Sex differences in incidence of self-reported adverse drug reactions after percutaneous coronary intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Despite experiencing adverse drug reactions (ADRs) more often than men, the proportion of women participating in clinical drug trials is low. Thus, evidence for sex differences in the incidence of ADRs is limited. Aim To determine sex differences in incidence of self-reported ADRs after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Further, to determine whether receiving information about ADRs is associated with sex. Methods CONCARDPCI is a prospective multicentre cohort study (N=3417) conducted at seven referral PCI centres in two Nordic countries. Clinical data were collected from patients’ medical records. Socio-demographic characteristics were obtained by self-report after PCI. Two questions from the Heart Continuity of Care Questionnaire (HCCQ) were used to determine if information about potential ADRs was received before hospital discharge. De novo created questions were used to determine if patients reported ADRs from prescribed therapy. Questionnaires were distributed two- (T1), six- (T2), and twelve months (T3) after hospital discharge to assess the incidence of self-reported ADRs in a longitudinal perspective. Logistic regression was utilised to scrutinize the aims, reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results Patients were predominantly male (78%), with a mean age of 65 years (SD 11). Female patients were older (68, SD 10). Acute coronary syndrome was the most frequent cause of admission for PCI (62%). At T1, 2656 of the included patients responded to the questions from the HCCQ. Of these, 1019 patients (39%) reported being informed of potential ADRs from prescribed therapy, 1075 patients (42%) reported not having been informed, 511 patients (20%) reported ‘Hard to decide’, and 51 (2%) reported ‘Not applicable’. Patients reporting ‘Hard to decide’ or ‘Not applicable’ were excluded from further analysis. Women were less likely to receive information than men (OR 0.58, CI 0.45 – 0.75, p<0.001). For the total study population, 42%, 49% and 40% reported ADRs at T1-T3 respectively. After adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical variables, the incidence of self-reported ADRs were significantly higher in women compared to men at T1 (OR 1.71, CI 1.36 – 2.15, p<0.001), T2 (OR 1.89, CI 1.49 – 2.38, p<0.001), and T3 (OR 1.79, CI 1.40 – 2.28, p<0.001). Conclusion Women report significantly more ADRs from prescribed therapy than men after PCI. However, they are less likely to receive information about potential ADRs compared to men. Efforts to improve communication on ADRs and gender equity should be a priority.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".