↓ Skip to main content

Biologic therapies for refractory juvenile dermatomyositis: five years of experience of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance in North America

Overview of attention for article published in Pediatric Rheumatology, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Biologic therapies for refractory juvenile dermatomyositis: five years of experience of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance in North America
Published in
Pediatric Rheumatology, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12969-017-0174-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

CH Spencer, K Rouster-Stevens, H Gewanter, G Syverson, R Modica, K Schmidt, H Emery, C Wallace, S Grevich, K Nanda, YD Zhao, S Shenoi, S Tarvin, S Hong, C Lindsley, JE Weiss, M Passo, K Ede, A Brown, K Ardalan, W Bernal, ML Stoll, B Lang, R Carrasco, C Agaiar, L Feller, H Bukulmez, R Vehe, H Kim, H Schmeling, D Gerstbacher, M Hoeltzel, B Eberhard, R Sundel, S Kim, AM Huber, A Patwardhan, Pediatric Rheumatologist Collaborators

Abstract

The prognosis of children with juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM) has improved remarkably since the 1960's with the use of corticosteroid and immunosuppressive therapy. Yet there remain a minority of children who have refractory disease. Since 2003 the sporadic use of biologics (genetically-engineered proteins that usually are derived from human genes) for inflammatory myositis has been reported. In 2011-2016 we investigated our collective experience of biologics in JDM through the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA). The JDM biologic study group developed a survey on the CARRA member experience using biologics for Juvenile DM utilizing Delphi consensus methods in 2011-2012. The survey was completed online by the CARRA members interested in JDM in 2012. A second survey was similarly developed that provided more opportunity to describe their experiences with biologics in JDM in detail and was completed by CARRA members in Feb 2013. During three CARRA meetings in 2013-2015, nominal group techniques were used for achieving consensus on the current choices of biologic drugs. A final survey was performed at the 2016 CARRA meeting. One hundred and five of a potential 231 pediatric rheumatologists (42%) responded to the first survey in 2012. Thirty-five of 90 had never used a biologic for Juvenile DM at that time. Fifty-five of 91 (denominators vary) had used biologics for JDM in their practice with 32%, 5%, and 4% using rituximab, etanercept, and infliximab, respectively, and 17% having used more than one of the three drugs. Ten percent used a biologic as monotherapy, 19% a biologic in combination with methotrexate (mtx), 52% a biologic in combination with mtx and corticosteroids, 42% a combination of a biologic, mtx, corticosteroids (steroids), and an immunosuppressive drug, and 43% a combination of a biologic, IVIG and mtx. The results of the second survey supported these findings in considerably more detail with multiple combinations of drugs used with biologics and supported the use of rituximab, abatacept, anti-TNFα drugs, and tocilizumab in that order. One hundred percent recommended that CARRA continue studying biologics for JDM. The CARRA meeting survey in 2016 again supported the study and use of these four biologic drug groups. Our CARRA JDM biologic work group developed and performed three surveys demonstrating that pediatric rheumatologists in North America have been using multiple biologics for refractory JDM in numerous scenarios from 2011 to 2016. These survey results and our consensus meetings determined our choice of four biologic therapies (rituximab, abatacept, tocilizumab and anti-TNFα drugs) to consider for refractory JDM treatment when indicated and to evaluate for comparative effectiveness and safety in the future. Significance and Innovations This is the first report that provides a substantial clinical experience of a large group of pediatric rheumatologists with biologics for refractory JDM over five years. This experience with biologic therapies for refractory JDM may aid pediatric rheumatologists in the current treatment of these children and form a basis for further clinical research into the comparative effectiveness and safety of biologics for refractory JDM.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 16%
Researcher 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Other 7 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 7%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 19 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 43%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 25 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 April 2018.
All research outputs
#2,904,072
of 22,981,247 outputs
Outputs from Pediatric Rheumatology
#105
of 700 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,901
of 317,529 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatric Rheumatology
#5
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,981,247 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 700 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,529 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.