RESUMO
Objective: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has induced an exceptional sanitary crisis, potentially having an impact on treatment continuation, for juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) patients receiving immunosuppressive therapies. After national lockdowns, many patients were also concerned about their safety at school. We evaluated the impact of the pandemic on the optimal continuation of treatment and on the return to school in JIA patients. Methods: JIA patients under 18 years of age, usually treated with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) were prospectively included during their outpatient visit and completed a standardized questionnaire. The primary outcome was DMARD treatment modification in relation to the context of the pandemic but we also evaluated the pandemic's impact on the schooling. Results: One hundred and seventy three patients from 8 different expert centers were included between May and August 2020. Their mean age was 11.6 years (± 4.1 years), and most of them 31.2% (54/173) had a rheumatoid factor-negative polyarticular JIA. Fifty percent (86/172) were treated with methotrexate, and 72.5% (124/171) were treated with bDMARDs. DMARD treatment modification in relation to the pandemic was observed in 4.0% (7/173) of participants. 49.1% (81/165) of the patients did not return to school due to a personal/parental decision in 69.9% (55/81) of cases. Two patients were diagnosed positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Conclusion: This study suggests that JIA patients treated with DMARDs continued their treatment during the pandemic and were rarely affected by symptomatic COVID-19. In contrast, parents' reluctance was a major obstacle for returning to school. Therefore, more solidified school reopening strategies should be developed.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Surgeries for idiopathic uveitis and juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated uveitis in children are complex because of the high risk of inflammatory postoperative complications. There is no consensus about treatment adaptation during the perioperative period. The objectives of this study are to report the therapeutic changes made in France and to determine whether maintaining or stopping immunosuppressive therapies is associated with an increased risk of surgical site infection or an increased risk of uveitis or arthritis flare-up. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2018 in six large University Hospitals in France. Inclusion criteria were chronic idiopathic uveitis or chronic uveitis associated with juvenile idiopathic arthritis under immunosuppressive therapies at the time of the surgical procedure, operated before the age of 16. Data on perioperative treatments, inflammatory relapses and post-operative infections were collected. RESULTS: A total of 76 surgeries (42% cataract surgeries, 30% glaucoma surgeries and 16% posterior capsule opacification surgeries) were performed on 37 children. Adaptation protocols were different in the six hospitals. Immunosuppressive therapies were discontinued in five cases (7%) before surgery. All the children in the discontinuation group had an inflammatory relapse within 3 months after surgery compared to only 25% in the other group. There were no postoperative infections. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show varying practices between centres. The benefit-risk balance seems to favour maintaining immunosuppressive therapies during surgery. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal perioperative treatments required to limit post-operative inflammatory relapses.
