TBD Meeting (5424-24)

CORRECTED April 7, 2024 // An earlier version of this article misstated the clinical factors of children with CNO that were significantly associated with the need for second-line treatment, as well as the scope of assessments of aspects of disease involvement and their relationship to total number of days on NSAID monotherapy and the odds of needing a second-line treatment.

Children with chronic nonbacterial osteomyelitis (CNO) who had symmetric bone lesions or multiple affected body regions were more likely to need second-line treatment than were patients without these features, according to findings presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

CNO is an auto-inflammatory condition that results in sterile inflammatory bone lesions and most commonly affects the long bones of people who are skeletally immature. After a first-line treatment of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), second-line treatments per CARRA guidelines typically include methotrexate or sulfasalazine, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitors, and bisphosphonates.

“Since it’s common for there to be long delays before diagnosis of CNO, it is important to start an effective treatment promptly,” Katherine D. Nowicki, MD, of Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, told attendees. “While we have guidance on which treatments to use, it remains unclear which patients are most likely to respond to NSAIDs and which patients will require a second-line treatment.”
 

Findings Helpful for Counseling

Melissa S. Oliver, MD, MS, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics in rheumatology at Riley Children’s Health at Indiana University Health, Indianapolis, who was not involved in the research, said the findings of this study are helpful in “counseling families and patients at that initial visit and having a lower threshold to start a second-line agent if NSAID monotherapy is not working well.”

There are no clinical trials on patients with CNO, Dr. Oliver said, so very little data exist for guiding clinicians on the best therapy to use and how long to keep patients on therapy while minimizing risk for flare when coming off therapy.

A key clinical takeaway for clinicians is being able to tell patients with unifocal disease that they may not need to be on NSAIDs for a long period and can still do well, Dr. Oliver said. For patients with multifocal disease with symmetric bone lesions or multiple regions involved with CNO, “pediatric rheumatologists should have a lower threshold to start a second-line therapy for these patients,” she said.

Findings From Largest Single-Center Cohort in North America

Their topline findings revealed that patients with unifocal disease at diagnosis required 47% fewer total days of NSAID monotherapy treatment than those with multifocal disease at diagnosis, Dr. Nowicki told attendees. Having symmetric bone lesions increased the likelihood of needing a second-line therapy by 6.86 times compared with those without symmetric bone lesions, and for each additional region affected by CNO, the odds of needing a second-line therapy increased by a factor of 1.94, she said.

There were no significant differences in patient ages or sex or in mean interval from symptom onset to treatment onset across treatment groups. However, patients who received second-line treatment did have a significantly longer average time from symptom onset to diagnosis (324 days) than those who had a short course (119 days) or long course (270 days) of NSAIDs (P = .023). Mean follow-up was also significantly longer for patients with second-line treatment (3.8 years) or long-course NSAIDs (2.7 years) than for those with short-course NSAIDs (1.2 years; P < .001).

Mean erythrocyte sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein did not differ across treatment groups nor did presence of a CNO lesion on x-rays at presentation. But significantly more patients in the second-line group had a biopsy (94%) than in the long-course (74%) or short-course (69%) NSAID groups (P = .0025). They were also more likely to have one or more whole-body MRIs. Most of the patients on short-course (88%) and long-course (82%) NSAIDs did not undergo a whole-body MRI, whereas most patients (59%) on a second-line treatment underwent at least one and 24% underwent three or more MRIs (P < .001).

More patients on short-course NSAIDs had unifocal disease at diagnosis (72%) than those on long-course NSAIDs (47%) or a second-line treatment (41%; P = .015). Patients on a second-line treatment were also more likely to have symmetric involvement in the same bone (73% vs 16% short-course and 23% long-course NSAIDs) and to have more regions of the body affected (P < .001).

There were significant differences in mean days on NSAID monotherapy and number of NSAIDs trialed. Patients on a second-line treatment had a mean 441 days of NSAID monotherapy compared with 175 days for patients on short-course NSAIDs and 725 for patients on long-course NSAIDs (P < .001). Nearly all the short-course patients (94%) trialed a single NSAID, while more than half the long-course and second-line patients trialed two or more (P < .001).

