MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412011715 · doi:10.1016/j.jaccas.2025.103881

Lost Rate Control and Tachycardia-Induced Cardiomyopathy as a Result of an Interaction Between Enzalutamide and Diltiazem

2025· article· en· W4412011715 on OpenAlexaff
A. de Boer, Sheri L. Koshman, Gábor Gyenes

Bibliographic record

VenueJACC Case Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmacogenetics and Drug Metabolism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaAlberta HealthAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiltiazemCardiologyInternal medicineTachycardiaMedicineCardiomyopathyEnzalutamideHeart failureCalciumAndrogen receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is a theoretical drug interaction between enzalutamide, a potent cytochrome P 3A4 (CYP 3A4) inducer, and diltiazem, a CYP3A4 substrate. Resources recommend avoiding the combination. CASE SUMMARY: The patient was taking diltiazem for rate control of permanent atrial fibrillation. After initiating enzalutamide for prostate cancer, he became persistently tachycardic, developed heart failure, and was admitted. On admission, enzalutamide was held, and diltiazem was stopped. His left ventricular ejection fraction was reduced from a baseline of 52% to <15%. The patient regained rate control with metoprolol and was asymptomatic at discharge. DISCUSSION: This case describes the interaction between enzalutamide and diltiazem that resulted in a loss of rate control and subsequent heart failure. It provides a cautionary example of the complications that may arise with gaps in drug interaction management and timely monitoring and follow-up. TAKE-HOME MESSAGE: Streamlined, multidisciplinary approaches to monitoring and managing drug interactions of uncertain clinical significance, particularly in the field of cardio-oncology, are needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.372 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJACC Case ReportsSame topicPharmacogenetics and Drug MetabolismFrench-language works237,207