Charles H. Spencer

A Multicenter Case-Control Study on Predictive Factors Distinguishing Childhood Leukemia From Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis

OBJECTIVE. Acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) often presents with musculoskeletal concerns such as pain or swelling, even before appearance of blasts in the peripheral blood. Such presentation may lead to misdiagnosis of a child with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis (JRA). This study was designed to identify the predictive factors for leukemia using basic clinical and laboratory information. METHODS. A retrospective chart review was performed using a simple questionnaire to compare the clinical and laboratory findings present during the initial visit to a pediatric rheumatology clinic for 277 children who were ultimately diagnosed with either JRA (n = 206) or ALL (n = 71). Sensitivity and specificity analysis of a variety of parameters, both singly and in combination, was performed to identify predictive value for ALL. RESULTS. The majority (75%) of children with ALL did not have blasts in the peripheral blood at the time of evaluation by pediatric rheumatologists. In children presenting with unexplained musculoskeletal complaints, the 3 most important factors that predicted a diagnosis of ALL were low white blood cell count (<4 × 109/L), low-normal platelet count (150–250 × 109/L), and history of nighttime pain. In the presence of all 3, the sensitivity and specificity for a diagnosis of ALL were 100% and 85%, respectively. Other findings, including antinuclear antibody, rash, and objective signs of arthritis, were not helpful in differentiating between these diagnoses because they occurred at similar rates in both groups. CONCLUSIONS. When a child develops new-onset bone-joint complaints, the presence of subtle complete blood count changes combined with nighttime pain should lead to consideration of leukemia as the underlying cause.

Joint contractures in the absence of inflammation may indicate mucopolysaccharidosis.

BackgroundUndiagnosed patients with the attenuated form of mucopolysaccharidosis (MPS) type I often have joint symptoms in childhood that prompt referral to a rheumatologist. A survey conducted by Genzyme Corporation of 60 European and Canadian rheumatologists and pediatric rheumatologists demonstrated that < 20% recognized signs and symptoms of MPS I or could identify appropriate diagnosis tests. These results prompted formation of an international working group of rheumatologists, pediatric rheumatologists, and experts on MPS I to formulate a rheumatology-based diagnostic algorithm. The resulting algorithm applies to all MPS disorders with musculoskeletal manifestations.Bone and joint manifestations are prominent among most patients with MPS disorders. These life-threatening lysosomal storage diseases are caused by deficient activity of specific enzymes involved in the degradation of glycosaminoglycans. Patients with attenuated MPS disease often experience diagnostic delays. Enzyme replacement therapy is now commercially available for MPS I (laronidase), MPS II (idursulfase), and MPS VI (galsulfase).Presentation of the hypothesisEvolving joint pain and joint contractures in the absence of inflammation should always raise the suspicion of an MPS disorder. All such patients should undergo urinary glycosaminoglycan (uGAG) analysis (not spot tests for screening) in a reputable laboratory. Elevated uGAG levels and/or an abnormal uGAG pattern confirms an MPS disorder and specific enzyme testing will determine the MPS type. If uGAG analysis is unavailable and the patient exhibits any other common sign or symptom of an MPS disorder, such as corneal clouding, history of hernia surgery, frequent respiratory and/or ear, nose and throat infections; carpal tunnel syndrome, or heart murmur, proceed directly to enzymatic testing. Refer patients with confirmed MPS to a geneticist or metabolic specialist for further evaluation and treatment.Testing of the hypothesisWe propose that rheumatologists, pediatric rheumatologists, and orthopedists consider our diagnostic algorithm when evaluating patients with joint pain and joint contractures.Implications of the hypothesisChildren and young adults can suffer for years and sometimes even decades with unrecognized MPS. Rheumatologists may facilitate early diagnosis of MPS based on the presenting signs and symptoms, followed by appropriate testing. Early diagnosis helps ensure prompt and appropriate treatment for these progressive and debilitating diseases.

Early Components of the Complement Classical Activation Pathway in Human Systemic Autoimmune Diseases

