MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389070193 · doi:10.1111/jgs.18683

Association of a calcium channel blocker and diuretic prescribing cascade with adverse events: A population‐based cohort study

2023· article· en· W4389070193 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Paula A. Rochon, Peter C. Austin, Sharon‐Lise T. Normand, Rachel Savage, Stephanie H. Read, Lisa McCarthy, Vasily Giannakeas, Wei Wu, Rachel Strauss, Xuesong Wang, Simon Chen, Jerry H. Gurwitz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesTrillium Health CentrePublic Health OntarioWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineDiureticHazard ratioAdverse effectCohortPopulationInternal medicineCalcium channel blockerCohort studyProportional hazards modelConfidence intervalEmergency medicineBlood pressureEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Prescribing cascades occur when a drug adverse event is misinterpreted as a new medical condition and a second, potentially unnecessary drug, is prescribed to treat the adverse event. The population-level consequences of prescribing cascades remain unknown. METHODS: This population-based cohort study used linked health administrative databases in Ontario, Canada. The study included community-dwelling adults, 66 years of age or older with hypertension and no history of heart failure (HF) or diuretic use in the prior year, newly dispensed a calcium channel blocker (CCB). Individuals subsequently dispensed a diuretic within 90 days of incident CCB dispensing were classified as the prescribing cascade group, and compared to those not dispensed a diuretic, classified as the non-prescribing cascade group. Those with and without a prescribing cascade were matched one-to-one on the propensity score and sex. The primary outcome was a serious adverse event (SAE), which was the composite of emergency room visits and hospitalizations in the 90-day follow-up period. We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for SAE using an Andersen-Gill recurrent events regression model. RESULTS: Among 39,347 older adults with hypertension and no history of HF who were newly dispensed a CCB, 1881 (4.8%) had a new diuretic dispensed within 90 days after CCB initiation. Compared to the non-prescribing cascade group, those in the prescribing cascade group had higher rates of SAEs (HR: 1.21, 95% CI: 1.02-1.43). CONCLUSIONS: The CCB-diuretic prescribing cascade was associated with an increased rate of SAEs, suggesting harm beyond prescribing a second drug therapy. Our study raises awareness of the downstream impact of the CCB-diuretic prescribing cascade at a population level and provides an opportunity for clinicians who identify this prescribing cascade to review their patients' medications to determine if they can be optimized.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.353
Threshold uncertainty score0.702

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations21
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Geriatrics SocietySame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207