MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168985435 · doi:10.4212/cjhp.v67i6.1407

Domperidone-Associated Sudden Cardiac Death in the General Population and Implications for Use in Patients Undergoing Hemodialysis: A Literature Review

2014· review· en· W2168985435 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Joy Makari, Karen Cameron, Marisa Battistella

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal motility and disorders
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity Health NetworkHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDomperidoneMedicineSudden cardiac deathIntensive care medicinePopulationEpidemiologySudden deathRandomized controlled trialObservational studyInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Domperidone, an effective prokinetic agent, is commonly used to manage symptoms of gastroparesis. Health regulatory agencies have issued warnings about an increased risk of sudden cardiac death associated with use of this drug.Objective: To evaluate the evidence for domperidone-associated sudden cardiac death and to determine whether this drug can be safely used for gastroparesis in patients undergoing dialysis.Data Sources: Two databases (MEDLINE [1965 to September 2014] and Embase [1980 to September 2014]) were searched using the Medical Subject Headings “domperidone”, “sudden cardiac death”, and “cardiac arrhythmia”. The search was limited to studies conducted in humans and published in English. Advisories from health regulatory agencies (Health Canada, the European Medicines Agency, and the US Food and Drug Administration) were identified and reviewed.Study Selection: Studies eligible for inclusion in this narrative review were randomized controlled trials and cohort, case–control, crosssectional, and other epidemiological studies comparing use and non-use of domperidone for the outcome of sudden cardiac death in adults. Abstracts of eligible case reports and case series were also included.Data Synthesis: Despite inconsistencies in their decisions, the various drug regulatory authorities have acknowledged the potential safety concern of increased risk of sudden cardiac death associated with domperidone. To date, no randomized controlled studies have shown an increased risk of this outcome secondary to domperidone use. Current regulatory recommendations and approval decisions are based on 2 large observational epidemiological studies that generated a signal of increased risk. The strengths and limitations of these studies were evaluated in detail. No direct evidence applicable to patients with end-stage renal disease was found. In vitro evidence suggests that the risk of sudden cardiac death is dose-related.Conclusions: Given gaps in the literature, use of domperidone for patients undergoing dialysis should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Extreme caution should be used for patients taking more than 30 mg/day of this drug.RÉSUMÉContexte : La dompéridone, un agent procinétique efficace, est couramment utilisée pour traiter les symptômes de la gastroparésie. Les organismes de réglementation en santé ont émis des mises en garde à propos du risque accru de mort subite d’origine cardiaque associée à l’utilisation de ce médicament.Objectif : Évaluer les données probantes portant sur la mort subite cardiaque associée à la dompéridone et déterminer si ce médicament peut être utilisé en toute sécurité pour traiter les patients sous dialyse atteints de gastroparésie.Sources des données : Deux bases de données (MEDLINE [1965 à septembre 2014] et Embase [1980 à septembre 2014]) ont été interrogées en utilisant les mots clés des Medical Subject Headings suivants : « domperidone » (dompéridone), « sudden cardiac death » (mort subite cardiaque) et « cardiac arrhythmia » (arythmie cardiaque). La recherche se limitait aux études effectuées chez l’humain et publiées en anglais. Les avis émis par les organismes de réglementation en santé (Santé Canada, l’Agence européenne des médicaments et la Food and Drug Administration des États-Unis) ont été relevés et examinés.Sélection des études : Les études admissibles à cette analyse narrative étaient les essais cliniques à répartition aléatoire, les études de cohorte et cas-témoins, les études transversales et autres études épidémiologiques dans lesquelles étaient comparées l’utilisation et la non-utilisation de la dompéridone quant à la mort subite cardiaque chez les adultes. Les résumés des études de cas et des séries de cas admissibles ont aussi été inclus.Synthèse des données : Malgré des divergences dans leurs décisions, les différents organismes de réglementation des médicaments reconnaissent qu’un risque accru de mort subite cardiaque soit un éventuel problème de sécurité associé à l’utilisation de la dompéridone. À ce jour, aucun essai clinique à répartition aléatoire n’a montré qu’une augmentation du risque de cet effet est secondaire à l’administration de la dompéridone. Les recommandations réglementaires actuelles et les décisions en matière d’approbation sont fondées sur deux importantes études épidémiologiques d’observation qui ont sonné l’alarme à propos d’une augmentation du risque. Les forces et les faiblesses de ces études ont été examinées en détail. Il n’y a pas de preuve directe applicable à la population atteinte d’insuffisance rénale terminale. D’après les données in vitro, le risque de mort subite cardiaque est lié à la dose administrée.Conclusions : Étant donné les lacunes dans la littérature, il est recommandé que l’utilisation de dompéridone chez les patients sous dialyse soit évaluée au cas par cas. Il faut faire preuve d’énormément de prudence chez les patients qui prennent quotidiennement plus de 30 mg de ce médicament.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0140.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital PharmacySame topicGastrointestinal motility and disordersFrench-language works237,207