No increased risk of nephrotoxicity associated with 5‐aminosalicylic acid in IBD: a population‐based cohort and nested case‐control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is conflicting evidence about nephrotoxicity risk associated with 5-aminosalicylates for treatment of IBD. AIMS: To determine population-based temporal trends for 5-aminosalicylates and estimated risk of nephrotoxicity associated with 5-aminosalicylate use for ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD). METHODS: Retrospective cohort and nested case-control study, using the Health Improvement Network primary care database linked to hospital discharge coding for patients in England, 1996-2017. Nephrotoxicity risk analysis was a first recorded renal impairment diagnosis adjusted for key variables and was assessed between 2008 and 2017. RESULTS: A total of 35 601 patients with prevalent UC or CD were included. The proportion of patients prescribed 5-aminosalicylates fell from 83% in 1996-1999 to 71% in 2012-2015 for UC patients and 64% to 45% for CD patients. Thirty per cent of patients had prolonged 5-aminosalicylate use. Between 2008 and 2017, the incident rate of nephrotoxicity was similar and stable for UC (12.6/1000 person-years) and CD (10.9/1000 person-years) patients. Multivariate analysis showed no evidence for association between current prescription of 5-aminosalicylate and nephrotoxicity in UC or CD patients, comparing ≤ 30 days prescription prior to index vs 31-≤180 days. However, active disease, disease duration, concomitant cardiovascular disease or diabetes and nephrotoxic drug use were independently associated with development of nephrotoxicity in UC and CD. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the paucity of evidence for their benefit, 5-aminosalicylates were prescribed to approximately half of CD patients (30% prolonged therapy). Nephrotoxicity was rare in this patient cohort, and was not associated with 5-aminosalicylate use, but rather with disease status, comorbidity and use of nephrotoxic drugs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".