Calcineurin Inhibitors in the Treatment of Primary Focal Segmental Glomerulosclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose of review: Primary focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) is the most common cause of nephrotic syndrome in adults. Glucocorticoids have been evaluated in the treatment of primary FSGS in numerous retrospective studies. Evidence suggesting a role for including calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) in early therapy remains limited. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature examining the efficacy of CNIs in the treatment of primary FSGS both as first-line therapy and as an adjunctive agent in steroid-resistant patients, with respect to remission in proteinuria and renal survival. Sources of information: PubMed and EMBASE were searched from inception to August 2014 for prospective controlled trials, and case-control and cohort studies. Findings: After systematically applying our inclusion criteria, a total of 152 titles and abstracts were identified. Six randomized controlled trials and 2 cohort studies were reviewed. Three randomized controlled trials compared CNIs with placebo or supportive therapy. The pooled relative “risk” of proteinuria remission associated with cyclosporine was 7.0 (95% confidence interval, 2.9-16.8) compared with placebo/supportive therapy. There was very low heterogeneity among these studies with an I-squared of 0%. Three studies compared CNIs with another immunosuppressive agent. All prospective trials were conducted in patients with primary FSGS deemed steroid-resistant. Limitations: The relatively small number of included studies and their heterogeneity with respect to treatment protocols, and possible publication bias, limit conclusions drawn from this systematic review. Implications: The efficacy of CNIs has been evaluated in steroid-resistant primary FSGS patients. There is no evidence supporting their role as first-line therapy. Further studies are needed to determine this role.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".