The Risk of Ventricular Dysrhythmia or Sudden Death in Patients Receiving Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors With Methadone: A Population-Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Methadone is associated with ventricular dysrhythmias and sudden death. Serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs) may increase the risk of these events either by inhibiting metabolism of methadone’s proarrhythmic (S)-enantiomer, additive QT interval prolongation, or both. We sought to determine whether certain SRIs were associated with a higher risk of methadone-related ventricular dysrhythmias or sudden death. Methods: We conducted a nested case-control study of Ontario residents receiving methadone between April 1, 1996 and December 31, 2017. Cases, defined as patients who died of sudden cardiac death or were hospitalized with a ventricular dysrhythmia while on methadone, were matched with up to four controls who also received methadone on age, sex, and a disease risk score. We determined the odds ratio (OR) and p -value functions for the association between methadone-related cardiotoxicity and treatment with SRIs known to inhibit metabolism of (S)-methadone (paroxetine, fluvoxamine, sertraline) or prolong the QT interval (citalopram and escitalopram). Patients who were not treated with an SRI served as the reference group. Results: During the study period, we identified 626 cases and 2,299 matched controls. Following multivariable adjustment, we found that recent use of sertraline, fluvoxamine or paroxetine (adjusted OR 1.30; 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.90–1.86) and citalopram and escitalopram (adjusted OR 1.26; 95% CI 0.97–1.63) were associated with small increases in the risk methadone-related cardiac toxicity, an assertion supported by the corresponding p -value functions. Interpretation: Certain SRIs may be associated with a small increase in cardiac toxicity in methadone-treated patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".