Practical considerations for the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors in hypertension and kidney disease.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Selective cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors (coxibs) produce the beneficial effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) while sparing the COX-1-mediated adverse effects on platelets and the gastrointestinal system. However, due to the presence of constitutive COX-2 in the human kidney, coxibs have the same potential for adverse renal effects as traditional NSAIDs. OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based guidelines for the use of traditional NSAIDs and coxibs in patients potentially at risk for renal and associated hemodynamic blood pressure effects. METHODS: All pertinent peer-reviewed papers were retrieved with the usual electronic search tools. RESULTS: Both traditional NSAIDs and coxibs compromise the glomerular filtration rate in patients at increased risk. If there are differences in the blood pressure-raising potential of these drugs, these differences do not appear to be clinically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The blood pressure should be monitored for all patients taking chronic NSAID or coxib therapy. If a clinically significant (4 to 5 mmHg or more) increase in blood pressure is detected, the NSAID or the coxib should be discontinued and replaced with acetaminophen, to which codeine might be added. If the NSAID or the coxib is considered necessary, the increase in blood pressure should be treated. In addition, if the glomerular filtration rate reserve is compromised, all patients (including those taking short term therapy) should be closely monitored for the early detection of signs and symptoms of renal failure.
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 | 0.025 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.006 |
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".