MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129259214 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.131226

Rilonacept for Gout Flare Prevention in Patients Receiving Uric Acid-lowering Therapy: Results of RESURGE, a Phase III, International Safety Study

2014· article· en· W2129259214 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John S. Sundy, H. Ralph Schumacher, Alan Kivitz, Steven P. Weinstein, Richard Wu, Shirletta King-Davis, Robert R. Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGout, Hyperuricemia, Uric Acid
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGoutPlaceboClinical endpointAdverse effectInternal medicineSurgeryRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of once-weekly subcutaneous rilonacept 160 mg for prevention of gout flares in patients initiating or continuing urate-lowering therapy (ULT). METHODS: This phase III study was conducted in the United States, South Africa, Europe, and Asia. Adults (n = 1315, 18-80 yrs) with gout, who were initiating or continuing ULT, were randomized to treatment with weekly subcutaneous injections of rilonacept 160 mg or placebo for 16 weeks followed by a 4-week safety followup. The primary endpoint was safety, assessed by adverse events (AE) and laboratory values. Efficacy was a secondary endpoint. RESULTS: Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between treatments; predominantly male (87.8%), mean age 52.7 ± 11.3 years. Patients with ≥ 1 AE were 66.6% with rilonacept versus 59.1% placebo, with slightly more AE-related withdrawals with rilonacept (4.7% vs 3.0%) because of the greater incidence of injection site reactions (15.2% rilonacept, 3.3% placebo). Serious AE were similar in both groups, as were serious infections (0.9% placebo, 0.5% rilonacept); no tuberculosis or opportunistic infections occurred. Most common AE were headache, arthralgia, injection site erythema, accidental overdose, and pain in extremity. Of the 6 deaths, only 1 in the placebo group was considered treatment-related. At Week 16, rilonacept resulted in 70.3% fewer gout flares per patient (p < 0.0001), fewer patients with ≥ 1 and ≥ 2 gout flares (p < 0.0001), and 64.9% fewer gout flare days (p < 0.0001) relative to placebo. CONCLUSION: Weekly subcutaneous administration of rilonacept 160 mg showed no new safety signals. The safety profile was consistent with previous studies. Rilonacept also significantly reduced the risk of gout flares. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00856206; EudraCT No. 2008-007784-16.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.269
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations72
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of RheumatologySame topicGout, Hyperuricemia, Uric AcidFrench-language works237,207