MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971900016 · doi:10.1111/bjd.18482

Rituximab is an effective treatment in patients with pemphigus vulgaris and demonstrates a steroid‐sparing effect

2019· article· en· W2971900016 on OpenAlexaff
D.M. Chen, Adefowope Odueyungbo, Eva Csinady, L. Gearhart, Patricia B. Lehane, Melissa Cheu, Maud Maho‐Vaillant, C. Prost‐Squarcioni, V. Hébert, Estelle Houivet, Sébastien Calbo, Frédérique Caillot, Marie-Laure Golinski, B. Labeille, C. Picard‐Dahan, C. Paul, M.‐A. Richard, Jean‐David Bouaziz, S. Duvert‐Lehembre, Philippe Bernard, F. Caux, M. Alexandre, S. Oro, P. Vabres, E. Delaporte, G. Quéreux, A. Dupuy, S. Debarbieux, M. Avenel‐Audran, M. D’Incan, C. Bédane, N. Bénéton, D. Jullien, N. Dupin, L. Misery, L. Machet, M. Beylot‐Barry, O. Dereure, B. Sassolas, Jacques Bénichou, Philippe Musette, P. Joly

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Dermatology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutoimmune Bullous Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsRoche (Canada)
FundersGenentechAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsPemphigus vulgarisRituximabMedicineDermatologyPemphigusSteroidInternal medicineLymphoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroids (CS) with or without adjuvant immunosuppressant agents are standard treatment for pemphigus vulgaris (PV). The efficacy of adjuvant therapies in minimizing steroid-related adverse events (AEs) is unproven. OBJECTIVES: To utilize data collected in a French investigator-initiated, phase III, open-label, randomized controlled trial to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of rituximab and seek approval for its use in PV. METHODS: per day prednisone alone tapered over 12 or 18 months, respectively (according to disease severity). The primary end point was complete remission at month 24 without CS (CRoff) for ≥ 2 months, and 24-month efficacy and safety results were also reported. RESULTS: At month 24, 34 of 38 patients (90%) on rituximab plus prednisone achieved CRoff ≥ 2 months vs. 10 of 36 patients (28%) on prednisone alone. Median total cumulative prednisone dose was 5800 mg in the rituximab plus prednisone arm vs. 20 520 mg for prednisone alone. Eight of 36 patients (22%) who received prednisone alone withdrew from treatment owing to AEs; one rituximab-plus-prednisone patient withdrew due to pregnancy. Overall, 24 of 36 patients (67%) on prednisone alone experienced a grade 3/4 CS-related AE vs. 13 of 38 patients (34%) on rituximab plus prednisone. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderate-to-severe PV, rituximab plus short-term prednisone was more effective than prednisone alone. Patients treated with rituximab had less CS exposure and were less likely to experience severe or life-threatening CS-related AEs. What's already known about this topic? Pemphigus vulgaris (PV) is the most common type of pemphigus. Corticosteroids, a standard first-line treatment for PV, have significant side-effects. Although their effects are unproven, adjuvant corticosteroid-sparing agents are routinely used to minimize steroid exposure and corticosteroid-related side-effects. There is evidence that the anti-CD20 antibody rituximab is effective in the treatment of patients with severe recalcitrant pemphigus and in patients with newly diagnosed pemphigus. What does this study add? This study provides a more detailed analysis of patients with PV enrolled in an investigator-initiated trial. Rituximab plus prednisone had a steroid-sparing effect and more patients achieved complete remission off prednisone. Fewer patients experienced grade 3 or grade 4 steroid-related adverse events than those on prednisone alone. This collaboration between academia and industry, utilizing independent post hoc analyses, led to regulatory authority approvals of rituximab in moderate-to-severe PV.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations95
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of DermatologySame topicAutoimmune Bullous Skin DiseasesFrench-language works237,207