Increasing the etanercept dose in a treat-to-target approach in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: does it help to reach the target? A post-hoc analysis of the BeSt for Kids randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Etanercept has been studied in doses up to 0.8 mg/kg/week (max 50 mg/week) in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) patients. In clinical practice higher doses are used off-label, but evidence regarding the relation with outcomes is lacking. We describe the clinical course of JIA-patients receiving high-dose etanercept (1.6 mg/kg/week; max 50 mg/week) in the BeSt for Kids trial. METHODS: 92 patients with oligoarticular JIA, RF-negative polyarticular JIA or juvenile psoriatic arthritis were randomised across three treat-to-target arms: (1) sequential DMARD-monotherapy (sulfasalazine or methotrexate (MTX)), (2) combination-therapy MTX + 6 weeks prednisolone and (3) combination therapy MTX + etanercept. In any treatment-arm, patients could eventually escalate to high-dose etanercept alongside MTX 10mg/m2/week. RESULTS: 32 patients received high-dose etanercept (69% female, median age 6 years (IQR 4-10), median 10 months (7-16) from baseline). Median follow-up was 24.6 months. Most clinical parameters improved within 3 months after dose-increase: median JADAS10 from 7.2 to 2.8 (p = 0.008), VAS-physician from 12 to 4 (p = 0.022), VAS-patient/parent from 38.5 to 13 (p = 0.003), number of active joints from 2 to 0.5 (p = 0.12) and VAS-pain from 35.5 to 15 (p = 0.030). Functional impairments (CHAQ-score) improved more gradually and ESR remained stable. A comparable pattern was observed in 11 patients (73% girls, median age 8 (IQR 6-9)) who did not receive high-dose etanercept despite eligibility (comparison group). In both groups, 56% reached inactive disease at 6 months. No severe adverse events (SAEs) occurred after etanercept dose-increase. In the comparison group, 2 SAEs consisting of hospital admission occurred. Rates of non-severe AEs per subsequent patient year follow-up were 2.27 in the high-dose and 1.43 in the comparison group. CONCLUSIONS: Escalation to high-dose etanercept in JIA-patients who were treated to target was generally followed by meaningful clinical improvement. However, similar improvements were observed in a smaller comparison group who did not escalate to high-dose etanercept. No SAEs were seen after escalation to high-dose etanercept. The division into the high-dose and comparison groups was not randomised, which is a potential source of bias. We advocate larger, randomised studies of high versus regular dose etanercept to provide high level evidence on efficacy and safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register; NTR1574; 3 December 2008; https://onderzoekmetmensen.nl/en/trial/26585 .

Significant pain decrease in children with non-systemic Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis treated to target: results over 24 months of follow up.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare pain-scores in three targeted treatment-strategies in JIA-patients and to identify characteristics predicting persistent pain. METHODS: In the BeSt-for-Kids-study 92 DMARD-naïve JIA-patients were randomized in 3 treatment-strategies: 1) initial sequential DMARD-monotherapy 2) initial methotrexate (MTX)/prednisolone-bridging or 3) initial MTX/etanercept. Potential differences in VAS pain scores (0-100 mm) over time between treatment-strategies were compared using linear mixed models with visits clustered within patients. A multivariable model was used to assess the ability of baseline characteristics to predict the chance of high pain-scores during follow-up. RESULTS: Pain-scores over time reduced from mean 55.3 (SD 21.7) to 19.5 (SD 25.3) mm after 24 months. On average, pain-scores decreased significantly with ß -1.37 mm (95% CI -1.726; -1.022) per month. No significant difference was found between treatment-strategies (interaction term treatment arm*time (months) ß (95% CI) arm 1: 0.13 (-0.36; 0.62) and arm 2: 0.37 (-0.12; 0.86) compared to arm 3). Correction for sex and symptom duration yielded similar results. Several baseline characteristics were predictive for pain over time. Higher VAS pain [ß 0.44 (95% CI 0.25; 0.65)] and higher active joint count [0.77 (0.19; 1.34)] were predictive of higher pain over time, whereas, low VAS physician [ -0.34 (-0.55; -0.06)], CHQ Physical [ -0.42 (-0.72; -0.11)] and Psychosocial summary Score [ -0.42 (-0.77; -0.06)] were predictive of lower pain. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment-to-target seems effective in pain-reduction in non-systemic JIA-patients irrespective of initial treatment-strategy. Several baseline-predictors for pain over time were found, which could help to identify patients with a high risk for development of chronic pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Registry number 1574.

