Fatigue in young adults with juvenile idiopathic arthritis 18 years after disease onset: data from the prospective Nordic JIA cohort

Table 3 Association between medication ever and fatigue at 18-year follow-up in the Nordic JIA cohort

			Severe fatigue^b
Medication ever used during disease course	No. assessed	Fatigue^a mean ±SD	No. (%)	OR (95% CI) crude	p-value	OR (95% CI) adjusted^c	p-value
DMARDs (± biologics)
NO	146	2.8 ±1.3	27 (18)	1.0 (ref.)	–	1.0 (ref.)	–
YES	231	3.4 ±1.5	72 (31)	2.0 (1.2–3.3)	0.007	2.1 (1.3–3.6)	0.004
Biologics (± DMARDs)
NO	264	3.0 ±1.4	57 (22)	1.0 (ref.)	–	1.0 (ref.)	–
YES	113	3.6 ±1.6	42 (37)	2.1 (1.3–3.5)	0.002	2.3 (1.4–3.8)	0.001
Systemic steroids^d
NO	207	3.0 ±1.4	44 (21)	1.0 (ref.)	–	1.0 (ref.)	–
YES	159	3.5 ±1.6	52 (33)	1.8 (1.1–2.9)	0.01	1.8 (1.1–3.0)	0.02

JIA juvenile idiopathic arthritis, No. numbers, SD standard deviation, OR odds ratio for Fatigue Severity Scale ≥4, CI confidence interval, DMARDs disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, included methotrexate, azathioprine, hydroxychloroquine, leflunomide, sulfasalazine and mycophenolate mofetil, biologics biologic drugs, included etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab, golimumab, rituximab, abatacept, anakinra, canakinumab, rilonacept and tocilizumab, Systemic steroids corticosteroids, oral or intravenous
^aFatigue measured with Fatigue Severity Scale global score, 1–7 (1 = lowest, 7 = highest)
^bFatigue Severity Scale ≥4
^cAdjusted for age and sex
^d11 participants with missing information on systemic steroids

ISSN: 1546-0096