4.4 Article

Consensus treatments for moderate Juvenile Dermatomyositis: Beyond the first two months. Results of the Second Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Consensus Conference

期刊

ARTHRITIS CARE & RESEARCH
卷 64, 期 4, 页码 546-553

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/acr.20695

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases [RC1AR058605-01, R13-AR053058-04]
  2. Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance
  3. Arthritis Foundation
  4. Wasie Foundation
  5. Abbott
  6. Amgen
  7. Pfizer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To use consensus methods and the considerable expertise contained within the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) organization to extend the 3 previously developed treatment plans for moderate juvenile dermatomyositis (DM) to span the full course of treatment. Methods. A consensus meeting was held in Chicago on April 23-24, 2010, involving 30 pediatric rheumatologists and 4 lay participants. Nominal group technique was used to achieve consensus on treatment plans that represented typical management of moderate juvenile DM. A preconference survey of CARRA, completed by 151 (56%) of 272 members, was used to provide additional guidance to the discussion. Results. Consensus was reached on timing and rate of steroid tapering, duration of steroid therapy, and actions to be taken if patients were unchanged, worsening, or experiencing medication side effects or disease complications. Of particular importance, a single consensus steroid taper was developed. Conclusion. We were able to develop consensus treatment plans that describe therapy for moderate juvenile DM throughout the treatment course. These treatment plans can now be used clinically, and data collected prospectively regarding treatment effectiveness and toxicity. This will allow comparison of these treatment plans and facilitate the development of evidence-based treatment recommendations for moderate juvenile DM.

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