ArticleClinical rheumatology2017
Putting recommendations into practice: Australian rheumatologists' opinions on leflunomide use in rheumatoid arthritis.
Article in Clinical rheumatology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical effectiveness and safety of leflunomide in inflammatory arthritis: a report from the RAPPORT database with supporting patient survey.Clinical rheumatology · 2017Article
- Putting recommendations into practice: Australian rheumatologists' opinions on leflunomide use in rheumatoid arthritis.Clinical rheumatology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Leflunomide is the most recently introduced conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in Australia. It has several unique methods for initiation, unique monitoring recommendations and a distinctive cessation protocol in the event of serious toxicity. The aim of this study was to evaluate initiation and monitoring practices of Australian rheumatologists using leflunomide. A survey was emailed twice, approximately 3 months apart to 332 rheumatologist members of the Australian Rheumatology Association. Wave analysis was used to assess evidence of non-response bias. The response rate to the survey was 20% and there was no difference between the responses of waves 1 and 2. Fifty percent of the respondents indicated that 20 mg once daily was the initial dose of leflunomide that they most commonly prescribed, 45% indicated 10 mg once daily, whilst only 3% preferred to initiate leflunomide at 100 mg daily for 2-3 days followed by 10 mg once a day as recommended when first marketed. Of the responders, 12% had used doses above 20 mg daily and 70% had used alternate daily dosing with leflunomide. In a patient taking leflunomide with an ALT or AST >3 times the ULN on two or more blood tests, 75% of responders indicated they would stop leflunomide immediately and 20% would follow cessation by administering a cholestyramine washout. The choice of initial leflunomide dose among responding Australian rheumatologists varied considerably, although most preferred not to use the loading dose. Despite the recommendation of clinical guidelines, the use of a cholestyramine washout procedure for hepatic toxicity is not universal.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.