MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409229168 · doi:10.1210/jendso/bvaf063

Teprotumumab Improves Quality of Life in Thyroid Eye Disease: Meta-analysis and Matching-adjusted Indirect Comparison

2025· review· en· W4409229168 on OpenAlexaff
George J. Kahaly, Ann Xi, Naina Barretto, Haridarshan Patel, Anahita Qashqai, Mostafa Shokoohi, Paul Spin, Robert J. Holt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Endocrine Society · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Eye Disorders
Canadian institutionsEVERSANA (Canada)
FundersHorizon TherapeuticsAmgen
KeywordsPlaceboMedicineContext (archaeology)Meta-analysisQuality of life (healthcare)Randomized controlled trialConfidence intervalInternal medicineAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Context Teprotumumab and/or intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP) are first-line treatments for thyroid eye disease (TED)/Graves’ orbitopathy. Direct comparisons of these treatments on Graves’ Orbitopathy Quality of Life Questionnaire (GO-QoL) are lacking. Objective Systematic review, meta-analysis, and matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison (MAIC) of GO-QoL improvements. Methods A literature search was performed using PubMed and Embase between inception to April 1, 2023, including studies of patients with moderate to severe active TED treated with teprotumumab or IVMP. Changes in GO-QoL scores and appearance and visual function subscales were extracted. Two teprotumumab (n = 84) and placebo (n = 87) randomized clinical trials and 5 studies with IVMP (4.5 mg/12 weeks, n = 304) were identified. MAIC compared teprotumumab/placebo by adjusting for baseline GO-QoL, diplopia, proptosis, smoking, age, and sex. Significant improvements in overall GO-QoL were observed for teprotumumab vs IVMP [mean difference (MD): 13.26; 95% confidence interval (CI): 7.44, 19.09) and placebo (MD: 12.57; 95% CI: 5.94, 19.21), but not IVMP vs placebo (MD: −2.06; 95% CI: −8.24, 4.12). Improvements were noted in appearance subscale GO-QoL for teprotumumab vs IVMP (MD: 7.50; 95% CI: 0.35, 14.64) and placebo (MD: 10.80; 95% CI: 3.62, 17.98) but not for IVMP vs placebo (MD: 0.91; 95% CI: −6.36, 8.18). Visual subscale GO-QoL displayed greater improvements for teprotumumab vs IVMP (MD: 17.66; 95% CI: 7.86, 27.47) and placebo (MD: 14.54; 95% CI: 6.10, 22.99), with no significant change for IVMP vs placebo (MD: −3.65; 95% CI: −12.88, 5.57). Orbital pain, teprotumumab treatment, diplopia, proptosis, and male sex were significant independent predictors of overall GO-QoL (P < .05). Conclusion This unique analysis demonstrated a more clinically meaningful improvement in the health-related quality of life, as measured by the GO-QoL, for TED patients with teprotumumab vs both the most recommended IVMP dosage and placebo.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score0.894

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.009
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Endocrine SocietySame topicOphthalmology and Eye DisordersFrench-language works237,207