Racial Differences in Medication Utilization for Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Post Hoc Analysis of the FAVORIT Trial Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale & Objective: Black kidney transplant recipients have higher prevalences of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors and less intensive risk factor control than White kidney transplant recipients. Our objective was to evaluate racial disparities in receipt of statins and aspirin for secondary CVD prevention among kidney transplant recipients in the Folic Acid for Vascular Outcome Reduction in Transplantation (FAVORIT) trial. Study Design: Cohort study. Setting & Participants: FAVORIT participants of White, Black, and Other races from the United States and Canada with a history of CVD at study entry or who experienced a nonfatal CVD event during follow-up. Predictor: Race. Outcome: Receipt of statins and aspirin for secondary CVD prevention. Analytical Approach: We used parametric (Weibull), proportional-hazards, interval-censored survival models to evaluate the independent association of race with receipt of statins and aspirin for secondary CVD prevention. Results: Of the 4,110 kidney transplant recipients enrolled in FAVORIT trial, 978 met the inclusion criteria (78% White, 17% Black, and 6% Other race). Compared with the White race, Black and Other races were associated with lower hazards of receiving statins (Black race: adjusted HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.60-0.97]; Other race: adjusted HR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.60-1.27]) and aspirin (Black race: adjusted HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.67-1.08]; Other race: adjusted HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.43-0.94]). Limitations: Lack of granular information on potential indications or contraindications for aspirin or statin use for secondary CVD prevention. Conclusions: Post hoc findings from the FAVORIT trial demonstrated that Black race was associated with a lower likelihood of receiving statins and Other race was associated with a lower likelihood of receiving aspirin for secondary CVD prevention. This represents a potential target to improve CVD care in non-White kidney transplant recipients.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".