Leflunomide or Methotrexate for Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We compared the safety and efficacy of leflunomide with that of methotrexate in the treatment of polyarticular juvenile rheumatoid arthritis in a multinational, randomized, controlled trial. METHODS: Patients 3 to 17 years of age received leflunomide or methotrexate for 16 weeks in a double-dummy, blinded fashion, followed by a 32-week blinded extension. The rates of American College of Rheumatology Pediatric 30 percent responses (ACR Pedi 30) and the Percent Improvement Index were assessed at baseline and every 4 weeks for 16 weeks and every 8 weeks during the 32-week extension study. RESULTS: Of 94 patients randomized, 86 completed 16 weeks of treatment, 70 of whom entered the extension study. At week 16, more patients in the methotrexate group than in the leflunomide group had an ACR Pedi 30 response (89 percent vs. 68 percent, P=0.02), whereas the values for the Percent Improvement Index did not differ significantly (-52.87 percent vs. -44.41 percent, P=0.18). In both groups, the improvements achieved at week 16 were maintained at week 48. The most common adverse events in both groups included gastrointestinal symptoms, headache, and nasopharyngeal symptoms. Aminotransferase elevations were more frequent with methotrexate than with leflunomide during the initial study and the extension study. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with polyarticular juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, methotrexate and leflunomide both resulted in high rates of clinical improvement, but the rate was slightly greater for methotrexate. At the doses used in this study, methotrexate was more effective than leflunomide.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".