Systematic Omission of Pregnant and Lactating Women from Malignant Haematology Trials Perpetuates a Cycle of Exclusion, Data Shortage and Disadvantage

Abstract Background: Pregnant or breastfeeding women are routinely excluded from clinical trials due to fear of teratogenicity and toxicity of therapeutic agents, despite a paucity of evidence to support this practice. In response to the diethylstilbesterol (DES) and thalidomide-induced embryopathy in the mid-20 th century, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released new regulations excluding Women of Child-Bearing Potential (WoCBP) from phase I and II trial participation, followed by an introduction of a new pregnancy category labelling system in 1979. The legacy of these measures is a reliance on accidental exposure pregnancy data rather than rigorous clinical trial efficacy and safety data for medication use in pregnancy and lactation. WoCBP when enrolled in clinical trials are often subjected to prescriptive contraceptive requirements to mitigate the risk of accidental pregnancy, without informed consent for the contraceptive side effects. These barriers to trial participation for WoCBP, particularly in the setting of life-threatening haematological diseases, prevent timely access to therapies only accessible via clinical trial participation. Lymphoma and leukaemia in pregnancy occur with an approximate incidence of 1 in 6000 and 1 in 75,000-100,000 pregnancies respectively. We examined the rates and rationale for exclusion of these patients from clinical trials, as well as contraceptive requirements for WoCBP. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional observational study of clinical trial protocols recruiting patients with potentially life-threatening haematological malignancies. We searched the clinicaltrials.gov clinical trials database for trial protocols enrolling acute myeloid leukaemia (AML), acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL), Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and/or Diffuse Large B Cell lymphoma (DLBCL) between January 2016 and January 2021. Studies were included if they included WoCBP (15-55 years of age). Studies without complete electronic protocol access were excluded. The following data was collected: target disease, study phase, study location, age of patients, whether pregnant or lactating women were excluded (rationale if provided including evidence of teratogenicity), type of contraception and duration mandated and presence or absence of informed consent for contraception. Results: We identified 68 trials for AML, ALL, DLBCL and HL (40%, 26%, 21% and 13% respectively) (Table 1). Most were phase I-II studies (91%) of novel agents (90%) and of note, the majority were of non-chemotherapy agents (83%). The majority (97%) excluded pregnant women and (69%) without providing rationale. Only 2% cited evidence for embryopathy in either human or animal studies. Most studies (84%) explicitly excluded lactating women, of which 85% did not provide justification. Contraception was mandatory in 90% of the protocols, with 47% of these requiring at least two different forms of contraception for the entire study period. These included hormone-based contraception, barrier methods and abstinence. None of the protocols provided informed consent for the potential side effects of the mandated contraceptive methods in the context of the study. Conclusion: The theoretical harm from anti-cancer therapy to the foetus is typically given greater moral precedence than is a pregnant woman's autonomy. Pregnant and lactating women were almost universally excluded from the trials in this study with limited rationale provided. Study protocols frequently mandated contraception without informed consent of its associated risks in the context of the study. This perpetuates the lack of efficacy and safety data in this patient population, and drives a cycle of systematic exclusion, data shortage, and inequity. Pregnant and lactating women with life threatening haematological malignancies with no alternative treatment options should be eligible for clinical trials where this offers potentially life-saving therapy, with appropriate informed consent around the indefinable and potentially harmful effects on their foetus. We propose obligatory rationale for exclusion of pregnant and breastfeeding women in all clinical trials, using safety data from either human or animal studies and contraception informed consent. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Hamad: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text

Telephone-based nursing intervention improves the effectiveness of the informed consent process in cancer clinical trials.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.1996.14.3.984 ◽

1996 ◽

Vol 14 (3) ◽

pp. 984-996 ◽

Cited By ~ 119

Author(s):

N K Aaronson ◽

E Visser-Pol ◽

G H Leenhouts ◽

M J Muller ◽

A C van der Schot ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Informed Consent ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

