A46: Analysis of Factors Associated With Good Response to Intra‐articular Injections in Patients With Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis
Authors: Miotto e Silva Vanessa B , Cunha Ana Luiza , Osaku Fabiane , Niemxeski Luisa , Len Claudio A. , Furtado Rita NV , Natour Jamil , Terreri Maria Teresa 
Published: March 2014

Background/Purpose:

The intra‐articular steroids injections (IASI) for treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) patients are being increasingly used in pediatric rheumatology. Most on knowledge about IASI comes from studies on adults and animal models and there are few reports on children. The aims of this study were to describe and to assess the factors associated with good response to IASI in JIA patients.

Methods:

A retrospective study of JIA patients who were administered IASI with a minimum follow‐up of six months was performed between January 2008 and December 2012. The response to IASI regarding the patients was classified as a good response (complete—all joints remained inactive for at least six months or partial—part of the joints remained inactive for at least six months) or poor response (all joints remained active or reactivated in less than six months). The response to IASI regarding the joints was classified as a good response (the joints remained inactive for at least six months) or poor response (the joints remained active or reactivated in less than six months).

Results:

A total of 165 IASI were administered to 88 patients. Of the 88 JIA patients, 66 were female, 35.2% were persistent oligoarticular, 19.3% extended oligoarticular, 38.6% polyarticular, 4.5% systemic, 1.1% enthesitis related arthritis and 1.1% psoriatic. Patients were grouped according to disease course in oligoarticular—37.5%, polyarticular—58% and systemic—4.5%. The mean time to diagnosis was 10.5 ± 16 months, the mean age at diagnosis was 6.8 ± 4 years and the mean follow‐up time was 7.0 ± 4 years. Sixty‐two patients (70.4%) showed good response to IASI, 44.3 % complete and 26.1% partial. There were no associations between the responses to the IASI and gender (p = 0.42), JIA subtype (p = 0.07), disease course (p = 0.08), antinuclear antibodies (p = 0.12), rheumatoid factor (p = 0.27), time to diagnosis (p = 0.73) and mean follow‐up time (p = 0.08). There was an association between good response to IASI and presence of uveitis (p = 0.01) and earlier age of diagnosis (p = 0.03). From the 165 joints injected, there were 100 knees, 30 ankles, 15 wrists, 9 elbows, 6 hips, 3 shoulders and 2 hand's proximal interphalangeal. A hundred and four joints (63%) showed good response to IASI, with mean duration of 18.1 ± 13 months. There were no associations between the responses to the IASI and the severity of joint effusion (p = 0.49), use of DMARDs (p = 0.31) or oral steroids (p = 0.55), time of follow‐up until the IASI (p = 0.25), age at IASI (p = 0.53), CHAQ (p = 0.53), C reactive protein (p = 0.22), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (p = 0.41) and number of active (p = 0.09) and limited (p = 0.77) joints at the time of IASI. There was an association between good response to IASI and the injected joint (p = 0.001)—knees, wrists and elbows, the use of ultrasonography to guide the IASI (p = 0.02) and the parents (p = 0.01) and physician (p = 0.01) visual analogue scale. Local adverse events occurred in nine (0.05%) IASI (five atrophy and four hypochromia).

Conclusion:

This study showed that IASI are effective, safe and have a good sustained response. More prospective studies are needed to better define the profile of JIA patients who may benefit from IASI.