<scp>Long‐Term</scp> Efficacy and Safety of Canakinumab in Patients With Tumor Necrosis Factor Receptor–Associated Periodic Syndrome: Results From a Phase <scp>III</scp> Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aimed at assessing efficacy, safety, and tolerability of canakinumab in patients with tumor necrosis factor receptor-associated periodic syndrome (TRAPS) during a 72-week long-term, open-label extension of the CLUSTER study. METHODS: Patients received open-label canakinumab 150 or 300 mg, either every 4 weeks (q4w) or every 8 weeks, with up-titration permitted after on-treatment flares (maximum dose: 300 mg q4w). Efficacy assessments included physician global assessment of disease activity, number of flares, and serum C-reactive protein (CRP) and serum amyloid A protein (SAA) levels. Adverse events were also reported. Results are described for the overall population and according to the cumulative dose of canakinumab adjusted for body weight (<36 mg/kg or ≥36 mg/kg). RESULTS: Of 53 patients entering the final phase (epoch 4) of CLUSTER, 51 completed the treatment. At the end of epoch 4, >94% of patients achieved no or minimal disease activity. Most patients had either no (69.8%) or one flare (24.5%), whereas at baseline, the median number of flares was 9.0 per year. Median CRP levels remained at <10 mg/L. Median SAA concentrations were largely unchanged, with medians of 11.5 mg/L and 14.5 mg/L in the <36 mg/kg and ≥36 mg/kg groups, respectively, at the end of the study. No unexpected safety findings were identified. CONCLUSION: Control of disease activity, with low flare incidence, was maintained with long-term canakinumab treatment in patients with TRAPS during the 72-week final epoch of the CLUSTER study, with no new safety findings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".