Real-world droxidopa or midodrine treatment persistence in patients with neurogenic orthostatic hypotension or orthostatic hypotension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neurogenic orthostatic hypotension (nOH) is a subtype of orthostatic hypotension (OH) observed in the presence of neuropathy and is associated with increased risk of falling, impaired function, and poor quality of life. Droxidopa and midodrine are approved in the United States to treat symptomatic nOH and OH in adults, respectively. In this study, we compared the treatment persistence of droxidopa and midodrine. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients prescribed either droxidopa or midodrine was conducted using the Symphony Health Solutions database (Symphony Health Solutions, Phoenix, AZ, USA). Inclusion criteria were (1) a pharmacy insurance claim in at least 16 consecutive quarters from mid-2014 to 2018 and (2) an active prescription for droxidopa or midodrine of ≥30 days' duration during that period. Treatment persistence was defined as the time to the first break in drug coverage of ≥45 days and was capped at 365 days. RESULTS: Data from 2305 patients who received droxidopa and 117,243 patients who received midodrine were included in this analysis. Median (95% CI) treatment persistence was significantly longer in the droxidopa cohort versus the midodrine cohort (303 [274-325] vs 172 [169-176] days; P < 0.001). After adjustment for confounding factors, patients using droxidopa monotherapy (i.e., without any concomitant midodrine and/or fludrocortisone use) were 16% more likely to be persistent at any time point than patients using midodrine (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world data analysis, patients using droxidopa without concomitant medications for OH were more likely to remain on treatment than patients on midodrine.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".