Untitled

Concurrent use of diuretics, angiotensin converting

enzyme inhibitors, and angiotensin receptor blockers

with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and risk of

acute kidney injury: nested case-control study

OPEN ACCESS

Francesco Lapi pharmacoepidemiology fellow

1 2 3

, Laurent Azoulay assistant professor

1 4

, Hui Yin

statistician

, Sharon J Nessim assistant professor and nephrologist specialist

, Samy Suissa

professor and director

1 2

Centre for Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Institute, Jewish General Hospital, 3755 Côte Sainte-Catherine Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3T 1E2;

Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3A 1A2;

Department of

Preclinical and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Florence, 50139 Florence, Italy;

Department of Oncology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec,

Canada, H3G 1A4;

Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3T 1E2

Abstract

Objectives To assess whether a double therapy combination consisting

of diuretics, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, or angiotensin

receptor blockers with addition of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

(NSAIDs) and the triple therapy combination of two of the aforementioned

antihypertensive drugs to which NSAIDs are added are associated with

an increased risk of acute kidney injury.

Design Retrospective cohort study using nested case-control analysis.

Setting General practices contributing data to the UK Clinical Practice

Research Datalink linked to the Hospital Episodes Statistics database.

Participants A cohort of 487 372 users of antihypertensive drugs.

Main outcome measures Rate ratios with 95% confidence intervals of

acute kidney injury associated with current use of double and triple

therapy combinations of antihypertensive drugs with NSAIDs.

Results During a mean follow-up of 5.9 (SD 3.4) years, 2215 cases of

acute kidney injury were identified (incidence rate 7/10 000 person years).

Overall, current use of a double therapy combination containing either

diuretics or angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin

receptor blockers with NSAIDs was not associated with an increased

rate of acute kidney injury. In contrast, current use of a triple therapy

combination was associated with an increased rate of acute kidney injury

(rate ratio 1.31, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 1.53). In secondary

analyses, the highest risk was observed in the first 30 days of use (rate

ratio 1.82, 1.35 to 2.46).

Conclusions A triple therapy combination consisting of diuretics with

angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers

and NSAIDs was associated with an increased risk of acute kidney injury.

The risk was greatest at the start of treatment. Although antihypertensive

drugs have cardiovascular benefits, vigilance may be warranted when

they are used concurrently with NSAIDs.

Introduction

Acute kidney injury is a major clinical concern. According to

the World Health Organization’s most recent estimates (2009),

the incidence rate of hospital admissions related to acute kidney

in the United Kingdom is 5 per 10 000 residents.

Furthermore,

among people admitted to hospital with acute kidney injury

requiring dialysis support, the incidence rate of mortality related

to acute kidney injury can exceed 50%.

2-6

Adverse reactions to drugs remain an important cause of acute

kidney injury. Kidneys regulate the excretion of almost all drugs,

which, in turn, may lead to nephropathy.

In England, the rate

of hospital admission for drug induced nephropathy increased

almost twofold between 1999 and 2009.

Although drug related acute kidney injury is commonly

associated with the use of individual classes of drugs (such as

antiretroviral drugs, aminoglycoside antibiotics, and

non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)),

9-13

little is

known about the effects of drug-drug interactions on this

outcome. This aspect is particularly relevant among users of

antihypertensive drugs, who often need more than one drug for

adequate blood pressure control. For example, in patients with

heart failure and hypertension, the concurrent use of angiotensin

Correspondence to: S Suissa samy[email protected]

Extra material supplied by the author (see http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e8525?tab=related#webextra)

No commercial reuse: See rights and reprints http://www.bmj.com/permissions Subscribe: http://www.bmj.com/subscribe

BMJ 2013;346:e8525 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e8525 (Published 8 January 2013) Page 1 of 11

Research

RESEARCH

on 30 September 2024 by guest. Protected by copyright.http://www.bmj.com/BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.e8525 on 8 January 2013. Downloaded from

converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers

along with diuretics is common.

14-16

However, many of these

patients also have chronic inflammatory diseases or chronic

pain, so the add-on use of NSAIDs may be indicated.

Some case reports and pharmacovigilance analyses have

suggested that the concurrent use of diuretics, angiotensin

converting enzyme inhibitors, or angiotensin receptor blockers

with NSAIDs can increase the risk of acute kidney injury.

17-19

This risk is thought to vary with the number of antihypertensive

drug classes used concurrently with NSAIDs. Specifically,

patients can be exposed to a double or triple therapy combination

composed of one or two of the aforementioned antihypertensive

drug classes with NSAIDs.

From a pharmacological perspective, these combinations may

increase the risk of acute kidney injury, as each has the potential

to affect kidney function through different mechanisms. Use of

diuretics can lead to hypovolaemia, angiotensin converting

enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers cause a

haemodynamic reduction in glomerular filtration rate due to

efferent arteriolar vasodilation, and NSAIDs cause inhibition

of prostacyclin synthesis (leading to renal afferent arteriolar

vasoconstriction).

7 12 17 20 21

To our knowledge, only one observational study has specifically

investigated the risk of acute kidney injury associated with the

use of these drug combinations.

An increased risk was observed

in that study, but the study was limited by its cross sectional

design and possible confounding by indication and severity (as

heart failure is an independent predictor of acute kidney injury

Furthermore, the authors used mean values of blood creatinine

concentrations to define the study outcome, without using a

specific cut-off that is needed to identify cases of acute kidney

injury.

Given the limited safety data on the aforementioned

combinations, we conducted a large population based study to

determine whether the use of diuretics and/or angiotensin

converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers

with NSAIDs is associated with an increased risk of acute kidney

injury.

Methods

Data sources

This study was carried out using the Clinical Practice Research

Datalink (CPRD), previously known as the General Practice

Research Database, and the Hospital Episodes Statistics

repository from the UK.

The CPRD is the world’s largest computerised database of

longitudinal records from primary care. The data recorded in

the CPRD since 1987 include demographic information,

prescription details, clinical events, specialist referrals, and

deaths.

In addition, the CPRD collects information on lifestyle

variables such as body mass index and data on smoking and

excessive alcohol use. The Read code classification is used to

enter medical diagnoses and procedures, and a coded drug

dictionary based on the UK Prescription Pricing Authority

Dictionary is used for recording prescriptions. Recent reviews

of all validation studies found that medical data in the CPRD

are of high quality.

24 25

In addition, patients in the CPRD can now be linked individually

and anonymously to the UK national registry of hospital

admissions (Hospital Episode Statistics repository). The linkages

are made by using the unique National Health Service identifier,

date of birth, sex, and postcode of patients. Since 1997, the

repository contains dates of hospital admission, discharge

diagnosis (coded using ICD-10 (international classification of

diseases, 10th revision)), and related procedures (coded using

ICD-10 and OPCS-4 (Office of Population Censuses and

Surveys classification of interventions and procedures, 4th

version)).

