Search

Introduction: Chronic nonbacterial osteomyelitis (CNO) is a rare autoinflammatory bone disorder primarily affecting children and adolescents. It can lead to chronic pain, bony deformities and fractures. The pathophysiology of CNO is incompletely understood. Scientific evidence suggests dysregulated expression of pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines to be centrally involved. Currently, treatment is largely based on retrospective observational studies and expert opinion. Treatment usually includes nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and/or glucocorticoids, followed by a range of drugs in unresponsive cases. While randomised clinical trials are lacking, retrospective and prospective non-controlled studies suggest effectiveness of TNF inhibitors and bisphosphonates. The objective of the Bayesian consensus meeting was to quantify prior expert opinion. Methods: Twelve international CNO experts were randomly chosen to be invited to a Bayesian prior elicitation meeting. Results: Results showed that a typical new patient treated with pamidronate would have an 84% chance of improvement in their pain score relative to baseline at 26 weeks and an 83% chance on adalimumab. Experts thought there was a 50% chance that a new typical patient would record a pain score of 28mm (pamidronate) to 30mm (adalimumab) or better at 26 weeks. There was a modest trend in prior opinion to indicate an advantage of pamidronate vs adalimumab, with a 68% prior chance that pamidronate is superior to adalimumab by some margin. However, it is clear that there is considerable uncertainty about the precise relative merits of the two treatments. Conclusions: The rarity of CNO leads to challenges in conducting randomised controlled trials with sufficient power to provide a definitive outcome. We address this using a Bayesian design, and here describe the process and outcome of the elicitation exercise to establish expert prior opinion. This opinion will be tested in the planned prospective CNO study. The process for establishing expert consensus opinion in CNO will be helpful for developing studies in other rare paediatric diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) group proposed revised classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLICC-2012 criteria). This study aimed to compare these criteria with the well-established American College of Rheumatology classification criteria (ACR-1997 criteria) in a national cohort of juvenileonset systemic lupus erythematosus (JSLE) patients and evaluate how patients' classification criteria evolved over time. Methods: Data from patients in the UK JSLE Cohort Study with a senior clinician diagnosis of probable evolving, or definite JSLE, were analyzed. Patients were assessed using both classification criteria within 1 year of diagnosis and at latest follow up (following a minimum 12-month follow-up period). Results: A total of 226 patients were included. The SLICC-2012 was more sensitive than ACR-1997 at diagnosis (92.9% versus 84.1% p < 0.001) and after follow up (100% versus 92.0% p < 0.001). Most patients meeting the SLICC-2012 criteria and not the ACR-1997 met more than one additional criterion on the SLICC-2012. Conclusions: The SLICC-2012 was better able to classify patients with JSLE than the ACR-1997 and did so at an earlier stage in their disease course. SLICC-2012 should be considered for classification of JSLE patients in observational studies and clinical trial eligibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]