Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The lack of randomized controlled trials comparing biologics for the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) has led to wide variation in treatment approaches. The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of abatacept, adalimumab, and etanercept in JIA patients treated at a tertiary pediatric institution. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective chart review of patients initiated on abatacept, adalimumab, or etanercept from December 1, 2015, to August 31, 2018, at Monroe Carell Jr. Children's Hospital at Vanderbilt (VCH). The primary outcome was the change in the Physician Global Assessment (PGA) score after 4 to 6 months of biologic therapy. Secondary outcomes included change in laboratory markers of JIA disease activity, change in the number of joints with active disease or limitation of motion, reduction in corticosteroid dose, adverse effects, adherence among patients who have their medications filled at the institution's specialty pharmacy, and reason for discontinuation of therapy. RESULTS: A total of 139 patients were included, with a median age of 13 years. Most patients, 80.6%, experienced a reduction in their PGA score after starting biologic therapy. There was not a statistically significant difference among the agents (p = 0.64). Adverse effects were reported in only 26.6% of patients, with the most frequent being injection site reactions or pain (n = 35). Ultimately, 32% of patients discontinued biologic therapy with a lack of efficacy being the most common reason. CONCLUSIONS: Abatacept, adalimumab, and etanercept were not significantly different in efficacy and safety for the treatment of JIA at this single institution.