ArticleRMD open2024
Risk-stratified monitoring for sulfasalazine toxicity: prognostic model development and validation.
Article in RMD open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Blood-test monitoring strategies for patients established on immune-suppressing drugs: a mixed-methods study.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2026Pooled it
- Differentiating Autoimmune Hepatitis From Sulfasalazine Toxicity: The Value of Clinicopathologic Correlation.Cureus · 2026Article
- Discovery of (Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Patient and health professional views on risk-stratified monitoring of immune-suppressing treatment in adults with inflammatory diseases.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- The prescription and monitoring of conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs: British Society for Rheumatology guideline scope.Rheumatology advances in practice · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSulfasalazine-induced cytopenia, nephrotoxicity and hepatotoxicity is uncommon during long-term treatment. Some guidelines recommend 3 monthly monitoring blood tests indefinitely during long-term treatment while others recommend stopping monitoring after 1 year. To rationalise monitoring, we developed and validated a prognostic model for clinically significant blood, liver or kidney toxicity during established sulfasalazine treatment.
designRetrospective cohort study.
settingUK primary care. Data from Clinical Practice Research Datalink Gold and Aurum formed independent development and validation cohorts.
participantsAge ≥18 years, new diagnosis of an inflammatory condition and sulfasalazine prescription. STUDY PERIOD: 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2019. OUTCOME: Sulfasalazine discontinuation with abnormal monitoring blood-test result. ANALYSIS: Patients were followed up from 6 months after first primary care prescription to the earliest of outcome, drug discontinuation, death, 5 years or 31 December 2019. Penalised Cox regression was performed to develop the risk equation. Multiple imputation handled missing predictor data. Model performance was assessed in terms of calibration and discrimination.
results8936 participants were included in the development cohort (473 events, 23 299 person-years) and 5203 participants were included in the validation cohort (280 events, 12 867 person-years). Nine candidate predictors were included. The optimism adjusted R
conclusionThis prognostic model for sulfasalazine toxicity uses readily available data and should be used to risk-stratify blood-test monitoring during established sulfasalazine treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.