MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951878238 · doi:10.1161/hyp.70.suppl_1.p497

Abstract P497: Re-analysis of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT): The Renal Consequences of Intensive versus Standard Blood Pressure Lowering

2017· article· en· W2951878238 on OpenAlexaff
Leora Branfield Day, David Naimark

Bibliographic record

VenueHypertension · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSprintBlood pressureHazard ratioIntensive careCohortInternal medicineConfidence intervalEmergency medicineIntensive care medicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: BP management guidelines suggest that persons with CKD should be treated to a SBP ≤ 140 mmHg. SPRINT compared this target to intensive SBP lowering (≤ 120 mmHg) in persons with and without CKD and found a reduced rate of CV events and all-cause mortality (ACM). However intensive therapy was associated with an increased risk of AKI. We extrapolated the results of SPRINT over a lifetime horizon to determine whether in the long-term, the benefit in terms of the primary outcome would be less economically attractive when the risks of more frequent AKI and subsequent CKD progression were considered. Methods: We re-configured the CKD Simulator, a Markov model of CKD progression, AKI events, fatal and non-fatal CV events, and ESRD. We recalibrated the model to be representative of the SPRINT cohort and compared intensive vs. standard blood pressure control among 10 million simulated persons with and without CKD over their lifetimes. Marginal treatment costs were calculated and hazard ratios for AKI, CV events and ACM observed in SPRINT were applied to the monthly probabilities of these events in the intensive SBP arm. Results: Lifetime average, discounted, costs per person associated with intensive vs. standard SBP lowering were predicted to be $35,811 and $30,584, respectively. Quality-adjusted, discounted average lifespans were 196.05 and 190.47 months, respectively. The cost of each quality-adjusted life-year gained by adopting intensive over standard BP lowering would be $11,220, significantly below the accepted cost-effectiveness threshold of $50,000. Intensive SBP control would reduce the lifetime incidence of at least one CV event by 5.5%, but increase the incidence of at least one AKI episode and ESRD by 1.7% and 0.7%, respectively. These differences were associated with average lifetime cost savings per person of $459 for CV events, but losses of $161 and $2,889 for AKI and ESRD. Discussion: Intensive SBP management would be cost-effective and associated with a significant lifetime reduction in CV events. However, there would be an increase in the lifetime risk of AKI and ESRD, contributing to 58% of the total increase in cost of intensive relative to usual SBP control. Intensive SBP lowering should be adopted judiciously in persons at high risk of ESRD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHypertensionSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207