Corticosteroid Therapy in IgA Nephropathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The benefits and risks of steroids for the treatment of IgA nephropathy remain uncertain. We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for randomized, controlled trials of corticosteroid therapy for IgA nephropathy published between 1966 and March 2011. We identified nine relevant trials that included 536 patients who had urinary protein excretion >1 g/d and normal renal function. Forty-six (8.6%) of these patients developed a kidney failure event, defined as doubling of the serum creatinine/halving of the GFR or ESRD. Overall, steroid therapy was associated with a lower risk for kidney failure (relative risk, 0.32 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-0.67]; P=0.002) and a reduction in proteinuria (weighted mean difference, -0.46 g/d [95% CI, -0.63 to -0.29 g/d]), with no evidence of heterogeneity in these outcomes. Subgroup analysis suggested that the dose modifies the effect of steroids for renal protection (P for heterogeneity=0.030): Relatively high-dose and short-term therapy (prednisone >30 mg/d or high-dose pulse intravenous methylprednisolone with duration ≤1 year) produced significant renal protection, whereas low-dose, long-term steroid use did not. Steroid therapy was associated with a 55% higher risk for adverse events. The quality of included studies was low, however, limiting the generalizability of the results. In conclusion, steroids appear to provide renal protection in patients with IgA nephropathy but increase the risk for adverse events. Reliably defining the efficacy and safety of steroids in IgA nephropathy requires a high-quality trial with a large sample size.
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) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".