Consensus-based recommendations for the management of juvenile systemic sclerosis.

Juvenile systemic sclerosis (JSSc) is a rare disease of childhood and currently no international consensus exists with regard to its assessment and treatment. This SHARE (Single Hub and Access point for paediatric Rheumatology in Europe) initiative, based on expert opinion informed by the best available evidence, provides recommendations for the assessment and treatment of patients with JSSc with a view to improving their outcome. Experts focused attention not only on the skin assessment but also on the early signs of internal organ involvement whose proper treatment can significantly affect the long-term outcome. A score for disease severity is proposed in order to perform a structured assessment of outcome over time but a validation in a wider patient population is recommended. Finally, a stepwise treatment approach is proposed in order to unify the standard of care throughout Europe with the aim to reduce morbidity and mortality in this disease.

Consensus-based recommendations for the management of juvenile localised scleroderma.

In 2012, a European initiative called Single Hub and Access point for paediatric Rheumatology in Europe (SHARE) was launched to optimise and disseminate diagnostic and management regimens in Europe for children and young adults with rheumatic diseases. Juvenile localised scleroderma (JLS) is a rare disease within the group of paediatric rheumatic diseases (PRD) and can lead to significant morbidity. Evidence-based guidelines are sparse and management is mostly based on physicians' experience. This study aims to provide recommendations for assessment and treatment of JLS. Recommendations were developed by an evidence-informed consensus process using the European League Against Rheumatism standard operating procedures. A committee was formed, mainly from Europe, and consisted of 15 experienced paediatric rheumatologists and two young fellows. Recommendations derived from a validated systematic literature review were evaluated by an online survey and subsequently discussed at two consensus meetings using a nominal group technique. Recommendations were accepted if ≥80% agreement was reached. In total, 1 overarching principle, 10 recommendations on assessment and 6 recommendations on therapy were accepted with ≥80% agreement among experts. Topics covered include assessment of skin and extracutaneous involvement and suggested treatment pathways. The SHARE initiative aims to identify best practices for treatment of patients suffering from PRDs. Within this remit, recommendations for the assessment and treatment of JLS have been formulated by an evidence-informed consensus process to produce a standard of care for patients with JLS throughout Europe.

Comparison among ACR1997, SLICC and the new EULAR/ACR classification criteria in childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus.

BACKGROUND: To date there are no specific classification criteria for childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus (cSLE). This study aims to compare the performance among the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 1997, the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics criteria (SLICC) and the new European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/ACR criteria, in a cSLE cohort. METHODS: We conducted a medical chart review study of cSLE cases and controls with defined rheumatic diseases, both ANA positive, to establish each ACR1997, SLICC and EULAR/ACR criterion fulfilled, at first visit and 1-year-follow-up. RESULTS: Study population included 122 cSLE cases and 89 controls. At first visit, SLICC criteria had higher sensitivity than ACR 1997 (89.3% versus 70.5%, p <  0.001), but similar specificity (80.9% versus 83.2%, p = 0.791), however performance was not statistically different at 1-year-follow-up. SLICC better scored in specificity compared to EULAR/ACR score ≥ 10 at first visit (80.9% versus 67.4%, p = 0.008) and at 1-year (76.4% versus 58.4%, p = 0.001), although sensitivities were similar. EULAR/ACR criteria score ≥ 10 exhibited higher sensitivity than ACR 1997 (87.7% versus 70.5%, p <  0.001) at first visit, but comparable at 1-year, whereas specificity was lower at first visit (67.4% versus 83.2%, p = 0.004) and 1-year (58.4% versus 76.4%, p = 0.002). A EULAR/ACR score ≥ 13 against a score ≥ 10, resulted in higher specificity, positive predictive value, and cut-off point accuracy. Compared to SLICC, a EULAR/ACR score ≥ 13 resulted in lower sensitivity at first visit (76.2% versus 89.3%, p <  0.001) and 1-year (91% versus 97.5%, p = 0.008), but similar specificities at both assessments. When compared to ACR 1997, a EULAR/ACR total score ≥ 13, resulted in no differences in sensitivity and specificity at both observation periods. CONCLUSIONS: In this cSLE population, SLICC criteria better scored at first visit and 1-year-follow-up. The adoption of a EULAR/ACR total score ≥ 13 in this study, against the initially proposed ≥10 score, was most appropriate to classify cSLE. Further studies are necessary to address if SLICC criteria might allow fulfillment of cSLE classification earlier in disease course and may be more inclusive of cSLE subjects for clinical studies.