Comparative risks of cardiovascular disease events among SLE patients receiving immunosuppressive medications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: SLE patients have elevated cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, but it is unclear whether this risk is affected by choice of immunosuppressive drug. We compared CVD risks among SLE patients starting MMF, CYC or AZA. METHODS: Using Medicaid Analytic eXtract (2000-2012), adult SLE patients starting MMF, CYC or AZA were identified and propensity scores (PS) were estimated for receipt of MMF vs CYC and MMF vs AZA. We examined rates of first CVD event (primary outcome), all-cause mortality, and a composite of first CVD event and all-cause mortality (secondary outcomes). After 1:1 PS-matching, Fine-Gray regression models estimated subdistribution hazard ratios (HRs.d.) for risk of CVD events. Cox regression models estimated HRs for all-cause mortality. The primary analysis was as-treated; 6- and 12-month intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses were secondary. RESULTS: We studied 680 PS-matched pairs of patients with SLE initiating MMF vs CYC and 1871 pairs initiating MMF vs AZA. Risk of first CVD event was non-significantly reduced for MMF vs CYC [HRs.d 0.72 (95% CI: 0.37, 1.39)] and for MMF vs AZA [HRs.d 0.88 (95% CI: 0.59, 1.32)] groups. In the 12-month ITT, first CVD event risk was lower among MMF than AZA new users [HRs.d 0.68 (95% CI: 0.47, 0.98)]. CONCLUSION: In this head-to-head PS-matched analysis, CVD event risks among SLE patients starting MMF vs CYC or AZA were not statistically reduced except in one 12-month ITT analysis of MMF vs AZA, suggesting longer-term use may convey benefit. Further studies of potential cardioprotective benefit of MMF are necessary.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".