Repository corticotropin injection in patients with rheumatoid arthritis resistant to biologic therapies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although synthetic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs are available, many patients with rheumatoid arthritis have a difficult-to-control disease and need other treatment options. Repository corticotropin injection (RCI) may alleviate symptoms and exacerbations in patients with refractory disease. METHODS: Nine patients with refractory rheumatoid arthritis were included in this study. Patients were maintained on their baseline therapies with a minimum of 7.5 mg prednisone daily. RCI was given daily at 40 U for 7 days. Patients who had an adequate disease response were given 40 U twice weekly through Week 12. For patients who had inadequate disease response, the dose was increased to 80 U daily for 7 days, followed by 80 U twice weekly through Week 12. RESULTS: The primary endpoint was >1.2 point reduction in the Disease Activity Score 28 using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) at Week 12. Secondary endpoints were improvements in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disease Index and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy scores. Six of the nine patients met the primary endpoint. The average change in DAS28-CRP from baseline to Week 12 was numerically greater with 40 U than with 80 U RCI. Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disease Index improved as early as Week 1, and the improvements remained throughout treatment. CONCLUSION: There was no association between cortisol levels and low-dose RCI response. No serious adverse events occurred. RCI produced a clinically meaningful reduction in markers of disease activity, improved health-related quality of life, and a favorable safety profile. The response rate to RCI was substantial and shows promise in this difficult-to-treat population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".