MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411409949 · doi:10.1016/j.ard.2025.06.1852

ABS0487 RESPONSE TO PLACEBO IN ACTIVE LUPUS NEPHRITIS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND POOLED ANALYSIS

2025· review· en· W4411409949 on OpenAlexaff
Ayesha Nomaan, Mahdiyeh Moin, Philippe‐Antoine Bilodeau, Konstantinos Tselios

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the Rheumatic Diseases · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical Ethics and Regulation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University Medical CentreMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLupus nephritisPlaceboInternal medicineSystemic lupus erythematosusNephritisDermatologyImmunologyPathologyAlternative medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h2>Abstract</h2><h3>Background:</h3> Lupus Nephritis (LN) affects approximately 40% of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and may result in end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) in up to one-third of them 10 years after diagnosis. Most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have failed to demonstrate the superiority of biologic drugs over standard-of-care (SoC). <h3>Objectives:</h3> The aim of this systematic review was to quantify the response to placebo (and SoC) in patients with active LN. <h3>Methods:</h3> A systematic review was conducted according to the 2020 PRISMA statement. The PubMed database was searched (2000 to September 2024) with MeSH term ‘lupus nephritis', for phase II/III RCTs assessing the efficacy and safety of biologics in LN. The primary end-point was complete renal response (CRR) defined as patients with proteinuria <0.5 g/day and serum creatinine <120% from baseline at 48 to 52 weeks. Secondary end-points were partial renal response (PRR, 50% improvement in proteinuria and serum creatinine <120% from baseline at 48 to 52 weeks) and overall renal response (CRR + PRR). The expected and actual differential responses were also recorded. Descriptive statistics were used. <h3>Results:</h3> A total of 10 RCTs (n=2318 in total) were included. Placebo-treated patients (n=1006) were mostly females (86.2%), with a mean age of 32.1 years, and a mean disease duration of 29 months. LN histologic classes were class III (26.1%), IV (46.6%), V (7.2%) and mixed (20.0%). Baseline eGFR was 90.5mL/min/1.73m<sup>2</sup> and baseline UPCR was 3.73mg/mg. Elevated anti-dsDNA titers were detected in 70.1%, low C3 and low C4 in 62.9% and 35.7% respectively. Mean SLEDAI-2K score was 11.5. All patients were treated at baseline with glucocorticoids at a dose of 0.5-1 mg/kgBW with a maximum daily dose of 60mg. Intravenous glucocorticoids (varying doses) were administered in 91.7 %. Mycophenolate mofetil (targeted daily dose of 2-3g) was administered to 83.8% and cyclophosphamide (500 mg biweekly for 6 infusions) to 16.2% of the placebo-treated patients respectively. Antimalarials (mainly hydroxychloroquine) were administered to 64.4%; angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEIs/ARBs) to 65.6% respectively. CRR was achieved by 176/660 patients (26.7%), and PRR was achieved by 146/527 patients (27.7%) (Figure 1A). The expected differential response rate was 20%; the actual differential response rate was 7.5% (Figure 1B). Regarding safety, infections were observed in 46.4%, serious infections (requiring hospitalization) in 12%, malignancies in 0.2% and 29 patients died (2.88%). Figure 1<b>A.</b> Complete (CRR), partial (PRR) and overall (ORR) renal response at 48 to 52 weeks in patients who were treated with placebo and SoC. The fourth bar represents the percentage of placebo-treated patients who achieved the primary end-point as defined by each study. <b>B.</b> Expected and actual differential treatment effect. <h3>Conclusion:</h3> Approximately 27% of the placebo (+SoC)-treated patients achieved complete renal response while more than half of them achieved an overall (CRR+PRR) renal response at 48 to 52 weeks in RCTs with biologics in LN. There was a significant discrepancy between the expected and actual differential treatment effect that raises significant points to consider for the design of future studies. <h3>REFERENCES:</h3> <b>NIL</b>. <h3>Acknowledgements:</h3> <b>NIL</b>. <h3>Disclosure of Interests:</h3> Ayesha Nomaan: None declared, Mahnoor Moin: None declared, Philippe Bilodeau: None declared, Konstantinos Tselios AstraZeneca, GSK, Roche, UCB, Novartis, AstraZeneca, GSK, Fresenius Kabi. © The Authors 2025. This abstract is an open access article published in Annals of Rheumatic Diseases under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Neither EULAR nor the publisher make any representation as to the accuracy of the content. The authors are solely responsible for the content in their abstract including accuracy of the facts, statements, results, conclusion, citing resources etc.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.728

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.348 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the Rheumatic DiseasesSame topicBiomedical Ethics and RegulationFrench-language works237,207