Infliximab therapy in refractory sarcoidosis: a multicenter real-world analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infliximab is a monoclonal antibody that binds and neutralizes circulating tumor necrosis factor-alpha, a key inflammatory cytokine in the pathophysiology of sarcoidosis. Despite the paucity of randomized clinical trials, infliximab is often considered a therapeutic option for refractory disease. Our study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of infliximab in patients with refractory sarcoidosis. METHODS: Sarcoidosis patients from three tertiary centres were retrospectively identified by pharmacy records based on treatment with infliximab. Treatment with Infliximab was initiated in patients who failed first and second line immunomodulators as determined by a multidisciplinary team of Respirologists, Dermatologists, ENT specialists, Rheumatologists, and Neurologists. Participants were characterized by the primary organ for which infliximab was initiated and the total number of organs involved. Clinical outcomes were categorized as treatment success versus failure. We defined treatment success as (A) improvement of cutaneous, upper airway, lymph node, gastrointestinal, eye, or joint manifestations; or (B) improvement or no change in central nervous system (CNS) or pulmonary manifestations. RESULTS: 33 patients with refractory sarcoidosis were identified. The proportion of treatment success was 100% (95% CI 54.1-100) in CNS, 91.7% (95% CI 61.5-99.8) in cutaneous, 78.6% (95% CI 49.2-95.3) in pulmonary and 71.5% (95% CI 29.0-96.3) in upper airway disease. The use of infliximab was associated with a reduction prednisone dose by 50%. CONCLUSION: Infliximab is possibly an effective therapy for refractory sarcoidosis, with the greatest value in neurologic and cutaneous manifestations. Across all disease presentations, infliximab facilitated a clinically relevant reduction in corticosteroid dose. Relapse is common after discontinuation of infliximab.
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 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".