None of the patients on short-course NSAIDs had complications. More patients on second-line treatments had vertebral height loss (20%) or amplified pain (14%) than long-course patients (13% and 5%, respectively; P = .02).

At the study’s end date, nearly all the patients on short-course NSAIDs were in remission (94%) compared with 71% of patients on long-course NSAIDs and only half of patients (51%) on the second-line treatment (P < .001). None of the patients on short-course NSAIDs had active disease compared with 11% of patients on long-course NSAIDs and 20% of patients on second-line treatments (P = .02).

This study included the largest single-center cohort of patients with CNO in North America, all treated at a multidisciplinary clinic with a protocolized treatment approach, but it remains limited by its retrospective nature and the missing data for 70 patients, Dr. Nowicki said. She noted that whole-body MRI was not systematically performed on all patients, so it was possible patients without a whole-body MRI had undetected asymptomatic lesions.

Despite these limitations, Dr. Oliver said retrospective studies like these can help pediatric rheumatologists get an idea of reasonable therapies to start, how long to keep patients on them, and when to escalate to the next step.

“I hope one day our CNO research will be able to tell us about which is the optimal second-line therapy for patients, such as bisphosphonates vs TNF inhibitors vs DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs],” Dr. Oliver said.

Dr. Nowicki and Dr. Oliver reported no disclosures. Information on study funding was not provided.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

CORRECTED April 7, 2024 // An earlier version of this article misstated the clinical factors of children with CNO that were significantly associated with the need for second-line treatment, as well as the scope of assessments of aspects of disease involvement and their relationship to total number of days on NSAID monotherapy and the odds of needing a second-line treatment.

Children with chronic nonbacterial osteomyelitis (CNO) who had symmetric bone lesions or multiple affected body regions were more likely to need second-line treatment than were patients without these features, according to findings presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

CNO is an auto-inflammatory condition that results in sterile inflammatory bone lesions and most commonly affects the long bones of people who are skeletally immature. After a first-line treatment of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), second-line treatments per CARRA guidelines typically include methotrexate or sulfasalazine, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitors, and bisphosphonates.

“Since it’s common for there to be long delays before diagnosis of CNO, it is important to start an effective treatment promptly,” Katherine D. Nowicki, MD, of Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, told attendees. “While we have guidance on which treatments to use, it remains unclear which patients are most likely to respond to NSAIDs and which patients will require a second-line treatment.”
 

Findings Helpful for Counseling

Melissa S. Oliver, MD, MS, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics in rheumatology at Riley Children’s Health at Indiana University Health, Indianapolis, who was not involved in the research, said the findings of this study are helpful in “counseling families and patients at that initial visit and having a lower threshold to start a second-line agent if NSAID monotherapy is not working well.”

There are no clinical trials on patients with CNO, Dr. Oliver said, so very little data exist for guiding clinicians on the best therapy to use and how long to keep patients on therapy while minimizing risk for flare when coming off therapy.

A key clinical takeaway for clinicians is being able to tell patients with unifocal disease that they may not need to be on NSAIDs for a long period and can still do well, Dr. Oliver said. For patients with multifocal disease with symmetric bone lesions or multiple regions involved with CNO, “pediatric rheumatologists should have a lower threshold to start a second-line therapy for these patients,” she said.

Findings From Largest Single-Center Cohort in North America

Their topline findings revealed that patients with unifocal disease at diagnosis required 47% fewer total days of NSAID monotherapy treatment than those with multifocal disease at diagnosis, Dr. Nowicki told attendees. Having symmetric bone lesions increased the likelihood of needing a second-line therapy by 6.86 times compared with those without symmetric bone lesions, and for each additional region affected by CNO, the odds of needing a second-line therapy increased by a factor of 1.94, she said.

There were no significant differences in patient ages or sex or in mean interval from symptom onset to treatment onset across treatment groups. However, patients who received second-line treatment did have a significantly longer average time from symptom onset to diagnosis (324 days) than those who had a short course (119 days) or long course (270 days) of NSAIDs (P = .023). Mean follow-up was also significantly longer for patients with second-line treatment (3.8 years) or long-course NSAIDs (2.7 years) than for those with short-course NSAIDs (1.2 years; P < .001).

