MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1987398591 · doi:10.1111/jgs.12670

Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Elderly Adults with Dementia Receiving Cholinesterase Inhibitors: A Population‐Based Cohort Study

2014· letter· en· W1987398591 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Kednapa Thavorn, Tara Gomes, Ximena Camacho, Zhan Yao, David N. Juurlink, Muhammad Mamdani

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2014
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Établissements canadiensInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineRivastigmineDonepezilGalantamineDementiaCohortCohort studyInternal medicinePopulationRetrospective cohort studyUpper gastrointestinal bleedingPediatricsDiseaseEnvironmental health

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a leading cause of disability in elderly adults worldwide.1 Cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) are first-line drugs used in the treatment of AD; they inhibit the breakdown of acetylcholine by blocking acetylcholinesterase in the central and peripheral nervous systems. ChEIs are linked to the risk of adverse cardiovascular events, but few studies have assessed the association between ChEIs and upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Two clinical trials have reported higher rates of GI bleeding in individuals taking donepezil than in those taking placebo, but these trials did not have enough power to detect statistically significant differences between groups.2, 3 Two case reports revealed recurrent upper GI bleeding after the use of donepezil4 and melena after the use of rivastigmine.5 The present population-based study assessed whether the use of ChEIs was associated with risk of upper GI bleeding in elderly adults with dementia. This retrospective population-based cohort study was based on healthcare administrative claims databases6 in Ontario, Canada. All Ontario residents aged 66 and older newly diagnosed with dementia between April 1, 1999, and March 31, 2011, were included, except for those who had been hospitalized for upper GI bleeding in the 5 years before cohort entry. The exposed cohort included new users of donepezil, rivastigmine, or galantamine. The date of the first dispensed ChEI during the study period was used as the cohort entry date. Individuals were deemed to have discontinued ChEIs and were censored if they did not refill their ChEI prescription within a period of 1.5 times the total days' supply of the previous prescription. Each individual was followed until the first of death, drug discontinuation (for ChEI users), exposure to a ChEI (for unexposed subjects), 5 years of follow-up, end of the follow-up period (March 31, 2012), or until they reached the outcome of interest. Unexposed individuals were those who were not dispensed any ChEI in the year before cohort entry and over the entire study period. These subjects were randomly assigned a cohort entry date based on the distribution of cohort entry dates in the exposed cohort. The primary outcome of this study, hospital admission for upper GI bleeding, was identified using validated International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revision codes.7 High-dimensional propensity score8 matching was used to balance potential confounders9 between the exposed and unexposed groups. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the association between the use of ChEIs and upper GI bleeding. All analyses were performed using SAS statistical software for UNIX version 9.2 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC). The research ethics board at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada approved the study. Two hundred three thousand two hundred seventy-nine eligible individuals with dementia were identified. At baseline, 122,316 patients (60.2%) were dispensed one of the three ChEIs; 82,675 (67.5%) received donepezil, 12,900 (21.9%) received galantamine, and 26,741 (10.6%) received rivastigmine. After propensity score matching, 48,723 ChEI users were successfully matched to nonusers; their baseline characteristics were successfully balanced between groups (Table 1). Over 200,000 person-years of follow-up, 2,104 admissions were observed for upper GI bleeding: 785 in ChEI users (10.6 events per 1,000 person-years of follow-up) and 1,319 in nonusers (9.6 events per 1,000 person-years of follow-up). The Cox proportional hazards model suggested an insignificant association between ChEI use and upper GI bleeding in elderly adults with dementia (hazard ratio = 1.03, 95% confidence interval = 0.92–1.16). Although it is plausible that ChEIs may result in peripheral cholinergic adverse events, this large population-based study found no significant association between ChEI use and upper GI bleeding in elderly adults. Lack of a significant association between ChEIs and upper GI bleeding may be because adverse GI events resulting from ChEIs are typically transient and decrease with continued use of the drugs.10 This study has potential limitations. First, use of administrative databases precludes the ability to capture clinically important information such as disease severity and GI pathology. Second, given the small proportion of the subjects who received rivastigmine or galantamine, the effect of individual ChEIs on upper GI bleeding could not be meaningfully compared with that of the nonuser cohort. Future research is needed to estimate the incidence of upper GI bleeding in chronic users of ChEIs and in high-risk individuals, such as those living in long-term care residences or with a history of upper GI hemorrhage. Conflict of Interest: Dr. Mamdani has served as an advisory board member for Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, Glaxo Smith Kline, Hoffman La Roche, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer. This study was supported by a grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care Drug Innovation Fund and the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, a nonprofit research institute sponsored by the Ministry. Author Contributions: Thavorn, Mamdani: concept and design. Thavorn, Gomes, Camacho, Yao, Juurlink, Mamdani: study cohort creation. Yao, Gomes, Camacho: statistical analyses. Thavorn, Mamdani: drafting of manuscript. Thavorn, Gomes, Camacho, Yao, Juurlink, Mamdani: critical revision and finalizing of manuscript. Sponsor's Role: The opinions, results and conclusions reported in this paper are those of the authors and are independent from the funding sources.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,213
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,424

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,011
Tête enseignante GPT0,281
Écart entre enseignants0,270 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations12
Publié2014
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of the American Geriatrics SocietyMême sujetDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchTravaux en français237 207