Dataset Information

Cardiovascular Safety of Metoclopramide Compared to Domperidone: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Metoclopramide and domperidone are common prokinetics used to alleviate gastrointestinal symptoms. However, both drugs may trigger ventricular arrhythmias.

Aim

We conducted this population-based study to compare the 30-day cardiovascular safety of metoclopramide versus domperidone in outpatient care.

Methods

We used health care databases to identify a cohort of patients in Ontario, Canada newly dispensed metoclopramide or domperidone. Inverse probability of treatment weighting based on propensity scores was used to balance the baseline characteristics of the two groups. All outcomes were assessed in the 30 days following drug dispensing. The primary outcome was hospital encounter with ventricular arrhythmia. The secondary outcomes were hospital encounter with cardiac arrest, all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality.

Results

We identified 196,544 patients, 19% of whom were prescribed metoclopramide. There was no difference in the risk of a hospital encounter with ventricular arrythmia (0.02% in both groups), or cardiac arrest (0.10% with metoclopramide and 0.08% with domperidone). However, 1.34% of patients died after starting metoclopramide compared to 0.52% of patients starting domperidone; weighted risk ratio 2.50 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.13 to 3.03). Similarly, 0.42% of patients died of cardiovascular causes after starting metoclopramide compared to 0.19 % of patients starting domperidone; weighted risk ratio 2.00 (95% CI 1.44 to 2.77).

Conclusion

The 30-day risk for a hospital encounter with ventricular arrhythmia was low for both metoclopramide and domperidone, with no significant difference in the rate between the two drugs. The higher 30-day risk of death observed with metoclopramide compared with domperidone in this study has also been observed in other studies and warrants further investigation.

SUBMITTER: Cowan A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8489520 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AIMS:We conducted a cohort study utilizing a nationwide health insurance database to assess the European Medicines Agency's restrictions on using metoclopramide and its association with the risk of parkinsonism. METHODS:New oral metoclopramide users aged ≥20 years, and age- and gender-matched non-users were recruited between 2001 and 2011. Users were divided into high-exposure (dose >30 mg day-1 and/or duration >5 days) and standard-exposure (dose ≤30 mg day-1 and duration ≤5 days) groups. The adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated the risk of parkinsonism. RESULTS:During a 1-year period, 122 of 218 931 (0.06%) users of metoclopramide vs. 56 of 218 931 (0.03%) non-users developed parkinsonism (P < 0.001). Among the 122 cases of parkinsonism in users, 64 (0.04%) were from 168 566 standard-exposure users and 58 (0.12%) from 50 365 high-exposure users. Compared with non-users, the risk of parkinsonism was higher in users (aHR 2.16; 95% CI 1.54, 3.02), including standard-exposure (aHR 1.73; 95% CI 1.11, 2.70), and high-exposure (aHR 3.15; 95% CI 1.78, 5.57) users. High-exposure users had a higher risk of parkinsonism than standard-exposure users (aHR 1.83; 95% CI 1.28, 2.63). Within the high-exposure group, 45 233 of 50 365 (89.81%) users and 55 of 58 (94.83%) parkinsonism were from long-duration exposure; 5 132 of 50 365 (10.19%) users and 3 of 58 (5.17%) parkinsonism were from high-dose exposure and long-duration + high-dose exposure. CONCLUSIONS:The risk of parkinsonism in metoclopramide users, although extremely low (0.06%), is 2.16-fold greater than in non-users. High-exposure users have a 1.83-fold higher risk than standard-exposure users. As users in high-exposure group had a higher risk of parkinsonism than in standard-exposure group, and the majority of users and parkinsonism in high-exposure group were from long-duration exposure; thus, physician are advised to avoid prescribing metoclopramide for >5 days, even if the daily dose is ≤30 mg.

