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.

Comparing the importance of quality measurement themes in juvenile idiopathic inflammatory myositis between patients and families and healthcare professionals.

BACKGROUND: A standardized set of quality measures for juvenile idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (JIIM) is not in use. Discordance has been shown between the importance ascribed to quality measures between patients and families and physicians. The objective of this study was to assess and compare the importance of various aspects of high quality care to patients with JIIM and their families with healthcare providers, to aid in future development of comprehensive quality measures. METHODS: Surveys were developed by members of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) Juvenile Dermatomyositis Workgroup through a consensus process and administered to patients and families through the CureJM Foundation and to healthcare professionals through CARRA. The survey asked respondents to rate the importance of 19 items related to aspects of high quality care, using a Likert scale. RESULTS: Patients and families gave generally higher scores for importance to most of the quality measurement themes compared with healthcare professionals, with ratings of 13 of the 19 measures reaching statistical significance (p < 0.05). Of particular importance, however, was consensus between the groups on the top five most important items: quality of life, timely diagnosis, access to rheumatology, normalization of functioning/strength, and ability for self care. CONCLUSIONS: Despite overall differences in the rating of importance of quality indicators between patients and families and healthcare professionals, the groups agreed on the most important aspects of care. Recognizing areas of particular importance to patients and families, and overlapping in importance with providers, will promote the development of standardized quality measures with the greatest potential for improving care and outcomes for children with JIIM.

Analysis of quality improvement efforts in preventing glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis.

OBJECTIVE: To report and analyze quality improvement (QI) efforts that are aimed at increasing adherence to preventive guidelines for glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP). METHODS: We performed a PubMed literature search for full-length articles in English between 1966 and 2013, describing approaches for improving the quality of GIOP care. We reviewed articles using a structured approach and abstracted information on the patient population, study design, QI intervention, and primary outcome measures. A descriptive analysis was then performed. RESULTS: Literature search identified 661 articles; 38 were screened by abstract, 10 were identified for full review, and 7 were included. Two non-randomized, uncontrolled studies of system changes showed significant improvements in GIOP prevention: one increased concomitant prescriptions of glucocorticoids and calcium (37-49%, p < 0.0001) and vitamin D (38-53%, p < 0.0001) using a computerized order entry system; another used a dedicated clinical team to increase vitamin D levels from 19.5 to 29.4 (p = 0.001) and improve GIOP-related habits. Five articles described education-based interventions, including 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two non-significant RCTs focused on physicians, but one directed towards pharmacists and patients did increase calcium supplementation in the intervention vs. control arm (55.7% vs. 31.6%, p < 0.05). Two other non-randomized educational interventions did not show benefits. Comparison of articles was limited by the heterogeneity of the intervention methods and outcome measures used. CONCLUSION: None of the interventions produced robust changes, with overall adherence to GIOP guidelines remaining low. System-based interventions appeared more effective than education-based interventions, but a diverse array of factors likely needs to be addressed, requiring more randomized controlled trials and greater standardization of outcome measures.

Outcomes of children treated for Lyme arthritis: results of a large pediatric cohort.

OBJECTIVE: Children often develop arthritis secondary to Lyme disease; however, optimal treatment of Lyme arthritis in pediatric patients remains ill-defined. We sought to characterize the outcomes of a large cohort of children with Lyme arthritis treated using the approach recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Infectious Diseases Society of America. METHODS: Medical records of patients with Lyme arthritis seen by rheumatologists at a tertiary care children's hospital from 1997 to 2007 were reviewed. Patients were classified with antibiotic responsive or refractory arthritis based on absence or presence of persisting joint involvement 3 months after antibiotic initiation. Treatment regimens and outcomes in patients with refractory arthritis were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 99 children with Lyme arthritis, 76 had arthritis that responded fully to antibiotics, while 23 developed refractory arthritis. Most patients with refractory arthritis were successfully treated with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (6 patients), intraarticular steroid injections (4), or disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) (2). Five were lost to followup. Six patients with refractory arthritis were initially treated elsewhere and received additional antibiotic therapy, with no apparent benefit. Three subsequently required DMARD, while 3 had gradual resolution of arthritis without further therapy. Antibiotic responsiveness could not be predicted from our clinical or laboratory data. CONCLUSION: Lyme arthritis in children has an excellent prognosis. More than 75% of referred cases resolved with antibiotic therapy. Of patients with antibiotic refractory arthritis, none in whom followup data were available developed chronic arthritis, joint deformities, or recurrence of infection, supporting current treatment guidelines.