The safety of combining angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors with angiotensin-receptor blockers in elderly patients: a population-based longitudinal analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The risks associated with using an angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and an angiotensin-receptor blocker together are unclear. This study was designed to determine the safety of combination therapy with these two drugs in clinical practice. METHODS: We conducted a population-based longitudinal analysis using linked administrative and laboratory data for elderly patients who were new users of an ACE inhibitor, an angiotensin-receptor blocker or a combination of both medications between May 1, 2002, and Dec. 31, 2006. We compared outcomes in patients given combination therapy versus patients given monotherapy using Cox proportional hazards analyses with adjustment for baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 32,312 new users of either medication (mean age 76.1 years, median creatinine level 92 μmol/L), 1750 (5.4%) received combination therapy. However, 1512 (86.4%) of the patients who were given combination therapy did not have trial-established indications such as heart failure or proteinuria. Renal dysfunction was more common among patients given combination therapy (5.2 [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.4 to 7.9] events per 1000 patients per month) than among patients given monotherapy (2.4 [95% CI 2.2 to 2.7] events per 1000 patients per month) (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.36, 95% CI 1.51 to 3.71). Hyperkalemia was also more common among patients given combination therapy (2.5 [95% CI 1.4 to 4.3] events per 1000 patients per month) than among patients given monotherapy (0.9 [95% CI 0.8 to 1.0] events per 1000 patients per month) (adjusted HR 2.42, 95% CI 1.36 to 4.32). Most patients took combination therapy for only a short time (median three months before at least one agent was stopped). INTERPRETATION: Combination therapy was frequently prescribed for patients without established indications and was associated with an increased risk of adverse renal outcomes when compared with monotherapy. These results mirrored data from randomized controlled trials.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".