Effect of Anti-CD25 Antibody Daclizumab in the Inhibition of Inflammation and Stabilization of Disease Progression in Multiple Sclerosis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Several questions arise concerning the use of the anti-CD25 antibody daclizumab to treat multiple sclerosis (MS). OBJECTIVES: To answer the following 3 questions related to the efficacy of daclizumab therapy in patients with MS: Is the therapeutic effect of daclizumab dependent on combination with interferon beta? Is a higher dosage of daclizumab more efficacious in patients with persistent disease activity? Can biomarkers predict full vs partial therapeutic response to daclizumab? DESIGN: An open-label baseline vs treatment phase II clinical trial of daclizumab in patients having MS with inadequate response to interferon beta. Three months of interferon beta treatment at baseline were followed by 5.5 months of interferon beta-daclizumab combination therapy. If patients experienced more than 75% reduction of contrast-enhancing lesions (CELs) on brain magnetic resonance imaging at month 5.5 compared with baseline, daclizumab was continued as monotherapy for 10 months. Otherwise, the dosage of daclizumab was doubled. SETTING: Neuroimmunology Branch, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Bethesda, Maryland. PATIENTS: Fifteen patients with MS receiving standard preparations of interferon beta who experienced more than 1 MS exacerbation or whose clinical disability increased in the preceding 12 months and who had at least 2 CELs on baseline brain magnetic resonance images. INTERVENTION: Daclizumab (1 mg/kg) as an intravenous infusion every 4 weeks in combination with interferon beta (months 0-5.5) and as monotherapy (months 6.5-15.5). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the reduction of CELs among interferon beta monotherapy, interferon beta-daclizumab combination therapy, and daclizumab monotherapy. The secondary outcomes included immunologic biomarkers and changes in clinical disability. RESULTS: Overall, 5 of 15 patients (33%) experienced adverse effects of therapy. Two patients developed systemic adverse effects, and daclizumab therapy was discontinued. Although daclizumab monotherapy was efficacious in 9 of 13 patients with MS, interferon beta-daclizumab combination therapy was necessary to stabilize disease activity in the other 4 patients. Daclizumab therapy led to 72% inhibition of new CELs and significant improvement in clinical disability. Pilot biomarkers (increase in CD56bright natural killer cells and decrease in CD8+ T cells) were identified that can differentiate between full and partial daclizumab responders. CONCLUSIONS: Daclizumab monotherapy is effective in most patients who experienced persistent MS disease activity with interferon beta therapy. Interferon beta-daclizumab combination therapy or higher dosages of daclizumab may be necessary to achieve optimal therapeutic response in all patients. Biomarkers may identify patients with suboptimal response to daclizumab monotherapy. Administration among a large patient sample during a longer period is needed to fully define the safety and long-term efficacy of daclizumab as treatment for high-inflammatory MS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00001934.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».