Study population

Within the CPRD population, we assembled a cohort of patients

who received antihypertensive drugs between 1 January 1997

and 31 December 2008, with follow-up until 31 December 2010.

For the purposes of this study, cohort entry was the date of a

first prescription for any antihypertensive drug (diuretics,

angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor

blockers, calcium channel blockers, α and β blockers) during

the study period. Patients were required to have at least one year

of up to standard medical history in the CPRD before that first

prescription. For patients with less than one year of registration

with the general practice at the time of their first prescription,

we moved their cohort entry date forward in time to allow a

minimum one year medical history before the cohort entry. We

excluded patients with a history of any cancer, renal disorders

(history of chronic kidney disease, acute kidney injury, or both,

including dialysis related procedures), hepatitis, systemic

connective tissue diseases, rheumatoid arthritis, crush injury,

HIV infection, and any drug misuse at any time before cohort

entry. We followed all patients who met the study inclusion

criteria until a first ever hospital admission for acute kidney

injury, the occurrence of one of the exclusion criteria (including

hospital admission for acute kidney injury in secondary

diagnosis position, or dialysis related procedures when they

were not followed (within 30 days) by a diagnosis of acute

kidney injury in primary position), death from any cause, end

of registration with the general practice, or end of the study

period (31 December 2010), whichever occurred first.

Selection of cases and controls

We defined cases by the first ever occurrence of a hospital

admission related to acute kidney injury during follow-up, using

the Hospital Episodes Statistics database (identified by using

the ICD-10 diagnostic codes N17, N17.0-2, N17.8-9 in primary

position). Among these cases, we also identified those that

required dialysis during their hospital admission.

26 27

As dialysis

may precede or follow a diagnosis of acute kidney injury, we

searched for procedure codes within 30 days before or after the

admission date (ICD-10 codes Z99.2, Z49.0, Z49.1; OPCS-4

codes X40.1,3,8,9, X41.8,9, X42.8,9, X43.1); the index date

was the earliest date of either the admission for acute kidney

injury or the dialysis procedure.

Up to 10 controls were randomly selected and matched to each

case on year of birth (age), sex, calendar year of cohort entry,

prevalent user status (that is, patients for whom cohort entry

was moved forward in time to allow at least one year of

registration in the general practice), and duration of follow-up.

Thus, all controls were alive, not previously diagnosed as having

acute kidney injury, registered with their general practice when

matched to a given case, and had an equal duration of follow-up

at the risk set date. The date of the risk set was the index date

for the controls.

Exposure assessment

For all cases and controls, we obtained information on all drugs

prescribed between cohort entry and the index date, including

diuretics, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin

receptor blockers, and NSAIDs. We defined a double therapy

combination as the concurrent use of either diuretics, angiotensin

No commercial reuse: See rights and reprints http://www.bmj.com/permissions Subscribe: http://www.bmj.com/subscribe

BMJ 2013;346:e8525 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e8525 (Published 8 January 2013) Page 2 of 11

RESEARCH

on 30 September 2024 by guest. Protected by copyright.http://www.bmj.com/BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.e8525 on 8 January 2013. Downloaded from

converting enzyme inhibitors, or angiotensin receptor blockers

with NSAIDs. We defined a triple therapy combination as the

concurrent use of diuretics and angiotensin converting enzyme

inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, along with NSAIDs.

To be considered a double or triple therapy combination, the

drugs of interest had to have been prescribed on the same day

or, alternatively, their specified durations of use had to overlap

each other for at least one day during follow-up. We calculated

this by using the number of prescribed tablets combined with

dosing instructions and daily dose. We divided the number of

prescribed units by the daily dose to obtain the expected duration

of drug use. For the antihypertensive drugs, we defined

continuous use as when the duration of one prescription

overlapped the date of the next prescription, allowing for a 90

day grace period between prescriptions (a grace period

determined by both the pharmacokinetics and prescribing

patterns of these drugs in general practice

). For NSAIDs,

continuous use was similarly defined, but the grace period

consisted of the half life of the drug. In the special situation in

which patients were prescribed more than one NSAID, we used

the one with the longest half life to determine the overlap with

the antihypertensive drugs.

On the basis of the above, we classified patients into one of

three mutually exclusive groups: “current use,” defined as a

double or triple therapy combination overlapping the 90 days

immediately before the index date; “past use,” defined as a

combination after cohort entry but ending before the 90 days

before the index date; and “never use,” defined as the absence

of a double or triple therapy combination at any time between

cohort entry and index date.

Potential confounders

We adjusted the risk estimates for comorbid clinical conditions,

measured before the index date, known to be associated with

acute kidney injury, which could also influence the choice of

antihypertensive and NSAID treatment. We thus adjusted all

models for the indication for antihypertensive drug use

(hypertension, heart failure, and coronary heart disease measured

at cohort entry), rhythm disorders, valvular disease, diabetes,

number of hospital admissions (any time before the index date),

excessive alcohol use, smoking status, and body mass index (all

based on the last measure before the index date).

6 7 22 29-31

minimise the effect of severity of hypertension, we also adjusted

the models for the blood pressure value recorded at cohort entry.

We defined hypertension as “mild” when systolic or diastolic

blood pressure was between 140 and 159 mm Hg or 90 and 99

mm Hg, “moderate” when systolic or diastolic blood pressure

was between 160 and 179 mm Hg or 100 and 109 mm Hg, and

“severe” when they were 180 mm Hg or 110 mm Hg or higher.

Finally, we also adjusted the models for the use of other

antihypertensive drugs (α blockers, β blockers, and calcium

channel blockers), digoxin, clopidogrel, anti-arrhythmics, statins,

antibiotics, immunosuppressive drugs, paracetamol, and

corticosteroids, all measured in the year before the index date.

Statistical analysis

We estimated the overall incidence rate of acute kidney injury

by dividing the total number of cases that occurred during the

study period by the total person years of follow-up, with 95%

confidence intervals based on the Poisson distribution. We used

conditional logistic regression to compute odds ratios of acute

kidney injury, which, for the time matched nested case-control

method used here, provides unbiased estimates of the rate ratio

and 95% confidence interval.

In addition to age, sex, calendar

year of cohort entry, prevalent user status, and duration of

follow-up on which the logistic regression was conditioned, we

adjusted for the confounders described above.

In the primary analysis, we compared current users of a double

therapy combination, consisting of diuretics or angiotensin

converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers

with NSAIDs, with patients currently using these

antihypertensive drugs but without NSAIDs. Likewise, we

compared current users of a triple therapy combination,

consisting of diuretics and angiotensin converting enzyme

inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers with NSAIDs, with

patients currently using these antihypertensive drugs without

NSAIDs. We chose these reference groups to minimise

confounding by indication.

