MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3217679702 · doi:10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.9009

Abstract 9009: Management of Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Blockade in Patients Admitted in Hospital With Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Infection: The McGill RAAS-COVID-19 Randomized Controlled Trial

2021· article· en· W3217679702 on OpenAlexaffabout
Abhinav Sharma, Malik Elharram, Jiayi Ni, Jonathan Afilalo, Alexandria Flannery, Justin A. Ezekowitz, Matthew P. Cheng, Andrew P. Ambrosy, Faı̈ez Zannad, Nadia Giannetti, Amal Bessissow, Nadine Kronfli, Ariane Marelli, Haya Aziz, Mohammad Alqahtani, Mona Aflaki, Renato D. Lópes, João Pedro Nascimento Ferreira

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of AlbertaJewish General HospitalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Randomized controlled trialRenin–angiotensin systemBlockadeCoronavirusSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakDiseaseInternal medicineAldosteroneSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirusVirologyReceptorBlood pressureOutbreakInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: More data is needed on the cardiovascular impact of discontinuing versus continuing renin-angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASi) among patients hospitalized with a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection (COVID-19). Methods: The McGill RAAS-COVID-19 trial was a randomized, open label trial in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19, who were previously treated with RAASi (angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors [ACEi]/angiotensin receptor blocker [ARB]) (NCT04508985; 10/2020-03/2021). Participants were randomized 1:1 to discontinue or continue RAASi. The primary outcome was a global rank score calculated from baseline to day 7 (or discharge) incorporating clinical events and biomarker changes. Global rank scores were compared between groups using the Wilcoxon test statistic and the negative binomial test (using incident rate ratio [IRR]). All analyses were conducted using the intention-to-treat principle. Results: Overall, 21 participants were randomized to discontinue RAASi and 25 to continue. Patients’ mean age was 71.5 years and 43.5% were female. Discontinuation of RAASi, versus continuation, resulted in a similar mean global rank score (discontinuation 6 [standard deviation [SD] 6.3] vs continuation 3.8 (SD 2.5); p= 0.60), but the negative binomial analysis identified that discontinuation increased the risk of adverse outcomes (IRR 1.7 [95% CI 1.1 to 2.6]; p=0.03). Particularly, RAASi discontinuation increased brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels (% change from baseline: +16.7% vs. -27.5%; p= 0.02) and increased the incidence of acute heart failure (33% vs. 4.2%, p=0.03). Conclusion: Discontinuation of RAASi increased BNP levels and risk of acute heart failure in participants hospitalized with COVID-19; where possible, RAASi should be continued.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 designRandomized trial
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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies→French-language works237,207→