Burden of eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis in Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and aims: Real-world evidence characterising the burden of eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) in Europe is limited. The aim of this study was to characterise patients in a large European EGPA cohort. Methods: This retrospective, non-interventional, longitudinal study (GSK ID: 214661) recruited cross-specialty physicians from France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK to conduct medical chart reviews for patients with a physician-confirmed diagnosis of EGPA. Patients were ≥12 years of age at diagnosis with ≥1 year of follow-up data from the first clinical visit with the physician (index date). Outcome measures collected from index date to end of follow-up included clinical manifestations and healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU). Results: In total, 407 patient medical charts were reviewed by 204 physicians; median (interquartile range) duration of follow-up from index date was 2.2 (1.7-3.5) years. Most patients (73.5%) had asthma. Patients underwent multiple diagnostic assessments, and 74.9% received ≥3 different therapies between diagnosis and end of follow-up (98.8% oral corticosteroids, 63.9% immunosuppressive therapies, 45.5% biologics). During follow-up, 84.5% of patients experienced EGPA clinical manifestations; most were considered moderate or severe and commonly affected the lungs (55.8%; including lung infiltrates 25.8% and severe asthma 24.8%), ear, nose and throat (53.3%), and skin (41.8%). HCRU was substantial: 26.0% of patients made emergency department visits, 36.6% were hospitalised and 84.8% had outpatient visits. Conclusions: These real-world data show that EGPA presents a substantial burden to patients and the healthcare system. Earlier and better differential diagnosis and appropriate treatment may help reduce incidence of clinical manifestations and HCRU.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".