Association between Leflunomide and Pulmonary Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rationale Pulmonary hypertension (PH) has been described in patients treated with leflunomide. Objectives To assess the association between leflunomide and PH. Methods We identified incident cases of PH in patients treated with leflunomide from the French PH Registry and through the pharmacoVIGIlAnce in Pulmonary ArTerial Hypertension (VIGIAPATH) program between September 1999 to December 2019. PH etiology, clinical, functional, radiologic, and hemodynamic characteristics were reviewed at baseline and follow-up. A pharmacovigilance disproportionality analysis using the World Health Organization’s global database was conducted. We then investigated the effect of leflunomide on human pulmonary endothelial cells. Data are expressed as median (min–max). Results Twenty-eight patients treated with leflunomide before PH diagnosis was identified. A total of 21 (75%) had another risk factor for PH and 2 had two risk factors. The median time between leflunomide initiation and PH diagnosis was 32 months (1–120). Right heart catheterization confirmed precapillary PH with a cardiac index of 2.37 L⋅min−1 ⋅m−2 (1.19–3.1) and elevated pulmonary vascular resistance at 9.63 Wood Units (3.6–22.1) without nitric oxide reversibility. Five patients (17.9%) had no other risk factor for PH besides exposure to leflunomide. No significant hemodynamic improvement was observed after leflunomide withdrawal. The pharmacovigilance disproportionality analysis using the World Health Organization’s database revealed a significant overrepresentation of leflunomide among reported pulmonary arterial hypertension–adverse drug reactions. In vitro studies showed the dose-dependent toxicity of leflunomide on human pulmonary endothelial cells. Conclusions PH associated with leflunomide is rare and usually associated with other risk factors. The pharmacovigilance analysis suggests an association reinforced by experimental data.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".