Trends in the Prescribing of Antidepressants Following Acute Myocardial Infarction, 1993–2002
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: There has been a substantial increase in the prescribing of antidepressants on a population basis and in particular serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). SSRIs have lower cardiac toxicity than tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). We examined how the prescribing of antidepressants to patients post–myocardial infarction (MI) changed in the decade 1993 to 2002, including the proportion accounted for by TCAs. Methods: A population-based study cross-sectional time series analysis was conducted in which quarterly antidepressant prescription data were obtained for 1993 to 2002 for elderly Ontarians who had experienced an MI, as well as for age- and sex-matched controls with no history of MI. The number of patients varied per quarter, for a total of 68,870 post-MI patients and an equal number of matched controls. Covariates included age, gender, income, and number of medications dispensed in the past year. Results: Post-MI patients were more likely to receive an antidepressant relative to controls, with an overall odds ratio (OR) of 1.34; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.29–1.38. However, with adjustment for the number of medications received, post-MI patients were 20% less likely to receive an antidepressant relative to controls, adjusted OR = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.78–0.84. The proportion of antidepressants prescribed to post-MI patients accounted for by TCAs decreased, but the proportion of post-MI patients receiving a TCA remained stable at approximately 6%. Conclusions: Increases in the prescription of antidepressants, and in particular SSRIs, to post-MI patients reflect general population trends rather than any special importance attached to treating post-MI depression. The apparent greater likelihood that post-MI patients will receive an antidepressant is reversed when total number of medications is controlled, a proxy for medical utilization and comorbidity. CIHI = Canadian Institutes of Health Information; ENRICHD = Enhancing Recovery in Coronary Heart Disease; SSRI = selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor; TCA = tricyclic antidepressant; MAOI = monoamine oxidase inhibitors; MI = myocardial infarction; ODB = Ontario Drug Benefit; OHIP = Ontario Health Insurance Plan; RPDB = Ontario Registered Persons Database; OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".