Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug Consensus Treatment Plans for Refractory Moderately Severe Juvenile Dermatomyositis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to develop consensus treatment plans (CTPs) for patients with refractory moderately severe juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM) treated with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). METHODS: The Biologics Workgroup of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance JDM Research Committee used case-based surveys, consensus framework, and nominal group technique to produce bDMARD CTPs for patients with refractory moderately severe JDM. RESULTS: Four bDMARD CTPs were proposed: tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα) inhibitor (adalimumab or infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, and tocilizumab. Each CTP has different options for dosing and/or route. Among 76 respondents, consensus was achieved for the proposed CTPs (93% [67 of 72]) as well as for patient characteristics, assessments, outcome measures, and follow-up. By weighted average, respondents indicated that they would most likely administer rituximab, followed by abatacept, TNFα inhibitor, and tocilizumab. CONCLUSION: CTPs for the administration of bDMARDs in refractory moderately severe JDM were developed using consensus methodology. The implementation of the bDMARD CTPs will lay the groundwork for registry-based prospective comparative effectiveness studies.

Treatment escalation patterns to start biologics in refractory moderate juvenile dermatomyositis among members of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

BACKGROUND: Despite new and better treatments for juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM), not all patients with moderate severity disease respond adequately to first-line therapy. Those with refractory disease remain at higher risk for disease and glucocorticoid-related complications. Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have become part of the arsenal of treatments for JDM. However, prospective comparative studies of commonly used biologics are lacking. METHODS: The Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) JDM biologics workgroup met in 2019 and produced a survey assessing current treatment escalation practices for JDM, including preferences regarding use of biologic treatments. The cases and questions were developed using a consensus framework, requiring 80% agreement for consensus. The survey was completed online in 2020 by CARRA members interested in JDM. Survey results were analyzed among all respondents and according to years of experience. Chi-square or Fisher's exact test was used to compare the distribution of responses to each survey question. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-one CARRA members responded to the survey (denominators vary for each question). Of the respondents, 88% were pediatric rheumatologists, 85% practiced in the United States, and 43% had over 10 years of experience. For a patient with moderately severe JDM refractory to methotrexate, glucocorticoids, and IVIG, approximately 80% of respondents indicated that they would initiate a biologic after failing 1-2 non-biologic DMARDs. Trials of methotrexate and mycophenolate were considered necessary by 96% and 60% of respondents, respectively, before initiating a biologic. By weighed average, rituximab was the preferred biologic over abatacept, tocilizumab, and infliximab. Over 50% of respondents would start a biologic by 4 months from diagnosis for patients with refractory moderately severe JDM. There were no notable differences in treatment practices between respondents by years of experience. CONCLUSION: Most respondents favored starting a biologic earlier in disease course after trialing up to two conventional DMARDs, specifically including methotrexate. There was a clear preference for rituximab. However, there remains a dearth of prospective data comparing biologics in refractory JDM. These findings underscore the need for biologic consensus treatment plans (CTPs) for refractory JDM, which will ultimately facilitate comparative effectiveness studies and inform treatment practices.

Novel method to collect medication adverse events in juvenile arthritis: results from the childhood arthritis and rheumatology research alliance enhanced drug safety surveillance project.

OBJECTIVE: Few data are available regarding the rates of serious adverse events (SAEs) and important medical events (IMEs) outside of product-based registries and clinical trials for juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). The Enhanced Drug Safety Surveillance Project (EDSSP) was developed to pilot a novel system to collect SAEs/IMEs in children with JIA. This analysis reports the results from this 4-year (2008-2012) EDSSP. METHODS: Participating physicians were surveyed monthly to ascertain whether their JIA patients experienced an SAE or IME. Sites were surveyed every 6 months to determine the number of unique JIA patients seen at each site during that 6-month period. Reporting rates were calculated per 100 person-years and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated based on a Poisson distribution. RESULTS: Thirty-seven Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance sites with 115 physicians participated. The mean response rate to the monthly surveys was 65%. There were 147 total SAEs and 145 total IMEs. The largest proportion of SAEs and IMEs occurred in children with polyarticular JIA (39% and 37%, respectively). The majority of SAEs and IMEs were reported for patients receiving therapy with biologic agents (76% and 69%, respectively). The total event rate for SAEs and IMEs combined was 1.07 events per 100 person-years (95% CI 0.95-1.19). The rates for SAEs and IMEs were 0.54 per 100 person-years (95% CI 0.45-0.63) and 0.53 per 100 person-years (95% CI 0.49-0.62), respectively. CONCLUSION: The EDSSP provided a simple tool for SAE/IME reporting within an established research network and resulted in a similar range of reported events as captured by a traditional product-based registry.