Differences in rituximab use between pediatric rheumatologists and nephrologists for the treatment of refractory lupus nephritis and renal flare in childhood-onset SLE.

BACKGROUND: Consensus treatment plans have been developed for induction therapy of newly diagnosed proliferative lupus nephritis (LN) in childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus. However, patients who do not respond to initial therapy, or who develop renal flare after remission, warrant escalation of treatment. Our objective was to assess current practices of pediatric nephrologists and rheumatologists in North America in treatment of refractory proliferative LN and flare. METHODS: Members of Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) and the American Society for Pediatric Nephrology (ASPN) were surveyed in November 2015 to assess therapy choices (other than modifying steroid dosing) and level of agreement between rheumatologists and nephrologists for proliferative LN patients. Two cases were presented: (1) refractory disease after induction treatment with corticosteroid and cyclophosphamide (CYC) and (2) nephritis flare after initial response to treatment. Survey respondents chose treatments for three follow up scenarios for each case that varied by severity of presentation. Treatment options included CYC, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), rituximab (RTX), and others, alone or in combination. RESULTS: Seventy-six respondents from ASPN and foty-one respondents from CARRA represented approximately 15 % of the eligible members from each organization. Treatment choices between nephrologists and rheumatologists were highly variable and received greater than 50 % agreement for an individual treatment choice in only the following 2 of 6 follow up scenarios: 59 % of nephrologists, but only 38 % of rheumatologists, chose increasing dose of MMF in the case of LN refractory to induction therapy with proteinuria, hematuria, and improved serum creatinine. In a follow up scenario showing severe renal flare after achieving remission with induction therapy, 58 % of rheumatologists chose CYC and RTX combination therapy, whereas the top choice for nephrologists (43 %) was CYC alone. Rheumatologists in comparison to nephrologists chose more therapy options that contained RTX in all follow up scenarios except one (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Therapy choices for pediatric rheumatologists and nephrologists in the treatment of refractory LN or LN flare were highly variable with rheumatologists more often choosing rituximab. Further investigation is necessary to delineate the reasons behind this finding. This study highlights the importance of collaborative efforts in developing consensus treatment plans for pediatric LN.

Psychosocial Assessment of Candidates for Transplantation (PACT) Score Identifies High Risk Patients in Pediatric Renal Transplantation.

Background: Currently, there is no standardized approach for determining psychosocial readiness in pediatric transplantation. We examined the utility of the Psychosocial Assessment of Candidates for Transplantation (PACT) to identify pediatric kidney transplant recipients at risk for adverse clinical outcomes. Methods: Kidney transplant patients <21-years-old transplanted at Duke University Medical Center between 2005 and 2015 underwent psychosocial assessment by a social worker with either PACT or unstructured interview, which were used to determine transplant candidacy. PACT assessed candidates on a scale of 0 (poor candidate) to 4 (excellent candidate) in areas of social support, psychological health, lifestyle factors, and understanding. Demographics and clinical outcomes were analyzed by presence or absence of PACT and further characterized by high (≥3) and low (≤2) scores. Results: Of 54 pediatric patients, 25 (46.3%) patients underwent pre-transplant evaluation utilizing PACT, while 29 (53.7%) were not evaluated with PACT. Patients assessed with PACT had a significantly lower percentage of acute rejection (16.0 vs. 55.2%, p = 0.007). After adjusting for HLA mismatch, a pre-transplant PACT score was persistently associated with lower odds of acute rejection (Odds Ratio 0.119, 95% Confidence Interval 0.027-0.52, p = 0.005). In PACT subsection analysis, the lack of family availability (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01-0.97, p = 0.047) and risk for psychopathology (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.13-0.87, p = 0.025) were associated with a low PACT score and post-transplant non-adherence. Conclusions: Our study highlights the importance of standardized psychosocial assessments and the potential use of PACT in risk stratifying pre-transplant candidates.

Assessment of psychological distress among Asian adolescents and young adults (AYA) cancer patients using the distress thermometer: a prospective, longitudinal study.

PURPOSE: Since few studies have investigated whether the Distress Thermometer (DT) in Asian adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer patients (between 15 and 39 years), we investigated the appropriateness of the DT as a screening tool for psychological symptom burden in these AYA patients and to evaluate AYA patients' distress across a trajectory of three time points longitudinally over a 6-month period. METHODS: This was a prospective, longitudinal study. Recruited Asian AYA patients were diagnosed with lymphomas, sarcomas, primary brain malignancies, or germ cell tumors. Patients completed the DT, PedsQL Generic Core Scales, and the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist. Data were analyzed using STATA version 15. RESULTS: Approximately half of the patients experienced clinically significant DT distress (distress score ≥ 4) early in their cancer journey with 43.1% patients presenting with distress at time of diagnosis and 47.7% patients 1 month after diagnosis. Among AYA patients > 24 years old, worry (68.3%), insurance/financial issues (61%), treatment decisions (43.9%), work/school issues (41.5%), nervousness (41.5%), and sadness (41.5%) were the top five identified problems. On the other hand, the top five identified problems among AYA ≤ 24 years were worry (54.2%), nervousness (41.7%), bathing/dressing problems (37.5%), work/school issues (33.3%), and fatigue (33.3%). DT scores were significantly associated with certain psychological symptom burden items such as worry (p < 0.001), depressed mood (p = 0.020), and nervousness (p = 0.015). CONCLUSION: The DT is a useful screening tool for psychological distress in AYA cancer patients with clinically significant distress being identified in the early phases of the cancer journey.