Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Drospirenone-Containing Oral Contraceptives; A Comparative-Safety Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mineralocorticoids are thought to play a role in tissue repair, including fibrous tissue formation. The antimineralocorticoid activity of spironolactone has been linked to an increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. Drospirenone is a synthetic progestin approved in combination with ethinyl-estradiol as an oral contraceptive (OC). It is a spironolactone-derivative, and its antimineralocorticoid effects could irritate the gastrointestinal tract leading to symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted evaluating women 18-46 years of age in the IMS claims-database. New-users of progestin-based OCs were identified between 1997-2009. Ninety days of OC therapy and one year of prior enrollment with no prior diagnosis of IBS were required for inclusion. Cases were identified using a previously validated method for the diagnosis of IBS. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) for developing IBS with the different OC formulations using levonorgestrel as a reference. RESULTS: The cohort included 939,281 women, averaging 29.1 years of age and 247 days of OC therapy. 3,050 incident cases of IBS were detected. The annualized incidence for IBS with drospirenone was 0.77% (1083 cases) while that for levonorgestrel was 0.46% (483 cases). The crude HR for development of IBS with drospirenone compared to levonorgestrel was 1.70 (95%CI 1.53-1.90), while the adjusted HR was 1.63 (95%CI 1.46-1.82). Multiple sensitivity analyses confirmed this association. Other OCs were unassociated with IBS. CONCLUSION: Our study found a positive association between drospirenone and a diagnosis of IBS that was not observed with other OCs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".