ﺑﺎﺯﮔﺸﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻔﺤﻪ ﻗﺒﻠﯽ
خرید پکیج
تعداد آیتم قابل مشاهده باقیمانده : 3 مورد
نسخه الکترونیک
medimedia.ir

Juvenile dermatomyositis and polymyositis: Treatment, complications, and prognosis

Juvenile dermatomyositis and polymyositis: Treatment, complications, and prognosis
Literature review current through: Jan 2024.
This topic last updated: Jan 30, 2023.

INTRODUCTION — Juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM) and juvenile polymyositis (JPM) are autoimmune myopathies of childhood. JDM is primarily a capillary vasculopathy, whereas JPM involves direct T cell invasion of muscle fibers similar to that seen in adult polymyositis [1-3]. However, as the diagnostic tools become more sophisticated (eg, biopsies that demonstrate inclusion body myositis or inflammatory dystrophies, or autoantibodies that are markers of particular types of myositis such as anti-signal recognition particle [SRP] and necrotizing myopathy), fewer patients are diagnosed with JPM, calling into question whether JPM is a specific entity. (See "Clinical manifestations of dermatomyositis and polymyositis in adults".)

The treatment, complications, natural history, and prognosis of JDM and JPM are reviewed here. The pathogenesis, clinical manifestations, and diagnosis of these disorders are discussed elsewhere. (See "Juvenile dermatomyositis and other idiopathic inflammatory myopathies: Epidemiology, pathogenesis, and clinical manifestations" and "Juvenile dermatomyositis and other idiopathic inflammatory myopathies: Diagnosis".)

TREATMENT GOALS — The goals of treatment include control of the underlying inflammatory myositis and prevention and/or treatment of complications (eg, contractures and calcinosis).

INITIAL TREATMENT — The intensity of initial therapy increases with increasing severity of the symptoms [4], which range from mild disease with little muscle weakness and mild cutaneous manifestations to serious, life-threatening weakness, internal organ damage, and ulcerative skin lesions. There are no standardized definitions of disease severity for JDM and JPM. However, most experts would agree that the following constitute severe disease:

Interstitial lung disease

Ulcerative disease (skin or gastrointestinal [GI] tract)

Other GI manifestations that may indicate GI vasculopathy (eg abdominal pain, diarrhea, GI bleeding)

Myocardial or neurologic involvement (rare in children)

There are few data from randomized, controlled trials to guide management decisions in children with JDM or JPM. Thus, the treatment approach is based mostly upon observational studies and clinical experience. In a 2008 survey of North American pediatric rheumatologists, the majority of respondents used a combination of glucocorticoids and methotrexate to treat children with JDM [5]. However, the dose, route of administration, and the use of adjunctive therapy (eg, intravenous immune globulin [IVIG] and hydroxychloroquine) varied. The Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) has proposed several treatment strategies for initial therapy for JDM based upon a North American survey of practice [6]. Our approach is consistent with the CARRA treatment strategies.

Mild-to-moderate disease — The initial treatment used for children with mild-to-moderate JDM or JPM is a combination of high-dose oral prednisone (2 mg/kg per day, maximum 80 mg/day, in divided doses given twice daily) and methotrexate (15 mg/m2, maximum 25 mg/dose once weekly, administered as a subcutaneous injection). Children who receive methotrexate should also be given folic acid at 1 mg per day to limit methotrexate toxicity. Leucovorin (folinic acid; usual dose 5 mg once a week) is an alternative to folic acid.

The skin findings of amyopathic/hypomyopathic JDM may remit without systemic therapy in some patients [7-9]. However, we feel that children with amyopathic/hypomyopathic JDM with muscle enzyme elevation or other evidence of subclinical muscle inflammation should be treated, regardless of whether or not clinically evident weakness is present, in order to prevent long-term complications such as calcinosis.

Oral prednisone — Daily oral prednisone, in combination with a steroid-sparing agent (preferably methotrexate [10]), has been the mainstay of treatment of JDM and JPM for many years [11,12]. In responsive patients, muscle weakness and rash improve and serum muscle enzymes return to normal levels over six to eight weeks of therapy. Most North American pediatric rheumatologists, including the authors, use a high-dose glucocorticoid regimen to initially treat JDM and JPM [5]. Our standard initial regimen is prednisone at 2 mg/kg per day (maximum 80 mg/day) in divided doses, given twice daily for six weeks, after which it is consolidated into one daily dose (see 'Tapering therapy in responsive patients' below). Others adjust the dose relative to the disease severity, using lower doses in children with milder disease in order to decrease the total cumulative dose and reduce the adverse effects of glucocorticoids. Intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP) is added for patients who have a poor response or worsening of their disease on oral prednisone therapy. (See 'Intravenous methylprednisolone' below.)

Early evidence demonstrating the efficacy of systemic glucocorticoids was based upon a retrospective review of 47 children with JDM treated at a single center between 1964 and 1982 [13]. Patients who received high-dose prednisone (2 mg/kg per day) within four months of the onset of their symptoms had better functional outcome and less calcinosis compared with those who received smaller doses of prednisone or who were treated later in the course of their disease. Patients who received smaller doses of prednisone generally had a poorer outcome than those who received a high prednisone dose (2 mg/kg per day) [13]. In another study, lower-dose prednisone therapy (1 mg/kg per day) was administered to 36 children with JDM. At a mean follow-up of 4.9 years, 28 had no functional impairment, 5 had persistent disability with inactive disease, and 3 had ongoing active disease [14]. Fifteen children (42 percent) developed dystrophic calcifications. These findings suggest that lower-dose prednisone is not sufficient for all patients.

Prolonged glucocorticoid therapy is associated with significant adverse effects. In children, these include growth retardation, Cushingoid appearance, elevation of blood pressure, hyperglycemia, cataracts, and osteoporosis. (See "Major adverse effects of systemic glucocorticoids" and "Causes of short stature", section on 'Glucocorticoid therapy'.)

Steroid-sparing agents — A steroid-sparing agent is usually started concomitantly with systemic glucocorticoids to decrease the total dose and duration of glucocorticoids and thereby minimize their side effects. Both methotrexate and cyclosporine are effective, but methotrexate has fewer side effects, and a randomized comparative trial showed greater efficacy [10]. Thus, methotrexate is preferred.

Methotrexate — The addition of methotrexate to the initial therapy shortens the duration of glucocorticoid therapy considerably, reduces the total cumulative glucocorticoid dose, and improves efficacy compared with glucocorticoid therapy alone [10,15,16]. Methotrexate is usually administered at a dose of 15 mg/m2 (dose rarely exceeds 25 mg/dose) given once weekly, either by mouth or subcutaneous injection. The CARRA protocols suggest the subcutaneous route, which is our preferred route of administration [6]. Children should be provided folic acid (1 mg/day) in order to limit toxicity. Leucovorin (folinic acid; usual dose 5 mg once a week) is an alternative to folic acid.

In a randomized, unblinded, multicenter trial, 139 children with new-onset JDM with no cutaneous or GI ulcerations were assigned to prednisone alone, prednisone plus methotrexate, or prednisone plus cyclosporine [10]. There was a significant increase in the Pediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organization (PRINTO) 20 level of improvement (20 percent improvement in three of six core set variables) at six months in the two combination-therapy groups compared with prednisone alone (51, 70, and 72 percent improvement for prednisone, prednisone plus cyclosporine, and prednisone plus methotrexate, respectively). Median time to clinical remission for the prednisone plus methotrexate group was 42 months but could not be determined for the other groups due to the low number of events. Median time to treatment failure was 17 months for patients on prednisone alone and 53 months for prednisone plus cyclosporine but could not be calculated for prednisone plus methotrexate due to the low event number. The highest rate of adverse events was seen in patients treated with prednisone plus cyclosporine. Higher rates of infection were seen in both groups of patients treated with a steroid-sparing agent compared with prednisone alone.