Patterns of clinical joint inflammation in juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: We studied patterns of joint inflammation in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) to assess whether joint activity recurs locally in the same joints. METHODS: Joints of 91 patients of the BeSt for Kids study, a treat-to-target trial for children with recent-onset oligoarticular, rheumatoid factor-negative polyarticular and psoriatic JIA, were clinically assessed during 2 years (10 study visits). The association between joint inflammation at baseline and later inflammation in the same joint was assessed using a multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression model at joint level. With a Poisson model, the association between baseline joint inflammation and the number of study visits at which the same joint was recurrently inflamed was tested. RESULTS: Of the 6097 joints studied, 15% (897) was clinically inflamed at baseline. In 42% (377/897) of those joints, inflammation recurred during follow-up. Joint inflammation at baseline was statistically significantly associated with joint inflammation during follow-up in the same joint (OR 3.9, 95% CI 3.5 to 4.4) and specifically with the number of episodes of recurrent joint inflammation (IRR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.1). CONCLUSION: In JIA, joint inflammation has the tendency to recur multiple times in joints that are clinically inflamed at disease onset. This indicates that local factors might play a role in the processes contributing to the occurrence of JIA flares.

Treat to target (drug-free) inactive disease in DMARD-naive juvenile idiopathic arthritis: 24-month clinical outcomes of a three-armed randomised trial.

QUESTION: Which is the best strategy to achieve (drug-free) inactive disease in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA)? METHODS: In a randomised, single-blinded, study in disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD)-naive patients with JIA, three treatment-strategies were compared: (1) sequential DMARD-monotherapy (sulfasalazine or methotrexate (MTX)), (2) combination therapy MTX + 6 weeks prednisolone and (3) combination therapy MTX +etanercept. Treatment-to-target entailed 3-monthly DMARD/biological adjustments in case of persistent disease activity, with drug tapering to nil in case of inactive disease.After 24 months, primary outcomes were time-to-inactive-disease and time-to-flare after DMARD discontinuation. Secondary outcomes were adapted ACRPedi30/50/70/90 scores, functional ability and adverse events. RESULTS: 94 children (67 % girls) aged median (IQR) 9.1 (4.6-12.9) years were enrolled: 32 in arms 1 and 2, 30 in arm 3. At baseline visual analogue scale (VAS) physician was mean 49 (SD 16) mm, VAS patient 53 (22) mm, erythrocyte sedimentation rate 12.8 (14.7), active joints median 8 (5-12), limited joints 2.5 (1-4.8) and Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire score mean 1.0 (0.6).After 24 months, 71% (arm 1), 70% (arm 2) and 72% (arm 3) of patients had inactive disease and 45% (arm 1), 31% (arm 2) and 41% (arm 3) had drug-free inactive disease. Time-to-inactive-disease was median 9.0 (5.3-15.0) months in arm 1, 9.0 (6.0-12.8) months in arm 2 and 9.0 (6.0-12.0) months in arm 3 (p=0.30). Time-to-flare was not significantly different (overall 3.0 (3.0-6.8) months, p=0.7). Adapted ACR pedi-scores were comparably high between arms. Adverse events were similar. CONCLUSION: Regardless of initial specific treatments, after 24 months of treatment-to-target aimed at drug-free inactive disease, 71% of recent-onset patients with JIA had inactive disease (median onset 9 months) and 39% were drug free. Tightly controlled treatment-to-target is feasible. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 1574.

Participation in a single-blinded pediatric therapeutic strategy study for juvenile idiopathic arthritis: are parents and patient-participants in equipoise?

