Medium Versus High Initial Prednisone Dose for Remission Induction in Lupus Nephritis: A Propensity Score–Matched Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The existing guidelines for lupus nephritis (LN) recommend initial prednisone doses of 0.3-1.0 mg/kg/day. However, recent studies reported noninferior outcomes with lower doses. The aim of this study was to compare the complete renal response rates in LN patients treated with prednisone ≤30 mg/day or ≥40 mg/day. METHODS: Patients with new-onset LN and standard immunosuppressive treatment were followed for at least 12 months, divided into medium (≤30 mg/day) and high prednisone groups (≥40 mg/day) and matched (propensity score) based on the baseline differences. Complete renal response was defined as proteinuria <0.5 gm/day and no worsening in renal function. Glucocorticoid-related damage was also assessed. RESULTS: High-dose prednisone patients (n = 103; mean ± SD dose 48.6 ± 12.3 mg/day) achieved better rates of complete response compared to the medium group (n = 103; mean ± SD dose 24.2 ± 4.6 mg/day) (61.8% versus 38.2%; P = 0.024) at 12 months. The difference in response rates was reproduced for several subgroups (concomitant immunosuppressive treatment, proliferative/nonproliferative LN). Complete remission rates were higher at 2 years (67.8% versus 39%; P = 0.002) and 3 years (64.9% versus 49.1%; P = 0.025) after LN diagnosis. Cumulative glucocorticoid dose was comparable at 2 and 3 years. Glucocorticoid-related damage was accelerated in both groups for the same period. CONCLUSION: Higher initial prednisone doses (median 45 mg/day) achieved significantly better rates of complete renal response at 12 months in new-onset LN. Cumulative glucocorticoid dose and damage accrual were not different at 2 and 3 years after LN. Damage was more prominent in the late phases of LN in both groups, underlining the importance of rapid tapering and the need to implement alternative strategies.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".