Medical management of children with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis

Oral protein calorie supplementation for children with chronic disease

BACKGROUND

Poor growth and nutritional status are common in children with chronic diseases. Oral protein calorie supplements are used to improve nutritional status in these children. These expensive products may be associated with some adverse effects, e.g. the development of inappropriate eating behaviour patterns. This is a new update of a Cochrane review last updated in 2009.

OBJECTIVES

To examine evidence that in children with chronic disease, oral protein calorie supplements alter daily nutrient intake, nutritional indices, survival and quality of life and are associated with adverse effects, e.g. diarrhoea, vomiting, reduced appetite, glucose intolerance, bloating and eating behaviour problems.

SEARCH METHODS

Trials of oral protein calorie supplements in children with chronic diseases were identified through comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearching relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. Companies marketing these products were also contacted.Most recent search of the Group's Trials Register: 24 February 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing oral protein calorie supplements for at least one month to increase calorie intake with existing conventional therapy (including advice on improving nutritional intake from food or no specific intervention) in children with chronic disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently assessed the outcomes: indices of nutrition and growth; anthropometric measures of body composition; calorie and nutrient intake (total from oral protein calorie supplements and food); eating behaviour; compliance; quality of life; specific adverse effects; disease severity scores; and mortality; we also assessed the risk of bias in the included trials.

MAIN RESULTS

Four studies (187 children) met the inclusion criteria. Three studies were carried out in children with cystic fibrosis and one study included children with paediatric malignant disease. Overall there was a low risk of bias for blinding and incomplete outcome data.Two studies had a high risk of bias for allocation concealment. Few statistical differences were found in the outcomes we assessed between treatment and control groups, except change in total energy intake at six and 12 months, mean difference 304.86 kcal per day (95% confidence interval 5.62 to 604.10) and mean difference 265.70 kcal per day (95% confidence interval 42.94 to 485.46), respectively. However, these were based on the analysis of just 58 children in only one study. Only two chronic diseases were included in these analyses, cystic fibrosis and paediatric malignant disease. No other studies were identified which assessed the effectiveness of oral protein calorie supplements in children with other chronic diseases.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Oral protein calorie supplements are widely used to improve the nutritional status of children with a number of chronic diseases. We identified a small number of studies assessing these products in children with cystic fibrosis and paediatric malignant disease, but were unable to draw any conclusions based on the limited data extracted. We recommend a series of large, randomised controlled trials be undertaken investigating the use of these products in children with different chronic diseases. Until further data are available, we suggest these products are used with caution.

[Bone density measurements on growing skeletons and the clinical consequences]

The measurement of bone mineral density (BMD) was established to judge the fracture risk in an individual. The most commonly used densitometric technique DXA is a two-dimensional method and reports BMD (bone mass/projection area), which increases during growth. Bone mineral density (in g/cm(3)), however, is almost stable and does not change with age or height. To analyze the data special pediatric references including data on age, sex and ethnicity are necessary as well as correction for height. Bone forms a unit with muscle. Bone responds to mechanical loading with increase in bone size and therefore adapts to the biomechanical needs. Therefore, interpretation of bone development data requires data on muscle development.The indication for bone mineral density measurement and result reporting should be made by and together with a pediatric specialist. The diagnosis of osteoporosis should not be made based solely on densitometric measurements. History of low trauma fracture is an important aspect for the definition. Besides DXA there exist further methods with advantages and disadvantages.

Treatment of juvenile rheumatoid arthritis

The systematic approach to pharmacologic treatment is typically to begin with the safest, simplest, and most conservative measures. It has been realized that the more rapidly inflammation is under control, the less likely it is that there will be permanent sequelae. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the mainstay of initial treatment for inflammation. In addition, the slow-acting antirheumatic drugs (SAARDs) and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have efficacy of anti-inflammatory action in children with chronic arthritis. New therapeutic modalities for inflammation, such as etanercept and infliximab, promise even further improvements in the risk/benefit ratio of treatment. It is not typically possible at the onset of the disease to predict which children will recover and which will go on to have unremitting disease with lingering disability or enter adulthood with serious functional impairment. Therefore, the initial therapeutic approach must be vigorous in all children.

A prospective study comparing celecoxib with naproxen in children with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of celecoxib and naproxen in children with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis (JRA).

METHODS

In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, noninferiority study, subjects with JRA were randomized to receive a target dose of celecoxib 3 mg/kg bid or 6 mg/kg bid, or a target dose of naproxen 7.5 mg/kg bid for 12 weeks (maximum allowed dose=600 mg total daily dose). The primary efficacy measure was the percentage of responders at Week 12 attaining the American College of Rheumatology pediatric 30% improvement criterion (ACR Pediatric-30).