Mean erythrocyte sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein did not differ across treatment groups nor did presence of a CNO lesion on x-rays at presentation. But significantly more patients in the second-line group had a biopsy (94%) than in the long-course (74%) or short-course (69%) NSAID groups (P = .0025). They were also more likely to have one or more whole-body MRIs. Most of the patients on short-course (88%) and long-course (82%) NSAIDs did not undergo a whole-body MRI, whereas most patients (59%) on a second-line treatment underwent at least one and 24% underwent three or more MRIs (P < .001).

More patients on short-course NSAIDs had unifocal disease at diagnosis (72%) than those on long-course NSAIDs (47%) or a second-line treatment (41%; P = .015). Patients on a second-line treatment were also more likely to have symmetric involvement in the same bone (73% vs 16% short-course and 23% long-course NSAIDs) and to have more regions of the body affected (P < .001).

There were significant differences in mean days on NSAID monotherapy and number of NSAIDs trialed. Patients on a second-line treatment had a mean 441 days of NSAID monotherapy compared with 175 days for patients on short-course NSAIDs and 725 for patients on long-course NSAIDs (P < .001). Nearly all the short-course patients (94%) trialed a single NSAID, while more than half the long-course and second-line patients trialed two or more (P < .001).

None of the patients on short-course NSAIDs had complications. More patients on second-line treatments had vertebral height loss (20%) or amplified pain (14%) than long-course patients (13% and 5%, respectively; P = .02).

At the study’s end date, nearly all the patients on short-course NSAIDs were in remission (94%) compared with 71% of patients on long-course NSAIDs and only half of patients (51%) on the second-line treatment (P < .001). None of the patients on short-course NSAIDs had active disease compared with 11% of patients on long-course NSAIDs and 20% of patients on second-line treatments (P = .02).

This study included the largest single-center cohort of patients with CNO in North America, all treated at a multidisciplinary clinic with a protocolized treatment approach, but it remains limited by its retrospective nature and the missing data for 70 patients, Dr. Nowicki said. She noted that whole-body MRI was not systematically performed on all patients, so it was possible patients without a whole-body MRI had undetected asymptomatic lesions.

Despite these limitations, Dr. Oliver said retrospective studies like these can help pediatric rheumatologists get an idea of reasonable therapies to start, how long to keep patients on them, and when to escalate to the next step.

“I hope one day our CNO research will be able to tell us about which is the optimal second-line therapy for patients, such as bisphosphonates vs TNF inhibitors vs DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs],” Dr. Oliver said.

Dr. Nowicki and Dr. Oliver reported no disclosures. Information on study funding was not provided.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

CORRECTED April 7, 2024 // An earlier version of this article misstated the clinical factors of children with CNO that were significantly associated with the need for second-line treatment, as well as the scope of assessments of aspects of disease involvement and their relationship to total number of days on NSAID monotherapy and the odds of needing a second-line treatment.

Children with chronic nonbacterial osteomyelitis (CNO) who had symmetric bone lesions or multiple affected body regions were more likely to need second-line treatment than were patients without these features, according to findings presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

CNO is an auto-inflammatory condition that results in sterile inflammatory bone lesions and most commonly affects the long bones of people who are skeletally immature. After a first-line treatment of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), second-line treatments per CARRA guidelines typically include methotrexate or sulfasalazine, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitors, and bisphosphonates.

“Since it’s common for there to be long delays before diagnosis of CNO, it is important to start an effective treatment promptly,” Katherine D. Nowicki, MD, of Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, told attendees. “While we have guidance on which treatments to use, it remains unclear which patients are most likely to respond to NSAIDs and which patients will require a second-line treatment.”
 

Findings Helpful for Counseling

Melissa S. Oliver, MD, MS, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics in rheumatology at Riley Children’s Health at Indiana University Health, Indianapolis, who was not involved in the research, said the findings of this study are helpful in “counseling families and patients at that initial visit and having a lower threshold to start a second-line agent if NSAID monotherapy is not working well.”