Another study compared 31 patients newly diagnosed with JDM who were initially treated with methotrexate (15 mg/m2 per week) and prednisone (2 mg/kg per day, maximum dose 75 mg per day) with 22 similar historical controls who received prednisone therapy alone [15]. Patients treated with combination therapy had a shorter average time to discontinuation of prednisone (10 versus 27 months) and a lower average cumulative prednisone dose (7.5 versus 15.1 grams) compared with those treated with only prednisone. Recovery of strength and physical function were similar in both groups. The children who received combination therapy had fewer side effects, greater height velocity, lower weight gain, and decreased risk of developing cataracts compared with controls.

Favorable outcome was reported with the early use of methotrexate in combination with IVMP in newly diagnosed patients with severe JDM characterized by dysphagia and skin ulcerations [16,17]. In particular, the early use of combination therapy appeared to minimize long-term sequelae, including calcinosis [17].

In a small case series, methotrexate and IVIG were successfully as primary therapy without glucocorticoids in select patients with mild-to-moderate disease [18].

Side effects may include nausea and vomiting in the 12 to 24 hours following administration. Other adverse effects include aphthous oral ulcers, liver enzyme elevation, and increased susceptibility to infection.

Cyclosporine — Cyclosporine is used by some as a steroid-sparing agent early in treatment of children with JDM, although it is typically reserved for refractory disease at the authors' institution because of its higher rate of side effects [10]. The dosing regimen for cyclosporine is 3 to 5 mg/kg given once daily or split into two daily doses. The most common adverse effects include skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders (eg, gingival hypertrophy, hypertrichosis/hirsutism), GI symptoms and disorders, neurologic disorders (eg, headache, reversible encephalopathy, seizures), and increased susceptibility to infection. (See 'Refractory or recurrent disease' below and 'Methotrexate' above.)

Severe/life-threatening disease — We use IVMP for patients who have:

Ulcerative disease

Respiratory compromise and who are unable to take oral medications

GI complications that may limit absorption of orally administered medications

Marked dysphagia/dysphonia with increased risk of aspiration

A poor response or worsening of their disease on oral prednisone therapy

We treat patients with more severe ulcerative skin disease or life-threatening major organ involvement (eg, interstitial lung disease, GI vasculopathy) with cyclophosphamide, usually in combination with high-dose glucocorticoids. Cyclophosphamide is most often administered intravenously every four weeks at a dose of 500 to 750 mg/m2 for a total of seven doses. An alternative to cyclophosphamide in these patients is IVIG. (See 'Intravenous immune globulin' below.)

Intravenous methylprednisolone — IVMP is often used in more severely affected patients because of concerns that these patients, particularly those with GI vasculopathy, may have decreased absorption of orally administered prednisone [19]. However, patients are usually concomitantly treated with daily oral glucocorticoids, starting after the three-day course of IVMP, because response failure and disease relapse are common on IVMP alone [20]. The most frequently used regimen administers IVMP at a dose of 30 mg/kg per day (maximum dose 1 g) for three consecutive days followed by additional weekly or monthly boluses as needed [3]. In some cases, those treated with IVMP alone are transitioned to oral prednisone, without additional IVMP boluses, after a three-day course of IVMP.

A study of 139 newly diagnosed patients with JDM that compared IVMP with high-dose oral prednisone did not find significant differences in outcome at 36 months follow-up after matching patients for disease characteristics [21]. However, in this study, all of the most severely ill patients were excluded from the analysis because they all received IVMP and, therefore, could not be matched. It remains uncertain whether IVMP has a sufficiently greater benefit compared with oral prednisone in patients with only moderate disease to justify its cost and invasiveness [22].

Intravenous cyclophosphamide — In a retrospective review of 12 patients who received intravenous cyclophosphamide for severe and refractory disease, 10 patients demonstrated improvement in muscle disease, extramuscular disease, and skin disease [23]. Two patients who required mechanical ventilation prior to receiving cyclophosphamide died shortly after beginning therapy. Death was attributed to their underlying disease and not to the use of cyclophosphamide. Observed side effects of cyclophosphamide included transient alopecia, lymphocytopenia, and herpes zoster infection, but no severe adverse events were noted.

A subsequent publication looked at 56 patients treated with cyclophosphamide compared with 144 not treated with cyclophosphamide from the UK JDM Cohort and Biomarker Study [24]. A marginal structural models (MSM) approach was used in which like patients were compared with like. Cyclophosphamide was given intravenously, 500 mg/m2 every two weeks for three doses and then 750 mg/m2 every three or four weeks for a total of six or seven doses. Disease activity (global, skin, and muscle) was reduced in the cyclophosphamide group at 6, 12, and 24 months. Few side effects were seen. The cyclophosphamide-treated patients had more severe muscle and global disease severity (hence the need for the MSM approach), suggesting that cyclophosphamide is indeed effective in more severe disease.

EVALUATION OF RESPONSE TO THERAPY — The response to treatment is assessed based upon the following:

Normalization of elevated serum muscle enzymes (see "Juvenile dermatomyositis and other idiopathic inflammatory myopathies: Diagnosis", section on 'Measurement of muscle enzymes')

Increased muscle strength both by history and objective measures, such as the Childhood Myositis Assessment Scale (CMAS) (see "Juvenile dermatomyositis and other idiopathic inflammatory myopathies: Diagnosis", section on 'Muscle strength testing')

Resolution of skin rash (see "Juvenile dermatomyositis and other idiopathic inflammatory myopathies: Epidemiology, pathogenesis, and clinical manifestations", section on 'Heliotrope rash' and "Juvenile dermatomyositis and other idiopathic inflammatory myopathies: Epidemiology, pathogenesis, and clinical manifestations", section on 'Gottron's papules')

Improvement in nailfold capillary changes, including an increase in the measured density of capillaries/mm as shown in panel C (picture 1) [25,26]

Muscle strength and skin rash may heal slowly over months. As long as consistent progress is observed, treatment should not be considered a failure.

In one study of 16 patients with JDM, elevations of serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) were associated with disease flare [27]. The risk of disease flare within the next four months increased threefold following a 20 percent rise in serum AST levels. However, an association with disease flares was not seen with either an elevation of serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) or creatine kinase (CK).

Definitions for improvement in adult and juvenile myositis were revised by an international group of myositis experts [28]. These definitions are based upon the weighted absolute change in six core set activity measures, with different cut points for minimal, moderate, and major improvement for each measure.

The core set activity measures include:

Clinician's global assessment of the patient's overall disease activity, usually measured with a 100 mm visual analog scale

Patient or parent/caregiver global assessment of the child's overall well-being, usually measured with a 100 mm visual analog scale

Muscle strength, assessed using the standardized confrontational (manual) muscle strength testing score of eight muscle groups (MMT8) or the CMAS

Health-related quality-of-life assessment, assessed with the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) or the Child Health Assessment Questionnaire (CHAQ) [29]

Muscle inflammation, assessed by either muscle enzyme values or the Childhood Health Questionnaire (CHQPF-50)

Extramuscular disease activity, assessed by the extramuscular section of the JDM disease activity score (DAS) [30]

A similar group of disease activity core set measures was developed by the International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group (IMACS) [31].

The Juvenile DermatoMyositis Activity Index (JDMAI) attempts to simplify the assessment of response to therapy using a composite score consisting of four elements, comprising the clinician’s global assessment of overall disease activity, the caregiver's/child's global assessment of the child's well-being, a measurement of muscle strength, and assessment of skin disease activity [32].

