
==== Front
RMD Open
RMD Open
rmdopen
rmdopen
RMD Open
2056-5933
BMJ Publishing Group BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR

39242113
10.1136/rmdopen-2024-004317
rmdopen-2024-004317
Original Research
Paediatric Rheumatology
1506
Inflammatory biomarkers predicting long-term remission and active disease in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a population-based study of the Nordic JIA cohort
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9128-9908
Glerup Mia 12miagleru@rm.dk

Kessel Christoph 3kesselc@uni-muenster.de

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1946-3916
Foell Dirk 3dfoell@uni-muenster.de

Berntson Lillemor 4lillemor.berntson@kbh.uu.se

Fasth Anders 5anders.fasth@pediat.gu.se

Myrup Charlotte 6Charlotte.Myrup@regionh.dk

Nordal Ellen 78ellen.berit.nordal@unn.no

Rypdal Veronika 78veronikagj@gmail.com

Rygg Marite 910marite.rygg@ntnu.no

Arnstad Ellen Dalen 911ellen.d.arnstad@ntebb.no

Peltoniemi Suvi 12suvi.peltoniemi@helsinki.fi

Aalto Kristiina 1314Kristiina.Aalto@hus.fi

Schleifenbaum Susanne 3susanne.schleifenbaum@ukmuenster.de

Høllsberg Malene Noer 1201610067@post.au.dk

Bilgrau Anders Ellern 15anders.ellern.bilgrau@gmail.com

Herlin Troels 1t.herlin@dadlnet.dk

Nordic Study Group of Paediatric Rheumatology (NoSPeR)Susan.Nielsen@regionh.dk

1 Department of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
2 Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
3 Department of Paediatric Rheumatology and Immunology, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany
4 Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
5 Department of Paediatrics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
6 Department of Paediatrics, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
7 Department of Pediatrics, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway
8 Department of Clinical Medicine, UiT–The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway
9 Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, NTNU–Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
10 Department of Pediatrics, St Olavs Hospital, Trondheim, Norway
11 Department of Paediatrics, Levanger Hospital, Nord-Trøndelag Hospital Trust, Levanger, Norway
12 Clinic of Rheumatology, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
13 Department of Paediatrics, New Children's Hospital, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
14 Paediatric Research Centre, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
15 Department of Mathematical Sciences, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Additional supplemental material is published online only. To view, please visit the journal online (https://doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2024-004317).

CM: Speakers bureau: Novartis, Sobi. Support for attending meetings: Sobi. VR: Committees: Secretary of the JIA Working Party in the Pediatric Rheumatology European Association (PReS). MR: Data safety monitoring board: STARS trial. CK: Grants: Novartis, German Research Foundation. Consulting fees: Sobi, Novartis. Speakers bureau: Sobi. DF: Grants: Novartis, Sobi. Consulting fees: Boehringer, Novartis. Speakers bureau: Novartis, Sobi, BioNTech. Advisory boards: Novartis, Sobi. Boards: Paediatric Rheumatology European Society council, EULAR council.

Dr; miagleru@rm.dk
2024
05 9 2024
10 3 e00431708 3 2024
20 8 2024
Copyright © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Abstract

Objectives

To assess the ability of baseline serum biomarkers to predict disease activity and remission status in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) at 18-year follow-up (FU) in a population-based setting.

Methods

Clinical data and serum levels of inflammatory biomarkers were assessed in the longitudinal population-based Nordic JIA cohort study at baseline and at 18-year FU. A panel of 16 inflammatory biomarkers was determined by multiplexed bead array assay. We estimated both univariate and multivariate logistic regression models on binary outcomes of disease activity and remission with baseline variables as explanatory variables.

Results

Out of 349 patients eligible for the Nordic JIA cohort study, 236 (68%) had available serum samples at baseline. We measured significantly higher serum levels of interleukin 1β (IL-1β), IL-6, IL-12p70, IL-13, MMP-3, S100A9 and S100A12 at baseline in patients with active disease at 18-year FU than in patients with inactive disease. Computing receiver operating characteristics illustrating the area under the curve (AUC), we compared a conventional prediction model (gender, age, joint counts, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C reactive protein) with an extended model that also incorporated the 16 baseline biomarkers. Biomarker addition significantly improved the ability of the model to predict activity/inactivity at the 18-year FU, as evidenced by an increase in the AUC from 0.59 to 0.80 (p=0.02). Multiple regression analysis revealed that S100A9 was the strongest predictor of inactive disease 18 years after disease onset.

Conclusion

Biomarkers indicating inflammation at baseline have the potential to improve evaluation of disease activity and prediction of long-term outcomes.

Arthritis, Juvenile
Autoimmune Diseases
Child
Inflammation
==== Body
pmcWHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC

Elevated levels of erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and baseline levels of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, interleukin 6 (IL-6), IL-17A and tumour necrosis factor have been associated with a higher probability of sustained disease activity at a 12-month follow-up.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

Addition of validated inflammatory biomarkers to conventional clinical prognostic factors (gender, age, active joint counts, ESR and C reactive protein) significantly enhances prediction of disease activity/inactivity at 18 years of follow-up.

HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICY

Early monitoring of validated inflammatory biomarkers, such as S100 proteins along with IL-1ß, IL-6, IL-12, IL-13 and MMP-3, could greatly influence the management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Combining evaluation of biomarker levels with conventional clinical factors could potentially improve the identification of children who will not respond to conventional methotrexate therapy.

Introduction

Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is a heterogenous group of chronic arthritis with childhood onset and a fluctuating disease course. In a population-based Nordic JIA cohort, we reported that even 18 years after disease onset, almost 40% continued having active disease1 as also reported in other long-term studies.2 3 However, predicting the long-term severity of JIA and its potential remission through early retrieval of prognostic factors remains challenging.2 4 5

A complex network of cytokines and inflammatory cells has shown to be essential to the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and JIA.6 7 The role of key cytokines, including tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFα), interleukin 1β (IL-1β), IL-6, Janus kinase-dependent cytokines, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) and chemokines, is significant in RA pathogenesis. These cytokines may provide insight into disease pathogenesis and may inform tailored treatment plans, considering both their individual roles and the broader inflammatory tissue response.6 Moreover, TNFα, IL-6, IL-10, IL-12 and IL-18 have been shown to correlate with disease activity in JIA.811

Other blood biomarkers have been suggested to monitor JIA disease activity and facilitate prediction of clinical outcome. The phagocyte-related and proinflammatory S100A8/A9 and S100A12 proteins have been identified as important inflammatory markers in several conditions, including RA and JIA.12 13 They are markedly elevated in systemic inflammatory conditions, such as systemic JIA13 14 or Kawasaki disease,15 and may enhance the potential of clinical characteristics for predicting disease outcomes.16 In JIA, biomarkers, such as the S100 proteins, have facilitated identification of patients with unstable remission, patients at increased risk of relapse17 18 and anti-TNFα responders in non-systemic JIA.19

Ganeva et al recently described the association of baseline serum biomarkers and inflammatory variables with the outcome of active JIA within the first year of diagnosis.20 They showed that a high erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and high GM-CSF, IL-6, IL-17A and TNF baseline levels indicated an increased risk of ongoing disease activity after 12 months. Based on this, they discussed a strategy of including serum biomarkers as part of clinical management to ensure early identification of patients with JIA at risk of experiencing a severe outcome. The validity of these findings in a population-based cohort and the utility of serum biomarkers as predictors of long-term outcomes remain unknown.

