MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142816501 · doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keh500

Leflunomide in rheumatoid arthritis: recommendations through a process of consensus

2005· review· en· W2142816501 on OpenAlexaff
P Maddison, Patrick Kiely, Bruce Kirkham, Tom Lawson, Robert J. Moots, Diane Proudfoot, Richard J. Reece, David L. Scott, Richard O. Sword, A. J. Taggart, Cath Thwaites, E. Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueLara D. Veeken · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
FundersCardiff UniversityAbbott Laboratories
KeywordsLeflunomideMedicineRheumatoid arthritisAdverse effectDiscontinuationTolerabilityPharmacovigilanceClinical trialIntensive care medicineInternal medicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To determine, by consensus, the optimal use of leflunomide in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), using a multidisciplinary panel of experts and performing meta-analyses of available data. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of experts in RA was convened. Important questions, pertinent to the use of leflunomide in the treatment of RA, were defined by consensus at an initial meeting. Each question was allocated to subgroups of two or three members, who worked separately to prepare a balanced opinion, based on published literature, data from individual patients taking part in phase II and phase III clinical trials provided by Aventis, and data from a USA-based medical claims database (AETNA). The full group then reconvened to agree on an overall consensus statement. Recommendations concerning efficacy and tolerability versus comparator drugs and placebo were derived from two new meta-analyses. RESULTS: Leflunomide was at least as effective as sulphasalazine and methotrexate, and equally well tolerated on meta-analysis of trial data. Overall withdrawal rates for all adverse events were similar for all three drugs. Avoidance of the loading dose reduces 'nuisance' side-effects (e.g. nausea), but probably delays the onset of action. Adverse events could usually be managed by dose reduction and/or symptomatic therapy. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of efficacy, safety and cost, leflunomide should be considered in patients with RA who have failed first-line DMARD drug therapy. In refractory cases, leflunomide may be used in combination with, for example, methotrexate before biological agents. Therapy should be initiated by a specialist, but repeat prescribing in general practice on a shared care basis is acceptable using agreed protocols. Clear mechanisms are required to monitor toxicity, with good communication between the patient and rheumatologist to manage nuisance side-effects and avoid unnecessary discontinuation of 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.209
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.303
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.209
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2090.303
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.014
Bibliometrics0.0110.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0100.010
Open science0.0120.009
Research integrity0.0180.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations95
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLara D. VeekenSame topicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and TherapiesFrench-language works237,207