Pregabalin and heart failure: <scp>A</scp> population‐based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The anticonvulsant pregabalin is increasingly prescribed for pain, seizures, and psychiatric disorders. Although evidence suggests pregabalin can cause edema and heart failure, its cardiac safety profile in clinical practice is unknown. We sought to examine the risk of heart failure among older patients receiving pregabalin compared to those receiving gabapentin. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study of Ontarians aged 66 and older with a history of seizure who received pregabalin or gabapentin between April 2013 and March 2014. We used propensity scores to match patients commencing pregabalin to those commencing gabapentin. The primary outcome was an emergency department visit or hospitalization for heart failure within 90 days. RESULTS: We studied 9855 patients who initiated pregabalin and an equal number treated with gabapentin. In the primary analysis, we found no difference in the risk of heart failure with pregabalin compared to gabapentin (1.2% versus 1.3%, hazard ratio of 0.77; 95% CI 0.58-1.03). Secondary analyses stratified for baseline history of heart failure yielded similar findings. CONCLUSION: In a large cohort of older patients with a seizure disorder, pregabalin was not associated with an increased risk of heart failure relative to gabapentin.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".