{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026816608996539794, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0017301038062283738, 'mean_word_length': 4.963917525773196, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Unifying abbreviations for biologics in rheumatology--does the idea hold promise?

SIR, Since presenting the idea of a unifying abbreviation system for biologics used in trials and in clinics some years ago [1], I have repeatedly been asked to both expand the list according to the three-letter system and to test whether all new substances can be coded without being ambiguous. The continuous development and licensing of additional biologics in all kinds of rheumatological disorders has helped significantly to achieve these goals, as has the persisting variety of abbreviations frequently observed even in the same satellite symposium addressing a given biological. In keeping with the original idea, in the updated list (Table 1) the added drugs are coded by the first two letters of the generic, e.g. IN for infliximab, ET for etanercept, AD for adalimumab, etc., and the third letter indicating the biological structure or class of the drug, i.e. X for a chimeric monoclonal antibody, Z for a humanized monoclonal antibody, M for a human monoclonal antibody, C for a soluble receptor/receptor–antibody fusion protein and R for a receptor antagonist.