This study aimed to assess the potential correlation between levels of serum biomarkers in early-stage JIA and disease activity, and to explore the role of these biomarkers in predicting disease activity and clinical outcome 18 years after disease onset.

Methods

In this longitudinal study of the population-based Nordic JIA cohort,1 we conducted a comparative analysis of serum levels of inflammatory biomarkers obtained both at baseline and at 18-year follow-up (FU) with their respective clinical data. Consecutive cases of newly diagnosed patients with JIA were recruited at disease onset from well-defined geographical areas of Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland. The recruitment period spanned from 1 January 1997 to 30 June 2000, with the objective of achieving a population-based representation, as previously described in detail.1 21 A baseline visit was planned to take place 6 months (−1/+2 months) after disease onset.21 22 The JIA categories were classified according to the International League of Associations for Rheumatology criteria.23 At 18-year FU, an invitation was extended to all 510 participants originally enrolled in the Nordic JIA cohort. This invitation was extended regardless of disease activity, level of treatment and disease course, ensuring a non-selected setting.

At baseline and at the 18-year FU visit, we registered disease activity variables, including complete active joint count, physician’s global assessment of disease activity (PhGA) on a 10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS), patient/parent’s global assessment of well-being (PaGA), medication and blood tests (ESR, C reactive protein (CRP), antinuclear antibodies, rheumatoid factor, human leucocyte antigen B27 and biomarkers). In addition, the 18-year FU visit included an update of the demographic data. We applied the Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score for 71 joints (JADAS71),24 range 0–101. Additionally, scores on a 21-point circled VAS for PhGA and PaGA were collected, where 0 indicated no activity/best global assessment, and 10 indicated the maximum activity/poorest global assessment. We adopted the American College of Rheumatology 2011 provisional criteria for clinically inactive disease (CID)25 and the preliminary Wallace criteria for clinical remission.26 CID includes the following: (1) no active joints; (2) no fever, rash, serositis, splenomegaly or generalised lymphadenopathy attributable to JIA; (3) no active uveitis; (4) normal ESR and/or CRP level; (5) a PhGA that indicates no disease activity; and (6) a duration of morning stiffness of ≤15 min. For clinical remission on medication, the criteria for inactive disease on medication had to be fulfilled for a minimum of six continuous months.26 To be in clinical remission off medication (CR), patients must have had inactive disease for a continuous period of 12 months as a minimum, during which they received no antiarthritis and/or antiuveitis medication.26

All samples were collected in serum tubes, centrifuged, aliquoted and stored at –80°C for biomarker analysis. The baseline samples were thawed no more than two times. The samples were diluted in Tris-buffered saline (TBS) 1:4 before analysis. We determined serum concentrations of S100A9 (as measurement of the S100A8/A9 complex), S100A12, IL-1β, IL-4, IL-6, IL-10, IL-12p70, IL-13, IL-17A, IL-18, TNFα, matrix metalloproteinase 3 (MMP-3), myeloperoxidase (MPO), chemokine ligand 2 (CCL-2) and soluble CD25 (sCD25) using multiplexed bead array assay according to the manufacturer’s instructions (R&D Systems, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA). Data acquisition and analysis were performed on a MAGPIX instrument (Merck Millipore, Darmstadt, Germany) using xPONENT V.4.2 software (Luminex). The analysing laboratory in Muenster, Germany, was blinded to the patients’ clinical characteristics. The choice of these specific biomarkers over others is based on a combination of an explorative study and their established relevance to the disease process and treatment response.

Statistics

The biomarker concentrations exhibited a non-normal distribution, as evaluated by Q-Q plot and Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic. Therefore, the results are presented as median with 1st–3rd IQR or 95% CI and compared using the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous data and Fisher’s exact test for dichotomous variables. For paired comparison, Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used. In addition, Spearman’s rank-order correlation was used to evaluate the correlation between the biomarkers and JADAS.

We used both univariate and multivariate logistic regression models to estimate binary outcomes of disease activity and remission with baseline variables as explanatory variables. The predicted probabilities (fitted values) of the logistic regressions were used to compute the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and the area under the curve (AUC) to evaluate model performance.

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare nested multivariate logistic regression models. For the goodness of fit, the omnibus test of model coefficients and the Hosmer and Lemeshow test were performed.

Results

At baseline, 510 patients were enrolled in the study. In this study, the Finnish patients (n=161) did not have access to sample storage and accordingly, they were excluded to ensure a population-based setting ending up with a total cohort of 349 eligible participants. Of these, blood samples from 113 patients were no longer available. Therefore, serum analysis for baseline biomarkers was performed on 236 (67.6%) of the remaining 349 patients from the other Nordic countries (figure 1). From the 434 patients registered at the 18-year FU, 329 attended a clinical visit of which 284 had blood samples available for biomarker analysis. From the patients with blood samples at baseline (n=236) clinical data at the 18-year FU were recorded for 199 patients. 150 patients had paired samples taken both at the baseline visit and at the 18-year FU.

Figure 1 Flow chart of study population. FU, follow-up.

Demographic data and clinical characteristics for the 236 patients registered at the baseline visit and at 18-year FU are shown in table 1. Median JADAS71 at baseline was 5.0 (IQR: 2.0–11.0) compared with 2.0 (IQR: 0.0–6.4) at FU. CID at 18-year FU was observed in 58% and CR in 39.4% of the patients. At the baseline visit, 180 of the 236 patients were disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) treatment naïve (76.3%), 11 had previously been treated with DMARDs and 45 (19.1%) were still on DMARDs. None of the patients had received biologics at the time of the baseline visits (data not shown). At the 18-year FU, 29 out of the 199 (14.6%) participants were treated with DMARDs, and 31 (15.6%) were treated with biologics, with 18 of them receiving a combination of both. We found no significant differences in clinical characteristics between the groups of patients for whom baseline serum samples (n=236) were available and those for whom blood samples were not available (n=113) (online supplemental table S1).

Table 1 Demographic and clinical characteristics of participants with baseline samples from the Nordic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) cohort (n=236)

	n	Baseline (n=236)	n	18-year follow-up (n=199)	
Females		164 (69%)			
Age at onset (years)	236	6.0 (2.9–10.4)			
ANA positive	208	82 (39.4)			
HLA-B27 positive	229	44 (19.0)			
Age at last follow-up (years)			199	23.6 (20.5–27.6)	
Disease duration (years)			199	17.7 (16.8–18.6)	
ESR, mm/hour	194	12 (6.0–24.0)	125	6.0 (3.0–9.0)	
ESR>20, mm/hour	194	54 (27.8)	125	9 (7.2)	
CRP, mg/L	196	0.0 (0.0–10.0)	155	4.0 (1.7–5.0)	
CRP>8, mg/L	196	52 (26.5)	155	15 (9.7)	
Active joint count	236	1.0 (0–3.0)	199	0.0 (0.0–0.0)	
Cumulative joints	236	3.0 (1.0–7.0)	199	8.0 (3.0–16.0)	
JADAS71	159	5.0 (2.0–11.0)	184	2.0 (0.0–6.4)	
CHAQ/(baseline)/HAQ	198	0.3 (0.0–0.925)	188	0.0 (0.0–0.25)	
Remission off medication		NA	193	76 (39.4)	
Inactive disease		NA	193	112 (58.0)	
Systemic JIA		10 (4.2%)		7 (3.5%)	
Oligoarticular persistent		113 (47.9%)		45 (22.6%)	
Oligoarticular extended		8 (3.4%)		42 (21.1%)	
Polyarticular RF positive		5 (2.1%)		2 (1.0%)	
Polyarticular RF negative		46 (19.5%)		28 (14.1%)	
Psoriatic arthritis		2 (0.8%)		9 (4.5%)	
Enthesitis-related arthritis		20 (8.5%)		22 (11.1%)	
Undifferentiated		32 (13.6%)		44 (22.1%)	
Data are expressed as medians with interquartile range( (IQR)) or asnumber of patients with( %) in parentheses. ANA: Antinuclear antibodies, HLA-B27: Human leukocyte antigen B27, ESR: , CRP: C-reactive protein, JADAS71: Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score of 71 joints, CHAQ: The Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire, HAQ: Health Assessment Questionnaire, RF: , NA: not applicable.

