Factors Associated With Fibrate-Induced Creatinine Elevation: Observations in an Outpatient Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A reversible rise in creatinine with fibrates has been previously documented. However, this phenomenon remains poorly understood with no associated factors described. We wished to study changes seen in creatinine following fibrate therapy in a routine outpatient setting and identify related risk factors. Methods: Data was collected from the records of patients started on fibrates (n = 132) in the lipid clinic at Good Hope Hospital, Sutton Coldfield between 2002 and 2008. Pre and post-fibrate creatinine concentrations were obtained from the pathology database. Creatinine was measured using the Jaffe method on the Roche modular P Unit. Results: Fenofibrate was used in 117 (88.6%) patients while the remaining 15 patients were on bezafibrate. Creatinine increased from a mean of 81.9 (sd = 17.3, median = 83, range: 33 - 127) umol/L to 93.8 (sd = 20.4, median = 91, range: 52 - 143) umol/L following fibrate treatment. Regression analyses showed that male gender (coefficient = 6.64 (95% CI: 0.99/12.29), P = 0.022), pre-treatment creatinine concentration (coefficient = -0.20 (95% CI: -0.35/-0.046), P = 0.011), diabetes (coefficient = -6.37 (95% CI: -12.36/-0.38), P = 0.037) and change in TG (coefficient: -1.02, 95% CI -1.39/-0.65, P <= 0.001) were significantly associated with creatinine change. All the above remained significant when entered into a multiple regression model suggesting independence. Conclusions: This study confirms that creatinine increased in our group of patients when fibrates were commenced. Further studies are required to confirm and further explore our findings. doi:10.4021/wjnu27w
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".