In secondary analyses, we assessed whether the risk of acute

kidney injury associated with double and triple therapy

combinations varied according to half life of NSAIDs and

duration of use (that is, length of exposure to double or triple

therapy combination). Thus, patients deemed to be current users

of such combinations were further categorised according to

whether they used NSAIDs with short half lives (<12 hours:

aceclofenac, acemetacin, diclofenac, etodolac, fenbufen,

fenoprofen, flurbiprofen, ibuprofen, indometacin, ketoprofen,

mefenamic acid, tiaprofenic acid, aspirin) or long half lives

(≥12 hours: azaprazone, meloxicam, nabumetone, naproxen,

piroxican, sulindac, tenoxicam), as well as according to duration

of exposure (≤30, 31-60, 61-90, >90 days). We assessed effect

modification by half life of NSAID and duration of use of double

and triple therapy combinations by including interaction terms

between those categories and the relevant exposure groups.

We also did several sensitivity analyses to evaluate the

robustness of the results. The first consisted of repeating all

analyses by restricting the cases to the subset requiring dialysis.

In a second analysis, we repeated the analyses by additionally

matching cases and controls on general practice to further

control for potential residual confounders from practice level

prescribing patterns and social deprivation (we did not match

on general practice as part of the primary analysis because of

the exclusion of 573 (26%) cases). In a third analysis, we

verified whether the introduction in the UK of new quality

outcome framework guidelines over the study period, concerning

the recording and treatment of diabetes and chronic kidney

disease,

34 35

had affected the accuracy of both diagnoses of acute

kidney injury and chronic kidney failure in the CPRD. Thus,

we stratified cases and matched controls on calendar period

(1998-2002, 2003-07, 2008-10) and diabetes diagnosis (as these

patients are prone to develop chronic and acute kidney diseases

36 37

). In a fourth analysis, we tested the definition of current use

by varying the width of the exposure time window and grace

period to 60 and 30 days. In a fifth analysis, we stratified cases

and matched controls on prevalent user status (this was a

matching variable) to assess the effect of including prevalent

users in the main models. In a sixth analysis, we assessed the

impact of over the counter use of NSAIDs by restricting the

cases and matched controls to patients with osteoarthritis, a

population for whom the chronic use of NSAIDs is likely to

involve physicians’ prescriptions. Finally, because the CPRD

does not include information on drug exposure in the inpatient

setting, possibly leading to immeasurable time bias,

assessed the effect of this bias by repeating the analyses after

excluding patients who had been admitted to hospital during

the current time window. We used SAS version 9.2 for all

analyses.

No commercial reuse: See rights and reprints http://www.bmj.com/permissions Subscribe: http://www.bmj.com/subscribe

BMJ 2013;346:e8525 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e8525 (Published 8 January 2013) Page 3 of 11

RESEARCH

on 30 September 2024 by guest. Protected by copyright.http://www.bmj.com/BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.e8525 on 8 January 2013. Downloaded from

Results

A cohort of 487 372 patients using antihypertensive drugs met

the study inclusion criteria (fig 1⇓); they were followed for a

mean of 5.9 (SD 3.4) years, generating 3 047 813 person years

of follow-up. We identified 2215 cases of acute kidney injury

during follow-up, yielding an overall incidence rate of 7/10 000

(95% confidence interval 7/10 000 to 8/10 000) person years.

Table 1⇓ shows the demographic and clinical characteristics of

the cases and matched controls. Hypertension was the main

indication for use of antihypertensive drugs among cases and

controls. As expected, cases were likely to have a greater number

of hospital admissions and more likely to have diabetes and

other cardiovascular diseases. Furthermore, cases differed from

controls in terms of use of anti-arrhythmics, digoxin,

clopidogrel, statins, antibiotics, immunosuppressive drugs,

paracetamol, and corticosteroids. Excessive alcohol use,

overweight and underweight patients, and smokers were also

proportionally more common among cases than controls.

Table 2⇓ shows the results of the primary analysis. Overall,

current use of a double therapy combination of a diuretic or an

angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor

blocker with NSAIDs was not associated with an increased rate

of acute kidney injury. On the other hand, current use of a triple

therapy combination was associated with a 31% higher rate of

acute kidney injury (rate ratio 1.31, 95% confidence interval

1.12 to 1.53).

Table 3⇓ shows the results of the secondary analyses. When we

examined current users of a double therapy combination

according to half life of NSAID and duration of use, none of

the categories reached statistical significance. However, for the

combination of diuretics with NSAIDs, we found an overall

effect modification by duration of use, with the highest risk

observed in the first 30 days of use, although that estimate did

not reach statistical significance (rate ratio 1.46, 0.96 to 2.24).

The use of a triple therapy combination with NSAIDs with long

half lives tended to be associated with a higher increased risk

of acute kidney injury (≥12 hours: rate ratio 1.77, 1.07 to 2.93)

than with NSAIDs with shorter half-lives (<12 hours: 1.29, 1.11

to 1.51), although the P value for interaction did not reach

statistical significance (table 3⇓). With respect to duration of

use, an 82% (rate ratio 1.82, 1.35 to 2.46) increased risk of acute

kidney injury was observed in the first 30 days of use, whereas

the adjusted rate ratio progressively decreased with longer

periods of use and was no longer significant after more than 90

days of use (1.01, 0.84 to 1.23; P for interaction<0.001).

Sensitivity analyses

When we restricted the analyses to the 262 cases of acute kidney

injury requiring dialysis, double and triple therapy combinations

did not achieve statistical significance, although the rate ratio

for triple therapy combination was numerically elevated (1.13,

0.69 to 1.77) compared with double therapy combinations

(diuretics: 0.71, 0.36 to 1.43; angiotensin converting enzyme

inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers: 0.69, 0.36 to 1.31).

These analyses were limited by statistical power given the

relatively few cases exposed to double (n=36) and triple therapy

(n=57) combinations.

With cases and controls matched on general practice, the rate

ratios did not achieve statistical significance. This was probably

a result of exclusion of 573 cases for whom we could not find

suitable controls. However, we found statistically significant

associations in terms of half life of NSAID and duration of use,

consistent with those in the main analyses (supplementary tables

A1 and A2: see web extra).

When we stratified by calendar period, although we found a

non-statistically significant association for the 1998-2002 time

band, the results for the most recent time bands (2003-07 and

2008-10) were in line with those in the primary analysis

(supplementary table B1). Furthermore, stratification of cases

and matched controls on the presence of diabetes led to results

consistent with those of the primary analysis, indicating that

the results were unlikely to have been influenced by the accuracy

of recording acute kidney injury and chronic kidney disease

(supplementary table B2). We also varied the width of the

exposure time windows and grace periods to 60 and 30 days.

The point estimates were lower with the 60 and 30 day time

windows, possibly owing to increased misclassifications of

exposure, thus supporting the choice of a 90 day time window.

Nevertheless, the directions of the risks were consistent with

those observed with a 90 day time window (supplementary

tables C1, C2, D1, and D2).

When we stratified the cases and matched controls by prevalent

user status, the results were still consistent with those of the

primary analysis; the triple therapy combination was associated

with an increased risk of acute kidney injury in both prevalent

and incident cases and controls. However, the rate ratios were

higher for the new users than for the prevalent users, showing

an underestimation of the effect when prevalent users were

included in the overall cohort (supplementary tables E1, E2,

F1, and F2).

