Long-Term Follow-Up of Cyclophosphamide Compared with Azathioprine for Initial Maintenance Therapy in ANCA-Associated Vasculitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Treatment with azathioprine within 3 months of remission induction with cyclophosphamide is a common treatment strategy for patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis. This study comprised patients undergoing long-term follow-up who were randomly allocated to azathioprine after 3-6 months or after 12 months of cyclophosphamide treatment. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Patients from 39 European centers between 1995 and 1997 with a new diagnosis of ANCA-associated vasculitis that involved the kidneys or another vital organ were eligible. At the time of diagnosis, participants were randomly allocated to convert to azathioprine after 3-6 months (the azathioprine group) or after 12 months of cyclophosphamide (the cyclophosphamide group). Patients who did not achieve a remission within 6 months were excluded. This study assessed relapses, ESRD, and death during long-term follow-up. RESULTS: Patients were allocated to the azathioprine group (n=71) and the cyclophosphamide group (n=73). Of these patients, 63 (43.8%) developed a relapse, 35 (24.3%) developed a renal relapse, 13 (9.0%) developed ESRD, and 21 (14.6%) died. Although there were worse outcomes in the azathioprine group, none were statistically significant. The subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR] for relapse was 1.63 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.99 to 2.71), the composite of relapse or death hazard ratio [HR] was 1.59 (95% CI, 1.00 to 2.54), the ESRD sHR was 1.71 (95% CI, 0.56 to 5.19), and the death HR was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.32 to 1.79). CONCLUSIONS: It remains uncertain whether converting to azathioprine after 3-6 months of induction cyclophosphamide therapy is as effective as converting after 12 months. Outcomes are still poor for this group of patients and further research is required to determine the optimal timing of maintenance therapy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".