MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281698533 · doi:10.1016/j.jaip.2022.05.019

Effect of Dupilumab on Blood Eosinophil Counts in Patients With Asthma, Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyps, Atopic Dermatitis, or Eosinophilic Esophagitis

2022· article· en· W4281698533 on OpenAlexaff
Michael E. Wechsler, Amy D. Klion, Pierluigi Paggiaro, Parameswaran Nair, D. Staumont‐Sallé, Amr Radwan, Robert R. Johnson, Upender Kapoor, Faisal A. Khokhar, Nadia Daizadeh, Zhen Chen, Elizabeth Laws, Benjamin Ortiz, Juby A. Jacob‐Nara, Leda Mannent, Paul J. Rowe, Yamo Deniz

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology In Practice · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSinusitis and nasal conditions
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
FundersNational Institutes of HealthRegeneron PharmaceuticalsSanofi
KeywordsEosinophiliaEosinophilic esophagitisDupilumabMedicineEosinophilAtopic dermatitisAsthmaNasal polypsInternal medicineEosinophilicGastroenterologyImmunologyInterleukin 5BenralizumabDermatologyMepolizumabPathologyDiseaseInterleukinCytokine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Transient increases in blood eosinophil counts have been observed in dupilumab clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: To assess eosinophil counts and eosinophilia-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) across 11 dupilumab clinical trials, comparing adult and adolescent patients with asthma and adult patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), atopic dermatitis, and eosinophilic esophagitis. METHODS: Eosinophil counts, rates of eosinophilia-related TEAEs or treatment-emergent eosinophilia (>1,500 cells/μL), discontinuations, clinical symptoms, and efficacy in patients with asthma or CRSwNP with treatment-emergent eosinophilia are presented. RESULTS: Transient increases in mean eosinophil counts were observed in dupilumab-treated patients with asthma (mean range across studies at baseline: 349-370 cells/μL; week 4: 515-578 cells/μL), CRSwNP (baseline: 440-448 cells/μL; week 16: 595 cells/μL), and atopic dermatitis (baseline: 434-600 cells/μL; week 4: 410-710 cells/μL), followed by a decline starting by week 24 to baseline or lower. No increases were seen in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (baseline: 310 cells/μL; week 4: 230 cells/μL). In dupilumab-treated patients across all studies, rates of eosinophilia TEAEs were 0% to 13.6%. Clinical symptoms associated with increased eosinophils were rare (seven of 4,666 dupilumab-treated patients, including six cases of eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis) and occurred only in patients with asthma or CRSwNP. Eosinophilia was not associated with reduced dupilumab efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Transient increases in eosinophil counts with dupilumab treatment did not affect efficacy and were rarely of clinical consequence. It remains important for physicians to base judgment on individual patient history and baseline eosinophil counts and to be alert to hypereosinophilic symptoms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations229
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology In PracticeSame topicSinusitis and nasal conditionsFrench-language works237,207