A decade of progress in juvenile idiopathic athritis treatments and outcomes in Canada: results from ReACCh-Out and the CAPRI registry.

OBJECTIVE: To assess changes in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) treatments and outcomes in Canada, comparing a 2005-2010 and a 2017-2021 inception cohorts. METHODS: Patients enrolled within three months of diagnosis in the Research in Arthritis in Canadian Children Emphasizing Outcomes (ReACCh-Out) and the Canadian Alliance of Pediatric Rheumatology Investigators Registry (CAPRI) cohorts were included. Cumulative incidences of drug starts and outcome attainment within 70 weeks of diagnosis were compared with Kaplan Meier survival analysis and multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS: The 2005-2010 and 2017-2021 cohorts included 1128 and 721 patients, respectively. JIA category distribution and baseline clinical juvenile idiopathic arthritis disease activity (cJADAS10) scores at enrolment were comparable. By 70 weeks, 6% of patients (95% CI 5, 7) in the 2005-2010 and 26% (23, 30) in the 2017-2021 cohort had started a biologic DMARD (bDMARD), and 43% (40, 47) and 60% (56, 64) had started a conventional DMARD (cDMARD), respectively. Outcome attainment was 64% (61, 67) and 83% (80, 86) for Inactive disease (Wallace criteria), 69% (66, 72) and 84% (81, 87) for minimally active disease (cJADAS10 criteria), 57% (54, 61) and 63% (59, 68) for pain control (<1/10), and 52% (47, 56) and 54% (48, 60) for a good health-related quality of life. CONCLUSION: Although baseline disease characteristics were comparable in the 2005-2010 and 2017-2021 cohorts, cDMARD and bDMARD use increased with a concurrent increase in minimally active and inactive disease. Improvements in parent and patient reported outcomes were smaller than improvements in disease activity.

Distinct phenotypes of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) is a severe disease with an unpredictable course and a substantial risk of cardiogenic shock. Our objectives were to (a) compare MIS-C phenotypes across the COVID-19 pandemic, (b) identify features associated with intensive care need and treatment with biologic agents. METHODS: Youth aged 0-18 years, fulfilling the World Health Organization case definition of MIS-C, and admitted to the Alberta Children's Hospital during the first four waves of the COVID-19 pandemic (May 2020-December 2021) were included in this cohort study. Demographic, clinical, biochemical, imaging, and treatment data were captured. RESULTS: Fifty-seven MIS-C patients (median age 6 years, range 0-17) were included. Thirty patients (53%) required intensive care. Patients in the third or fourth wave (indicated as phase 2 of the pandemic) presented with higher peak ferritin (µg/l, median (IQR) = 1134 (409-1806) vs. 370 (249-629), P = 0.001), NT-proBNP (ng/l, median (IQR) = 12,217 (3013-27,161) vs. 3213 (1216-8483), P = 0.02) and D-dimer (mg/l, median (IQR) = 4.81 (2.24-5.37) vs. 2.01 (1.27-3.34), P = 0.004) levels, and higher prevalence of liver enzyme abnormalities (n(%) = 17 (68) vs. 11 (34), P = 0.02), hypoalbuminemia (n(%) = 24 (100) vs. 25 (81), P = 0.03) and thrombocytopenia (n(%) 18 (72) vs. 11 (34), P = 0.007) compared to patients in the first two waves (phase 1). These patients had a higher need of non-invasive/mechanical ventilation (n(%) 4 (16) vs. 0 (0), P = 0.03). Unsupervised clustering analyses classified 47% of the patients in the correct wave and 74% in the correct phase of the pandemic. NT-proBNP was the only significant contributor to the need for intensive care in all applied multivariate regression models. Treatment with biologic agents was significantly associated with peak CRP (mg/l (median, IQR = 240.9 (132.9-319.4) vs. 155.8 (101.0-200.7), P = 0.02) and ferritin levels (µg/l, median (IQR) = 1380 (509-1753) vs. 473 (280-296)). CONCLUSIONS: MIS-C patients in a later stage of the pandemic displayed a more severe phenotype, reflecting the impact of distinct SARS-CoV-2 variants. NT-proBNP emerged as the most crucial feature associated with intensive care need, underscoring the importance of monitoring.

Canadian Rheumatology Association Recommendations for the Screening, Monitoring, and Treatment of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis-Associated Uveitis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop Canadian recommendations for the screening, monitoring, and treatment of uveitis associated with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). METHODS: Recommendations were developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)-ADOLOPMENT approach. A working group of 14 pediatric rheumatologists, 6 ophthalmologists, 2 methodologists, and 3 caregiver/patient representatives reviewed recent American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/Arthritis Foundation (AF) recommendations and worked in pairs to develop evidence-to-decision (EtD) tables. A survey to assess agreement and recommendations requiring group discussion was completed. EtD tables were presented, discussed, and voted upon at a virtual meeting, to produce the final recommendations. A health equity framework was applied to all aspects of the adolopment process including the EtD tables, survey responses, and virtual meeting discussion. RESULTS: The survey identified that 7 of the 19 recommendations required rigorous discussion. Seventy-five percent of working group members attended the virtual meeting to discuss controversial topics as they pertained to the Canadian environment, including timing to first eye exam, frequency of screening, escalation criteria for systemic and biologic therapy, and the role of nonbiologic therapies. Equity issues related to access to care and advanced therapeutics across Canadian provinces and territories were highlighted. Following the virtual meeting, 5 recommendations were adapted, 2 recommendations were removed, and 1 was developed de novo. CONCLUSION: Recommendations for JIA-associated uveitis were adapted to the Canadian context by a working group of pediatric rheumatologists, ophthalmologists with expertise in the management of uveitis, and parent/patient input, taking into consideration cost, equity, and access.