The complement system consists of effector proteins, regulators, and receptors that participate in host defense against pathogens. Activation of the complement system, via the classical pathway (CP), has long been recognized in immune complex-mediated tissue injury, most notably systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Paradoxically, a complete deficiency of an early component of the CP, as evidenced by homozygous genetic deficiencies reported in human, are strongly associated with the risk of developing SLE or a lupus-like disease. Similarly, isotype deficiency attributable to a gene copy-number (GCN) variation and/or the presence of autoantibodies directed against a CP component or a regulatory protein that result in an acquired deficiency are relatively common in SLE patients. Applying accurate assay methodologies with rigorous data validations, low GCNs of total C4, and heterozygous and homozygous deficiencies of C4A have been shown as medium to large effect size risk factors, while high copy numbers of total C4 or C4A as prevalent protective factors, of European and East-Asian SLE. Here, we summarize the current knowledge related to genetic deficiency and insufficiency, and acquired protein deficiencies for C1q, C1r, C1s, C4A/C4B, and C2 in disease pathogenesis and prognosis of SLE, and, briefly, for other systemic autoimmune diseases. As the complement system is increasingly found to be associated with autoimmune diseases and immune-mediated diseases, it has become an attractive therapeutic target. We highlight the recent developments and offer a balanced perspective concerning future investigations and therapeutic applications with a focus on early components of the CP in human systemic autoimmune diseases.

Review for the generalist: The antinuclear antibody test in children - When to use it and what to do with a positive titer

The antinuclear antibody test (ANA) is a much overused test in pediatrics. The ANA does have a role in serologic testing but it should be a very limited one. It is often ordered as a screening test for rheumatic illnesses in a primary care setting. However, since it has low specificity and sensitivity for most rheumatic and musculoskeletal illnesses in children, it should not be ordered as a screening test for non-specific complaints such as musculoskeletal pain. It should only be used as a diagnostic test for children with probable Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) or Mixed Connective Tissue Disease, (MCTD) and other possible overlap-like illnesses. Such children should have developed definite signs and symptoms of a disease before the ANA is ordered. This review presents data supporting these conclusions and a review of the ANA literature in adults and children.By limiting ANA testing, primary care providers can avoid needless venipuncture pain, unnecessary referrals, extra medical expenses, and most importantly, significant parental anxieties. It is best not to do the ANA test in most children but if it ordered and is positive in a low titer (<1:640), the results can be ignored if the child is otherwise well and does not have other features of a systemic illness.

Is juvenile dermatomyositis a different disease in children up to three years of age at onset than in children above three years at onset? A retrospective review of 23 years of a single center's experience

BackgroundWe tested the hypothesis that the course and outcome of juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM) in children seen at one center with the JDM disease onset at or below three years of age is different from that in the children with disease onset at greater than three years of age.MethodsInstitutional Review Board approval was obtained to retrospectively review the charts of 78 patients from age 0–18 years with JDM seen in the pediatric rheumatology clinic at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio over the past 23 years from January 1988. The diagnosis was made by the treating pediatric rheumatologist. Not all the patients met the Bohan and Peter criteria, as muscle biopsy and EMG were not always performed and we utilized a modified JDM criteria. The data regarding disease course and outcome were collected as of the last clinic follow-up or to July 1, 2010. We used the Wilcoxon Two-Sample test to compare numerical variables between two age groups, and used logistic regression to compare categorical variables between two age groups in SAS 9.1.3. Minitab-16 was used to calculate various mean, median, modes, standard deviations and range. For survival analysis, we used Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank test.ResultsThe mean age of onset in the two groups at Nationwide Children’s Hospital was 27 months and 91 months. The mean times between onset of symptoms to diagnosis in the younger and older age groups was 5.6 months and 4.5 months, respectively, not a statistically significant difference. The younger onset group had more females (p=0.05) and their disease onset occurred less frequently during the typical winter-spring seasons (p=0.031). The younger onset group was more likely to have a preceding fever (p=0.029) and family history of autoimmune diseases (p=0.012). The younger onset group was less likely to have heliotrope rash (p=0.04), Gottron’s sign (p=0.049), capillary loop abnormalities (p=0.010), or elevations in creatine kinase (CK, p=0.022), aspartate aminotransferase (AST, p=0.021) or aldolase (p=0.035). The younger onset group was treated less often with pulse methylprednisolone at diagnosis (p=0.043) and less often with hydroxychloroquine (p=0.035). There were no differences between the two groups regarding initial oral steroid dose (p=0.8017), number of patients who received methotrexate at diagnosis (p=0.709), and the number who ever received other immunosuppressants (p=0.323). The mean and maximum duration (mean duration 24.3 months vs. 35.2 months, maximum duration 51 vs. 124 months in younger and older onset group respectively) of methotrexate therapy, and the mean and maximum duration of oral steroid therapy (Mean duration 16.8 months vs. 33.3 months, maximum duration 50 vs. 151 months in younger and older onset group respectively), was shorter in the younger group. The younger onset patients were less likely to have active disease at 5 years (9% vs. 35.7%, p=0.015) and 10 years post-diagnosis (9% vs. 45.1%, p=0.011, Table 7). The younger patients were less likely to have osteonecrosis (p=0.023). Two disease-related deaths occurred in the younger group, none in the older group. The results of the survival analysis showed that the difference between the age groups was statistically significant (p < 0.012). The sex and race were not significant (p> 0.26 and p>0.95, respectively).ConclusionsThere were significant differences between JDM patients with disease onset at or below age three years at our center, compared to their older counterparts. Younger patients in our cohort had fewer typical findings at diagnosis and a milder disease course without needing as long a duration of corticosteroids and immunosuppression. Patients with a younger onset had a higher mortality rate but mortalities were unusual and numbers small. The younger group had a similar complication rate compared to the older onset patients, except for osteonecrosis which was higher in the older onset group. These findings differ from the previous reports that a younger age of onset in JDM is often associated with a more severe disease, as results at our center suggest that children with younger onset JDM appear to be atypical but may do well compared to the older JDM patients.