Additional biomarkers have been identified for tracking disease activity. Specifically, galectin 9 and C-X-C motif chemokine ligand 10 (CXCL-10; thought to be markers of interferon activity) are better markers of disease activity than muscle enzymes [33].

CHRONIC TREATMENT — Chronic treatment is determined by the response to therapy and the pattern of the disease. (See 'Evaluation of response to therapy' above and 'Natural history' below.)

Tapering therapy in responsive patients — If there is a response to therapy, prednisone is consolidated to a daily dose at approximately six weeks. Prednisone is then weaned slowly in a stepwise fashion [11,13]. At our center, we taper the dose every two weeks by 5 mg decrements until a daily dose of 25 mg is reached; at that point, prednisone is decreased by 2.5 mg every two weeks. The median length of time on prednisone in our clinic is approximately 10 months. Patients on combination therapy with an additional immunosuppressive agent will often tolerate weaning this quickly [15].

Muscle strength, skin rash, and enzymes are monitored for evidence of relapse. Relapses may be managed by increasing the glucocorticoid or methotrexate doses or, more often, by adding additional medications, such as intravenous immune globulin (IVIG). (See 'Evaluation of response to therapy' above and 'Refractory or recurrent disease' below.)

Refractory or recurrent disease — IVIG is added to the regimen to control persistent or recurrent symptoms and to decrease the cumulative dose of glucocorticoids administered in patients who become steroid resistant or dependent during the course of treatment (generally after several months of therapy) despite use of steroid-sparing medications. In the case of persistent or recurrent symptoms despite the use of glucocorticoids, methotrexate, and IVIG, we have added cyclosporine with some success, which has limited the need for increasing cumulative doses of glucocorticoids. Other medications have been used in a limited number of patients with refractory disease.

Intravenous immune globulin — The benefits of IVIG were reported in several observational studies of children with JDM who had previously failed treatment with glucocorticoids and, in most cases, other immunosuppressive agents [34-38]. The majority of reported patients experienced improvement in skin disease and muscle strength, and the use of IVIG also reduced the cumulative glucocorticoid dose in most patients [34-37,39-42].

IVIG, at our center, is given as a dose of 2 g/kg (maximum dose 70 g), administered as a single dose. IVIG is given every two weeks, initially for five doses, and is then generally administered monthly for up to two years. The decision to begin IVIG typically occurs months into treatment, when patients experience persistent or increasing symptoms as glucocorticoids are weaned, indicating steroid resistance or steroid dependence. However, IVIG is often used earlier in very severe cases of JDM.

In children with JDM, IVIG is generally well tolerated, with reported side effects of headache, diarrhea, nausea, and low-grade fever [34,36]. One study reported an increase in adverse events (eg, fever, lethargy, or malaise, nausea, and vomiting) with IVIG preparations that contained a high immunoglobulin A concentration [41]. (See "Overview of intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) therapy".)

Cyclosporine — Cyclosporine, a calcineurin inhibitor, is primarily used in patients with refractory JDM and JPM. Small observational studies have shown that the addition of cyclosporine to patients with an inadequate response to glucocorticoid and other immunosuppressive agents is associated with clinical improvement (eg, recovery of muscle strength), leading to a reduction in prednisone dose [43-46]. In the randomized trial previously discussed, cyclosporine was effective but did not do as well as methotrexate [10]. (See 'Methotrexate' above.)

The starting dose of cyclosporine is 3 to 5 mg/kg per day. The dose is adjusted depending upon the clinical response and the presence of cyclosporine toxicity (often earliest seen as a rising serum creatinine). Reported side effects in patients with JDM include hirsutism, gingival hypertrophy, hypertension, and diarrhea [43-47]. Treatment with cyclosporine generally continues until the disease has remained in stable remission off glucocorticoids for many months.

Investigational therapies — A number of agents have been used in one to a few patients with refractory disease who have failed other immunosuppressive therapies. Further studies are needed to determine whether there is a role for these agents in the treatment of JDM.

Biologic and targeted synthetic DMARDs — Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) are increasingly used in the treatment of autoimmune diseases. However, the use of these agents is limited in children with JDM and JPM.

Rituximab – In two small case series, the use of rituximab, a B cell-depleting monoclonal anti-CD20 antibody, was associated with clinical improvement in children with JDM (three of four in one series [48] and three of six in the other [49]), although calcinosis did not improve. However, the fourth patient in the first series had deterioration of her clinical status following rituximab therapy. A randomized trial (that included 152 adults with myositis as well as 48 children with JDM) demonstrated that most patients eventually saw some benefit, although the time that it took to show improvement was long and there was no statistically significant difference between subjects who received rituximab early or after a delay of nine weeks [50,51]. Despite lack of trial evidence of efficacy, up to one-third of surveyed North American pediatric rheumatologists have used rituximab for refractory JDM [52]. (See "Treatment of recurrent and resistant dermatomyositis and polymyositis in adults", section on 'Rituximab'.)

Anti-tumor necrosis factor agents – A report from the Juvenile Dermatomyositis Research Group cohort highlighted 60 children with JDM refractory to other treatments who were treated with infliximab or adalimumab (often in combination with other therapies listed above) [53]. On average, these anti-TNF agents were steroid sparing and led to reductions in skin and muscle disease activity and to reductions in calcinosis. However, case series of adults with resistant dermatomyositis and polymyositis have failed to show a consistent beneficial response to anti-TNF agents.

Abatacept – Abatacept is a soluble fusion protein containing the extracellular domain of cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) and the Fc portion of immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1). It binds to CD80/CD86, preventing CD28 binding and thereby downregulating T cell activation. A 14-year-old girl with severe refractory JDM with ulcerations and calcinosis was reported to have improvement in disease scores, ulcerations, pain medication and glucocorticoid use, and laboratory values after treatment with abatacept and sodium thiosulfate [54]. (See 'Other agents' below.)

Janus kinase (JAK)/signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) inhibitors – Given the suggestion that JDM is an interferon-driven process, the use of JAK/STAT inhibition is under exploration. Four refractory patients were reported to have a good response to baricitinib, a small-molecule tsDMARD, in one case series [55].

Other agents

Mycophenolate mofetil – In a small case series of 12 children with JDM and refractory skin disease, improvement of the skin disease was seen in 10 patients within four to eight weeks of treatment with mycophenolate mofetil at doses ranging from 500 mg to 1 g twice a day [56]. A retrospective review of 50 patients with JDM treated with mycophenolate found that skin and muscle disease activity decreased and glucocorticoid doses were lower after 12 months of mycophenolate therapy [57]. Mycophenolate mofetil is one of the therapies mentioned in a consensus treatment plan for hypomyopathic JDM by the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) group based upon typical treatment approaches [58].

Tacrolimus – Tacrolimus, a calcineurin inhibitor, has been reported to improve the clinical status of children with refractory JDM in case reports [59,60]. Topical tacrolimus has been used for refractory skin disease with varied results [61,62].

Hydroxychloroquine – Hydroxychloroquine, an antimalarial agent, is reported to be effective in patients with JDM and an incomplete response to glucocorticoid therapy [63]. However, in our experience, it has not been a particularly effective agent.

Sodium thiosulfate – Thiosulfate is an antioxidant and vasodilator that chelates and dissolves calcium deposits and promotes vascularization of peripheral neuronal units, with associated resolution of pain. It was reported effective in one patient with refractory skin disease and calcinosis who was also treated with abatacept [54]. (See 'Biologic and targeted synthetic DMARDs' above.)

