Repository Corticotropin Injection for Active Rheumatoid Arthritis Despite Aggressive Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Withdrawal Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to assess efficacy and safety of repository corticotropin injection (RCI) in subjects with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite treatment with a corticosteroid and one or two disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). METHODS: All subjects received open-label RCI (80 U) twice weekly for 12 weeks (part 1); only those with low disease activity [LDA; i.e., Disease Activity Score 28 joint count and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) < 3.2] were randomly assigned to receive either RCI (80 U) or placebo twice weekly during the 12-week double-blind period (part 2). The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of subjects who achieved LDA at week 12. Secondary efficacy endpoints included proportions of subjects who maintained LDA during weeks 12 through 24 and achieved Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) ≤ 10 at weeks 12 and 24. Safety was assessed via adverse event reports. RESULTS: Of the 259 enrolled subjects, 235 completed part 1; 154 subjects (n = 77 each for RCI and placebo) entered part 2, and 127 (RCI, n = 71; placebo, n = 56) completed. At week 12, 163 subjects (62.9%) achieved LDA and 169 (65.3%) achieved CDAI ≤ 10 (both p < 0.0001). At week 24, 47 (61.0%) RCI-treated and 32 (42.1%) placebo-treated subjects maintained LDA (p = 0.019); 66 (85.7%) RCI-treated and 50 (65.8%) placebo-treated subjects maintained CDAI ≤ 10 (p = 0.004). No unexpected safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: RCI was effective and generally safe in patients with active RA despite corticosteroid/DMARD therapy. By week 12, > 60% of patients achieved LDA, which was maintained with 12 additional weeks of treatment. Most patients who achieved LDA maintained it for 3 months after RCI discontinuation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT02919761.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".