Alpha-Blocker Use and the Risk of Hypotension and Hypotension-Related Clinical Events in Women of Advanced Age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alpha-blockers (ABs) are commonly prescribed as part of a multidrug regimen in the management of hypertension. We set out to assess the risk of hypotension and related adverse events with AB use compared with other blood pressure (BP) lowering drugs using a population-based, retrospective cohort study of women (≥66 years) between 1995 and 2015 in Ontario, Canada. Cox proportional hazards examined the association of AB use and hypotension and related events (syncope, fall, and fracture) compared with other BP lowering drugs matched via a high dimensional propensity score. The primary outcome was a composite of hospitalizations for hypotension and related events (syncope, fractures, and falls) within 1 year. From 734 907 eligible women, 14 106 were dispensed an AB (mean age, 75.7; standard deviation 6.9 years, median follow-up 1 year) and matched to 14 106 dispensed other BP lowering agents. The crude incidence rate of hypotension and related events was 95.7 (95% CI [confidence interval], 90.4-101.1, events 1214 [8.6%]) with AB and 79.8 (95% CI, 74.9-84.7 per 1000 person-years, events 1025 [7.3%]) with other BP lowering medications (incident rate ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.10-1.30). The risk was higher for hypotension (hazard ratio, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.33-2.20) and syncope (hazard ratio, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.18-1.75) with no difference in falls, fractures, adverse cardiac events, or all-cause mortality. Treatment of hypertension in women with ABs is associated with a higher risk of hypotension and hypotension-related events compared with other BP lowering agents. Our findings suggest that ABs should be used with caution, even as add on therapy for hypertension.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".