-
Autoimmunity Reviews Jun 2022Antinuclear antibodies (ANA) detected in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) sera are considered to be a biomarker for JIA-related uveitis. There is an unclear consensus... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Antinuclear antibodies (ANA) detected in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) sera are considered to be a biomarker for JIA-related uveitis. There is an unclear consensus on the screening dilutions of ANA as detected by the HEp-2 indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) that should be used when predicting the risk of uveitis in JIA. The primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize the evidence regarding ANA prevalence and performance in JIA and JIA-associated uveitis.
METHODS
A search of five databases identified 1766 abstracts, using the search terms juvenile idiopathic arthritis; pediatric; sensitivity or diagnostic; and ANA. Studies that met inclusion/exclusion criteria were analyzed for the proportion of JIA patients with a positive ANA. Forest plots and pooled estimates were generated for the proportion of JIA patients and those with uveitis who were positive for ANA stratified by screening dilution. Study heterogeneity was also assessed.
RESULTS
Twenty-eight studies met inclusion criteria yielding 6250 unique patients; 5902 had JIA and 348 were healthy controls or were known to have other autoimmune diseases. The most reported IFA serum screening dilution was ≥1:80, representing 41.9% of patients and this screening dilution had the highest proportion of JIA ANA positivity (41.0%; 95% CI 25.0%-57.0%). ANA screening for JIA uveitis had a sensitivity and specificity of ANA at ≥1:40 of 75% (95% CI 46%-100%) and 66% (95% CI 39%-93%), respectively. There was significant study heterogeneity across both JIA subtypes and ANA titres.
CONCLUSIONS
Although there was a large variation of ANA IFA screening dilutions used for investigation of JIA, the most common dilution was 1:80. The current literature has several important deficiencies that are identified in this review requiring additional studies to inform the ANA screening dilutions of clinical value in JIA and JIA-associated uveitis.
Topics: Antibodies, Antinuclear; Arthritis, Juvenile; Child; Fluorescent Antibody Technique, Indirect; Humans; Prevalence; Retrospective Studies; Uveitis
PubMed: 35398272
DOI: 10.1016/j.autrev.2022.103086 -
Arthritis & Rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.) Apr 2022To provide updated guidelines for pharmacologic management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), focusing on treatment of oligoarthritis, temporomandibular joint (TMJ)...
2021 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: Therapeutic Approaches for Oligoarthritis, Temporomandibular Joint Arthritis, and Systemic Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis.
OBJECTIVE
To provide updated guidelines for pharmacologic management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), focusing on treatment of oligoarthritis, temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthritis, and systemic JIA with and without macrophage activation syndrome. Recommendations regarding tapering and discontinuing treatment in inactive systemic JIA are also provided.
METHODS
We developed clinically relevant Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low). A Voting Panel including clinicians and patients/caregivers achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations.
RESULTS
Similar to those published in 2019, these JIA recommendations are based on clinical phenotypes of JIA, rather than a specific classification schema. This guideline provides recommendations for initial and subsequent treatment of JIA with oligoarthritis, TMJ arthritis, and systemic JIA as well as for tapering and discontinuing treatment in subjects with inactive systemic JIA. Other aspects of disease management, including factors that influence treatment choice and medication tapering, are discussed. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low in quality. For that reason, more than half of the recommendations are conditional.
CONCLUSION
This clinical practice guideline complements the 2019 American College of Rheumatology JIA and uveitis guidelines, which addressed polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, enthesitis, and uveitis. It serves as a tool to support clinicians, patients, and caregivers in decision-making. The recommendations take into consideration the severity of both articular and nonarticular manifestations as well as patient quality of life. Although evidence is generally low quality and many recommendations are conditional, the inclusion of caregivers and patients in the decision-making process strengthens the relevance and applicability of the guideline. It is important to remember that these are recommendations. Clinical decisions, as always, should be made by the treating clinician and patient/caregiver.
Topics: Arthritis, Juvenile; Humans; Quality of Life; Rheumatology; Temporomandibular Joint; Temporomandibular Joint Disorders; United States; Uveitis
PubMed: 35233993
DOI: 10.1002/art.42037 -
Arthritis Care & Research Apr 2022To provide recommendations for the management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) with a focus on nonpharmacologic therapies, medication monitoring, immunizations,...
2021 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: Recommendations for Nonpharmacologic Therapies, Medication Monitoring, Immunizations, and Imaging.
OBJECTIVE
To provide recommendations for the management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) with a focus on nonpharmacologic therapies, medication monitoring, immunizations, and imaging, irrespective of JIA phenotype.
METHODS
We developed clinically relevant Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low). A Voting Panel including clinicians and patients/caregivers achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations.
