1 / 28

Henoch Schonlein Purpura A proposed pathway for follow-up

Henoch Schonlein Purpura A proposed pathway for follow-up. Watson L 1,2 , Richardson A 1 , Holt R.C.L 1 , Jones C.A 1 , Beresford M.W 2 . Departments of Paediatric Nephrology 1 and Rheumatology 2 , Alder Hey Children ’ s NHS Foundation Trust Hospital & Institute of Translational Medicine,

yon
Download Presentation

Henoch Schonlein Purpura A proposed pathway for follow-up

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. HenochSchonleinPurpuraA proposed pathway for follow-up Watson L1,2, Richardson A1, Holt R.C.L1, Jones C.A1, Beresford M.W2. Departments of Paediatric Nephrology1 and Rheumatology2, Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust Hospital & Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, UK

  2. Henoch Schonlein Purpura • Small vessel vasculitis • IgA complex, C3 deposition • Arterioles, Capillaries, Venules • Inflammatory neutrophils, monocytes • Typically presents with rash • Scrotal involvement • Abdominal pain, bleeding, intussusception • Non-erosive arthritis, arthralgia • Renal involvement • Rarely neurological, lung

  3. Diagnosis • More common preschool; 90% <10 years old • EULAR classification criteria1 • Purpura/petechiae rash Plus any one of; • Abdominal involvement, • Renal involvement, • Joint involvement (arthritis/arthralgia), • Histological evidence of IgA deposits. 1. Ozen, 2010

  4. Henoch Schonlein Purpura • Commonest childhood vasculitis • Incidence 10-20 cases per 100,000 child population2 • (SSNS 3 cases per 100,000; IDDM 207 cases per 100,000) Average North West DGH; • Catchment population of 60,000 children3 • ≈ 6-12 cases of HSP diagnosed by a DGH/year Rare for GP population • Average GP 2000 patients, 18% (274) children; 1 case for approx. every 36 GP’s 2. Gardner-Medwin et al, 2002, 3. http://www.ons.gov.uk

  5. HSP nephritis (HSPN) • Seen in up to 40% • Asymptomatic & only long term consequence • Requires active screening • Long term outcome of HSPN • Unselected cohorts risk of renal impairment 1% • Risk rises if nephritic or nephrotic1 • Up to 20% nephrotic range proteinuria • Cohorts with established HSPN 15-20% ESRF2,3 • Accounts for 1.7% all UK ESRF4 • Mir et al 2007, 2. Shenoy et al, 2007, 3. Butani et al, 2007, 4. UK Renal Registry 2005

  6. Screening for HSPN • Screening varies1 • Within a centre, region, national & international • Centre 1: Paediatrician led follow up • Centre 2: GP led follow up ‘uncomplicated cases’ • Screening imposes financial burden, parental anxiety • Variations also in renal referral process and biopsy indications • Weiss P et al J Ped 2009

  7. HSP diagnosis Diagnosis; EULAR criteria Screening for nephritis No renal involvement Renal involvement Diagnosis; Renal biopsy ISKDC classification Resolved renal involvement HSPN 20% ESRF Persistent/resolve

  8. Evidence-based treatment of HSPN Systematic review of RCTs: no difference • Early corticosteroids V’s placebo, total n=3791 • Cyclophosphamide V’s supportive, n=56 • Cyclosporin V’s methylprednisolone RCT, n=242 Other studies • Cyclophosphamide + methylprednisolone, n=123 • Azathioprine + steroids, n=214 • Cochrane: Few RCTs5 • Sparse data, no proven benefit of treatment • Challenges: self resolving, high risk groups, no standardised care 1. Tizard et al, unpublished, personal communication; Dudley 2007, Huber 2004, Mollica 2004, Ronkainen 2006.2. Jauhola et al, 2011 3. Flynn et al, 20014. Bergstein et al, 19985. Chartapisak W et al. 2009

  9. HSP diagnosis Diagnosis; EULAR criteria ? Screening for nephritis No renal involvement Renal involvement ? Diagnosis; Renal biopsy ISKDC classification Resolved renal involvement HSPN ? 20% ESRF Persistent/resolve

  10. HSP screening at Alder Hey • Designed in 2004, multi-disciplinary • Paediatric nurse led • Urine dipstick, blood pressure • Parent education • Hand held records • Triaged according to urinalysis (day 7) • Intensive (8 visits over 12 months) • Standard (5 visits) • Total of 12 months monitoring

  11. Aims Primary • To describe renal involvement in an unselected cohort of children with HSP Secondary • To revise our nurse led HSP monitoring pathway

