seems to require a pragmatic approach to the routine care use of JAK inhibitors. The patients who were at greatest risk were older and had other risk factors for the corresponding adverse events, in keeping with effect modification. This highlights the need to focus on risk stratification when tailoring therapy. In this viewpoint, we propose a simple illustration to guide clinical decision-making. First, identify general risk factors for venous thromboembolic event (VTE), major adverse cardiac event (MACE) and cancer (age>65 years and smoking) and whether there is a previous history of VTE, MACE or cancer. Then, evaluate risk based on the number of other risk factors for VTE and the number of other risk factors for MACE. Ultimately, 'treat-to-target' will in the end always be 'treat-to-agreement'. As we have done in the past, and will do in the future, the optimal treatment strategy will have to be tailored based on individual patient risk factors and preferences in a shared-decision process.

Prolonged COVID-19 symptom duration in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases: results from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Vaccine Survey.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated prolonged COVID-19 symptom duration, defined as lasting 28 days or longer, among people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). METHODS: We analysed data from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Vaccine Survey (2 April 2021-15 October 2021) to identify people with SARDs reporting test-confirmed COVID-19. Participants reported COVID-19 severity and symptom duration, sociodemographics and clinical characteristics. We reported the proportion experiencing prolonged symptom duration and investigated associations with baseline characteristics using logistic regression. RESULTS: We identified 441 respondents with SARDs and COVID-19 (mean age 48.2 years, 83.7% female, 39.5% rheumatoid arthritis). The median COVID-19 symptom duration was 15 days (IQR 7, 25). Overall, 107 (24.2%) respondents had prolonged symptom duration (≥28 days); 42/429 (9.8%) reported symptoms lasting ≥90 days. Factors associated with higher odds of prolonged symptom duration included: hospitalisation for COVID-19 vs not hospitalised and mild acute symptoms (age-adjusted OR (aOR) 6.49, 95% CI 3.03 to 14.1), comorbidity count (aOR 1.11 per comorbidity, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.21) and osteoarthritis (aOR 2.11, 95% CI 1.01 to 4.27). COVID-19 onset in 2021 vs June 2020 or earlier was associated with lower odds of prolonged symptom duration (aOR 0.42, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.81). CONCLUSION: Most people with SARDs had complete symptom resolution by day 15 after COVID-19 onset. However, about 1 in 4 experienced COVID-19 symptom duration 28 days or longer; 1 in 10 experienced symptoms 90 days or longer. Future studies are needed to investigate the possible relationships between immunomodulating medications, SARD type/flare, vaccine doses and novel viral variants with prolonged COVID-19 symptoms and other postacute sequelae of COVID-19 among people with SARDs.

Activated osteoarthritis following immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment: an observational study.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized cancer therapy but can result in toxicities, known as immune-related adverse events (irAEs), due to a hyperactivated immune system. ICI-related inflammatory arthritis has been described in literature, but herewith we introduce and characterize post-ICI-activated osteoarthritis (ICI-aOA). We conducted a multicenter, retrospective, observational study of patients with cancer treated with ICIs and diagnosed with ICI-aOA by a rheumatologist. ICI-aOA was defined by (1) an increase in non-inflammatory joint pain after ICI initiation, (2) in joints characteristically affected by osteoarthritis, and (3) lack of inflammation on exam. Cases were graded using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) V.6.0 rubric for arthralgia. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors V.1.1 (v.4.03) guidelines determined tumor response. Results were analyzed using χ2 tests of association and multivariate logistic regression. Thirty-six patients had ICI-aOA with a mean age at time of rheumatology presentation of 66 years (51-81 years). Most patients had metastatic melanoma (10/36, 28%) and had received a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy (31/36, 86%) with 5/36 (14%) combination therapy. Large joint involvement (hip/knee) was noted in 53% (19/36), small joints of hand 25% (9/36), and spine 14% (5/36). Two-thirds (24/36) suffered multiple joint involvement. Three of 36 (8%) had CTCAE grade 3, 14 (39%) grade 2 and 19 (53%) grade 1 manifestations. Symptom onset ranged from 6 days to 33.8 months with a median of 5.2 months after ICI initiation; five patients suffered from ICI-aOA after ICI cessation (0.6, 3.5, 4.4, 7.3, and 15.4 months after ICI cessation). The most common form of therapy was intra-articular corticosteroid injections only (15/36, 42%) followed by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs only (7/36, 20%). Twenty patients (56%) experienced other irAEs, with rheumatic and dermatological being the most common. All three patients with high-grade ICI-aOA also had another irAE diagnosis at some point after ICI initiation. ICI-aOA should be recognized as an adverse event of ICI immunotherapy. Early referral to a rheumatologist can facilitate the distinction between ICI induced inflammatory arthritis from post-ICI mechanical arthropathy, the latter of which can be managed with local therapy that will not compromise ICI efficacy.