There are no clinical trials on patients with CNO, Dr. Oliver said, so very little data exist for guiding clinicians on the best therapy to use and how long to keep patients on therapy while minimizing risk for flare when coming off therapy.

A key clinical takeaway for clinicians is being able to tell patients with unifocal disease that they may not need to be on NSAIDs for a long period and can still do well, Dr. Oliver said. For patients with multifocal disease with symmetric bone lesions or multiple regions involved with CNO, “pediatric rheumatologists should have a lower threshold to start a second-line therapy for these patients,” she said.

Findings From Largest Single-Center Cohort in North America

Their topline findings revealed that patients with unifocal disease at diagnosis required 47% fewer total days of NSAID monotherapy treatment than those with multifocal disease at diagnosis, Dr. Nowicki told attendees. Having symmetric bone lesions increased the likelihood of needing a second-line therapy by 6.86 times compared with those without symmetric bone lesions, and for each additional region affected by CNO, the odds of needing a second-line therapy increased by a factor of 1.94, she said.

There were no significant differences in patient ages or sex or in mean interval from symptom onset to treatment onset across treatment groups. However, patients who received second-line treatment did have a significantly longer average time from symptom onset to diagnosis (324 days) than those who had a short course (119 days) or long course (270 days) of NSAIDs (P = .023). Mean follow-up was also significantly longer for patients with second-line treatment (3.8 years) or long-course NSAIDs (2.7 years) than for those with short-course NSAIDs (1.2 years; P < .001).

Mean erythrocyte sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein did not differ across treatment groups nor did presence of a CNO lesion on x-rays at presentation. But significantly more patients in the second-line group had a biopsy (94%) than in the long-course (74%) or short-course (69%) NSAID groups (P = .0025). They were also more likely to have one or more whole-body MRIs. Most of the patients on short-course (88%) and long-course (82%) NSAIDs did not undergo a whole-body MRI, whereas most patients (59%) on a second-line treatment underwent at least one and 24% underwent three or more MRIs (P < .001).

More patients on short-course NSAIDs had unifocal disease at diagnosis (72%) than those on long-course NSAIDs (47%) or a second-line treatment (41%; P = .015). Patients on a second-line treatment were also more likely to have symmetric involvement in the same bone (73% vs 16% short-course and 23% long-course NSAIDs) and to have more regions of the body affected (P < .001).

There were significant differences in mean days on NSAID monotherapy and number of NSAIDs trialed. Patients on a second-line treatment had a mean 441 days of NSAID monotherapy compared with 175 days for patients on short-course NSAIDs and 725 for patients on long-course NSAIDs (P < .001). Nearly all the short-course patients (94%) trialed a single NSAID, while more than half the long-course and second-line patients trialed two or more (P < .001).

None of the patients on short-course NSAIDs had complications. More patients on second-line treatments had vertebral height loss (20%) or amplified pain (14%) than long-course patients (13% and 5%, respectively; P = .02).

At the study’s end date, nearly all the patients on short-course NSAIDs were in remission (94%) compared with 71% of patients on long-course NSAIDs and only half of patients (51%) on the second-line treatment (P < .001). None of the patients on short-course NSAIDs had active disease compared with 11% of patients on long-course NSAIDs and 20% of patients on second-line treatments (P = .02).

This study included the largest single-center cohort of patients with CNO in North America, all treated at a multidisciplinary clinic with a protocolized treatment approach, but it remains limited by its retrospective nature and the missing data for 70 patients, Dr. Nowicki said. She noted that whole-body MRI was not systematically performed on all patients, so it was possible patients without a whole-body MRI had undetected asymptomatic lesions.

Despite these limitations, Dr. Oliver said retrospective studies like these can help pediatric rheumatologists get an idea of reasonable therapies to start, how long to keep patients on them, and when to escalate to the next step.

“I hope one day our CNO research will be able to tell us about which is the optimal second-line therapy for patients, such as bisphosphonates vs TNF inhibitors vs DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs],” Dr. Oliver said.

