Stopping mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists after hyperkalaemia: trial emulation in data from routine care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Whether to continue or stop mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) after an episode of hyperkalaemia is a challenge in clinical practice. While stopping MRA may prevent recurrent hyperkalaemias, it deprives patients of their cardioprotection. We here assessed the association between stopping vs. continuing MRA therapy after hyperkalaemia and the subsequent risks of adverse health events. METHODS AND RESULTS: Observational study from the Stockholm CREAtinine Measurements (SCREAM) project 2006-2018. We identified patients initiating MRA and surviving a first-detected episode of hyperkalaemia (plasma potassium >5.0 mmol/L). Using target trial emulation methods, we assessed the association between stopping vs. continuing MRA within 6 months after hyperkalaemia and subsequent outcomes. The primary outcome was the composite of hospital admission with heart failure, stroke, myocardial infarction, or death. The secondary outcome was occurrence of another hyperkalaemia event. Among 39 518 patients initiating MRA, we identified 7366 who developed hyperkalaemia. Median age was 76 years, 45% were women and 69% had a history of heart failure. Following hyperkalaemia, 2222 (30%) discontinued treatment. Compared with continuing MRA, stopping therapy was associated with a lower 2-year risk of recurrent hyperkalaemia [hazard ratio (HR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72-0.79], but a higher risk of the primary outcome (HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.06-1.14). Similar results were observed in patients with heart failure, after censoring when treatment decision was changed, and across pre-specified subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Stopping MRA after an episode of hyperkalaemia was associated with reduced risk for recurrent hyperkalaemia, but higher risk of death or cardiovascular events. Recurrent hyperkalaemia was common in either strategy.
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 | 0.041 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".