Clinical Practice Changes After Post-Market Safety Reports on Desmopressin Orally Disintegrating Tablet in Japan: A Single-Center Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Desmopressin orally disintegrating tablet (ODT) was approved in March 2012 in Japan; the post-market safety reports, which warned about adequate initial dose of desmopressin ODT, were published in 2014. However, it is unclear how the warning affected physician and patient behavior. METHODS: We performed a retrospective single-center study to compare the clinical situation of Japanese central diabetes insipidus patients before and after the report. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients before October 2014 and 16 patients after November 2014 switched from intranasal desmopressin to desmopressin ODT. The mean follow-up period after the switch to desmopressin ODT was 38 ± 3 months. Patients switching after November 2014 tended to have lower ratios of oral to nasal desmopressin dose at switching and 3 months after the switch (at switching; P = 0.20, 3 months; P = 0.42, respectively), and higher ratios from 6 to 12 months than before October 2014 (6 months; P = 0.93, 9 months; P = 0.52, 12 months; P = 0.80, respectively). Relative doses per initial desmopressin ODT at 9 and 12 months were significantly higher in patients switching after November 2014 than in patients switching before October 2014 (9 months; P = 0.02, 12 months; P = 0.04, respectively). Moreover, logistic regression analysis revealed that the incidence of hyponatremia was dependent on the ratio of nasal to oral desmopressin dose (P = 0.02). In addition, in four out of six patients who had serum sodium level reduced below 130 mEq/L, hyponatremia occurred within 1 month after the switch. CONCLUSIONS: A more gradual dose titration after the safety reports was performed, which involved the long-term safety of desmopressin ODT use. Vigilance of hyponatremia in early phase of desmopressin ODT use should be noted.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".