Search

Background There is a challenging lack of evidence to inform best practice in the routine clinical care of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). Wide inter-centre variation in the definition and documentation of clinical data items is a major barrier to improvement. In response, we have developed a consensus agreed standardised core dataset called CAPTURE-JIA (n = 62 data items and a 'data dictionary' including agreed definitions of terms) designed to support routine collection of high-quality clinical data. The feasibility and acceptability of CAPTURE-JIA in clinical practice is not yet known and was the focus of this pilot study. Methods A purposeful sample of six paediatric rheumatology centres across England was invited to collect the CAPTURE-JIA dataset using paper collection forms (n = 20 patients/centre). The dataset was analysed for missing data. Six focus groups (n = 3-10) explored clinicians' views on acceptability and feasibility. Results One hundred and twenty-one patients were recruited over three months. The completeness of the dataset was similar across centres, with minor variations. The majority of data items (eg demographics, dates, ILAR type and examination) were >80% completed. However, 14/62 data items received >40% missing data. (Table 1) Further descriptive analyses highlighted incorrect completion of paper forms. Three themes emerged from the focus groups: problematic data items (missing from >10% forms at > 1 centre), format of clinician data forms and the role of digital data collection. Suggested solutions included minor changes to data item definitions and formatting. There were no refinements to the data items. Development of a digital data collection system was identified by all as essential. Due to a lack of clear consensus, the original CAPTURE forms included a number of ways to record joint count data. This proved confusing and a unanimous decision was taken to collect joint count data on all 83 joints in a tabular format. P10 Table 1: CAPTURE JIA data items with >40% missing data Data item  % forms with data item missing (if item required)  Relevant co-morbidities?  60  Macrophage activation syndrome?  100  Has the ILAR subtype changed?  50  Morning stiffness lasting >15 minutes?  42  History of any form of uveitis?  52  Date started uveitis mediation?  50  Strength of uveitis medication?  83  Counselled prior to new DMARD / biologic?  56  Enrolled in BECS/BCRD if new DMARD / biologic?  48  Joint count (homunculus or table format)  48  Physician assessment of systemic disease activity (VAS)  75  ESR  74  CRP  92  Plasma viscosity  100  Data item  % forms with data item missing (if item required)  Relevant co-morbidities?  60  Macrophage activation syndrome?  100  Has the ILAR subtype changed?  50  Morning stiffness lasting >15 minutes?  42  History of any form of uveitis?  52  Date started uveitis mediation?  50  Strength of uveitis medication?  83  Counselled prior to new DMARD / biologic?  56  Enrolled in BECS/BCRD if new DMARD / biologic?  48  Joint count (homunculus or table format)  48  Physician assessment of systemic disease activity (VAS)  75  ESR  74  CRP  92  Plasma viscosity  100  P10 Table 1: CAPTURE JIA data items with >40% missing data Data item  % forms with data item missing (if item required)  Relevant co-morbidities?  60  Macrophage activation syndrome?  100  Has the ILAR subtype changed?  50  Morning stiffness lasting >15 minutes?  42  History of any form of uveitis?  52  Date started uveitis mediation?  50  Strength of uveitis medication?  83  Counselled prior to new DMARD / biologic?  56  Enrolled in BECS/BCRD if new DMARD / biologic?  48  Joint count (homunculus or table format)  48  Physician assessment of systemic disease activity (VAS)  75  ESR  74  CRP  92  Plasma viscosity  100  Data item  % forms with data item missing (if item required)  Relevant co-morbidities?  60  Macrophage activation syndrome?  100  Has the ILAR subtype changed?  50  Morning stiffness lasting >15 minutes?  42  History of any form of uveitis?  52  Date started uveitis mediation?  50  Strength of uveitis medication?  83  Counselled prior to new DMARD / biologic?  56  Enrolled in BECS/BCRD if new DMARD / biologic?  