Does the time between doses in an unintentional double dose bupropion exposure affect the incidence of adverse effects? A retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Unintentional therapeutic errors with bupropion are common. The impact of the timing of the second dose in a double dose exposure on adverse effects is not well studied. This study aims to compare adverse effects between double doses separated by <720 min and ≥720 min. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of unintentional double dose bupropion ingestions in patients reported to a regional poison center between January 2018 and December 2022. Patients were included if the double dose was their own medication, unintentional, and a single substance exposure. Data collected included age, gender, bupropion formulation, prescribed home dose, dosing error details, time between doses, caller site, referral to the emergency department, patient observation at healthcare facilities, clinical effects, and outcome. RESULTS: Among 663 cases screened, 294 met inclusion criteria. The majority involved extended-release preparations (69.0%). Seventy-four were observed in a healthcare facility and monitored for 24 h from initial dose. The incidence of seizures was 5.3%, including one case not observed for a full 24 h. There was no significant difference in the incidence of seizures (2.7% versus 7.7%), tachycardia (27.0% versus 30.8%), hypertension (18.9% versus 38.5%) other signs/symptoms (27.0% versus 23.1%), or any signs/symptoms (48.6% versus 61.5%) between double doses of extended release bupropion separated by <720 min and those separated by ≥720 min, respectively. DISCUSSION: In patients with double dose exposures to extended-release bupropion, it does not appear that the timing of the second dose can be used to risk-stratify patients. Our data are limited by sample size. CONCLUSION: In this study, the time between double doses of bupropion did not affect the incidence of seizure, tachycardia, hypertension, other signs/symptoms, or any signs/symptoms. Larger, prospective studies investigating this difference would strengthen our understanding and management of these 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".