Efficacy and safety of open-label etanercept on extended oligoarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, enthesitis-related arthritis and psoriatic arthritis: part 1 (week 12) of the CLIPPER study

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of etanercept (ETN) in paediatric subjects with extended oligoarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (eoJIA), enthesitis-related arthritis (ERA), or psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: CLIPPER is an ongoing, Phase 3b, open-label, multicentre study; the 12-week (Part 1) data are reported here. Subjects with eoJIA (2-17 years), ERA (12-17 years), or PsA (12-17 years) received ETN 0.8 mg/kg once weekly (maximum 50 mg). Primary endpoint was the percentage of subjects achieving JIA American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 30 criteria at week 12; secondary outcomes included JIA ACR 50/70/90 and inactive disease. RESULTS: 122/127 (96.1%) subjects completed the study (mean age 11.7 years). JIA ACR 30 (95% CI) was achieved by 88.6% (81.6% to 93.6%) of subjects overall; 89.7% (78.8% to 96.1%) with eoJIA, 83.3% (67.2% to 93.6%) with ERA and 93.1% (77.2% to 99.2%) with PsA. For eoJIA, ERA, or PsA categories, the ORs of ETN vs the historical placebo data were 26.2, 15.1 and 40.7, respectively. Overall JIA ACR 50, 70, 90 and inactive disease were achieved by 81.1, 61.5, 29.8 and 12.1%, respectively. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), infections, and serious AEs, were reported in 45 (35.4%), 58 (45.7%), and 4 (3.1%), subjects, respectively. Serious AEs were one case each of abdominal pain, bronchopneumonia, gastroenteritis and pyelocystitis. One subject reported herpes zoster and another varicella. No differences in safety were observed across the JIA categories. CONCLUSIONS: ETN treatment for 12 weeks was effective and well tolerated in paediatric subjects with eoJIA, ERA and PsA, with no unexpected safety findings

A survey of national and multi-national registries and cohort studies in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: Challenges and opportunities

Background: To characterize the existing national and multi-national registries and cohort studies in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) and identify differences as well as areas of potential future collaboration. Methods: We surveyed investigators from North America, Europe, and Australia about existing JIA cohort studies and registries. We excluded cross-sectional studies. We captured information about study design, duration, location, inclusion criteria, data elements and collection methods. Results: We received survey results from 18 studies, including 11 national and 7 multi-national studies representing 37 countries in total. Study designs included inception cohorts, prevalent disease cohorts, and new treatment cohorts (several of which contribute to pharmacosurveillance activities). Despite numerous differences, the data elements collected across the studies was quite similar, with most studies collecting at least 5 of the 6 American College of Rheumatology core set variables and the data needed to calculate the 3-variable clinical juvenile disease activity score. Most studies were collecting medication initiation and discontinuation dates and were attempting to capture serious adverse events. Conclusion: There is a wide-range of large, ongoing JIA registries and cohort studies around the world. Our survey results indicate significant potential for future collaborative work using data from different studies and both combined and comparative analyses

The German National Registry of Primary Immunodeficiencies (2012-2017)

Introduction: The German PID-NET registry was founded in 2009, serving as the first national registry of patients with primary immunodeficiencies (PID) in Germany. It is part of the European Society for Immunodeficiencies (ESID) registry. The primary purpose of the registry is to gather data on the epidemiology, diagnostic delay, diagnosis, and treatment of PIDs. Methods: Clinical and laboratory data was collected from 2,453 patients from 36 German PID centres in an online registry. Data was analysed with the software Stata® and Excel. Results: The minimum prevalence of PID in Germany is 2.72 per 100,000 inhabitants. Among patients aged 1–25, there was a clear predominance of males. The median age of living patients ranged between 7 and 40 years, depending on the respective PID. Predominantly antibody disorders were the most prevalent group with 57% of all 2,453 PID patients (including 728 CVID patients). A gene defect was identified in 36% of patients. Familial cases were observed in 21% of patients. The age of onset for presenting symptoms ranged from birth to late adulthood (range 0–88 years). Presenting symptoms comprised infections (74%) and immune dysregulation (22%). Ninety-three patients were diagnosed without prior clinical symptoms. Regarding the general and clinical diagnostic delay, no PID had undergone a slight decrease within the last decade. However, both, SCID and hyper IgE- syndrome showed a substantial improvement in shortening the time between onset of symptoms and genetic diagnosis. Regarding treatment, 49% of all patients received immunoglobulin G (IgG) substitution (70%—subcutaneous; 29%—intravenous; 1%—unknown). Three-hundred patients underwent at least one hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Five patients had gene therapy. Conclusion: The German PID-NET registry is a precious tool for physicians, researchers, the pharmaceutical industry, politicians, and ultimately the patients, for whom the outcomes will eventually lead to a more timely diagnosis and better treatment

BHPR research: qualitative1. Complex reasoning determines patients' perception of outcome following foot surgery in rheumatoid arhtritis

Background: Foot surgery is common in patients with RA but research into surgical outcomes is limited and conceptually flawed as current outcome measures lack face validity: to date no one has asked patients what is important to them. This study aimed to determine which factors are important to patients when evaluating the success of foot surgery in RA Methods: Semi structured interviews of RA patients who had undergone foot surgery were conducted and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis of interviews was conducted to explore issues that were important to patients. Results: 11 RA patients (9 ♂, mean age 59, dis dur = 22yrs, mean of 3 yrs post op) with mixed experiences of foot surgery were interviewed. Patients interpreted outcome in respect to a multitude of factors, frequently positive change in one aspect contrasted with negative opinions about another. Overall, four major themes emerged. Function: Functional ability & participation in valued activities were very important to patients. Walking ability was a key concern but patients interpreted levels of activity in light of other aspects of their disease, reflecting on change in functional ability more than overall level. Positive feelings of improved mobility were often moderated by negative self perception ("I mean, I still walk like a waddling duck”). Appearance: Appearance was important to almost all patients but perhaps the most complex theme of all. Physical appearance, foot shape, and footwear were closely interlinked, yet patients saw these as distinct separate concepts. Patients need to legitimize these feelings was clear and they frequently entered into a defensive repertoire ("it's not cosmetic surgery; it's something that's more important than that, you know?”). Clinician opinion: Surgeons' post operative evaluation of the procedure was very influential. The impact of this appraisal continued to affect patients' lasting impression irrespective of how the outcome compared to their initial goals ("when he'd done it ... he said that hasn't worked as good as he'd wanted to ... but the pain has gone”). Pain: Whilst pain was important to almost all patients, it appeared to be less important than the other themes. Pain was predominately raised when it influenced other themes, such as function; many still felt the need to legitimize their foot pain in order for health professionals to take it seriously ("in the end I went to my GP because it had happened a few times and I went to an orthopaedic surgeon who was quite dismissive of it, it was like what are you complaining about”). Conclusions: Patients interpret the outcome of foot surgery using a multitude of interrelated factors, particularly functional ability, appearance and surgeons' appraisal of the procedure. While pain was often noted, this appeared less important than other factors in the overall outcome of the surgery. Future research into foot surgery should incorporate the complexity of how patients determine their outcome Disclosure statement: All authors have declared no conflicts of interes