Comparative risk of harm associated with trazodone or atypical antipsychotic use in older adults with dementia: a retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Trazodone is increasingly prescribed for behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia, but little is known about its risk of harm. Our objective was to describe the comparative risk of falls and fractures among older adults with dementia dispensed trazodone or atypical antipsychotics. METHODS: The study cohort included adults with dementia (excluding patients with chronic psychotic illnesses) living in long-term care and aged 66 years and older. Data were obtained from routinely collected, linked health administrative databases in Ontario, Canada. We compared new users of trazodone with new users of atypical antipsychotics (quetiapine, olanzapine or risperidone) between Dec. 1, 2009, and Dec. 31, 2015. The primary outcome was a composite of fall or major osteoporotic fracture within 90 days of first prescription. Secondary outcomes were falls, major osteoporotic fractures, hip fractures and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: We included 6588 older adults dispensed trazodone and 2875 dispensed an atypical antipsychotic, of whom 95.2% received a low dose of these medications. Compared with use of atypical antipsychotics, use of trazodone was associated with similar rates of falls or major osteoporotic fractures (weighted hazard ratio [HR] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73 to 1.07), major osteoporotic fracture (weighted HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.47), falls (weighted HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.11) and hip fractures (weighted HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.43). Use of trazodone was associated with a lower rate of mortality (weighted HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.85). INTERPRETATION: Trazodone is not a uniformly safer alternative to atypical antipsychotics, given the similar risk of falls and fractures among older adults with dementia.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".