With stratification by the presence of

osteoarthritis, a population for whom NSAIDs would normally

be prescribed, although the triple therapy combination did not

achieve statistical significance, probably owing to the fewer

exposed cases (n=126), the point estimates were comparable to

those for patients without osteoarthritis, indicating that over the

counter use of NSAIDs is unlikely to have caused important

misclassifications of exposure (supplementary table G).

Finally, to account for immeasurable time bias,

we restricted

the analysis to those cases and controls who were not admitted

to hospital during the current time window. The results of this

sensitivity analysis were consistent with those of the primary

analysis for both double (diuretics: rate ratio 1.08, 0.81 to 1.44;

angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor

blockers: 0.92, 0.67 to 1.27) and triple (1.33, 1.09 to 1.61)

therapy combinations.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first large population based study

of patients (almost 500 000) using antihypertensive drugs to

have investigated the association between the use of different

combinations of antihypertensive drugs (diuretics, angiotensin

converting enzyme inhibitors, and angiotensin receptor blockers)

with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on the risk of acute

kidney injury. Our results indicate that the use of a double

therapy combination is not associated with an increased risk of

acute kidney injury, although the risk was modified by the

duration of use of a diuretic-NSAID combination. On the other

hand, the use of a triple therapy combination was associated

with an overall 31% higher risk, which is driven by a nearly

twofold increased risk in the first 30 days of use. Overall, these

results remained consistent after several sensitivity analyses.

Comparisons with previous studies

The known risks associated with these double and triple therapy

combinations are currently based on pharmacovigilance case

series and a few epidemiological studies.

17 29 30 40

These studies

No commercial reuse: See rights and reprints http://www.bmj.com/permissions Subscribe: http://www.bmj.com/subscribe

BMJ 2013;346:e8525 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e8525 (Published 8 January 2013) Page 4 of 11

RESEARCH

on 30 September 2024 by guest. Protected by copyright.http://www.bmj.com/BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.e8525 on 8 January 2013. Downloaded from

had several methodological shortcomings. The only study that

specifically investigated the risk of acute kidney injury due to

these double or triple therapy combinations was probably subject

to confounding by indication and severity (heart failure can

itself lead to acute kidney injury).

17 33 41-43

On the other hand, in

the others studies,

29 30

the primary focus was on the association

between NSAIDs and acute kidney injury, and interaction with

diuretics or angiotensin converting enzyme

inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers and NSAIDs was a

secondary outcome. These studies were not adequately powered

to investigate the association between double and triple therapy

combinations and the risk of acute kidney injury.

29 30

In one cross sectional study of 301 patients,

the use of two or

more drugs among diuretics, angiotensin converting enzyme

inhibitors, and angiotensin receptor blockers with NSAIDs was

associated with an increased risk of renal impairment, compared

with non-use. However, the authors adopted mean values of

blood creatinine concentrations as the study outcome, without

using a specific cut-off (such as creatinine concentration >0.20

mmol/L) to define acute kidney injury. Thus, their outcome was

not specific to identify acute kidney injury and also included

subclinical renal impairments. Moreover, they were unable to

adjust for potential confounders such as heart failure. The

increased risk observed may thus have been partly affected by

confounding by indication and severity.

33 41-43

In a nested case-control study, Huerta and et al reported an

increased risk of acute kidney injury due to diuretic-NSAIDs

interaction, estimated through the synergy index (S=2.4, 95%

confidence interval 0.2 to 2.4).

This measurement, as well as

the relative excessive risk due to interaction index (RERI),

quantifies the risk due to drug-drug interactions on an additive

scale for dichotomous factors. S>1 and RERI>0 indicate

increased risk when two or more drugs are combined versus

monotherapy.

However, that study was underpowered to report

a firm conclusion about its results.

In another study, Lafrance

et al confirmed an interaction between the use of diuretics and

NSAIDs (RERI=0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.25 to 0.51).

However, neither of these two studies found an interaction

between angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin

receptor blockers and NSAIDs. No previous investigations have

assessed whether a duration-response relation existed for the

use of double and triple therapy combinations and the risk of

acute kidney injury. In this study, we specifically focused our

investigation on these double and triple therapy combinations.

Furthermore, we did a nested case-control analysis within a

cohort of antihypertensive drug users and adjusted for their

indications, thus minimising the effect of these confounders.

41-43

Additionally, we adjusted the models for the blood pressure

values recorded at cohort entry, thus minimising the effect of

severity of hypertension. We were also able to examine the

duration-response relation for both double and triple therapy

combinations.

Biological mechanisms

An interesting finding of this study is an overall increased risk

of acute kidney injury with a triple therapy combination but no

overall increased risk with a double therapy combination.

Among patients on a combination of diuretics and NSAIDs

(without an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or

angiotensin receptor blockers), despite a reduction in renal blood

flow and the presence of renal afferent arteriolar constriction,

glomerular filtration is probably maintained as a result of the

effect of angiotensin II mediated efferent arteriolar

vasoconstriction and sodium retention. As observed in this study,

only patients exposed to diuretics and NSAIDs early in the

course of treatment may be more prone to develop acute kidney

injury. This result is biologically consistent with the potential

effect of a drastic hypovolaemia exerted by diuretics, which is

further exacerbated by the vasoconstrictive effect of

NSAIDs.

7 21 31

On the other hand, among patients taking

angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor

blockers and NSAIDs (without a diuretic), the afferent

vasoconstrictive stimulus induced by the NSAIDs through

inhibition of prostacyclins synthesis is probably insufficient to

substantially increase the risk of acute kidney injury in the

presence of a normal extracellular fluid volume and preserved

renal blood flow.

7 21 31

In contrast, among users of the triple therapy combination, the

decreased inflow to the glomerulus resulting from the diuretic

and NSAID cannot be compensated owing to blockade of the

renin-angiotensin system, resulting in an increased risk of acute

kidney injury. Although we did not find an effect modification

by half life of NSAID, patients using NSAIDs with longer half

lives have a more pronounced risk of acute kidney injury.

Thus, the higher point estimates observed with NSAIDs with

long half lives is suggestive of a more sustained constriction of

the afferent arteriole.

7 21 31

When we considered the duration of

exposure to a triple therapy combination, the highest risk of

acute kidney injury was in the first 30 days of use. Although

the basis of this is still unclear, it might be explained by an early

and severe deteriorating effect of NSAIDs in susceptible

patients,

who are heavily dependent on prostacyclins to

maintain renal function.

7 31

Furthermore, patients may initially

use a greater number of NSAID pills early on than later, as some

causes of pain may abate over time.

Strengths and limitations

This study has several strengths. Firstly, we used the Clinical

Practice Research Datalink, which is a large primary care

database containing longitudinal data on patients’ medical

history, lifestyle (smoking, alcohol use, and body mass index

measurements), and indication for use of antihypertensive drugs.

