Comparative risk of cardiac arrhythmias associated with acetylcholinesterase inhibitors used in treatment of dementias – A narrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Donepezil, galantamine, and rivastigmine are the three acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEIs), out of a total of only four medications prescribed in the treatment of Alzheimer's Disease (AD) and related dementias. These medications are known to be associated with bradycardia given their mechanism of action of increasing acetylcholine (ACh). However, in March 2015, donepezil was added to the CredibleMeds "known-risk" category, a list where medications have a documented risk for acquired long-QT syndrome (ALQTS) and torsades de pointes (TdP) - a malignant ventricular arrhythmia that is a different adverse event than bradycardia (and is not necessarily associated with ACh action). The purpose of this article is to review the three AChEIs, especially with regards to mechanistic differences that may explain why only donepezil poses this risk; several pharmacological mechanisms may explain why. However, from an empirical point-of-view, aside from some case-reports, only a limited number of studies have generated relevant information regarding AChEIs' and electrocardiogram findings; none have specifically compared donepezil against galantamine or rivastigmine for malignant arrhythmias such as TdP. Currently, the choice of one of the three AChEIs for treatment of AD symptoms is primarily dependent upon clinician and patient preference. However, clinicians should be aware of the potential increased risk associated with donepezil. There is a need to examine the comparative risk of malignant arrhythmias among AChEIs users in real-world practice; this may have important implications with regards to changes in AChEI prescribing patterns.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".