Please select the option that best describes you:
What role do you see for JAK inhibitors in RA treatment strategies given the data we now have regarding CV and cancer outcomes?
For example, would it be appropriate to consider JAK inhibitor therapy as preferable to TNF-alpha inhibitor in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction but with absence of coronary disease?
This question is part of a collaboration with RheumMadness and is specifically in reference to: ORAL Surveillance
Answer from: at Academic Institution
The outcomes of the ORAL Surveillance study (Ytterberg et al., PMID 35081280) will surely affect guideline recommendations as they have already led to changes to the FDA-approved labels of all JAK inhibitors approved for the treatment of RA, which now state that they are indicated for patients who h...
Sign in or Register to read more
Answer from: at Academic Institution
It's important to note the ORAL Surveillance study (Ytterberg et al., PMID 35081280) also has significant implications for "non-RA" rheumatology, including dermatomyositis (DM) treatment:JAKi (including tofacitinib) are receiving notable attention as a potential treatment for refractory dermatomyosi...
Answer from: at Academic Institution
I think most practitioners are moving JAK inhibitors to TNF-incomplete response and that’s what most payers will allow. I will use it in that population. I also think there might be a role for JAK inhibitors in younger people (< 50 yrs) especially premenopausal females with RA, and/or those...
Answer from: at Community Practice
The most important aspect of this situation is the importance of shared risk - with the patient and with the co-managing physicians. Dialogue here is critical!
We are awaiting more reporting on cardiovascular disease but the initial events of MI suggest a thrombotic etiology. There may be some bene...