Thus, we were able to adjust for several important potential

confounders. Secondly, both exposure and covariate definitions

were time dependent as a result of the risk set sampling method

used to select controls. Thirdly, exposure in the CPRD is

prospectively collected, eliminating the possibility of recall bias.

Finally, we did several sensitivity analyses, which, overall,

produced results consistent with those of the primary analysis.

This study has some potential limitations. Firstly, the

identification of acute kidney injury may have been subject to

some misclassification. However, our overall incidence rate of

acute kidney injury is higher than what has been reported in the

general population,

which is expected in a cohort of

antihypertensive drugs users.

In addition, we identified acute

kidney injury events by using hospital admission data (diagnosis

in primary position; those reporting hospital admission for acute

kidney injury in secondary diagnosis position, or dialysis related

procedures that were not followed (within 30 days) by a

diagnosis of acute kidney injury in primary position, were

censored),

46 47

whose validity has been demonstrated in the more

clinically severe subgroup requiring dialysis (sensitivity 90%;

positive predictive value 94%).

26 27

When we restricted the

analysis to this more severe subgroup, we observed a lower

point estimate for the triple therapy combination (1.13 v 1.31),

although the upper bound of the confidence interval does not

rule out a possible increased risk (rate ratio 1.77). Although this

shift in the rate ratio may be simply due to instability of the

point estimate because of the fewer exposed cases on which the

analysis was based (n=57), confounding by contraindication is

No commercial reuse: See rights and reprints http://www.bmj.com/permissions Subscribe: http://www.bmj.com/subscribe

BMJ 2013;346:e8525 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e8525 (Published 8 January 2013) Page 5 of 11

RESEARCH

on 30 September 2024 by guest. Protected by copyright.http://www.bmj.com/BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.e8525 on 8 January 2013. Downloaded from

also possible (that is, physicians refrained from prescribing

NSAIDs to patients at a higher risk of developing acute kidney

injury requiring dialysis),

which could have biased the rate

ratios towards the null.

Secondly, because of the observational nature of this study,

residual confounding by indication and disease severity may be

present. However, we specifically dealt with this possibility by

using active treatment comparators (for example, combination

of diuretic and NSAID versus diuretic only). Therefore,

assuming that residual confounding from unmeasured variables

was non-differential between exposure groups is reasonable.

Furthermore, adjusting the models for severity of hypertension

had little effect on the adjusted rate ratios, indicating that this

variable was probably well balanced between groups. Moreover,

we observed similar results when we stratified for diabetes, as

well as in terms of half life of NSAID and duration of use when

we additionally matched cases and controls on general practice,

in an attempt to further control for practice specific prescribing

patterns and social deprivation. Reassuringly, the fact that we

observed a duration-response relation and the point estimates

were consistently lower with a shorter (60 and 30 days) exposure

time window and grace period (that is, the likelihood of being

concurrently exposed to antihypertensive drugs and NSAIDs

was reduced) indicates that residual confounding was probably

minimal.

Thirdly, we were unable to control for exposure to contrast

media injected during in-hospital cardiovascular examinations

(such as angiography) or for other nephrotoxins (such as

aminoglycoside antibiotics) that might have contributed to the

risk of acute kidney injury.

However, when we controlled for

immeasurable time bias by excluding patients admitted to

hospital in the current time window,

the results remained

consistent with those of the primary analysis, showing that

previous in-hospital exposure to other nephrotoxins as well as

in-hospital exposures to double or triple therapy combinations

were unlikely to have influenced the observed associations.

Finally, whereas antihypertensive drugs are probably well

captured in the CPRD, some misclassification of exposure with

some NSAIDs that are available over the counter is possible.

Such misclassifications of exposure would have diluted the

association towards the null, so the increased risks observed in

this study may have been partly underestimated.

However, we

obtained consistent results when we restricted the analyses to

those patients treated for osteoarthritis, a population more likely

to be exposed to NSAIDs by prescription. Nevertheless, given

that over the counter drug information is generally unavailable

in claims databases, other data sources with such information

are needed to better quantify the risk of acute kidney injury

accounting for the over the counter use of NSAIDs.

Conclusions and policy implications

Acute kidney injury is a major public health concern, which has

been associated with a mortality rate exceeding 50%.

2-6 51 52

Although the prevalence of cardiovascular diseases has been

on the rise in Western countries, the proper use of

antihypertensive drugs has been shown to have a favourable

effect in preventing major cardiovascular events.

16 28 53 54

However, the use of such therapies might be concurrent with

chronic (for example, arthritis) and acute (for example, flu and

flu-like syndromes) inflammatory diseases that require

anti-inflammatory or analgesic drug treatment. Given that

NSAIDs are widely used (40-60% as lifetime prevalence in the

general population

29 30

) and that a greater incidence rate of acute

kidney injury was estimated among antihypertensive drugs users

than in the general population, increased vigilance may be

warranted when diuretics and angiotensin converting enzyme

inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers are used concurrently

with NSAIDs.

20 55 56

In particular, major attention should be paid

early in the course of treatment, and a more appropriate use and

choice among the available anti-inflammatory or analgesic drugs

could therefore be applied in clinical practice.

Contributors: All authors participated in the study design. SS acquired

the data. FL, LA, and HY did the statistical analyses. FL wrote the initial

draft, and all authors critically revised the manuscript. SS is the

guarantor.

Funding: This study was funded in part by infrastructure grants from

the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network (DSEN), the Canadian

Institute of Health Research (CIHR), and the Canada Foundation for

Innovation. The funding sources had no role in the design, analysis, or

interpretation of the results, and thus the authors were independent

from the funding sources. FL is the recipient of an LDI post-doctoral

research award, LA is the recipient of a Chercheur-Boursier career

award from the Fonds de recherche en santé du Québec, and SS is

the recipient of the James McGill chair award.

Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform

disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on

request from the corresponding author) and declare: database

acquisitions were funded by the Canadian Institute of Health Research

(CIHR) and the Canada Foundation for Innovation; SS has received

research grants and participated in advisory board meetings and/or as

a speaker at conferences for AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim,

GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, and Merck; SJN has received

speakers’ honorariums from Baxter Healthcare and Merck Frosst; no

other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the

submitted work.

Ethical approval: The study protocol was approved by the Independent

Scientific Advisory Committee of the Clinical Practice Research Datalink

and by the Research Ethics Committee of the Jewish General Hospital,

Montreal, Canada.

Data sharing: No additional data available.

1 World Health Organization (Europe). Databases. www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-do/data-

and-evidence/databases.

2 Lo LJ, Go AS, Chertow GM, McCulloch CE, Fan D, Ordonez JD, et al. Dialysis-requiring

acute renal failure increases the risk of progressive chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int

2009;76:893-9.

3 Hsu CY, McCulloch CE, Fan D, Ordonez JD, Chertow GM, Go AS. Community-based

incidence of acute renal failure. Kidney Int 2007;72:208-12.

