Real world treatment of juvenile-onset systemic lupus erythematosus: Data from the UK JSLE cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In the absence of clinical trials evidence, Juvenile-onset Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (JSLE) treatment plans vary. AIM: To explore 'real world' treatment utilising longitudinal UK JSLE Cohort Study data. METHODS: Data collected between 07/2009-05/2020 was used to explore the choice/sequence of immunomodulating drugs from diagnosis. Multivariate logistic regression determined how organ-domain involvement (pBILAG-2004) impacted treatment choice. RESULT: 349 patients met inclusion criteria, median follow-up 4-years (IQR:2,6). Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) was most commonly used for the majority of organ-domains, and significantly associated with renal involvement (OR:1.99, 95% CI:1.65-2.41, pc < 0.01). Analyses assessing the sequence of immunomodulators focused on 197/349 patients (meeting relevant inclusion/exclusion criteria). 10/197 (5%) solely recieved hydroxychloroquine/prednisolone, 62/197 (31%) received a single-immunomodulator, 69/197 (36%) received two, and 36/197 patients (28%) received ≥three immunomodulators. The most common first and second line immunomodulator was MMF. Rituximab was the most common third-line immunomodulator. CONCLUSIONS: Most UK JSLE patients required ≥two immunomodulators, with MMF used most commonly.

Attainment of low disease activity and remission targets reduces the risk of severe flare and new damage in childhood lupus.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the achievability and effect of attaining low disease activity (LDA) or remission in childhood-onset SLE (cSLE). METHODS: Attainment of three adult-SLE derived definitions of LDA (LLDAS, LA, Toronto-LDA), and four definitions of remission (clinical-SLEDAI-defined remission on/off treatment, pBILAG-defined remission on/off treatment) was assessed in UK JSLE Cohort Study patients longitudinally. Prentice-Williams-Petersen gap recurrent event models assessed the impact of LDA/remission attainment on severe flare/new damage. RESULTS: LLDAS, LA and Toronto-LDA targets were reached in 67%, 73% and 32% of patients, after a median of 18, 15 or 17 months, respectively. Cumulatively, LLDAS, LA and Toronto-LDA was attained for a median of 23%, 31% and 19% of total follow-up-time, respectively. Remission on-treatment was more common (61% cSLEDAI-defined, 42% pBILAG-defined) than remission off-treatment (31% cSLEDAI-defined, 21% pBILAG-defined). Attainment of all target states, and disease duration (>1 year), significantly reduced the hazard of severe flare (P < 0.001). As cumulative time in each target increased, hazard of severe flare progressively reduced. LLDAS attainment reduced the hazard of severe flare more than LA or Toronto-LDA (P < 0.001). Attainment of LLDAS and all remission definitions led to a statistically comparable reduction in the hazards of severe flare (P > 0.05). Attainment of all targets reduced the hazards of new damage (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study demonstrating that adult-SLE-derived definitions of LDA/remission are achievable in cSLE, significantly reducing risk of severe flare/new damage. Of the LDA definitions, LLDAS performed best, leading to a statistically comparable reduction in the hazards of severe flare to attainment of clinical remission.

Limited sensitivity and specificity of the ACR/EULAR-2019 classification criteria for SLE in JSLE?-observations from the UK JSLE Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to test the performance of the new ACR and EULAR criteria, that include ANA positivity as entry criterion, in JSLE. METHODS: Performance of the ACR/EULAR-2019 criteria were compared with Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC-2012), using data from children and young people (CYP) in the UK JSLE Cohort Study (n = 482), with the ACR-1997 criteria used as reference standard. An unselected cohort of CYP positive for ANA (n = 129) was used to calculate positive/negative predictive values of the criteria. RESULTS: At both first and last visits, the number of patients fulfilling the different classification criteria varied significantly (P < 0.001). The sensitivity of the SLICC-2012 criteria was higher when compared with that of the ACR/EULAR-2019 criteria at first and last visits (98% vs 94% for first visit, and 98% vs 96% for last visit; P < 0.001), when all available CYP were considered. The ACR/EULAR-2019 criteria were more specific when compared with the SLICC-2012 criteria (77% vs 67% for first visit, and 81% vs 71% for last visit; P < 0.001). Significant differences between the classification criteria were mainly caused by the variation in ANA positivity across ages. In the unselected cohort of ANA-positive CYP, the ACR/EULAR-2019 criteria produced the highest false-positive classification (6/129, 5%). CONCLUSION: In CYP, the ACR/EULAR-2019 criteria are not superior to those of the SLICC-2012 or ACR-1997 criteria. If classification criteria are designed to include CYP and adult populations, paediatric rheumatologists should be included in the consensus and evaluation process, as seemingly minor changes can significantly affect outcomes.