Current Prescription Patterns and Safety Profile of Irreversible Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prescription pattern and safety profile for irreversible monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) in older adults over the past decade. METHOD: A population-based observational cohort study of older adults was conducted from January 1, 1997, to April 14, 2007, utilizing large administrative health care databases in Ontario, Canada. We examined the prevalence and incidence of irreversible MAOI use, as well as the frequency of coprescribing of MAOIs with contraindicated medications such as serotonergic and sympathomimetic drugs. We reviewed the most responsible diagnosis of emergency department (ED) visits and acute care admissions to assess for serious adverse events that may occur during MAOI treatment (ie, serotonin syndrome and hypertensive crisis). RESULTS: Over a 10-year period, there were 348 new users of irreversible MAOIs. The majority of patients showed a previous treatment pattern consistent with recurrent major depressive disorder, including prior use of antidepressant treatment and electroconvulsive therapy. The yearly incidence of MAOI prescriptions remained low and decreased from a rate of 3.1/100,000 to 1.4/100,000. Concomitant exposure to at least 1 serotonergic drug occurred in 18.1% of patients treated with an MAOI. No ED visits or acute care admissions for serotonin syndrome or hypertensive crisis were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The low prescription rate of MAOIs is not consistent with the continued recommendation of MAOIs by expert opinion leaders and consensus guidelines for use in atypical depression and treatment-refractory depression. While their use appeared safe, heightened awareness of the potential risk of concomitant use of serotonergic agents is necessary. Relative underuse of the MAOIs for a significant subgroup of depressed patients with atypical and treatment-refractory depression remains a concern.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".