MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388195130 · doi:10.1055/s-0041-1723313

Effects of nintedanib in patients with systemic sclerosis-associated ILD (SSc-ILD) and normal versus elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) at baseline: analyses from the SENSCIS trial

2021· article· en· W4388195130 on OpenAlexaff
Philipp Markart, Gabriela Riemekasten, Patrícia Carreira, Lesley Ann Saketkoo, Martin Aringer, Leland W.K. Chung, Janet Pope, Corinna Miede, Susanne Stowasser, Martina Gahlemann, M. Alves, Dinesh Khanna

Bibliographic record

VenuePneumologie · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSystemic Sclerosis and Related Diseases
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNintedanibInternal medicineC-reactive proteinVital capacityGastroenterologyCardiologyInflammationLungLung functionIdiopathic pulmonary fibrosisDiffusing capacity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: In the SENSCIS trial in patients with SSc-ILD, nintedanib reduced the rate of FVC decline over 52 weeks. Elevated CRP is a marker of an inflammatory phenotype and associated with a greater rate of FVC decline and higher mortality in patients with SSc. Objective: To assess the effects of nintedanib in subgroups by CRP at baseline in SENSCIS. Methods: Patients with SSc-ILD with onset of first non-Raynaud symptom < 7 years and ≥ 10% lung fibrosis on HRCT were randomised to nintedanib or placebo. We analysed the rate of FVC decline (mL/year) over 52 weeks, the proportion of patients with an absolute increase in FVC ≥ 3% predicted (proposed MCID for FVC improvement in patients with SSc-ILD), and absolute change from baseline in mRSS at week 52 in normal vs. elevated high-sensitivity CRP (≤ 4.99 vs. > 4.99 mg/L) groups. Results: Of patients with available data 78/270 (28.9%) and 74/261 (28.4%) with nintedanib and placebo, had CRP > 4.99 mg/L at baseline. Compared with lower CRP, those with CRP > 4.99 mg/L included a similar proportion of ATA-positive patients (61.8% vs. 60.2%,), more with diffuse cutaneous SSc (63.2% vs. 49.3%), had a higher mean mRSS (13.7 vs. 10.2) and lower mean FVC % predicted (68.6% vs. 73.9%). The adjusted annual rate of FVC decline with placebo was numerically greater with CRP > 4.99 than ≤ 4.99 mg/L (− 106.6 [SE 27.6] vs. − 83.0 [17.1] mL/year). Nintedanib reduced the rate of FVC decline vs. placebo numerically more in patients with CRP > 4.99 than ≤ 4.99 mg/L but treatment-by-time-by-subgroup interaction p-value did not indicate nintedanib effect heterogeneity (p = 0.70) ([ Fig. 1 ]). The proportions of patients with an absolute increase in FVC ≥ 3% predicted were 20.4% and 15.0% in nintedanib and placebo with CRP ≤ 4.99 mg/L, 24.4% and 14.9% with CRP > 4.99 mg/L (treatment-by-subgroup interaction p = 0.59); mRSS adjusted mean changes − 2.2 (SE 0.3) and − 2.1 (0.3) with CRP ≤ 4.99 mg/L (difference − 0.1 [95% CI − 1.0, 0.8]), − 2.3 (0.5) and − 1.0 (0.5) with CRP > 4.99 mg/L (difference − 1.2 [− 2.7, 0.2]; treatment-by-visit-by-subgroup interaction p = 0.20). Abb. 1 Rate of decline in FVC (mL/year) over 52 weeks in subgroups by CRP at baseline in the SENSCIS trial. Conclusions: In the SENSCIS trial, the rate of FVC decline over 52 weeks in the placebo group was numerically greater in elevated CRP. Nintedanib reduced the rate of FVC decline both in patients with normal and elevated CRP, with a numerically greater effect in patients with elevated CRP. * Previously presented at ERS2020. Publication History Article published online: 30 April 2021 © 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePneumologieSame topicSystemic Sclerosis and Related DiseasesFrench-language works237,207