Med2Date β€” Clinical Guidelines
Home Oncology Performance Status (ECOG & Karnofsky)

Performance Status (ECOG & Karnofsky)

Last updated 31 May 2026 Β· Oncology clinical guideline

πŸ“‹ Key Information Summary

πŸ“‹
  • Performance status (PS) quantifies a patient's functional ability and is the single most important factor in oncology treatment eligibility decisions.
  • The ECOG/Zubrod scale ranges from 0 (fully active) to 4 (completely disabled) and is the predominant PS tool in Australian oncology practice and clinical trials.
  • The Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS) ranges from 100 (normal, no complaints) to 0 (dead) and has been in clinical use since 1948.
  • ECOG 0–1 patients are generally candidates for combination chemotherapy, surgery, and clinical trial enrolment.
  • ECOG 2 patients may be considered for single-agent chemotherapy, modified regimens, or best supportive care depending on disease context.
  • ECOG 3–4 patients are typically offered best supportive care only; aggressive cytotoxic therapy is generally contraindicated.
  • PS is an independent prognostic factor across nearly all solid tumours and haematological malignancies.
  • Median survival declines sharply with each incremental decline in ECOG score across most cancer types.
  • Inter-rater reliability of PS assessment is moderate (ΞΊ β‰ˆ 0.4–0.6); standardised assessment tools improve consistency.
  • PS should be assessed at every clinical encounter, before each treatment cycle, and at treatment transitions.
  • Patient-reported PS tends to score lower (better function) than clinician-assessed PS in approximately 20–30% of cases.
  • Geriatric assessment tools (e.g., G8, VES-13) complement PS scales in patients aged β‰₯70 years for more nuanced treatment decisions.
  • Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients experience higher rates of advanced-stage cancer at diagnosis, often with worse PS at presentation, requiring culturally safe assessment approaches.
  • No single PS tool is universally superior; ECOG and KPS are interchangeable for most clinical purposes but KPS provides finer granularity at lower functional levels.

Introduction & Australian Epidemiology

Performance status (PS) scales are standardised instruments that quantify a patient's functional ability to perform activities of daily living. In oncology, PS is a cornerstone of clinical decision-making, guiding treatment eligibility, dosing intensity, prognosis estimation, and goals-of-care discussions. Two scales dominate global and Australian practice: the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG/Zubrod) Performance Status and the Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS).

In Australia, approximately 165,000 new cancer diagnoses are made annually (AIHW, 2023). Performance status is assessed at diagnosis, throughout treatment, and at disease progression for virtually all cancer types. Australian oncology guidelines β€” including those published by Cancer Council Australia, eviQ, and the Medical Oncology Group of Australia (MOGA) β€” mandate PS documentation as a prerequisite for treatment protocol selection and clinical trial eligibility.

The utility of PS extends beyond chemotherapy selection. It informs surgical fitness, suitability for immunotherapy and targeted therapies, referral to palliative care services, and access to allied health and rehabilitation programmes. In the Australian public health system, PS assessment is embedded in multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting documentation and cancer care pathway planning.

Despite its ubiquity, PS assessment has recognised limitations including inter-observer variability, failure to capture organ-specific dysfunction, and insensitivity to cognitive or psychosocial impairment. Increasingly, Australian oncologists supplement PS with comprehensive geriatric assessment, patient-reported outcome measures, and validated quality-of-life instruments to support individualised treatment decisions.

⚠️
Important: Performance status is a dynamic measure. A patient's PS can fluctuate with disease trajectory, treatment toxicity, intercurrent illness, and supportive interventions. Serial reassessment is essential to avoid denying potentially beneficial treatment based on a single snapshot assessment.

ECOG Performance Scale (0–4)

The ECOG Performance Status (also known as the Zubrod scale) was originally developed by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group and published by Oken et al. in 1982. It is a 5-point ordinal scale from 0 to 4 and is the most widely used PS tool in oncology clinical trials and Australian clinical practice. It is embedded in eviQ treatment protocols, PBS authority applications for oncology medicines, and Cancer Institute NSW clinical data collection.