48  Joint count (homunculus or table format)  48  Physician assessment of systemic disease activity (VAS)  75  ESR  74  CRP  92  Plasma viscosity  100  Conclusion Paper collection of the CAPTURE-JIA data items is feasible and acceptable in the routine clinical setting, but unlikely to be sustainable in the longer term if collected in duplicate with medical notes. A digital tool in the clinical domain, ideally interlocking with local systems, would offer many advantages, including more complete and time-efficient data collection. Conflicts of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is an umbrella term for seven relapsing-remitting inflammatory conditions in children and young people (CYP). Early, intensive treatment can prevent long-term damage; however, established drugs exhibit a delayed response, prompting the need for rapid-onset treatment in the form of corticosteroids. Given a lack of consensus as to which corticosteroid induction regimen should be used for CYP with JIA, a feasibility trial of different regimens is needed. The aim was to achieve consensus among CYP, families, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) about the primary outcome measures and protocol components to include in a prospective feasibility study. Methods A modified Nominal Group Technique was used to achieve consensus on the most appropriate primary outcome measure to be included in a prospective feasibility study, in addition to other protocol components such as inclusion/exclusion criteria. Fifteen participants participated in the process, including a combination of CYP with JIA, families (n = 9) and HCPs (n = 6). Results In the first vote, participants agreed that Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score (JADAS) and Physician Global Assessment Score were most meaningful. During sub-group discussions, the need for a composite score which captured the voice of CYP and families was emphasised. In the second vote, JADAS and the JIA Core Set were identified as the most important. Further discussions led to the results of the third vote, agreeing JADAS as the primary outcome measure of choice being measured at 6 weeks after commencement of treatment. The majority of HCPs, CYP and families voted for all JIA sub-types to be included in a prospective feasibility study, with some queries about the inclusion of systemic JIA given its unique presentation. Participants also identified the need for more frequent data collection time points to capture the rapid onset of corticosteroid action, while CYP and families opted for accessible mechanisms for participation, such as digital follow-up strategies. Conclusion It is feasible to include CYP, families and HCPs in synthesising complex concepts to agree by consensus the design components of clinical research. The primary outcome measure for inclusion in a prospective feasibility study of corticosteroid regimens in CYP with JIA was co-prioritised, with CYP and families taking a leading role in the ultimate selection of an appropriate outcome measure and other study protocol components. Using consensus methods with CYP, families and HCPs is a systematic and rigorous way in which to select outcome measures that are both meaningful and relevant to everyone involved in the care and treatment of CYP with JIA. Conflicts of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Background Corticosteroids (CS) are widely used for rapid-action or induction treatment in children and young people (CYP) with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). Given a lack of evidence base on CS induction regimen for CYP with JIA, and since criteria for choosing CS are based on healthcare professional (HCP) preference, further research is needed (1). Methods A national electronic survey was undertaken among HCPs across the UK as part of the Steroid Induction Regimen for Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (SIRJIA) study. We aimed to establish the opinions of HCPs current practice regarding the clinical criteria for commencing CS treatment Results A total of 39 (24%) responses were received from 162 HCPs. These included 22 (56%) NHS consultants, five (13%) grid trainees, eight (21%) clinical nurse specialists and four other HCPs (10%). The most common treatments newly diagnosed JIA or a disease flare were intra-articular IACS or a combination of DMARDs and IAS (except for systemic JIA and oligoarticular JIA). The majority of HCPs 17 would treat new and flaring CYP the same with 53% choosing a different regime or not answering. The key criteria HCPs used for commencing CS and choosing route of administration were rapid induction of remission (31 (89%)), high disease activity (31 (89%)), severity of systemic JIA (30 (86%)) and level of inflammation (28 (80%)), see Table 1. The main determinants of route of administration was disease severity disease subtype. The majority of HCPs (52-72%) would consider entering CYP with JIA into a trial randomising to modes of administration. P14 Table 1 Reasons of CS Choice  Number N = 39  Percentage %  High Disease Activity  35  89.7  Rapid induction of remission  34  87.18  Severity of Systemic JIA  34  87.18  Level of inflammation  32  82.5  Severe Uveitis  30  76.92  JIA subtype  27  68.21  Targeting Specific Joints  26  66.67  Level of