#530 Cardiorenal effects of dual blockade with ACE inhibitors and ARBs among people with CKD: emulation of a reference trial (ONTARGET) using CPRD
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background and Aims Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death globally, and individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at increased risk. Results from the ONTARGET trial, in conjunction with the ALTITUDE and VA-Nephron-D studies, led to an end of recommendations for dual ACE inhibitor and ARB therapy due to an increase in acute kidney injury. However, these studies had low power to address long-term kidney outcomes and there remains uncertainty about whether dual therapy could be effective at reducing adverse cardiovascular and renal outcomes in patients with CKD. Observational data provides an opportunity to explore such hypotheses in subgroups underrepresented in trials and with power and follow-up enabling estimation of risk of rare outcomes. We aimed to use ONTARGET to perform a reference trial emulation analysis, before extending analysis to explore treatment effectiveness of dual ARB and ACEi use vs ACEi alone in preventing cardiovascular and renal outcomes among those with CKD. Method Using routinely-collected data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum linked with Hospital Episode Statistics secondary care data, we applied the ONTARGET trial eligibility criteria to patients prescribed an ARB/ACE inhibitor between 1/1/2001-31/7/2019. As the number of patients receiving prescriptions for both medications on the same day was likely to be small in routine care, we used an operational definition to capture dual users. Outcomes included ONTARGET primary cardiovascular composite outcome of cardiovascular-related death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalisation for heart failure and a composite renal outcome of ≥50% reduction in GFR or end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Within the trial-eligible cohort, outcomes of interest were compared between groups prescribed dual therapy vs ACE inhibitors alone using a propensity-score—weighted time-to-event analysis using a Cox proportional hazards model. Conditional on successfully benchmarking results against the ONTARGET trial, we explored treatment effect heterogeneity by chronic kidney disease (CKD) at baseline, with CKD defined as estimated glomerular rate (eGFR) < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2. Results 412,406 trial-eligible patients in CPRD were included in analysis. Among those with non-missing eGFR at baseline, 37% had CKD (Table 1). We found similar effectiveness of dual therapy and ACE inhibitors in reducing the risk of the primary composite cardiovascular outcome (HR 0.98 (95% CI: 0.93, 1.03), consistent with the ONTARGET trial results (HR 0.99 (95% CI: 0.92, 1.07), with no evidence of heterogeneity by CKD (P-value for interaction = 0.14). However, dual therapy use was associated with a greater risk for the composite renal outcome compared to ACE inhibitor, HR 1.24 (95% CI: 1.14, 1.35), with no evidence of heterogeneity by CKD (P = 0.93) (Fig. 1). Analysing components of the composite renal outcome separately gave consistent results (≥50% reduction in GFR: HR 1.22 (95% CI: 1.12, 1.33); ESKD: HR 1.34 (95% CI: 1.24, 1.57)), as did a post-hoc sensitivity analysis by proteinuria status (no proteinuria: HR 1.28 (95% CI: 1.03, 1.59); proteinuria: 1.27 (95% CI: 1.08, 1.49)). Conclusion We found evidence that dual therapy use was associated with increased risk of renal outcomes in both those with and without CKD at baseline. Applying a reference trial emulation approach and successfully benchmarking findings against ONTARGET, where confounding was not present due to randomisation, provides confidence in the validity of these results.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,077 | 0,124 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».