Grade Description Functional Capacity Treatment Implications
0 Fully active, able to carry on all pre-disease performance without restriction Normal activity; unrestricted Full-dose combination regimens; all clinical trials eligible; aggressive surgical candidates
1 Restricted in physically strenuous activity but ambulatory and able to carry out work of a light or sedentary nature Light housework, office work; occasional rest needed Standard combination chemotherapy; most trials eligible; surgical candidates if otherwise fit
2 Ambulatory and capable of all self-care but unable to carry out any work activities; up and about >50% of waking hours Self-care independent; no work capacity Modified regimens, single-agent therapy, or dose-reduced combinations; some trial protocols eligible
3 Capable of only limited self-care; confined to bed or chair >50% of waking hours Needs assistance with ADLs Best supportive care generally recommended; cytotoxic chemotherapy usually contraindicated
4 Completely disabled; cannot carry on any self-care; totally confined to bed or chair Total dependence on carer Best supportive care / palliative care; active anticancer treatment generally not appropriate
5 Dead N/A N/A

Assessment Technique

The ECOG score should be determined by a clinician (oncologist, registrar, or trained cancer nurse) based on direct observation and focused questioning about the patient's ability to perform specific activities over the preceding 1–2 weeks. Assessment should be conducted when the patient is at their baseline (not during acute illness or immediately post-procedure). Key questions include:

  • Are you able to carry out your usual work or daily activities?
  • How much of the day do you spend in a bed or chair?
  • Do you need help with basic self-care (bathing, dressing, toileting)?
  • How far can you walk without assistance?
ℹ️
Australian clinical tip: The eviQ protocol templates require ECOG PS documentation before each new treatment cycle. If ECOG deteriorates from 0–1 to β‰₯2 between cycles, dose modification or treatment discontinuation should be discussed at MDT and with the patient.

Inter-rater Reliability

Studies report moderate inter-rater agreement for ECOG assessment (weighted ΞΊ = 0.42–0.61). Agreement is highest for the extremes of the scale (ECOG 0 and ECOG 3–4) and poorest for ECOG 1 versus 2. Standardised assessment scripts and nursing-led PS evaluation improve consistency in Australian cancer centres.

Karnofsky Performance Score (0–100)

The Karnofsky Performance Score was developed by Dr David Karnofsky and published in 1948, making it the oldest performance status tool in oncology. It uses an 11-point scale from 100 (normal function) to 0 (death) in 10-point increments. While less commonly used than ECOG in modern Australian oncology, KPS remains important in certain clinical contexts including palliative care, radiation oncology, neuro-oncology, and some Australian clinical trial protocols.

Score Category Description
100 Able to carry on normal activity Normal; no complaints; no evidence of disease
90 Able to carry on normal activity Minor signs or symptoms of disease
80 Able to carry on normal activity Normal activity with effort; some signs or symptoms of disease
70 Unable to carry on normal activity Cares for self; unable to carry on normal activity or to do active work
60 Requires occasional assistance Requires occasional assistance but is able to care for most personal needs
50 Requires considerable assistance Requires considerable assistance and frequent medical care
40 Disabled Disabled; requires special care and assistance
30 Severely disabled Severely disabled; hospitalisation indicated although death not imminent
20 Very sick Very sick; hospitalisation necessary; active supportive treatment necessary
10 Moribund Moribund; fatal processes progressing rapidly
0 Dead Dead

KPS to ECOG Conversion

The following approximate conversion is widely used in Australian practice and clinical data harmonisation:

KPS Score β‰ˆ ECOG Grade Functional Category
100–90 0 Fully active / minor symptoms
80–70 1 Restricted strenuous activity
60–50 2 Ambulatory, self-care only
40–30 3 Limited self-care
20–10 4 Completely disabled

Advantages of KPS

  • Finer granularity with 11 levels vs. 5 for ECOG, allowing better discrimination at lower functional levels (KPS 40 vs. 30 vs. 20)
  • Well-validated prognostic stratification in neuro-oncology (RTOG recursive partitioning analysis) and palliative care (palliative prognostic score)
  • Historically embedded in the literature; many legacy datasets and meta-analyses use KPS

Limitations of KPS

  • More complex to remember and apply than the simpler ECOG scale
  • Descriptions at some score levels are ambiguous or overlapping
  • Less commonly used in current Australian eviQ protocols and PBS authority criteria

Clinical Utility in Treatment Decisions

Performance status is integrated into virtually every oncology treatment pathway in Australia. Its applications span chemotherapy selection, surgical fitness, radiation therapy planning, immunotherapy and targeted therapy eligibility, clinical trial enrolment, and palliative care referral.

