From the Journals

JAK inhibitors show no excess cardiovascular safety signal in French nationwide cohort


 

FROM ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES

Boxed warnings encourage caution, lock treatment sequence

Michael Thakor, MD, of Arthritis & Rheumatology Clinic of Northern Colorado, Fort Collins, supports the boxed warnings because they encourage caution and transparency.

“It forces you to have that discussion with your patient, which may take some time, but it’s actually a very good thing,” Dr. Thakor said in an interview. “Some patients will say, ‘Oh my gosh, I don’t want to take that drug.’ But most patients, considering the level of risk that you’re talking about, are actually okay going ahead with the medication.”

If these risks aren’t discussed, he noted, patient trust may falter.

“They’re going to go online, and they’re going to be reading about it,” Dr. Thakor said. “And then they tend to get more spooked. They also may question your advice from then on, if you’re not telling them the possible risk.”

Reflecting on the present study, Dr. Thakor said that the findings initially appeared reassuring, but he became concerned about the lack of power and how adverse events trended higher in the JAK inhibitor group, particularly for VTEs, most of which occurred with baricitinib. This latter finding is challenging to interpret, however, because the 4-mg dose is not used in the United States, he added.

Dr. Thakor described how JAK inhibitors once seemed poised to assume a frontline role in RA until the boxed warnings came out. These safety concerns don’t take JAK inhibitors off the table, he said, but they do keep the class further down the treatment sequence, and the present data don’t alter this picture in daily practice.

“If I had a patient who was over the age of 50 with at least one cardiovascular risk factor, I might have a little bit of concern, but if they need their RA treated, I would definitely discuss the possibility of using a JAK inhibitor,” Dr. Thakor said. “If the patient is comfortable with it, then I would feel comfortable going ahead.”

The investigators disclosed no outside funding or conflicts of interest. Dr. Winthrop disclosed relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and others. Dr. Thakor disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pages

Recommended Reading

Hydroxychloroquine risk found in some older patients with RA
Federal Practitioner
No more ‘escape hatch’: Post Roe, new worries about meds linked to birth defects
Federal Practitioner
Zoster vaccination does not appear to increase flare risk in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disease
Federal Practitioner
Physicians urged to write indications on drug scripts as methotrexate users face new barriers with SCOTUS decision
Federal Practitioner
Neural networks can distinguish PsA from rheumatoid arthritis on MRI
Federal Practitioner
Autoimmune disease patients’ waxing, waning response to COVID vaccination studied in-depth
Federal Practitioner
Autoimmune diseases linked to spike in post-MI events
Federal Practitioner
Severe COVID-19–related outcomes found worse in men with RA
Federal Practitioner
Evusheld PrEP may protect immunocompromised patients from severe COVID-19
Federal Practitioner
Hard-rock mining and other mining work raise RA risk
Federal Practitioner