RESULTS
Recommendations in this guideline include the use of physical therapy and occupational therapy interventions; a healthy, well-balanced, age-appropriate diet; specific laboratory monitoring for medications; widespread use of immunizations; and shared decision-making with patients/caregivers. Disease management for all patients with JIA is addressed with respect to nonpharmacologic therapies, medication monitoring, immunizations, and imaging. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low in quality. For that reason, more than half of the recommendations are conditional.
CONCLUSION
This clinical practice guideline complements the 2019 American College of Rheumatology JIA and uveitis guidelines, which addressed polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, enthesitis, and uveitis, and a concurrent 2021 guideline on oligoarthritis, temporomandibular arthritis, and systemic JIA. It serves as a tool to support clinicians, patients, and caregivers in decision-making. The recommendations take into consideration the severity of both articular and nonarticular manifestations as well as patient quality of life. Although evidence is generally low quality and many recommendations are conditional, the inclusion of caregivers and patients in the decision-making process strengthens the relevance and applicability of the guideline. It is important to remember that these are recommendations. Clinical decisions, as always, should be made by the treating clinician and patient/caregiver.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Juvenile; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Immunization; Quality of Life; Rheumatology; United States; Uveitis
PubMed: 35233989
DOI: 10.1002/acr.24839 -
Arthritis Care & Research Apr 2022To provide updated guidelines for pharmacologic management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), focusing on treatment of oligoarthritis, temporomandibular joint (TMJ)...
2021 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: Therapeutic Approaches for Oligoarthritis, Temporomandibular Joint Arthritis, and Systemic Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis.
OBJECTIVE
To provide updated guidelines for pharmacologic management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), focusing on treatment of oligoarthritis, temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthritis, and systemic JIA with and without macrophage activation syndrome. Recommendations regarding tapering and discontinuing treatment in inactive systemic JIA are also provided.
METHODS
We developed clinically relevant Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low). A Voting Panel including clinicians and patients/caregivers achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations.
RESULTS
Similar to those published in 2019, these JIA recommendations are based on clinical phenotypes of JIA, rather than a specific classification schema. This guideline provides recommendations for initial and subsequent treatment of JIA with oligoarthritis, TMJ arthritis, and systemic JIA as well as for tapering and discontinuing treatment in subjects with inactive systemic JIA. Other aspects of disease management, including factors that influence treatment choice and medication tapering, are discussed. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low in quality. For that reason, more than half of the recommendations are conditional.
CONCLUSION
This clinical practice guideline complements the 2019 American College of Rheumatology JIA and uveitis guidelines, which addressed polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, enthesitis, and uveitis. It serves as a tool to support clinicians, patients, and caregivers in decision-making. The recommendations take into consideration the severity of both articular and nonarticular manifestations as well as patient quality of life. Although evidence is generally low quality and many recommendations are conditional, the inclusion of caregivers and patients in the decision-making process strengthens the relevance and applicability of the guideline. It is important to remember that these are recommendations. Clinical decisions, as always, should be made by the treating clinician and patient/caregiver.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Juvenile; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Quality of Life; Rheumatology; Temporomandibular Joint; Temporomandibular Joint Disorders; United States; Uveitis
PubMed: 35233986
DOI: 10.1002/acr.24853 -
Arthritis & Rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.) Apr 2022To provide recommendations for the management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) with a focus on nonpharmacologic therapies, medication monitoring, immunizations,...
2021 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: Recommendations for Nonpharmacologic Therapies, Medication Monitoring, Immunizations, and Imaging.
OBJECTIVE
To provide recommendations for the management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) with a focus on nonpharmacologic therapies, medication monitoring, immunizations, and imaging, irrespective of JIA phenotype.
METHODS
We developed clinically relevant Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low). A Voting Panel including clinicians and patients/caregivers achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations.
RESULTS
Recommendations in this guideline include the use of physical therapy and occupational therapy interventions; a healthy, well-balanced, age-appropriate diet; specific laboratory monitoring for medications; widespread use of immunizations; and shared decision-making with patients/caregivers. Disease management for all patients with JIA is addressed with respect to nonpharmacologic therapies, medication monitoring, immunizations, and imaging. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low in quality. For that reason, more than half of the recommendations are conditional.