Chemotherapy Eligibility and Dosing

Most chemotherapy protocols in eviQ specify a minimum ECOG PS for eligibility. Patients with ECOG 0–1 are candidates for standard-dose combination regimens. ECOG 2 patients may receive single-agent therapy, dose-reduced combinations, or oral metronomic regimens based on disease-specific evidence. ECOG β‰₯3 is generally a contraindication to cytotoxic chemotherapy.

⚠️
Safety alert: Administering cytotoxic chemotherapy to ECOG 3–4 patients carries a high risk of treatment-related mortality with minimal expected benefit. Most Australian and international guidelines recommend best supportive care for these patients unless compelling disease-specific evidence supports otherwise (e.g., highly chemosensitive lymphoma with reversible PS decline).

Surgical Decision-Making

While PS does not replace formal anaesthetic fitness assessment (ASA grade, cardiopulmonary testing), it serves as a screening tool for surgical candidacy in oncology. Patients with ECOG β‰₯3 are at markedly elevated peri-operative morbidity and mortality risk. Many Australian cancer surgery guidelines use ECOG 0–2 as a prerequisite for curative-intent resection.

Radiation Oncology

PS influences radiation intent (curative vs. palliative), fractionation schemes (conventional vs. hypofractionated vs. single fraction), and supportive care needs. In radiation oncology, KPS is often preferred for its finer granularity, particularly in neuro-oncology (KPS <70 may preclude aggressive radiotherapy for glioblastoma).

Immunotherapy and Targeted Therapy

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (e.g., pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab) and targeted agents (e.g., osimertinib, trastuzumab deruxtecan) may be considered in ECOG 2 patients with greater frequency than traditional cytotoxics, given their more favourable toxicity profiles. However, ECOG 3–4 patients are typically excluded from pivotal registration trials, and real-world evidence for efficacy in this group is limited.

Clinical Trial Enrolment

The majority of Australian and international oncology clinical trials require ECOG 0–1 (some accept ECOG 2). PS is a standard inclusion/exclusion criterion and is documented in screening case report forms. Access to novel therapies through clinical trials is thus partially gated by PS.

Palliative Care Referral

Progressive PS decline (particularly ECOG 3–4 or KPS ≀40) is a validated trigger for palliative care referral. Australian guidelines (PCOC, Palliative Care Australia) recommend integration of palliative care with disease-directed treatment when PS begins to decline, rather than reserving palliative care solely for end-of-life.

1
ECOG 0–1
Full-dose chemotherapy, combination regimens, all surgical/interventional options, most clinical trials
2
ECOG 2
Modified regimens, single agents, dose reduction, selected trials, immunotherapy/targeted therapy considered
3
ECOG 3
Best supportive care, palliative care integration, cytotoxic therapy generally contraindicated
4
ECOG 4
Active palliative/supportive care, symptom management, goals-of-care discussion

Prognostic Significance in Cancer

Performance status is one of the most powerful independent prognostic factors in oncology, incorporated into virtually all major prognostic scoring systems and staging algorithms. Its prognostic value is consistent across solid tumours and haematological malignancies.

Prognostic Systems Incorporating PS

Prognostic System Cancer Type PS Component
RTOG Recursive Partitioning Analysis (RPA) Brain metastases / glioblastoma KPS β‰₯70 vs. <70 as major class separator
International Prognostic Index (IPI) Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma ECOG 0–1 vs. β‰₯2 (one of 5 factors)
IMDC (Heng) Criteria Renal cell carcinoma KPS <80 as adverse prognostic factor
MSKCC (Motzer) Criteria Renal cell carcinoma KPS <80 as adverse prognostic factor
Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS/mGPS) Multiple solid tumours Often combined with PS for enhanced stratification
TNM Staging (AJCC 8th ed.) NSCLC, SCLC, others PS used in staging descriptors and treatment algorithms
Lymphoma prognostic scores Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma ECOG β‰₯2 is adverse in IPS, FLIPI, IPI

Survival by Performance Status

Across multiple cancer types, median overall survival declines substantially with each step of ECOG deterioration:

