Rituximab in the Treatment of Interstitial Lung Disease Associated with Antisynthetase Syndrome: A Multicenter Retrospective Case Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess clinical outcomes including imaging findings on computed tomography (CT), pulmonary function testing (PFT), and glucocorticoid (GC) use in patients with the antisynthetase syndrome (AS) and interstitial lung disease (ILD) treated with rituximab (RTX). METHODS: We retrospectively identified all patients at 2 institutions with AS-ILD who were treated with RTX. Baseline demographics, PFT, and chest CT were assessed before and after RTX. Two radiologists independently evaluated CT using a standardized scoring system. RESULTS: Twenty-five subjects at the Brigham and Women's Hospital (n = 13) and University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (n = 12) were included. Antisynthetase antibodies were identified in all patients (16 Jo1, 6 PL-12, 3 PL-7). In 21 cases (84%), the principal indication for RTX use was recurrent or progressive ILD, owing to failure of other agents. Comparing pre- and post-RTX pulmonary variables at 12 months, CT score and forced vital capacity were stable or improved in 88% and 79% of subjects, respectively. Total lung capacity (%) increased from 56 ± 13 to 64 ± 13 and GC dose decreased from 18 ± 9 to 12 ± 12 mg/day. Although DLCO (%) declined slightly at 1 year, it increased from 42 ± 17 to 70 ± 20 at 3 years. The most common imaging patterns on CT were nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP; n = 13) and usual interstitial pneumonia/fibrotic NSIP (n = 5), of which 5 had concurrent elements of cryptogenic organizing pneumonia. CONCLUSION: Stability or improvement in pulmonary function or severity of ILD on CT was seen in most patients. Use of RTX was well tolerated in the majority of patients. RTX may play a therapeutic role in patients with AS-ILD, and further clinical investigation is warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".