CONCLUSION
This clinical practice guideline complements the 2019 American College of Rheumatology JIA and uveitis guidelines, which addressed polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, enthesitis, and uveitis, and a concurrent 2021 guideline on oligoarthritis, temporomandibular arthritis, and systemic JIA. It serves as a tool to support clinicians, patients, and caregivers in decision-making. The recommendations take into consideration the severity of both articular and nonarticular manifestations as well as patient quality of life. Although evidence is generally low quality and many recommendations are conditional, the inclusion of caregivers and patients in the decision-making process strengthens the relevance and applicability of the guideline. It is important to remember that these are recommendations. Clinical decisions, as always, should be made by the treating clinician and patient/caregiver.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Juvenile; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Immunization; Quality of Life; Rheumatology; United States; Uveitis
PubMed: 35233961
DOI: 10.1002/art.42036 -
Pediatric Rheumatology Online Journal Feb 2022Patients with juvenile chronic inflammatory systemic diseases (jCID) are vulnerable to many circumstances when transitioning to adult-centered healthcare; this increases... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Patients with juvenile chronic inflammatory systemic diseases (jCID) are vulnerable to many circumstances when transitioning to adult-centered healthcare; this increases the burden of disease and worsen their quality of life.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus were searched from inception to March 16, 2021. We included observational, randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies that evaluated a transitional care program for adolescents and young adults with jCIDs. We extracted information regarding health-related quality of life, disease activity, drop-out rates, clinical attendance rates, hospital admission rates, disease-related knowledge, surgeries performed, drug toxicity and satisfaction rates.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies met our inclusion criteria. The implementation of transition programs showed a reduction on hospital admission rates for those with transition program (OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.61; I 2 = 0%; p = 0.97), rates of surgeries performed (OR 0.26; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.59; I 2 = 0%; p = 0.50) and drop-out rates from the adult clinic (OR 0.23; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.46; I 2 = 0%; p = 0.88). No differences were found in other outcomes.
CONCLUSION
The available body of evidence supports the implementation of transition programs as it could be a determining factor to prevent hospital admission rates, surgeries needed and adult clinic attendance rates.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Autoimmune Diseases; Child; Chronic Disease; Cost of Illness; Cystic Fibrosis; Diabetes Mellitus; Humans; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Quality of Life; Rheumatic Diseases; Transitional Care; Young Adult
PubMed: 35177101
DOI: 10.1186/s12969-022-00670-1 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Feb 2022Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) management aims to promote remission through timely, individualized, well-coordinated interdisciplinary care using a range of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) management aims to promote remission through timely, individualized, well-coordinated interdisciplinary care using a range of pharmacological, physical, psychological, and educational interventions. However, achieving this goal is workforce-intensive. Harnessing the burgeoning eHealth and mobile health (mHealth) interventions could be a resource-efficient way of supplementing JIA management.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review aims to identify the eHealth and mHealth interventions that have been proven to be effective in supporting health outcomes for children and young people (aged 1-18 years) living with JIA.
METHODS
We systematically searched 15 databases (2018-2021). Studies were eligible if they considered children and young people (aged 1-18 years) diagnosed with JIA, an eHealth or mHealth intervention, any comparator, and health outcomes related to the used interventions. Independently, 2 reviewers screened the studies for inclusion and appraised the study quality using the Downs and Black (modified) checklist. Study outcomes were summarized using a narrative, descriptive method and, where possible, combined for a meta-analysis using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Of the 301 studies identified in the search strategy, 15 (5%) fair-to-good-quality studies met the inclusion criteria, which identified 10 interventions for JIA (age 4-18.6 years). Of these 10 interventions, 5 (50%) supported symptom monitoring by capturing real-time data using health applications, electronic diaries, or web-based portals to monitor pain or health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Within individual studies, a preference was demonstrated for real-time pain monitoring over recall pain assessments because of a peak-end effect, improved time efficiency (P=.002), and meeting children's and young people's HRQoL needs (P<.001) during pediatric rheumatology consultations. Furthermore, 20% (2/10) of interventions supported physical activity promotion using a web-based program or a wearable activity tracker. The web-based program exhibited a moderate effect, which increased endurance time, physical activity levels, and moderate to vigorous physical activity (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.60, SD 0.02-1.18; I=79%; P=.04). The final 30% (3/10) of interventions supported self-management development through web-based programs, or apps, facilitating a small effect, reducing pain intensity (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.15; I=53%; P=.33), and increasing disease knowledge and self-efficacy (SMD 0.30, 95% CI 0.03-0.56; I=74%; P=.03). These results were not statistically significant. No effect was seen regarding pain interference, HRQoL, anxiety, depression, pain coping, disease activity, functional ability, or treatment adherence.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence that supports the inclusion of eHealth and mHealth interventions in JIA management is increasing. However, this evidence needs to be considered cautiously because of the small sample size, wide CIs, and moderate to high statistical heterogeneity. More rigorous research is needed on the longitudinal effects of real-time monitoring, web-based pediatric rheumatologist-children and young people interactions, the comparison among different self-management programs, and the use of wearable technologies as an objective measurement for monitoring physical activity before any recommendations that inform current practice can be given.