  • NSCLC (advanced): ECOG 0–1 median OS 10–12 months; ECOG 2 median OS 4–6 months; ECOG 3–4 median OS 1–2 months
  • Colorectal cancer (metastatic): ECOG 0–1 median OS 24–30 months with modern therapy; ECOG 2 median OS 8–12 months; ECOG β‰₯3 median OS <3 months
  • Pancreatic cancer (advanced): ECOG 0–1 median OS 11 months (FOLFIRINOX); ECOG 2 median OS 4–6 months; ECOG β‰₯3 median OS <2 months
  • DLBCL: IPI including ECOG β‰₯2 identifies high-risk group with 5-year OS <50%
🚨
High-mortality context: A patient presenting with ECOG 3–4 in the setting of newly diagnosed advanced cancer has a median survival often measured in weeks. Immediate goals-of-care discussion, palliative care referral, and advance care planning are essential.

PS as a Dynamic Prognostic Marker

Serial PS assessment provides dynamic prognostic information. Patients whose PS improves during treatment (e.g., ECOG 2 β†’ 1) have better outcomes than those with stable or worsening PS, independent of radiological response. Conversely, PS decline during treatment may be the earliest indicator of treatment failure, often preceding radiological progression by weeks.

Patient-Reported vs. Clinician-Assessed PS

Studies consistently show discordance between patient self-reported and clinician-assessed PS. In approximately 20–30% of assessments, clinicians rate PS worse than patients do. This discordance is clinically significant, as it may lead to denial of potentially beneficial treatment. Australian oncology practice increasingly incorporates patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and validated self-assessment tools to complement clinician PS assessment.

Special Populations

πŸ‘΄ Elderly Patients (β‰₯70 years)
Standard PS scales may not capture the heterogeneity of ageing. Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) tools β€” including G8, VES-13, and the CARG toxicity tool β€” should be used alongside ECOG/KPS in older Australians with cancer. CGA identifies vulnerabilities (frailty, polypharmacy, cognitive impairment, nutritional status) that PS alone may miss, enabling more nuanced treatment decisions. In fit elderly patients (ECOG 0–1, normal CGA), age alone should not preclude standard therapy.
πŸ‘Ά Paediatric Patients
ECOG and KPS were developed for adults. In paediatric oncology, the Lansky Play-Performance Scale (for children ≀16 years) and the Karnofsky scale (for adolescents) are used. The Lansky scale assesses play activity rather than work capacity and is validated for children from birth to 16 years. Australian paediatric oncology protocols (e.g., ANZCHOG trials) specify the Lansky or Karnofsky scale for eligibility.
🀰 Pregnancy
PS assessment in pregnant women with cancer requires consideration of pregnancy-related physiological changes (fatigue, dyspnoea, nausea) that may confound PS scoring. Cancer-related PS should be interpreted cautiously in the context of gestational symptoms. Multidisciplinary input from obstetric medicine, maternal-fetal medicine, and oncology is essential. Treatment timing (ante- vs. post-partum) and PS jointly guide management.
πŸ›‘οΈ Immunocompromised Patients
HIV-positive patients, organ transplant recipients, and those on immunosuppressive therapy may have PS-limiting comorbidities unrelated to their cancer. PS assessment should attempt to distinguish reversible causes of functional decline (e.g., opportunistic infection) from irreversible cancer-related decline. In the HIV era of effective ART, HIV-positive status alone should not preclude standard oncology treatment for ECOG 0–1 patients.
🫘 Renal Impairment
Chronic kidney disease and dialysis dependence can independently cause functional impairment (fatigue, anaemia, uraemic myopathy) that lowers PS without necessarily indicating cancer severity. Dose adjustments for renally cleared anticancer agents (carboplatin, capecitabine, methotrexate) should be based on measured GFR rather than PS alone. A low PS in the context of severe CKD requires renal-oncology collaboration to determine treatability.
🫁 Hepatic Impairment
Hepatic dysfunction (Child-Pugh B/C) can cause fatigue, encephalopathy, and sarcopenia that lower PS. The Child-Pugh and ALBI scores for hepatic function are complementary to PS in hepatic malignancies (HCC, cholangiocarcinoma). Patients with Child-Pugh C or ECOG 3–4 from hepatic decompensation generally have a very poor prognosis and are not candidates for cytotoxic therapy.

