Response to placebo in non-renal, non-neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus: a systematic review and pooled analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in SLE have failed to reach their respective end points, with the rates of response to placebo (plus standard-of-care treatment) being unexpectedly high. The aim of this systematic review was to quantify the response to placebo in non-renal, non-neuropsychiatric lupus. METHODS: The PubMed database was searched (from 2000 to December 2019) for phase II/III RCTs assessing the efficacy and safety of biologics in non-renal, non-neuropsychiatric SLE. Data on the efficacy and safety of the placebo-treated patients were collected in a pre-established data retrieval form. Descriptive statistics were used. RESULTS: A total of 24 RCTs (n = 11128 in total) were included. Placebo-treated patients (n = 3899) were mostly females (93.5%), Caucasians (60.2%), of mean age 39.7 years, and having a mean disease duration of 7.4 years. Their mean initial SLEDAI 2000 was 10.4, whereas 60.5% had positive anti-dsDNA antibodies, 41.9% low C3 and 35.6% low C4 at randomization. Standard-of-care treatment included glucocorticosteroids in 85.9%, antimalarials in 72.8% and immunosuppressives in 48.5%. The response to placebo was 36.2% for the primary end point (as defined in each study), 39.8% for the SLE Responder Index-4 (SRI-4), 29.2% for SRI-5, 28.4% for SRI-6 and 30.9% for BILAG-based Combined Lupus Assessment response. Regarding safety, there were serious adverse events in 16.3% of patients, serious infections in 5.5% and malignancies in 0.3%, and death occurred in 0.56% of patients. CONCLUSION: More than one-third of the placebo-treated patients achieved their respective primary end points in RCTs with biologics in non-renal, non-neuropsychiatric SLE. The response rate was higher for certain end points, such as the SRI-4, while it decreased with more stringent end points.
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 | 0.021 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".