Physician practices for withdrawal of medications in inactive systemic juvenile arthritis, Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) survey

When to stop medication in juvenile idiopathic arthritis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have dramatically improved patient outcomes in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). However, these medications may also result in physical, psychologic, and economic burden, which must be balanced with risk of flare off treatment. Although some children remain in remission after medication discontinuation, evidence is sparse for if, when, and how medications should be de-escalated once achieving clinically inactive disease (CID). We review the data on medication discontinuation and the role of serologic and imaging biomarkers in JIA.

RECENT FINDINGS

The literature uniformly supports early biologic DMARD initiation, although the optimal timing and strategy for medication withdrawal in patients with sustained CID remains unclear. In this review, we present the current data on flare frequency and time to flare, clinical factors associated with flare, and recapture data for each JIA category. We also summarize the current knowledge on the role of imaging and serologic biomarkers in guiding these treatment decisions.

SUMMARY

JIA is a heterogenous disease for which prospective clinical trials are needed to address the question of when, how, and in whom to withdraw medication. Research investigating the roles of serologic and imaging biomarkers may help improve the ability to ascertain which children can successfully de-escalate medications.

What matters most to pediatric rheumatologists in deciding whether to discontinue biologics in a child with juvenile idiopathic arthritis? A best-worst scaling survey

OBJECTIVES

Care for JIA patients has been transformed in the biologics era; however, biologics carry important (although rare) risks and are costly. Flares after biological withdrawal are seen frequently, yet there is little clinical guidance to identify which patients in clinical remission can safely have their biologic discontinued (by stopping or tapering). We examined what characteristics of the child or their context are important to pediatric rheumatologists when making the decision to discuss withdrawal of biologics.

METHODS

We conducted a survey including a best-worst scaling (BWS) exercise in pediatric rheumatologists who are part of the UCAN CAN-DU network to assess the relative importance of 14 previously identified characteristics. A balanced incomplete block design was used to generate choice tasks. Respondents evaluated 14 choice sets of 5 characteristics of a child with JIA and identified for each set which was the most and least important in the decision to offer withdrawal. Results were analyzed using conditional logit regression.

RESULTS

Fifty-one (out of 79) pediatric rheumatologists participated (response rate 65%). The three most important characteristics were how challenging it was to achieve remission, history of established joint damage, and time spent in remission. The three least important characteristics were history of temporomandibular joint involvement, accessibility of biologics, and the patient's age.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings give quantitative insight about factors important to pediatric rheumatologists' decision-making about biologic withdrawal. In addition to high quality clinical evidence, further research is needed to understand the perspective of patients and families to inform shared decision-making about biologic withdrawal for JIA patients with clinically inactive disease. Key Points ● What is already known on this topic-there is limited clinical guidance for pediatric rheumatologists in making decisions about biologic withdrawal for patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis who are in clinical remission. ● What this study adds-this study quantitatively examined what characteristic of the child in clinical remission, or of their context, are most important to pediatric rheumatologists in deciding whether to offer withdrawal of biologics. ● How this study might affect research, practice or policy-understanding of these characteristics can provide useful information to other pediatric rheumatologists in making their decisions, and may guide areas to focus on for future research.

Pediatric rheumatologists' perspectives on diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of Sjögren disease in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Sjögren disease in children and adolescents (pedSD) presents differently than adult disease. Diagnosis and classification are controversial, optimal treatment is unknown and outcomes are poorly understood. Here, we describe the current perspectives of pediatric rheumatologists on diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of pedSD.

METHODS

A voluntary, 17-question survey was distributed to providers in the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance and/or the American College of Rheumatology Childhood Sjögren's Study Group at the 2020 Convergence Virtual Conference. Findings are reported using descriptive statistics and chi-square testing.

RESULTS

Of 465 eligible providers, 157 (34%) responded with 135 (29%) completing the survey. The majority (85%) saw five or fewer patients with pedSD in the past year. Parotitis, dry eye and/or dry mouth, and constitutional symptoms were among the most specific and common clinical features. Most providers (77%) used clinical judgment guided by adult criteria for diagnosis. The vast majority (86-99%) of survey participants indicated routine use of serologic testing, while salivary gland ultrasound, minor salivary gland biopsy and other diagnostic tests were less often used. The most commonly prescribed systemic immunomodulators were hydroxychloroquine, corticosteroids, methotrexate, rituximab, and mycophenolate. Seven providers reported malignancy in a patient with pedSD, including one death.