ANAantinuclear antibodiesCHAQChildhood Health Assessment QuestionnaireCRPC reactive proteinESRerythrocyte sedimentation rateHAQHealth Assessment QuestionnaireHLA-B27human leucocyte antigen B27JADAS71Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score for 71 jointsNAnot applicableRFrheumatoid factor

The levels of IL-18, S100A9 and S100A12 at baseline were significantly higher in patients with systemic JIA than in those with non-systemic JIA (p<0.001) (table 2). The baseline levels of serum biomarkers for all JIA categories are shown in online supplemental figure S1. At the baseline visit, eight patients were classified as having extended oligoarthritis with significantly higher baseline levels of S100A12 than the 113 patients with persistent oligoarthritis (median 2195 pg/mL (95% CI 1056 to 6247) vs median 889 pg/mL (95% CI 409 to 1595), p=0.029). Of the 121 patients with oligoarticular JIA at baseline, 45 were classified as having persistent oligoarticular JIA and 61 as not having the persistent type (42 extended oligoarthritis, 3 psoriatic arthritis, 5 enthesitis-related arthritis, 11 undifferentiated) at the 18-year FU. 15 were missing. Baseline MMP-3 was significantly lower in patients who had persistent oligoarticular JIA at 18-year FU compared with those with a non-persistent subtype (2654 pg/mL (1060–11 982 pg/mL) vs 6949 pg/mL (1868–21 735 pg/mL), p=0.028). For the other biomarkers we found no significant difference.

Table 2 Serum levels of biomarkers at baseline comparing patients with systemic JIA (n=10) versus non-systemic JIA (n=226)

	All	Systemic JIA (sJIA)	Non-systemic JIA(non-sJIA)	P valuesJIA versus non-sJIA	
n	236	10	226		
IL-1β	16.5 (6.7–30.5)	19.2 (11.6–32.1)	16.5 (6.2–30.5)	0.462	
IL-4	88.6 (55.4–132.7)	94 (5–191)	89 (57–133)	0.951	
IL-6	6.7 (3.2–13.0)	11.5 (3.6–46.0)	6.7 (3.2–12.6)	0.254	
IL-10	5.3 (2.3–7.1)	6.7 (2.7–10.5)	5.3 (2.3–7.1)	0.180	
IL-12p70	13.4 (0.5–72.5)	31.2 (0.5–108.4)	13.4 (0.5–72.5)	0.524	
IL-13	497 (387–621)	576 (461–719)	497 (387–621)	0.080	
IL-17	10.3 (0.8–16.2)	16.7 (5.2–36.1)	9.7 (0.8–16.0)	0.161	
IL-18	205 (136–291)	2377 (594–8409)	198 (136–273)	<0.001**	
TNFα	9.2 (1.7–16.6)	6.7 (1.0–27.3)	9.2 (22–16.6)	0.932	
MMP-3	5174 (1747–17 493)	12 368 (2706–65 192)	5064 (1727–16 424)	0.172	
CCL-2	180 (112–251)	135 (49–172)	183 (112–255)	0.102	
sCD25	587 (420–766)	709 (427–891)	581 (418–760)	0.394	
GM-CSF	0.4 (0.4–3.8)	3.2 (0.4–13.5)	0.4 (0.4–3.7)	0.059	
MPO	2294 (1579–3572)	2367 (1953–5161)	2289 (1533–3565)	0.449	
S100A9	511 (314–1277)	2786 (949–5643)	505 (309–1054)	0.006*	
S100A12	924 (434–1610)	1947 (1253–10 124)	904 (431–1601)	0.007*	
Values are in picograms/millilitre (pg/mL) expressed as median (IQR). *: pP<0.01; **: p<0.001. JIA: ; IL: interleukin, TNFα: tumor necrosis factor alpha; MMP-3: matrix metalloproteinase 3; CCL-2: chemokine ligand 2; sCD25: soluble CD25; GM-CSF: granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor; MPO: myeloperoxidase; S100A9/A12: S100 calcium-binding protein A9/A12.

CCL-2chemokine ligand 2GM-CSFgranulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factorILinterleukinJIAjuvenile idiopathic arthritisMMP-3matrix metalloproteinase 3MPOmyeloperoxidaseS100A9S100 calcium-binding protein A9S100A12S100 calcium-binding protein A12sCD25soluble CD25TNFαtumour necrosis factor alpha

Paired comparison of serum analyses from the same individuals obtained both at baseline and at the 18-year FU showed that the levels of IL-1β, IL-6, IL-10, IL-17A, IL-18 and sCD25 obtained at baseline ranged from 1.4 to 5.5 times higher than at the 18-year FU (p<0.001) (table 3). Levels of IL-1β, IL-4, IL-6, IL-10, IL-13, MMP-3, S100A9 and S100A12 were significantly lower in DMARD-naïve patients at baseline than in non-naïve DMARD patients (online supplemental table S2). Correspondingly, JADAS71 measured at baseline was significantly lower for the DMARD-naïve group than for the DMARD-treated group (4.2 (1.7–8.1) vs 11.5 (4.9–18.2), respectively; p<0.001).

Table 3 Comparison of serum biomarker levels obtained at baseline and at 18-year FU

	Baseline—all	18-year FU—all	Paired samplesBaseline	18-year FU	P value (Wilcoxon)	
n	236	284	150	150		
IL-1β	16.5 (6.7–30.5)	11.8 (8.6–18.0)	16.9 (3.8–30.5)	12.5 (8.2–19.7)	<0.001	
IL-4	88.6 (55.4–132.7)	83.0 (66.2–112.8)	81.9 (54.0–121.0)	80.0 (63.0–125.0)	0.010	
IL-6	6.7 (3.2–13.0)	4.5 (3.3–6.2)	6.4 (3.2–13.6)	4.5 (3.6–6.0)	<0.001	
IL-10	5.3 (2.3–7.1)	0.7 (0.0–2.3)	5.0 (1.4–7.1)	0.9 (0.3–2.8)	<0.001	
IL-12	13.4 (0.5–72.5)	58.8 (22.8–92.4)	33.6 (0.5–88.4)	72.5 (42.0–105.0)	<0.001	
IL-13	497 (387–621)	448 (363–498)	502 (389–621)	467 (392–529)	0.249	
IL-17	10.3 (0.8–16.2)	1.9 (0.7–3.3)	8.0 (0.8–15.2)	1.9 (0.7–5.6)	<0.001	
IL-18	205 (136–291)	149 (106–219)	190 (126–282)	139 (98–211)	<0.001	
TNFα	9.2 (1.7–16.6)	8.2 (3.9–12.8)	6.7 (1.0–14.6)	6.9 (3.6–12.3)	0.537	
MMP-3	5174 (1747–17 493)	6557 (4656–10 098)	6095 (1954–16 424)	6600 (4874–10 758)	0.466	
CCL-2	180 (112–251)	182 (143–231)	166 (108–251)	187 (150–240)	0.066	
CD25	587 (420–766)	780 (442–1554)	540 (413–737)	336 (264–418)	<0.001	
GM-CSF	0.4 (0.4–3.8)	0.4 (0.4–3.6)	0.5 (0.4–4.8)	1.7 (0.4–4.7)	0.638	
MPO	2294 (1579–3572)	4010 (1925–6178)	2299 (1494–3414)	4522 (2967–6231)	<0.001	
S100A9	511 (314–1277)	780 (442–1554)	549 (305–1191)	782 (445–1553)	0.009	
S100A12	924 (434–1610)	922 (591–1423)	976 (443–1637)	922 (576–1456)	0.407	
Values are in picograms/millilitre (pg/mL) expressed as median (IQR). P values were calculated using Wilcoxon signed-rank test for paired comparison.

