Effect of Oral Methylprednisolone on Decline in Kidney Function or Kidney Failure in Patients With IgA Nephropathy: The TESTING Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: \nThe effect of glucocorticoids on major kidney outcomes and adverse events in IgA nephropathy has been uncertain. \n \n \nOBJECTIVE: \nTo evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of methylprednisolone in patients with IgA nephropathy at high risk of kidney function decline. \n \n \nDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: \nAn international, multicenter, double-blind, randomized clinical trial that enrolled 503 participants with IgA nephropathy, proteinuria greater than or equal to 1 g per day, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 20 to 120 mL/min/1.73 m2 after at least 3 months of optimized background care from 67 centers in Australia, Canada, China, India, and Malaysia between May 2012 and November 2019, with follow-up until June 2021. \n \nINTERVENTIONS: \nParticipants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive oral methylprednisolone (initially 0.6-0.8 mg/kg/d, maximum 48 mg/d, weaning by 8 mg/d/mo; n = 136) or placebo (n = 126). After 262 participants were randomized, an excess of serious infections was identified, leading to dose reduction (0.4 mg/kg/d, maximum 32 mg/d, weaning by 4 mg/d/mo) and addition of antibiotic prophylaxis for pneumocystis pneumonia for subsequent participants (121 in the oral methylprednisolone group and 120 in the placebo group). \n \n \nMAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: \nThe primary end point was a composite of 40% decline in eGFR, kidney failure (dialysis, transplant), or death due to kidney disease. There were 11 secondary outcomes, including kidney failure. \n \nRESULTS: \nAmong 503 randomized patients (mean age, 38 years; 198 [39%] women; mean eGFR, 61.5 mL/min/1.73 m2; mean proteinuria, 2.46 g/d), 493 (98%) completed the trial. Over a mean of 4.2 years of follow-up, the primary outcome occurred in 74 participants (28.8%) in the methylprednisolone group compared with 106 (43.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.53 [95% CI, 0.39-0.72]; P < .001; absolute annual event rate difference, −4.8% per year [95% CI, −8.0% to −1.6%]). The effect on the primary outcome was seen across each dose compared with the relevant participants in the placebo group recruited to each regimen (P for heterogeneity = .11): full-dose HR, 0.58 (95% CI, 0.41-0.81); reduced-dose HR, 0.27 (95% CI, 0.11-0.65). Of the 11 prespecified secondary end points, 9 showed significant differences in favor of the intervention, including kidney failure (50 [19.5%] vs 67 [27.2%]; HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.40-0.87]; P = .008; annual event rate difference, −2.9% per year [95% CI, −5.4% to −0.3%]). Serious adverse events were more frequent with methylprednisolone vs placebo (28 [10.9%] vs 7 [2.8%] patients with serious adverse events), primarily with full-dose therapy compared with its matching placebo (22 [16.2%] vs 4 [3.2%]). \n \nCONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: \nAmong patients with IgA nephropathy at high risk of progression, treatment with oral methylprednisolone for 6 to 9 months, compared with placebo, significantly reduced the risk of the composite outcome of kidney function decline, kidney failure, or death due to kidney disease. However, the incidence of serious adverse events was increased with oral methylprednisolone, mainly with high-dose therapy. \n \nTRIAL REGISTRATION: \nClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01560052
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".