ADJUNCTIVE THERAPIES — Adjunctive therapy includes the use of sunscreen to prevent excessive sun exposure, topical glucocorticoids or calcineurin inhibitors for local skin disease, physical therapy (includes range of motion, muscle strengthening, and aerobic exercise), and supplemental calcium (1000 mg/day) and vitamin D (1000 units/day) to prevent osteoporosis. (See 'Osteoporosis' below.)

Sunscreen — The rash of JDM is generally photosensitive and may be exacerbated by exposure to sunlight. For this reason, we recommend that all children with JDM use sunscreen regularly.

Topical agents — Topical agents (glucocorticoids or calcineurin inhibitors such as tacrolimus or pimecrolimus) are often used to treat localized skin disease in patients with JDM [3,61].

Physical therapy — Physical and occupational therapy are important adjunctive measures to pharmacologic therapy because children with JDM and JPM have decreased aerobic exercise capacity and low levels of weight-bearing physical activity, which may worsen functional limitations and contribute to joint contractures [64,65]. Therapy is focused on appropriate range of motion, muscle strengthening, and aerobic exercises. These measures prevent or improve joint contractures and improve aerobic endurance [64,66].

Physical therapy and exercise regimens do not exacerbate clinical disease in patients with JDM. This was illustrated in a study that included groups of patients with both active and inactive JDM and normal controls that showed no evidence of increased muscle inflammation following a physiotherapy-led exercise session [67].

NATURAL HISTORY — There are three patterns of disease in JDM [1,68]:

Monocyclic course, in which there is one disease episode, lasting up to two or three years, that responds to standard treatment without relapse (approximately one-third of patients)

Polycyclic course with multiple remissions and relapses (approximately 3 percent)

Chronic persistent course, sometimes with persistent complications (approximately two-thirds)

Muscle disease typically responds more quickly to treatment than other disease manifestations in children with JDM [69].

In one series of patients, an increased severity of muscle histopathologic features was associated with an increased risk of a chronic persistent course (as judged by the need for a longer course of treatment), whereas presence of anti-Mi-2 autoantibodies was perhaps associated with a decreased risk [70].

Chronic continuous or polycyclic disease is predictive of a poorer outcome [71,72]. These patients are at increased risk for persistent pain, calcinosis, and disability. (See 'Prognosis' below.)

COMPLICATIONS — Complications associated with JDM include osteoporosis, calcinosis, and intestinal perforation.

Osteoporosis — Patients with JDM have low bone mineral density compared with age-matched controls [73] and an increased risk of vertebral fractures [74]. Risk factors for low bone density include low lean body mass, glucocorticoid therapy, and longer duration of untreated disease [73,75,76]. In one study, children with JDM had increased osteoclast activation and bone resorption compared with age-matched controls [75]. (See "Investigational biologic markers in the diagnosis and assessment of rheumatoid arthritis", section on 'Bone-specific markers'.)

Limited observational data suggest that treatment with supplemental calcium and vitamin D increases spinal bone density by approximately 10 percent in children who are on glucocorticoid therapy for rheumatic disease [77]. Based upon available data, it is standard practice in the authors' institution to provide both calcium and vitamin D supplementation to help prevent osteoporosis (approximately 500 to 1000 mg elemental calcium and 1000 int. units vitamin D3 daily, depending upon dietary intake).

Limited data suggest that the oral bisphosphonate, alendronate, may result in increased bone mineral density in children with connective tissue disease [78]. However, bisphosphonate safety and efficacy in childhood have not been clearly established. Thus, they are not routinely used. (See "Prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis".)

Calcinosis — Dystrophic calcification or calcinosis (soft tissue calcification), as shown in panel D (picture 1), is a well-recognized complication that generally develops within a few years of diagnosis and is associated with delay in diagnosis or treatment or inadequate treatment [13,68,79-81]. The primary focus is to prevent calcinosis through adequate treatment of JDM (eg, early use of combination therapy of high-dose glucocorticoids and methotrexate) since there is no established treatment for calcinosis. If a patient develops calcinosis, the approach is to treat the patient until the disease is inactive and allow the patient's body to resorb the calcium on its own. (See 'Initial treatment' above.)

Reports of its prevalence vary from 30 to 50 percent [13,82]. In contrast, one study of 144 patients from the United Kingdom reported a much lower calcinosis rate of 6 percent [81].

Five distinct patterns of calcinosis have been described [13,83]:

Small, scattered, superficial plaques or nodules, usually on the extremities. These lesions often do not interfere with function but may be painful and may develop spontaneous cellulitis-like inflammation (sometimes with drainage of toothpaste-like calcium soap). Inflamed superficial calcinosis must be differentiated from lesions that have become infected. Superficial calcinosis often regresses spontaneously over a period of years.

Deep tumoral muscle calcification, often found in the proximal muscle groups, that may interfere with joint motion. These deposits may ulcerate or extrude calcific material through the skin. These may require surgical debridement in order to maximize joint function.

Diffuse deposits along myofascial planes that may limit joint motion and may be painful.

Mixed forms of the above three types may be seen.

Extensive exoskeleton-like calcium deposits that result in serious limitations in function. Patients with this form of calcinosis often have a history of a severe, unremitting disease course that is sometimes associated with ulcerative cutaneous disease.

The following are risk factors for the development of calcinosis:

Delay in diagnosis or treatment or inadequate treatment [13,80]

Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) alpha-308A genotype (this allele is associated with increased levels of TNF-alpha) [84]

Presence of autoantibodies against nuclear matrix protein 2 (NXP2) [85]

Younger age at disease onset [85,86]

A number of therapies have been reported to be effective in case reports, but none are consistently successful. Thus, we do not use them. These therapies include probenecid [87-89], diltiazem [90,91], aluminum hydroxide [92,93], alendronate [94], pamidronate [95], intralesional glucocorticoids [96], and sodium thiosulfate [54].

Surgical excision is sometimes required for localized calcific deposits that interfere with joint function or are painful [97]. However, surgical intervention is associated with a reasonable frequency of poor wound healing, recurrence of calcinosis, and ongoing problems in children with active disease. Thus, controlling underlying active disease prior to surgical excision is advised.

Intestinal perforation — Intestinal perforation is a rare complication that is seen most often in children with severe vasculopathy and/or cutaneous ulcers. Surgical intervention is required to treat intestinal perforation. This includes perforation closure, drainage, and excision of bowel when necessary and supportive total parenteral nutrition to allow healing [98]. (See "Overview of gastrointestinal tract perforation".)

Cardiovascular and cerebrovascular comorbidities — A study using admission codes has suggested that children with JDM admitted to the hospital have increased rates of hypertension; atherosclerosis; transient ischemic attacks, cerebral infarction, and other cerebrovascular disease; disorders of the pulmonary vasculature; arrhythmia; bradycardia; and hypotension compared with admitted children without JDM [99]. The authors were unable to separate the effects of having JDM from the treatment, such as glucocorticoids, for JDM. Lipodystrophy and associated metabolic syndrome are discussed separately. (See "Juvenile dermatomyositis and other idiopathic inflammatory myopathies: Epidemiology, pathogenesis, and clinical manifestations", section on 'Lipodystrophy'.)

Risk of malignancy — Unlike adults, children with JDM or JPM do not have an increased risk of malignancy. Thus, a search for malignancy does not need to be made when children present with idiopathic inflammatory myopathy, unless the presenting features are quite unusual (eg, cytopenias, lack of typical rash, lymphadenopathy). In one Scottish population-based study, for example, cancer was not observed among 35 and 9 children with JDM or JPM, respectively [100]. There are rare case reports of solid tumors or hematologic malignancies in children with JDM. However, there is no evidence that the incidence of these cancers is greater than in the general population. (See "Malignancy in dermatomyositis and polymyositis".)

