Withdrawing biologics in non-systemic JIA: what matters to pediatric rheumatologists?

OBJECTIVE: Approximately one third of children with JIA receive biologic therapy, but evidence on biologic therapy withdrawal is lacking. This study aims to increase our understanding of whether and when pediatric rheumatologists postpone a decision to withdraw biologic therapy in children with clinically inactive non-systemic JIA. METHODS: A survey containing questions about background characteristics, treatment patterns, minimum treatment time with biologic therapy, and 16 different patient vignettes, was distributed among 83 pediatric rheumatologists in Canada and the Netherlands. For each vignette, respondents were asked whether they would withdraw biologic therapy at their minimum treatment time, and if not, how long they would continue biologic therapy. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, logistic and interval regression analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-three pediatric rheumatologists completed the survey (40% response rate). Pediatric rheumatologists are most likely to postpone the decision to withdraw biologic therapy when the child and/or parents express a preference for continuation (OR 6.3; p < 0.001), in case of a flare in the current treatment period (OR 3.9; p = 0.001), and in case of uveitis in the current treatment period (OR 3.9; p < 0.001). On average, biologic therapy withdrawal is initiated 6.7 months later when the child or parent prefer to continue treatment. CONCLUSION: Patient's and parents' preferences were the strongest driver of a decision to postpone biologic therapy withdrawal in children with clinically inactive non-systemic JIA and prolongs treatment duration. These findings highlight the potential benefit of a tool to support pediatric rheumatologists, patients and parents in decision making, and can help inform its design.

Coronary bifurcations treated with thin-strut drug-eluting stents: a prespecified analysis of the randomized BIO-RESORT trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of a coronary bifurcation lesion is often required in routine clinical practice, but data on the performance of very thin-strut biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents are scarce. METHODS: Comparison of biodegradable polymer and durable polymer drug-eluting stents in an all comers population (BIO-RESORT) is a prospective, multicenter randomized clinical trial that included 3514 all-comer patients, who were randomized to very thin-strut biodegradable polymer-coated sirolimus- or everolimus-eluting stents, versus thin-strut durable polymer-coated zotarolimus-eluting stents. The approach of bifurcation stenting was left at the operator's discretion, and provisional stenting was generally preferred. This prespecified analysis assessed 3-year clinical outcome of all patients in whom treatment involved at least one bifurcation with a side-branch diameter ≥1.5 mm. RESULTS: Of all BIO-RESORT trial participants, 1236 patients were treated in bifurcation lesions and analyzed. Single- and two-stent techniques were used in 85.8% and 14.2%, respectively. 'True' bifurcation lesions (main vessel and side-branch obstructed) were treated in 31.1%. Three-year follow-up was available in 1200/1236 (97.1%) patients. The main endpoint target vessel failure (composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) occurred in sirolimus-eluting stents in 42/412 (10.3%) and in zotarolimus-eluting stents in 49/409 (12.1%) patients (P-logrank = 0.40). In everolimus-eluting stents, target vessel failure occurred in 40/415 (9.8%) patients (vs. zotarolimus-eluting stents: P-logrank = 0.26). There was no between-stent difference in individual components of target vessel failure. Findings were consistent in patients with single-vessel treatment and patients treated with a single-stent technique. CONCLUSIONS: Three years after stenting all-comers with bifurcation lesions, clinical outcome was similar with the sirolimus-eluting and everolimus-eluting stents versus the zotarolimus-eluting stent.