MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4220972607 · doi:10.1016/j.jhepr.2022.100478

Deprescribing zolpidem reduces falls and fractures in patients with cirrhosis

2022· article· en· W4220972607 sur OpenAlexfundno aff
Elliot B. Tapper, Zhe Zhao, Gerald Scott Winder, Neehar D. Parikh

Notice bibliographique

RevueJHEP Reports · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueLiver Disease and Transplantation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Institutes of HealthValeant Pharmaceuticals International
Mots-clésZolpidemMedicineDeprescribingDecompensationCirrhosisBenzodiazepineInternal medicinePediatricsIntensive care medicinePsychiatryPolypharmacy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

•Benzodiazepines are frequently and increasingly prescribed to patients with cirrhosis.•Benzodiazepines may increase the risk of falls and fractures and hepatic encephalopathy.•Trials of benzodiazepine deprescribing have not been undertaken.•In this emulated clinical trial, benzodiazepine deprescribing did not decrease the risk of cirrhosis decompensation.•Zolpidem deprescribing was strongly associated with reduced falls and fractures. Background & AimsBenzodiazepines are associated with an increased risk of harm in patients with cirrhosis. However, stopping benzodiazepines must be done with care to avoid withdrawal or other unintended consequences. The impact of deprescribing on patients with cirrhosis is unknown.MethodsWe emulated a hypothetical 3-year trial of benzodiazepine deprescription among Medicare enrollees with compensated cirrhosis who lacked other life-limiting diagnoses. All received continuous benzodiazepine prescriptions for the 6-months prior to their diagnosis of cirrhosis. During a 90-day landmark period following their diagnosis of cirrhosis, patients were classified as complete deprescribers (no benzodiazepines dispensed), continuous users, or partial deprescribers. We used inverse probability treatment weighting to compare complete deprescribers to continuous users of traditional benzodiazepines and zolpidem. Outcomes accounted for competing risk of mortality and included incident decompensation (hepatic encephalopathy, ascites, or variceal bleeding), fractures, falls, and alcohol-related hospitalizations.ResultsThere were 1,651 and 1,463 continuous users of traditional benzodiazepines and zolpidem, respectively, and 728 complete deprescribers. Patients were aged a median of 68 years, 24% had alcohol-related cirrhosis. There was no difference in the risk of death or decompensation for continuous users and deprescribers. Among deprescribers of traditional benzodiazepines, there was no improvement in the risk of falls or fractures. However, compared to continuous zolpidem users, deprescribers had a lower risk of falls (23.2% vs. 31%, p = 0.04) and fractures (21% vs. 29%, p = 0.02).ConclusionsDeprescribing zolpidem reduces the risk of falls and fractures. However, deprescribing benzodiazepines does not improve the risk of decompensation. Efforts to safely address the indications for benzodiazepines such as insomnia and anxiety are urgently needed.Lay summaryMany people with cirrhosis have anxiety, depression, and sleep disorders. Increasingly, patients with cirrhosis are treated with sedating medications called benzodiazepines, including valium, alprazolam (‘Xanax’), clonopin, and the sleep-aid zolpidem (‘Ambien’), which can cause falls, broken bones, and maybe other brain disorders. For this reason, many researchers are interested in trials of ‘deprescribing’ (stopping) benzodiazepines. However, no trials have been performed. We used health record data to simulate a trial of deprescribing. We found that stopping benzodiazepines may reduce the chance of falls or broken bones, but it does not improve survival or liver health. Benzodiazepines are associated with an increased risk of harm in patients with cirrhosis. However, stopping benzodiazepines must be done with care to avoid withdrawal or other unintended consequences. The impact of deprescribing on patients with cirrhosis is unknown. We emulated a hypothetical 3-year trial of benzodiazepine deprescription among Medicare enrollees with compensated cirrhosis who lacked other life-limiting diagnoses. All received continuous benzodiazepine prescriptions for the 6-months prior to their diagnosis of cirrhosis. During a 90-day landmark period following their diagnosis of cirrhosis, patients were classified as complete deprescribers (no benzodiazepines dispensed), continuous users, or partial deprescribers. We used inverse probability treatment weighting to compare complete deprescribers to continuous users of traditional benzodiazepines and zolpidem. Outcomes accounted for competing risk of mortality and included incident decompensation (hepatic encephalopathy, ascites, or variceal bleeding), fractures, falls, and alcohol-related hospitalizations. There were 1,651 and 1,463 continuous users of traditional benzodiazepines and zolpidem, respectively, and 728 complete deprescribers. Patients were aged a median of 68 years, 24% had alcohol-related cirrhosis. There was no difference in the risk of death or decompensation for continuous users and deprescribers. Among deprescribers of traditional benzodiazepines, there was no improvement in the risk of falls or fractures. However, compared to continuous zolpidem users, deprescribers had a lower risk of falls (23.2% vs. 31%, p = 0.04) and fractures (21% vs. 29%, p = 0.02). Deprescribing zolpidem reduces the risk of falls and fractures. However, deprescribing benzodiazepines does not improve the risk of decompensation. Efforts to safely address the indications for benzodiazepines such as insomnia and anxiety are urgently needed.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut 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 enseignants0,001
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,224

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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 Opus0,004
Tête enseignante GPT0,213
Écart entre enseignants0,209 · 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 tête enseignante, 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

Citations16
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJHEP ReportsMême sujetLiver Disease and TransplantationTravaux en français237 207