The use of inhaled corticosteroids and the risk of adrenal insufficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adrenal insufficiency is a potential complication of therapy with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). Although prior studies found the highest risk of adrenal insufficiency with fluticasone, a more potent ICS, these results might be explained by a channelling bias and concomitant exposure to oral corticosteroids. We re-examined the relationship between the use of ICSs and adrenal insufficiency by using a cohort of patients treated for respiratory conditions during 1990-2005, identified in the healthcare databases from the province of Quebec, Canada, with follow-up until 2007. A nested case-control analysis was performed within this cohort. Cases of adrenal insufficiency were matched with up to 10 controls. 392 cases were identified (incidence rate 1.1 per 10 000 person-years). Although the rate of adrenal insufficiency was not significantly higher among all current users of ICSs, patients receiving the highest dosages showed a greater risk (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.16-2.90). Consistently, an increased risk was estimated for the highest tertile of ICS dose (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.07-3.37) cumulated in the year before the event. ICS at high doses appear to be a significant independent risk factor for adrenal insufficiency. Physicians prescribing ICS at such dosages should be sensitive to the signs and symptoms of adrenal insufficiency in their patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".