Topics: Adolescent; Arthritis, Juvenile; Child; Child, Preschool; Exercise; Humans; Infant; Quality of Life; Self-Management; Telemedicine
PubMed: 35107431
DOI: 10.2196/30457 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2022Paediatric flat feet are a common presentation in primary care; reported prevalence approximates 15%. A minority of flat feet can hurt and limit gait. There is no... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Paediatric flat feet are a common presentation in primary care; reported prevalence approximates 15%. A minority of flat feet can hurt and limit gait. There is no optimal strategy, nor consensus, for using foot orthoses (FOs) to treat paediatric flat feet.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of foot orthoses for treating paediatric flat feet.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase to 01 September 2021, and two clinical trials registers on 07 August 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We identified all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of FOs as an intervention for paediatric flat feet. The outcomes included in this review were pain, function, quality of life, treatment success, and adverse events. Intended comparisons were: any FOs versus sham, any FOs versus shoes, customised FOs (CFOs) versus prefabricated FOs (PFOs).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard methods recommended by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 trials with 1058 children, aged 11 months to 19 years, with flexible flat feet. Distinct flat foot presentations included asymptomatic, juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), symptomatic and developmental co-ordination disorder (DCD). The trial interventions were FOs, footwear, foot and rehabilitative exercises, and neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES). Due to heterogeneity, we did not pool the data. Most trials had potential for selection, performance, detection, and selective reporting bias. No trial blinded participants. We present the results separately for asymptomatic (healthy children) and symptomatic (children with JIA) flat feet. The certainty of evidence was very low to low, downgraded for bias, imprecision, and indirectness. Three comparisons were evaluated across trials: CFO versus shoes; PFO versus shoes; CFO versus PFO. Asymptomatic flat feet 1. CFOs versus shoes (1 trial, 106 participants): low-quality evidence showed that CFOs result in little or no difference in the proportion without pain (10-point visual analogue scale (VAS)) at one year (risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.07); absolute decrease (11.8%, 95% CI 4.7% fewer to 15.8% more); or on withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.19); absolute effect (3.4% more, 95% CI 4.1% fewer to 13.1% more). 2. PFOs versus shoes (1 trial, 106 participants): low to very-low quality evidence showed that PFOs result in little or no difference in the proportion without pain (10-point VAS) at one year (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.16); absolute effect (4.7% fewer, 95% CI 18.9% fewer to 12.6% more); or on withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.23). 3. CFOs versus PFOs (1 trial, 108 participants): low-quality evidence found no difference in the proportion without pain at one year (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.18); absolute effect (7.4% fewer, 95% CI 22.2% fewer to 11.1% more); or on withdrawal due to adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.12). Function and quality of life (QoL) were not assessed. Symptomatic (JIA) flat feet 1. CFOs versus shoes (1 trial, 28 participants, 3-month follow-up): very low-quality evidence showed little or no difference in pain (0 to 10 scale, 0 no pain) between groups (MD -1.5, 95% CI -2.78 to -0.22). Low-quality evidence showed improvements in function with CFOs (Foot Function Index - FFI disability, 0 to 100, 0 best function; MD -18.55, 95% CI -34.42 to -2.68), child-rated QoL (PedsQL, 0 to 100, 100 best quality; MD 12.1, 95% CI -1.6 to 25.8) and parent-rated QoL (PedsQL MD 9, 95% CI -4.1 to 22.1) and little or no difference between groups in treatment success (timed walking; MD -1.33 seconds, 95% CI -2.77 to 0.11), or withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.94); absolute difference (9.7% fewer, 20.5 % fewer to 44.8% more). 2. PFOs versus shoes (1 trial, 25 participants, 3-month follow-up): very low-quality evidence showed little or no difference in pain between groups (MD 0.02, 95% CI -1.94 to 1.98). Low-quality evidence showed no difference between groups in function (FFI-disability MD -4.17, 95% CI -24.4 to 16.06), child-rated QoL (PedsQL MD -3.84, 95% CI -19 to 11.33), or parent-rated QoL (PedsQL MD -0.64, 95% CI -13.22 to 11.94). 3. CFOs versus PFOs (2 trials, 87 participants): low-quality evidence showed little or no difference between groups in pain (0 to 10 scale, 0 no pain) at 3 months (MD -1.48, 95% CI -3.23 to 0.26), function (FFI-disability MD -7.28, 95% CI -15.47 to 0.92), child-rated QoL (PedsQL MD 8.6, 95% CI -3.9 to 21.2), or parent-rated QoL (PedsQL MD 2.9, 95% CI -11 to 16.8).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low to very low-certainty evidence shows that the effect of CFOs (high cost) or PFOs (low cost) versus shoes, and CFOs versus PFOs on pain, function and HRQoL is uncertain. This is pertinent for clinical practice, given the economic disparity between CFOs and PFOs. FOs may improve pain and function, versus shoes in children with JIA, with minimal delineation between costly CFOs and generic PFOs. This review updates that from 2010, confirming that in the absence of pain, the use of high-cost CFOs for healthy children with flexible flat feet has no supporting evidence, and draws very limited conclusions about FOs for treating paediatric flat feet. The availability of normative and prospective foot development data, dismisses most flat foot concerns, and negates continued attention to this topic. Attention should be re-directed to relevant paediatric foot conditions, which cause pain, limit function, or reduce quality of life. The agenda for researching asymptomatic flat feet in healthy children must be relegated to history, and replaced by a targeted research rationale, addressing children with indisputable foot pathology from discrete diagnoses, namely JIA, cerebral palsy, congenital talipes equino varus, trisomy 21 and Charcot Marie Tooth. Whether research resources should continue to be wasted on studying flat feet in healthy children that do not hurt, is questionable. Future updates of this review will address only relevant paediatric foot conditions.
