To identify differences between baseline Canadian JIA practices and the 2019 ACR guidelines for JIA.
Canadian paediatric rheumatologists were surveyed for their opinions on reasonable a priori target adherence rates for JIA guideline recommendations. Prospectively collected data for 266 newly diagnosed children from 2017 to 2019 were analysed to calculate observed adherence rates. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to estimate the cumulative incidence of starting synthetic or biologic DMARDs (sDMARD or bDMARD, respectively) for different patient groups.
A total of 25/61 (41%) eligible physicians answered the survey. Most survey respondents (64%) felt that adherence targets should vary depending on the strength of the recommendation and quality of evidence, from a mean of 84% for strong recommendations with high-quality evidence to 29% for conditional recommendations with very low-quality evidence. Data showed 13/19 (68%) recommendations would have met proposed targets and 10/19 (53%) had ≥80% observed adherence. Exceptions were the use of subcutaneous vs oral MTX (53%) and infrequent treatment escalation from NSAIDs to bDMARDs in patients with sacroiliitis (31%) or enthesitis (0%). By 12 weeks, 95% of patients with polyarthritis received sDMARDs, 38% of patients with systemic JIA received bDMARDs and 22% of patients with sacroiliitis received bDMARDs.
Canadian paediatric rheumatology practices were in line with many 2019 JIA guideline recommendations before their publication, except for frequent use of oral MTX and infrequent direct escalation from NSAIDs to bDMARDs in sacroiliitis and enthesitis.

To develop treatment recommendations for children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis manifesting as non-systemic polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, or enthesitis.
The Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes (PICO) questions were developed and refined by members of the guideline development teams. A systematic review was conducted to compile evidence for the benefits and harms associated with treatments for these conditions. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to rate the quality of evidence. A group consensus process was conducted among the Voting Panel to generate the final recommendations and grade their strength. A Parent and Patient Panel used a similar consensus approach to provide patient/caregiver preferences for key questions.
Thirty-nine recommendations were developed (8 strong and 31 conditional). The quality of supporting evidence was very low or low for 90% of the recommendations. Recommendations are provided for the use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologics, and intraarticular and oral glucocorticoids. Recommendations for the use of physical and occupational therapy are also provided. Specific recommendations for polyarthritis address general medication use, initial and subsequent treatment, and adjunctive therapies. Good disease control, with therapeutic escalation to achieve low disease activity, was recommended. The sacroiliitis and enthesitis recommendations primarily address initial therapy and adjunctive therapies.
This guideline provides direction for clinicians, caregivers, and patients making treatment decisions. Clinicians, caregivers, and patients should use a shared decision-making process that accounts for patients\' values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.

To develop treatment recommendations for children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis manifesting as non-systemic polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, or enthesitis.
The Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes (PICO) questions were developed and refined by members of the guideline development teams. A systematic review was conducted to compile evidence for the benefits and harms associated with treatments for these conditions. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to rate the quality of evidence. A group consensus process was conducted among the Voting Panel to generate the final recommendations and grade their strength. A Parent and Patient Panel used a similar consensus approach to provide patient/caregiver preferences for key questions.
Thirty-nine recommendations were developed (8 strong and 31 conditional). The quality of supporting evidence was very low or low for 90% of the recommendations. Recommendations are provided for the use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologics, and intraarticular and oral glucocorticoids. Recommendations for the use of physical and occupational therapy are also provided. Specific recommendations for polyarthritis address general medication use, initial and subsequent treatment, and adjunctive therapies. Good disease control, with therapeutic escalation to achieve low disease activity, was recommended. The sacroiliitis and enthesitis recommendations primarily address initial therapy and adjunctive therapies.
This guideline provides direction for clinicians, caregivers, and patients making treatment decisions. Clinicians, caregivers, and patients should use a shared decision-making process that accounts for patients\' values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.

To develop an evidence-based guideline for the pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), as a collaboration between the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF).
We identified critical outcomes in PsA and clinically relevant PICO (population/intervention/comparator/outcomes) questions. A Literature Review Team performed a systematic literature review to summarize evidence supporting the benefits and harms of available pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies for PsA. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to rate the quality of the evidence. A voting panel, including rheumatologists, dermatologists, other health professionals, and patients, achieved consensus on the direction and the strength of the recommendations.
The guideline covers the management of active PsA in patients who are treatment-naive and those who continue to have active PsA despite treatment, and addresses the use of oral small molecules, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, interleukin-12/23 inhibitors (IL-12/23i), IL-17 inhibitors, CTLA4-Ig (abatacept), and a JAK inhibitor (tofacitinib). We also developed recommendations for psoriatic spondylitis, predominant enthesitis, and treatment in the presence of concomitant inflammatory bowel disease, diabetes, or serious infections. We formulated recommendations for a treat-to-target strategy, vaccinations, and nonpharmacologic therapies. Six percent of the recommendations were strong and 94% conditional, indicating the importance of active discussion between the health care provider and the patient to choose the optimal treatment.
The 2018 ACR/NPF PsA guideline serves as a tool for health care providers and patients in the selection of appropriate therapy in common clinical scenarios. Best treatment decisions consider each individual patient situation. The guideline is not meant to be proscriptive and should not be used to limit treatment options for patients with PsA.

To evaluate the reliability of consensus-based ultrasound (US) definitions of elementary components of enthesitis in spondyloarthritis (SpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and to evaluate which of them had the highest contribution to defining and scoring enthesitis.
Eleven sonographers evaluated 40 entheses from five patients with SpA/PsA at four bilateral sites. Nine US elementary lesions were binary-scored: hypoechogenicity, thickened insertion, enthesophytes, calcifications, erosions, bone irregularities, bursitis and Doppler signal inside and around enthesis. Kappa statistics were used to evaluate reliability. Sonographers were also asked to state which lesions can be considered as inflammatory or structural and should be included in the final definition of enthesitis. Only the lesions, scored as present in at least 75% of the entheses considered as having an enthesitis, were included in the final definition.
The prevalence of detected lesions was quite low except for enthesophytes (55%) and bone irregularities (54%). Reliability ranged from poor to good (the lowest for thickened enthesis (kappa 0.1 (95% CI 0 to 0.7)) and the highest for enthesophytes (kappa 0.6 (95% CI 0.5 to 0.7)). When adjusted for low prevalence, kappa values increased for all lesions, with the best result observed for detecting Doppler signal at insertion (0.9) and for bursitis (0.8). The US components included in the final definition were hypoechogenicity, increased thickness at enthesis, erosions and calcifications/enthesophytes and Doppler signal at insertion.
By using a consensus-based stepwise approach, a final reliable US score and definition of enthesitis in SpA/PsA were produced. Further studies are sought for implementing this score in clinical trials and practice.