Exposure to bisphenol-A (BPA) has been observed to alter developmental pathways and cell processes, at least in part, through epigenetic mechanisms. This study sought to investigate the effect of BPA on microRNAs (miRNAs) in human placental cells. miRNA microarray was performed following BPA treatment in three immortalized cytotrophoblast cell lines and the results validated using quantitative real-time PCR. For functional analysis, overexpression constructs were stably transfected into cells that were then assayed for changes in proliferation and response to toxicants. Microarray analysis revealed several miRNAs to be significantly altered in response to BPA treatment in two cell lines. Real-time PCR results confirmed that miR-146a was particularly strongly induced and its overexpression in cells led to slower proliferation as well as higher sensitivity to the DNA damaging agent, bleomycin. Overall, these results suggest that BPA can alter miRNA expression in placental cells, a potentially novel mode of BPA toxicity.

Objective To provide updated guidelines for pharmacologic management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), focusing on treatment of oligoarthritis, temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthritis, and systemic JIA with and without macrophage activation syndrome. Recommendations regarding tapering and discontinuing treatment in inactive systemic JIA are also provided. Methods We developed clinically relevant Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low). A Voting Panel including clinicians and patients/caregivers achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations. Results Similar to those published in 2019, these JIA recommendations are based on clinical phenotypes of JIA, rather than a specific classification schema. This guideline provides recommendations for initial and subsequent treatment of JIA with oligoarthritis, TMJ arthritis, and systemic JIA as well as for tapering and discontinuing treatment in subjects with inactive systemic JIA. Other aspects of disease management, including factors that influence treatment choice and medication tapering, are discussed. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low in quality. For that reason, more than half of the recommendations are conditional. Conclusion This clinical practice guideline complements the 2019 American College of Rheumatology JIA and uveitis guidelines, which addressed polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, enthesitis, and uveitis. It serves as a tool to support clinicians, patients, and caregivers in decision‐making. The recommendations take into consideration the severity of both articular and nonarticular manifestations as well as patient quality of life. Although evidence is generally low quality and many recommendations are conditional, the inclusion of caregivers and patients in the decision‐making process strengthens the relevance and applicability of the guideline. It is important to remember that these are recommendations. Clinical decisions, as always, should be made by the treating clinician and patient/caregiver.

Objective To provide updated guidelines for pharmacologic management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), focusing on treatment of oligoarthritis, temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthritis, and systemic JIA with and without macrophage activation syndrome. Recommendations regarding tapering and discontinuing treatment in inactive systemic JIA are also provided. Methods We developed clinically relevant Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low). A Voting Panel including clinicians and patients/caregivers achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations. Results Similar to those published in 2019, these JIA recommendations are based on clinical phenotypes of JIA, rather than a specific classification schema. This guideline provides recommendations for initial and subsequent treatment of JIA with oligoarthritis, TMJ arthritis, and systemic JIA as well as for tapering and discontinuing treatment in subjects with inactive systemic JIA. Other aspects of disease management, including factors that influence treatment choice and medication tapering, are discussed. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low in quality. For that reason, more than half of the recommendations are conditional. Conclusion This clinical practice guideline complements the 2019 American College of Rheumatology JIA and uveitis guidelines, which addressed polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, enthesitis, and uveitis. It serves as a tool to support clinicians, patients, and caregivers in decision‐making. The recommendations take into consideration the severity of both articular and nonarticular manifestations as well as patient quality of life. Although evidence is generally low quality and many recommendations are conditional, the inclusion of caregivers and patients in the decision‐making process strengthens the relevance and applicability of the guideline. It is important to remember that these are recommendations. Clinical decisions, as always, should be made by the treating clinician and patient/caregiver.