RESULTS

Both celecoxib doses were at least as effective as naproxen at Week 12 [ACR Pediatric-30 treatment differences: celecoxib 3 mg/kg bid-naproxen=1.36% (95% CI -13.08 to 15.80); celecoxib 6 mg/kg bid-naproxen=13.02% (95% CI -0.22 to 26.25)]. Celecoxib 6 mg/kg bid had a numerically higher response rate than celecoxib 3 mg/kg bid at all postrandomization visits and a numerically higher response rate than naproxen 7.5 mg/kg bid at Weeks 4, 8, and 12. Improvement in each ACR Pediatric-30 core set measure was comparable to or numerically higher for celecoxib 6 mg/kg bid than naproxen or celecoxib 3 mg/kg bid. Adverse event rates were similar for all treatment groups, except that gastrointestinal adverse events were more common in the naproxen group, although the difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Celecoxib 3 mg/kg bid and 6 mg/kg bid were at least as effective as naproxen 7.5 mg/kg bid in treating the signs and symptoms of JRA over 12 weeks. All treatments were generally well tolerated.

Recommendations for the use of methotrexate in juvenile idiopathic arthritis

Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is one of the most common rheumatic diseases in childhood. In a significant number of JIA cases the disease is resistant to therapy with NSAIDs, intra-articular corticosteroid injections, and physiotherapy, and methotrexate is used as a second-line agent. The efficacy of methotrexate therapy in children with JIA has been demonstrated in prospective controlled trials and this agent appears to have slightly superior efficacy compared with leflunomide. Data from randomized studies indicate a starting dose of 10-15 mg/m(2)/week orally. The dose of parenteral methotrexate can be increased to 15-20 mg/m(2)/week. Combination therapy with methotrexate and an NSAID is recommended. However, there are still no data on when to initiate methotrexate in JIA and how long children should be treated. The most common adverse effects are aversion to the drug and nausea. In the case of minor adverse effects the use of folic acid at a dosage of 1 mg/day is feasible. In JIA, daily folate supplementation has only been studied in one small heterogeneous cohort with a very short observation period and, at present, a general recommendation on daily folate supplementation cannot be made. In summary, methotrexate is seen by many pediatric rheumatologists as the first-choice, second-line drug; there is good evidence of its efficacy in JIA. However, in light of the recent introduction of biologic agents, the place of methotrexate in the treatment of JIA may have to be redefined in the coming years.

Management of the upper extremity in juvenile rheumatoid arthritis

Juvenile rheumatoid arthritis is a multifaceted disease. Average age of onset is 6 years, with peaks between 1 and 4 and between 9 and 14 years. Girls are affected more frequently than boys. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are the standard first line of therapy. Second-line therapy of antirheumatic drugs may be used early for progressive disease. Intra-articular corticosteroid injections should be considered to preserve joint mobility and muscle strength when medical treatment fails to control synovitis or when marked functional impairment exists. Historically, surgery has been a last resort, but in appropriate patients, it should be considered soon after failure of conservative management. However, when possible, reconstructive surgery should be delayed until completion of skeletal growth.

Pharmacokinetics of meloxicam in patients with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis

The pharmacokinetics of a meloxicam suspension were studied in 18 children with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. Children received a single 0.25-mg/kg dose up to a maximum of 15 mg. Pharmacokinetic parameters after the first dose were calculated by noncompartmental methods. Geometric mean (percent coefficient of variation for geometric mean [gCV]) C(max), AUC(0- infinity ), apparent clearance, apparent volume of distribution, and elimination half-life values were 1.24 microg/mL (47% gCV), 25.6 microg x h/mL (81% gCV), 0.17 mL/min/kg (83% gCV), 0.19 L/kg (63% gCV), and 13.4 hours (54% gCV) in the younger group and 1.89 microg/mL (25% gCV), 35.8 microg x h/mL (21% gCV), 0.12 mL/min/kg (23% gCV), 0.13 L/kg (22% gCV), and 12.7 hours (21% gCV) for the older group, respectively. Area under the curve, volume of distribution, and clearance tended to be higher in the younger group, whereas elimination half-lives were similar. A post hoc comparison to pharmacokinetic data in adults revealed no relevant differences. Thus, a common body weight-normalized dose is considered appropriate for children older than 2 years.

