Effectiveness of renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system blockers in patients with Alport syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockers have been considered the primary treatment for patients with Alport syndrome (AS) for a decade, there is no comprehensive review with evidence-based analysis evaluating the effectiveness of RAAS blockers in AS. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed of published studies that compared outcomes related to disease progression between patients with AS receiving RAAS blockers with those taking non-RAAS treatment. Outcomes were meta-analyzed using the random effects models. Cochrane risk-of-bias, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology (GRADE) assessment determined the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: A total of eight studies (1182 patients) were included in the analysis. Overall, the risk of bias was low to moderate. Compared with non-RAAS treatment, RAAS blockers could reduce the rate of progression to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) [four studies; hazard ratio (HR) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24-0.45; moderate certainty evidence]. After stratified by genetic types, a similar benefit was detected: male X-linked AS (XLAS) (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.22-0.48), autosomal recessive AS (HR 0.25, 95% CI 0.10-0.62), female XLAS and autosomal dominant AS (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.21-0.75). In addition, RAAS blockers showed a clear gradient of benefit depending on the stage of disease at the initiation of treatment. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggested that RAAS blockers could be considered as a specific therapy to delay of ESKD for AS with any genetic type, especially at the early stage of the disease, and every further more-effective therapy would be advised to be applied on top of this standard of care.
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 | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.041 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".