Project description:Epidemiological studies have linked domperidone use with serious cardiac arrhythmias, including sudden cardiac death, but data on age, dose, and duration of use are limited.The aim of this study was to assess the risk of out-of-hospital sudden cardiac death associated with domperidone use versus proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), metoclopramide, or non-use of all three medications, and to evaluate the risk of sudden cardiac death in relation to age and domperidone dose.This was a population-based case-control study nested in a cohort of subjects aged ?2 years in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink with one or more prescriptions for domperidone, any PPI, or metoclopramide from 2005 to 2011. Out-of-hospital sudden cardiac death was assessed by linkage with Hospital Episode Statistics and death certificates. Controls were matched on age, sex, and medical practice. The risk of sudden cardiac death in domperidone users versus risk in users of PPIs or metoclopramide was evaluated with multivariable conditional logistic regression; case-crossover analysis addressed possible residual confounding.From the study cohort (n = 681,104), 3239 sudden cardiac death cases were matched to 12,572 controls. The adjusted odds ratio (95 % confidence interval) for sudden cardiac death with current use of domperidone alone was 1.71 (0.92-3.18) versus non-use of study medications, 1.26 (0.68-2.34) versus current PPI use, and 0.40 (0.17-0.94) current metoclopramide use. The adjusted odds ratio (95 % confidence interval) relative to exposure to no study drug for domperidone >30 mg/day (eight cases, five controls) was 3.20 (0.59-17.3) and 1.65 (0.89-3.07) for age ?61 years (27 cases, 49 controls). The odds ratio (95 % confidence interval) was 3.17 (1.72-5.83) for within-person periods of domperidone use versus non-use in the case-crossover analysis.Compared with non-use of any study drug, current domperidone use was associated with sudden cardiac death in nested case-control and case-crossover analyses, with a suggestion of higher risk in older persons and users of higher daily doses.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the cardiac safety of central nervous system stimulants in children and adolescents.DesignPopulation based retrospective cohort study.SettingAutomated healthcare claims data from 1,219,847 children and young people eligible for 28 state Medicaid programmes from 1999 to 2006 linked to the Social Security Death Master File and the National Death Index.ParticipantsChildren and young people age 3-18 entered the cohort at the first diagnosis of a mental health condition commonly treated with stimulants (such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder) after a minimum period of six months' eligibility and were followed until loss of eligibility, their 19th birthday, admission to hospital for longer than 30 days, or death. Exclusion criteria included transplant recipients, receipt of dialysis, or claims indicating substance misuse. We retained high risk groups with similar use of stimulants as low risk children (such as children with congenital heart disease). Sociodemographic characteristics, cardiac risk factors, and psychiatric diagnoses obtained from before the index period were summarised with a propensity score. We used discrete survival analysis to estimate the relative risk for periods of stimulant use and non-use, adjusted for propensity score and antipsychotic use for the full cohort and the high risk and low risk groups.Main outcome measuresComposite endpoint of stroke, acute myocardial infarction, or sudden cardiac death; a secondary composite endpoint added ventricular arrhythmiaResultsA total of 66 (95 including ventricular arrhythmia) events occurred during 2,321,311 years of follow-up. The odds ratio adjusted for propensity score and antipsychotic use for current versus no stimulant use was 0.62 (95% confidence interval 0.27 to 1.44), with a corresponding adjusted incidence rate of 2.2 and 3.5 per 100,000 patient years for current stimulant and non-use, respectively. Twenty six events occurred in high risk patients (incidence rate 63 per 100,000 patient years) with an odds ratio of 1.02 (0.28 to 3.69). Odds ratios for the secondary endpoint were similar to those for the primary endpoint (0.74, 0.38 to 1.46).ConclusionsTreatment of children with central nervous stimulants is not significantly associated with an increase in the short term risk of severe cardiac events. Analyses cannot be generalised to children with long term use of stimulants. Furthermore, long term effects of slight increases in heart rate or blood pressure are unknown.

