The comparative effectiveness of fourth‐line drugs in resistant hypertension: An application in electronic health record data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the utility of electronic health records from a routine care setting in assessing comparative effectiveness of fourth-line anti-hypertensive drugs to treat resistant hypertension. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink: a repository of electronic health records from UK primary care. We identified patients newly prescribed fourth-line anti-hypertensive drugs (aldosterone antagonist , beta-blocker, or alpha-blocker). Using propensity score-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models, we compared the incidence of the primary outcome (composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, and myocardial infarction) between patients on different fourth-line drugs. AA was the reference drug in all comparisons. Secondary outcomes were individual components of the primary outcome, blood pressure changes, and heart failure. We used a negative control outcome, Herpes Zoster, to detect unmeasured confounding. RESULTS: Overall, 8639 patients were included. In propensity score-adjusted analyses, the hazard ratio for the primary outcome was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.55-1.19) for beta-blockers and 0.68 (95% CI, 0.46-0.96) for alpha-blockers versus AA. Findings for individual cardiovascular outcomes trended in a more plausible direction, albeit imprecise. A trend for a protective effect for Herpes Zoster across both comparisons was seen. CONCLUSIONS: A higher rate of all-cause death in the AA group was likely due to unmeasured confounding in our analysis of the composite primary outcome, supported by our negative outcome analysis. Results for cardiovascular outcomes were plausible, but imprecise due to small cohort sizes and a low number of observed outcomes.
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 | 0.014 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".