4 Hsu CY, Chertow GM, McCulloch CE, Fan D, Ordonez JD, Go AS. Nonrecovery of kidney

function and death after acute on chronic renal failure. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol

2009;4:891-8.

5 Liangos O, Wald R, O’Bell JW, Price L, Pereira BJ, Jaber BL. Epidemiology and outcomes

of acute renal failure in hospitalized patients: a national survey. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol

2006;1:43-51.

6 Kellum JA, Angus DC. Patients are dying of acute renal failure. Crit Care Med

2002;30:2156-7.

7 Schetz M, Dasta J, Goldstein S, Golper T. Drug-induced acute kidney injury. Curr Opin

Crit Care 2005;11:555-65.

8 Wu TY, Jen MH, Bottle A, Molokhia M, Aylin P, Bell D, et al. Ten-year trends in hospital

admissions for adverse drug reactions in England 1999-2009. J R Soc Med

2010;103:239-50.

9 Smets HL, De Haes JF, De Swaef A, Jorens PG, Verpooten GA. Exposure of the elderly

to potential nephrotoxic drug combinations in Belgium. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf

2008;17:1014-9.

10 Knauf H, Bailey MA, Hasenfuss G, Mutschler E. The influence of cardiovascular and

antiinflammatory drugs on thiazide-induced hemodynamic and saluretic effects. Eur J

Clin Pharmacol 2006;62:885-92.

11 Thurman JM, Parikh CR. Peeking into the black box: new biomarkers for acute kidney

injury. Kidney Int 2008;73:379-81.

12 Ishiguro C, Fujita T, Omori T, Fujii Y, Mayama T, Sato T. Assessing the effects of

non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on antihypertensive drug therapy using

post-marketing surveillance database. J Epidemiol 2008;18:119-24.

13 Hernandez-Diaz S, Garcia-Rodriguez LA. Epidemiologic assessment of the safety of

conventional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Am J Med 2001;110(suppl 3A):20-7S.

14 Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, Cushman WC, Green LA, Izzo JL Jr, et al. Seventh

report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment

of High Blood Pressure. Hypertension 2003;42:1206-52.

15 Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, Cushman WC, Green LA, Izzo JL Jr, et al. The

Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation,

and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: the JNC 7 report. JAMA 2003;289:2560-72.

No commercial reuse: See rights and reprints http://www.bmj.com/permissions Subscribe: http://www.bmj.com/subscribe

BMJ 2013;346:e8525 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e8525 (Published 8 January 2013) Page 6 of 11

RESEARCH

on 30 September 2024 by guest. Protected by copyright.http://www.bmj.com/BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.e8525 on 8 January 2013. Downloaded from

What is already known about this topic

Acute kidney injury is a major drug related concern

The combination of one or two antihypertensive drugs (angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers

(ARBs) and diuretics) with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can theoretically increase the risk of acute kidney injury

Little is known about the risk of acute kidney injury associated with the use of these double or triple therapy combinations in practice

What this paper adds

Double therapy combinations consisting of addition of NSAIDs to diuretics, ACE inhibitors, or ARBs did not generally increase the risk

of acute kidney injury

A triple therapy combination consisting of addition of NSAIDs to diuretics and ACE inhibitors or ARBs was associated with an increased

risk of acute kidney injury

The risk of acute kidney injury with triple therapy was particularly elevated during the first 30 days of use

16 Mancia G, Laurent S, Agabiti-Rosei E, Ambrosioni E, Burnier M, Caulfield MJ, et al.

Reappraisal of European guidelines on hypertension management: a European Society

of Hypertension Task Force document. Blood Press 2009;18:308-47.

17 Loboz KK, Shenfield GM. Drug combinations and impaired renal function—the ‘triple

whammy’. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2005;59:239-43.

18 Mathew TH. Drug-induced renal disease. Med J Aust 1992;156:724-8.

19 Thomas MC. Diuretics, ACE inhibitors and NSAIDs—the triple whammy. Med J Aust

2000;172:184-5.

20 Baraldi A, Ballestri M, Rapana R, Lucchi L, Borella P, Leonelli M, et al. Acute renal failure

of medical type in an elderly population. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1998;13(suppl 7):25-9.

21 Greger R. Physiology of renal sodium transport. Am J Med Sci 2000;319:51-62.

22 Kellum J, Leblanc M, Venkataraman R. Acute renal failure. Am Fam Physician

2007;76:418-22.

23 Garcia Rodriguez LA, Perez Gutthann S. Use of the UK General Practice Research

Database for pharmacoepidemiology. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1998;45:419-25.

24 Herrett E, Thomas SL, Schoonen WM, Smeeth L, Hall AJ. Validation and validity of

diagnoses in the General Practice Research Database: a systematic review. Br J Clin

Pharmacol 2010;69:4-14.

25 Khan NF, Harrison SE, Rose PW. Validity of diagnostic coding within the General Practice

Research Database: a systematic review. Br J Gen Pract 2010;60:e128-36.

26 Vlasschaert ME, Bejaimal SA, Hackam DG, Quinn R, Cuerden MS, Oliver MJ, et al.

Validity of administrative database coding for kidney disease: a systematic review. Am J

Kidney Dis 2011;57:29-43.

27 Waikar SS, Wald R, Chertow GM, Curhan GC, Winkelmayer WC, Liangos O, et al. Validity

of international classification of diseases, ninth revision, clinical modification codes for

acute renal failure. J Am Soc Nephrol 2006;17:1688-94.

28 Mazzaglia G, Ambrosioni E, Alacqua M, Filippi A, Sessa E, Immordino V, et al. Adherence

to antihypertensive medications and cardiovascular morbidity among newly diagnosed

hypertensive patients. Circulation 2009;120:1598-605.

29 Huerta C, Castellsague J, Varas-Lorenzo C, Garcia Rodriguez LA. Nonsteroidal

anti-inflammatory drugs and risk of ARF in the general population. Am J Kidney Dis

2005;45:531-9.

30 Lafrance JP, Miller DR. Selective and non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

and the risk of acute kidney injury. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2009;18:923-31.

31 Taber SS, Pasko DA. The epidemiology of drug-induced disorders: the kidney. Expert

Opin Drug Saf 2008;7:679-90.

32 Breslow NE. Statistics in epidemiology: the case-control study. J Am Stat Assoc

1996;91:14-28.

33 Salas M, Hofman A, Stricker BH. Confounding by indication: an example of variation in

the use of epidemiologic terminology. Am J Epidemiol 1999;149:981-3.

34 NHS Information Centre for Health and Social Care. QOF 2009-10 data tables. 2012.

www.ic.nhs.uk/statistics-and-data-collections/supporting-information/audits-and-

performance/the-quality-and-outcomes-framework/qof-2009-10/data-tables.

35 Kerr M, Bray B, Medcalf J, O’Donoghue DJ, Matthews B. Estimating the financial cost of

chronic kidney disease to the NHS in England. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2012;27(suppl

3):iii73-80.

