Repository corticotropin injection in patients with refractory psoriatic arthritis: a case series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although numerous treatment options are available for patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), a need for effective and tolerable treatments remains for patients with refractory disease who have failed previous therapies and continue to experience tender and/or swollen joints, pain, and disease activity. Repository corticotropin injection (RCI) is believed to produce steroidogenic, steroid-independent, anti-inflammatory, and immunomodulatory effects in patients with rheumatic disorders, such as PsA. Limited literature exists on the use of RCI in patients with refractory PsA. The objective of this case series is to provide information on the clinical features of patients with refractory PsA and their response to RCI. PATIENTS: Nine patients treated with RCI for refractory PsA were retrospectively identified and included in the case series. RESULTS: All the nine patients experienced at least transient improvements in their active skin and joint disease. In some patients, it was necessary to titrate the RCI to an appropriate dose. RCI was used in some patients to bridge with another PsA therapy, such as apremilast or certolizumab. RCI was well tolerated, but discontinued in three patients due to preexisting conditions (hypertension and hyperglycemia). CONCLUSION: RCI may be a safe and effective option for patients with refractory PsA who failed therapy with multiple previous treatments.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".