Objective To provide recommendations for the management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) with a focus on nonpharmacologic therapies, medication monitoring, immunizations, and imaging, irrespective of JIA phenotype. Methods We developed clinically relevant Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low). A Voting Panel including clinicians and patients/caregivers achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations. Results Recommendations in this guideline include the use of physical therapy and occupational therapy interventions; a healthy, well‐balanced, age‐appropriate diet; specific laboratory monitoring for medications; widespread use of immunizations; and shared decision‐making with patients/caregivers. Disease management for all patients with JIA is addressed with respect to nonpharmacologic therapies, medication monitoring, immunizations, and imaging. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low in quality. For that reason, more than half of the recommendations are conditional. Conclusion This clinical practice guideline complements the 2019 American College of Rheumatology JIA and uveitis guidelines, which addressed polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, enthesitis, and uveitis, and a concurrent 2021 guideline on oligoarthritis, temporomandibular arthritis, and systemic JIA. It serves as a tool to support clinicians, patients, and caregivers in decision‐making. The recommendations take into consideration the severity of both articular and nonarticular manifestations as well as patient quality of life. Although evidence is generally low quality and many recommendations are conditional, the inclusion of caregivers and patients in the decision‐making process strengthens the relevance and applicability of the guideline. It is important to remember that these are recommendations. Clinical decisions, as always, should be made by the treating clinician and patient/caregiver.

Asthma encompasses numerous phenotypes that may require alternate approaches to diagnosis and therapy, particularly for patients whose symptoms remain poorly controlled despite escalating treatment. We describe 3 patients with apparent asthma who demonstrated unusual findings on cryobiopsy by flexible bronchoscopy and responded to therapy directed against autoimmune disease.

Objective To provide recommendations for the management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) with a focus on nonpharmacologic therapies, medication monitoring, immunizations, and imaging, irrespective of JIA phenotype. Methods We developed clinically relevant Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low). A Voting Panel including clinicians and patients/caregivers achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations. Results Recommendations in this guideline include the use of physical therapy and occupational therapy interventions; a healthy, well‐balanced, age‐appropriate diet; specific laboratory monitoring for medications; widespread use of immunizations; and shared decision‐making with patients/caregivers. Disease management for all patients with JIA is addressed with respect to nonpharmacologic therapies, medication monitoring, immunizations, and imaging. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low in quality. For that reason, more than half of the recommendations are conditional. Conclusion This clinical practice guideline complements the 2019 American College of Rheumatology JIA and uveitis guidelines, which addressed polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, enthesitis, and uveitis, and a concurrent 2021 guideline on oligoarthritis, temporomandibular arthritis, and systemic JIA. It serves as a tool to support clinicians, patients, and caregivers in decision‐making. The recommendations take into consideration the severity of both articular and nonarticular manifestations as well as patient quality of life. Although evidence is generally low quality and many recommendations are conditional, the inclusion of caregivers and patients in the decision‐making process strengthens the relevance and applicability of the guideline. It is important to remember that these are recommendations. Clinical decisions, as always, should be made by the treating clinician and patient/caregiver.

Objective The goal was to characterize short‐term kidney status and describe variation in early care utilization in a multicenter cohort of patients with childhood‐onset systemic lupus erythematosus (cSLE) and nephritis. Methods We analyzed previously collected prospective data from North American patients with cSLE with kidney biopsy‐proven nephritis enrolled in the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) Registry from March 2017 through December 2019. We determined the proportion of patients with abnormal kidney status at the most recent registry visit and applied generalized linear mixed models to identify associated factors. We also calculated frequency of medication use, both during induction and ever recorded. Results We identified 222 patients with kidney biopsy–proven nephritis, with 64% class III/IV nephritis on initial biopsy. At the most recent registry visit at median (interquartile range) of 17 (8–29) months from initial kidney biopsy, 58 of 106 patients (55%) with available data had abnormal kidney status. This finding was associated with male sex (odds ratio [OR] 3.88, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.21–12.46) and age at cSLE diagnosis (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01–1.49). Patients with class IV nephritis were more likely than class III to receive cyclophosphamide and rituximab during induction. There was substantial variation in mycophenolate, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab ever use patterns across rheumatology centers. Conclusion In this cohort with predominately class III/IV nephritis, male sex and older age at cSLE diagnosis were associated with abnormal short‐term kidney status. We also observed substantial variation in contemporary medication use for pediatric lupus nephritis between pediatric rheumatology centers. Additional studies are needed to better understand the impact of this variation on long‐term kidney outcomes.

No abstract