Background: There is not yet a commonly accepted, standardized approach in the treatment of juvenile idiopathic uveitis when initial steroid therapy is insufficient. We sought to assess current practice patterns within a large cohort of children with juvenile uveitis. Methods: This is a cross-sectional cohort study of patients with uveitis enrolled in the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRAnet) registry. Clinical information including, demographic information, presenting features, disease complications, and medications were collected. Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were used to assess for associations between medications and clinical characteristics. Results: Ninety-two children with idiopathic and 656 with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA)-associated uveitis were identified. Indication (arthritis or uveitis) for medication use was not available for JIA patients; therefore, detailed analysis was limited to children with idiopathic uveitis. In this group, 94 % had received systemic steroids. Methotrexate (MTX) was used in 76 % of patients, with oral and subcutaneous forms given at similar rates. In multivariable analysis, non-Caucasians were more likely to be treated initially with subcutaneous MTX (P = 0.003). Of the 53 % of patients treated with a biologic DMARD, all received a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. TNF inhibitor use was associated with a higher frequency of cataracts (52 % vs 21 %; P = 0.001) and antinuclear antibody positivity (49 % vs 29 %; P = 0.04), although overall complication rates were not higher in these patients. Conclusion: Among idiopathic uveitis patients enrolled in the CARRAnet registry, MTX was the most commonly used DMARD, with subcutaneous and oral forms equally favored. Patients who received a TNF inhibitor were more likely to be ANA positive and have cataracts.

Background: Juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated uveitis (JIA-U) can lead to poor visual outcomes and impact a child's quality of life (QOL) and function. Our aim is to identify risk markers of JIA-U and examine differences in the QOL of children with JIA and JIA-U. Methods: Rheumatology and ophthalmology record reviews and questionnaires were completed every 4-6 months on 287 children with JIA. We collected arthritis, uveitis, and QOL data. We examined data through last study visit. Results: There were 52/287 (18 %) children with JIA-U who were younger at arthritis diagnosis, had oligoarticular persistent JIA, and ANA positive. Confirmed uveitis predictors were age at JIA diagnosis (OR=0.86) and oligoarticular subtype (OR=5.92). They had worse vision specific QOL and function, but similar general QOL. Blindness occurred in 17.5 % of children but was more common in African American children compared to non-Hispanic Caucasian children ((5/7 (71 %) vs. 2/29 (7 %), p <0.001) despite a similar uveitis prevalence (22 % vs. 16 %). Both races had similar complications, although band keratopathy was more frequent in African Americans (75 % vs. 15.6 %, p=0.003). Conclusions: We confirm young age at JIA diagnosis and the oligoarticular JIA subtype as predictors of uveitis development. Although we were unable to identify predictors of ocular complications or blindness, AA children appeared to have a more severe disease course manifested by increased ocular complications, vision loss and blindness. Potential causes that warrant additional study include underlying disease severity, access to medical care and referral bias. Further investigation of the risk factors for vision-compromising uveitis and its' long-term effects should be conducted in a large racially diverse population.