PROGNOSIS — Advances in the treatment have improved mortality and morbidity rates in children with JDM. Some feel that early treatment may help limit JDM to a monocyclic pattern [101]. (See 'Natural history' above.)

Mortality — The reported mortality rate has declined from greater than 30 percent in the 1960s [102], before routine glucocorticoid therapy was administered, to less than 2 or 3 percent in the 2000s with the advent of early combination immunosuppressive therapy [11,68,71,79].

Morbidity — The long-term outcome of JDM has become increasingly important as the survival rate has improved. Prognosis is poorer in patients with chronic continuous or polycyclic disease and in those with higher initial disease activity scores. Additional risk factors for more severe disease and a worse prognosis include the presence of ulcerative lesions, anasarca, or gastrointestinal (GI) tract involvement. Major morbidities include cumulative organ system damage (including skin, musculoskeletal, endocrine, pulmonary), functional limitations, and persistent pain. (See "Juvenile dermatomyositis and other idiopathic inflammatory myopathies: Epidemiology, pathogenesis, and clinical manifestations", section on 'Skin ulcerations' and "Juvenile dermatomyositis and other idiopathic inflammatory myopathies: Epidemiology, pathogenesis, and clinical manifestations", section on 'Anasarca' and "Juvenile dermatomyositis and other idiopathic inflammatory myopathies: Epidemiology, pathogenesis, and clinical manifestations", section on 'Gastrointestinal vasculopathy'.)

In a retrospective case series that included 6 of 47 children with JDM with extensive ulcerative skin vasculitis present at diagnosis, these six patients continued to have persistent muscle weakness, elevations of muscle enzyme activity, and severe generalized cutaneous vasculopathy despite receiving glucocorticoid therapy [13]. In another study, 10 of 29 patients had a chronic disease course characterized by ulcerative cutaneous and GI lesions [103]. Two of the 10 died due to complications including GI perforation, and five had severe musculoskeletal and cutaneous damage, while three had no residual disease [103].

Although data on long-term morbidity are limited, it appears that patients with JDM treated with combined therapy have a favorable prognosis.

This was illustrated in a retrospective review of 65 of 80 patients from a cohort of patients diagnosed with JDM between 1984 and 1995 at four Canadian tertiary centers [68]. Sixty-two (95 percent) were treated with high-dose glucocorticoids therapy (31 received intravenous methylprednisolone [IVMP]); 41 (63 percent) also received a second-line agent (ie, hydroxychloroquine [n = 10], intravenous immune globulin [IVIG; n = 6], methotrexate [n = 5], and two or more agents [n = 20]); and three patients received no therapy. Patients were surveyed at a median follow-up time of 7.2 years (range 3.2 to 13.9 years) and median age of 13 years (range 7 to 26 years). There was one death in this cohort. The following findings were noted:

Twenty-four patients (37 percent) had monocyclic disease, and the remaining had chronic continuous or polycyclic disease.

Physical function was excellent, with only five patients reporting moderate-to-severe disability. Almost 80 percent had no pain.

Approximately one-third of patients had calcinosis, which was severe in one patient. Approximately 40 percent of patients continued to have a rash, although 22 of the 26 patients indicated that the rash was of little or no consequence.

Data on growth demonstrated that most patients were within 1 standard deviation (SD) of their predicted height. However, 10 patients (16 percent) were ≥2 SD below their predicted height. Delayed puberty was reported in a large European study [104].

Approximately one-third of patients continued on medication despite being more than three years from diagnosis.

Patients with chronic disease were more likely to have functional limitations, persistent pain, and calcinosis.

All patients had either completed or were attending high school, and, of those who had graduated, all went on to pursue postsecondary education. Three patients needed to repeat a single grade because of missing time from school because of their disease. Of the 14 patients who were working full or part-time (of whom 13 were still attending school), none of the patients felt that their disease interfered with their ability to work.

In a long-term follow-up report of 60 patients from Norway (median duration of follow-up of 16.8 years), most patients had cumulative organ damage [105]. The risk of cumulative organ damage was greater in patients with higher scores of disease activity and organ damage six months after diagnosis. The following areas of injury and their frequency were noted at last follow-up:

Cutaneous (calcinosis, scarring or atrophy, lipodystrophy) – 75 percent

Muscle (atrophy, weakness, dysfunction) – 63 percent

Skeletal (joint contractures, osteoporosis, avascular necrosis, arthropathic deformity) – 48 percent

Endocrine (growth failure, menstrual abnormalities) – 23 percent

Pulmonary – 17 percent

Other organ systems included peripheral vascular, cardiovascular, GI – 8, 7, and 3 percent, respectively

In subsequent publications, the group from Norway has demonstrated mild but persistent damage in a number of patients with JDM when followed into adulthood. Ongoing problems include impaired muscle function [106], reduced aerobic capacity [107], and (subtle) cardiac defects [108]. In another group of highly selected adult patients with JDM, overall function was good, but organ damage was frequent [109].

SOCIETY GUIDELINE LINKS — Links to society and government-sponsored guidelines from selected countries and regions around the world are provided separately. (See "Society guideline links: Dermatomyositis and polymyositis".)

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Treatment goals – Treatment goals in children with juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM) and polymyositis (JPM) include control of the underlying inflammatory myositis and prevention and/or treatment of complications (eg, contractures and calcinosis). Immunosuppressive therapy is generally used to treat JDM and JPM, based upon limited controlled trial data, observational studies, and clinical experience. (See 'Introduction' above and 'Treatment goals' above.)

High-dose glucocorticoid therapy in all patients – We recommend high-dose glucocorticoid therapy in all patients with JDM or JPM (Grade 1B). This recommendation is based upon the significant increase in survival rate and clinical outcome with the routine use of high-dose glucocorticoid therapy versus low-dose glucocorticoid or no treatment. In our institution, high-dose oral prednisone (2 mg/kg per day, maximum dose of 80 mg/day) is the preferred glucocorticoid regimen. In other centers, the initial dose of prednisone used is individualized based on the clinical presentation and may be lower than 2 mg/kg per day. We reserve the use of intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP) for patients who fail to respond to oral prednisone or who have pulmonary or gastrointestinal (GI) complications that limit their ability to either take or absorb oral medications. (See 'Mild-to-moderate disease' above and 'Severe/life-threatening disease' above.)

Steroid-sparing agent – We suggest adding a steroid-sparing agent to high-dose glucocorticoid therapy versus glucocorticoid therapy alone (Grade 2B); methotrexate is the preferred steroid-sparing agent (approximately 15 mg/m2 once weekly, administered as a subcutaneous injection). Cyclosporine is an alternative to methotrexate (starting dose of 3 to 5 mg/kg per day, administered in one or two doses). (See 'Steroid-sparing agents' above.)

Severe or life-threatening disease – We suggest the use of intravenous cyclophosphamide (500 to 750 mg/m2 every four weeks) in combination with high-dose glucocorticoid therapy in patients with severe or life-threatening disease (Grade 2C). (See 'Severe/life-threatening disease' above.)

Refractory disease – Intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) is added for refractory disease or when there is a poor response to glucocorticoids. (See 'Refractory or recurrent disease' above.)

Determining response to treatment – Response to treatment is determined by evaluating for improvement in skeletal muscle enzymes, muscle weakness, and rashes. (See 'Evaluation of response to therapy' above.)

Adjunctive therapies – Adjunctive therapy includes the use of sunscreen, topical agents for localized skin care, physical therapy, and supplementation of calcium (up to 1000 mg/day) and vitamin D (1000 units/day) to prevent osteoporosis. (See 'Adjunctive therapies' above.)

