4.8 Article

5-aminosalicylic acids and the risk of renal disease: A large British epidemiologic study

期刊

GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 126, 期 7, 页码 1733-1739

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2004.03.016

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background & Aims: This study was performed to quantify the risk of renal disease in patients using aminosalicylates (5-ASA). Methods: Data from the United Kingdom General Practice Research Database were used to estimate the incidence of renal disease in adult patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) or prescription for 5-ASA and in patients without IBD. In a nested case-control analysis, each case of renal disease was matched to 5 controls. Results: Among the 19,025 5-ASA users with IBD, 1.30 patients developed renal disease (incidence rate of 0.17 cases per 100 patients per year). The incidence among patients with IBD but without 5-ASA use was 0.25 and among patients without IBD was 0.08. In the case-control analysis, the crude odds ratio (OR) for renal disease in current 5-ASA users was 1.60 (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.14-2.26); the adjusted OR was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.53-1.41). For recent users, the crude OR was 4.18 (95% CI: 2.59-6.76) and adjusted OR 2.48 (95% CI: 1.33-4.61); for past users (last prescription more than 12 months before), 1.71 (95% CI: 1.09-2.70) and 0.99 (95% CI: 0.55-1.76), respectively. Although the numbers were small, mesalazine and sulfasalazine users had comparable risks (crude OR for current and recent users of OR 2.08 [95% CI: : 1.44-3.01] and 1.84 [95% CI: 1.20-2.82], respectively). In only a few records was renal disease attributed to interstitial nephritis or 5-ASA use. Conclusions: Users of 5-ASA have an increased risk of renal disease that may be partly attributable to the underlying disease. Although renal disease is a recognized adverse effect of 5-ASA, the incidence appears to be low and does not appear to be related to either the dose or type of 5-ASA used.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据