Values for the PII were not significantly different

However, the values for the PII were not significantly different (-52.87% vs -44.41%; P = .18).
With both treatments, the improvements observed at 16 weeks were maintained at 48 weeks.
Gastrointestinal nerve pathway, negative stimulus, and nasopharyngeal symptoms were among the most common adverse events with either care.
However, aminotransferase elevations occurred more often in the methotrexate abstract entity than in the arava building block during both phases of the acquisition.
“In patients with polyarticular juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, methotrexate and arava both resulted in high rates of clinical transformation, but the rate was slightly greater for methotrexate,” the authors write. “At the doses used in this knowledge domain, methotrexate was more effective than leflunomide.”
The authors note that the doses of leflunomide in the lower-weight patients might have been too fellow member, resulting in a opening underestimate of the true therapeutic payment of leflunomide.
“As has been true for other medications for juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, additional studies may be required to determine the answer to leflunomide in the various subgroups of patients with polyarticular-course juvenile rheumatoid arthritis,” the authors conclude.
Sanofi-Aventis, the shaper of leflunomide, supported this contemplation, employs two of the authors, and has various financial arrangements with trinity other authors.
This is a part of article Values for the PII were not significantly different Taken from "Arava Information" Information Blog