Efficacy of conventional immunosuppressants in relapsing or refractory eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis: evidence from a Canadian single-centre cohort.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe the efficacy of conventional immunosuppressants in disease control of relapsing or refractory eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) compared to recently published mepolizumab and rituximab studies. METHODS: A retrospective analysis from the Toronto Vasculitis Clinic was conducted. Patients with relapsing or refractory EGPA with similar entry criteria as the main mepolizumab (MIRRA) or rituximab (case-series) studies, who were started on conventional immunosuppressants, were assessed for remission at 24- and 52-weeks. Remission was defined as a Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score of 0 and a prednisone dose of ≤4mg/day, ≤7.5mg/day, corresponding to the mepolizumab trial, or any prednisone dose per day, as in the rituximab study. RESULTS: Among 110 cohort patients, 24 with relapsing or refractory EGPA met eligibility criteria. Conventional immunosuppressants used were methotrexate (n=15), azathioprine (n=8) or leflunomide (n=1). Remission rates at 24-weeks were 8.3% with prednisone ≤4mg/day (vs. 28.0% in the mepolizumab trial); 41.6% with prednisone ≤7.5mg/day (vs. 45% in the mepolizumab trial) and 62.5% with any prednisone dose (vs. 34% in the rituximab study). Remission at 52-weeks was 50.0% with any prednisone dose (vs. 49% in the rituximab study), whereas sustained remission at week 52 (as of week 24) was 4.2% with prednisone ≤4mg/day (vs. 19% in the mepolizumab trial), and 33.3% with prednisone ≤7.5mg/day (vs. 24% in the mepolizumab trial). CONCLUSIONS: Though our study was small and retrospective, rates of remission observed with conventional immunosuppressants were substantial. This should be kept in mind when interpreting results of placebo-controlled or retrospective studies on biologics in EGPA.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".