ArticleLupus science & medicine2026
Are RAS inhibitors necessary during intensive immunosuppression for lupus nephritis? Real-world evidence from the STAR cohort.
Article in Lupus science & medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWhile guidelines advocate renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) for renoprotection in lupus nephritis (LN), evidence is largely extrapolated from non-lupus populations. Evidence specifically evaluating RASi efficacy during the intensive induction phase of active LN remains scarce. This study aimed to evaluate the real-world impact of adding RASi to standard induction therapy on renal remission and glucocorticoid tapering in LN.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study used data from the STAR (Treat-SLE-to-Target) registry. Patients receiving ≥3 months of continuous RASi during induction were classified as RASi, while those without RASi exposure during follow-up were classified as non-RASi. Propensity score overlap weighting was applied to balance baseline characteristics. The primary endpoints were rates of complete renal remission (CRR) at 12 months. Secondary endpoints included total renal remission (TRR), the magnitude and rate of proteinuria reduction and glucocorticoid dosage.
resultsAmong 314 patients, 220 received RASi and 94 did not. The RASi group had higher baseline 24-hour urinary protein and hypertension prevalence. After weighting, characteristics were balanced. Weighted analyses showed no significant difference in CRR at 12 months (58.7% vs 64.7%, p=0.428) or 6 months (43.1% vs 53.4%, p=0.169). Conversely, 6-month TRR was significantly lower in the RASi group (59.0% vs 76.8%, p=0.026). Proteinuria percentage reduction was comparable between groups, and RASi use was not associated with accelerated glucocorticoid tapering or more rapid decline in disease activity. Multivariable analysis identified LN at SLE onset and baseline pyuria as independent predictors of CRR, but not RASi usage.
conclusionAdding RASi to standard induction therapy provided no additive benefit for renal remission or proteinuria reduction within the first 12 months nor did it facilitate glucocorticoid tapering. The haemodynamic antiproteinuric effects of RASi appear overshadowed by potent anti-inflammatory treatment during active LN.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.