36 Remuzzi G, Schieppati A, Ruggenenti P. Clinical practice: nephropathy in patients with

type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1145-51.

37 Girman CJ, Kou TD, Brodovicz K, Alexander CM, O’Neill EA, Engel S, et al. Risk of acute

renal failure in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med 2012;29:614-21.

38 Suissa S. Immeasurable time bias in observational studies of drug effects on mortality.

Am J Epidemiol 2008;168:329-35.

39 Ray WA. Evaluating medication effects outside of clinical trials: new-user designs. Am J

Epidemiol 2003;158:915-20.

40 Adhiyaman V, Asghar M, Oke A, White AD, Shah IU. Nephrotoxicity in the elderly due to

co-prescription of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and nonsteroidal

anti-inflammatory drugs. J R Soc Med 2001;94:512-4.

41 Han L, Kim N, Brandt C, Allore HG. Antidepressant use and cognitive deficits in older

men: addressing confounding by indications with different methods. Ann Epidemiol

2012;22:9-16.

42 Psaty BM, Siscovick DS. Minimizing bias due to confounding by indication in comparative

effectiveness research: the importance of restriction. JAMA 2010;304:897-8.

43 Quartey G, Feudjo-Tepie M, Wang J, Kim J. Opportunities for minimization of confounding

in observational research. Pharm Stat 2011;10:539-47.

44 Knol MJ, VanderWeele TJ, Groenwold RH, Klungel OH, Rovers MM, Grobbee DE.

Estimating measures of interaction on an additive scale for preventive exposures. Eur J

Epidemiol 2011;26:433-8.

45 Suissa S, Garbe E. Primer: administrative health databases in observational studies of

drug effects—advantages and disadvantages. Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol 2007;3:725-32.

46 Perez Gutthann S, Garcia Rodriguez LA, Raiford DS, Duque Oliart A, Ris Romeu J.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the risk of hospitalisation for acute renal failure.

Arch Intern Med 1996;156:2433-9.

47 Schneider V, Levesque LE, Zhang B, Hutchinson T, Brophy JM. Association of selective

and conventional nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs with acute renal failure: a

population-based, nested case-control analysis. Am J Epidemiol 2006;164:881-9.

48 Feenstra H, Grobbee RE, in’t Veld BA, Stricker BH. Confounding by contraindication in

a nationwide cohort study of risk for death in patients taking ibopamine. Ann Intern Med

2001;134:569-72.

49 Morabito S, Pistolesi V, Benedetti G, Di Roma A, Colantonio R, Mancone M, et al.

Incidence of contrast-induced acute kidney injury associated with diagnostic or

interventional coronary angiography. J Nephrol 2012:25:1098-107.

50 Yood MU, Campbell UB, Rothman KJ, Jick SS, Lang J, Wells KE, et al. Using prescription

claims data for drugs available over-the-counter (OTC). Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf

2007;16:961-8.

51 Nash K, Hafeez A, Hou S. Hospital-acquired renal insufficiency. Am J Kidney Dis

2002;39:930-6.

52 Shusterman N, Strom BL, Murray TG, Morrison G, West SL, Maislin G. Risk factors and

outcome of hospital-acquired acute renal failure: clinical epidemiologic study. Am J Med

1987;83:65-71.

53 Olsen MH, Mallion JM, Rahn KH, Erdine S, Viigimaa M, Laurent S, et al. Agreement within

Europe about antihypertensive treatment and education—results from the European

Society of Hypertension questionnaire. J Hypertens 2010;28:1593-4.

54 Gislason GH, Rasmussen JN, Abildstrom SZ, Schramm TK, Hansen ML, Buch P, et al.

Persistent use of evidence-based pharmacotherapy in heart failure is associated with

improved outcomes. Circulation 2007;116:737-44.

55 LaMarr B, Valdez C, Driscoll K, Ryan M. Influence of pharmacist intervention on prescribing

of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II-receptor blockers, and aspirin

for diabetic patients. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2010;67:290-4.

56 LaCivita C, Funkhouser E, Miller MJ, Ray MN, Saag KG, Kiefe CI, et al. Patient-reported

communications with pharmacy staff at community pharmacies: the Alabama NSAID

Patient Safety Study, 2005-2007. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003) 2009;49:e110-7.

Accepted: 10 December 2012

Cite this as: BMJ 2013;346:e8525

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons

Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in

any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and

is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-

nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.

No commercial reuse: See rights and reprints http://www.bmj.com/permissions Subscribe: http://www.bmj.com/subscribe

BMJ 2013;346:e8525 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e8525 (Published 8 January 2013) Page 7 of 11

RESEARCH

on 30 September 2024 by guest. Protected by copyright.http://www.bmj.com/BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.e8525 on 8 January 2013. Downloaded from

Tables

Table 1| Characteristics of acute kidney injury cases and matched controls. Values are numbers (percentages) unless stated otherwise

Controls (n=21 993)Cases (n=2215)Characteristics

76.9 (10.7)76.9 (10.9)Mean (SD) age (years)*

11 226 (51.0)1133 (51.2)Male sex*

5.9 (3.4)5.9 (3.4)Mean (SD) duration of follow-up (years)*

Body mass index:

346 (1.6)48 (2.2)<18.5

4662 (21.2)423 (19.1)18.5-24

5563 (25.3)468 (21.1)25-29

3548 (16.1)467 (21.1)≥30

7874 (35.8)809 (36.5)Unknown

1882 (8.6)302 (13.6)Excessive alcohol use

Smoking status:

11 207 (51.0)1288 (58.1)Ever

9962 (45.3)848 (38.3)Never

824 (3.7)79 (3.6)Unknown

2174 (9.9)805 (36.3)At least one hospital admission†

2.9 (4.3)6.3 (6.1)Mean (SD) No of hospital admissions‡

3905 (17.8)726 (32.8)Diabetes

Indication for use:

12 684 (57.7)1145 (51.7)Hypertension

512 (2.3)130 (5.9)Congestive heart failure

339 (1.5)37 (1.7)Coronary artery disease

782 (3.6)155 (7.0)Two or more

7676 (34.9)748 (33.8)Unknown

2728 (12.4)456 (20.6)Rhythm disorders

28 (0.1)5 (0.2)Valvular disease

44 (0.2)17 (0.8)Other cardiovascular disease

Blood pressure (mm Hg):

7705 (35.0)751 (33.9)140≤systolic<160 or 90≤diastolic<100

2924 (13.3)318 (14.4)160≤systolic<180 or 100≤diastolic<110

805 (3.7)114 (5.1)Systolic≥180 or diastolic≥110

10 559 (48.0)1032 (46.6)Unknown

Other antihypertensive drugs:

7340 (33.4)712 (32.1)Calcium channel blockers

6366 (29.0)701 (31.7)β blockers

1515 (6.9)199 (9.0)Anti-arrhythmics

1407 (6.4)304 (13.7)Digoxin

921 (4.2)150 (6.8)Clopidogrel

8951 (40.7)1039 (46.9)Statins

9291 (42.2)1448 (65.4)Antibiotics

509 (2.3)123 (5.6)Immunosuppressive agents

8905 (40.5)1234 (55.7)Paracetamol

2993 (13.6)427 (19.3)Corticosteroids

*Matching variables (along with year of cohort entry).

