P190 An international modified Delphi study to understand clinical opinion on current and potential future use of Janus kinase inhibitors in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: global results
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background/Aims Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) have proven effective for many rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). Enriched treatment experience for established indications, case reports highlighting broader use and the availability of new and generic JAKi may potentially shift treatment practice. Defining prescribing habits may help predict the future treatment paradigm and understand evidence gaps. This study aimed to capture the global thoughts on JAKi utilization evolution within (1) current indications and (2) new indications where JAKi may have potential place in therapy as identified by unmet medical need, global expert medical opinion and literature evidence using a modified Delphi approach. Methods Systematic/scoping reviews on published literature of JAKi use in RMDs were conducted to inform initial statements alongside committee clinical expertise. A 4 round online modified Delphi study was then conducted with 178 volunteer panellists (clinician’s providing Rheumatology care) from 23 countries. Global experts formed the academic and steering committees. Stable statement consensus or disagreement was a median score of ≥ 7or≤3 from two consecutive rounds on a 1-9 Likert scale, respectively. All statements were presented in ≥ 2 rounds and wording amended based on panellist suggestions, confirmed by committees. Results A total of 138,118,109 and113 panellists completed rounds1-4, respectively. 20 statements reached stable consensus, and 1 statement reached stable disagreement (Table 1), categorised into: Current Uses of JAKi, Potential uses of JAKi beyond currently approved indications, Potential uses of a specific class of JAKi: TYK2 inhibitors or Acquisition and access to JAKi. Clinicians provided 258 statement comments/suggestions. Conclusion This study highlights global expert consensus characterisation of current uses and the evolution of JAKi use in RMDs. Clinicians were in consensus that JAKi have an important role in current indications and generic JAKi may lead to their wider use/broaden the indications for which they are utilised. Clinicians were hesitant to use JAKi without phase 3 RCT data. Work is ongoing to stratify opinion across region, income and treatment practice, and explore barriers to access. This study was sponsored by Pfizer. Pfizer employees and authors designed the study, interpreted data, and wrote the abstract. Analytical support was provided by Momentum data Ltd, funded by Pfizer. Disclosure A. Barkaway: Other; Pfizer Employee. P. Mease: Consultancies; AbbVie, Acelyrin, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squib, Cullinan Biotech, Eli Lilly, Inmagene, Janssen, Moonlake, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, UCB. Honoraria; AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB. Grants/research support; AbbVie, Acelyrin, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squib, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB. Other; Genascence. R. Moots: Consultancies; Pfizer. Grants/research support; Novartis. M. Ndosi: Consultancies; Pfizer. Grants/research support; Sanofi, Vifor Pharmaceuticals. Z. Rutter-Locher: Consultancies; Pfizer. M. McLean: Other; Pfizer Employee.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».