MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789692543 · doi:10.1111/ajt.14714

Prescription opioid use before and after kidney transplant: Implications for posttransplant outcomes

2018· article· en· W2789692543 on OpenAlexaff
Krista L. Lentine, Ngan N. Lam, Abhijit S. Naik, David A. Axelrod, Zidong Zhang, Vikas R. Dharnidharka, Gregory P. Hess, Dorry L. Segev, Rosemary Ouseph, Henry B. Randall, Tarek Alhamad, Radhika Devraj, Raj Gadi, Bertram L. Kasiske, Daniel C. Brennan, Mark A. Schnitzler

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Transplantation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesHealth Resources and Services AdministrationNational Institutes of HealthMinneapolis Medical Research FoundationU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsMedicineDialysisMedical prescriptionOpioidPopulationHazard ratioKidney transplantationInternal medicineMedical recordIntensive care medicineTransplantationEnvironmental healthConfidence intervalPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evolving literature suggests that the epidemic of prescription opioid use affects the transplant population. We examined a novel database wherein national U.S. transplant registry records were linked to a large pharmaceutical claims warehouse (2007-2015) to characterize prescription opioid use before and after kidney transplant, and associations (adjusted hazard ratio, 95% LCLaHR95% UCL) with death and graft loss. Among 75 430 eligible patients, 43.1% filled opioids in the year before transplant. Use was more common among recipients who were women, white, unemployed, publicly insured, and with longer pretransplant dialysis. Of those with the highest level of pretransplant opioid use, 60% continued high-level use posttransplant. Pretransplant opioid use had graded associations with one-year posttransplant outcomes; the highest-level use predicted 46% increased risk of death (aHR 1.281.461.66) and 28% increased risk of all-cause graft failure (aHR 1.171.281.41). Effects of high-level opioid use in the first year after transplant were stronger, predicting twice the risk of death (aHR 1.932.242.60) and 68% higher all-cause graft failure risk (aHR 1.501.681.89) over the subsequent year; increased risk persisted over five years. While associations may, in part, reflect underlying conditions or behaviors, opioid use history is relevant in assessing and providing care to transplant candidates and recipients. Evolving literature suggests that the epidemic of prescription opioid use affects the transplant population. We examined a novel database wherein national U.S. transplant registry records were linked to a large pharmaceutical claims warehouse (2007-2015) to characterize prescription opioid use before and after kidney transplant, and associations (adjusted hazard ratio, 95% LCLaHR95% UCL) with death and graft loss. Among 75 430 eligible patients, 43.1% filled opioids in the year before transplant. Use was more common among recipients who were women, white, unemployed, publicly insured, and with longer pretransplant dialysis. Of those with the highest level of pretransplant opioid use, 60% continued high-level use posttransplant. Pretransplant opioid use had graded associations with one-year posttransplant outcomes; the highest-level use predicted 46% increased risk of death (aHR 1.281.461.66) and 28% increased risk of all-cause graft failure (aHR 1.171.281.41). Effects of high-level opioid use in the first year after transplant were stronger, predicting twice the risk of death (aHR 1.932.242.60) and 68% higher all-cause graft failure risk (aHR 1.501.681.89) over the subsequent year; increased risk persisted over five years. While associations may, in part, reflect underlying conditions or behaviors, opioid use history is relevant in assessing and providing care to transplant candidates and recipients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations57
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of TransplantationSame topicOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentFrench-language works237,207