MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4399138146 · doi:10.1101/2024.05.28.24307859

Cardiorenal effects of dual blockade with Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and Angiotensin receptor blockers in people with CKD: analysis of routinely collected data with emulation of a reference trial (ONTARGET)

2024· preprint· en· W4399138146 on OpenAlexaff
Paris J Baptiste, Angel YS Wong, Anna Schultze, Catherine M. Clase, Clémence Leyrat, Elizabeth Williamson, Emma Powell, Johannes F.E. Mann, Marianne Cunnington, Koon Teo, Shrikant I. Bangdiwala, Peggy Gao, Kevin Wing, Laurie A. Tomlinson

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersWellcome Trust
KeywordsBlockadeEmulationPharmacologyMedicineDual (grammatical number)Angiotensin receptorAngiotensin Receptor BlockersAngiotensin-converting enzymeInternal medicineReceptorAngiotensin IIPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We aimed to explore whether the ONTARGET trial results, which led to an end of recommendations of dual angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) use, extended to patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who were underrepresented in the trial. We selected people prescribed an ACEi and/or an ARB in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum during 1/1/2001-31/7/2019. We specified an operational definition of dual users and applied ONTARGET eligibility criteria. We used propensity-score—weighted Cox-proportional hazards models to compare dual therapy to ACEi for the primary composite trial outcome (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalisation for heart failure), as well as a primary composite renal outcome (≥50% reduction in GFR or end-stage kidney disease), and other secondary outcomes, including hyperkalaemia. Conditional on successfully benchmarking results against the ONTARGET trial, we explored treatment effect heterogeneity by CKD at baseline. In the propensity-score—weighted trial-eligible analysis cohort (n=412 406), for dual therapy vs ACEi we observed hazard ratio (HR) 0.98 (95% CI: 0.93, 1.03), for the primary composite outcome, consistent with the trial results (ONTARGET HR 0.99, 95% CI: 0.92, 1.07). Dual therapy use was associated with an increased risk of the primary renal composite outcome, HR 1.25 (95% CI: 1.15, 1.36) vs ONTARGET HR 1.24 (1.01, 1.51) and hyperkalaemia, HR 1.15 (95% CI: 1.09, 1.22) in the trial eligible cohort, consistent with ONTARGET. The presence of CKD at baseline had minimal impact on results. Translational statement We extended ONTARGET trial findings of the comparative effectiveness of dual ARB and ACEi therapy use compared to ACEi alone for a composite cardiovascular outcome to UK patients at high-risk of cardiovascular disease, including those with CKD. As in ONTARGET, we found an increased risk of a composite renal outcome (≥50% reduction in GFR or end-stage kidney disease) and an increased risk of hyperkalaemia among dual users compared to ACEi alone. Consistent results were observed among patients with CKD at baseline. This is evidence against the hypothesis that dual blockade provides cardiorenal benefits among high-risk cardiovascular patients with CKD.

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)0.079
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.123
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0790.123
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies→French-language works237,207→