Disability  18  46.15  Level of pain  16  41.03  Long-standing Disease  11  28.1  Patient reluctance to take DMARDS  8  20.5  Reasons of CS Choice  Number N = 39  Percentage %  High Disease Activity  35  89.7  Rapid induction of remission  34  87.18  Severity of Systemic JIA  34  87.18  Level of inflammation  32  82.5  Severe Uveitis  30  76.92  JIA subtype  27  68.21  Targeting Specific Joints  26  66.67  Level of Disability  18  46.15  Level of pain  16  41.03  Long-standing Disease  11  28.1  Patient reluctance to take DMARDS  8  20.5  P14 Table 1 Reasons of CS Choice  Number N = 39  Percentage %  High Disease Activity  35  89.7  Rapid induction of remission  34  87.18  Severity of Systemic JIA  34  87.18  Level of inflammation  32  82.5  Severe Uveitis  30  76.92  JIA subtype  27  68.21  Targeting Specific Joints  26  66.67  Level of Disability  18  46.15  Level of pain  16  41.03  Long-standing Disease  11  28.1  Patient reluctance to take DMARDS  8  20.5  Reasons of CS Choice  Number N = 39  Percentage %  High Disease Activity  35  89.7  Rapid induction of remission  34  87.18  Severity of Systemic JIA  34  87.18  Level of inflammation  32  82.5  Severe Uveitis  30  76.92  JIA subtype  27  68.21  Targeting Specific Joints  26  66.67  Level of Disability  18  46.15  Level of pain  16  41.03  Long-standing Disease  11  28.1  Patient reluctance to take DMARDS  8  20.5  Conclusion The results from this national survey of clinical practice showed varying practices in the management of new CYP with JIA and those that are flaring. The majority of HCPs who completed this survey, indicated that they would be prepared to consider entering CYP into a trial that randomised to the four CS delivery methods. Conflicts of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Poster presentation Tuesday 8 October Background The ankle is one of the most commonly affected joints in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) and ankle joint damage is a known complication. The frequency of ankle damage in modern JIA cohorts is unknown and optimal management pathways are unclear. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the most sensitive imaging modality for the assessment of joint damage. The aim of this analysis was to investigate the demographics, disease features and management of JIA patients with MRI changes consistent with ankle damage. Methods A single-centre, retrospective study over a four year period was conducted. JIA cases with damage based on MRI features were included in the study. MRI was reviewed by an experienced musculoskeletal radiologist and joint damage was defined as radiological evidence of cartilage loss or joint space narrowing. A standardised electronic pro forma was used to record demographics, disease features and treatments received. Results Fifty one JIA cases had an MRI scan during the study period and 16/51 (31%) had radiological evidence of ankle damage at a median interquartile range (IQR) follow-up of 7.6 (6.9 – 11.0) years; 7/16 (44%) had developed bilateral ankle damage. The median (IQR) duration of symptoms at diagnosis was 2(1.0-10.5) months. The mean age at diagnosis and at detection of ankle damage was 5.2 years and 12.1 years respectively. The most frequent JIA subtype was oligo-articular extended (50%), and 50% were ANA positive. The median (IQR) duration between detection of ankle damage and first episode of ankle synovitis was 5.4 (4.6 – 6.4) years. Ankle synovitis was present at diagnosis in 10/16 (62%). Median (IQR) number of ankle corticosteroid injections before the ankle damage was detected was 3 (2-3), one patient had evidence of damage at diagnosis. Median (IQR) number of any type of ankle imaging done before the ankle damage was detected was 1 (1-3). The median (IQR) time to start methotrexate from diagnosis was 6 (0 - 29.5) months and median (IQR) number of biologic and synthetic DMARDs used at follow-up were 3.5 (2.2 – 4.0). 7/16 (44%) patients had undergone an orthopaedic surgical procedure for their ankle damage. Conclusion Ankle synovitis at presentation and an extended oligo-articular disease course were common in this cohort of children and young people (CYP) with JIA and ankle damage. Ankle damage is an important challenge in JIA; a substantial number of this cohort ultimately required surgical intervention. There is an urgent need to develop a care pathway designed to improve early recognition and management of evolving ankle joint damage in JIA. Our analysis suggests that attention may need to focus on CYP presenting with ankle synovitis, particularly those who develop a poly-articular disease course, may merit high levels of vigilance with be at particularly high risk. Conflicts of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]