Clinical practice variation and need for pediatric-specific treatment guidelines among rheumatologists caring for children with ANCA-associated vasculitis: an international clinician survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Because pediatric antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis is rare, management generally relies on adult data. We assessed treatment practices, uptake of existing clinical assessment tools, and interest in pediatric treatment protocols among rheumatologists caring for children with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA). METHODS: A needs-assessment survey developed by an international working group of pediatric rheumatologists and two nephrologists was circulated internationally. Data were summarized with descriptive statistics. Pearson's chi-square tests were used in inferential univariate analyses. RESULTS: The 209 respondents from 36 countries had collectively seen ~1600 children with GPA/MPA; 144 had seen more than two in the preceding 5 years. Standardized and validated clinical assessment tools to score disease severity, activity, and damage were used by 59, 63, and 36%, respectively; barriers to use included lack of knowledge and limited perceived utility. Therapy varied significantly: use of rituximab rather than cyclophosphamide was more common among respondents from the USA (OR = 2.7 [1.3-5.5], p = 0.0190, n = 139), those with >5 years of independent practice experience (OR = 3.8 [1.3-12.5], p = 0.0279, n = 137), and those who had seen >10 children with GPA/MPA in their careers (OR = 4.39 [2.1-9.1], p = 0.0011, n = 133). Respondents who had treated >10 patients were also more likely to continue maintenance therapy for at least 24 months (OR = 3.0 [1.4-6.4], p = 0.0161, n = 127). Ninety six percent of respondents believed in a need for pediatric-specific treatment guidelines; 46% supported adaptation of adult guidelines while 69% favoured guidelines providing a limited range of treatment options to allow comparison of effectiveness through a registry. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide a rationale for developing pediatric-specific consensus treatment guidelines for GPA/MPA. While pediatric rheumatologist uptake of existing clinical tools has been limited, guideline uptake may be enhanced if outcomes of consensus-derived treatment options are evaluated within the framework of an international registry.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".