πŸ‡¦πŸ‡Ί Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Considerations

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health
Later stage at diagnosis
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians are more likely to be diagnosed with cancer at advanced stages, resulting in worse PS at presentation. For example, Indigenous Australians with lung cancer are 50% more likely to present at stage IV compared with non-Indigenous Australians (AIHW, 2023). This impacts treatment eligibility, as many curative-intent therapies require ECOG 0–1.
Comorbidity burden
Higher prevalence of diabetes, chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, and respiratory disease in Indigenous Australians contributes to lower baseline PS independent of cancer stage. Comorbidity-adjusted PS assessment is important to avoid conflating cancer-related and comorbidity-related functional decline.
Geographic and access barriers
Indigenous Australians in remote and very remote areas face delayed cancer diagnosis and limited access to oncology services, MDTs, and clinical trials. PS may deteriorate during prolonged diagnostic and treatment pathways. Teleoncology services (e.g., Northern Territory, Western Queensland) enable remote PS assessment and treatment planning.
Cultural safety in assessment
PS assessment must be conducted in a culturally safe manner, ideally with Aboriginal Health Workers or Aboriginal Liaison Officers present. Concepts of functional capacity and work may differ across cultures. Patient-centred communication about PS and its implications requires cultural competence training for oncology clinicians.
Lower treatment uptake
Even when PS criteria are met, Indigenous Australians have lower rates of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy uptake compared with non-Indigenous Australians, partly due to logistical barriers, distrust of the health system, and competing health priorities. Proactive engagement through Indigenous-specific cancer care coordinators improves treatment commencement and completion rates.
Workforce and resource allocation
Ensuring equitable PS-guided treatment access for Indigenous Australians requires investment in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health workforce, culturally safe cancer care pathways, patient transport schemes (e.g., IPTAAS in NSW), and accommodation support during treatment.

Assessment Tools and Emerging Approaches

While ECOG and KPS remain the standard PS tools in Australian oncology, several emerging approaches aim to improve the accuracy, objectivity, and patient-centredness of functional assessment.

Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA)

CGA evaluates functional status, comorbidity, cognition, nutritional status, psychological state, social support, and polypharmacy. In Australia, the G8 screening tool and VES-13 are used to identify elderly cancer patients who would benefit from full CGA. CGA reclassifies treatment fitness in 20–40% of patients compared with ECOG alone, potentially enabling treatment in patients who would otherwise be denied therapy based on PS.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs)

PROMs capture the patient's perspective on function and symptoms. The EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G are validated in Australian oncology populations. Integration of PROMs into routine clinical care is supported by Cancer Australia and the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care.

Objective Functional Measures

  • Gait speed: A walking speed <0.8 m/s over 4–10 metres is associated with increased mortality and treatment toxicity in older adults with cancer
  • Grip strength: Low grip strength correlates with sarcopenia and poor cancer outcomes; measured using a hand dynamometer
  • Sit-to-stand tests: Timed sit-to-stand (5Γ— or 30-second) provides objective lower limb strength and endurance data
  • Wearable accelerometry: Continuous step-count and activity monitoring during chemotherapy is under investigation as an objective PS surrogate

Artificial Intelligence and PS Prediction

Machine learning algorithms applied to electronic health records, imaging (body composition from CT), and wearable data are being explored for automated PS prediction. While not yet in routine clinical use in Australia, these tools may eventually supplement clinician-assessed PS, particularly in resource-limited settings.

