An i2b2-based, generalizable, open source, self-scaling chronic disease registry

Objective: Registries are a well-established mechanism for obtaining high quality, disease-specific data, but are often highly project-specific in their design, implementation, and policies for data use. In contrast to the conventional model of centralized data contribution, warehousing, and control, we design a self-scaling registry technology for collaborative data sharing, based upon the widely adopted Integrating Biology & the Bedside (i2b2) data warehousing framework and the Shared Health Research Information Network (SHRINE) peer-to-peer networking software. Materials and methods Focusing our design around creation of a scalable solution for collaboration within multi-site disease registries, we leverage the i2b2 and SHRINE open source software to create a modular, ontology-based, federated infrastructure that provides research investigators full ownership and access to their contributed data while supporting permissioned yet robust data sharing. We accomplish these objectives via web services supporting peer-group overlays, group-aware data aggregation, and administrative functions. Results: The 56-site Childhood Arthritis & Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) Registry and 3-site Harvard Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Longitudinal Data Repository now utilize i2b2 self-scaling registry technology (i2b2-SSR). This platform, extensible to federation of multiple projects within and between research networks, encompasses >6000 subjects at sites throughout the USA. Discussion We utilize the i2b2-SSR platform to minimize technical barriers to collaboration while enabling fine-grained control over data sharing. Conclusions: The implementation of i2b2-SSR for the multi-site, multi-stakeholder CARRA Registry has established a digital infrastructure for community-driven research data sharing in pediatric rheumatology in the USA. We envision i2b2-SSR as a scalable, reusable solution facilitating interdisciplinary research across diseases

Addition to inhaled corticosteroids of long-acting beta2-agonists versus anti-leukotrienes for chronic asthma

Asthma patients who continue to experience symptoms despite being on regular inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) represent a management challenge. Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) or anti-leukotrienes (LTRA) are two treatment options that could be considered as add-on therapy to ICS.ObjectivesWe compared the efficacy and safety profile of adding either daily LABA or LTRA in adults and children with asthma who remain symptomatic on ICS.Search strategyWe searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (up to and including March 2010). We consulted reference lists of all included studies and contacted authors and pharmaceutical manufacturers for other published or unpublished studies.Selection criteriaWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in adults or children with recurrent asthma that was treated with ICS and where a fixed dose of a long-acting beta2-agonist or leukotriene agent was added for a minimum of 28 days.Data collection and analysisTwo authors independently assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted data. We sought unpublished data and further details of study design, where necessary.Main resultsWe included 17 RCTs (7032 participants), of which 16 recruited adults and adolescents (6850) and one recruited children aged 6 to 17 years (182). Participants demonstrated substantial reversibility to short-acting beta-agonist at baseline. The studies were at a low risk of bias. The risk of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids was lower with the combination of LABA and ICS compared with LTRA and ICS, from 11% to 9% (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.97; six studies, 5571 adults). The number needed to treat (NNT) with LABA compared to LTRA to prevent one exacerbation over 48 weeks was 38 (95% CI 22 to 244). The choice of LTRA did not significantly affect the results. The effect appeared stronger in the trials using a single device to administer ICS and LABA compared to those using two devices. In the absence of data from the paediatric trial and the clinical homogeneity of studies, we could not perform subgroup analyses. The addition to ICS of LABA compared to LTRA was associated with a statistically greater improvement from baseline in several of the secondary outcomes, including lung function, functional status measures and quality of life. Serious adverse events were more common with LABA than LTRA, although the estimate was imprecise (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.82), and the NNT to harm for one additional patient to suffer a serious adverse event on LABA over 48 weeks was 78 (95% CI 33 to infinity). The risk of withdrawal for any reason in adults was significantly lower with LABA and ICS compared to LTRA and ICS (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.96).Authors' conclusionsIn adults with asthma that is inadequately controlled on low doses of inhaled steroids and showing significant reversibility with beta2-agonists, LABA is superior to LTRA in reducing oral steroid treated exacerbations. Differences favouring LABA in lung function, functional status and quality of life scores are generally modest. There is some evidence of increased risk of SAEs with LABA. The findings support the use of a single inhaler for the delivery of LABA and inhaled corticosteroids. We are unable to draw conclusions about which treatment is better as add-on therapy for children.PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARYWhat are the effects of long-acting beta2-agonists compared with anti-leukotrienes when added to inhaled steroids?People who continue to experience asthma symptoms despite regularly taking inhaled corticosteroids are a challenge for management. It is not clear whether the addition of a long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) such as formoterol or salmeterol would provide more benefit in comparison with an oral anti-leukotriene agent (LTRA), for example zafirlukast or montelukast.Seventeen trials (16 in adults and one in children) were included in this review and were of good quality. We found that the addition of a LABA provides significantly greater protection against exacerbations requiring oral steroids when compared with a LTRA for adults. Based on the results of our analyses, approximately 38 adults (with a range of between 22 and 244) would need to be treated with a LABA rather than a LTRA for 48 weeks to prevent one experiencing an exacerbation needing a course of oral steroids. The trial on children did not contribute data on the main outcome and therefore we could not draw any conclusions for children.LABAs also led to a greater improvement in lung function, improvement in symptoms, use of rescue medication, quality of life and symptoms compared to the use of LTRAs. The magnitude of the improvements was modest. Serious adverse events were more frequent with LABA than with LTRAs although this result was imprecise. Based on our analyses, around 78 people would need to be treated for 48 weeks with a LABA rather than a LTRA for one of them to experience a serious adverse event. However, due to the lack of precision around our result, the true number could be between 33 and infinity. There are currently insufficient data to draw any conclusions about the effects of these drugs in children