Dr. Nowicki and Dr. Oliver reported no disclosures. Information on study funding was not provided.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

CORRECTED April 16, 2024 // An earlier version of this article stated incorrect percentages of patients who never received any biologics during the study's 3-year period but improved rapidly or moderately.

Early initiation of biologics — within the first 2 months of symptom presentation — appears to have a significant impact on how rapidly patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) improve, according to findings presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

“Our study provides evidence that early use of biologics can significantly alter the disease trajectory of patients with JIA,” Mei-Sing Ong, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, told attendees. At the same time, however, not all patients who improved rapidly during a 3-year follow-up period needed biologics, a finding that Ong said the researchers are continuing to investigate.

Marinka Twilt, MD, MScE, PhD, chair of CARRA’s JIA Research Committee and a pediatric rheumatologist and clinician scientist at Alberta Children’s Hospital in Calgary, Canada, was not involved in the research but said the continued sustained remission in patients who improved rapidly is very reassuring.

Dr. Twilt

“We always wonder if initial response will be sustained or if patients tend to flare after the initial treatment,” Dr. Twilt told this news organization. “To see the sustained response up to 3 years is fantastic.” She added that it would be enlightening to see more information about patients who rapidly improved over 3 years, including whether they were still taking a [conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)] and/or biologic.

“A new diagnosis can be overwhelming for families, and this sometimes leads to step-up therapy to not overwhelm them more with information on new drugs,” Dr. Twilt said. “This study shows that an earlier start is beneficial, and this should be discussed with families early on so there is less delay in early treatment.”

Canada and many US states currently require 3 months of conventional DMARD treatment before patients can start a biologic, Dr. Twilt said, yet “this study shows the additive benefit of using a biologic within 2 months of starting a DMARD, which hopefully will lead to insurance companies adopting this threshold.”

The STOP-JIA study is a prospective observational study that compares the effectiveness of three different treatment plans for JIA. A Step-Up cohort of 257 patients received conventional antirheumatic monotherapy initially, with a biologic added at 3 months or later as needed. The Early Combination cohort of 100 patients received conventional antirheumatic therapy with a biologic from the start. The Biologic First cohort of 43 patients began taking a biologic as a first-line therapy.

In previously reported results of the study at 12 months’ follow-up, there was no significant difference between the Step-Up and Biologic First groups, but there were significant differences between the Step-Up and Early Combination groups. Significantly more patients in the Early Combination group (58.8%) than in the Step-Up group (42.8%) had inactive disease, based on the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score 10 (cJADAS-10) (P = .03). Similarly, 81% of Early Combination patients achieved the American College of Rheumatology 70% improvement criteria, compared with 62% of the Step-Up patients (P = .01).

To learn whether the timing of starting a biologic influenced the disease trajectory over time, the researchers compared subgroups of patients with similar trajectories.

“Assessing treatment outcomes at a single point in time does not give us a complete picture of the effects of treatment on disease trajectory, which is an important outcome given that JIA is characterized by a relapsing-remitting course,” Dr. Ong told attendees.

Patients were sorted in the slow, moderate, or rapid improvement trajectories. In previously reported data at 12 months’ follow-up, patients’ odds of achieving rapid improvement were 3.6 times greater if they had started a biologic within 3 months.

This study compared patients’ trajectories over 3 years in the 259 patients (65% of the original cohort) who had at least one cJADAS-10 assessment in each year of follow-up. Most patients (66.8%) were in the rapid improvement class, with 25.9% in the moderate improvement class and 7.3% in the slow improvement class.

Patients in the rapid improvement group achieved inactive disease (cJADAS-10 of 2.5 or less) within 1 year and maintained inactive disease through the second and third years. The moderate and low improvement groups both had higher disease activity at baseline, but the moderate group continued to improve in years 2 and 3, with minimal disease by year 3, on the basis of the cJADAS-10 scores of 2.5-5. The slow group continued to experience moderate disease activity during years 2 and 3.

The findings also revealed that the earlier patients began a biologic, the more likely they were to be in the rapid improvement group than the slow improvement group. Participants who started a biologic in the first month had more than five times greater odds of being in the rapid improvement group than in the slow improvement group (odds ratio [OR], 5.33; P = .017).