* Paired serum analyses from the same individuals taken both at baseline and at 18-year FU, n=150.

CCL-2chemokine ligand 2FUfollow-upGM-CSFgranulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factorILinterleukinMMP-3matrix metalloproteinase 3MPOmyeloperoxidaseS100A9S100 calcium-binding protein A9S100A12S100 calcium-binding protein A12TNFαtumour necrosis factor alpha

Patients with active disease at the 18-year FU had significantly higher levels of IL-1β, IL-6, IL-12p70, IL-13, MMP-3, S100A9 and S100A12 at baseline than had patients with inactive disease at FU (figure 2A, online supplemental table S3). Patients who had achieved remission off medication at the 18-year FU had significantly lower levels of IL-1β, IL-12p70, IL-13 and MMP-3 measured at baseline than the remaining cohort had (non-achievement of remission off medication) (figure 2B, online supplemental table S3). These results were not affected by the exclusion of patients with systemic JIA from the cohort (online supplemental table S4).

Figure 2 (A) Serum biomarker levels at baseline visit comparing patients with inactive disease (as defined by Wallace et al25 26 (n=112) and active disease (n=82) at 18-year follow-up (FU). (B) Serum biomarker levels at baseline visit comparing patients in complete remission off medication (CR; as defined by Wallace et al25 26 (n=76) and non-achievement of CR (n=117) at 18-year follow-up. Values are in picograms/millilitre (pg/mL) expressed as median with 95% CI. *P<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001. IL, interleukin; MMP-3, matrix metalloproteinase 3; S100A9, S100 calcium-binding protein A9; S100A12, S100 calcium-binding protein A12.

Using ‘active disease’ as the response variable as opposed to ‘inactive disease’, we investigated the ORs of developing active/inactive disease at the time of the 18-year FU as a function of the following clinical variables registered at baseline (gender, age at onset, number of active and cumulative joints, JADAS71, Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire, ESR and CRP) as well as the baseline serum biomarkers. ROC curves and AUCs from the logistic model predictions were computed for the prediction of ‘inactive disease’ and ‘remission off medication’ by the Wallace definition,25 26 no active joints and JADAS71≤1 at the 18-year FU (table 4). For each variable, univariately, table 4 lists the AUC of the ROC for the predicted probabilities, the 95% CI of the AUC and associated p values. The associated p values listed in table 4 are in reference to the null hypothesis that the AUC of the ROC is 0.5. Our findings demonstrated for the prediction of inactive disease predictive capability for IL-1β, IL-6, IL-12p70, IL-13, MMP-3, S100A9 and S100A12, as well as ESR and active and cumulative joints. The AUC for the prediction of remission off medication at 18-year FU showed acceptable predictive ability for IL-1β, IL-6, IL-12p70, IL-13 and MMP-3 (table 4). Computing for the prediction of JADAS71>1 revealed predictive capability for IL-1β, IL-6, IL-12p70, IL-13, MMP-3, S100A9 and S100A12, as well as ESR and active and cumulative joints. The AUC for the prediction of remission off medication at 18-year FU showed acceptable predictive ability for IL-1β, IL-6, IL-12p70, IL-13 and MMP-3 (table 4). Computing for the prediction of JADAS71>1 revealed predictive capability for IL-1β, IL-4, IL-6, IL-12, IL-13, IL-17, TNFα, MMP-3, S100A9 and S100A12 (table 4).

Table 4 Αrea under the curve (AUC) model for each biomarker measured at baseline on prediction of ‘Inactive disease’ and ‘remission off medication’ according to Wallace definition,25 26 number of active joints and JADAS71≤135 at 18-year follow-up

Baseline predictor candidates	Active disease versusinactive disease* (n=81/112)		Non-achievement of remission versus remission off medication* (n=117/76)		Active joints at 18-year FU versus no active joints (n=46/153)		JADAS71>1 versus JADAS71≤1 at 18-year FU(n=109/75)		
	Missing=43		Missing=43		Missing=37		Missing=52		
	AUC	P value	AUC	P value	AUC	P value	AUC	P value	
IL-1β	0.60 (0.52–0.68)	0.020*	0.603 (0.52–0.68)	0.016*	0.63 (0.53–0.72)	0.011*	0.66 (0.58–0.74)	<0.001***	
IL-4	0.55 (0.47–0.63)	0.245	0.532 (0.45–0.62)	0.455	0.53 (0.43–0.62)	0.572	0.59 (0.51–0.67)	0.031*	
IL-6	0.61 (0.53–0.69)	0.011*	0.572 (0.49–0.66)	0.093	0.59 (0.50–0.68)	0.044*	0.61 (0.53–0.69)	0.009**	
IL-10	0.54 (0.46–0.63)	0.326	0.563 (0.48–0.65)	0.143	0.53 (0.43–0.62)	0.582	0.55 (0.47–0.64)	0.243	
IL-12p70	0.63 (0.55–0.71)	0.003**	0.588 (0.51–0.67)	0.038*	0.62 (0.53–0.71)	0.009**	0.59 (0.51–0.67)	0.033*	
IL-13	0.61 (0.53–0.69)	0.010*	0.593 (0.51–0.67)	0.029*	0.66 (0.57–0.75)	<0.001***	0.68 (0.60–0.76)	<0.001***	
IL-17	0.55 (0.46–0.63)	0.280	0.550 (0.46–0.64)	0.244	0.57 (0.48–0.66)	0.134	0.62 (0.53–0.70)	0.006**	
IL-18	0.54 (0.46–0.62)	0.333	0.542 (0.46–0.63)	0.321	0.54 (45–0.64)	0.394	0.56 (0.48–0.65)	0.150	
TNFα	0.56 (0.48–0.64)	0.147	0.571 (0.49–0.66)	0.096	0.54 (0.45–0.63)	0.400	0.60 (0.51–0.68)	0.023*	
MMP-3	0.64 (0.56–0.72)	<0.001**	0.599 (0.51–0.68)	0.020*	0.66 (0.58–0.75)	<0.001***	0.64 (0.55–0.72)	0.001**	
CCL-2	0.52 (0.44–0.60)	0.615	0.548 (0.46–0.63)	0.265	0.45 (0.36–0.54)	0.287	0.51 (0.43–0.60)	0.758	
sCD25	0.51 (0.42–0.61)	0.817	0.513 (0.42–0.60)	0.788	0.52 (0.39–0.64)	0.786	0.52 (0.43–0.62)	0.638	
GM-CSF	0.58 (0.50–0.67)	0.056	0.518 (0.43–0.60)	0.678	0.59 (49–0.70)	0.072	0.54 (0.46–0.63)	0.339	
MPO	0.54 (0.46–0.62)	0.370	0.517 (0.44–0.60)	0.688	0.60 (0.51–0.70)	0.38	0.57 0.48–0.65)	0.121	
S100A9	0.60 (0.52–0.68)	0.020*	0.557 (0.47–0.64)	0.181	0.64 (0.56–0.72)	<0.001***	0.62 (0.53–0.70)	0.006**	
S100A12	0.63 (0.55–0.71)	0.002**	0.576 (0.49–0.66)	0.074	0.69 (0.60–0.77)	<0.001***	0.63 (0.54–0.71)	0.003**	
ESR	0.59 (0.50–0.68)	0.048*	0.579 (0.49–0.67)	0.093	0.59 (0.49–0.70)	0.083	0.55 (0.46–0.64)	0.281	
CRP	0.58 (0.49–0.67)	0.090	0.544 (0.45–0.64)	0.359	0.59 (0.49–0.70)	0.088	0.57 (0.48–0.66)	0.127	
CHAQ	0.51 (0.42–0.61)	0.813	0.555 (0.47–0.64	0.240	0.48 (0.37–0.59)	0.678	0.52 (0.43–0.62)	0.642	
Age at onset	0.51 (0.41–0.61)	0.834	0.518 (0.44–0.60)	0.667	0.45 (0.35–0.54)	0.278	0.57 (0.48–0.65)	0.135	
Active joints	0.63 (0.53–0.72)	0.012*	0.578 (0.497–0.66)	0.069	0.55 (0.46–0.65)	0.276	0.55 (0.47–0.64)	0.229	
Cumulative joints	0.64 (0.54–0.73)	0.006**	0.584 (0.501–0.67)	0.050	0.61 (0.52–0.71)	0.022*	0.55 (0.47–0.64)	0.204	
JADAS71	0.58 (0.48–0.68)	0.121	0.578 (0.48–0.68)	0.141	0.54 (0.43–0.66)	0.441	0.54 (0.44–0.65)	0.442	
§:Definitions of inactive/active disease and remission off medication as of Wallace .. *: pP<0.05; **: p<0.01; ***: p<0.001. IL: interleukin; TNFα: tumor necrosis factor alpha; MMP-3: matrix metalloproteinase 3; CCL-2: chemokine ligand 2; sCD25: soluble CD25; GM-CSF: granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor; MPO: myeloperoxidase; S100A9/A12: S100 calcium-binding protein A9/A12; ESR: ; CRP: C-reactive protein; CHAQ: The Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire; JADAS: Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score.

