Search

Objective: JAK inhibitor therapies are effective treatment options for immune‐mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), but their use has been limited by venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk warnings from licensing authorities. We undertook this study to evaluate the VTE risk of JAK inhibitors in patients with IMIDs. Methods: Systematic searches of Medline and Embase databases from inception to September 30, 2020 were conducted. Phase II and phase III double‐blind, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of JAK inhibitors at licensed doses were included in our analyses. RCTs with no placebo arm, long‐term extension studies, post hoc analyses, and pooled analyses were excluded. Three researchers independently extracted data on exposure to JAK inhibitors or placebo and VTE events (e.g., pulmonary embolism [PE] and deep vein thrombosis [DVT]) and assessed study quality. Results: A total of 42 studies were included, from an initial search that yielded 619. There were 6,542 JAK inhibitor patient exposure years (PEYs) compared to 1,578 placebo PEYs. There were 15 VTE events in the JAK inhibitor group and 4 in the placebo group. The pooled incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of VTE, PE, and DVT in patients receiving JAK inhibitors were 0.68 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.36–1.29), 0.44 (95% CI 0.28–0.70), and 0.59 (95% CI 0.31–1.15), respectively. Conclusion: This meta‐analysis of RCT data defines the VTE risk with JAK inhibitors as a class in IMID patients. The pooled IRRs do not provide evidence that support the current warnings of VTE risk for JAK inhibitors. These findings will aid continued development of clinical guidelines for the use of JAK inhibitors in IMIDs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The main objective of this study is to determine the feasibility of recruiting and retaining patients recently diagnosed with thoracic cancer to a trial of short-term integrated rehabilitation; evaluate uptake of theoretically informed components targeting physical function, symptom self-management and participation; estimate sample size requirements for an efficacy trial. Design: Parallel group randomized controlled feasibility trial. Setting: Three U.K. hospitals. Participants: Patients ⩽eight weeks of thoracic cancer diagnosis, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status 0–3, any cancer stage and treatment plan. Interventions: Participants randomly allocated (1:1) to short-term integrated rehabilitation and standard care or standard care alone over 30 days. Main measures: Primary: participant recruitment and retention, targeting ⩾30% of eligible patients enrolling and ⩾50% of participants reporting outcomes at 30 days. Secondary: intervention fidelity; missing data and performance of outcome measures for self-efficacy, symptoms, physical activity and health-related quality of life. Results: Of 159 eligible patients approached, 54 (34%) were recruited. A total of 44 (82%) and 39 (72%) participants reported outcomes at 30 and 60 days, respectively. Intervention fidelity was high. Rehabilitation was delivered across 3 (1–3) sessions over 32 (22–45) days (median (range)). Changes in clinical outcomes were modest but most apparent at 60 days for health-related quality of life: Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Lung Cancer score median (interquartile range) change 9.7 (−12.0 to 16.0) rehabilitation versus 2.3 (−15.0 to 14.5) standard care. Conclusion: A trial to examine efficacy of short-term integrated rehabilitation for people newly diagnosed with thoracic cancer is feasible. A sample of 336 participants could detect a meaningful effect on health-related quality of life as the primary outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]