Treat to target (T2T) is a strategy of adjusting treatment until a target is reached. An international task force recommended T2T for juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) treatment. Implementing T2T in a standard and reliable way in clinical practice requires agreement on critical elements of (1) target setting, (2) T2T strategy, (3) identifying barriers to implementation, and (4) patient eligibility. A consensus conference was held among Pediatric Rheumatology Care and Outcomes Improvement Network (PR-COIN) stakeholders to inform a statement of understanding regarding the PR-COIN approach to T2T.
PR-COIN stakeholders including 16 healthcare providers and 4 parents were invited to form a voting panel. Using the nominal group technique, 2 rounds of voting were held to address the above 4 areas to select the top 10 responses by rank order.
Incorporation of patient goals ranked most important when setting a treatment target. Shared decision making (SDM), tracking measurable outcomes, and adjusting treatment to achieve goals were voted as the top elements of a T2T strategy. Workflow considerations, and provider buy-in were identified as key barriers to T2T implementation. Patients with JIA who had poor prognostic factors and were at risk for high disease burden were leading candidates for a T2T approach.
This consensus conference identified the importance of incorporating patient goals as part of target setting and of the influence of patient stakeholder involvement in drafting treatment recommendations. The network approach to T2T will be modified to address the above findings, including solicitation of patient goals, optimizing SDM, and better workflow integration.

To perform a comparative effectiveness feasibility study in juvenile localized scleroderma (LS), using standardized treatment regimens (consensus treatment plans; CTP).
A prospective, multicenter 1-year pilot observational cohort study was performed by Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) LS workgroup members. Patients with active, moderate to severe juvenile LS were treated with one of 3 CTP: methotrexate alone, or in combination with intravenous (30 mg/kg/dose for 3 mos) or oral corticosteroids (2 mg/kg/day tapered by 48 weeks).
Fifty patients, with demographics typical for juvenile LS, were enrolled, and 44 (88%) completed the study. Most had extracutaneous involvement. Patients improved in all 3 CTP, with > 75% having a major or moderate level of improvement compared to baseline. Damage accrued in some patients. Major deviations from prescribed regimen resulted from medication intolerance (n = 6; 14%) or treatment failure (n = 11; 25%); failures occurred in all 3 CTP. Significant responses to treatment were demonstrated by LS skin scoring measures and overall physician assessments, with differences in response level identified in some patient subsets. Response differences were associated with baseline disease activity level, LS subtype, skin disease extent, and extracutaneous involvement.
This study demonstrates the feasibility of conducting juvenile LS comparative effectiveness studies. The CTP were found to be safe, effective, and tolerable. Our assessments performed well. Because damage is common and may progress despite effective control of activity, we recommend initial treatment efficacy be evaluated primarily by activity measures. Potential confounders for response were identified that warrant further study.