Intervention Group ◽

Nursing Intervention ◽

Informed Consent Process ◽

Consent Process ◽

Trial Participation ◽

Oncology Nurse

PURPOSE Here we report the results of a randomized study undertaken to test the efficacy of a supplementary, telephone-based nursing intervention in increasing patients' awareness and understanding of the clinical trials in which they are asked to participate. METHODS During a 12-month period, 180 cancer patients who were approached to participate in a phase II or III clinical trial were randomized to undergo either of the following: (1) standard informed consent procedures based on verbal explanations from the treating physician plus written information (controls); or (2) standard informed consent procedures plus a supplementary, telephone-based contact with an oncology nurse (intervention). For purposes of evaluation, face-to-face interviews were conducted with all patients approximately 1 week after the informed consent process had been completed. RESULTS The two groups were comparable with regard to sociodemographic and clinical variables. Both groups had a high level of awareness of the diagnosis and of the nature and objectives of the proposed treatments. The intervention group was significantly (P < .01) better informed about the following: (1) the risks and side effects of treatment; (2) the clinical trial context of the treatment; (3) the objectives of the clinical trial; (4) where relevant, the use of randomization in allocating treatment; (5) the availability of alternative treatments; (6) the voluntary nature of participation; and (7) the right to withdraw from the clinical trial. The intervention did not have any significant effect on patients' anxiety levels or on rates of clinical trial participation. Patients reported high levels of satisfaction with the intervention. CONCLUSION The use of a supplementary, telephone-based nursing intervention is a feasible and effective means to increase cancer patients' awareness and understanding of the salient issues that surround the clinical trials in which they are asked to participate.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and Safety of Apremilast Monotherapy for Moderate to Severe Psoriasis: Retrospective Study

Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery ◽

10.1177/1203475418755982 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 22 (3) ◽

pp. 290-296 ◽

Cited By ~ 9

Author(s):

Arvin Ighani ◽

Jorge R. Georgakopoulos ◽

Linda L. Zhou ◽

Scott Walsh ◽

Neil Shear ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Real World ◽

Plaque Psoriasis ◽

Safety Data ◽

Retrospective Chart Review ◽

Oral Drug ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Full Spectrum ◽

Severe Plaque Psoriasis

Background: Apremilast is a new oral drug for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis that reduces inflammation by inhibiting phosphodiesterase 4. Its efficacy and safety data are limited; hence, real-world outcomes are important for elucidating the full spectrum of its adverse events (AEs) and expanding generalizability of clinical trial findings. Objective: Assess the efficacy and safety of apremilast monotherapy in real-world practice. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted in 2 academic dermatology practices. Efficacy was measured as the proportion of patients achieving a ≥75% reduction from baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI-75) or a Psoriasis Global Assessment (PGA) score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) at 16 weeks. Safety was measured as the proportion of patients reporting ≥1 AE at 16 weeks. Results: Thirty-four patients were included. Efficacy: 19 patients (55.9%) achieved PASI-75 or PGA 0/1. Safety: 23 patients (67.6%) experienced ≥1 AEs. Five patients (14.7%) withdrew treatment prior to week 16 due to AEs. One patient withdrew treatment due to mood lability and depression. Common AEs included headache (32.4%), nausea (20.6%), diarrhoea (14.7%), weight loss (8.8%), and loose stool (8.8%). Conclusion: Apremilast monotherapy had higher efficacy with similar safety outcomes in the real world compared to clinical trials. There were higher proportions of reported headaches compared to clinical trials. This study supports the apremilast monotherapy clinical trial findings, suggesting that it has an acceptable safety profile and significantly reduces the severity of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study.