Evidence-based use of methotrexate in children with rheumatic diseases: a consensus statement of the Working Groups Pediatric Rheumatology Germany (AGKJR) and Pediatric Rheumatology Austria

Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is the most common diagnosis in children and adolescents with rheumatic disorders. In many children and adolescents, JIA is successfully treated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) and physiotherapy. However, in a significant number of cases the disease is resistant to this therapy, and treatment with "second line" disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) is required. Methotrexate (MTX) is frequently referred to as "first-choice second-line agent" for the treatment of JIA. To increase drug safety, the Working Groups for Children and Adolescents with Rheumatic Diseases in Germany (AGKJR) and Pediatric Rheumatology Austria have initiated the formulation of evidence-based recommendations. Evidence is based on consensus expert meetings, a MEDLINE search with the key words "Methotrexate" and "juvenile arthritis" limited to age 0-18 years, standard textbooks and review articles, data from the central registry of the German Research Center for Rheumatic Diseases (Deutsches Rheumaforschungszentrum Berlin DRFZ), experience with MTX in adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and recommendations of the German Society of Rheumatology (DGRh). Based on these data, evidence and recommendations are graded, and evidence-based recommendations for the use of MTX in children and adolescents with rheumatic disease are presented.

Etanercept: an updated review of its use in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and juvenile rheumatoid arthritis

Etanercept is a subcutaneously administered biological response modifier that binds and inactivates tumour necrosis factor-alpha, a proinflammatory cytokine. In patients with early active rheumatoid arthritis, etanercept 25mg twice weekly was associated with a more rapid improvement in disease activity and a significantly greater cumulative response than methotrexate over 12 months of treatment in a randomised, double-blind trial. In addition, etanercept recipients showed a slower rate of radiographic progression and a more rapid improvement in quality of life than methotrexate recipients. The efficacy of etanercept was maintained at 3 years' follow-up. Etanercept was also significantly better than placebo at reducing disease activity in patients who had an inadequate response to previous treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in several well controlled trials. At study end (after 3 or 6 months' treatment), the percentage of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response with etanercept (25mg or 16 mg/m(2) twice weekly) was 59 to 75% as monotherapy and 71% in combination with methotrexate; corresponding placebo response rates were 11 to 14% and 27%, respectively. Response has been maintained in patients who continued treatment for up to 5 years. In patients with psoriatic arthritis, etanercept 25mg twice weekly significantly reduced disease activity and improved skin lesions in two double-blind, placebo-controlled, 12- to 24-week trials. In the 24-week study, ACR20 response rates (50 vs 13%), psoriatic arthritis response rates (70 vs 23%) and the median improvement in skin lesions (33 vs 0%) were significantly greater in etanercept than in placebo recipients. In patients with polyarticular-course juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, etanercept resulted in improvements in all measures of disease activity and was significantly more effective than placebo at reducing disease flare. Eighty percent of patients receiving etanercept achieved a >or=30% reduction in disease activity over 7 months of treatment, and this was maintained for up to 2 years in a trial extension. Etanercept was generally well tolerated in children and adults in clinical trials; the most commonly occurring adverse effects included injection site reactions, infection, headache, rhinitis and dizziness. In conclusion, etanercept has emerged as an important new treatment option in inflammatory arthritis. Etanercept provides rapid and sustained improvements in disease activity in patients with early and DMARD-refractory rheumatoid arthritis and has been shown to inhibit radiographic progression in those with early disease. Well controlled studies have also demonstrated the efficacy of etanercept in patients with psoriatic arthritis or polyarticular-course juvenile rheumatoid arthritis.

Management of uveitis in pediatric patients: special considerations

Uveitis refers to inflammation involving the uvea or middle coat of the eye. This condition occurs uncommonly, particularly in persons aged <or=16 years. However, pediatric uveitis deserves special consideration for reasons that include the relatively poor prognosis, unique systemic associations, and various age-related treatment considerations. Accurate diagnosis requires history from both patient and parents, a complete ophthalmic examination that may require general anesthesia, and carefully selected investigations. Infections and masquerade syndromes, such as leukemia and retinoblastoma, must be excluded before treatment is commenced with immunosuppressive agents. Noninfectious anterior uveitis generally responds to topical corticosteroid and mydriatic therapy. Although used frequently in adults with posterior uveitis, periocular corticosteroid injections may require a general anesthetic, and systemic corticosteroids may cause serious adverse effects, including growth retardation, in pediatric patients. Consequently, in children, one or more corticosteroid-sparing immunosuppressive drugs are usually employed for vision-threatening noninfectious posterior eye inflammation. Methotrexate is the most commonly used systemic immunosuppressive agent for pediatric uveitis. It is effective in small retrospective clinical series, generally well tolerated, easy to administer, and inexpensive. Cyclosporin has also been used successfully in children with uveitis, being associated with a low risk of renal toxicity when used at standard doses. Although prescribed for severe ocular inflammation in adults, alkylating agents are generally contraindicated in children owing to risks including secondary malignancy, sterility and bone marrow suppression. Drugs that inhibit tumor necrosis factor-alpha have recently been used successfully to treat children with uveitis; however, in some patients there may be a risk of potentiating the ocular inflammation. Randomized clinical trials would provide valuable information about the relative efficacy of the various available treatment options.