†Within current time window before index date.

‡From Hospital Episode Statistics database.

No commercial reuse: See rights and reprints http://www.bmj.com/permissions Subscribe: http://www.bmj.com/subscribe

BMJ 2013;346:e8525 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e8525 (Published 8 January 2013) Page 8 of 11

RESEARCH

on 30 September 2024 by guest. Protected by copyright.http://www.bmj.com/BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.e8525 on 8 January 2013. Downloaded from

Table 2| Rate ratio of acute kidney injury associated with exposure to current double or triple therapy combination. Values are numbers

(percentages) unless stated otherwise

Rate ratio (95% CI)

Controls (n=21 993)Cases (n=2215)Current use* Adjusted†Crude

ReferenceReference2632 (12.0)209 (9.4)Diuretics only

1.02 (0.81 to 1.28)1.16 (0.93 to 1.44)1739 (7.9)156 (7.0)Diuretics plus NSAIDs

ReferenceReference1889 (8.6)148 (6.7)ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor

blockers only

0.89 (0.69 to 1.15)0.96 (0.75 to 1.22)1907 (8.7)138 (6.2)ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor

blockers plus NSAIDs

ReferenceReference2432 (11.1)414 (18.7)Diuretics plus ACE inhibitors or angiotensin

receptor blockers

1.31 (1.12 to 1.53)1.34 (1.17 to 1.54)2424 (11.0)544 (24.6)Diuretics plus ACE inhibitors or angiotensin

receptor blockers plus NSAIDs

ACE=angiotensin converting enzyme; NSAID=non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug.

*Within 90 days before index date; current users of other antihypertensive drugs and past users (>90 days before index date) of double and triple therapy

combinations are not shown but were considered in regression model.

†Adjusted for covariates listed in table 1.

No commercial reuse: See rights and reprints http://www.bmj.com/permissions Subscribe: http://www.bmj.com/subscribe

BMJ 2013;346:e8525 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e8525 (Published 8 January 2013) Page 9 of 11

RESEARCH

on 30 September 2024 by guest. Protected by copyright.http://www.bmj.com/BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.e8525 on 8 January 2013. Downloaded from

Table 3| Rate ratio of acute kidney injury associated with exposure to current double or triple therapy combination according to half life

of NSAID and duration of use. Values are numbers (percentages) unless stated otherwise

P for

interaction

Rate ratio (95% CI)

Controls (n=21 993)Cases (n=2215)Current use* Adjusted†Crude

ReferenceReference2632 (12.0)209 (9.4)Diuretics only

Diuretics plus NSAIDs:

0.52091.03 (0.82 to 1.30)1.18 (0.95 to 1.47)1656 (7.5)151 (6.8)NSAID’s half life <12 hours

0.76 (0.30 to 1.91)0.74 (0.30 to 1.85)83 (0.4)5 (0.2)NSAID’s half life ≥12 hours

0.02111.46 (0.96 to 2.24)1.87 (1.25 to 2.79)208 (1.0)32 (1.4)Duration‡ ≤30 days

1.12 (0.71 to 1.76)1.32 (0.86 to 2.04)246 (1.1)26 (1.2)Duration‡ 31-60 days

1.04 (0.71 to 1.53)1.20 (0.83 to 1.74)379 (1.7)36 (1.6)Duration‡ 61-90 days

0.83 (0.61 to 1.13)0.90 (0.67 to 1.21)906 (4.1)62 (2.8)Duration‡ >90 days

ReferenceReference1889 (8.6)148 (6.7)ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor

blockers only

ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor

blockers plus NSAIDs:

0.72000.88 (0.68 to 1.14)0.95 (0.74 to 1.21)1853 (8.4)132 (6.0)NSAID’s half life <12 hours

1.04 (0.41 to 2.64)1.43 (0.60 to 3.40)54 (0.3)6 (0.3)NSAID’s half life ≥12 hours

0.11491.13 (0.66 to 1.96)1.13 (0.67 to 1.91)195 (0.9)17 (0.8)Duration‡ ≤30 days

1.07 (0.66 to 1.73)1.26 (0.80 to 1.98)247 (1.1)24 (1.1)Duration‡ 31-60 days

0.93 (0.61 to 1.43)1.02 (0.68 to 1.54)390 (1.8)30 (1.4)Duration‡ 61-90 days

0.77 (0.56 to 1.06)0.83 (0.62 to 1.13)1075 (4.9)67 (3.0)Duration‡ >90 days

ReferenceReference2432 (11.1)414 (18.7)Diuretics plus ACE inhibitors or

angiotensin receptor blockers

Diuretics plus ACE inhibitors or

angiotensin receptor blockers plus

NSAIDs:

0.21571.29 (1.11 to 1.51)1.33 (1.15 to 1.53)2343 (10.7)520 (23.5)NSAID’s half life <12 hours

1.77 (1.07 to 2.93)1.73 (1.08 to 2.77)81 (0.4)24 (1.1)NSAID’s half life ≥12 hours

<.00011.82 (1.35 to 2.46)2.00 (1.52 to, 2.63)234 (1.1)83 (3.8)Duration‡ ≤30 days

1.63 (1.24 to 2.15)1.76 (1.37 to 2.27)309 (1.4)94 (4.2)Duration‡ 31-60 days

1.56 (1.24 to 1.97)1.66 (1.34 to 2.06)500 (2.3)140 (6.3)Duration‡ 61-90 days

1.01 (0.84 to 1.23)1.00 (0.84 to 1.20)1381 (6.3)227 (10.3)Duration‡ >90 days

ACE=angiotensin converting enzyme; NSAID=non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug.

*Within 90 days before index date; current users of other antihypertensive drugs and past users (>90 days before index date) of double and triple therapy

combinations are not shown but were considered in regression model.

†Adjusted for covariates listed in table 1.

‡Length of exposure to double or triple therapy combination.

No commercial reuse: See rights and reprints http://www.bmj.com/permissions Subscribe: http://www.bmj.com/subscribe

BMJ 2013;346:e8525 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e8525 (Published 8 January 2013) Page 10 of 11

RESEARCH

on 30 September 2024 by guest. Protected by copyright.http://www.bmj.com/BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.e8525 on 8 January 2013. Downloaded from

Figure

Flow chart of study

No commercial reuse: See rights and reprints http://www.bmj.com/permissions Subscribe: http://www.bmj.com/subscribe

BMJ 2013;346:e8525 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e8525 (Published 8 January 2013) Page 11 of 11

RESEARCH

on 30 September 2024 by guest. Protected by copyright.http://www.bmj.com/BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.e8525 on 8 January 2013. Downloaded from