ArticleRheumatology (Oxford, England)2024
A decade of progress in juvenile idiopathic arthritis treatments and outcomes in Canada: results from ReACCh-Out and the CAPRI registry.
Article in Rheumatology (Oxford, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Longitudinal changes in patient characteristics as drivers of clinical outcomes in the Early Undifferentiated PolyArthritis (EUPA) cohort.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2026Trial
- Trajectories of Physical Function in Canadian Children With Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis.Arthritis care & research · 2026Article
- Sex Differences in PROMIS Pediatric Depressive Symptoms, Anxiety, and Psychological Stress Among Children and Adolescents Living With Pediatric Rheumatic Diseases.The Journal of rheumatology · 2026Article
- Adoption of new treatment options in non-systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) in clinical practice.Pediatric rheumatology online journal · 2025Article
- Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis-The Rubik's Cube of Pediatric Rheumatology.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Incidence and reasons for biologic and targeted synthetic DMARD switching in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a real- life stratified analysis.Pediatric rheumatology online journal · 2025Article
- Trends in New Use of Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs for Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis Among Commercially Insured Children in the United States from 2001 to 2022.Arthritis & rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Article
- Update on Biologic Therapy in Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: A Five-year Narrative Review.Biologics : targets & therapy · 2025Review
- The importance of ultrasound examination in care of juvenile idiopathic arthritis patients: 9 months follow-up study.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
74 authors at 17 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess changes in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) treatments and outcomes in Canada, comparing 2005-2010 and 2017-2021 inception cohorts.
methodsPatients enrolled within three months of diagnosis in the Research in Arthritis in Canadian Children Emphasizing Outcomes (ReACCh-Out) and the Canadian Alliance of Pediatric Rheumatology Investigators Registry (CAPRI) cohorts were included. Cumulative incidences of drug starts and outcome attainment within 70 weeks of diagnosis were compared with Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and multivariable Cox regression.
resultsThe 2005-2010 and 2017-2021 cohorts included 1128 and 721 patients, respectively. JIA category distribution and baseline clinical juvenile idiopathic arthritis disease activity (cJADAS10) scores at enrolment were comparable. By 70 weeks, 6% of patients (95% CI 5, 7) in the 2005-2010 and 26% (23, 30) in the 2017-2021 cohort had started a biologic DMARD (bDMARD), and 43% (40, 47) and 60% (56, 64) had started a conventional DMARD (cDMARD), respectively. Outcome attainment was 64% (61, 67) and 83% (80, 86) for inactive disease (Wallace criteria), 69% (66, 72) and 84% (81, 87) for minimally active disease (cJADAS10 criteria), 57% (54, 61) and 63% (59, 68) for pain control (<1/10), and 52% (47, 56) and 54% (48, 60) for good health-related quality of life (≥9/10).
conclusionAlthough baseline disease characteristics were comparable in the 2005-2010 and 2017-2021 cohorts, cDMARD and bDMARD use increased with a concurrent increase in minimally active and inactive disease. Improvements in parent and patient-reported outcomes were smaller than improvements in disease activity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.