Domperidone Prescribing Practices Exposed Patients to Cardiac Risk despite a “Black Box” Warning: A Canadian Tertiary Care Center Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. In 2012, Health Canada released a warning regarding domperidone use, based on associations with life-threatening arrhythmias and death. Objective. This study aimed to compare the appropriateness of domperidone prescribing patterns before the advisory to those afterward. Methods. Two retrospective reviews were conducted for patients prescribed domperidone during quarters in 2005 and 2012. Outcomes included appropriateness of indication, dosing regimens, monitoring of electrolytes, baseline electrocardiogram performance and characteristics, presence of left ventricular dysfunction, and coprescription of QT-prolonging medications. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed. p values < 0.05 were considered significant. Results. 290 and 287 patients were analyzed in 2005 and 2012, respectively. Domperidone initiation in hospital decreased from 2005 to 2012 (71.4% versus 39.4%, p < 0.0001) as did prescriptions for nonapproved indications (84.8% versus 58.2%, p < 0.0001). In-hospital initiation predicted prescription for nonapproved indications (OR = 7.01, 95% CI 4.52-10.87, p < 0.0001). Use of domperidone as the sole GI drug predicted nonapproved indications (OR = 2.51, 95% CI 1.38-4.55, p = 0.002). Conclusions. The advisory was associated with more appropriate domperidone initiation and compliance with recommended dosages. Our study suggests the need for increased awareness of the dosing and monitoring of domperidone to ensure patient safety.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".