Domperidone Should Not Be Considered a No-Risk Alternative to Cisapride in the Treatment of Gastrointestinal Motility Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several cases of QT prolongation and ventricular tachyarrhythmia have been reported with domperidone, a gastrokinetic and antiemetic agent available worldwide but still under investigation in the United States. Although electrolyte disturbances such as hypokalemia could account for some of these events, we hypothesized that domperidone may have unsuspected electrophysiological effects predisposing some patients to proarrhythmia. METHODS AND RESULTS: Studies were undertaken in 9 isolated guinea pig hearts, which demonstrated reverse use-dependent prolongation of cardiac repolarization by 100 nmol/L domperidone. Action potential duration increased 27% from baseline with domperidone (from 114+/-3 to 145+/-2 ms) during pacing at a cycle length of 250 ms, and a 9% increase (from 97+/-2 to 106+/-3 ms) was seen with pacing at a cycle length of 150 ms. Experiments in human ether-a-go-go-related gene (HERG)-transfected Chinese hamster ovary cells (n=32) demonstrated a concentration-dependent block of the rapid component (I(Kr)) of the delayed rectifier potassium current. The tail current decreased by 50% at 162 nmol/L domperidone. CONCLUSIONS: Domperidone possesses cardiac electrophysiological effects similar to those of cisapride and class III antiarrhythmic drugs. These effects are observed at clinically relevant concentrations of the drug. Therefore, domperidone should not be considered a no-risk alternative to cisapride, a drug that was recently withdrawn from the US market.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".