Multiple Drug Intolerance Syndrome and Arterial Hypertension—Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Arterial hypertension (HT) is one of the most prevalent diseases, causing increased morbidity and mortality. Treatment of HT might be complicated by multiple drug intolerance syndrome (MDIS), defined as intolerance to three or more drug classes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the prevalence of MDIS in patients with hypertension and investigate its impact on disease control. Materials and Methods: MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase were thoroughly searched in June 2024. The data concerning MDIS prevalence, MDIS risk factors, number of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), and types of reactions was extracted. Quality assessment was done with the use of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analysis was conducted to determine the pooled prevalence of MDIS and ADRs. The study was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Results: This review included four studies (2508 patients). The pooled prevalence of MDIS was 10% (95% CI: 4%–19%). Headache was the most frequent ADR reported in the studies (71.47%, 95% CI: 56.5%–84.44%), while pain in other body parts was present in 53.08% of patients. Female sex was found to increase the risk of MDIS in each included study. Other risk factors identified were older age, gastrointestinal disorders, anxiety disorders, panic attacks, and depression. Blood pressure was higher in the MDIS group, and in this group, more patients had uncontrolled hypertension. Conclusions: The prevalence of MDIS in the hypertensive population can be considered high. Furthermore, blood pressure control is worse in patients with MDIS. However, this phenomenon is still studied inadequately, and further research is necessary.
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 | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".