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric rheumatologists diagnose and treat pedSD; however, most only see a few patients per year and rely on clinical judgment and laboratory testing for diagnosis. Treatment frequently includes systemic immunomodulators and malignancies are reported. More studies are needed to better understand natural history, risk factors, and the impact of interventions on outcomes.

Perspectives of Pediatric Rheumatologists on Initiating and Tapering Biologics in Patients with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: A Formative Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Few studies have examined pediatric rheumatologists' approaches to treatment decision making for biologic therapy for patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). This study presents the qualitative research undertaken to support the development of a Best-Worst Scaling (BWS) survey for tapering in JIA. The study objectives were to (1) describe the treatment decision-making process of pediatric rheumatologists to initiate and taper biologics; and (2) select attributes for a BWS survey.

METHODS

Pediatric rheumatologists across Canada were recruited to participate in interviews using purposeful sampling. Interviews were conducted until saturation was achieved. Interview recordings were transcribed verbatim and transcripts were analyzed using deductive thematic analysis. Initial codes were organized into themes and subthemes using an iterative process. Attributes for the BWS survey were developed from these themes and a literature review was conducted in parallel to inform survey development. Further refinement of the attributes was done through consultation with the research team.

RESULTS

Five pediatric rheumatologists participated in the interviews. Shared decision making was part of the approach to initiating and tapering biologics in their practice. Tapering approaches differed; some pediatric rheumatologists preferred to stop biologics immediately, while others tapered by reducing dose and/or increasing the dose interval over time. A total of 14 attributes were developed for the BWS. Thirteen attributes were selected from the themes that emerged from the qualitative interviews and one attribute was included after review with the research team. Attributes related to patient characteristics included JIA subtype, time in remission, history or presence of joint damage or erosive disease, how challenging it was to achieve remission, and history of flares. Contextual attributes included accessibility of biologics and willingness to taper biologics.

CONCLUSION

This study contributes to the limited literature on pediatric rheumatologists' approaches to treatment decision making for biologics in JIA and identifies attributes that affect the decision to both initiate and taper. Further research is planned to implement the BWS survey to understand the importance of the attributes identified. Additional investigation is required to determine if these characteristics align with patient and parent preferences.

Tapering of biological treatment in autoinflammatory diseases: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Biological treatment and treat-to-target approaches guide the achievement of inactive disease and clinical remission in Autoinflammatory Diseases (AID). However, there is limited evidence addressing optimal tapering strategies and/or discontinuation of biological treatment in AID. This study evaluates available evidence of tapering biological treatment and explores key factors for successful tapering.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials using the OVID platform (1990-08/2020). Bibliographic search of relevant reviews was also performed. Studies/case series (n ≥ 5) in AID patients aged ≤ 18 years with biological treatment providing information on tapering/treatment discontinuation were included. After quality assessment aggregated data were extracted and synthesized. Tapering strategies were explored.

RESULTS

A total of 6035 records were identified. Four papers were deemed high quality, all focused on systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (sJIA) (1 open-label randomized trial, 2 prospective, 1 retrospective observational study). Biological treatment included anakinra (n = 2), canakinumab (n = 1) and tocilizumab (n = 1). Strategies in anakinra tapering included alternate-day regimen. Canakinumab tapering was performed randomized for dose reduction or interval prolongation, whereas tocilizumab was tapered by interval prolongation. Key factors identified included early start of biological treatment and sustained inactive disease.

CONCLUSION

Tapering of biological treatment after sustained inactive disease should be considered. Guidance for optimal strategies is limited. Future studies may leverage therapeutic drug monitoring in combination with pharmacometric modelling to further enhance personalized "taper-to-target" strategies respecting individual patients and diseases aspects.

2021 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: Therapeutic Approaches for Oligoarthritis, Temporomandibular Joint Arthritis, and Systemic Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To provide updated guidelines for pharmacologic management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), focusing on treatment of oligoarthritis, temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthritis, and systemic JIA with and without macrophage activation syndrome. Recommendations regarding tapering and discontinuing treatment in inactive systemic JIA are also provided.

METHODS

We developed clinically relevant Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low). A Voting Panel including clinicians and patients/caregivers achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations.

