Comparison of Lupus Nephritis Induction Treatments in a Hispanic Population: A Single-center Cohort Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate response rates in an adult lupus nephritis (LN) cohort in Mexico City, Mexico. METHODS: We analyzed 165 patients with biopsy-proven LN histological International Society of Nephrology/Renal Pathology Society classes III, IV, or V, distributed by treatment drug in 3 groups: mycophenolate mofetil (MMF; dosage > 2 g/day per 6 mos, n = 63), intravenous cyclophosphamide (IVC; 0.7 g/m(2) body surface area monthly per 6 pulses, n = 66), or azathioprine (AZA; dosage > 1.5 mg/kg/day per 6 mos, n = 36). Median followup was 31 ± 18 months. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving complete renal response (CR). Secondary endpoints included the proportion of patients achieving renal response (complete or partial), renal flare-free survival, doubling of serum creatinine, and progression to endstage renal disease (ESRD). RESULTS: MMF induction was superior to IVC (HR 2.00, 95% CI 1.23-3.25, p = 0.005) and AZA (HR 2.12, 95% CI 1.23-3.66, p = 0.007) in the primary endpoint. Censored CR rates at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months were 32.6%, 56.1%, 76.6%, and 94.1% for MMF; 24.2%, 34.4%, 57.9%, and 62.1% for IVC; and 8.4%, 39.8%, 49.7%, and 49.7% for AZA. MMF was also superior in renal response to treatment and renal flare-free survival outcomes. There were no differences between groups in doubling of serum creatinine or progression to ESRD. The induction treatment with MMF (HR 2.04, 95% CI 1.25-3.33, p = 0.005) and absence of vascular lesions on renal biopsy (HR 2.05, 95% CI 1.25-3.37, p = 0.004) were associated with CR, whereas proteinuria at the time of presentation was negatively associated with CR (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84-0.98, p = 0.013). CONCLUSION: MMF induction therapy is superior to IVC and AZA in patients with LN of Mexican-mestizo race.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".