  12. Primary outcome Primaryoutcome; Need to exit the nurse led pathway for a medical review Exit criteria (excluding patients from nurse led monitoring) • Hypertension • Urine albumin:creatinine ratio (UACR) > 200mg/mmol • Serum albumin <30g/l • eGFR < 80 ml/min/1.73m2 • Macroscopic haematuria >28 days • 12 months completed monitoring with urine abnormalities

  13. Investigations Presence of proteinuria Presence of exit criteria

  14. HSP coding: Identified n=176 Excluded: Other diagnosis n=11 No care pathway n=61 HSP & sufficient data n=104 46% renal involvement at diagnosis DNA n=2 Day 7: allocation n=102 Intensive FU: Proteinuria n=22 Standard FU: No proteinuria n=80 Developed proteinuria n=13 Moved area n=2 Intensive FU (n=35): Outcome n=8 renal; n=27 normal Standard FU (n=65): Outcome n=1 renal; n=64 normal Month 12: outcome n=100 Outcome Discharged n=91; renal n=9

  15. Results

  16. Older patients more likely to develop HSPN P<0.01

  17. Outcome • Primary outcome; 9 patients required review • 2 patients early review (<3 months) • 7 patients referred after 12 months monitoring • All patients who developed proteinuria were <6m from diagnosis • Proteinuria triggered medical review prior to other criteria • Follow up; • 2 patients early review; grade 3b HSPN, 1 resolved • 7 patients late review; monitored+/- ACEi, 4 under FU

  18. Day 7 Urinalysis: Predicting outcome Proteinuria: Poor predictor Confidence Interval • Positive predictive ratio 32% (15 to 55%) • Sensitivity 78% (45 to 94%) Absence of proteinuria: Good predictor of normal outcome • Negative predictive ratio 97% (90 to 99%) • Specificity 84% (75 to 90%)

  19. Revised HSP Monitoring Pathway • Updated our current practice • ‘The Alder Hey HSP Monitoring Pathway’ • 6 month monitoring period • Paediatric led • Availability of BP cuffs, paediatric phlebotomists, easy referral for paediatric advice, parental anxiety • Stratified according to day 7 urinalysis • All urine testing undertaken by trained nurses • Revised exit criteria

  20. The Alder Hey HSP pathway Presentation & diagnosis Day 7 review Intensive monitoring Standard monitoring Day 14 review 1 month review 1 month review 2 month review 3 month review 3 month review 4 month review 6 month review Discharge 6 month review Refer for medical review

  21. Exit criteria

  22. Robust peer review

  23. Future strategies • Universal follow up • Clinical improvements; standardise care, equity, improved awareness • Research opportunities; describe ‘at risk’ patients, early intervention, facilitate RCTs • Regional standardisation

  24. National interest • Adoption; NW centres, Scottish region, Evelina Hospital • UK support to adopt pathway • Welsh Paediatric Society • British Association of General Paediatrics • Scottish Paediatric Network (SPARN) • Paediatric Nephrology CSG (Prof Saleem) • Paediatric Rheumatology CSG (Prof Beresford) • General Paediatric CSG (Dr Powell)

  25. HSP diagnosis Diagnosis; EULAR criteria National screening Reliable data ? Screening for nephritis Characterise ‘at risk’ patients No renal involvement Renal involvement Develop renal biopsy indications ? Diagnosis; Renal biopsy ISKDC classification Resolved renal involvement HSPN Evidence based management ? 20% ESRF Persistent/resolve

  26. Phased development (3-years) Phase 1: Universal screening, HSP registry Pathway revalidation Phase 2: HSPN Working Group, HSPN registry Data biopsy indications & management Phase 3: Standardise HSPN management, Renal biopsy indications & consensus management Randomised controlled trials

  27. Conclusions • All HSP patients require 6m renal screening • Renal involvement common • Majority will have a normal renal outcome • High risk groups -proteinuria, older, non-Caucasian • Evidence based renal monitoring • Universal monitoring with phased development

  28. Acknowledgements Clinicians: • Dr. Henry Morgan • Dr. Brian Judd • Dr. Eileen Baildam • Dr. Liza McCann • Ward D2 staff Patients, families: • Alder Hey patients and families Authors: • Professor Michael Beresford • Dr. Caroline Jones • Dr. Richard Holt • Dr. Amanda Richardson Original HSP pathway committee: • Dr. Gavin Cleary • Dr. Briar Stewart • Dr. Dave Casson • Elvina White • Pauline Stone

More Related