Microscopic polyangiitis and non-HBV polyarteritis nodosa with poor-prognosis factors: 10-year results of the prospective CHUSPAN trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To analyse the 10-year outcomes of 64 patients with non-HBV polyarteritis nodosa (PAN) or microscopic polyangiitis (MPA) and Five-Factor Score-defined poor-prognosis factors enrolled (1994-2000) in the prospective, randomised, open-label CHUSPAN trial. METHODS: The 64 patients were randomised to receive 12 (33: 23 MPA, 10 PAN) or 6 (31: 17 MPA, 14 PAN) cyclophosphamide (CYC) pulses combined with glucocorticoids. Ten-year follow-up of these patients included times to relapse(s), failure(s) and/or deaths calculated from treatment onset. Data were censored after 120 months of follow-up. RESULTS: Eleven patients were lost to-follow-up (mean±SD follow-up: 61.9±35.2 months), with no between-group difference. As previously reported, baseline clinical characteristics and laboratory values were comparable for the 2 groups. After induction, 53/64 (83%) entered remission, with comparable percentages for both groups. The regimen was intensified for 11 initial non-responders: 4 achieved remission and 8 died before doing so. During extended follow-up, 26 patients experienced ≥1 relapse(s): 12 in the 12-pulse group and 14 in the 6-pulse group (p=0.47). At 10 years, overall and disease-free survival rates were 57.4% and 29.9%, with no between-group differences (p=0.185 and p=0.367, respectively). Factors associated with shorter disease-free survival were age ≥65 years and alveolar haemorrhage at diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Although the 3-year CHUSPAN trial results indicated the superiority of 12 vs. 6 CYC pulses, that early advantage progressively declined and became non-significant by 10 years.
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) | 0.000 | 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".