BACKGROUND: Genuine uncertainty on superiority of one intervention over the other is called equipoise. Physician-investigators in randomized controlled trials (RCT) need equipoise at least in studies with more than minimal risks. Ideally, this equipoise is also present in patient-participants. In pediatrics, data on equipoise are lacking. We hypothesize that 1) lack of equipoise at enrolment among parents may reduce recruitment; 2) lack of equipoise during participation may reduce retention in patients assigned to a less favoured treatment-strategy. METHODS: We compared preferences of parents/patients at enrolment, documented by a questionnaire (phase 1), with preferences developed during follow-up by an interview-study (phase 2) to investigate equipoise of child-participants and parents in the BeSt-for-Kids-study (NTR 1574). This trial in new-onset Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis-patients consists of three strategies. One strategy comprises initial treatment with a biological disease-modifying-antirheumatic-drug (DMARD), currently not standard-of-care. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 23 parents and 7 patients, median 11 months after enrolment. RESULTS: Initially most parents and children were not in equipoise. Parents/patients who refused participation, regularly declined due to specific preferences. Many participating families preferred the biological-first-strategy. They participated to have a chance for this initial treatment, and would even consider stopping trial-participation when not randomized for it. Their conviction of superiority of the biological-first strategy was based on knowledge from internet and close relations. According to four parents, the physician-investigator preferred the biological-first-strategy, but the majority (n = 19) stated that she had no preferred strategy. In phase 2, preferences tended to change to the treatment actually received. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of equipoise during enrolment did not reduce study recruitment, mainly due to the fact that preferred treatment was only available within the study. Still, when developing a trial it is important to evaluate whether the physicians' research question is in line with preferences of the patient-group. By exploring so-called 'informed patient-group'-equipoise, successful recruitment may be enhanced and bias avoided. In our study, lack of equipoise during trial-participation did not reduce retention in those assigned to a less favoured option. We observed a change for preference towards treatment actually received, possibly explained by comparable outcomes in all three arms.

S100A12 Is Associated with Response to Therapy in Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Around one-third of patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) fail to respond to first-line methotrexate (MTX) or anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy, with even fewer achieving ≥ American College of Rheumatology Pediatric 70% criteria for response (ACRpedi70), though individual responses cannot yet be accurately predicted. Because change in serum S100-protein myeloid-related protein complex 8/14 (MRP8/14) is associated with therapeutic response, we tested granulocyte-specific S100-protein S100A12 as a potential biomarker for treatment response. METHODS: S100A12 serum concentration was determined by ELISA in patients treated with MTX (n = 75) and anti-TNF (n = 88) at baseline and followup. Treatment response (≥ ACRpedi50 score), achievement of inactive disease, and improvement in Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score (JADAS)-10 score were recorded. RESULTS: Baseline S100A12 concentration was measured in patients treated with anti-TNF [etanercept n = 81, adalimumab n = 7; median 200, interquartile range (IQR) 133-440 ng/ml] and MTX (median 220, IQR 100-440 ng/ml). Of the patients in the anti-TNF therapy group, 74 (84%) were also receiving MTX. Responders to MTX (n = 57/75) and anti-TNF (n = 66/88) therapy had higher baseline S100A12 concentration compared to nonresponders: median 240 (IQR 125-615) ng/ml versus 150 (IQR 87-233) ng/ml, p = 0.021 for MTX, and median 308 (IQR 150-624) ng/ml versus 151 (IQR 83-201) ng/ml, p = 0.002, for anti-TNF therapy. Followup S100A12 could be measured in 44/75 MTX-treated patients (34/44 responders) and 39/88 anti-TNF-treated patients (26/39 responders). Responders had significantly reduced S100A12 concentration (MTX: p = 0.031, anti-TNF: p < 0.001) at followup versus baseline. Baseline serum S100A12 in both univariate and multivariate regression models for anti-TNF therapy and univariate analysis alone for MTX therapy was significantly associated with change in JADAS-10. CONCLUSION: Responders to MTX or anti-TNF treatment can be identified by higher pretreatment S100A12 serum concentration levels.

