Clinical Outcomes of Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone Blockade in Patients With Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The cardiovascular and renal benefits of renin-angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS) blockade are not well established in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify potential risks and benefits from RAAS blockade in patients with CKD stage 4-5. METHODS: ) comparing RAAS blockade vs placebo or alternative antihypertensive therapy. Different intervention strategies were assessed (RAAS use vs nonuse, initiation vs placebo/alternative therapy, or discontinuation vs continuation). The primary outcome was progression to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). The risk ratio (RR) was estimated with the use of a random-effects model. RESULTS: Nine RCTs (1150 patients) were included. RAAS blockade was associated with a significant reduction in progression to ESKD: RR 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-0.96; P = 0.01). There was no benefit from RAAS blockade on all-cause mortality or MACE: RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.63-1.65; P = 0.93) and RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.49-1.57; P = 0.65), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: RAAS blockade may be considered in selected patients with CKD stage 4-5 to delay progression to ESKD.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".