MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014852378 · doi:10.2196/17117

Efficacy and Safety of Rituximab in Refractory CIDP With or Without IgG4 Autoantibodies (RECIPE): Protocol for a Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial

2020· article· en· W3014852378 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shinobu Shimizu, Masahiro Iijima, Yuki Fukami, Natsuko Tamura, Masahiro Nakatochi, Masahiko Ando, Ryoji Nishi, Haruki Koike, Kenichi Kaida, Michiaki Koga, Takashi Kanda, Hidenori Ogata, Jun‐ichi Kira, Masahiro Mori, Satoshi Kuwabara, Masahisa Katsuno

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Neuropathies and Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChiba UniversityNational Defense Medical CollegeJapan Agency for Medical Research and Development
KeywordsMedicineRituximabInternal medicineMultifocal motor neuropathyPolyradiculoneuropathyChronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathyPlaceboCohortRefractory (planetary science)Randomized controlled trialClinical endpointClinical trialAutoantibodyAntibodyImmunologyPathologyGuillain-Barre syndromeMismatch negativityLymphoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is an immune-mediated peripheral neuropathy that is currently classified into several clinical subtypes, which are presumed to have different pathogenic mechanisms. Recently, studies identified a subgroup of patients with CIDP who were positive for IgG4 autoantibodies against paranodal proteins, such as neurofascin-155 and contactin-1, who respond poorly to first-line therapies for typical CIDP, including intravenous immunoglobulin therapy. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous rituximab according to IgG4 autoantibody status in patients with refractory CIDP. METHODS: The Evaluation of the Efficacy and Safety of Rituximab in Refractory CIDP Patients with IgG4 Autoantibodies in the Exploratory Clinical (RECIPE) trial consists of 2 cohorts: a multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized study cohort of 15 patients with IgG4 autoantibody-positive CIDP (rituximab:placebo = 2:1) and an open-label trial cohort of 10 patients with antibody-negative CIDP. The primary endpoint is improvement in functional outcome assessed using the adjusted Inflammatory Neuropathy Cause and Treatment Disability Scale score at 26, 38, or 52 weeks after the start of treatment with rituximab in patients with CIDP and anti-paranodal protein antibodies. Secondary outcome measures include grip strength, manual muscle testing sum scores, results of nerve conduction studies, and other functional scales. RESULTS: We plan to enroll 25 cases for the full analysis set. Recruitment is ongoing, with 14 patients enrolled as of January 2020. Enrollment will close in September 2020, and the study is planned to end in December 2021. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized controlled trial will determine if rituximab is safe and effective in patients with anti-paranodal antibodies. An open-label study will provide additional data on the effects of rituximab in patients with antibody-negative CIDP. The results of the RECIPE trial are expected to provide evidence for the positioning of rituximab as a pathogenesis-based therapeutic for refractory CIDP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03864185, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03864185 ; The Japan Registry of Clinical Trials jRCT2041180037, https://jrct.niph.go.jp/en-latest-detail/jRCT2041180037. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/17117.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0090.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0100.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0500.012

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 head0.353
GPT teacher head0.575
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations35
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicPeripheral Neuropathies and DisordersFrench-language works237,207