MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201927313 · doi:10.1002/mus.27422

Eculizumab in refractory generalized myasthenia gravis previously treated with rituximab: subgroup analysis of <scp>REGAIN</scp> and its extension study

2021· article· en· W3201927313 on OpenAlexaff
Zaeem A. Siddiqi, Richard J. Nowak, Tahseen Mozaffar, Fanny O’Brien, Marcus Yountz, Francesco Patti

Bibliographic record

VenueMuscle & Nerve · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMyasthenia Gravis and Thymoma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlexion Pharmaceuticals
KeywordsEculizumabRituximabMedicineMyasthenia gravisRefractory (planetary science)Subgroup analysisInternal medicineImmunologyAntibodyBiologyComplement systemMeta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction/Aims Individuals with refractory generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG) who have a history of rituximab use and experience persistent symptoms represent a population with unmet treatment needs. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of eculizumab in patients with refractory anti‐acetylcholine receptor antibody‐positive (AChR+) gMG previously treated with rituximab. Methods This post hoc subgroup analysis of the phase 3 REGAIN study (NCT01997229) and its open‐label extension (OLE; NCT02301624) compared baseline characteristics, safety, and response to eculizumab in participants who had previously received rituximab with those who had not. Rituximab use was not permitted within the 6 months before screening or during REGAIN/OLE. Results Of 125 REGAIN participants, 14 had received rituximab previously (7 received placebo and 7 received eculizumab). In the previous‐rituximab group, 57% had used at least four other immunosuppressants compared with 16% in the no‐previous‐rituximab group. Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living total scores from eculizumab baseline to week 130 of eculizumab treatment improved in both the previous‐rituximab and no‐previous‐rituximab groups (least‐squares mean −4.4, standard error of the mean [SEM] 1.0 [n = 9] and least‐squares mean −4.6, SEM 0.3 [n = 67], respectively; difference = 0.2, 95% confidence interval −1.88 to 2.22). In addition, in both groups, most patients who were treated with eculizumab for 130 weeks achieved a Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America post‐intervention status of minimal manifestations (66.7% and 65.0%, respectively). The eculizumab safety profile was similar between groups and consistent with its established profile. Discussion Eculizumab is an effective therapy for patients with refractory AChR+ gMG, irrespective of whether they had received rituximab treatment previously.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.006
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations23
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMuscle & NerveSame topicMyasthenia Gravis and ThymomaFrench-language works237,207