Risk of rhabdomyolysis with donepezil compared with rivastigmine or galantamine: a population-based cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine are popular cholinesterase inhibitors used to manage the symptoms of Alzheimer disease and other dementias; regulatory agencies in several countries warn about a possible risk of rhabdomyolysis with donepezil, based on information from case reports. Our goal was to investigate the 30-day risk of admission to hospital with rhabdomyolysis associated with initiating donepezil versus other cholinesterase inhibitors. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada, from 2002 to 2017. Participants were adults aged 66 years or older with a newly dispensed prescription for donepezil compared with rivastigmine or galantamine. The primary outcome was hospital admission with rhabdomyolysis (assessed using hospital diagnostic codes) within 30 days of a new prescription of a cholinesterase inhibitor. Odds ratios were estimated using logistic regression, with inverse probability of treatment weights calculated from propensity scores. RESULTS: The average age in our 2 groups was 81.1 years, and 61.4% of our population was female. Donepezil was associated with a higher risk of hospital admission with rhabdomyolysis compared with rivastigmine or galantamine (88 events in 152 300 patients [0.06%] v. 16 events in 68 053 patients [0.02%]; weighted odds ratio of 2.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.52-3.22). Most hospital admissions with rhabdomyolysis after donepezil use were not severe, and no patient was treated with acute dialysis or mechanical ventilation. INTERPRETATION: Initiating donepezil is associated with a higher 30-day risk of admission to hospital with rhabdomyolysis compared with initiating rivastigmine or galantamine. The proportion of patients who develop severe rhabdomyolysis within 30 days of initiating donepezil is very low.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".