* Definitions of inactive/active disease and remission off medication as per Wallace et al.25 26

CCL-2chemokine ligand 2CHAQChildhood Health Assessment QuestionnaireCRPC reactive proteinESRerythrocyte sedimentation rateFUfollow-upGM-CSFgranulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factorILinterleukinJADAS71Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score for 71 jointsMMP-3matrix metalloproteinase 3MPOmyeloperoxidaseS100A9S100 calcium-binding protein A9S100A12S100 calcium-binding protein A12sCD25soluble CD25TNFαtumour necrosis factor alpha

Logistic regression was performed to assess the impact of a number of biomarkers (IL-12p70, IL-13, MMP-3, S100A9 and S100A12) and conventional variables (ESR, active and cumulative joints) on the likelihood of predicting the outcome of active/inactive disease at the 18-year FU. As shown in table 5, the strongest predictor, S100A9, made a unique statistically significant contribution (p=0.019) to the model, when controlling for the other variables. S100A9 levels >453 pg/mL at the baseline visit predicted having active disease at the 18-year FU with an OR of 2.88 (95% CI 1.19 to 7.00). None of the predictors for non-achievement of remission at the 18-year FU made a unique contribution to the model (table 5).

Table 5 Logistic regression on active disease and remission off medication as dependent variables at 18-year follow-up (FU)

	B	SE	Wald	df	Sig	Exp(B)	95% CI	
Active disease	
IL-1β	0.903	0.746	1.464	1	0.226	2.467	0.57 to 10.65	
IL-6	−0.098	0.642	0.023	1	0.879	0.907	0.26 to 3.19	
MMP-3	0.51	0.612	0.695	1	0.404	1.665	0.50 to 5.52	
IL-12	0.015	0.510	0.001	1	0.976	1.015	0.37 to 2.76	
IL-13	0.211	0.798	0.070	1	0.791	1.235	0.26 to 5.91	
S100A9	1.106	0.472	5.480	1	0.019	3.022	1.20to7.63	
S100A12	−0.165	0.560	0.087	1	0.768	0.848	0.28 to 2.54	
ESR log	0.537	0.624	0.741	1	0.389	1.711	0.50 to 5.82	
Active joints log	0.566	1.157	0.239	1	0.625	1.761	0.18 to 17.00	
Cumulative joints log	0.186	0.984	0.036	1	0.850	1.205	0.18 to 8.29	
Remission off medication	
IL-1β	−0.515	0.497	1.071	1	0.301	0.598	0.23 to 1.58	
MMP-3	−0.531	0.372	2.042	1	0.153	0.588	0.28 to 1.22	
IL-12	−0.151	0.377	0.161	1	0.689	0.860	0.41 to 1.80	
S100A9	−0.313	0.330	0.901	1	0.342	0.731	0.38 to 1.40	
Cumulative joints log	−0.582	0.378	2.369	1	0.124	0.559	0.27 to 1.17	
For the goodness of fit, the ‘omnibus tests of model coefficients’ (‘Active disease’: χ2=27.22, p=0.002; ‘Remission off medication’: χ2=14.029, p=0.015) and the Hosmer and Lemeshow test (‘Active disease’: χ2=5.597, p=0.692; ‘Remission off medication’: χ2=6.332, p=0.610) both indicated support for the model.

Bold values indicate a unique statistically contribution to the model.

ESRerythrocyte sedimentation rateILinterleukinloglogarithmMMP-3matrix metalloproteinase 3

We computed ROC curves to determine the optimal cut-off point (in terms of accuracy) and assessed various predictive measures for the variable as a predictor. We investigated the contribution of the serum biomarkers as baseline predictors of both inactive disease and remission off medication 18 years after disease onset. Doing this, we fitted a ‘small, conventional model’ and ‘large, combined clinical and biomarker model’ logistic regression model for each outcome and constructed ROC curves based on the estimated probability of the outcome in question. The two models were compared using ANOVA. The small, conventional model included commonly obtained clinical variables at baseline (ie, gender, age at onset, active and cumulative joints, ESR and CRP). The extended, combined model included the same clinical variables as above plus the biomarkers (IL-1ß, IL-4, IL-6, Il-10, IL-12, IL-13, IL-17A, IL-18, TNFα, MMP-3, CCL-2, sCD25, GM-CSF, MPO, S100A9 and S100A12) (figure 3). We compared the two regression models and tested if the biomarkers in the combined model with an AUC of 0.80, as a whole, provided additional significant explanatory value (figure 3). The extended model including the serum biomarkers was significantly better (p=0.024) at predicting inactive disease as an outcome after 18 years than was the conventional model, leading to an improvement in the AUC from 0.59 to 0.80. The equivalent comparison for remission off medication 18 years after disease onset did not yield significant results (p=0.4458) though the AUC was increased from 0.60 to 0.71 (figure 3). The prediction model selectively including the non-systemic patients (n=226) was also analysed (figure 3). The extended prediction model including the serum biomarkers was significantly better both at predicting inactive disease and remission off medication as an outcome after 18 years than was the conventional clinical model, leading to an improvement in the AUC from 0.64 to 0.85, p=0.0004, and from 0.61 to 0.80, p=0.01, respectively (figure 3). The prediction model selectively including the DMARD-naïve patients (n=180) was analysed. The extended prediction model including the serum biomarkers was significantly better at predicting inactive disease as an outcome after 18 years than was the conventional clinical model, leading to an improvement in the AUC from 0.61 to 0.81, p=0.038 (figure 3). The equivalent comparison for remission off medication 18 years after disease onset gave a small but insignificant increase in AUC from 0.61 to 0.74, p=0.258 (figure 3).