Genetic architecture distinguishes systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis from other forms of juvenile idiopathic arthritis: clinical and therapeutic implications

OBJECTIVES: Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is a heterogeneous group of conditions unified by the presence of chronic childhood arthritis without an identifiable cause. Systemic JIA (sJIA) is a rare form of JIA characterised by systemic inflammation. sJIA is distinguished from other forms of JIA by unique clinical features and treatment responses that are similar to autoinflammatory diseases. However, approximately half of children with sJIA develop destructive, long-standing arthritis that appears similar to other forms of JIA. Using genomic approaches, we sought to gain novel insights into the pathophysiology of sJIA and its relationship with other forms of JIA. METHODS: We performed a genome-wide association study of 770 children with sJIA collected in nine countries by the International Childhood Arthritis Genetics Consortium. Single nucleotide polymorphisms were tested for association with sJIA. Weighted genetic risk scores were used to compare the genetic architecture of sJIA with other JIA subtypes. RESULTS: The major histocompatibility complex locus and a locus on chromosome 1 each showed association with sJIA exceeding the threshold for genome-wide significance, while 23 other novel loci were suggestive of association with sJIA. Using a combination of genetic and statistical approaches, we found no evidence of shared genetic architecture between sJIA and other common JIA subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of shared genetic risk factors between sJIA and other JIA subtypes supports the hypothesis that sJIA is a unique disease process and argues for a different classification framework. Research to improve sJIA therapy should target its unique genetics and specific pathophysiological pathways

Inhaled steroids with and without regular salmeterol for asthma: serious adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between use of beta₂-agonists and increased asthma mortality. Much debate has surrounded possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta₂-agonists (LABAs) are safe, particularly when used in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs). This is an update of a Cochrane Review that now includes data from two large trials including 11,679 adults and 6208 children; both were mandated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  OBJECTIVES: To assess risks of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events (SAEs) in trials that randomised participants with chronic asthma to regular salmeterol and ICS versus the same dose of ICS. SEARCH METHODS: We identified randomised trials using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. We checked websites of clinical trials registers for unpublished trial data. We also checked FDA submissions in relation to salmeterol. The date of the most recent search was 10 October 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel-design randomised trials involving adults, children, or both with asthma of any severity who were randomised to treatment with regular salmeterol and ICS (in separate or combined inhalers) versus the same dose of ICS of at least 12 weeks in duration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We conducted the review according to standard procedures expected by Cochrane. We obtained unpublished data on mortality and SAEs from the sponsors, from ClinicalTrials.gov, and from FDA submissions. We assessed our confidence in the evidence according to current GRADE recommendations. MAIN RESULTS: We have included in this review 41 studies (27,951 participants) in adults and adolescents, along with eight studies (8453 participants) in children. We judged that the overall risk of bias was low for all-cause events, and we obtained data on SAEs from all study authors. All except 542 adults (and none of the children) were given salmeterol and fluticasone in the same (combination) inhaler.DeathsEleven of a total of 14,233 adults taking regular salmeterol and ICS died, as did 13 of 13,718 taking regular ICS at the same dose. The pooled Peto odds ratio (OR) was 0.80 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 1.78; participants = 27,951; studies = 41; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). In other words, for every 1000 adults treated for 25 weeks, one death occurred among those on ICS alone, and the corresponding risk among those taking salmeterol and ICS was also one death (95% CI 0 to 2 deaths).No children died, and no adults or children died of asthma, so we remain uncertain about mortality in children and about asthma mortality in any age group.Non-fatal serious adverse eventsA total of 332 adults receiving regular salmeterol with ICS experienced a non-fatal SAE of any cause, compared to 282 adults receiving regular ICS. The pooled Peto OR was 1.14 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.33; participants = 27,951; studies = 41; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). For every 1000 adults treated for 25 weeks, 21 adults on ICS alone had an SAE, and the corresponding risk for those on salmeterol and ICS was 23 adults (95% CI 20 to 27).Sixty-five of 4229 children given regular salmeterol with ICS suffered an SAE of any cause, compared to 62 of 4224 children given regular ICS. The pooled Peto OR was 1.04 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.48; participants = 8453; studies = 8; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). For every 1000 children treated for 23 weeks, 15 children on ICS alone had an SAE, and the corresponding risk for those on salmeterol and ICS was 15 children (95% CI 11 to 22).Asthma-related serious adverse eventsEighty and 67 adults in each group, respectively, experienced an asthma-related non-fatal SAE. The pooled Peto OR was 1.15 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.59; participants = 27,951; studies = 41; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). For every 1000 adults treated for 25 weeks, five receiving ICS alone had an asthma-related SAE, and the corresponding risk among those on salmeterol and ICS was six adults (95% CI 4 to 8).Twenty-nine children taking salmeterol and ICS and 23 children taking ICS alone reported asthma-related events. The pooled Peto OR was 1.25 (95% CI 0.72 to 2.16; participants = 8453; studies = 8; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). For every 1000 children treated for 23 weeks, five receiving an ICS alone had an asthma-related SAE, and the corresponding risk among those receiving salmeterol and ICS was seven children (95% CI 4 to 12). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find a difference in the risk of death or serious adverse events in either adults or children. However, trial authors reported no asthma deaths among 27,951 adults or 8453 children randomised to regular salmeterol and ICS or ICS alone over an average of six months. Therefore, the risk of dying from asthma on either treatment was very low, but we remain uncertain about whether the risk of dying from asthma is altered by adding salmeterol to ICS.Inclusion of new trials has increased the precision of the estimates for non-fatal SAEs of any cause. We can now say that the worst-case estimate is that at least 152 adults and 139 children must be treated with combination salmeterol and ICS for six months for one additional person to be admitted to the hospital (compared to treatment with ICS alone). These possible risks still have to be weighed against the benefits experienced by people who take combination treatment.However more than 90% of prescribed treatment was taken in the new trials, so the effects observed may be different from those seen with salmeterol in combination with ICS in daily practice

