Use of Dietary Supplements by Patients Taking Digoxin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background : The use of dietary supplements is common, and interactions with digoxin have been proposed. However, little is known about usage patterns of these supplements among patients taking digoxin. Objectives: To determine the prevalence of use of dietary supplements and over-the-counter (OTC) medications among patients taking digoxin, and to correlate the occurrence of symptoms related to digoxin toxicity with supplement use. Methods: One hundred and seventy-two adult patients who had been receiving digoxin therapy for at least 3 months were recruited. An open-label, cross-sectional, interviewer-administered survey was conducted to assess demographic characteristics, health status, details of digoxin therapy, and use of prescription and nonprescription medications. The use of supplements and interacting prescription medications was compared between participants reporting symptoms of digoxin toxicity and those who did not report such symptoms. Results: Most of the patients (122 or 70.9%) were men; the mean age ± standard deviation was 65.2 ± 12.0 years, and patients had been taking digoxin for a mean of 5.9 years at 174.8 ± 77.9 μg/day. Thirty-seven (21.5%) of the patients were using herbal supplements, and 153 (89.0%) were taking OTC medications or nonherbal supplements. Four (2.3%) patients were taking herbal supplements that might interact with digoxin, and 50 (29.1%) took OTC drugs or nonherbal supplements with potential interactions. Between patients who reported symptoms of digoxin toxicity and those who did not reports such symptoms, there was no difference in the use of OTC medications or nonherbal supplements, herbal supplements, or prescription medications (except for diltiazem). Conclusions: In this study, few of the patients were taking herbal supplements that could interact with digoxin, and no clinically significant herb–digoxin interactions were observed. RESUME Historique : L’emploi des supplements dietetiques est frequent, et on croit qu’il pourrait y avoir interaction entre ceux-ci et la digoxine. On sait peu de choses des habitudes d’emploi de ces supplements chez les patients qui prennent de la digoxine. Objectifs : Determiner la prevalence de l’utilisation de supplements dietetiques et de medicaments en vente libre (MVL) chez les patients qui prennent de la digoxine, et etablir un lien entre l’emploi de supplements dietetiques et la survenue de symptomes lies a la toxicite digitalique. Methodes : On a recrute 172 patients adultes qui suivaient un traitement par la digoxine depuis au moins trois mois. Une enquete ouverte transversale a ete menee au moyen d’une entrevue-sondage pour evaluer les caracteristiques demographiques, l’etat de sante, les details du traitement par la digoxine ainsi que l’emploi de medicaments en vente libre et de medicaments d’ordonnance. On a compare l’emploi de supplements dietetiques et les interactions avec les medicaments d’ordonnance entre les patients qui avaient signale des symptomes de toxicite digitalique et ceux qui n’en avaient pas signale. Resultats : La plupart des patients (122 ou 70,9 %) etaient des hommes; l’âge moyen ± l’ecart-type des patients etait de 65,2 ± 12,0 ans, et ils suivaient un traitement par la digoxine depuis en moyenne 5,9 ans, a raison de 174,8 ± 77,9 μg/jour. De ces patients, 37 (21,5 %) utilisaient des supplements a base de plantes medicinales, et 153 (89,0 %) prenaient des MVL ou des supplements autres qu’a base de plantes medicinales. Quatre (2,3 %) patients prenaient des supplements a base de plantes medicinales qui avaient un potentiel d’interaction avec la digoxine, et 50 (29,1 %) prenaient des MVL ou des supplements autres qu’a base de plantes medicinales qui avaient un potentiel d’interaction avec la digoxine. On n’a observe aucune difference pour ce qui est de l’emploi de MVL ou de supplements autres qu’a base de plantes medicinales, de supplements a base de plantes medicinales ou de medicaments d’ordonnance (a l’exception du diltiazem) entre les patients qui ont signale des symptomes de toxicite digitalique et ceux qui n’ont pas signale de tels symptomes. Conclusions : Cette etude a revele que seul un petit nombre de patients prenaient des supplements a base de plantes medicinales qui avaient un potentiel d’interaction avec la digoxine, et aucune interaction plantes medicinales-digoxine cliniquement significative n’a ete observee.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".