Search

BackgroundTo reduce treatment variability and facilitate comparative effectiveness studies, the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) published consensus treatment plans (CTPs) including one for juvenile proliferative lupus nephritis (LN). Induction immunosuppression CTPs outline treatment with either monthly intravenous (IV) cyclophosphamide (CYC) or mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in conjunction with one of three corticosteroid (steroid) CTPs: primarily oral, primarily IV or mixed oral/IV. The acceptability and in-practice use of these CTPs are unknown. Therefore, the primary aims of the pilot study were to demonstrate feasibility of adhering to the LN CTPs and delineate barriers to implementation in clinical care in the US. Further, we aimed to explore the safety and effectiveness of the treatments for induction therapy.MethodsForty-one patients were enrolled from 10 CARRA sites. Patients had new-onset biopsy proven ISN/RPS class III or IV proliferative LN, were starting induction therapy with MMF or IV CYC and high-dose steroids and were followed for up to 24 months. Routine clinical data were collected at each visit. Provider reasons for CTP selection were assessed at baseline. Adherence to the CTPs was evaluated by provider survey and medication logs. Complete and partial renal responses were reported at 6 months.ResultsThe majority of patients were female (83%) with a mean age of 14.7 years, SD 2.8. CYC was used more commonly than MMF for patients with ISN/RPS class IV LN (vs. class III), those who had hematuria, and those with adherence concerns. Overall adherence to the immunosuppression induction CTPs was acceptable with a majority of patients receiving the target MMF (86%) or CYC (63%) dose. However, adherence to the steroid CTPs was poor (37%) with large variability in dosing. Renal response endpoints were exploratory and did not show a significant difference between CYC and MMF.ConclusionsOverall, the immunosuppression CTPs were followed as intended in the majority of patients however, adherence to the steroid CTPs was poor indicating revision is necessary. In addition, our pilot study revealed several sources of treatment selection bias that will need to be addressed in for future comparative effectiveness research.

Background: Periodic fever, aphthous stomatitis, pharyngitis, and cervical adenitis (PFAPA) syndrome is the most common periodic fever syndrome in children. There is considerable heterogeneity in management strategies and a lack of evidence-based treatment guidelines. Consensus treatment plans (CTPs) are standardized treatment regimens that are derived based upon best available evidence and current treatment practices that are a way to enable comparative effectiveness studies to identify optimal therapy and are less costly to execute than randomized, double blind placebo controlled trials. The purpose of this project was to develop CTPs and response criteria for PFAPA. Methods: The CARRA PFAPA Working Group is composed of pediatric rheumatologists, infectious disease specialists, allergists/immunologists and otolaryngologists. An extensive literature review was conducted followed by a survey to assess physician practice patterns. This was followed by virtual and in-person meetings between 2014 and 2018. Nominal group technique (NGT) was employed to develop CTPs, as well as inclusion criteria for entry into future treatment studies, and response criteria. Consensus required 80% agreement. Results: The PFAPA working group developed CTPs resulting in 4 different treatment arms: 1. Antipyretic, 2. Abortive (corticosteroids), 3. Prophylaxis (colchicine or cimetidine) and 4. Surgical (tonsillectomy). Consensus was obtained among CARRA members for those defining patient characteristics who qualify for participation in the CTP PFAPA study. Conclusion: The goal is for the CTPs developed by our group to lead to future comparative effectiveness studies that will generate evidence-driven therapeutic guidelines for this periodic inflammatory disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]