Results From a Phase 4, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of Repository Corticotropin Injection for the Treatment of Pulmonary Sarcoidosis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Long-term treatment of pulmonary sarcoidosis with glucocorticoids has been associated with toxicity and other adverse events, highlighting the need for alternative therapies. The goal of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of repository corticotropin injection (RCI, Acthar® Gel) in patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis and to validate endpoints for use in future clinical trials. In this multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, subjects received subcutaneous RCI (80 U) twice weekly or matching placebo through 24 weeks in a double-blind treatment phase, followed by an optional 24-week open-label extension. Efficacy was measured by glucocorticoid tapering, pulmonary function tests, chest imaging, patient-reported outcomes, and a novel sarcoidosis treatment score (STS). Safety was assessed by adverse events, physical examinations, vital signs, clinical laboratory abnormalities, and imaging. The study was terminated early due to low enrollment caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, thereby precluding statistical analysis. Fifty-five subjects were randomized to receive either RCI (n = 27) or placebo (n = 28). Mean STS at week 24 showed greater improvement with RCI (1.4) compared with placebo (0.7). At week 48, those who remained on RCI had an STS of 1.8 compared with 0.9 in those who switched from placebo to RCI. More subjects in the RCI group discontinued glucocorticoids at week 24 compared to the placebo group. Glucocorticoid discontinuation was comparable at week 48 for those who switched from placebo to RCI and those who continued RCI. Similar trends in favor of RCI over placebo were observed with the other efficacy endpoints. No new or unexpected safety signals were identified. RCI was safe and well tolerated, with trends in efficacy data suggesting greater improvement with RCI compared to placebo in patients receiving standard-of-care therapy for pulmonary sarcoidosis. The study also provided validation of efficacy endpoints that may be used in larger trials for pulmonary sarcoidosis. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03320070. Pulmonary sarcoidosis is a disease characterized by inflammation of the lungs. Standard treatments include glucocorticoids, which may have harmful side effects. This clinical trial investigated whether repository corticotropin injection (RCI, Acthar® Gel) was safe and effective in patients who were already taking glucocorticoids to treat pulmonary sarcoidosis. Patients were randomly assigned to be in one of two treatment groups: RCI or placebo. In the first 24 weeks of the study, 27 patients were injected with RCI twice weekly, while 28 patients were injected with an inactive substance (placebo). Forty-seven patients continued into an optional phase of the study for an additional 24 weeks in which all patients received RCI twice weekly. A sarcoidosis treatment score and assessments of lung health, general health, and fatigue were used to determine whether RCI was effective. These assessments showed greater improvements with RCI compared to placebo. Patients who switched from placebo to RCI showed similar improvements to those who remained on RCI throughout the entire study. Patients receiving RCI were able to discontinue their use of glucocorticoids more quickly than those taking placebo, thus helping them to avoid the harmful side effects of the glucocorticoids. Side effects for RCI were mostly mild or moderate, and no new or unexpected safety concerns for RCI were seen throughout the study.
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 | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 ».