Natural history – The natural history of JDM and JPM follows one of three disease courses: monocyclic (one disease episode that responds to standard treatment without relapse), polycyclic (multiple remissions and relapses), or chronic persistent that may include persistent complications. (See 'Natural history' above.)

Complications – Complications include osteoporosis, calcinosis, and intestinal perforation. An increased risk of malignancy is not seen in children with JDM or JPM. (See 'Complications' above.)

Prognosis – Advances in the treatment of JDM have improved survival mortality and morbidity rates in children with JDM. (See 'Prognosis' above.)

  1. Stringer E, Feldman BM. Advances in the treatment of juvenile dermatomyositis. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2006; 18:503.
  2. Miles L, Bove KE, Lovell D, et al. Predictability of the clinical course of juvenile dermatomyositis based on initial muscle biopsy: a retrospective study of 72 patients. Arthritis Rheum 2007; 57:1183.
  3. Feldman BM, Rider LG, Reed AM, Pachman LM. Juvenile dermatomyositis and other idiopathic inflammatory myopathies of childhood. Lancet 2008; 371:2201.
  4. Stringer E, Bohnsack J, Bowyer SL, et al. Treatment approaches to juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM) across North America: The Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) JDM Treatment Survey. J Rheumatol 2010; 37:1953.
  5. Stringer E, Ota S, Bohnsack J, et al. Diversity of treatment approaches to juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM) across North America: The Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) JDM treatment study. Arthritis Rheum 2008; 58:S255.
  6. Huber AM, Giannini EH, Bowyer SL, et al. Protocols for the initial treatment of moderately severe juvenile dermatomyositis: results of a Children's Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Consensus Conference. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2010; 62:219.
  7. Euwer RL, Sontheimer RD. Amyopathic dermatomyositis: a review. J Invest Dermatol 1993; 100:124S.
  8. Plamondon S, Dent PB. Juvenile amyopathic dermatomyositis: results of a case finding descriptive survey. J Rheumatol 2000; 27:2031.
  9. Stonecipher MR, Jorizzo JL, White WL, et al. Cutaneous changes of dermatomyositis in patients with normal muscle enzymes: dermatomyositis sine myositis? J Am Acad Dermatol 1993; 28:951.
  10. Ruperto N, Pistorio A, Oliveira S, et al. Prednisone versus prednisone plus ciclosporin versus prednisone plus methotrexate in new-onset juvenile dermatomyositis: a randomised trial. Lancet 2016; 387:671.
  11. Sullivan DB, Cassidy JT, Petty RE, Burt A. Prognosis in childhood dermatomyositis. J Pediatr 1972; 80:555.
  12. Spencer CH, Hanson V, Singsen BH, et al. Course of treated juvenile dermatomyositis. J Pediatr 1984; 105:399.
  13. Bowyer SL, Blane CE, Sullivan DB, Cassidy JT. Childhood dermatomyositis: factors predicting functional outcome and development of dystrophic calcification. J Pediatr 1983; 103:882.
  14. Tabarki B, Ponsot G, Prieur AM, Tardieu M. Childhood dermatomyositis: clinical course of 36 patients treated with low doses of corticosteroids. Eur J Paediatr Neurol 1998; 2:205.
  15. Ramanan AV, Campbell-Webster N, Ota S, et al. The effectiveness of treating juvenile dermatomyositis with methotrexate and aggressively tapered corticosteroids. Arthritis Rheum 2005; 52:3570.
  16. Al-Mayouf S, Al-Mazyed A, Bahabri S. Efficacy of early treatment of severe juvenile dermatomyositis with intravenous methylprednisolone and methotrexate. Clin Rheumatol 2000; 19:138.
  17. Fisler RE, Liang MG, Fuhlbrigge RC, et al. Aggressive management of juvenile dermatomyositis results in improved outcome and decreased incidence of calcinosis. J Am Acad Dermatol 2002; 47:505.
  18. Levy DM, Bingham CA, Kahn PJ, et al. Favorable outcome of juvenile dermatomyositis treated without systemic corticosteroids. J Pediatr 2010; 156:302.
  19. Rouster-Stevens KA, Gursahaney A, Ngai KL, et al. Pharmacokinetic study of oral prednisolone compared with intravenous methylprednisolone in patients with juvenile dermatomyositis. Arthritis Rheum 2008; 59:222.
  20. Lang B, Dooley J. Failure of pulse intravenous methylprednisolone treatment in juvenile dermatomyositis. J Pediatr 1996; 128:429.
  21. Seshadri R, Feldman BM, Ilowite N, et al. The role of aggressive corticosteroid therapy in patients with juvenile dermatomyositis: a propensity score analysis. Arthritis Rheum 2008; 59:989.
  22. Klein-Gitelman MS, Waters T, Pachman LM. The economic impact of intermittent high-dose intravenous versus oral corticosteroid treatment of juvenile dermatomyositis. Arthritis Care Res 2000; 13:360.
  23. Riley P, Maillard SM, Wedderburn LR, et al. Intravenous cyclophosphamide pulse therapy in juvenile dermatomyositis. A review of efficacy and safety. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2004; 43:491.
  24. Deakin CT, Campanilho-Marques R, Simou S, et al. Efficacy and Safety of Cyclophosphamide Treatment in Severe Juvenile Dermatomyositis Shown by Marginal Structural Modeling. Arthritis Rheumatol 2018; 70:785.
  25. Smith RL, Sundberg J, Shamiyah E, et al. Skin involvement in juvenile dermatomyositis is associated with loss of end row nailfold capillary loops. J Rheumatol 2004; 31:1644.
  26. Schmeling H, Stephens S, Goia C, et al. Nailfold capillary density is importantly associated over time with muscle and skin disease activity in juvenile dermatomyositis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2011; 50:885.
  27. Guzmán J, Petty RE, Malleson PN. Monitoring disease activity in juvenile dermatomyositis: the role of von Willebrand factor and muscle enzymes. J Rheumatol 1994; 21:739.
  28. Rider LG, Aggarwal R, Pistorio A, et al. 2016 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism Criteria for Minimal, Moderate, and Major Clinical Response in Juvenile Dermatomyositis: An International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group/Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation Collaborative Initiative. Arthritis Rheumatol 2017; 69:911.
  29. CHQ: Child Heath Questionnaire. https://www.healthactchq.com/chq.php.
  30. Bode RK, Klein-Gitelman MS, Miller ML, et al. Disease activity score for children with juvenile dermatomyositis: reliability and validity evidence. Arthritis Rheum 2003; 49:7.
  31. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/imacs/diseaseactivity/index.cfm.
  32. Rosina S, Consolaro A, van Dijkhuizen P, et al. Development and validation of a composite disease activity score for measurement of muscle and skin involvement in juvenile dermatomyositis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2019; 58:1196.
  33. Wienke J, Bellutti Enders F, Lim J, et al. Galectin-9 and CXCL10 as Biomarkers for Disease Activity in Juvenile Dermatomyositis: A Longitudinal Cohort Study and Multicohort Validation. Arthritis Rheumatol 2019; 71:1377.
  34. Sansome A, Dubowitz V. Intravenous immunoglobulin in juvenile dermatomyositis--four year review of nine cases. Arch Dis Child 1995; 72:25.
  35. Collet E, Dalac S, Maerens B, et al. Juvenile dermatomyositis: treatment with intravenous gammaglobulin. Br J Dermatol 1994; 130:231.
  36. Al-Mayouf SM, Laxer RM, Schneider R, et al. Intravenous immunoglobulin therapy for juvenile dermatomyositis: efficacy and safety. J Rheumatol 2000; 27:2498.
  37. Lang BA, Laxer RM, Murphy G, et al. Treatment of dermatomyositis with intravenous gammaglobulin. Am J Med 1991; 91:169.
  38. Lam CG, Manlhiot C, Pullenayegum EM, Feldman BM. Efficacy of intravenous Ig therapy in juvenile dermatomyositis. Ann Rheum Dis 2011; 70:2089.
  39. Roifman CM, Schaffer FM, Wachsmuth SE, et al. Reversal of chronic polymyositis following intravenous immune serum globulin therapy. JAMA 1987; 258:513.
  40. Yang MC, Lee JH, Yang YH, Chiang BL. Improvement of juvenile dermatomyositis with calcinosis universalis after treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin. Int J Rheum Dis 2008; 11:77.
  41. Manlhiot C, Tyrrell PN, Liang L, et al. Safety of intravenous immunoglobulin in the treatment of juvenile dermatomyositis: adverse reactions are associated with immunoglobulin A content. Pediatrics 2008; 121:e626.
  42. Liu K, Saarela O, Feldman BM, Pullenayegum E. Estimation of causal effects with repeatedly measured outcomes in a Bayesian framework. Stat Methods Med Res 2020; 29:2507.
  43. Heckmatt J, Hasson N, Saunders C, et al. Cyclosporin in juvenile dermatomyositis. Lancet 1989; 1:1063.
  44. Zeller V, Cohen P, Prieur AM, Guillevin L. Cyclosporin a therapy in refractory juvenile dermatomyositis. Experience and longterm followup of 6 cases. J Rheumatol 1996; 23:1424.
  45. Reiff A, Rawlings DJ, Shaham B, et al. Preliminary evidence for cyclosporin A as an alternative in the treatment of recalcitrant juvenile rheumatoid arthritis and juvenile dermatomyositis. J Rheumatol 1997; 24:2436.
  46. Kobayashi I, Yamada M, Takahashi Y, et al. Interstitial lung disease associated with juvenile dermatomyositis: clinical features and efficacy of cyclosporin A. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2003; 42:371.
  47. Dantzig P. Juvenile dermatomyositis treated with cyclosporine. J Am Acad Dermatol 1990; 22:310.
  48. Cooper MA, Willingham DL, Brown DE, et al. Rituximab for the treatment of juvenile dermatomyositis: a report of four pediatric patients. Arthritis Rheum 2007; 56:3107.
  49. Bader-Meunier B, Decaluwe H, Barnerias C, et al. Safety and efficacy of rituximab in severe juvenile dermatomyositis: results from 9 patients from the French Autoimmunity and Rituximab registry. J Rheumatol 2011; 38:1436.
  50. Oddis CV, Reed AM, Aggarwal R, et al. Rituximab in the treatment of refractory adult and juvenile dermatomyositis and adult polymyositis: a randomized, placebo-phase trial. Arthritis Rheum 2013; 65:314.
  51. Aggarwal R, Loganathan P, Koontz D, et al. Cutaneous improvement in refractory adult and juvenile dermatomyositis after treatment with rituximab. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2017; 56:247.
  52. Spencer CH, Rouster-Stevens K, Gewanter H, et al. Biologic therapies for refractory juvenile dermatomyositis: five years of experience of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance in North America. Pediatr Rheumatol Online J 2017; 15:50.
  53. Campanilho-Marques R, Deakin CT, Simou S, et al. Retrospective analysis of infliximab and adalimumab treatment in a large cohort of juvenile dermatomyositis patients. Arthritis Res Ther 2020; 22:79.
  54. Arabshahi B, Silverman RA, Jones OY, Rider LG. Abatacept and sodium thiosulfate for treatment of recalcitrant juvenile dermatomyositis complicated by ulceration and calcinosis. J Pediatr 2012; 160:520.
  55. Kim H, Dill S, O'Brien M, et al. Janus kinase (JAK) inhibition with baricitinib in refractory juvenile dermatomyositis. Ann Rheum Dis 2021; 80:406.
  56. Edge JC, Outland JD, Dempsey JR, Callen JP. Mycophenolate mofetil as an effective corticosteroid-sparing therapy for recalcitrant dermatomyositis. Arch Dermatol 2006; 142:65.
  57. Rouster-Stevens KA, Morgan GA, Wang D, Pachman LM. Mycophenolate mofetil: a possible therapeutic agent for children with juvenile dermatomyositis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2010; 62:1446.
  58. Huber AM, Kim S, Reed AM, et al. Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Consensus Clinical Treatment Plans for Juvenile Dermatomyositis with Persistent Skin Rash. J Rheumatol 2017; 44:110.
  59. Yamada A, Ohshima Y, Omata N, et al. Steroid-sparing effect of tacrolimus in a patient with juvenile dermatomyositis presenting poor bioavailability of cyclosporine A. Eur J Pediatr 2004; 163:561.
  60. Hassan J, van der Net JJ, van Royen-Kerkhof A. Treatment of refractory juvenile dermatomyositis with tacrolimus. Clin Rheumatol 2008; 27:1469.
  61. Hollar CB, Jorizzo JL. Topical tacrolimus 0.1% ointment for refractory skin disease in dermatomyositis: a pilot study. J Dermatolog Treat 2004; 15:35.
  62. García-Doval I, Cruces M. Topical tacrolimus in cutaneous lesions of dermatomyositis: lack of effect in side-by-side comparison in five patients. Dermatology 2004; 209:247.
  63. Olson NY, Lindsley CB. Adjunctive use of hydroxychloroquine in childhood dermatomyositis. J Rheumatol 1989; 16:1545.
  64. Klepper SE. Exercise in pediatric rheumatic diseases. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2008; 20:619.
  65. Hicks JE, Drinkard B, Summers RM, Rider LG. Decreased aerobic capacity in children with juvenile dermatomyositis. Arthritis Rheum 2002; 47:118.
  66. Habers GE, Bos GJ, van Royen-Kerkhof A, et al. Muscles in motion: a randomized controlled trial on the feasibility, safety and efficacy of an exercise training programme in children and adolescents with juvenile dermatomyositis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2016; 55:1251.
  67. Maillard SM, Jones R, Owens CM, et al. Quantitative assessments of the effects of a single exercise session on muscles in juvenile dermatomyositis. Arthritis Rheum 2005; 53:558.
  68. Huber AM, Lang B, LeBlanc CM, et al. Medium- and long-term functional outcomes in a multicenter cohort of children with juvenile dermatomyositis. Arthritis Rheum 2000; 43:541.
  69. Lim LS, Pullenayegum E, Moineddin R, et al. Methods for analyzing observational longitudinal prognosis studies for rheumatic diseases: a review & worked example using a clinic-based cohort of juvenile dermatomyositis patients. Pediatr Rheumatol Online J 2017; 15:18.
  70. Deakin CT, Yasin SA, Simou S, et al. Muscle Biopsy Findings in Combination With Myositis-Specific Autoantibodies Aid Prediction of Outcomes in Juvenile Dermatomyositis. Arthritis Rheumatol 2016; 68:2806.
  71. Ravelli A, Trail L, Ferrari C, et al. Long-term outcome and prognostic factors of juvenile dermatomyositis: a multinational, multicenter study of 490 patients. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2010; 62:63.
  72. Sanner H, Sjaastad I, Flatø B. Disease activity and prognostic factors in juvenile dermatomyositis: a long-term follow-up study applying the Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organization criteria for inactive disease and the myositis disease activity assessment tool. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2014; 53:1578.
  73. Santiago RA, Silva CA, Caparbo VF, et al. Bone mineral apparent density in juvenile dermatomyositis: the role of lean body mass and glucocorticoid use. Scand J Rheumatol 2008; 37:40.
