MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317567906 · doi:10.2196/41055

High-Throughput Assessment of Real-World Medication Effects on QT Interval Prolongation: Observational Study

2023· article· en· W4317567906 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Neal Yuan, Adam Oesterle, Patrick Botting, Sumeet S. Chugh, Christine M. Albert, Joseph E. Ebinger, David Ouyang

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Cardio · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsQT intervalMedicineTorsades de pointesPharmacyMedical prescriptionObservational studyQRS complexDemographicsEmergency medicineInternal medicineSinus rhythmElectrocardiographyCardiologyDatabaseAtrial fibrillationPharmacologyFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Drug-induced prolongation of the corrected QT interval (QTc) increases the risk for Torsades de Pointes (TdP) and sudden cardiac death. Medication effects on the QTc have been studied in controlled settings but may not be well evaluated in real-world settings where medication effects may be modulated by patient demographics and comorbidities as well as the usage of other concomitant medications. OBJECTIVE: We demonstrate a new, high-throughput method leveraging electronic health records (EHRs) and the Surescripts pharmacy database to monitor real-world QTc-prolonging medication and potential interacting effects from demographics and comorbidities. METHODS: We included all outpatient electrocardiograms (ECGs) from September 2008 to December 2019 at a large academic medical system, which were in sinus rhythm with a heart rate of 40-100 beats per minute, QRS duration of <120 milliseconds, and QTc of 300-700 milliseconds, determined using the Bazett formula. We used prescription information from the Surescripts pharmacy database and EHR medication lists to classify whether a patient was on a medication during an ECG. Negative control ECGs were obtained from patients not currently on the medication but who had been or would be on that medication within 1 year. We calculated the difference in mean QTc between ECGs of patients who are on and those who are off a medication and made comparisons to known medication TdP risks per the CredibleMeds.org database. Using linear regression analysis, we studied the interaction of patient-level demographics or comorbidities on medication-related QTc prolongation. RESULTS: We analyzed the effects of 272 medications on 310,335 ECGs from 159,397 individuals. Medications associated with the greatest QTc prolongation were dofetilide (mean QTc difference 21.52, 95% CI 10.58-32.70 milliseconds), mexiletine (mean QTc difference 18.56, 95% CI 7.70-29.27 milliseconds), amiodarone (mean QTc difference 14.96, 95% CI 13.52-16.33 milliseconds), rifaximin (mean QTc difference 14.50, 95% CI 12.12-17.13 milliseconds), and sotalol (mean QTc difference 10.73, 95% CI 7.09-14.37 milliseconds). Several top QT prolonging medications such as rifaximin, lactulose, cinacalcet, and lenalidomide were not previously known but have plausible mechanistic explanations. Significant interactions were observed between demographics or comorbidities and QTc prolongation with many medications, such as coronary disease and amiodarone. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate a new, high-throughput technique for monitoring real-world effects of QTc-prolonging medications from readily accessible clinical data. Using this approach, we confirmed known medications for QTc prolongation and identified potential new associations and demographic or comorbidity interactions that could supplement findings in curated databases. Our single-center results would benefit from additional verification in future multisite studies that incorporate larger numbers of patients and ECGs along with more precise medication adherence and comorbidity data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR CardioSame topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasFrench-language works237,207