4.4 Article

Early Outcomes and Improvement of Patients With Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis Enrolled in a Canadian Multicenter Inception Cohort

期刊

ARTHRITIS CARE & RESEARCH
卷 62, 期 4, 页码 527-536

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/acr.20044

关键词

-

资金

  1. Canadian Institute of Health Research [69301QNT]
  2. Fast Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To determine early outcomes and early improvements in a prospective inception cohort of children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) treated with current standard therapies. Methods. Patients selected were enrolled in an inception cohort of JIA, the Research in Arthritis in Canadian Children Emphasizing Outcomes Study. The juvenile rheumatoid arthritis core criteria set measures were completed at enrollment and 6 months later. Frequencies of normal values for each of the core set measures and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Pediatric 30, 50, and 70 (Pedi 70) criteria response rates achieved at 6 months after enrollment were calculated for each JIA-onset subtype group. Results. Among 354 patients in the study, the median interval between diagnosis and enrollment was 0.7 months. At 6 months after enrollment, median values of active joint counts were highest in patients with rheumatoid factor (RF)-positive polyarthritis (4) and RF-negative polyarthritis (2), but were 0 or 1 for other subtypes. Fifty percent or more of patients with oligoarthritis, systemic arthritis, enthesitis-related arthritis, and undifferentiated arthritis had no active joints, and the ACR Pedi 70 criteria response rate was 48% or more in those with oligoarthritis, RF-negative polyarthritis, and systemic arthritis. Conclusion. With current management strategies in clinical practice, improvement in disease activity was noted in considerable proportions of patients in all of the JIA subtype groups, but low levels of disease activity persisted in many. We expect that these early outcomes will prove to be significant predictors of long-term outcomes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据