Comparative analysis of long-term organ damage in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus using belimumab versus standard therapy: a post hoc longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Long-term extension (LTE) studies of belimumab in SLE do not include a comparator arm, preventing comparisons between belimumab plus standard therapy and standard therapy alone for organ damage accrual. Propensity score matching can be used to match belimumab-treated patients from LTE studies with standard therapy-treated patients from observational cohort studies. This analysis was designed to compare organ damage progression between treatment groups (belimumab plus standard therapy vs standard therapy alone) in patients with SLE with ≥5 years of follow-up, reproducing our previous study with more generalisable data. METHODS: This exploratory post hoc analysis used a heterogeneous population of US and non-US patients receiving monthly intravenous belimumab from pooled BLISS LTE trials (BEL112234/NCT00712933) and standard therapy-treated patients from the Toronto Lupus Cohort. Sixteen clinical variables were selected to calculate the propensity score. RESULTS: The 592 LTE and 381 Toronto Lupus Cohort patients were highly dissimilar across the 16 variables; an adequately balanced sample of 181 LTE and 181 matched Toronto Lupus Cohort patients (mean bias=3.7%) was created using propensity score matching. Belimumab treatment was associated with a smaller increase in Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index (SDI) over 5 years than standard therapy alone (mean treatment difference=-0.453 (95% CI -0.646 to -0.260); p<0.001). Patients treated with belimumab were 60% less likely to progress to a higher SDI score over any given year of follow-up, compared with standard therapy alone (HR (95% CI) 0.397 (0.275 to 0.572); p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Using propensity score matching, this highly heterogeneous sample was sufficiently matched to the Toronto Lupus Cohort, suggesting that patients treated with intravenous belimumab may have reduced organ damage progression versus standard therapy alone. This analysis of a large and diverse pooled SLE population was consistent with our previously published US-focused study.
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 | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".