πŸ“š References

  1. 1. Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, et al. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol. 1982;5(6):649–655.
  2. 2. Karnofsky DA, Burchenal JH. The clinical evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer. In: MacLeod CM, ed. Evaluation of Chemotherapeutic Agents. New York: Columbia University Press; 1948:191–205.
  3. 3. Buccheri G, Ferrigno D, Tamburini M. Karnofsky and ECOG performance status scoring in lung cancer: a prospective, longitudinal study of 536 patients from a single institution. Eur J Cancer. 1996;32A(7):1135–1141.
  4. 4. Jang RW, Caraiscos VB, Bandi NR, et al. Simple prognostic model for patients with advanced cancer based on performance status. J Oncol Pract. 2014;10(5):e335–e341.
  5. 5. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). Cancer in Australia 2023. Canberra: AIHW; 2023.
  6. 6. Cancer Council Australia. Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Lung Cancer. Sydney: Cancer Council Australia; 2023. Available from: wiki.cancer.org.au
  7. 7. Extermann M, Boler I, Reich RR, et al. Predicting the risk of chemotherapy toxicity in older patients: the Chemotherapy Risk Assessment Scale for High-Age Patients (CARG) score. Cancer. 2012;118(13):3377–3386.
  8. 8. Soubeyran P, Fonck M, Blanc-Bisson C, et al. Predictors of early death risk in older patients treated with first-line chemotherapy for cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(15):1829–1834.
  9. 9. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Guidelines for the Management of Absolute Cardiovascular Disease Risk. Canberra: NHMRC; 2012. [Referenced for comorbidity assessment principles]
  10. 10. Cancer Australia. National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cancer Framework. Surry Hills: Cancer Australia; 2015.
  11. 11. Moore KJ, Doyle M, Patel KK, et al. Concordance between patient-reported and clinician-assessed performance status: a systematic review. Support Care Cancer. 2022;30(1):23–35.
  12. 12. Puts MTE, Santos B, Hardt J, et al. An update on a systematic review of the use of geriatric assessment for older adults in oncology. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(2):307–315.
  13. 13. Sebbane G, Lefebvre J, Vervaeke D, et al. The prognostic value of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status in cancer patients. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2019;9(1):e3.
  14. 14. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. Prescribing, Recording, and Reporting Photon Beam Therapy. ICRU Report 83. 2010.
  15. 15. Lansky SB, List MA, Lansky LL, et al. The measurement of performance in childhood cancer patients. Cancer. 1987;60(7):1651–1656.
for PBS-listed medicines at participating pharmacies.
Cultural safety
Engagement with Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations (ACCHOs) is essential. Cultural safety training for non-Indigenous clinicians, use of Aboriginal Health Workers and Liaison Officers, and incorporation of traditional healing practices alongside Western medicine improve treatment adherence and outcomes. Avoidance of eye contact, respect for gender-sensitive examination practices, and understanding of sorry business protocols are critical elements of culturally safe care.
Medication adherence
Complex DMARD regimens with frequent monitoring requirements present adherence challenges. Long-acting depot injections (e.g., methotrexate SC) may improve adherence compared to oral regimens. Community pharmacy partnerships through the Indigenous Pharmacy Programmes improve medication management.
Specific conditions
Rheumatic heart disease (RHD) requires secondary prophylaxis with benzathine penicillin G (BPG) 1.2 MU IM every 3–4 weeks for a minimum of 10 years or until age 21 (whichever is longer). RHD registers (e.g., NT RHD Register) facilitate recall and follow-up. The Australian RHD Endgame Strategy targets elimination by 2031.
Referral pathways
Referral through ACCHOs and Aboriginal Hospital Liaison Officers (AHLOs) improves engagement. The Specialist Outreach Assistance Programme provides funded specialist visits to remote communities. NT, WA, and QLD have specific rheumatology outreach programmes targeting Indigenous communities.