Download Full-text

Barriers to participation in clinical trials: a physician survey

Current Oncology ◽

10.3747/co.25.3857 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 25 (2) ◽

pp. 119 ◽

Cited By ~ 16

Author(s):

A. Mahmud ◽

O. Zalay ◽

A. Springer ◽

K. Arts ◽

E. Eisenhauer

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Clinical Work ◽

Trial Participation ◽

Years Of Experience ◽

Barriers To Participation ◽

Factors Affecting ◽

Trial Protocols ◽

Physician Engagement ◽

Academic Credits

Background Clinical trials are vital for evidence-based cancer care. Oncologist engagement in clinical trials has an effect on patient recruitment, which in turn can affect trial success. Identifying barriers to clinical trial participation might enable interventions that could help to increase physician participation.Methods To assess factors affecting physician engagement in oncology trials, a national survey was conducted using the online SurveyMonkey tool (SurveyMonkey, San Mateo, CA, U.S.A.; http://www.surveymonkey.com). Physicians associated with the Canadian Cancer Clinical Trials Network and the Canadian Cancer Trials Group were asked about their specialty, years of experience, barriers to participation, and motivating interventions, which included an open-ended question inviting survey takers to suggest interventions.Results The survey collected 207 anonymous responses. Respondents were predominantly medical oncologists (46.4%), followed by radiation oncologists (24.6%). Almost 70% of the respondents had more than 10 years of experience. Significant time constraints included extra paperwork (77%), patient education (54%), and extended follow-up or clinic visits (53%). Timing of events within trials was also a barrier to participation (55%). Most respondents favoured clinical work credits (72%), academic credits (67%), a clinical trial alert system (75%), a regular meeting to review trial protocols (65%), and a screening log to aid in patient accrual (67%) as motivational strategies. Suggested interventions included increased support staff, streamlined regulatory burden, and provision of greater funding for trials and easier access to ancillary services.Conclusions The present study confirms that Canadian oncologists are willing to participate in clinical research, but face multiple barriers to trial participation. Those barriers could be mitigated by the implementation of several interventions identified in the study.

Download Full-text

Lay persons’ perception of the requirements for research in emergency obstetric and newborn care

10.21203/rs.3.rs-62215/v3 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Daniel Kabonge Kaye

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Decision Making ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Informed Consent ◽

Newborn Care ◽

Obstetric Complications ◽

Trial Participation ◽

Related Information ◽

Lay Persons ◽

Newborn Complications

Abstract Background: Factors that could potentially act as facilitators and barriers to successful recruitment strategies in perinatal clinical trials are not well documented. The objective was to assess lay persons’ understanding of the informed consent for randomized clinical trial in emergency obstetric and newborn care.Methods: This was a qualitative study conducted among survivors of severe obstetric complications who were attending the post-natal clinic of Kawempe National Referral Hospital, Uganda, 6-8 weeks after surviving severe obstetric complications during pregnancy or childbirth. The study that involved 18 in-depth interviews was conducted from June 1, 2019 to July 6, 2019. The issues explored included perceptions of the purpose and necessity to conduct such research how research-related information would be disclosed, and what could be the potential benefits and risks of participation. The data was analyzed by thematic analysis.Results: Respondents felt that research was necessary to investigate the cause, prevention or complications of an illness, especially as much was known about some pregnancy and newborn complications. Most believed that the emergency contexts affects whether and what prospective participants may understand if information about research was disclosed. Whereas they did not see the value of procedures like randomization, they felt that if these and any other procedures necessary should be done transparently and fairly. The decisions to participate would significantly be influenced by possibility of risk to the unborn baby or the newborn. Solidarity was an important influence on decision-making.Conclusions: Respondents valued participation in RCTs in emergency obstetric and newborn care. However, they expressed concerns and valued openness, transparency and accountability with regard to how clinical trials information is disclosed and the decision-making process for clinical trial participation. While autonomy and solidarity are contradictory values, they complement each other during decision-making for informed consent.

Download Full-text

The general data protection regulation, the clinical trial regulation and some complex interplay in paediatric clinical trials

European Journal of Pediatrics ◽

10.1007/s00431-021-03933-3 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

H. W. Dalrymple

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Data Privacy ◽

Trial Participation ◽

General Data Protection Regulation ◽

Trial Conduct ◽

Trial Protocols ◽

Trial Subject ◽

A Minor ◽

The Impact

AbstractAlthough a number of authors have commented upon the impact of the GDPR on clinical trial conduct, few have examined the specific setting of paediatric trials. Whilst the general principles are the same as those for adults, some additional considerations arise. The ages of consent relating to data privacy and clinical trial participation are different in a number of countries, but the distinction is often not recognised in non-drug trials. Accidental pregnancies in clinical trials always raise complexities, but these are amplified when the trial subject is a minor, and the processes described in clinical trial protocols rarely take account of GDPR requirements. This paper describes approaches which can be taken to ensure the rights of children are respected.Conclusion: The conduct of paediatric clinical trials within GDPR requirements is quite possible provided authors think carefully when drafting protocols. What is Known:•GDPR is applicable to clinical trials, including paediatric trials.•A number of challenges at the interface between the GDPR and CTR have been described. What is New:•The application of the GDPR to certain specific situations in paediatric trials does not appear to have been explored.•Three such situations are described and solutions offered.

Download Full-text

Broadening community engagement in clinical research: Designing and assessing a pilot crowdsourcing project to obtain community feedback on an HIV clinical trial

Clinical Trials ◽

10.1177/1740774520902741 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 17 (3) ◽

pp. 306-313 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Suzanne Day ◽

Allison Mathews ◽

Meredith Blumberg ◽

Thi Vu ◽

Stuart Rennie ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Informed Consent ◽

Community Engagement ◽

Trial Participation ◽

Community Members ◽

Public Discussion ◽

Engagement Strategies ◽

Community Interest ◽

Hiv Clinical Trials

Background/Aims Community engagement is widely acknowledged as an important step in clinical trials. One underexplored method for engagement in clinical trials is crowdsourcing. Crowdsourcing involves having community members attempt to solve a problem and then publicly sharing innovative solutions. We designed and conducted a pilot using a crowdsourcing approach to obtain community feedback on an HIV clinical trial, called the Acceptability of Combined Community Engagement Strategies Study. In this work, we describe and assess the Acceptability of Combined Community Engagement Strategies Study’s crowdsourcing activities in order to examine the opportunities of crowdsourcing as a clinical trial community engagement strategy. Methods The crowdsourcing engagement activities involved in the Acceptability of Combined Community Engagement Strategies Study were conducted in the context of a phase 1 HIV antibody trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03803605). We designed a series of crowdsourcing activities to collect feedback on three aspects of this clinical trial: the informed consent process, the experience of participating in the trial, and fairness/reciprocity in HIV clinical trials. All crowdsourcing activities were open to members of the general public 18 years of age or older, and participation was solicited from the local community. A group discussion was held with representatives of the clinical trial team to obtain feedback on the utility of crowdsourcing as a community engagement strategy for informing future clinical trials. Results Crowdsourcing activities made use of innovative tools and a combination of in-person and online participation opportunities to engage community members in the clinical trial feedback process. Community feedback on informed consent was collected by transforming the clinical trial’s informed consent form into a series of interactive video modules, which were screened at an open public discussion. Feedback on the experience of trial participation involved designing three fictional vignettes which were then transformed into animated videos and screened at an open public discussion. Finally, feedback on fairness/reciprocity in HIV clinical trials was collected using a crowdsourcing idea contest with online and in-person submission opportunities. Our public discussion events were attended by 38 participants in total; our idea contest received 43 submissions (27 in-person, 16 online). Facebook and Twitter metrics demonstrated substantial engagement in the project. The clinical team found crowdsourcing primarily useful for enhancing informed consent and trial recruitment. Conclusion There is sufficient lay community interest in open calls for feedback on the design and conduct of clinical trials, making crowdsourcing both a novel and feasible engagement strategy. Clinical trial researchers are encouraged to consider the opportunities of implementing crowdsourcing to inform trial processes from a community perspective.

