Amiodarone-induced thyroid dysfunction: brand-name versus generic formulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Amiodarone is associated with dysfunction of the thyroid. Concerns have arisen regarding the potential for adverse effects with generic formulations of amiodarone. We evaluated and compared the risk of thyroid dysfunction between patients using brand-name versus generic formulations of amiodarone and identified risk factors for thyroid dysfunction. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with atrial fibrillation aged 66 years and older. We used administrative databases that linked information on demographics and clinical characteristics, claims for prescription drugs and discharges from hospital. We estimated thyroid dysfunction using person-year incidence. RESULTS: Of the 60,220 patients in the cohort, 2804 (4.7%) used the brand-name formulation of amiodarone and 6278 (10.4%) used the generic formulation. Baseline characteristics between these two groups were comparable. The median maintenance dose of amiodarone was 200 mg/d for both groups. The total incidence rate for thyroid dysfunction was 14.1 per 100 person-years for both formulations. The mean time to clinical dysfunction of the thyroid was 4.32 years for the brand-name formulation and 4.09 years for the generic formulation. In a multivariate analysis, there was no significant difference in the incidence rates of thyroid dysfunction between the generic and brand formulations (hazard ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.87-1.08). Factors associated with an increased risk of thyroid dysfunction were being a woman, increasing age and having chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. INTERPRETATION: In this population-based study, we saw no difference between brand-name and generic formulations of amiodarone in terms of incidence of thyroid dysfunction.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".