πŸ“š References

  1. 1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). Autoimmune disease in Australia. Cat. no. PHE 312. Canberra: AIHW; 2023.
  2. 2. Fraenkel L, Bathon JM, England BR, et al. 2021 American College of Rheumatology guideline for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res. 2021;73(7):924–939.
  3. 3. Fanouriakis A, Kostopoulou M, Alber K, et al. 2019 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019;78(6):736–745.
  4. 4. Chung SA, Langford CA, Maz M, et al. 2021 American College of Rheumatology/Vasculitis Foundation guideline for the management of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis. Arthritis Care Res. 2021;73(11):1583–1599.
  5. 5. Smolen JS, LandewΓ© RBM, Bijlsma JWJ, et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2022 update. Ann Rheum Dis. 2023;82(1):3–18.
  6. 6. Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI). Australian Immunisation Handbook. Australian Government Department of Health; 2024. Available from: immunisationhandbook.health.gov.au.
  7. 7. Rheumatic Heart Disease Australia (RHDAustralia). The 2020 Australian guideline for prevention, diagnosis, and management of acute rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease. 3rd ed. Darwin: Menzies School of Health Research; 2020.
  8. 8. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). PBS Schedule. Australian Government Department of Health. Available from: pbs.gov.au. Accessed 2024.
  9. 9. Agarwal S, Cunnington J, Nossent J. Autoimmune disease in Indigenous Australians: a systematic review. Int J Rheum Dis. 2021;24(12):1487–1498.
  10. 10. Pisetsky DS. Antinuclear antibody testing β€” misunderstood or misused? Clin Immunol. 2023;255:109717.
  11. 11. Bertsias GK, Tektonidou M, Amoura Z, et al. Joint European League Against Rheumatism and European Renal Association–European Dialysis and Transplant Association (EULAR/ERA-EDTA) recommendations for the management of adult and paediatric lupus nephritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2012;71(11):1771–1782.
  12. 12. Ledingham J, Deighton C; British Society for Rheumatology Standards, Audit and Guidelines Working Group. Update on the British Society for Rheumatology guidelines for prescribing TNFΞ± blockers in adults with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology. 2005;44(2):155–158.
  13. 13. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). National statement on ethical conduct in human research. Canberra: NHMRC; 2023 (updated).
for PBS-listed medicines at participating pharmacies.
Cultural safety
Engagement with Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations (ACCHOs) is essential. Cultural safety training for non-Indigenous clinicians, use of Aboriginal Health Workers and Liaison Officers, and incorporation of traditional healing practices alongside Western medicine improve treatment adherence and outcomes. Avoidance of eye contact, respect for gender-sensitive examination practices, and understanding of sorry business protocols are critical elements of culturally safe care.
Medication adherence
Complex DMARD regimens with frequent monitoring requirements present adherence challenges. Long-acting depot injections (e.g., methotrexate SC) may improve adherence compared to oral regimens. Community pharmacy partnerships through the Indigenous Pharmacy Programmes improve medication management.
Specific conditions
Rheumatic heart disease (RHD) requires secondary prophylaxis with benzathine penicillin G (BPG) 1.2 MU IM every 3–4 weeks for a minimum of 10 years or until age 21 (whichever is longer). RHD registers (e.g., NT RHD Register) facilitate recall and follow-up. The Australian RHD Endgame Strategy targets elimination by 2031.
Referral pathways
Referral through ACCHOs and Aboriginal Hospital Liaison Officers (AHLOs) improves engagement. The Specialist Outreach Assistance Programme provides funded specialist visits to remote communities. NT, WA, and QLD have specific rheumatology outreach programmes targeting Indigenous communities.

πŸ“š References

  1. 1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). Autoimmune disease in Australia. Cat. no. PHE 312. Canberra: AIHW; 2023.
  2. 2. Fraenkel L, Bathon JM, England BR, et al. 2021 American College of Rheumatology guideline for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res. 2021;73(7):924–939.
  3. 3. Fanouriakis A, Kostopoulou M, Alber K, et al. 2019 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019;78(6):736–745.
  4. 4. Chung SA, Langford CA, Maz M, et al. 2021 American College of Rheumatology/Vasculitis Foundation guideline for the management of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis. Arthritis Care Res. 2021;73(11):1583–1599.
  5. 5. Smolen JS, LandewΓ© RBM, Bijlsma JWJ, et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2022 update. Ann Rheum Dis. 2023;82(1):3–18.
  6. 6. Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI). Australian Immunisation Handbook. Australian Government Department of Health; 2024. Available from: immunisationhandbook.health.gov.au.
  7. 7. Rheumatic Heart Disease Australia (RHDAustralia). The 2020 Australian guideline for prevention, diagnosis, and management of acute rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease. 3rd ed. Darwin: Menzies School of Health Research; 2020.
  8. 8. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). PBS Schedule. Australian Government Department of Health. Available from: pbs.gov.au. Accessed 2024.
  9. 9. Agarwal S, Cunnington J, Nossent J. Autoimmune disease in Indigenous Australians: a systematic review. Int J Rheum Dis. 2021;24(12):1487–1498.
  10. 10. Pisetsky DS. Antinuclear antibody testing β€” misunderstood or misused? Clin Immunol. 2023;255:109717.
  11. 11. Bertsias GK, Tektonidou M, Amoura Z, et al. Joint European League Against Rheumatism and European Renal Association–European Dialysis and Transplant Association (EULAR/ERA-EDTA) recommendations for the management of adult and paediatric lupus nephritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2012;71(11):1771–1782.
  12. 12. Ledingham J, Deighton C; British Society for Rheumatology Standards, Audit and Guidelines Working Group. Update on the British Society for Rheumatology guidelines for prescribing TNFΞ± blockers in adults with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology. 2005;44(2):155–158.
  13. 13. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). National statement on ethical conduct in human research. Canberra: NHMRC; 2023 (updated).