Objectives

New specialty drugs such as biologics are now available in record numbers, presenting increased safety risks for people with immune-mediated diseases. However, comprehensive assessments of patient safety for these drugs are lacking. We examined performance on key patient safety measures, such as screening for latent tuberculosis (LTBI), hepatitis B virus (HBV), and hepatitis C virus (HCV), for new users of a broad group of specialty medications.

Methods

Data were extracted via electronic health record data warehouses of a large university health system using structured queries, and extensive chart review was performed to confirm measure elements. We included all new users of immunosuppressive specialty drugs between 2013 and 2017. We assessed screening for LTBI, HBV, and HCV from 12 months before through 60 days after medication initiation, and calculated performance on a composite measure that required screening for all three infections. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess differences in screening across specialties, adjusting for patient race, sex, age, and comorbidities.

Results

Among 2027 patients, the most common drugs prescribed were adalimumab (32%), etanercept (24%), infliximab (19%), and ustekinumab (9%). Overall, 62% of patients were screened for LTBI, 42% for HBV, and 33% for HCV. Only 26% of patients were screened appropriately for all three infections. Screening patterns differed significantly according to treating specialty.

Conclusions

We found gaps in ambulatory safety for patients treated with immunosuppressive specialty drugs for diverse inflammatory conditions across all relevant treating specialties. More robust safety protocols are urgently needed to prevent serious patient safety events in this high-risk population.

Introduction/objectives

Pneumocystis 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.

Methods

Data 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.

Results

We 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.

Conclusions

PJP 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.

Objective

We examined quality measures for screening, diagnosis, and treatment of lupus nephritis (LN) among participants of the California Lupus Epidemiology Study across 25 different clinical sites to identify gaps in quality of care.

Methods

Data from 250 participants with lupus were analyzed across 3 sources (medical records, physician examination, and patient interviews). Overall performance on 8 quality measures was calculated separately for participants with and without LN. We used generalized estimating equations in which the outcome was performance on measures, adjusting for participant demographics, lupus disease severity, and practice characteristics.

Results

Of 148 patients without LN, 42% underwent screening laboratory tests for nephritis, 38% underwent lupus activity serum studies, and 81% had their blood pressure checked every 6 months. Of 102 LN patients, 67% had a timely kidney biopsy, at least 81% had appropriate treatment, and 78% achieved target blood pressure within 1 year of diagnosis. Overall performance in participants across quality measures was 54% (no LN) and 80% (LN). Significantly higher overall performance for screening measures for LN was seen at academic (63.4-73%) versus community clinics (37.9-38.4%). Similarly, among those with LN, higher performance in academic (84.1-85.2%) versus community clinics (54.8-60.2%) was observed for treatment measures.

Conclusion

In this quality-of-care analysis across 25 diverse clinical settings, we found relatively high performance on measures for management of LN. However, future work should focus on bridging the gaps in lupus quality of care for patients without nephritis, particularly in community settings.