Bacteremia in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus in Patients from a Spanish Registry: Risk Factors, Clinical and Microbiological Characteristics, and Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. To describe the incidence of bacteremia in a large multicentric cohort of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and their clinical characteristics and to identify risk factors. Methods. All bacteremic episodes from the Spanish RELESSER registry were included. Clinical and laboratory characteristics concerning bacteremia and SLE status, as well as comorbidities at the time of infection, were retrospectively collected. A comparison with sex- and age-matched SLE controls without bacteremia was made. A logistic regression was conducted. Results. The study included 114 episodes of bacteremia in 83 patients. The incidence rate was 2.7/1000 patient-years. At the time of bacteremia, the median age was 40.5 (range: 8–90) years, and 88.6% of patients were female. The Safety of Estrogens in Lupus Erythematosus National Assessment–Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index was 4 [interquartile range (IQR) 8]; 41% had an SLE flare (66% severe); Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index was 3 (IQR 4). A comorbidity was recorded in 64% of cases. At the time of bacteremia, 88.6% received corticosteroids (68.6% > 10 mg/day) and 57% immunosuppressors. Gram-negative bacilli, most frequently Escherichia coli (29.8%), caused 52.6% of the episodes. The bacteremia-related mortality was 14% and bacteremia was recurrent in 27.2% of cases. A dose-response relationship was found between corticosteroids and bacteremia risk. In the multivariate analysis, these factors were associated with bacteremia: elevated creatinine (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.01–1.70; p = 0.045), diabetes (OR 6.01, 95% CI 2.26–15.95; p < 0.001), cancer (OR 5.32, 95% CI 2.23–12.70; p < 0.001), immunosuppressors (OR 6.35, 95% CI 3.42–11.77; p < 0.001), and damage (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.31–2.09; p < 0.001). Conclusion. Bacteremia occurred mostly in patients with active SLE and was frequently associated with severe flares and corticosteroid use. Recurrence and mortality were high. Immunosuppressors, comorbidities, and disease-related damage were associated with bacteremia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".