Use of OTC and Herbal Products in Patients with Cardiovascular Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of nonprescription and herbal products by the public is rising, resulting in an increased potential for adverse reactions or drug interactions in cardiac patients. OBJECTIVE: To describe the utilization patterns for nonprescription medications and herbal products in patients with cardiovascular disease across Canada. METHODS: Patients admitted to 8 teaching hospitals during the winter of 1998/1999 were interviewed by a pharmacist using a structured survey instrument. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with 306 patients (mean age 66 y; 60% men). The majority (74%) had coronary artery disease; however, hypertension, congestive heart failure, and arrhythmias were also common. The most common product categories used were pain relievers (51%), single-entity vitamin/mineral (38%), multivitamin/mineral (23%), antacids (21%), laxatives (17%), and herbals (17%). As compared with western (28%) and central Canada (26%), fewer patients in the Atlantic region (11%) reported daily use of multivitamin/mineral products. Overall, the usage of specific single-entity vitamin/mineral products was most commonly vitamin E (24%), vitamin C (16%), calcium (9%), and B vitamins (8%). Central Canada reported the highest rates (25%) of daily or weekly use of herbal products. The most common herbal products used were garlic (13%), cayenne pepper (2%), and ginseng (2%). More than half of the patients consulted with their pharmacist at least occasionally regarding the use of these products. CONCLUSIONS: Canadian patients with cardiovascular disease commonly report the use of herbal products and vitamins. Allied health professionals need to be aware of the widespread use of these products and their potential for adverse reactions and drug interactions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".