Abatacept for the treatment of myositis-associated interstitial lung disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This randomized, placebo-controlled pilot trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of abatacept in patients with anti-synthetase syndrome-associated interstitial lung disease (ASyS-ILD). METHODS: Participants with active ASyS-ILD were randomized to receive abatacept (n = 9) or placebo (n = 11) for 24 weeks, followed by a 24-week open-label extension with abatacept for all participants. The primary endpoint was a change in % predicted forced vital capacity (%FVC) from baseline to week 24. Secondary endpoints included changes in the FVC (ml), % predicted diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (%DLCO), shortness of breath questionnaire (SOBQ) and pulmonary disease activity on a visual analogue scale (VAS) at weeks 24 and 48. Pre-post baseline analysis of FVC and quantitative image analysis (QIA) of high-resolution computed tomographic scans were performed. Data were analysed using a generalized linear mixed model. The study was not powered for primary or secondary endpoints. RESULTS: At week 24, there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of %FVC change between abatacept and placebo (between treatment difference of -0.35, 95%CI -6.91 to 6.21, P = 0.914) and in all secondary endpoints. However, by week 48, trends favouring abatacept in %FVC, FVC (ml), %DLCO and SOBQ were observed without statistical significance. There was a significant improvement in pulmonary disease activity VAS and pre-post baseline slopes of %FVC and QIA scores in the abatacept arm. Abatacept was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Abatacept did not significantly improve %FVC at 24 weeks. However, trends at 48 weeks suggest potential benefits, supporting the need for a larger, long-term randomized controlled trial. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov; NCT03215927.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".