Those who started a biologic in the second month were also more likely to be in the rapid improvement group (OR, 2.67; P = .032). For those who began a biologic by the third month, the odds of improving rapidly were not statistically significant, though Ong noted that could have been because of the small sample size. There was also no significant difference between those who improved moderately vs slowly based on when a biologic was initiated.

It would be helpful to learn whether any of the patients in the rapid improvement group were able to stop medications or whether they all continued treatment during the 3 years of follow-up, Dr. Twilt said. “Does early treatment with biologics not only lead to early remission after initiation but also to the possibility of stopping treatment earlier and remaining in remission?” she asked.

The researchers also found that not all patients needed biologics to end up in the rapid improvement group. Among patients who never received any biologics during the 3-year period, 83% improved rapidly and 17% improved moderately. Yet the researchers identified no significant differences in demographics or clinical factors between patients who received biologics and those who did not.

“The fact that there is a group of patients in the rapid response group who never need a biologic is of great interest, as we always want to treat patients early with the medications they need, but we also want to avoid overtreating patients,” Dr. Twilt said. It’s important to find out what differentiates those patients and whether it is possible to predict which patients do not need biologics early on, she said.

Dr. Ong said the research team is working to develop machine learning methods to improve risk stratification in hopes of addressing that question.

Dr. Ong and Dr. Twilt reported no disclosures. The research was funded by CARRA and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

CORRECTED April 16, 2024 // An earlier version of this article stated incorrect percentages of patients who never received any biologics during the study's 3-year period but improved rapidly or moderately.

Early initiation of biologics — within the first 2 months of symptom presentation — appears to have a significant impact on how rapidly patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) improve, according to findings presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

“Our study provides evidence that early use of biologics can significantly alter the disease trajectory of patients with JIA,” Mei-Sing Ong, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, told attendees. At the same time, however, not all patients who improved rapidly during a 3-year follow-up period needed biologics, a finding that Ong said the researchers are continuing to investigate.

Marinka Twilt, MD, MScE, PhD, chair of CARRA’s JIA Research Committee and a pediatric rheumatologist and clinician scientist at Alberta Children’s Hospital in Calgary, Canada, was not involved in the research but said the continued sustained remission in patients who improved rapidly is very reassuring.

Dr. Twilt

“We always wonder if initial response will be sustained or if patients tend to flare after the initial treatment,” Dr. Twilt told this news organization. “To see the sustained response up to 3 years is fantastic.” She added that it would be enlightening to see more information about patients who rapidly improved over 3 years, including whether they were still taking a [conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)] and/or biologic.

“A new diagnosis can be overwhelming for families, and this sometimes leads to step-up therapy to not overwhelm them more with information on new drugs,” Dr. Twilt said. “This study shows that an earlier start is beneficial, and this should be discussed with families early on so there is less delay in early treatment.”

Canada and many US states currently require 3 months of conventional DMARD treatment before patients can start a biologic, Dr. Twilt said, yet “this study shows the additive benefit of using a biologic within 2 months of starting a DMARD, which hopefully will lead to insurance companies adopting this threshold.”

The STOP-JIA study is a prospective observational study that compares the effectiveness of three different treatment plans for JIA. A Step-Up cohort of 257 patients received conventional antirheumatic monotherapy initially, with a biologic added at 3 months or later as needed. The Early Combination cohort of 100 patients received conventional antirheumatic therapy with a biologic from the start. The Biologic First cohort of 43 patients began taking a biologic as a first-line therapy.

In previously reported results of the study at 12 months’ follow-up, there was no significant difference between the Step-Up and Biologic First groups, but there were significant differences between the Step-Up and Early Combination groups. Significantly more patients in the Early Combination group (58.8%) than in the Step-Up group (42.8%) had inactive disease, based on the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score 10 (cJADAS-10) (P = .03). Similarly, 81% of Early Combination patients achieved the American College of Rheumatology 70% improvement criteria, compared with 62% of the Step-Up patients (P = .01).

To learn whether the timing of starting a biologic influenced the disease trajectory over time, the researchers compared subgroups of patients with similar trajectories.

