Glucocorticoid Minimization in Anti-Neutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibody-Associated Vasculitis: An International Survey of Clinicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale & Objective: Research in anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis (AAV) has focused on reducing treatment toxicities, notably through reduction of exposure to glucocorticoids. Glucocorticoid-sparing therapies such as avacopan are not widely available in many countries, and patients are exposed to high glucocorticoid doses. There is little data concerning what clinicians should accept as the lowest glucocorticoid dosing that can be used in induction therapy for AAV. Study Design: International, online survey. Setting & Participants: Clinicians in various countries with experience in managing vasculitis. Exposure and Outcomes: Survey questions to gauge interest and preferences in studying an induction of remission regimen for severe AAV using only 2 or 4 weeks of glucocorticoids without avacopan. Data collected included general opinions about standard of care for induction agents, glucocorticoids, and avacopan. Respondents were presented with 3 candidate trial designs, 2 of which proposed a combination of cyclophosphamide and rituximab induction. Analytical Approach: Using a 10-point Likert scale, respondents ranked each candidate trial on its usefulness in demonstrating whether a minimal glucocorticoid regimen would be safe and effective and their willingness to randomize into the trial. Results: There were 210 respondents to the survey. The candidate trials were rated moderate-to-high for usefulness to demonstrate safety and efficacy (scores 6-7/10), and moderate (scores 5-6/10) for willingness to randomize. Four-week glucocorticoid duration was preferred to 2 weeks, and combination cyclophosphamide-rituximab with 4-week glucocorticoids was the most preferred design. Forty-two percent of respondents felt avacopan had to be incorporated into a minimal GC trial design to want to recruit patients. Limitations: Representativeness of survey sample and generalizability of findings. Conclusions: Combination cyclophosphamide-rituximab may be the ideal way of studying minimal glucocorticoid use in severe AAV. Given its increasing uptake, incorporating avacopan into a potential trial design is important.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".