New Medications Are Needed for Children With Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To document the need for additional Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved medications for the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). METHODS: The electronic medical records of JIA patients treated at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) and data from JIA patients enrolled in the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) Registry were included in this study. Unmet medication need was defined in 2 ways: (a) the presence of chronically uncontrolled JIA, defined as a physician global assessment of JIA activity ≥3 (on a 0-10 scale, where 0 = inactive) OR ≥3 joints with active arthritis OR a patient global assessment of well-being ≥3 (on a 0-10 scale, where 0 = very well), despite sequential use of ≥2 biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs); and (b) the use of ≥1 bDMARD not approved for any JIA category. RESULTS: At CCHMC, 829 of 1,599 JIA patients (52%) were treated with ≥1 bDMARD, and 304 (19%) had been exposed to ≥1 unapproved bDMARD. In the CARRA Registry, 4,766 of 7,379 children (65%) had received ≥1 bDMARD, and 1,122 (15%) had been prescribed ≥1 unapproved bDMARD. Of those children treated with ≥2 bDMARDs for whom complete data were available, 52% (255 of 487) at CCHMC and 45% (527 of 1,159) in the CARRA Registry had chronically uncontrolled JIA despite the use of ≥2 bDMARDs. CONCLUSION: Despite the availability of bDMARDs currently approved for JIA, there is persistent need for additional therapies to control JIA signs and symptoms. Since FDA approval is critical to ensure access to bDMARDs, the study and licensing of new medications is critical to address the unmet medication need and to further improve JIA outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".