RESULTS

Similar to those published in 2019, these JIA recommendations are based on clinical phenotypes of JIA, rather than a specific classification schema. This guideline provides recommendations for initial and subsequent treatment of JIA with oligoarthritis, TMJ arthritis, and systemic JIA as well as for tapering and discontinuing treatment in subjects with inactive systemic JIA. Other aspects of disease management, including factors that influence treatment choice and medication tapering, are discussed. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low in quality. For that reason, more than half of the recommendations are conditional.

CONCLUSION

This clinical practice guideline complements the 2019 American College of Rheumatology JIA and uveitis guidelines, which addressed polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, enthesitis, and uveitis. It serves as a tool to support clinicians, patients, and caregivers in decision-making. The recommendations take into consideration the severity of both articular and nonarticular manifestations as well as patient quality of life. Although evidence is generally low quality and many recommendations are conditional, the inclusion of caregivers and patients in the decision-making process strengthens the relevance and applicability of the guideline. It is important to remember that these are recommendations. Clinical decisions, as always, should be made by the treating clinician and patient/caregiver.

2021 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: Therapeutic Approaches for Oligoarthritis, Temporomandibular Joint Arthritis, and Systemic Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To provide updated guidelines for pharmacologic management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), focusing on treatment of oligoarthritis, temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthritis, and systemic JIA with and without macrophage activation syndrome. Recommendations regarding tapering and discontinuing treatment in inactive systemic JIA are also provided.

METHODS

We developed clinically relevant Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low). A Voting Panel including clinicians and patients/caregivers achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations.

RESULTS

Similar to those published in 2019, these JIA recommendations are based on clinical phenotypes of JIA, rather than a specific classification schema. This guideline provides recommendations for initial and subsequent treatment of JIA with oligoarthritis, TMJ arthritis, and systemic JIA as well as for tapering and discontinuing treatment in subjects with inactive systemic JIA. Other aspects of disease management, including factors that influence treatment choice and medication tapering, are discussed. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low in quality. For that reason, more than half of the recommendations are conditional.

CONCLUSION

This clinical practice guideline complements the 2019 American College of Rheumatology JIA and uveitis guidelines, which addressed polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, enthesitis, and uveitis. It serves as a tool to support clinicians, patients, and caregivers in decision-making. The recommendations take into consideration the severity of both articular and nonarticular manifestations as well as patient quality of life. Although evidence is generally low quality and many recommendations are conditional, the inclusion of caregivers and patients in the decision-making process strengthens the relevance and applicability of the guideline. It is important to remember that these are recommendations. Clinical decisions, as always, should be made by the treating clinician and patient/caregiver.

Factors and glucocorticoid usage affecting the prognosis of systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis

BACKGROUND

The rate of glucocorticoid (GC) use is significantly higher in systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (SJIA) than other juvenile idiopathic arthritis subtypes. There is no consensus on the duration and dosage of GC treatment. We aimed to investigate the risk factors for a polyphasic / persistent disease course and the effect of dose and duration of GC treatment on SJIA prognosis.

METHODS

Forty-two patients who were diagnosed with SJIA, and for whom the duration of disease was longer than 2 years, were included. Patients were divided into monophasic and others (polyphasic / persistent disease course). Risk factors for polyphasic / persistent disease course, which were clinical and laboratory findings regarding the patients, treatment options, dose, and duration of GCs, were evaluated for the first active disease periods and for all flares in the entire disease course.

RESULTS

Of the 42 SJIA patients, 21 had monophasic, and 21 had polyphasic / persistent disease. Cumulative dosages and durations of glucocorticoid treatment were similar in the two groups at the first flare (odds ratio (OR): 1.032 P: 0.671; OR:1,113 P: 0.115). Durations of the first active disease period were longer in the polyphasic / persistent group (OR:1.275, P: 0.01). Active disease duration cut-off values of 1.5 months with sensitivity 85.7%, specificity 52.4% were observed on receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. The presence of hepatosplenomegaly at first flare was detected as an independent risk factor of polyphasic/persistent disease by multivariate analysis included both dosage and duration of a steroid (hazard ratio (HR): 4.129, P: 0.034), (HR: 3.992, P: 0.038). Multivariate recurrent events survival analysis determined ALT levels as a risk factor affecting polyphasic / persistent disease (HR: 0.986, P: 0.037).

CONCLUSIONS

Glucocorticoid dose and duration did not affect the active disease periods and disease course in SJIA. An active disease period longer than 1.5 months, presentation of hepatosplenomegaly at the initial disease course, and high ALT levels at the recurrences should warn physicians of polyphasic / persistent disease.