Adverse Gastrointestinal Events With Sodium Polystyrene Sulfonate Use in Patients on Maintenance Hemodialysis: An International Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There are concerns regarding the gastrointestinal (GI) safety of sodium polystyrene sulfonate (SPS), a medication commonly used in the management of hyperkalemia. Objective: To compare the risk of GI adverse events among users versus non-users of SPS in patients on maintenance hemodialysis. Design: International prospective cohort study. Setting: Seventeen countries (Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study [DOPPS] phase 2-6 from 2002 to 2018). Patients: 50 147 adults on maintenance hemodialysis. Measurements: An adverse GI event defined by a GI hospitalization or GI fatality with SPS prescription compared with no SPS prescription. Methods: Overlap propensity score-weighted Cox models. Results: Sodium polystyrene sulfonate prescription was present in 13.4% of patients and ranged from 0.42% (Turkey) to 20.6% (Sweden) with 12.5% use in Canada. A total of 935 (1.9%) adverse GI events (140 [2.1%] with SPS, 795 [1.9%] with no SPS; absolute risk difference 0.2%) occurred. The weighted hazard ratio (HR) of a GI event was not elevated with SPS use compared with non-use (HR = 0.93, 95% confidence interval = 0.83-1.6). The results were consistent when examining fatal GI events and/or GI hospitalization separately. Limitations: Sodium polystyrene sulfonate dose and duration were unknown. Conclusions: Sodium polystyrene sulfonate use in patients on hemodialysis was not associated with a higher risk of an adverse GI event. Our findings suggest that SPS use is safe in an international cohort of maintenance hemodialysis 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".