Results From a Phase 4, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of Repository Corticotropin Injection for the Treatment of Pulmonary Sarcoidosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long-term treatment of pulmonary sarcoidosis with glucocorticoids has been associated with toxicity and other adverse events, highlighting the need for alternative therapies. The goal of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of repository corticotropin injection (RCI, Acthar® Gel) in patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis and to validate endpoints for use in future clinical trials. In this multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, subjects received subcutaneous RCI (80 U) twice weekly or matching placebo through 24 weeks in a double-blind treatment phase, followed by an optional 24-week open-label extension. Efficacy was measured by glucocorticoid tapering, pulmonary function tests, chest imaging, patient-reported outcomes, and a novel sarcoidosis treatment score (STS). Safety was assessed by adverse events, physical examinations, vital signs, clinical laboratory abnormalities, and imaging. The study was terminated early due to low enrollment caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, thereby precluding statistical analysis. Fifty-five subjects were randomized to receive either RCI (n = 27) or placebo (n = 28). Mean STS at week 24 showed greater improvement with RCI (1.4) compared with placebo (0.7). At week 48, those who remained on RCI had an STS of 1.8 compared with 0.9 in those who switched from placebo to RCI. More subjects in the RCI group discontinued glucocorticoids at week 24 compared to the placebo group. Glucocorticoid discontinuation was comparable at week 48 for those who switched from placebo to RCI and those who continued RCI. Similar trends in favor of RCI over placebo were observed with the other efficacy endpoints. No new or unexpected safety signals were identified. RCI was safe and well tolerated, with trends in efficacy data suggesting greater improvement with RCI compared to placebo in patients receiving standard-of-care therapy for pulmonary sarcoidosis. The study also provided validation of efficacy endpoints that may be used in larger trials for pulmonary sarcoidosis. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03320070. Pulmonary sarcoidosis is a disease characterized by inflammation of the lungs. Standard treatments include glucocorticoids, which may have harmful side effects. This clinical trial investigated whether repository corticotropin injection (RCI, Acthar® Gel) was safe and effective in patients who were already taking glucocorticoids to treat pulmonary sarcoidosis. Patients were randomly assigned to be in one of two treatment groups: RCI or placebo. In the first 24 weeks of the study, 27 patients were injected with RCI twice weekly, while 28 patients were injected with an inactive substance (placebo). Forty-seven patients continued into an optional phase of the study for an additional 24 weeks in which all patients received RCI twice weekly. A sarcoidosis treatment score and assessments of lung health, general health, and fatigue were used to determine whether RCI was effective. These assessments showed greater improvements with RCI compared to placebo. Patients who switched from placebo to RCI showed similar improvements to those who remained on RCI throughout the entire study. Patients receiving RCI were able to discontinue their use of glucocorticoids more quickly than those taking placebo, thus helping them to avoid the harmful side effects of the glucocorticoids. Side effects for RCI were mostly mild or moderate, and no new or unexpected safety concerns for RCI were seen throughout the study.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".