Topics: Child; Flatfoot; Foot Orthoses; Humans; Pain; Pain Measurement; Quality of Life
PubMed: 35080267
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006311.pub4 -
Medical Ultrasonography Dec 2022In this systematic review we analyzed the published articles related to the predictive value for flare of subclinical synovitis assessed by ultrasound (US) in juvenile... (Review)
Review
Ultrasound versus physical examination in predicting disease flare in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a systematic literature review and qualitative synthesis.
In this systematic review we analyzed the published articles related to the predictive value for flare of subclinical synovitis assessed by ultrasound (US) in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched from 1990 to 2020 by two authors, using PICO methodology. The study is built and reported according to PRISMA guidelines. Searches identified four articles comprising a total of 187 JIA patients in clinical remission from at least 3 months. Two of the articles found US subclinical signs of synovitis to be predictive for flare, with a five times higher risk (with Power Doppler signal as an important feature), while in the other two baseline US abnormalities did not predict a clinical flare. The articles differed for protocols, definitions, and length of follow-up. US has an expanding role in pediatric rheumatology, with interest-ing applications especially during the follow-up, potentially identifying subclinical inflammatory signs predictive of flare. However, the few studies available do not allow definite conclusions at this time.
Topics: Humans; Child; Arthritis, Juvenile; Symptom Flare Up; Ultrasonography; Synovitis; Physical Examination
PubMed: 35045140
DOI: 10.11152/mu-3303 -
Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism Feb 2022To evaluate the relation between whole-body MRI (WBMRI) outcomes and disease activity measures, including clinical examination, composite scores, and other imaging...
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the relation between whole-body MRI (WBMRI) outcomes and disease activity measures, including clinical examination, composite scores, and other imaging outcomes, and the ability of WBMRI to detect treatment response in patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) across age.
METHODS
Human studies published as full text or abstract in the PubMed and MEDLINE and Cochrane databases from inception to 11th April 2021 were systematically and independently searched by two reviewers. Studies including patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), spondyloarthritis (SpA), juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) or unclassified inflammatory arthritis (UA) who underwent WBMRI and which reported on disease outcomes were included.
RESULTS
Nineteen full-text studies were eligible for inclusion: 2 interventional, 7 retrospective and 10 prospective observational studies, comprising 540 participants (SpA 38.7%, RA 24.8%, JIA 17.8%, PsA 11.5%, healthy controls 5.9%, UA 1.3%). Abstracts of 6 conference papers were reported separately. Five studies in PsA and SpA and 4 in RA measured the frequency of WBMRI-detected and clinically-detected synovitis, and all found the former to be more frequent. Less enthesitis was detected by WBMRI than clinical examination in 5/8 studies. After biologic treatment, the WBMRI inflammation scores declined in 3 studies in SpA and 2 in RA, whilst in 3 studies the results were equivocal.
CONCLUSION
The ability of WBMRI to assess disease activity and treatment response in IA was adequate overall. Further studies are needed to corroborate WBMRI findings with IA outcomes and investigate the clinical value of subclinical inflammation.
Topics: Arthritis, Psoriatic; Humans; Inflammation; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Observational Studies as Topic; Retrospective Studies; Spondylarthritis; Synovitis
PubMed: 35038643
DOI: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2022.151953