The impact of renal protection clinics on prescription of and adherence to cardioprotective drug therapy in chronic kidney disease patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of follow-up in renal protection clinics on the prescription of and adherence to cardioprotective drugs in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Methods: We studied stage 4 and 5 CKD patients who initiated follow-up in three renal protection clinics. The prescription pattern of antihypertensive agents (AHA) and lipid-lowering agents (LLAs) was measured as the percentage of patients who are prescribed the agents of interest at a given time. Adherence to drug therapy was defined as the percentage of days, during a pre-defined observation period, in which patients have an on-hand supply of their prescribed medications. Results: A total of 259 CKD patients were enrolled and followed for up to 1 year after referral to renal protection clinics. There was a significant increase in the prescription of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (34–39%), angiotensin II receptor blockers (11–14%), beta-blockers (40–51%), calcium channel blockers (62–74%), diuretics (66–78%) and LLAs (39–47%) during follow-up in the renal protection clinic compared with baseline (P-values <0.01 for all comparisons). The proportions of patients with good (≥ 80%) and poor (< 80%) adherence to AHA (P = 0.41) and LLAs (P = 0.11) were similar in the year preceding and the year following the first visit to the renal protection clinics. Conclusion: Our results suggest that referral and follow-up in a renal protection clinic may increase the prescription of cardioprotective agents in CKD patients, but does not appear to improve adherence to these medications.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".