Treatment of isolated severe immune hemolytic anaemia associated with systemic lupus erythematosus: 26 cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the response to treatment and the long-term outcome in a cohort of patients in whom severe autoimmune hemolytic anaemia (AHA) was the leading manifestation of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Twenty-six women with severe isolated AHA were included. Corticosteroids were used as the initial treatment for all patients in our study. An initial response was obtained in all but one patient (96%). The overall recurrence rate was three per 100 person-years, with an expected recurrence-free proportion of 73% with a 180 months median follow-up. Seven patients (27%) experienced a relapse of AHA. We found a higher proportion of pleuritis in relapsing patients. Only three patients experienced multiple relapses despite splenectomy and several immunosuppressants. Steroid-sparing effect of hydroxychloroquine and azathioprine could not be assessed because most of the patients received these treatments for other reasons than AHA. Intravenous immunoglobulins induced transient response in three cases. Splenectomy was efficient to definitively control AHA in one patient but two patients quickly experienced relapses while one patient did not benefit. Five patients received immunosuppressants that induced only transient responses. Rituximab was long-term efficient in one case. In conclusion, severe AHA is a serious complication of SLE that warrants appropriate management. On the basis of our experience, the ideal treatment of isolated AHA should be oral corticosteroids in first-line treatment. Our study does not support an important role for splenectomy. Patients refractory to conventional therapy should be treated either with few toxic immunosuppressive drugs, danazol or rituximab.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".