Standard of treatment and outcomes of adults with lupus nephritis in Africa: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lupus nephritis (LN) is a significant cause of mortality and morbidity in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and the severity of disease has been described to be increased in Africans. Observational studies have been conducted; however, the treatment and outcome of African patients with LN has not been rigorously assessed. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies selected from a PubMed search of outcome in Africans with biopsy-proven LN from 1 January 1990 to 30 June 2015. Studies that gave information on histology, treatment and outcome of patients were included. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were selected from a search that yielded 302 papers; half were from North Africa, 2/16 (12.5%) were prospective studies and 2/16 (12.5%) were multi-centre studies. The sample size of reported biopsies in the studies ranged from 22 to 246 patients. Only 3/16 (18.8%) studies used more recent criteria for the classification and reporting of renal histology, and proliferative LN (class III and IV) were reported with increased frequency from the studies. For induction therapy, all the studies reported use of corticosteroids while 15/16 (93.8%) of the studies also used cyclophosphamide (CYC) as an induction agent. Overall mortality rates ranged from 7.9% to 34.9% with increased disease activity, kidney failure and infections cited as common causes of mortality. Five-year renal survival was 48-84% while five-year patient survival was 54%-94%. Survival rates were higher for studies reported from North Africa. CONCLUSION: This analysis highlights diagnostic challenges in LN in Africa and shows that a CYC/glucocorticoid-based regimen remains the standard of treatment for adult patients. The contributions of this therapy to reported outcomes of LN in Africa require further exploration.
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 | 0.007 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".