MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385661341 · doi:10.2215/cjn.0000000000000251

Fixed-Dose Combination Therapy for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases in CKD

2023· review· en· W4385661341 on OpenAlexaff
Sadaf G Sepanlou, Johannes F.E. Mann, Philip Joseph, Prem Pais, Peggy Gao, Maryam Sharafkhah, Gholamreza Roshandel, Salim Yusuf, Reza Malekzadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineInternal medicineCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Fixed-dose combination treatments reduce cardiovascular disease in primary prevention. We aim to explore whether those benefits differ in the presence of CKD. METHODS: We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis in 18,162 participants on the efficacy and safety of treatment for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Combination therapies consisted of at least two BP-lowering drugs and a statin, with or without aspirin versus placebo or minimal care. Here, we examine the differential effect of fixed-dose combination treatment on the risk of developing cardiovascular disease in participants with a low eGFR (<60 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 ; Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration formula) compared with a normal eGFR (≥60 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 ). The primary composite outcome was time to first occurrence of a combination of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or arterial revascularization. RESULTS: At baseline, the mean level of eGFR was 76 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 (SD 17). In total, 3315 (18%) participants had low eGFR at baseline. During a median follow-up of 5 years, among participants with normal eGFR, the primary outcome occurred in 232 (3%) participants in the treatment group compared with 339 (5%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.81; P < 0.001). In participants with low eGFR, the primary outcome occurred in 64 (4%) participants in the treatment group compared with 130 (8%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.36 to 0.66; P < 0.001; P for interaction 0.047). The relative risk reduction among participants with low eGFR was larger for combination strategies, including aspirin compared with treatments without aspirin. Apart from dizziness, other side effects did not differ between treatment and control groups, regardless of the stage of their kidney function. CONCLUSIONS: A fixed-dose combination treatment strategy is effective and safe at preventing cardiovascular disease, irrespective of eGFR, but relative and absolute risk reductions are larger in individuals with low eGFR. PODCAST: This article contains a podcast at https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2023_11_08_CJN0000000000000251.mp3.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.008
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.116
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations23
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Journal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207