Risk of Serious Infection for Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Starting Glucocorticoids with or without Antimalarials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare serious infection risk for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients starting glucocorticoids (GC), antimalarials (AM), or their combination. METHODS: We conducted a new-user, historical cohort study, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, 1997-2013. Cox proportional hazards analysis was used to calculate adjusted HR and 95% CI. RESULTS: The study included 3030 patients with SLE followed an average of 4 years. Compared with patients starting AM without GC (9 infections/1461 patient-yrs), the HR for the risk of infection was 3.9 (95% CI 1.7-9.2) for those starting GC ≤ 15 mg/day without AM (14 infections/252 patient-yrs), while it was 0.0 (0 infections/128 patient-yrs) for those starting the combination. We split the 14 patients with a serious infection and with GC < 15 mg/day into 2 groups: < 7.5 and ≥ 7.5-15 mg/day. The HR for < 7.5 mg/day was 4.6 (95% CI 1.8-11.4) and for ≥ 7.5-15 mg/day, 3.1 (95% CI 1.0-9.7). For patients starting GC > 15 mg/day (reflecting more severe SLE), the risk of infection was nearly the same for the combination of GC and AM (9 infections/135 patient-yrs) and GC alone (41 infections/460 patient-yrs), but the combination users had evidence of more severe disease. Patients with SLE had a 6- to 7-fold greater risk of serious infection than the general population. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the benefits of AM treatment for SLE may extend to preventing serious infections. Although the study included > 3000 patients, the statistical power to examine GC dosages < 15 mg/day was poor.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".