Treatment prescribing patterns in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA): Analysis from the UK Childhood Arthritis Prospective Study (CAPS)

OBJECTIVE: Initial treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is largely based on the extent of joint involvement, disease severity and ILAR category. The licensing of biologic therapies for JIA has expanded treatment options. The aims of the study are (1) to describe treatment prescribing patterns in JIA over the first 3 years following first presentation to paediatric rheumatology and (2) to determine whether patterns of treatment have changed as biologics have become more widely available. METHODS: Children with at least 3 years of follow-up within the Childhood Arthritis Prospective Study (CAPS) were included. For analysis, children were placed into one of five groups according to their initial presentation to paediatric rheumatology: oligoarthritis (oJIA), polyarthritis (pJIA), systemic (sJIA), enthesitis-related arthritis (ERA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Treatment patterns over 3 years were described. RESULTS: Of 1051 children, 58% received synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (sDMARD) and 20% received biologics over the 3 years. Use of sDMARDs and biologics was higher in more severe disease presentations (sJIA and pJIA); however, 35% and 10% who presented with oJIA were also treated with sDMARDs and biologics, respectively. The number of children receiving sDMARD after 2006 was higher (p = 0.02); however, there was no difference in biologic prescribing before and after 2006 (p = 0.4). CONCLUSIONS: A high proportion of children presenting with JIA received sDMARDs plus/minus biologics during 3 years of follow-up. This was most common for patients with severe JIA but was also prescribed for patients with oligoarticular disease, despite the lack of evidence for effectiveness in this category

Increased Frequencies of Th22 Cells as well as Th17 Cells in the Peripheral Blood of Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis and Rheumatoid Arthritis

<div><h3>Background</h3><p>T-helper (Th) 22 is involved in the pathogenesis of inflammatory diseases. The roles of Th22 cells in the pathophysiological of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) remain unsettled. So we examined the frequencies of Th22 cells, Th17 cells and Th1 cells in peripheral blood (PB) from patients with AS and patients with RA compared with both healthy controls as well as patients with osteoarthritis.</p> <h3>Design and Methods</h3><p>We studied 32 AS patients, 20 RA patients, 10 OA patients and 20 healthy controls. The expression of IL-22, IL-17 and IFN-γ were examined in AS, RA, OA patients and healthy controls by flow cytometry. Plasma IL-22 and IL-17 levels were examined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.</p> <h3>Results</h3><p>Th22 cells, Th17 cells and interleukin-22 were significantly elevated in AS and RA patients compared with OA patients and healthy controls. Moreover, Th22 cells showed positive correlation with Th17 cells as well as interleukin-22 in AS and RA patients. However, positive correlation between IL-22 and Th17 cells was only found in AS patients not in RA patients. In addition, the percentages of both Th22 cells and Th17 cells correlated positively with disease activity only in RA patients not in AS patients.</p> <h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The frequencies of both Th22 cells and Th17 cells were elevated in PB from patients with AS and patients with RA. These findings suggest that Th22 cells and Th17 cells may be implicated in the pathogenesis of AS and RA, and Th22 cells and Th17 cells may be reasonable cellular targets for therapeutic intervention.</p> </div

100,000 Genomes Pilot on Rare-Disease Diagnosis in Health Care — Preliminary Report

BACKGROUND: The U.K. 100,000 Genomes Project is in the process of investigating the role of genome sequencing in patients with undiagnosed rare diseases after usual care and the alignment of this research with health care implementation in the U.K. National Health Service. Other parts of this project focus on patients with cancer and infection. METHODS: We conducted a pilot study involving 4660 participants from 2183 families, among whom 161 disorders covering a broad spectrum of rare diseases were present. We collected data on clinical features with the use of Human Phenotype Ontology terms, undertook genome sequencing, applied automated variant prioritization on the basis of applied virtual gene panels and phenotypes, and identified novel pathogenic variants through research analysis. RESULTS: Diagnostic yields varied among family structures and were highest in family trios (both parents and a proband) and families with larger pedigrees. Diagnostic yields were much higher for disorders likely to have a monogenic cause (35%) than for disorders likely to have a complex cause (11%). Diagnostic yields for intellectual disability, hearing disorders, and vision disorders ranged from 40 to 55%. We made genetic diagnoses in 25% of the probands. A total of 14% of the diagnoses were made by means of the combination of research and automated approaches, which was critical for cases in which we found etiologic noncoding, structural, and mitochondrial genome variants and coding variants poorly covered by exome sequencing. Cohortwide burden testing across 57,000 genomes enabled the discovery of three new disease genes and 19 new associations. Of the genetic diagnoses that we made, 25% had immediate ramifications for clinical decision making for the patients or their relatives. CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot study of genome sequencing in a national health care system showed an increase in diagnostic yield across a range of rare diseases. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research and others.)

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AIM: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. METHODS: This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. RESULTS: Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION: One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease