CanVasc consensus recommendations for the use of avacopan in antineutrophil cytoplasm antibody-associated vasculitis: 2022 addendum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In 2020, the Canadian Vasculitis Research Network (CanVasc) published their updated recommendations for the management of ANCA-associated vasculitides (AAV). The current addendum provides further recommendations regarding the use of avacopan in AAV based on a review of newly available evidence. METHODS: An updated systematic literature review on avacopan (formerly, CCX168) using Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was performed for publications up to September 2022. New recommendations were developed and categorized according to the EULAR grading levels, as done for previous CanVasc recommendations. A modified Delphi procedure and videoconferences were used to reach ≥80% consensus on the inclusion, wording and grading of each recommendation. RESULTS: Three new recommendations were developed. They focus on avacopan therapy indication and duration, as well as timely glucocorticoid tapering. CONCLUSION: These 2022 addended recommendations provide rheumatologists, nephrologists and other specialists caring for patients with AAV with guidance for the use of avacopan, based on current evidence and consensus from Canadian experts.
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 | 0.040 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.005 |
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".