MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911604486 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.180595

Longterm Efficacy and Safety of Monotherapy versus Combination Therapy in Systemic Sclerosis–associated Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: A Retrospective RESCLE Registry Study

2019· article· en· W2911604486 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Melani Pestaña-Fernández, Manuel Rubio‐Rivas, Carles Tolosa-Vilella, M. Freire, José Antonio Vargas‐Hitos, Mónica Rodríguez‐Carballeira, Adela Marín Ballvé, Gerard Espinosa, Dolores Colunga-Argüelles, Norberto Ortego‐Centeno, Luis Trapiella-Martínez, Cristina Carbonell, Xavier Pla-Salas, Isabel Perales-Fraile, Xavier Corbella, Vicent Fonollosa‐Pla, Carmen Pilar Simeón‐Aznar

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSystemic Sclerosis and Related Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidad Autónoma de Madrid
KeywordsMedicineRetrospective cohort studyInternal medicineIntensive care medicineCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Monotherapy is an option as first-line therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). However, combination therapy is a beneficial alternative. Our objective was to evaluate the efficacy of monotherapy versus combination therapy in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc)-associated PAH. METHODS: All patients with SSc-associated PAH from the Spanish Scleroderma Registry (RESCLE) were reviewed. Patients were split into 3 groups: monotherapy versus sequential combination versus upfront combination therapy. The primary endpoint was death from any cause at 1, 3, and 5 years from PAH diagnosis. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients (4.2%) out of 1817 had SSc-related PAH. Thirty-four patients (45%) were receiving monotherapy [endothelin receptor antagonist (n = 22; 29%) or phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (n = 12; 16%)], 25 (33%) sequential combination, and 17 (22%) upfront combination therapy. A lower forced vital capacity/DLCO in the sequential combination group was reported (2.9 ± 1.1 vs 1.8 ± 0.4 vs 2.3 ± 0.8; p = 0.085) and also a higher mean pulmonary arterial pressure in combination groups (37.2 ± 8.7 mmHg vs 40.8 ± 8.8 vs 46 ± 15.9; p = 0.026) at baseline. Treatment regimen (p = 0.017) and functional class (p = 0.007) were found to be independent predictors of mortality. Sequential combination therapy was found to be an independent protective factor (HR 0.11, 95% CI 0.03-0.51; p = 0.004), while upfront combination therapy showed a trend (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.23-1.97; p = 0.476). Survival from PAH diagnosis among monotherapy, sequential, and upfront combination groups was 78% versus 95.8% versus 94.1% at 1 year, 40.7% versus 81.5% versus 51.8% at 3 years, and 31.6% versus 56.5% versus 34.5% at 5 years (p = 0.007), respectively. Side effects were not significantly different among groups. CONCLUSION: Combination sequential therapy improved survival in our cohort.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of RheumatologySame topicSystemic Sclerosis and Related DiseasesFrench-language works237,207