Safety and Efficacy of Etanercept in a Cohort of Patients with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis Under 4 Years of Age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate safety, tolerability, and efficacy of etanercept in a cohort of patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) under 4 years of age. METHODS: Data were collected at every visit during treatment with etanercept in 25 children who began treatment at a mean age of 3 years (range 18-48 months). Safety endpoints included the incidence of any adverse events. Efficacy endpoints included the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Pediatric 30, 50, and 70 criteria for improvement. RESULTS: Data from 25 patients with JIA treated with etanercept for a mean period of 23 months were analyzed. All patients received concomitant medications: 24 methotrexate, 3 cyclosporin A, and 10 corticosteroids. After the first 6 months of treatment, 15 (71.4%) patients achieved an ACR Pedi30 response and at the last observation 20 (80%) achieved ACR Pedi30. ACR Pedi50 and 70 responses were, respectively, 62% and 43% at 6 months and 72% and 64% at the last followup. Five patients (20%) discontinued etanercept for lack of efficacy. Two (8%) developed adverse events, both primary varicella zoster virus (VZV) infections (both not vaccinated). One was hospitalized because of a necrotizing fasciitis secondary to VZV infection. No cases of tuberculosis, opportunistic infections, or malignancies were reported. CONCLUSION: In our cohort of patients etanercept proved to be safe and efficacious in the majority of children. The response in toddlers was similar to that in older children. We observed only 1 case of severe infection that required hospitalization and stopped treatment temporarily.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".