Risks and benefits of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in children: a comparison with paracetamol

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) possess antipyretic, analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects. They are frequently used in children and have numerous therapeutic indications, the most common ones being fever, postoperative pain and inflammatory disorders, such as juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) and Kawasaki disease. Their major mechanism of action is through inhibition of prostaglandin biosynthesis by blockade of cyclo-oxygenase (COX). The disposition of most NSAIDs has been mainly studied in infants > or = 2 years of age. Compared with adults, the volume of distribution and clearance of NSAIDs such as diclofenac, ibuprofen (infants aged between 3 months and 2.5 years), ketorolac and nimesulide were increased in children. The elimination half-life was similar in children to that in adults. These pharmacokinetic differences might be clinically significant with the need for higher loading and/or maintenance doses in children. Ibuprofen, acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) and acetaminophen are the most frequently used agents for fever reduction in children. Over the past 20 years, because of the association between ASA use and Reye's syndrome, most of the interest has been directed toward ibuprofen and acetaminophen. In view of its comparable antipyretic efficacy, but superior tolerability profile, acetaminophen, when used appropriately with age-adapted formulations, should remain the first-line therapy in the treatment of childhood fever. At the moment, there is no scientific evidence to recommend simultaneous use of these two antipyretic drugs. Most NSAIDs provide mild to moderate analgesia, with the exception of ketorolac which has a strong analgesic activity. The analgesic efficacy of ketorolac, ketoprofen, diclofenac and ibuprofen in the treatment of postoperative pain has been mainly studied following a single dose, in children of > or = 1 year of age undergoing minor surgeries. In this setting, when used either alone or in adjunct to caudal or epidural anaesthesia, they were associated with an opioid-sparing effect and were well tolerated. With the exception of ketorolac use in children undergoing tonsillectomy, where controversy exists regarding the risk of postoperative haemorrhage, NSAIDs have not been associated with an increased risk of perioperative bleeding. NSAIDs are the first-line therapy in JIA. They appear to be equally effective and tolerated, with the exception of ASA which is associated with more adverse effects. ASA has been used for many years in the treatment of Kawasaki disease and is part of the standard modality of treatment in combination with intravenous gammaglobulins. More recently, lung inflammation associated with cystic fibrosis (CF) has become a new target for NSAIDs. Despite promising preliminary results with ibuprofen, numerous questions need to be answered before this new strategy becomes part of the conventional treatment of patients with CF. In summary, NSAIDs are effective in reducing fever, alleviating pain and reducing inflammation in children, with a good tolerance profile. Pharmacokinetic studies are needed to characterise the disposition of NSAIDs in very young infants in order to use them rationally. To date, no studies have been published on the disposition, tolerability and efficacy of specific COX-2 inhibitors in children. Further clinical experience with these agents in adults is warranted before undergoing trials with specific COX-2 inhibitors in children.

Current Medication Choices in Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis II –Update of a Survey Performed in 1993

The documentation of treatments used for Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis (JRA) is important to allow for the evaluation of practice patterns for future outcome studies. A survey of nine pediatric rheumatologists was performed between September 1999 and February 2000. Each of the physicians prospectively recorded demographic and treatment information on consecutively sampled JRA patients (n=395). Pauciarticular onset JRA was present in 46%, polyarticular onset JRA in 35%, and systemic onset JRA in 19% of the children. Naproxen was the most frequently prescribed medication (55% of the patients), followed by methotrexate (MTX), which was used in 39% of the patients. Folic acid supplementation (1 mg/day) was provided to 69% of the patients treated with MTX. Etanercept was used in 11% of the children. Eleven percent of the patients received corticosteroids, and 13% of children on corticosteroids took calcium supplements. Uveitis was present in 8% and had a chronic course in 79% of those cases. Although systemic medications were used in 50% of the children with uveitis to control eye inflammation, severe damage to the eyes developed in 30% of them. Fourteen percent of the patients required gastroprotective medications. Compared with findings of a similar survey performed in 1993, there was no significant change in the frequency of use of naproxen, but nabumetone is now more often prescribed, and COX-2 inhibitors have been introduced in the therapy of JRA. Changes among second-line agents used for JRA have also occurred, although there was no change in the frequency of use of MTX or corticosteroids. JRA continues to be a treatment challenge for the practicing pediatric rheumatologist. Patients often show incomplete response to the currently available medications. Therefore, new therapeutic agents need to be evaluated for their use in JRA, and the treatment of JRA associated uveitis especially needs to be improved.