MRP8/14 serum levels as a predictor of response to starting and stopping anti-TNF treatment in juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: Approximately 30% of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) patients fail to respond to anti-TNF treatment. When clinical remission is induced, some patients relapse after treatment has been stopped. We tested the predictive value of MRP8/14 serum levels to identify responders to treatment and relapse after discontinuation of therapy. METHODS: Samples from 88 non-systemic JIA patients who started and 26 patients who discontinued TNF-blockers were analyzed. MRP8/14 serum levels were measured by in-house MRP8/14 ELISA and by Bühlmann Calprotectin ELISA at start of anti-TNF treatment, within 6 months after start and at discontinuation of etanercept in clinical remission. Patients were categorized into responders (ACRpedi ≥ 50 and/or inactive disease) and non-responders (ACRpedi < 50) within six months after start, response was evaluated by change in JADAS-10. Disease activity was assessed within six months after discontinuation. RESULTS: Baseline MRP8/14 levels were higher in responders (median MRP8/14 of 1466 ng/ml (IQR 1045-3170)) compared to non-responders (median MRP8/14 of 812 (IQR 570-1178), p < 0.001). Levels decreased after start of treatment only in responders (p < 0.001). Change in JADAS-10 was correlated with baseline MRP8/14 levels (Spearman's rho 0.361, p = 0.001). Patients who flared within 6 months after treatment discontinuation had higher MRP8/14 levels (p = 0.031, median 1025 ng/ml (IQR 588-1288)) compared to patients with stable remission (505 ng/ml (IQR 346-778)). Results were confirmed by Bühlmann ELISA with high reproducibility but different overall levels. CONCLUSION: High levels of baseline MRP8/14 are associated with good response to anti-TNF treatment, whereas elevated MRP8/14 levels at discontinuation of etanercept are associated with higher chance to flare.

Bone health of patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a comparison between dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and digital X-ray radiogrammetry.

OBJECTIVES: Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) affects bone mineral density (BMD). Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the most widely used technique to determine BMD. Digital X-ray radiogrammetry (DXR) is a feasible method for determination of cortical BMD on hand radiographs. This study aimed to compare DXR and DXA in the assessment of BMD in JIA patients. METHODS: Thirty-five JIA patients with available DXA and hand radiograph within the same time period were included from the Dutch Arthritis and Biologicals in Children register. Outcome measures for BMD were Bone Health Index from DXR and BMD total body, BMD lumbar spine and Bone Mineral Apparent Density from DXA. All measures were transformed to Z-scores. Correlations were assessed with Pearson correlation coefficients. RESULTS: Median age of the patients (60% female) was 11.7 years. Pearson correlation coefficient was significant for the absolute scores: 0.568-0.770 (p<0.001). No significant correlation was found between the Z-scores of DXA and DXR. CONCLUSIONS: The BMD assessment from the DXR was correlated to DXA measures in a cohort of JIA patients, although only in absolute scores. Future steps for implementation of DXR in clinical practice include evaluation of responsiveness to change, predictive value and comparison with other imaging techniques.

Long-term quality of life and functional outcome of patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis in the biologic era: a longitudinal follow-up study in the Dutch Arthritis and Biologicals in Children Register.

OBJECTIVE: To carry out a longitudinal investigation of functional outcome, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and treatment strategies in JIA patients who started etanercept >5 years ago. METHODS: We approached patients whose HRQoL changes were described previously in a subanalysis of the Dutch Arthritis and Biologicals in Children register. Recent disease status, co-morbidities and structural damage were retrieved. Disability and HRQoL were assessed by (Childhood) HAQ [(C)HAQ], Child Health Questionnaire, Short Form 36 and Health Utilities Index Mark 3. Changes over time were analysed with linear mixed models. RESULTS: Forty-three patients (81% response) started etanercept a median 8.5 years ago. At the time of this long-term analysis, median age was 22 years (interquartile range: 18-24 years). HRQoL outcome was similar to HRQoL 15-27 months after the initiation of etanercept; 42% had a (C)HAQ of 0.00 and 67% had achieved inactive disease. Patients reported increasing levels of bodily pain compared with earlier measurements. Unemployment (12%) was comparable to the general population; educational level was higher. Use of biologic agents was as follows: 40% etanercept; 40% other biologic agents; and 20% none. Joint surgery occurred in 14% of patients. CONCLUSION: At a median 8.5 years after the commencement of etanercept treatment, JIA patients maintain most of the acquired improvement in HRQoL. Although disability and disease activity are low, chronic pain remains an issue. Persistence and possible deterioration of radiological damage emphasize the importance of early treatment. The fact that 20% of patients do not use any anti-rheumatic medication shows that clinical remission of medication might be an achievable goal.

