Combination of azathioprine and corticosteroids in the treatment of serpiginous choroiditis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although therapy with immunosuppressive agents is currently accepted as the best option for treating active serpiginous choroiditis (SC), there is no consensus on the most effective immunosuppressive drug to use. In this paper, we describe the clinical course of patients with active SC treated with azathioprine (AZA) in combination with corticosteroids. METHODS: This retrospective study included 4 patients (5 eyes) with active, vision-threatening SC who received systemic immunosuppression with AZA at 1.5 to 2.0 mg/kg per day. In combination with oral AZA, patients also received 1 mg/kg oral prednisone per day. Information collected included Snellen visual acuity (VA), clinical disease activity, duration of follow-up, rate of inflammation recurrence, and side effects of AZA. RESULTS: Within 3 weeks of treatment, all patients experienced decreased ocular inflammation and improved VA. One patient, however, had a recurrence in both eyes while oral prednisone was being tapered. In this case, once the dosage of oral prednisone was increased and methotrexate was added to the therapeutic scheme, inflammation was controlled within 1 month. The other 3 patients presented no further visual loss while on AZA and were able to taper and then discontinue oral prednisone. Nevertheless, SC recurred in 1 of these patients 40 months after the initial treatment. AZA was reintroduced but the patient complained of gastrointestinal problems, and it was then successfully replaced by mycophenolate mofetil. None of the 4 patients presented serious systemic side effects secondary to AZA. INTERPRETATION: This study suggests that when AZA is used in combination with corticosteroids it is a safe and acceptable option for treating patients with active SC. Side effects and recurrences while on AZA therapy can occur, requiring either replacement of the drug or addition of another immunosuppressive agent.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".