The role of antimalarials in lupus nephritis: a review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted a search of all relevant literature using Medline (OVID and EMBASE) and PubMed. We included randomized-controlled trials, observational cohort studies, and case-control studies. Case reports were only included for the adverse effect profile of AM. •AM use benefits patients with SLE including improving survival, reducing disease activity, new organ involvement, integument damage, risk of infection, risk of thrombosis, and possible cardioprotective and anti-malignancy effects. Overview of effects of antimalarials on lupus disease and activity – articles from 2005 to 2010. LN=lupus nephritis. Overview of effects of antimalarials on cardiovascular disease and thrombosis – articles from 2005-2010. CVD = cardiovascular disease. aPL = antiphospholipid antibodies. TE = thromboembolic events. RA = rheumatoid arthritis. •In lupus nephritis, AM use improves time to end-stage renal disease, disease activity, flare rates, disease remission as an adjunct with other immunomodifying drugs, and reduced cumulative corticosteroid use. Overview of studies on AMs and outcomes related to LN. MMF = mycophenolate mofetil. •AM are safe to use and should be continued in pregnant SLE patients for its beneficial effects of reducing disease activity, flare rates, cumulative corticosteroid requirements, and possible reduction in development of cardiac neonatal lupus erythematosus.AM have a good safety profile, with gastrointestinal symptoms being the most common. Careful regular monitoring for retinopathy is recommended as per American Academy of Ophthalmology. Overview of AM potential toxicity/adverse events •In patients with renal disease, caution with dosing and careful monitoring for adverse events should be taken. AM are medications which confer many benefits to patients with SLE and lupus nephritis, with a good safety profile.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".