Nifedipine and mortality risk in the elderly: relevance of drug formulation, dose and duration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study examines the risk of all-cause and cardiac-related mortality associated with calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and other antihypertensives/diuretics compared with beta-blockers among an elderly cohort. We explored variations in mortality risk according to CCB formulation, dose and duration of use. METHODS: Data are from the clinical sample of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging, a population-based prospective study of community and institutional residing persons aged 65+ years. The sample comprised 837 subjects without dementia and reporting use of 1+ antihypertensive/diuretic agents at baseline (1991) and with survival data during follow-up (1996). RESULTS: Risk of all-cause and cardiac-related mortality was significantly higher among nifedipine users (HR=1.85, 95%CI 1.12, 3.05 and HR=2.22, 95%CI 1.02, 4.84, respectively) compared with beta-blocker users. After adjusting for covariates, the hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for selected drug classes compared with beta-blockers were: nifedipine HR=1.82 (1.09-3.04), diltiazem/verapamil HR=0.96 (0.58-1.60), loop diuretics HR=1.84 (1.21-2.82), ACE inhibitors HR=0.98 (0.54-1.78) and other diuretics/antihypertensives HR=1.10 (0.70-1.72). Among nifedipine users, mortality risk increased with average daily dose and with recent (</=6 months) initiation of therapy and remained significant for prolonged-acting formulations. CONCLUSIONS: Older subjects exposed to the dihydropyridine calcium antagonist nifedipine had a significantly higher risk for all-cause and cardiac-related mortality during the 5-year follow-up than subjects using beta-blockers. Copyright (c) 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".