Results from a Prospective, Open-Label, Phase 4 Pilot Study of Repository Corticotropin Injection for Moderate and Severe Dry Eye Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is a substantial unmet need for effective therapies to treat patients with refractory dry eye disease (DED). The goal of this open-label pilot study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of repository corticotropin injection (RCI; Acthar® Gel; Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals) in subjects with DED, most of whom did not experience adequate response to standard-of-care therapies. METHODS: Adults with moderate or severe-acute DED received 80 U of subcutaneous RCI twice weekly for 12 weeks. Primary efficacy outcomes were improvements in corneal fluorescein staining of superficial punctate keratitis (SPK) lesions and Symptom Assessment in Dry Eye (SANDE) scores. Secondary outcomes included changes in Schirmer's test scores, conjunctival lissamine green staining, erythema, intraocular pressure (IOP), and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA). Adverse events (AEs) were assessed continuously throughout the study. RESULTS: Fifteen subjects received at least 1 dose of RCI, and 12 subjects completed the study. Compared to baseline (day 1), significantly fewer fluorescein-stained SPK lesions were detected at day 14 (p = 0.0250) and day 84 (p = 0.0240) after RCI treatment. Mean SANDE scores progressively declined from 62.0 at baseline to 46.9 at day 84. Erythema (p = 0.0046), conjunctival lissamine green staining of SPK lesions (p = 0.0317), and IOP (p = 0.0052) were all significantly improved after 12 weeks of RCI therapy. Schirmer's test scores and BCVA showed no significant changes throughout the study. No ocular AEs or deaths occurred, and no new safety signals were identified for RCI. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that RCI may be a safe and effective treatment for moderate and severe DED. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03287635.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".