Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39264627›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2024

Kidney Outcomes Following Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor vs Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor/Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Therapy for Thrombotic Microangiopathy.

Jianbo Li, Qinghua Liu, Xingji Lian, Shicong Yang, Rong Lian, Wenchuan Li, Jianwen Yu, Fengxian Huang, Wenfang Chen, Feng He and 1 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Jianbo LiDepartment of Nephrology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, NHC Key Laboratory of Clinical Nephrology (Sun Yat-Sen University) and Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Nephrology, Guangzhou, China.
Qinghua LiuDepartment of Nephrology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, NHC Key Laboratory of Clinical Nephrology (Sun Yat-Sen University) and Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Nephrology, Guangzhou, China.
Xingji LianDepartment of Geriatrics, Guangzhou First People's Hospital, The Second Affiliated Hospital of South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China.
Shicong YangDepartment of Pathology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Rong LianDepartment of Nephrology, Guangzhou First People's Hospital, The Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China.
Wenchuan LiDepartment of Nephrology, Guangzhou First People's Hospital, The Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China.
Jianwen YuDepartment of Nephrology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, NHC Key Laboratory of Clinical Nephrology (Sun Yat-Sen University) and Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Nephrology, Guangzhou, China.
Fengxian HuangDepartment of Nephrology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, NHC Key Laboratory of Clinical Nephrology (Sun Yat-Sen University) and Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Nephrology, Guangzhou, China.
Wenfang ChenDepartment of Pathology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Feng HeDepartment of Nephrology, Guangzhou First People's Hospital, The Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China.
Wei ChenDepartment of Nephrology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, NHC Key Laboratory of Clinical Nephrology (Sun Yat-Sen University) and Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Nephrology, Guangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) on kidney biopsy is a pattern of endothelial injury commonly seen in malignant hypertension (mHTN), but treatment strategies are not well established. Objective: To evaluate the kidney outcomes of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), specifically sacubitril/valsartan, vs angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) therapy for patients with mHTN-associated TMA. Design, Setting, and Participants: This single-center cohort study enrolled consecutive patients in China diagnosed with mHTN-associated TMA through kidney biopsy from January 2008 to June 2023. Follow-up was conducted until the conclusion of the study period. Data were analyzed in September 2023. Exposures: Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan or ACEI/ARBs during hospitalization and after discharge. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of kidney recovery: a 50% decrease in serum creatinine level, decrease in serum creatinine levels to the reference range, or kidney survival free from dialysis for more than 1 month. The secondary and tertiary outcomes were a 15% increase in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) relative to baseline and kidney survival free from dialysis, respectively. Propensity score matching (PSM) and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis were used to evaluate the association between sacubitril/valsartan and ACEI/ARB therapy with kidney recovery outcomes. Results: Among the 217 patients (mean [SD] age, 35.9 [8.8] years; 188 men [86.6%]) included in the study, 66 (30.4%) received sacubitril/valsartan and 151 (69.6%) received ACEI/ARBs at baseline. Sacubitril/valsartan treatment was associated with shorter time to the primary outcome compared with ACEI/ARB treatment (20 of 63 [31.7%] vs 38 of 117 [32.5%]; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.85; 95% CI, 1.05-3.23). Sacubitril/valsartan treatment was independently associated with shorter time to a 15% increase in eGFR (15 of 46 [32.6%] vs 46 of 83 [55.4%]; aHR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.09-4.17) and kidney survival free from dialysis (11 of 23 [47.8%] vs 16 of 57 [28.1%]; aHR, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.15-5.88) compared with ACEI/ARB treatment. These differences remained significant in the PSM comparison. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, sacubitril/valsartan treatment was associated with a potential kidney function benefit in patients with mHTN-associated TMA compared with ACEI/ARB treatment. The findings suggested that sacubitril/valsartan could be a superior therapeutic approach for managing this serious condition in terms of kidney recovery.

Indexed as

AminobutyratesAngiotensin-Converting Enzyme InhibitorsAngiotensin Receptor AntagonistsBiphenyl CompoundsDrug CombinationsThrombotic MicroangiopathiesValsartanAdultChinaCohort StudiesFemaleGlomerular Filtration RateHumansHypertension, MalignantKidneyMaleAminobutyratesAngiotensin-Converting Enzyme InhibitorsAngiotensin Receptor AntagonistsBiphenyl CompoundsDrug CombinationsNeprilysinsacubitril and valsartan sodium hydrate drug combinationTetrazolesValsartan

Identifiers

PMID39264627
PMCPMC11393719

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.