Are patient surveys valuable as a service-improvement tool in health services? An overview

Correspondence: Anjali Patwardhan 831 East Mound Street, Columbus, OH 43205, USA Tel +1 614 266 2187 Email doctoranjali@hotmail.com Abstract: Improving the quality of care in international health services was made a high priority in 1977. The World Health Assembly passed a resolution to greatly improve “Health for all” by the year 2000. Since 1977, the use of patient surveys for quality improvement has become a common practice in the health-care industry. The use of surveys reflects the concept that patient satisfaction is closely linked with that of organizational performance, which is in turn closely linked with organizational culture. This article is a review of the role of patient surveys as a quality-improvement tool in health care. The article explores the characteristics, types, merits, and pitfalls of various patient surveys, as well as the impact of their wide-ranging application in dissimilar scenarios to identify gaps in service provision. It is demonstrated that the conducting of patient surveys and using the results to improve the quality of care are two different processes. The value of patient surveys depends on the interplay between these two processes and several other factors that can influence the final outcome. The article also discusses the business aspect of the patient surveys in detail. Finally, the authors make future recommendations on how the patient survey tool can be best used to improve the quality of care in the health-care sector.

Two Cases for Diagnosis: Asymmetric Childhood Scleredema or Stiff Skin Syndrome?

Abstract: Two children with chronic and asymmetric skin indurations are presented. The clinical and pathologic features are suggestive of asymmetric childhood scleredema and stiff skin syndrome. The key features of scleredema and stiff skin syndrome are discussed.

Effects of Complement C4 Gene Copy Number Variations, Size Dichotomy, and C4A Deficiency on Genetic Risk and Clinical Presentation of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus in East Asian Populations

Human complement C4 is complex, with multiple layers of diversity. The aims of this study were to elucidate the copy number variations (CNVs) of C4A and C4B in relation to disease risk in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and to compare the basis of race‐specific C4A deficiency between East Asians and individuals of European descent.

Effects of Complement C4 Gene Copy‐Number Variations, Size Dichotomy and C4A‐Deficiency on Genetic Risk and Clinical Presentation of East‐Asian SLE

Human complement C4 is complex, with multiple layers of diversity. The aims of this study were to elucidate the copy number variations (CNVs) of C4A and C4B in relation to disease risk in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and to compare the basis of race‐specific C4A deficiency between East Asians and individuals of European descent.

Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance consensus clinical treatment plans for juvenile dermatomyositis with skin predominant disease.

BackgroundJuvenile dermatomyositis (JDM) is the most common form of the idiopathic inflammatory myopathies in children. A subset of children have the rash of JDM without significant weakness, and the optimal treatments for these children are unknown. The goal of this study was to describe the development of consensus clinical treatment plans (CTPs) for children with JDM who have active skin rashes, without significant muscle involvement, referred to as skin predominant JDM in this manuscript.MethodsThe Children’s Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) is a North American consortium of pediatric rheumatology health care providers. CARRA members collaborated to determine consensus on typical treatments for JDM patients with skin findings without significant weakness, to develop CTPs for this subgroup of patients. We used a combination of Delphi surveys and nominal group consensus meetings to develop these CTPs.ResultsConsensus was reached on patient characteristics and outcome assessment, and CTPs were developed and finalized for patients with skin predominant JDM. Treatment option A included hydroxychloroquine alone, Treatment option B included hydroxychloroquine and methotrexate, and Treatment option C included hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate and corticosteroids.ConclusionsThree CTPs were developed for use in children with skin predominant JDM, which reflect typical treatment approaches. These are not considered to be specific recommendations or standard of care. Using the CARRA network and prospective data collection, we will be able to apply statistical methods in the future to allow comparisons of JDM patients following these consensus treatment plans.