Figure 3 Comparison of a small prediction model including only clinical variables and a large model including the same clinical variables along with all biomarkers for all patients (n=236), patients with non-systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) (n=226) and disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)-naïve patients (n=180). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves illustrating area under the curve (AUC) model for prediction of active disease or non-achievement of remission at 18-year follow-up (FU). Small (conventional) model included common clinical variables at baseline visit: gender, age at onset, active and cumulative joints, erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C reactive protein. Large, combined model included same clinical variables as above plus biomarkers (interleukin 1β (IL-1β), IL-4, IL-6, IL-10, IL-12, IL-13, IL-17A, IL-18, tumour necrosis factor alpha, matrix metalloproteinase 3, chemokine ligand 2, soluble CD25, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, myeloperoxidase, S100A9, S100A12).

Discussion

From this unique population-based Nordic JIA cohort, we have previously substantiated the characterisation of JIA as a chronic disease, showing that 46% of patients still exhibited active disease even after 18 years of FU.1 In the present study, we combined clinical data with data from analysis of a large panel of inflammatory biomarkers, both at baseline and after 18 years of FU. Patients who exhibited inactive disease25 18 years later demonstrated significantly lower levels of a large panel of proinflammatory biomarkers (IL-1β, IL-6, IL-12, IL-13, MMP-3, S100A9 and S100A12) at baseline. By comparing logistic regressions between a traditional clinical model and an integrated model combining clinical and biomarker data (encompassing a panel of inflammatory biomarkers from baseline), our analysis revealed a significant enhancement in predictive capacity. This augmentation was particularly evident in forecasting the outcome of inactive/active disease status 18 years later.

To our knowledge, this is the first study of inflammatory biomarkers obtained early in the disease course in a population-based JIA cohort evaluating the prediction of inactive disease and remission at long-term FU. Previous biomarker investigations in JIA have been performed in smaller cohorts or over shorter FU durations.202730 In this Nordic JIA cohort, we have previously studied complement lectin pathway protein levels, showing increased serum M-ficolin levels at baseline and a decrease at FU, reflecting the course of clinical disease activity.31 However, neither M-ficolin nor other lectin pathway proteins showed predictive abilities for long-term remission status.31

We found significantly higher levels of lL-18, S100A9 and S100A12 in systemic JIA than in non-systemic disease categories, which is in accordance with previous findings.20 27 These three proinflammatory biomarkers have been suggested as valuable predictors for discriminating between children with systemic JIA and children with other diseases that can be easily misdiagnosed as systemic JIA.14 32 33 Ganeva et al20 investigated whether baseline biomarker levels gave information about disease extension and analysed their potential in predicting the development of extended versus persistent oligoarticular JIA after 1 year. Contrary to their expectations, they observed that extended oligoarthritis did not necessarily correlate with increased biomarker activity; rather, higher baseline cytokine levels were discovered in patients with subsequent persistent oligoarticular JIA.20 We could, however, not confirm these results in our study but found that baseline MMP-3 was significantly lower in patients with persistent oligoarticular JIA at 18-year FU compared with those with a non-persistent subtype. We found no disparities in other baseline biomarker levels between patients with persistent oligoarticular JIA and patients with non-persistent oligoarticular subtype at the 18-year FU.

In contrast to previous studies,19 20 34 we did not relate the baseline biomarker levels to a specific medical treatment response in the present study. Medical responses to treatment with corticosteroids, synthetic DMARDs and biologics might interfere with the baseline biomarker levels, and sera from patients on DMARDs may not truly reflect baseline values. However, at the time of the baseline serum sampling, a high proportion of the patients were DMARD naïve in our cohort (76%), which was not the case in the previous study by Ganeva et al where only 20% were DMARD naïve.20 None of the patients in our study had started biologics when blood was taken at baseline. Levels of IL-1β, IL-4, IL-6, IL-10, IL-13, MMP-3, S100A9 and S100A12 were significantly higher in patients treated with DMARD at baseline than in DMARD-naïve patients, which may seem surprising. However, since the baseline measures were obtained no later than 8 months after disease onset, they indicated that the DMARDs had been administered shortly before blood samples were taken. In fact, the group exposed to DMARD represented individuals with increased disease activity compared with the DMARD-naïve group.

By using the Wallace provisional criteria for defining CID25 and the preliminary criteria for remission off medication,26 we used even stricter definitions of ‘inactive disease’ than were used in the paper by Ganeva et al20 who applied the ‘inactive disease’ definition of clinical JADAS≤1.35 Even so, many of our results align with their previously published findings, despite the substantially extended FU in our study compared with the 1-year FU in Ganeva et al’s study.20 The ROC curve for each of the variables showed that AUCs for seven biomarkers (IL-1β, IL-6, IL-12p70, IL-13, MMP-3, S100A9 and S100A12) and three conventional variables (ESR, number of active joints and number of cumulative joints) at baseline could significantly predict the outcome of inactive disease at the 18-year FU. Including all these variables in the same equation, we found that only S100A9 could significantly predict the outcome of active disease at the 18-year FU. Using the stricter ‘remission off medication’ as the dependent variable, we found that only the biomarkers IL-1β, IL-12p70, IL-13 and MMP-3 significantly predicted the outcome. Including all these variables in the same equation, we found that none of the variables predicted the outcome of remission off medication at the 18-year FU. Comparing the clinical model (only clinical variables included) with the combined clinical/biomarker model (clinical data and biomarkers included), our analysis demonstrated a noteworthy enhancement in predictive capacity. The inclusion of biomarkers significantly augmented the accuracy of predicting the attainment of inactive disease status or its absence after 18 years of disease duration.

The findings from this study, which highlight S100A9 as the strongest predictor of long-term outcomes, underscore the substantial importance of S100 proteins as reliable biomarkers. The S100 proteins, a family of Ca2+-binding proteins, have a broad range of cellular functions, including cell migration, differentiation, tissue repair and inflammation.36 The S100 proteins, S100A8/S100A9 and S100A12, are released from cells of the myeloid lineage during activation of the innate immune system,37 acting as ligands for Toll-like receptor 4 and receptors for advanced glycation end-products, thus activating phagocytes and promoting further recruitment of leucocytes to sites of damage.38 In a multicentre randomised controlled trial including 364 children with clinically inactive JIA, Foell et al39 found that serum levels of S100A8/S100A9 prior to stopping methotrexate (MTX) were significantly higher in patients who later had flares than in patients with stable remission. Moreover, they found that the serum levels of S100A8/S100A9 were predictive of disease flare within 12 months of observation. The results could support the clinical decision on when to withdraw MTX therapy.39 MMP-3 plays an important role in the pathogenesis of inflammatory arthritis as it facilitates accumulation of inflammatory cells, promotes vascular invasion in the synovium, degrades cartilage matrix and promotes osteoclast differentiation.40 We found that MMP-3 performed well as a predictor of long-term outcome at the 18-year FU, which was also recently reported by Ziegler et al in a non-population-based JIA cohort.41