Patient-reported joint count in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: the reliability of a manikin format.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reliability of a manikin format, patient-reported joint count in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), and to detect changes in agreement at a second visit. METHODS: Patients with JIA aged 12-21 were asked to mark joints with active arthritis on a manikin before their regular clinic visit. The physician then performed a joint count without having seen the patient's assessment. Agreement between scores of physician-reported and patient-reported joint counts was assessed using ICC. Kappa statistics were used to assess reliability of scoring individual joints. RESULTS: The study included 75 patients with JIA. In general, patients had a low number of active joints (median 1 joint, indicated by the physician). ICC was moderate (0.61) and κ ranged from 0.3-0.7. At the second visit, κ were similar; the ICC was 0.19. When a patient scored 0 joints, the physician confirmed this 93%-100% of the time. When the patient marked ≥ 1 joints, the physician confirmed arthritis 59%-76% of the time. Sensitivity to change was moderate. CONCLUSION: Agreement between physician and patient on the number of joints with active arthritis was reasonable. Untrained patients tended to overestimate the presence of arthritis when they marked active joints on a manikin-format joint count. When the patient indicated absence of arthritis, the physician usually confirmed this. As the agreement did not improve at followup, future research should focus on the possibility of achieving this through training. For now, the patient-reported joint count cannot replace the physicians' joint count in clinical practice; it may be used in epidemiological studies with caution.

Trends in prescription of biological agents and outcomes of juvenile idiopathic arthritis: results of the Dutch national Arthritis and Biologics in Children Register.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) has changed dramatically since the introduction of biological agents in 1999. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate trends in prescription patterns of biological agents and the subsequent outcome of JIA. METHODS: The Arthritis and Biologics in Children register (multicentre prospective observational study) aimed to include all consecutive patients with JIA in the Netherlands who had started biological agents since 1999. Patients were divided according to year of introduction of first biological agent. Patient characteristics at introduction of the first biological agent and its effectiveness were analysed over 12 years. RESULTS: 335 patients with non-systemic JIA and 86 patients with systemic JIA started a biological agent between 1999 and 2010. Etanercept remained the most often prescribed biological agent for non-systemic JIA; anakinra became first choice for systemic JIA. The use of systemic glucocorticoids and synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs before biological agents decreased. During these 12 years of observation, biological agents were prescribed earlier in the disease course and to patients with lower baseline JADAS (Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score) disease activity. All baseline disease activity parameters were lowered in patients with non-systemic JIA. In systemic JIA, prescription patterns changed towards very early introduction of biological agents (median 0.4 years of disease duration) in patients with a low number of joints with active arthritis and high erythrocyte sedimentation rates. These changes for both systemic and non-systemic JIA resulted in more patients with inactive disease after 3 and 15 months of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Biological agents are increasingly prescribed, earlier in the disease and in patients with JIA with lower disease activity. These changes are accompanied by better short-term disease outcomes.

Automated determination of bone age and bone mineral density in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic inflammation combined with glucocorticoid treatment and immobilization puts juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) patients at risk of impaired growth and reduced bone mineral density (BMD). Conventional methods for evaluating bone age and BMD are time-consuming or come with additional costs and radiation exposure. In addition, an automated measurement of bone age and BMD is likely to be more consistent than visual evaluation. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the feasibility of an automated method for determination of bone age and (cortical) bone mineral density (cBMD) in severely affected JIA patients. A secondary objective was to describe bone age and cBMD in this specific JIA population eligible for biologic treatment. METHODS: In total, 69 patients with standard hand radiographs at the start of etanercept treatment and of calendar age within the reliability ranges (2.5 to 17 years for boys and 2 to 15 years for girls) were extracted from the Dutch Arthritis and Biologicals in Children register. Radiographs were analyzed using the BoneXpert method, thus automatically determining bone age and cBMD expressed as bone health index (BHI). Agreement between measurements of the left- and right-hand radiographs and a repeated measurement of the left hand were assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Regression analysis was used to identify variables associated with Z-scores of bone age and BHI. RESULTS: The BoneXpert method was reliable in the evaluation of radiographs of 67 patients (radiographs of 2 patients were rejected because of poor image quality). Agreement between left- and right-hand radiographs (ICC = 0.838 to 0.996) and repeated measurements (ICC = 0.999 to 1.000) was good. Mean Z-scores of bone age (-0.36, P = 0.051) and BHI (-0.85, P < 0.001) were lower compared to the healthy population. Glucocorticoid use was associated with delayed bone age (0.79 standard deviation (SD), P = 0.028), and male gender was associated with a lower Z-score of BHI (0.65 SD, P = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: BoneXpert is an easy-to-use method for assessing bone age and cBMD in patients with JIA, provided that radiographs are of reasonable quality and patients' bone age lies within the age ranges of the program. The population investigated had delayed bone maturation and lower cBMD than healthy children.

Treatment choices of paediatric rheumatologists for juvenile idiopathic arthritis: etanercept or adalimumab?

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate differences in baseline characteristics between etanercept- and adalimumab-treated JIA patients and to reveal factors that influence the choice between these TNF inhibitors, which are considered equally effective in the recent ACR recommendations for JIA treatment. METHODS: Biologic-naïve JIA patients with active arthritis who started treatment with adalimumab or etanercept between March 2008 and December 2011 were selected from the Dutch Arthritis and Biologicals in Children register. Baseline characteristics were compared. Focus group interviews with paediatric rheumatologists were performed to evaluate factors determining treatment choices. RESULTS: A total of 193 patients started treatment with etanercept and 21 with adalimumab. Adalimumab-treated patients had longer disease duration prior to the start of biologics (median 5.7 vs 2.0 years) and more often a history of uveitis (71% vs 4%). Etanercept-treated patients had more disability at baseline (median Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire score 1.1 vs 0.4) and more active arthritis (median number of active joints 6 vs 4). The presence of uveitis was the most important factor directing the choice towards adalimumab. Factors specific for the paediatric population-such as painful adalimumab injections-as well as the physician's familiarity with the drug accounted for the preference for etanercept. CONCLUSION: Although the two TNF inhibitors are considered equally effective, in daily practice etanercept is most often prescribed; adalimumab is mainly preferred when uveitis is present. In choosing the most suitable biologic treatment, paediatric rheumatologists take into account drug and patient factors, considering newly published data and cautiously implementing this into daily care.

Cost of biologics in the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a factor not to be overlooked.

Biologics are a promising treatment option for juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) but drug costs are very high compared to conventional treatment. From a socioeconomic view the additional costs of new interventions should be weighed against their incremental health benefits compared to standard care. Therefore we evaluated data on cost-effectiveness of biologics in JIA. We searched Medline, Embase, and The York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database for relevant literature. Current data show that biologics are reducing direct and indirect healthcare costs if one excludes the costs of the drug itself. The costs of biologics are more than ten times as high as conventional drug treatment. As a result of limited data, no comparison on cost-effectiveness between biologics could be performed. Although data on long-term cost-effectiveness of biologics are lacking, the expectation is that they will be cost-effective in the long-term. The idea behind this is that biologic treatment should be administered to patients that without these drugs would incur high direct and indirect costs due to continuous severe disease resulting in irreversible disabilities. In our opinion the best cost benefit could be gained if these patients receive biologic treatment introduced early in the disease. This is in order to minimize irreversible damage to the joints and minimize need for long-term biologic therapy by early suppression of the disease. To support these hypotheses future research is needed on long-term cost-effectiveness of all biologics used in JIA.

Tumour necrosis factor-blocking agents in persistent oligoarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis: results from the Dutch Arthritis and Biologicals in Children Register.

OBJECTIVE: Because TNF inhibitors are not approved for persistent oligoarticular JIA (oJIA), although they are used off-label, we evaluated their effectiveness in patients in this category. METHODS: Persistent oJIA patients were selected from the Dutch Arthritis and Biologicals in Children (ABC) register, an ongoing multicentre prospective study that aims to include all Dutch children with JIA using biologic agents. Response was assessed by the JIA core-set disease activity variables and modified Wallace criteria for inactive disease. RESULTS: Until February 2011, 16 persistent oJIA patients (68.8% females) had been included in the register. Median age of onset was 8.4 years [interquartile range (IQR) 2.1-13.5 years]; history of uveitis in 18.8%; ANA-positive 56.3%. All had previously used MTX, and 81.3% had used IA CSs. Median follow-up after the introduction of biologic treatment was 13.7 months (IQR 8.3-16.7 months). Fourteen patients started etanercept and two patients who had active arthritis as well as uveitis started adalimumab. Although patients with persistent oJIA had few affected joints [median of two active joints at the start of biologic (IQR 1-3)], the patient/parent assessments of pain [median visual analogue score (VAS) 51 (IQR 1-64)] and well-being [median VAS 44 (IQR 6-66)] were high. Additionally, their physician evaluated the disease activity as moderately high [median VAS 36 (IQR 4-65)]. After 3 months this decreased to 0 (IQR 0-30) and 63% achieved inactive disease. After 15 months the disease was inactive in 9/10 observed patients. TNF inhibitors were tolerated well. CONCLUSION: TNF blocking agents seem an effective and justifiable option in persistent oJIA when treatment with IA CS injections and MTX has failed.

Effectiveness and safety of a second and third biological agent after failing etanercept in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: results from the Dutch National ABC Register.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of switching to a second or third biological agent in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) after etanercept failure. METHODS: The Arthritis and Biologicals in Children Register aims to include all Dutch JIA patients who have used biological agents. Data on the disease course were used to estimate drug survival with Kaplan-Meier and calculate adverse event (AE) rates. RESULTS: Of 307 biologically naive JIA patients who started etanercept, 80 (26%) switched to a second and 22 (7%) to a third biological agent. During 1030 patient-years of follow-up after the introduction of etanercept, 49 switches to adalimumab, 28 infliximab, 17 anakinra, four abatacept and four trial drugs were evaluated. 84% (95% CI 80% to 88%) of patients who started etanercept as a first biological agent were, after 12 months, still on the drug, compared with 47% (95% CI 35% to 60%) who started a second and 51% (95% CI 26% to 76%) who started a third biological agent. Patients who switched because of primary ineffectiveness continued the second agent less often (32%, 95% CI 12% to 53%). After etanercept failure, drug continuation of adalimumab was similar to infliximab for patients with non-systemic JIA; anakinra was superior to a second TNF-blocker for systemic JIA. AE rates within first 12 months after initiation were comparable for each course and each biological agent. CONCLUSIONS: Switching to another biological agent is common, especially for systemic JIA patients. A second (and third) agent was less effective than the first. The choice of second biological agent by the physician mainly depends on availability and JIA category.

Efficacy of biological agents in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a systematic review using indirect comparisons.

OBJECTIVE: Over the past decade, the availability of biological agents for the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) has increased substantially. Because direct head-to-head trials comparing these agents are lacking, we indirectly compared their efficacy. METHODS: In a systematic review, all available efficacy data from randomised controlled trials performed in JIA with inclusion of biological agents were retrieved. Indirect between-drug comparisons (based on Bucher's method) were conducted only if trials were comparable with regard to design and patients' characteristics related to treatment outcome. RESULTS: We identified 11 randomised controlled trials. On the basis of the equality of the trials, six trials were grouped into two networks of evidence. Network 1 included withdrawal trials which evaluated etanercept, adalimumab and abatacept in polyarticular course JIA. Indirect comparisons identified no significant differences in short-term efficacy. Network 2 indirectly compared trials with a parallel study design investigating anakinra, tocilizumab and canakinumab in systemic JIA; no differences in comparative efficacy were identified. Although the two networks were constructed on the basis of comparability, small differences in trial design and case mix still existed. CONCLUSIONS: Because of the small number of trials and the observed differences between trials, no definite conclusions could be drawn about the comparative effectiveness of the indirectly compared biological agents. Therefore, for now, the paediatric rheumatologist has to rely on observational data and safety, practical and financial arguments. Comparability of future trials needs to be improved, and head-to-head trials are required to decide on the best biological treatment for JIA.

Interventions for impetigo.

BACKGROUND: Impetigo is a common, superficial bacterial skin infection, which is most frequently encountered in children. There is no generally agreed standard therapy, and guidelines for treatment differ widely. Treatment options include many different oral and topical antibiotics as well as disinfectants. This is an updated version of the original review published in 2003. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of treatments for impetigo, including non-pharmacological interventions and 'waiting for natural resolution'. SEARCH METHODS: We updated our searches of the following databases to July 2010: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 2005), EMBASE (from 2007), and LILACS (from 1982). We also searched online trials registries for ongoing trials, and we handsearched the reference lists of new studies found in the updated search. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of treatments for non-bullous, bullous, primary, and secondary impetigo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent authors undertook all steps in data collection. We performed quality assessments and data collection in two separate stages. MAIN RESULTS: We included 57 trials in the first version of this review. For this update 1 of those trials was excluded and 12 new trials were added. The total number of included trials was, thus, 68, with 5578 participants, reporting on 50 different treatments, including placebo. Most trials were in primary impetigo or did not specify this.For many of the items that were assessed for risk of bias, most studies did not provide enough information. Fifteen studies reported blinding of participants and outcome assessors.Topical antibiotic treatment showed better cure rates than placebo (pooled risk ratio (RR) 2. 24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.61 to 3.13) in 6 studies with 575 participants. In 4 studies with 440 participants, there was no clear evidence that either of the most commonly studied topical antibiotics (mupirocin and fusidic acid) was more effective than the other (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.11).In 10 studies with 581 participants, topical mupirocin was shown to be slightly superior to oral erythromycin (pooled RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.13). There were no significant differences in cure rates from treatment with topical versus other oral antibiotics. There were, however, differences in the outcome from treatment with different oral antibiotics: penicillin was inferior to erythromycin, in 2 studies with 79 participants (pooled RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.56), and cloxacillin, in 2 studies with 166 participants (pooled RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.08).There was a lack of evidence for the benefit of using disinfectant solutions. When 2 studies with 292 participants were pooled, topical antibiotics were significantly better than disinfecting treatments (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.32).The reported number of side-effects was low, and most of these were mild. Side-effects were more common for oral antibiotic treatment compared to topical treatment. Gastrointestinal effects accounted for most of the difference.Worldwide, bacteria causing impetigo show growing resistance rates for commonly used antibiotics. For a newly developed topical treatment, retapamulin, no resistance has yet been reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is good evidence that topical mupirocin and topical fusidic acid are equally, or more, effective than oral treatment. Due to the lack of studies in people with extensive impetigo, it is unclear if oral antibiotics are superior to topical antibiotics in this group. Fusidic acid and mupirocin are of similar efficacy. Penicillin was not as effective as most other antibiotics. There is a lack of evidence to support disinfection measures to manage impetigo.

Manipulative interventions for reducing pulled elbow in young children.

BACKGROUND: Pulled elbow (nursemaid's elbow) is a common injury in young children. It results from a sudden pull on the arm, usually by an adult or taller person, which pulls the radius through the annular ligament, resulting in subluxation (partial dislocation) of the radial head. The child experiences sudden acute pain and loss of function in the affected arm. Pulled elbow is usually treated by manual reduction of the subluxed radial head. Various manoeuvres can be applied. Most textbooks recommend supination of the forearm, as opposed to pronation and other approaches. It is unclear which manoeuvre is most successful. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2009. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to compare the effectiveness and painfulness of the different methods used to manipulate pulled elbow in young children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, PEDro, clinical trial registers and reference lists of articles. Date of last search: July 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: Any randomised or quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials evaluating manipulative interventions for pulled elbow were included. Our primary outcome was failure at the first attempt, necessitating further treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently evaluated trials for inclusion and, for the included trials, independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: One trial with 66 children was newly included in this update. Overall, four trials with 379 children, all younger than seven years old, were included. All four trials compared pronation versus supination. One trial was at high risk of selection bias because allocation was not concealed and all four trials were at high risk of detection bias due to the lack of assessor blinding. Pronation resulted in statistically significantly less failure than supination (21/177 versus 47/181, risk ratio 0.45; 95% confidence interval 0.28 to 0.73). Pain perception was reported by two trials but data were unavailable for pooling. Both studies concluded that the pronation technique was less painful than the supination technique. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence from four small low-quality trials that the pronation method might be more effective and less painful than the supination method for manipulating pulled elbow in young children. We recommend that a high quality randomised trial be performed to strengthen the evidence.