Search

ObjectiveImmunosuppressant drugs can increase the risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) and tuberculosis (TB) reactivation. Using the American College of Rheumatology's Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE) registry, we examined pre-treatment screening among new users of biologic or targeted synthetic disease modifying drugs (DMARDs).MethodsData, derived from RISE, included patients ≥ 18 years old who were new users of biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs. We developed quality measures related to pre-treatment screening for HBV, HCV, and TB in addition to a "composite" measure for all applicable tests. We assessed patient-level screening rates, practice-level variation among practices reporting on ≥ 20 patients, and the frequency of positive results.ResultsWe included 26,802 patients across 213 rheumatology practices nationwide. Patients were 58 (14) years old, 75.9% female; 59.6% had rheumatoid arthritis, and TNFi were the most common index DMARDs (64.9%). Overall, 44.8% and 40.5% patients had any documented HBV or HCV screening, respectively, prior to the index date; 29.7% had TB screening in the year prior to drug start. Only 15.5% had documentation of screening for all appropriate infections prior to drug start. Practice-level performance on the composite measure was low (range 0 to 48.3%). 2.4% of screening tests were positive.ConclusionWe found gaps in documentation of key safety measures among practices participating in RISE. Given the small but significant number of patients with active or latent infections that pose safety risks, developing standardized and reliable strategies to capture safety screening measures is paramount.

Introduction/objectivesPneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PJP) is a rare but potentially fatal opportunistic infection; however, consensus varies around which conditions or medications confer a level of risk sufficient to justify antibiotic prophylaxis for PJP. We used electronic health record (EHR) data to assess the current patterns of PJP prophylaxis, PJP outcomes, and prophylaxis-related adverse events among patients with rheumatic diseases who were receiving high-risk immunosuppressant drugs.MethodsData derive from the EHR of a large health system. We included new immunosuppressant users with diagnoses of vasculitis, myositis, or systemic lupus erythematosus. We calculated the proportion of patients who received PJP prophylaxis for each diagnosis and drug combination. We also calculated the number of PJP infections and the number of antibiotic adverse drug events (ADEs) per patient-year of exposure.ResultsWe followed 316 patients for 23.2 + /- 14.2 months. Overall, 124 (39%) of patients received prophylactic antibiotics for PJP. At least 25% of patients with the highest risk conditions (e.g. vasculitis) or highest risk immunosuppressants (e.g. cyclophosphamide) did not receive PJP prophylaxis. We found no cases of PJP infection over 640 patient-years of follow up, including among those not receiving prophylaxis, and an overall incidence rate of ADEs of 2.2% per patient-year.ConclusionsPJP prophylaxis for patients with rheumatic conditions is inconsistent, with one quarter of patients who have high risk conditions or high risk immunosuppressants not receiving prophylaxis. However, given extremely low rates of PJP infection, but detectable ADEs to prophylactic antibiotics, our findings suggest that evidence to guide more personalized risk assessments are needed to inform PJP prophylaxis.