The main strengths of our study are its population-based design and the extensive, uniform long-term observation for all JIA participants. These attributes enhance the generalisability of our findings. Furthermore, the paired FU of a large panel of inflammatory biomarker samples closely related to disease activity measures is another main strength of the present study. There are several limitations to the present study design and the analytical set-up. First, aliquots of sera for biomarker analysis obtained at baseline were available from only 67.6% of the initial JIA cohort, excluding the Finnish group which had no access to storage. Nevertheless, the missing samples of the Finnish patients did not interfere with the population-based setting. At the 18-year FU, the availability of the serum samples for biomarker analysis was acceptable (86%). However, when comparing the group of patients with available baseline serum samples with those without, no differences were observed in terms of onset age, gender and clinical disease activity. Another limitation is the lack of a control group; however, the same laboratory has previously demonstrated low serum levels of most biomarkers in healthy controls compared with all JIA categories.20 Third, dilution with TBS was necessary due to small volumes of baseline samples. Low-abundance cytokines, like IL-1β and IL-4, behave non-linearly in Luminex when diluted42 43 which may have resulted in unusually high absolute levels. However, this did not affect the relative differences. Fourth, the stability of the biomarkers may have suffered from the long-term storage even at −80°C. The S100 proteins have previously shown to be relatively stable after long-term storage.12 44 However, we found that the median level of S100A9 was lower at the baseline visit compared with the 18-year time point. Since the disease activity at baseline was higher than at the 18-year FU we would have expected a high-baseline S100A9 level. The observed low level of S100A9 might be caused by a protein degradation during the many years of storage.

On the other hand, biomarkers like IL-1β, IL-6, IL-10, IL-13 and IL-17 may degrade up to 50% within 4 years.45 However, it is noteworthy that despite the conceivable protein degradation over time, several of the biomarkers analysed from samples obtained at baseline ranged from 1.4 to 5.5 times higher than those obtained at the 18-year FU. Fifth, the baseline samples were obtained 6 months after the onset of the disease, and 19% of the patients were using DMARDs at the time of sample collection. However, the results showed that most inflammatory markers retained higher serum levels at the baseline visit than at the 18-year FU. None of the patients received biologics early on as the availability was very limited in 1997–2000. It can only be speculated whether early, more aggressive therapy could have altered the remission rates reported 18 years later. At the 18-year FU, almost 16% were on biologics and the disease activity was low in the total cohort suggesting that effective treatment had been initiated; however, compliance and immunosuppressive therapy may have affected the level of the biomarkers. These factors about medication at the two time points may have compromised the predictive accuracy.

Conclusion

The validated biomarker potential of specific S100 proteins along with the cytokines IL-1ß, IL-6, IL-12, IL-13 and MMP-3 may greatly improve the management of JIA. If these biomarkers together with conventional clinical variables could predict which children are unlikely to respond to first-line treatment with MTX, early second-line biologic therapy could be initiated instead. This could expedite remission and minimise adverse effect by reducing unnecessary drug exposure. Furthermore, prospectively using S100 proteins as biomarkers for detection of subclinical inflammation could possibly prevent inappropriate therapy interruption in patients likely to relapse. Our results suggest that these biomarkers could provide additional value in prediction models, possibly guiding decisions concerning JIA treatment and therapeutic withdrawal. Nevertheless, additional research is needed before definitive conclusions can be drawn.

supplementary material

10.1136/rmdopen-2024-004317 online supplemental file 1

10.1136/rmdopen-2024-004317 online supplemental file 2

10.1136/rmdopen-2024-004317 online supplemental file 3

Acknowledgements

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

Funding: Financial support was kindly given by The Danish Rheumatism Association.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Patient consent for publication: Consent obtained directly from patient(s)

Ethics approval: This study involves human participants and the Nordic JIA cohort was approved by the Regional Committee for Medical Ethics and the Danish Data Protection Agency (Denmark 1-10-72-280-13, Norway 2012/2051, Sweden Dnr 2014/413-31, Finland 174/13/03/03/2014). The studies were approved by the Research Ethics Boards and data protection authorities at all participating institutions and performed following the Declaration of Helsinki, including informed written consent. Participants gave informed consent to participate in the study before taking part.
==== Refs
References

