The Risk of Hip Fracture After Initiating Antihypertensive Drugs in the Elderly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Initiating antihypertensive drugs in the elderly has been associated with an immediate increased risk of falls. However, it is unknown whether initiation of antihypertensive drugs (eg, thiazide diuretics, angiotensin II converting-enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, calcium channel blockers, or β-adrenergic blockers) is associated with an immediate increased risk of hip fractures. METHODS: A population-based, self-controlled case series design using health care administrative databases identifying patients initiating an antihypertensive drug in Ontario, Canada. A cohort of newly treated hypertensive elderly patients was linked to the occurrence of hip fractures from April 1, 2000, to March 31, 2009, to create exposed cases. The risk period was the first 45 days following antihypertensive therapy initiation with control periods before and after treatment in a 450-day observation period. The outcome measure was the first occurrence for a proximal femoral fracture during the risk period. The analysis determined the relative incidence (incidence rate ratio), defined as the hip fracture rate in the risk period compared with control periods. RESULTS: Among the 301,591 newly treated hypertensive community-dwelling elderly patients, 1463 hip fractures were identified during the observation period. Hypertensive elderly persons who began receiving an antihypertensive drug had a 43% increased risk of having a hip fracture during the first 45 days following treatment initiation relative to the control periods (incidence rate ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.19-1.72). CONCLUSIONS: Antihypertensive drugs were associated with an immediate increased hip fracture risk during the initiation of treatment in hypertensive community-dwelling elderly patients. Caution is advised when initiating antihypertensive drugs in the elderly.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".