  74. Huber AM, Gaboury I, Cabral DA, et al. Prevalent vertebral fractures among children initiating glucocorticoid therapy for the treatment of rheumatic disorders. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2010; 62:516.
  75. Rouster-Stevens KA, Langman CB, Price HE, et al. RANKL:osteoprotegerin ratio and bone mineral density in children with untreated juvenile dermatomyositis. Arthritis Rheum 2007; 56:977.
  76. Alsufyani KA, Ortiz-Alvarez O, Cabral DA, et al. Bone mineral density in children and adolescents with systemic lupus erythematosus, juvenile dermatomyositis, and systemic vasculitis: relationship to disease duration, cumulative corticosteroid dose, calcium intake, and exercise. J Rheumatol 2005; 32:729.
  77. Warady BD, Lindsley CB, Robinson FG, Lukert BP. Effects of nutritional supplementation on bone mineral status of children with rheumatic diseases receiving corticosteroid therapy. J Rheumatol 1994; 21:530.
  78. Bianchi ML, Cimaz R, Bardare M, et al. Efficacy and safety of alendronate for the treatment of osteoporosis in diffuse connective tissue diseases in children: a prospective multicenter study. Arthritis Rheum 2000; 43:1960.
  79. Huber A, Feldman BM. Long-term outcomes in juvenile dermatomyositis: how did we get here and where are we going? Curr Rheumatol Rep 2005; 7:441.
  80. Pachman LM, Hayford JR, Chung A, et al. Juvenile dermatomyositis at diagnosis: clinical characteristics of 79 children. J Rheumatol 1998; 25:1198.
  81. McCann LJ, Juggins AD, Maillard SM, et al. The Juvenile Dermatomyositis National Registry and Repository (UK and Ireland)--clinical characteristics of children recruited within the first 5 yr. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2006; 45:1255.
  82. Sallum AM, Pivato FC, Doria-Filho U, et al. Risk factors associated with calcinosis of juvenile dermatomyositis. J Pediatr (Rio J) 2008; 84:68.
  83. Blane CE, White SJ, Braunstein EM, et al. Patterns of calcification in childhood dermatomyositis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1984; 142:397.
  84. Pachman LM, Liotta-Davis MR, Hong DK, et al. TNFalpha-308A allele in juvenile dermatomyositis: association with increased production of tumor necrosis factor alpha, disease duration, and pathologic calcifications. Arthritis Rheum 2000; 43:2368.
  85. Tansley SL, Betteridge ZE, Shaddick G, et al. Calcinosis in juvenile dermatomyositis is influenced by both anti-NXP2 autoantibody status and age at disease onset. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2014; 53:2204.
  86. Marhaug G, Shah V, Shroff R, et al. Age-dependent inhibition of ectopic calcification: a possible role for fetuin-A and osteopontin in patients with juvenile dermatomyositis with calcinosis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2008; 47:1031.
  87. Eddy MC, Leelawattana R, McAlister WH, Whyte MP. Calcinosis universalis complicating juvenile dermatomyositis: resolution during probenecid therapy. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1997; 82:3536.
  88. Harel L, Harel G, Korenreich L, et al. Treatment of calcinosis in juvenile dermatomyositis with probenecid: the role of phosphorus metabolism in the development of calcifications. J Rheumatol 2001; 28:1129.
  89. Nakamura H, Kawakami A, Ida H, et al. Efficacy of probenecid for a patient with juvenile dermatomyositis complicated with calcinosis. J Rheumatol 2006; 33:1691.
  90. Ichiki Y, Akiyama T, Shimozawa N, et al. An extremely severe case of cutaneous calcinosis with juvenile dermatomyositis, and successful treatment with diltiazem. Br J Dermatol 2001; 144:894.
  91. Oliveri MB, Palermo R, Mautalen C, Hübscher O. Regression of calcinosis during diltiazem treatment in juvenile dermatomyositis. J Rheumatol 1996; 23:2152.
  92. Wananukul S, Pongprasit P, Wattanakrai P. Calcinosis cutis presenting years before other clinical manifestations of juvenile dermatomyositis: report of two cases. Australas J Dermatol 1997; 38:202.
  93. Wang WJ, Lo WL, Wong CK. Calcinosis cutis in juvenile dermatomyositis: remarkable response to aluminum hydroxide therapy. Arch Dermatol 1988; 124:1721.
  94. Ambler GR, Chaitow J, Rogers M, et al. Rapid improvement of calcinosis in juvenile dermatomyositis with alendronate therapy. J Rheumatol 2005; 32:1837.
  95. Marco Puche A, Calvo Penades I, Lopez Montesinos B. Effectiveness of the treatment with intravenous pamidronate in calcinosis in juvenile dermatomyositis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2010; 28:135.
  96. Al-Mayouf SM, Alsonbul A, Alismail K. Localized calcinosis in juvenile dermatomyositis: successful treatment with intralesional corticosteroids injection. Int J Rheum Dis 2010; 13:e26.
  97. Wu JJ, Metz BJ. Calcinosis cutis of juvenile dermatomyositis treated with incision and drainage. Dermatol Surg 2008; 34:575.
  98. Besnard C, Gitiaux C, Girard M, et al. Severe Abdominal Manifestations in Juvenile Dermatomyositis. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2020; 70:247.
  99. Silverberg JI, Kwa L, Kwa MC, et al. Cardiovascular and cerebrovascular comorbidities of juvenile dermatomyositis in US children: an analysis of the National Inpatient Sample. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2018; 57:694.
  100. Stockton D, Doherty VR, Brewster DH. Risk of cancer in patients with dermatomyositis or polymyositis, and follow-up implications: a Scottish population-based cohort study. Br J Cancer 2001; 85:41.
  101. Christen-Zaech S, Seshadri R, Sundberg J, et al. Persistent association of nailfold capillaroscopy changes and skin involvement over thirty-six months with duration of untreated disease in patients with juvenile dermatomyositis. Arthritis Rheum 2008; 58:571.
  102. BITNUM S, DAESCHNER CW Jr, TRAVIS LB, et al. DERMATOMYOSITIS. J Pediatr 1964; 64:101.
  103. Crowe WE, Bove KE, Levinson JE, Hilton PK. Clinical and pathogenetic implications of histopathology in childhood polydermatomyositis. Arthritis Rheum 1982; 25:126.
  104. Nordal E, Pistorio A, Rygg M, et al. Growth and Puberty in Juvenile Dermatomyositis: A Longitudinal Cohort Study. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2020; 72:265.
  105. Sanner H, Gran JT, Sjaastad I, Flatø B. Cumulative organ damage and prognostic factors in juvenile dermatomyositis: a cross-sectional study median 16.8 years after symptom onset. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2009; 48:1541.
  106. Berntsen KS, Raastad T, Marstein H, et al. Functional and Structural Adaptations of Skeletal Muscle in Long-Term Juvenile Dermatomyositis: A Controlled Cross-Sectional Study. Arthritis Rheumatol 2020; 72:837.
  107. Berntsen KS, Tollisen A, Schwartz T, et al. Submaximal Exercise Capacity in Juvenile Dermatomyositis after Longterm Disease: The Contribution of Muscle, Lung, and Heart Involvement. J Rheumatol 2017; 44:827.
  108. Barth Z, Nomeland Witczak B, Schwartz T, et al. In juvenile dermatomyositis, heart rate variability is reduced, and associated with both cardiac dysfunction and markers of inflammation: a cross-sectional study median 13.5 years after symptom onset. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2016; 55:535.
  109. Tsaltskan V, Aldous A, Serafi S, et al. Long-term outcomes in Juvenile Myositis patients. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2020; 50:149.
Topic 6418 Version 29.0

References

آیا می خواهید مدیلیب را به صفحه اصلی خود اضافه کنید؟