“Assessing treatment outcomes at a single point in time does not give us a complete picture of the effects of treatment on disease trajectory, which is an important outcome given that JIA is characterized by a relapsing-remitting course,” Dr. Ong told attendees.

Patients were sorted in the slow, moderate, or rapid improvement trajectories. In previously reported data at 12 months’ follow-up, patients’ odds of achieving rapid improvement were 3.6 times greater if they had started a biologic within 3 months.

This study compared patients’ trajectories over 3 years in the 259 patients (65% of the original cohort) who had at least one cJADAS-10 assessment in each year of follow-up. Most patients (66.8%) were in the rapid improvement class, with 25.9% in the moderate improvement class and 7.3% in the slow improvement class.

Patients in the rapid improvement group achieved inactive disease (cJADAS-10 of 2.5 or less) within 1 year and maintained inactive disease through the second and third years. The moderate and low improvement groups both had higher disease activity at baseline, but the moderate group continued to improve in years 2 and 3, with minimal disease by year 3, on the basis of the cJADAS-10 scores of 2.5-5. The slow group continued to experience moderate disease activity during years 2 and 3.

The findings also revealed that the earlier patients began a biologic, the more likely they were to be in the rapid improvement group than the slow improvement group. Participants who started a biologic in the first month had more than five times greater odds of being in the rapid improvement group than in the slow improvement group (odds ratio [OR], 5.33; P = .017).

Those who started a biologic in the second month were also more likely to be in the rapid improvement group (OR, 2.67; P = .032). For those who began a biologic by the third month, the odds of improving rapidly were not statistically significant, though Ong noted that could have been because of the small sample size. There was also no significant difference between those who improved moderately vs slowly based on when a biologic was initiated.

It would be helpful to learn whether any of the patients in the rapid improvement group were able to stop medications or whether they all continued treatment during the 3 years of follow-up, Dr. Twilt said. “Does early treatment with biologics not only lead to early remission after initiation but also to the possibility of stopping treatment earlier and remaining in remission?” she asked.

The researchers also found that not all patients needed biologics to end up in the rapid improvement group. Among patients who never received any biologics during the 3-year period, 83% improved rapidly and 17% improved moderately. Yet the researchers identified no significant differences in demographics or clinical factors between patients who received biologics and those who did not.

“The fact that there is a group of patients in the rapid response group who never need a biologic is of great interest, as we always want to treat patients early with the medications they need, but we also want to avoid overtreating patients,” Dr. Twilt said. It’s important to find out what differentiates those patients and whether it is possible to predict which patients do not need biologics early on, she said.

Dr. Ong said the research team is working to develop machine learning methods to improve risk stratification in hopes of addressing that question.

Dr. Ong and Dr. Twilt reported no disclosures. The research was funded by CARRA and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

CORRECTED April 16, 2024 // An earlier version of this article stated incorrect percentages of patients who never received any biologics during the study's 3-year period but improved rapidly or moderately.

Early initiation of biologics — within the first 2 months of symptom presentation — appears to have a significant impact on how rapidly patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) improve, according to findings presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

“Our study provides evidence that early use of biologics can significantly alter the disease trajectory of patients with JIA,” Mei-Sing Ong, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, told attendees. At the same time, however, not all patients who improved rapidly during a 3-year follow-up period needed biologics, a finding that Ong said the researchers are continuing to investigate.

Marinka Twilt, MD, MScE, PhD, chair of CARRA’s JIA Research Committee and a pediatric rheumatologist and clinician scientist at Alberta Children’s Hospital in Calgary, Canada, was not involved in the research but said the continued sustained remission in patients who improved rapidly is very reassuring.

Dr. Twilt

“We always wonder if initial response will be sustained or if patients tend to flare after the initial treatment,” Dr. Twilt told this news organization. “To see the sustained response up to 3 years is fantastic.” She added that it would be enlightening to see more information about patients who rapidly improved over 3 years, including whether they were still taking a [conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)] and/or biologic.

“A new diagnosis can be overwhelming for families, and this sometimes leads to step-up therapy to not overwhelm them more with information on new drugs,” Dr. Twilt said. “This study shows that an earlier start is beneficial, and this should be discussed with families early on so there is less delay in early treatment.”

