Recommendations for the Management of Uveitis Associated With Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: The Czech and Slovak adaptation of SHARE Initiative.

Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is the most common rheumatic disease in children and uveitis is its most important extra-articular manifestation. Evidence-based recommendations are available only to a limited extent and therefore JIA associated uveitis management is mostly based on physicians experience. Consequently, treatment practices differ widely, both nationally and internationally. Therefore, an effort to optimize and publish recommendations for the care of children and young adults with rheumatic diseases was launched in 2012 as part of the international project SHARE (Single Hub and Access Point for Pediatric Rheumatology in Europe) to facilitate clinical practice for paediatricians and (paediatric) rheumatologists. The aim of this work was to translate published international SHARE recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of JIA associated uveitis and to adapt them for use in the Czech and Slovak Republics. International recommendations were developed according to the standard methodology of the European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) by a group of nine experienced paediatric rheumatologists and three experts in ophthalmology. It was based on a systematic literature review and evaluated in the form of an online survey and subsequently discussed using a nominal group technique. Recommendations were accepted if > 80% agreement was reached (including all three ophthalmologists). A total of 22 SHARE recommendations were accepted: 3 on diagnosis, 5 on disease activity assessment, 12 on treatment and 2 on future recommendations. Translation of the original text was updated and modified with data specific to the czech and slovak health care systems and supplemented with a proposal for a protocol of ophthalmological dispensarization of paediatric JIA patients and a treatment algorithm for JIA associated uveitis. Conclusion: The aim of the SHARE initiative is to improve and standardize care for paediatric patients with rheumatic diseases across Europe. Therefore, recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of JIA-associated uveitis have been formulated based on the evidence and agreement of leading European experts in this field.

Methotrexate efficacy, but not its intolerance, is associated with the dose and route of administration.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of published evidence on the importance of methotrexate (MTX) dose and route of administration on both its efficacy and adverse events in children with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA). We aimed to document our clinical practice based on the treat-to-target approach in order to support the concept that better therapeutic effect achieved with an optimal dose of parenteral MTX is associated with clinically acceptable adverse effects comparable to those reported for oral treatment. METHODS: Study inclusion criteria were indication of new MTX therapy for active arthritis in confirmed JIA patients younger than 18 years. Eligible patients were evaluated prospectively every 3 months for 1 year using standardized instruments for treatment response (American College of Rheumatology Pediatric (ACRPedi) response, Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score (JADAS) 71, Clinically Inactive Disease (CID)) and adverse events (laboratory monitoring, Methotrexate Intolerance Severity Score (MISS)). MTX responders had to achieve at least ACRPedi 70 response. MTX intolerance was defined by MISS ≥ 6. RESULTS: In 45/55 patients (81.8 %) MTX was started as subcutaneous injection. The initial median weekly dose was 14.4 mg/m(2) in parenteral and 11.7 mg/m(2) in oral administration. MTX therapy was effective in the level of ACRpedi70 and CID in 50.9 % and 30.9 % of patients at month 6 and in 70.9 % and 56.4 % after 12 months of the treatment, respectively. MTX intolerance at 6 and 12 months was noted in 25.5 % and 30.6 %, respectively. Management of intolerance included change in the dose and/or route of administration, education and councelling. Adverse events led to MTX withdrawal in 5 patients (9 %) due to toxicity (n = 3) and intolerance (n = 2). We did not find any significant predictive factors for either MTX therapeutic response or intolerance. CONCLUSION: Subcutaneous MTX weekly dose around 15 mg/m(2) is associated not only with a high response rate within the first 12 months of treatment, but also with a relatively low rate of significant adverse effects that would lead to the treatment termination. It allows early recognition of MTX non-responders and addition of biologic therapy. Sustainability of therapeutic effect and longer-term evolution of adverse events will be addressed by an ongoing extension of the study.