MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122654050 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.101333

The safety of combining angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors with angiotensin-receptor blockers in elderly patients: a population-based longitudinal analysis

2011· article· en· W2122654050 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPotassium and Related Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAmgen
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioCombination therapyInternal medicineAngiotensin-converting enzymeConfidence intervalAngiotensin receptorCreatinineRenal functionPopulationProportional hazards modelHyperkalemiaAngiotensin Receptor BlockersHeart failureAngiotensin IIBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.197 · 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