No abstract

BackgroundChildren and adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) are less physically active than their healthy peers and are at high risk of missing out on the general health benefits of physical activity. Wearable activity trackers are a promising option for intervening in this population with potential advantages over traditional exercise prescriptions. The objectives of this study were to: (1) determine the feasibility of a wearable activity tracker intervention in adolescents with JIA; and (2) estimate the variability in response to a wearable activity tracker intervention on the physical activity levels of adolescents with JIA.MethodsParticipants aged 12–18 years with JIA were recruited during their routine rheumatology clinic visits at a tertiary care hospital. Participants completed the 3-Day Physical Activity Recall self-reported questionnaire at baseline, 1 week and 5 week follow-up. At the 1 week follow up, participants were instructed to start wearing an activity tracker for 28 consecutive days. Participants completed a feasibility questionnaire at their end of study visit. Participant demographics, adherence rates and feasibility outcomes were summarized using descriptive statistics. The effect of wearing a tracker on moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and total metabolic equivalents (METs) per day were analyzed using a paired t-test.ResultsTwenty-eight participants (74% female; median age 15.1, range 12.8–18.6) were included in the analysis. All of the participants were able to synchronize the activity tracker to a supported device, use the activity tracker correctly and complete the study measurements. On average, participants had activity logged on their smartphone application for 72% of the intervention period. The standard deviation of the change in mean METs/day was 12.148 and for mean MVPA blocks/day was 3.143 over the study period.ConclusionWrist worn activity tracking is a feasible intervention for adolescent patients with JIA. More research is needed to examine the effect of activity tracking on physical activity levels.Trial RegistrationNot an applicable clinical device trial as per the criteria listed on ClinicalTrials.gov as the primary objective is feasibility.

No abstract

The objective of the study was to describe objectively measured physical activity (PA) and sedentary time of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers and determine the proportion meeting Canadian age-specific PA guidelines. Ninety children (47 girls, 43 boys; mean age 32 (range, 4-70) months) attending scheduled health supervision visits and in the TARGet Kids! (The Applied Research Group for Kids) cohort wore an Actical accelerometer for 7 days. Participants with 4 or more valid days were included in the analysis. Time, in mean minutes per day (min/day), spent sedentary and in light PA, moderate to vigorous PA (MVPA), and total PA was determined using published cut-points; age groups were compared using ANOVA. Twenty-three percent of children <18 months (n = 28) and 76% of children aged 18-59 months (n = 45) met the guideline of 180 min/day of total PA; 13% of children ≥60 months (n = 17) met the guideline of 60 min/day of MVPA. Children <18 months spent more of their waking time per day engaged in sedentary behaviours (79%; ∼7.3 h) compared with children aged 18-59 months (63%; ∼6.6 h) and children ≥60 months (58%; ∼6.6 h). In conclusion, most children aged 18-59 months met the Canadian PA guidelines for children aged 0-4 years, whereas few younger than 18 months met the same guidelines. Only 13% of children ≥5 years met their age-specific PA guidelines. Further research is needed to develop, test, and implement effective strategies to promote PA and reduce sedentary behaviour in very young children.

There is a paucity of information about the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and treatment of patients with a dual diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis (CRMO). A retrospective chart review was performed of patients at McMaster Children's Hospital with a diagnosis of either IBD or CRMO, to identify those with the dual diagnosis over a 10-year period. A dual diagnosis was identified in seven patients. Most patients (6/7) had a diagnosis of IBD first and were subsequently diagnosed with CRMO. At the time of CRMO diagnosis, IBD treatment regimens included one or more of, sulfasalazine (1/6), infliximab (3/6), adalimumab (1/6), or no treatment (1/6). Although the etiology of the link remains unknown, there does not seem to be an association to a specific IBD subtype, age, or treatment. Our patient population demonstrated a response to biologic agents, specifically tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors, as treatment for both conditions.