Treatment of juvenile rheumatoid arthritis

The systematic approach to pharmacologic treatment is typically to begin with the safest, simplest, and most conservative measures. It has been realized that the more rapidly inflammation is under control, the less likely it is that there will be permanent sequelae. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the mainstay of initial treatment for inflammation. In addition, the slow-acting antirheumatic drugs (SAARDs) and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have efficacy of anti-inflammatory action in children with chronic arthritis. New therapeutic modalities for inflammation, such as etanercept and infliximab, promise even further improvements in the risk/benefit ratio of treatment. It is not typically possible at the onset of the disease to predict which children will recover and which will go on to have unremitting disease with lingering disability or enter adulthood with serious functional impairment. Therefore, the initial therapeutic approach must be vigorous in all children

Salmeterol plus fluticasone propionate versus fluticasone propionate plus montelukast: a randomised controlled trial investigating the effects on airway inflammation in asthma

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Few studies have compared treatment strategies in patients with asthma poorly controlled on low dose inhaled corticosteroids, and little is known about the effects of different treatments on airway inflammation. In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group study, we compared the effects of salmeterol plus fluticasone propionate (FP) (Seretide™; SFC) and FP plus montelukast (FP/M) on sputum inflammatory markers, airway responsiveness, lung function, and symptoms in adult asthmatics.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Sixty-six subjects were randomised to SFC or FP/M for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was changes in neutrophil, eosinophil, macrophage, lymphocyte, and epithelial cell levels in induced sputum. Additional outcomes included the change in other sputum markers of airway inflammation, airway responsiveness, symptom control, and lung function.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Both treatments had no significant effect on induced sputum inflammatory cells, although there was a trend for a reduction in sputum eosinophils. Both treatments significantly improved airway responsiveness, whereas SFC generally led to greater improvements in symptom control and lung function than FP/M. FP/M led to significantly greater reductions in sputum cysteinyl leukotrienes than SFC (treatment ratio 1.80; 95% CI 1.09, 2.94).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Both treatments led to similar control of eosinophilic airway inflammation, although PEF and symptom control were better with SFC.</p> <p>Study number</p> <p>SAM40030 (SOLTA)</p

Delays to Care in Pediatric Lupus Patients: Data From the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Legacy Registry.

OBJECTIVE: Prompt treatment for lupus is important to prevent morbidity. A potential barrier to early treatment of pediatric lupus is delayed presentation to a pediatric rheumatologist. To better understand factors contributing to delayed presentation among pediatric lupus patients, we examined differences in demographic and clinical characteristics of lupus patients within the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) Legacy Registry with regard to time between symptom onset and presentation to a pediatric rheumatologist. METHODS: We analyzed data from 598 CARRA Legacy Registry participants for differences between those who presented early (withinonset), between 1-3 months (typical presentation), with moderate delays (3-12 months), and with severe delays (≥1 year). Factors associated with early presentation, moderate delay, and severe delay were determined by multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: Forty-four percent of patients presented early, while 23% had moderate delays and 9% had severe delays. Family history of lupus, absence of discoid rash, and location in a state with a higher density of pediatric rheumatologists were associated with earlier presentation. Younger age, low household income ( CONCLUSION: Delays to care ≥1 year exist in a notable minority of pediatric lupus patients from the CARRA Legacy Registry. In this large and diverse sample of patients, access to care and family resources played an important role in predicting time to presentation to a pediatric rheumatologist