Download Full-text

Lay persons’ perception of the requirements for research in emergency obstetric and newborn care

BMC Medical Ethics ◽

10.1186/s12910-020-00568-1 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 22 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Dan Kabonge Kaye

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Decision Making ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Informed Consent ◽

Newborn Care ◽

Obstetric Complications ◽

Trial Participation ◽

Related Information ◽

Lay Persons ◽

Newborn Complications

Abstract Background Factors that could potentially act as facilitators and barriers to successful recruitment strategies in perinatal clinical trials are not well documented. The objective was to assess lay persons’ understanding of the informed consent for randomized clinical trial in emergency obstetric and newborn care. Methods This was a qualitative study conducted among survivors of severe obstetric complications who were attending the post-natal clinic of Kawempe National Referral Hospital, Uganda, 6–8 weeks after surviving severe obstetric complications during pregnancy or childbirth. The study that involved 18 in-depth interviews was conducted from June 1, 2019 to July 6, 2019. The issues explored included perceptions of the purpose and necessity to conduct such research how research-related information would be disclosed, and what could be the potential benefits and risks of participation. The data was analyzed by thematic analysis. Results Respondents felt that research was necessary to investigate the cause, prevention or complications of an illness, especially as much was known about some pregnancy and newborn complications. Most believed that the emergency contexts affects whether and what prospective participants may understand if information about research was disclosed. Whereas they did not see the value of procedures like randomization, they felt that if these and any other procedures necessary should be done transparently and fairly. The decisions to participate would significantly be influenced by possibility of risk to the unborn baby or the newborn. Solidarity was an important influence on decision-making. Conclusions Respondents valued participation in RCTs in emergency obstetric and newborn care. However, they expressed concerns and valued openness, transparency and accountability with regard to how clinical trials information is disclosed and the decision-making process for clinical trial participation. While autonomy and solidarity are contradictory values, they complement each other during decision-making for informed consent.

Download Full-text

Lay Persons’ Perception of the Requirements for Research in Emergency Obstetric and Newborn Care

10.21203/rs.3.rs-62215/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Daniel Kabonge Kaye

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Decision Making ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Informed Consent ◽

Newborn Care ◽

Obstetric Complications ◽

Trial Participation ◽

Related Information ◽

Lay Persons ◽

Newborn Complications

Abstract Background: Factors that could potentially act as facilitators and barriers to successful recruitment strategies in perinatal clinical trials are not well documented. The objective was to assess lay persons’ understanding of the informed consent for randomized clinical trial in emergency obstetric and newborn care. Methods: This was a qualitative study conducted among survivors of severe obstetric complications who were attending the post-natal clinic of Kawempe National Referral Hospital, Uganda, 6-8 weeks after surviving severe obstetric complications during pregnancy or childbirth. The study that involved 18 in-depth interviews was conducted from June 1, 2019 to July 6, 2019. The issues explored included perceptions of the purpose and necessity to conduct such research how research-related information would be disclosed, and what could be the potential benefits and risks of participation. The data was analyzed by thematic analysis. Findings: Respondents felt that research was necessary to investigate the cause, prevention or complications of an illness, especially as much was known about some pregnancy and newborn complications. Most believed that the emergency contexts affects whether and what prospective participants may understand if information about research was disclosed. Whereas they did not see the value of procedures like randomization, they felt that if these and any other procedures necessary should be done transparently and fairly. The decisions to participate would significantly be influenced by possibility of risk to the unborn baby or the newborn. Solidarity was an important influence on decision-making. Conclusion: Respondents valued participation in RCTs in emergency obstetric and newborn care. However, they expressed concerns and valued openness, transparency and accountability with regard to how clinical trials information is disclosed and the decision-making process for clinical trial participation. While autonomy and solidarity are contradictory values, they complement each other during decision-making for informed consent.

Download Full-text

Lay persons’ perception of the requirements for research in emergency obstetric and newborn care

10.21203/rs.3.rs-62215/v2 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Daniel Kabonge Kaye

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Decision Making ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Informed Consent ◽

Newborn Care ◽

Obstetric Complications ◽

Trial Participation ◽

Related Information ◽

Lay Persons ◽

Newborn Complications

Abstract Background: Factors that could potentially act as facilitators and barriers to successful recruitment strategies in perinatal clinical trials are not well documented. The objective was to assess lay persons’ understanding of the informed consent for randomized clinical trial in emergency obstetric and newborn care. Methods: This was a qualitative study conducted among survivors of severe obstetric complications who were attending the post-natal clinic of Kawempe National Referral Hospital, Uganda, 6-8 weeks after surviving severe obstetric complications during pregnancy or childbirth. The study that involved 18 in-depth interviews was conducted from June 1, 2019 to July 6, 2019. The issues explored included perceptions of the purpose and necessity to conduct such research how research-related information would be disclosed, and what could be the potential benefits and risks of participation. The data was analyzed by thematic analysis. Findings: Respondents felt that research was necessary to investigate the cause, prevention or complications of an illness, especially as much was known about some pregnancy and newborn complications. Most believed that the emergency contexts affects whether and what prospective participants may understand if information about research was disclosed. Whereas they did not see the value of procedures like randomization, they felt that if these and any other procedures necessary should be done transparently and fairly. The decisions to participate would significantly be influenced by possibility of risk to the unborn baby or the newborn. Solidarity was an important influence on decision-making. Conclusion: Respondents valued participation in RCTs in emergency obstetric and newborn care. However, they expressed concerns and valued openness, transparency and accountability with regard to how clinical trials information is disclosed and the decision-making process for clinical trial participation. While autonomy and solidarity are contradictory values, they complement each other during decision-making for informed consent.

Download Full-text

Tuberculosis and viral hepatitis in patients treated with certolizumab pegol in Asia-Pacific countries and worldwide: real-world and clinical trial data

Clinical Rheumatology ◽

10.1007/s10067-020-05248-4 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Chak Sing Lau ◽

Yi-Hsing Chen ◽

Keith Lim ◽

Marc de Longueville ◽

Catherine Arendt ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Viral Hepatitis ◽

Central Europe ◽

Real World ◽

Certolizumab Pegol ◽

Safety Data ◽

Asia Pacific ◽

Hbv Reactivation ◽

Post Marketing

Abstract Introduction/objectives To evaluate the incidence rate (IR) of tuberculosis (TB) and viral hepatitis B and C (HBV/HCV) during certolizumab pegol (CZP) treatment, worldwide and in Asia-Pacific countries, across clinical trials and post-marketing reports (non-interventional studies and real-world practice). Method CZP safety data were pooled across 49 clinical trials from 1998 to June 2017. Post-marketing reports were from initial commercialization until March 2015 (TB)/February 2017 (HBV/HCV). All suspected TB and HBV/HCV cases underwent centralized retrospective review by external experts. Incidence rates (IRs) were calculated per 100 patient-years (PY) of CZP exposure. Results Among 11,317 clinical trial patients (21,695 PY), 62 TB cases were confirmed (IR 0.29/100 PY) including 2 in Japan (0.10/100 PY) and 3 in other Asia-Pacific countries (0.58/100 PY). From > 238,000 PY estimated post-marketing CZP exposure, there were 31 confirmed TB cases (0.01/100 PY): 5 in Japan (0.05/100 PY), 1 in other Asia-Pacific countries (0.03/100 PY). Reported regional TB IRs were highest in eastern Europe (0.17/100 PY), central Europe (0.09/100 PY), and Mexico (0.16/100 PY). Across clinical trials, there was 1 confirmed HBV reactivation and no HCV cases. From > 420,000 PY estimated post-marketing CZP exposure, 5 HBV/HCV cases were confirmed (0.001/100 PY): 2 HCV reactivations; 1 new HCV; plus 2 HBV reactivations in Japan (0.008/100 PY). Conclusions CZP TB risk is aligned with nationwide TB rates, being slightly higher in Asia-Pacific countries excluding Japan. Overall, TB and HBV/HCV risk with CZP treatment is currently relatively low, as risk can be minimized with patient/physician education, screening, and vigilant treatment, according to international guidelines. Key Points:• TB rates were highest in eastern/central Europe, Mexico, and Asia-Pacific regions.• With the implementation of stricter TB screening and risk evaluations in 2007, especially in high TB incidence countries, there was a notable reduction TB occurrence.• Safety profile of biologics in real-world settings complements controlled studies.• TB and hepatitis (HBV/HCV) risk with certolizumab pegol (CZP) treatment is low.

Download Full-text