Canada and many US states currently require 3 months of conventional DMARD treatment before patients can start a biologic, Dr. Twilt said, yet “this study shows the additive benefit of using a biologic within 2 months of starting a DMARD, which hopefully will lead to insurance companies adopting this threshold.”

The STOP-JIA study is a prospective observational study that compares the effectiveness of three different treatment plans for JIA. A Step-Up cohort of 257 patients received conventional antirheumatic monotherapy initially, with a biologic added at 3 months or later as needed. The Early Combination cohort of 100 patients received conventional antirheumatic therapy with a biologic from the start. The Biologic First cohort of 43 patients began taking a biologic as a first-line therapy.

In previously reported results of the study at 12 months’ follow-up, there was no significant difference between the Step-Up and Biologic First groups, but there were significant differences between the Step-Up and Early Combination groups. Significantly more patients in the Early Combination group (58.8%) than in the Step-Up group (42.8%) had inactive disease, based on the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score 10 (cJADAS-10) (P = .03). Similarly, 81% of Early Combination patients achieved the American College of Rheumatology 70% improvement criteria, compared with 62% of the Step-Up patients (P = .01).

To learn whether the timing of starting a biologic influenced the disease trajectory over time, the researchers compared subgroups of patients with similar trajectories.

“Assessing treatment outcomes at a single point in time does not give us a complete picture of the effects of treatment on disease trajectory, which is an important outcome given that JIA is characterized by a relapsing-remitting course,” Dr. Ong told attendees.

Patients were sorted in the slow, moderate, or rapid improvement trajectories. In previously reported data at 12 months’ follow-up, patients’ odds of achieving rapid improvement were 3.6 times greater if they had started a biologic within 3 months.

This study compared patients’ trajectories over 3 years in the 259 patients (65% of the original cohort) who had at least one cJADAS-10 assessment in each year of follow-up. Most patients (66.8%) were in the rapid improvement class, with 25.9% in the moderate improvement class and 7.3% in the slow improvement class.

Patients in the rapid improvement group achieved inactive disease (cJADAS-10 of 2.5 or less) within 1 year and maintained inactive disease through the second and third years. The moderate and low improvement groups both had higher disease activity at baseline, but the moderate group continued to improve in years 2 and 3, with minimal disease by year 3, on the basis of the cJADAS-10 scores of 2.5-5. The slow group continued to experience moderate disease activity during years 2 and 3.

The findings also revealed that the earlier patients began a biologic, the more likely they were to be in the rapid improvement group than the slow improvement group. Participants who started a biologic in the first month had more than five times greater odds of being in the rapid improvement group than in the slow improvement group (odds ratio [OR], 5.33; P = .017).

Those who started a biologic in the second month were also more likely to be in the rapid improvement group (OR, 2.67; P = .032). For those who began a biologic by the third month, the odds of improving rapidly were not statistically significant, though Ong noted that could have been because of the small sample size. There was also no significant difference between those who improved moderately vs slowly based on when a biologic was initiated.

It would be helpful to learn whether any of the patients in the rapid improvement group were able to stop medications or whether they all continued treatment during the 3 years of follow-up, Dr. Twilt said. “Does early treatment with biologics not only lead to early remission after initiation but also to the possibility of stopping treatment earlier and remaining in remission?” she asked.

The researchers also found that not all patients needed biologics to end up in the rapid improvement group. Among patients who never received any biologics during the 3-year period, 83% improved rapidly and 17% improved moderately. Yet the researchers identified no significant differences in demographics or clinical factors between patients who received biologics and those who did not.

“The fact that there is a group of patients in the rapid response group who never need a biologic is of great interest, as we always want to treat patients early with the medications they need, but we also want to avoid overtreating patients,” Dr. Twilt said. It’s important to find out what differentiates those patients and whether it is possible to predict which patients do not need biologics early on, she said.

Dr. Ong said the research team is working to develop machine learning methods to improve risk stratification in hopes of addressing that question.

Dr. Ong and Dr. Twilt reported no disclosures. The research was funded by CARRA and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .