The Childhood Arthritis & Rheumatology Research Alliance Start Time Optimization of Biologics in Polyarticular Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis Study

2021

2021 Jun 08

2326-5205

<p><strong>BACKGROUND: </strong>The optimal time to start biologics for polyarticular JIA (pJIA) remains uncertain. The Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) developed 3 consensus treatment plans (CTPs) for untreated pJIA to compare strategies for starting biologics.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>Start Time Optimization of biologics in PJIA (STOP-JIA) was a prospective, observational, CARRA Registry study comparing the effectiveness of: 1) Step Up (SU)- initial non-biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) monotherapy, adding biologic if needed; 2) Early Combination (EC)- DMARD and biologic started together; 3) Biologic First (BF)- biologic monotherapy. The primary outcome was clinically inactive disease (CID) (Wallace) off glucocorticoids at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included PROMIS® pain interference and mobility, inactive disease defined by the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score (cJADAS10 ID) and pediatric ACR70 (pACR70).</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>Of 400 patients enrolled, 257 (64%) began SU, 100 (25%) EC and 43 (11%) BF. After propensity score weighting and multiple imputation, 37% of EC, 32% SU and 24% BF achieved ACR CID (p=0.17). cJADAS10 ID (score ≤2.5) also favored EC over SU (59% versus 43%; p=0.03) as did pACR70 results (80% versus 64%; p=0.008) but generalizability is limited by missing data. PROMIS® measures improved in all groups, but without significant differences. Seventeen serious adverse events were reported (mostly infections).</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS: </strong>Achievement of CID off GC did not significantly differ between groups at 12 months. While there was a statistically significant higher likelihood of EC achieving cJADAS10 ID and pACR70, these results require further exploration.</p>

10.1002/art.41888

Arthritis Rheumatol

34105312

The Childhood Arthritis & Rheumatology Research Alliance Consensus Treatment Plans: Towards Comparative Effectiveness in the Pediatric Rheumatic Diseases.

2018

2018 Jan 15

2326-5205

<p>The pediatric rheumatic diseases are a heterogeneous group of rare diseases, posing a number of challenges for the use of traditional clinical and translational research approaches. Innovative comparative effectiveness approaches are needed to efficiently study treatment approaches and disease outcomes. The Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) developed the consensus treatment plan (CTP) approach as a comparative effectiveness tool for research in pediatric rheumatology. CTPs are treatment strategies, developed by consensus methods among CARRA members, intended to reduce variation in treatment approaches, standardize outcome measurements, and allow for comparison of the effectiveness of different approaches with the goal of improving disease outcomes. To date, CTPs have been published for 7 different diseases and disease manifestations. The approach has been successfully piloted for juvenile localized scleroderma, systemic onset juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), polyarticular JIA, dermatomyositis, and lupus nephritis. Large-scale studies are underway for systemic JIA and polyarticular JIA, with the CARRA patient registry serving as the data collection platform. These studies have been designed with stakeholder involvement, including active input from CARRA providers, patients, and parents, with the goal of increasing the feasibility and ensuring the relevance of the outcomes. These studies include ancillary biospecimen collection intended to support additional translational and mechanistic studies. Data from these ongoing CTP studies will provide more information on the ability of this approach to identify effective treatment strategies and improve outcomes for the pediatric rheumatic diseases. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.</p>

10.1002/art.40395

29333701

Pilot study comparing the Childhood Arthritis & Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) systemic Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis Consensus Treatment Plans.

2017

23

2017 Apr 11

1546-0096

<p><strong>OBJECTIVES: </strong>To assess the feasibility of studying the comparative effectiveness of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) consensus treatment plans (CTPs) for systemic Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA) using an observational registry.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>Untreated systemic JIA patients enrolled in the CARRA Registry were begun on one of 4 CTPs chosen by the treating physician and patient/family (glucocorticoid [GC] alone; methotrexate [MTX] ± GC; IL1 inhibitor [IL1i] ± GC; IL6 inhibitor [IL6i] ± GC). The primary outcome of clinical inactive disease (CID) without current GC use was assessed at 9&nbsp;months.</p>

<p><strong>TRIAL REGISTRATION: </strong>clinicaltrials.gov NCT01697254; first registered 9/28/12 (retrospectively enrolled).</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>Thirty patients were enrolled at 13 sites; eight patients were started on a non-biologic CTP (2 GC, 6 MTX) and 22 patients on a biologic CTP (12 IL1i, 10 IL6i) at disease onset. Demographic and disease features were similar between CTP groups. CTP choice appeared to segregate by site preference. CID off GC was achieved by 37% (11 of 30) including 11/22 (50%) starting a biologic CTP compared to 0/8 starting a non-biologic CTP (p = 0.014). There were four serious adverse events: two infections, one appendicitis and one macrophage activation syndrome.</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS: </strong>The CARRA systemic JIA CTP pilot study demonstrated successful implementation of CTPs using the CARRA registry infrastructure. Having demonstrated feasibility, a larger study using CTP response to better determine the relative effectiveness of treatments for new-onset systemic JIA is now underway.</p>

10.1186/s12969-017-0157-1

Pediatr Rheumatol Online J

28399931

Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance consensus treatment plans for new-onset polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

2014

1063-72

2014 Jul

2151-4658

<p><strong>OBJECTIVE: </strong>There is no standardized approach to the initial treatment of polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) among pediatric rheumatologists. Understanding the comparative effectiveness of the diverse therapeutic options available will result in better health outcomes for polyarticular JIA. The Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) developed consensus treatment plans (CTPs) for use in clinical practice to facilitate such studies.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>A case-based survey was administered to CARRA members to identify the common treatment approaches for new-onset polyarticular JIA. Two face-to-face consensus conferences employed modified nominal group technique to identify treatment strategies, operational case definition, end points, and data elements to be collected. A core workgroup reviewed the relevant literature, refined plans, and developed medication dosing and monitoring recommendations.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>The initial case-based survey identified significant variability among treatment approaches for new-onset polyarticular JIA. We developed 3 CTPs based on treatment strategies for the first 12 months of therapy, as well as case definitions and clinical and laboratory monitoring schedules. The CTPs include a step-up plan (nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug [DMARD] followed by a biologic DMARD), an early combination plan (nonbiologic and biologic DMARD combined within a month of treatment initiation), and a biologic only plan. This approach was approved by 96% of the CARRA JIA Research Committee members attending the 2013 CARRA face-to-face meeting.</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSION: </strong>Three standardized CTPs were developed for new-onset polyarticular JIA. Coupled with data collection at defined intervals, use of these CTPs will enable the study of their comparative effectiveness in an observational setting to optimize initial management of polyarticular JIA.</p>

10.1002/acr.22259

Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)

24339215

2013 update of the 2011 American College of Rheumatology recommendations for treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis: recommendations for medical therapy of children with systemic JIA and TB screening among children receiving biologic medications.

2013

2499-512

2013 Oct

1529-0131

10.1002/art.38092

Arthritis Rheum.

24092554

Enthesitis-related arthritis is associated with higher pain intensity and poorer health status in comparison with other categories of juvenile idiopathic arthritis: the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Registry.

2012

2341-51

2012 Dec

0315-162X

<p><strong>OBJECTIVE: </strong>To assess the relative effect of clinical factors and medications on pain intensity, physical function, and health status in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of data from children with JIA enrolled in the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) Registry. We tested whether clinical characteristics of JIA were associated with pain intensity, physical function, and health status using multivariable linear and ordinal logistic regression.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>During the study period, 2571 subjects with JIA enrolled in the CARRA Registry. Ratings of pain intensity, physical function, and health status differed significantly between JIA categories. In comparison to other categories of JIA, subjects with enthesitis-related arthritis (ERA) reported worse pain and function. In multivariable analyses, higher active joint count and current use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAID), biologics, or corticosteroids were associated with worse scores on all patient-reported measures. ERA and older age were significantly associated with higher pain intensity and poorer health status. Systemic JIA and uveitis were significantly associated with worse health status. Enthesitis, sacroiliac tenderness, and NSAID use were independently associated with increased pain intensity in ERA. The correlation was low between physician global assessment of disease activity and patient-reported pain intensity, physical function, and health status.</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSION: </strong>Significant differences in pain intensity, physical function, and health status exist among JIA categories. These results suggest that current treatments may not be equally effective for particular disease characteristics more common in specific JIA categories, such as enthesitis or sacroiliac tenderness in ERA.</p>

10.3899/jrheum.120642

J. Rheumatol.

23070991

Disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use in the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a cross-sectional analysis of the CARRA Registry.

2012

1867-74

2012 Sep

0315-162X

<p><strong>OBJECTIVE: </strong>To characterize disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) use for children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) in the United States and to determine patient factors associated with medication use.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>We analyzed cross-sectional baseline enrollment data from the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) Registry from May 2010 through May 2011 for children with JIA. Current and prior medication use was included. We used parsimonious backward stepwise logistic regression models to calculate OR to estimate associations between clinical patient factors and medication use.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>We identified 2748 children with JIA with a median disease duration of 3.9 years from 51 US clinical sites. Overall, 2023 (74%) had ever received a nonbiologic DMARD and 1246 (45%) had ever received a biologic DMARD. Among children without systemic arthritis, methotrexate use was most strongly associated with uveitis (OR 5.2, 95% CI 3.6-7.6), anticitrullinated protein antibodies (OR 4.5, 95% CI 1.7-12), and extended oligoarthritis (OR 4.1, 95% CI 2.5-6.6). Among children without systemic arthritis, biologic DMARD use was most strongly associated with rheumatoid factor (RF)-positive polyarthritis (OR 4.3, 95% CI 2.9-6.6), psoriatic arthritis (PsA; OR 3.0, 95% CI 2.0-4.4), and uveitis (OR 2.8, 95% CI 2.1-3.7). Among children with systemic arthritis, 160 (65%) ever received a biologic DMARD; tumor necrosis factor inhibitor use was associated with polyarthritis (OR 2.5, 95% CI 3.8-16), while interleukin 1 inhibitor use was not.</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSION: </strong>About three-quarters of all children with JIA in the CARRA Registry received nonbiologic DMARD. Nearly one-half received biologic DMARD, and their use was strongly associated with RF-positive polyarthritis, PsA, uveitis, and systemic arthritis.</p>

10.3899/jrheum.120110

J. Rheumatol.

22859354

Consensus treatment plans for new-onset systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

2012

1001-10

2012 Jul

2151-4658

<p><strong>OBJECTIVE: </strong>There is wide variation in therapeutic approaches to systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) among North American rheumatologists. Understanding the comparative effectiveness of the diverse therapeutic options available for treatment of systemic JIA can result in better health outcomes. The Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) developed consensus treatment plans and standardized assessment schedules for use in clinical practice to facilitate such studies.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>Case-based surveys were administered to CARRA members to identify prevailing treatments for new-onset systemic JIA. A 2-day consensus conference in April 2010 employed modified nominal group technique to formulate preliminary treatment plans and determine important data elements for collection. Followup surveys were employed to refine the plans and assess clinical acceptability.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>The initial case-based survey identified significant variability among current treatment approaches for new-onset systemic JIA, underscoring the utility of standardized plans to evaluate comparative effectiveness. We developed 4 consensus treatment plans for the first 9 months of therapy, as well as case definitions and clinical and laboratory monitoring schedules. The 4 treatment regimens included glucocorticoids only, or therapy with methotrexate, anakinra, or tocilizumab, with or without glucocorticoids. This approach was approved by &gt;78% of the CARRA membership.</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSION: </strong>Four standardized treatment plans were developed for new-onset systemic JIA. Coupled with data collection at defined intervals, use of these treatment plans will create the opportunity to evaluate comparative effectiveness in an observational setting to optimize initial management of systemic JIA.</p>

10.1002/acr.21625

Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)

22290637