Rituximab in the treatment of refractory adult and juvenile dermatomyositis and adult polymyositis: A randomized, placebo‐phase trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of rituximab in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-phase trial in adult and pediatric myositis patients. METHODS: Adults with refractory polymyositis (PM) and adults and children with refractory dermatomyositis (DM) were enrolled. Entry criteria included muscle weakness and ≥2 additional abnormal values on core set measures (CSMs) for adults. Juvenile DM patients required ≥3 abnormal CSMs, with or without muscle weakness. Patients were randomized to receive either rituximab early or rituximab late, and glucocorticoid or immunosuppressive therapy was allowed at study entry. The primary end point compared the time to achieve the International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group preliminary definition of improvement (DOI) between the 2 groups. The secondary end points were the time to achieve ≥20% improvement in muscle strength and the proportions of patients in the early and late rituximab groups achieving the DOI at week 8. RESULTS: Among 200 randomized patients (76 with PM, 76 with DM, and 48 with juvenile DM), 195 showed no difference in the time to achieving the DOI between the rituximab late (n = 102) and rituximab early (n = 93) groups (P = 0.74 by log rank test), with a median time to achieving a DOI of 20.2 weeks and 20.0 weeks, respectively. The secondary end points also did not significantly differ between the 2 treatment groups. However, 161 (83%) of the randomized patients met the DOI, and individual CSMs improved in both groups throughout the 44-week trial. CONCLUSION: Although there were no significant differences in the 2 treatment arms for the primary and secondary end points, 83% of adult and juvenile myositis patients with refractory disease met the DOI. The role of B cell-depleting therapies in myositis warrants further study, with consideration for a different trial design.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".