Project description:ImportanceAlthough concerns exist regarding a potential increased risk of cardiovascular events for smoking cessation pharmacotherapies, there is general consensus that any increased risk associated with their use would be outweighed by the benefits of smoking cessation; thus, clinical guidelines recommend that such pharmacotherapies be offered to everyone who wants to quit smoking. In the interest of minimizing risk to patients, prescribers need evidence indicating how these pharmacotherapies compare with one another in terms of cardiovascular safety.ObjectiveTo compare the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) among individuals initiating varenicline, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) patches, or bupropion.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective, population-based cohort study using linked pharmaceutical dispensing, hospital admissions, and death data was conducted in New South Wales, Australia. Participants included adults who were dispensed a prescription smoking cessation pharmacotherapy between 2008 and 2015 or between 2011 and 2015, depending on the availability of the pharmacotherapies being compared. Pairwise comparisons were conducted for risk of MACE among 122 932 varenicline vs 92 148 NRT initiators; 342 064 varenicline vs 10 457 bupropion initiators; and 102 817 NRT vs 6056 bupropion initiators.ExposureFirst course of the smoking cessation pharmacotherapy of interest.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was MACE, defined as a composite of acute coronary syndrome, stroke, and cardiovascular death. Secondary outcomes were the individual components of MACE. Inverse probability of treatment weighting with high-dimensional propensity scores was used to account for potential confounding. Cox proportional hazards regression models with robust variance were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs. Data were analyzed January 24, 2019, to September 1, 2021.ResultsThe mean (SD) age of included individuals ranged from 41.9 (14.2) to 49.8 (14.9) years, and the proportion of women ranged from 42.8% (52 702 of 123 128) to 52.2% (53 693 of 102 913). The comparison of 122 932 varenicline initiators and 92 148 NRT patch initiators showed no difference in the risk of MACE (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.72-1.07) nor in the risk of the secondary outcomes of acute coronary syndrome (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.76-1.21) and stroke (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.45-1.14). However, decreased risk of cardiovascular death was found among varenicline initiators (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.79). The results of comparisons involving bupropion were inconclusive owing to wide confidence intervals (eg, risk of MACE: 342 064 varenicline vs 10 457 bupropion initiators, HR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.53-1.41]; 102 817 NRT patch vs 6056 bupropion initiators, HR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.39-1.62]).Conclusions and relevanceThe finding of this cohort study that varenicline and NRT patch use have similar risk of MACE suggests that varenicline, the most efficacious smoking cessation pharmacotherapy, may be prescribed instead of NRT patches without increasing risk of major cardiovascular events. Further large-scale studies of the cardiovascular safety of varenicline and NRT relative to bupropion are needed.

Project description:Background: Treatment of functional dyspepsia (FD) in children is generally symptomatic and unsatisfactory. Traditional Chinese medicines, such as Shenqu Xiaoshi Oral Liquid (SXOL), have been recommended to alleviate dyspeptic symptoms. However, evidence of their safety and efficacy remains limited to date. AIM: To assess whether 2 weeks of therapy with SXOL was non-inferior to domperidone syrup in children with FD. Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, double-simulated, non-inferiority, multi-center clinical trial, we recruited children (3-14 years) with FD according to the Rome IV criteria from 17 tertiary medical centers across China. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive SXOL or domperidone syrup for 2 weeks. We compared the participants' clinical scores from both groups based on the severity and frequency of dyspepsia symptoms according to Rome IV criteria (0, 1, 2, and 4 weeks after randomization). The primary endpoint was the total response rate, which was defined as the proportion of patients with a decrease of 30% or more in the FD symptoms clinical score from baseline, at the end of the 2-weeks treatment. A non-inferiority margin of -10% was set. Secondary endpoints and adverse events were assessed. This trial is registered with www.Chictr.org.cn, number ChiCTR1900022654. Results: Between February 2019 and March 2021, a total of 373 patients were assessed for eligibility, and 356 patients were enrolled and randomized. The clinical response rate at week two was similar for SXOL [118 (83.10%) of 142] and domperidone [128 (81.01%) of 158]; difference 2.09; 95% CI -6.74 to 10.71, thereby establishing non-inferiority. The total FD symptom scores were significantly improved in the two groups at 1-, 2-, and 4-weeks follow-up periods (p < 0.005). The decrease in symptom score compared with the baseline were similar between these two groups. Over the total study period, 10 patients experienced at least one treatment-related adverse event [six (3.37%)] in the SXOL group, four [(2.25%) in the domperidone group], although no serious adverse event was noted. Conclusion: Treatment with SXOL effectively improves dyspeptic symptoms and is well tolerated. In addition, it is not inferior to domperidone syrup and leads to sustained improvement in Chinese children with FD.