Evidence of a gabapentinoid and diuretic prescribing cascade among older adults with lower back pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Gabapentinoids are commonly prescribed to relieve pain. The development of edema, an established adverse effect of gabapentinoids, may lead to a potentially harmful prescribing cascade whereby individuals are subsequently prescribed diuretics and exposed to diuretic-induced adverse events. The frequency of this prescribing cascade is unknown. Our objective was to measure the association between new dispensing of a gabapentinoid and the subsequent dispensing of a diuretic in older adults with new low back pain. DESIGN: Population-based cohort study. SETTING: Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 260,344 community-dwelling adults aged 66 years or older, newly diagnosed with low back pain between April 1, 2011, and March 31, 2019. MEASUREMENTS: Exposure status was assigned using dispensed medications in the 1 week after low back pain diagnosis. Older adults newly dispensed a gabapentinoid (N = 7867) were compared with older adults who were not newly dispensed a gabapentinoid (N = 252,477). Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dispensing of a diuretic within 90 days of follow-up among older adults prescribed gabapentin relative to those who were not. RESULTS: Older adults newly dispensed a gabapentinoid had a higher risk of being subsequently dispensed a diuretic within 90 days compared with older adults who were not prescribed a gabapentinoid (2.0% vs. 1.3%). After covariate adjustment, new gabapentinoid users had a higher rate of being dispensed a diuretic compared with those not prescribed a gabapentinoid (HR: 1.44, 95% CI: 1.23, 1.70). The rate of diuretic prescription among new gabapentinoid users increased with increasing gabapentinoid dosages. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated the presence of a potentially inappropriate and harmful prescribing cascade. Given the widespread use of gabapentinoids, the population-based scale of this problem may be substantial. Increased awareness of this prescribing cascade is required to reduce the unnecessary use of diuretics and the exposure of patients to additional adverse drug events.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".