The treatment of juvenile arthritis

Until recently, two different classification systems for juvenile arthritis (JA) were utilised, each with its own terminology and subclassification. It has been recognised that particularly within the polyarticular and pauciarticular groups, many distinct subsets exist each with a different prognosis. As a result, a new classification system for JA has been developed. It is hoped that this will allow more accurate assessment of incidence and aetiology of the various subtypes in future generations and in time will allow therapy to be targeted at those most likely to achieve benefit. Since there is a new classification system for JA, the vast majority of published clinical studies were performed using the old classification system. For the purposes of this review, unless otherwise stated, the American College of Rheumatology classification will be used. This is outlined in Table 1 with clinical features of the major subtypes described in Table 3. This review will cover current best practice and discuss future directions for research using the recent advances in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) as a model.

The prevalence of uveitis in juvenile rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Because asymptomatic uveitis has been an important cause of visual loss in children with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, periodic ophthalmologic screenings of such patients have been recommended. Recently, some authors have found a decreased prevalence of uveitis in children with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

We studied a total of 76 patients (63 girls and 13 boys, aged 1 to 16 years), referred to 3 pediatric ophthalmology practices between March 1976 and October 1999. Follow-up examinations were performed at intervals of 3 to 6 months according to current guidelines, during the following 6 months to 23 years (mean, 55 months).

RESULTS

Uveitis developed in 10 children (13%). Of these 10 children, 2 were symptomatic (blurred vision, discomfort) and 7 were diagnosed with uveitis at the initial visit. Only 1 patient had asymptomatic uveitis after initial negative findings on screening examination. Final visual acuity for all the compliant children in the uveitis group was better than 20/30.

DISCUSSION

The prevalence of uveitis in our study is similar to rates found by other recent authors. This decrease may reflect a tendency for systemic medications to prevent the development of ocular inflammation. We believe that screening guidelines should be reevaluated, especially for asymptomatic children with negative findings on initial examinations.

Oral protein calorie supplementation for children with chronic disease

BACKGROUND

Growth failure and poor nutritional status are common features in children with chronic diseases due to reduced appetite, malabsorption and increased nutritional requirements associated with some diseases. The provision of oral protein calorie supplements is one of a number of interventions used to improve nutritional status in these children. The use of these products, which are expensive, may be associated with a number of adverse effects, for example, they may effect development of normal eating behaviour patterns or lead to unpleasant symptoms such as vomiting and diarrhoea.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the evidence that in children with chronic disease, oral protein calorie supplements alter daily nutrient intake, nutritional indices, survival and quality of life and are associated with adverse effects, for example diarrhoea, vomiting, reduced appetite, glucose intolerance, bloating and eating behaviour problems.

SEARCH STRATEGY

All publications describing RCTs of the use of oral protein calorie supplements in children with chronic diseases were identified through comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearching relevant journals and handsearching abstract books of conference proceedings. The companies which market oral protein calorie supplements were also contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing use of oral protein calorie supplements for at least one month to increase calorie intake with existing conventional therapy, which may include nutritional advice on how to improve nutritional intake from food or no specific intervention, in children with chronic disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The following outcomes were assessed: indices of nutrition and growth, anthropometric measures of body composition, calorie and nutrient intake (total, from oral protein calorie supplements and from food), eating behaviour, compliance, quality of life, specific adverse effects and disease severity scores, and mortality.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials have been identified as being suitable for inclusion in the review and we are awaiting further data from one of these trials. All of these trials were carried out in children with cystic fibrosis. Few statistical differences could be found between the treatment and control groups apart from change in total fat intake at three months (weighted mean difference 69.20 [95% CI 11.05, 127.35]). However, this was based on the results of only one, small study. No trials have been identified which assess the effectiveness of oral protein calorie supplements in children with other chronic diseases.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Oral protein calorie supplements are widely used to improve the nutritional status of children with a number of chronic diseases. We have only been able to identify a small number of trials assessing these products in children with cystic fibrosis and have been unable to draw any conclusions based on the limited data extracted from these. We therefore recommend that a series of large, randomised controlled trials are undertaken investigating the use of these products in children with different chronic diseases. Until further data are available, we would suggest that these products are only used with caution.