The effectiveness and toxicity of cyclosporin A in rheumatoid arthritis: longitudinal analysis of a population-based registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine factors associated with response or toxicity to cyclosporin A (CSA) in a population-based inception cohort with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Prospectively collected longitudinal measures including tender joint count (JC), duration of morning stiffness (MS), systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP, DBP), and serum creatinine (SCr) were modeled using generalized estimating equations. Survival methods were used to estimate CSA continuation time and its determinants. RESULTS: Of 133 patients (75% female, median RA duration 13 years), 37 discontinued CSA because of ineffectiveness (19) or because of toxicity (18) including increased SCr in 10, hypertension in 4, infections in 3, and gingival hyperplasia in 1. Patients remained on CSA a median of 75 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 38-112). Those receiving concomitant methotrexate (MTX) were more than 4 times as likely to continue on CSA therapy (hazard ratio 0.22, 95% CI 0.10-0.94). A lower final JC was predicted by a longer CSA treatment duration (relative risk [RR] 0.99 per month, 95% CI 0.98-0.99) and concomitant MTX therapy (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63-0.99); decreased MS was predicted only by longer CSA treatment duration (reduction of 2.0 minutes per month, 95% CI 1.1-3.0). Each previous disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) exposure predicted a rise in SCr (35 micromole/liter, 95% CI 22-48), SBP (7.2 mm Hg, 95% CI 2.7-11.7), and DBP (3.8 mm Hg, 95% CI 3.0-6.4). CONCLUSIONS: Combination CSA/MTX prolongs therapy and reduces JC. Long-term CSA treatment was fairly well tolerated. Previous DMARD use appears to be a determinant for the development of toxicity.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".