1 Glerup M Rypdal V Arnstad ED et al Long‐Term Outcomes in Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: eighteen Years of Follow‐Up in the Population‐Based Nordic Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis Cohort Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2020 72 507 16 10.1002/acr.23853 30762291
2 Bertilsson L Andersson-Gäre B Fasth A et al Disease course, outcome, and predictors of outcome in a population-based juvenile chronic arthritis cohort followed for 17 years J Rheumatol 2013 40 715 24 10.3899/jrheum.120602 23418376
3 Shoop-Worrall SJW Verstappen SMM Baildam E et al How common is clinically inactive disease in a prospective cohort of patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis? The importance of definition Ann Rheum Dis 2017 76 1381 8 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-210511 28389553
4 Rypdal V Arnstad ED Aalto K et al Predicting unfavorable long-term outcome in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: results from the Nordic cohort study Arthritis Res Ther 2018 20 91 29724248
5 Guzman J Henrey A Loughin T et al Predicting Which Children with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis Will Have a Severe Disease Course: results from the ReACCh-Out Cohort J Rheumatol 2017 44 230 40 10.3899/jrheum.160197 27980015
6 McInnes IB Buckley CD Isaacs JD Cytokines in rheumatoid arthritis - shaping the immunological landscape Nat Rev Rheumatol 2016 12 63 8 10.1038/nrrheum.2015.171 26656659
7 Woo P Cytokines and juvenile idiopathic arthritis Curr Rheumatol Rep 2002 4 452 7 10.1007/s11926-002-0050-9 12427358
8 Gattorno M Picco P Buoncompagni A et al Serum p55 and p75 tumour necrosis factor receptors as markers of disease activity in juvenile chronic arthritis Ann Rheum Dis 1996 55 243 7 10.1136/ard.55.4.243 8733441
9 Rezaei E Hogan D Trost B et al Clinical and associated inflammatory biomarker features predictive of short-term outcomes in non-systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis Rheumatol (Oxford) 2020 59 2402 11 10.1093/rheumatology/kez615
10 Mizuta M Shimizu M Inoue N et al Clinical significance of interleukin-18 for the diagnosis and prediction of disease course in systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis Rheumatology (Oxford) 2021 60 2421 6 10.1093/rheumatology/keaa634 33200207
11 Gohar F Kessel C Lavric M et al Review of biomarkers in systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis: helpful tools or just playing tricks? Arthritis Res Ther 2016 18 163 10.1186/s13075-016-1069-z 27411444
12 Foell D Roth J Proinflammatory S100 proteins in arthritis and autoimmune disease Arthritis Rheum 2004 50 3762 71 10.1002/art.20631 15593206
13 Holzinger D Frosch M Kastrup A et al The Toll-like receptor 4 agonist MRP8/14 protein complex is a sensitive indicator for disease activity and predicts relapses in systemic-onset juvenile idiopathic arthritis Ann Rheum Dis 2012 71 974 80 10.1136/annrheumdis-2011-200598 22267331
14 Frosch M Vogl T Seeliger S et al Expression of myeloid-related proteins 8 and 14 in systemic-onset juvenile rheumatoid arthritis Arthritis Rheum 2003 48 2622 6 10.1002/art.11177 13130482
15 Kessel C Koné-Paut I Tellier S et al An Immunological Axis Involving Interleukin 1β and Leucine-Rich-α2-Glycoprotein Reflects Therapeutic Response of Children with Kawasaki Disease: implications from the KAWAKINRA Trial J Clin Immunol 2022 42 1330 41 10.1007/s10875-022-01301-w 35699824
16 Foell D Wittkowski H Kessel C et al Proinflammatory S100A12 can activate human monocytes via Toll-like receptor 4 Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2013 187 1324 34 10.1164/rccm.201209-1602OC 23611140
17 Gerss J Roth J Holzinger D et al Phagocyte-specific S100 proteins and high-sensitivity C reactive protein as biomarkers for a risk-adapted treatment to maintain remission in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a comparative study Ann Rheum Dis 2012 71 1991 7 10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-201329 22689317
18 Gerss J Tedy M Klein A et al Prevention of disease flares by risk-adapted stratification of therapy withdrawal in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: results from the PREVENT-JIA trial Ann Rheum Dis 2022 81 990 7 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-222029 35260388
19 Anink J Van Suijlekom-Smit LWA Otten MH et al MRP8/14 serum levels as a predictor of response to starting and stopping anti-TNF treatment in juvenile idiopathic arthritis Arthritis Res Ther 2015 17 200 10.1186/s13075-015-0723-1 26249667
20 Ganeva M Fuehner S Kessel C et al Trajectories of disease courses in the inception cohort of newly diagnosed patients with JIA (ICON-JIA): the potential of serum biomarkers at baseline Pediatr Rheumatol Online J 2021 19 64 10.1186/s12969-021-00553-x 33933108
21 Berntson L Andersson Gäre B Fasth A et al Incidence of juvenile idiopathic arthritis in the Nordic countries. A population based study with special reference to the validity of the ILAR and EULAR criteria J Rheumatol 2003 30 2275 82 14528529
22 Nordal E Zak M Aalto K et al Ongoing disease activity and changing categories in a long-term nordic cohort study of juvenile idiopathic arthritis Arthritis Rheum 2011 63 2809 18 10.1002/art.30426 21560116
23 Petty RE Southwood TR Manners P et al International League of Associations for Rheumatology classification of juvenile idiopathic arthritis: second revision J Rheumatol 2001 31 390 2
24 Consolaro A Ruperto N Bazso A et al Development and validation of a composite disease activity score for juvenile idiopathic arthritis Arthritis Rheum 2009 61 658 66 10.1002/art.24516 19405003
25 Wallace CA Giannini EH Huang B et al American College of Rheumatology provisional criteria for defining clinical inactive disease in select categories of juvenile idiopathic arthritis Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2011 63 929 36 10.1002/acr.20497 21717596
26 Wallace CA Ruperto N Giannini E et al Preliminary criteria for clinical remission for select categories of juvenile idiopathic arthritis J Rheumatol 2004 31 2290 4 15517647
27 de Jager W Hoppenreijs EPAH Wulffraat NM et al Blood and synovial fluid cytokine signatures in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a cross-sectional study Ann Rheum Dis 2007 66 589 98 10.1136/ard.2006.061853 17170049
28 Madson KL Moore TL Lawrence JM et al Cytokine levels in serum and synovial fluid of patients with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis J Rheumatol 1994 21 2359 63 7699643
29 Funk RS Chan MA Becker ML Cytokine Biomarkers of Disease Activity and Therapeutic Response after Initiating Methotrexate Therapy in Patients with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis Pharmacotherapy 2017 37 700 11 10.1002/phar.1938 28475276
30 Spîrchez M Samaşca G Iancu M et al Relation of interleukin-6, TNF-alpha and interleukin-1alpha with disease activity and severity in juvenile idiopathic arthritis patients Clin Lab 2012 58 253 60 22582498
31 Glerup M Thiel S Rypdal V et al Complement lectin pathway protein levels reflect disease activity in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a longitudinal study of the Nordic JIA cohort Pediatr Rheumatol Online J 2019 17 63 10.1186/s12969-019-0367-9 31500626
32 Frosch M Ahlmann M Vogl T et al The myeloid-related proteins 8 and 14 complex, a novel ligand of toll-like receptor 4, and interleukin-1beta form a positive feedback mechanism in systemic-onset juvenile idiopathic arthritis Arthritis Rheum 2009 60 883 91 10.1002/art.24349 19248102
33 Wittkowski H Frosch M Wulffraat N et al S100A12 is a novel molecular marker differentiating systemic-onset juvenile idiopathic arthritis from other causes of fever of unknown origin Arthritis Rheum 2008 58 3924 31 10.1002/art.24137 19035478
34 Moncrieffe H Ursu S Holzinger D et al A subgroup of juvenile idiopathic arthritis patients who respond well to methotrexate are identified by the serum biomarker MRP8/14 protein Rheumatol (Oxford) 2013 52 1467 76 10.1093/rheumatology/ket152
35 Consolaro A Bracciolini G Ruperto N et al Remission, minimal disease activity, and acceptable symptom state in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: defining criteria based on the juvenile arthritis disease activity score Arthritis Rheum 2012 64 2366 74 10.1002/art.34373 22231288
36 Xia C Braunstein Z Toomey AC et al S100 Proteins As an Important Regulator of Macrophage Inflammation Front Immunol 2017 8 1908 10.3389/fimmu.2017.01908 29379499
37 Kessel C Holzinger D Foell D Phagocyte-derived S100 proteins in autoinflammation: putative role in pathogenesis and usefulness as biomarkers Clin Immunol 2013 147 229 41 10.1016/j.clim.2012.11.008 23269200
38 Kozlyuk N Monteith AJ Garcia V et al S100 Proteins in the Innate Immune Response to Pathogens Methods Mol Biol 2019 1929 275 90 10.1007/978-1-4939-9030-6_18 30710280
39 Foell D Wulffraat N Wedderburn LR et al Methotrexate withdrawal at 6 vs 12 months in juvenile idiopathic arthritis in remission: a randomized clinical trial JAMA 2010 303 1266 73 10.1001/jama.2010.375 20371785
40 Wan J Zhang G Li X et al Matrix Metalloproteinase 3: a Promoting and Destabilizing Factor in the Pathogenesis of Disease and Cell Differentiation Front Physiol 2021 12 663978 10.3389/fphys.2021.663978 34276395
41 Ziegler L Fuehner S Kessel C et al Soluble interleukin-2 receptor serum levels facilitate prediction of relapses in subgroups of patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis Rheumatol (Oxford) 2022 61 4975 84 10.1093/rheumatology/keac178
42 Rosenberg-Hasson Y Hansmann L Liedtke M et al Effects of serum and plasma matrices on multiplex immunoassays Immunol Res 2014 58 224 33 10.1007/s12026-014-8491-6 24522699
43 Platchek M Lu Q Tran H et al Comparative Analysis of Multiple Immunoassays for Cytokine Profiling in Drug Discovery SLAS Discov 2020 25 1197 213 10.1177/2472555220954389 32924773
44 Foell D Frosch M Sorg C et al Phagocyte-specific calcium-binding S100 proteins as clinical laboratory markers of inflammation Clin Chim Acta 2004 344 37 51 10.1016/j.cccn.2004.02.023 15149869
45 de Jager W Bourcier K Rijkers GT et al Prerequisites for cytokine measurements in clinical trials with multiplex immunoassays BMC Immunol 2009 10 52 10.1186/1471-2172-10-52 19785746
