The DAPA-HF trial marks the beginning of a new era in the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Despite significant advances, heart failure remains a significant cause of death and disability worldwide. Unfortunately, the problem is growing and accordingly the cost of chronic care and hospitalization are escalating. Novel approaches are needed to reduce the burden of heart failure as well as improve the quality of life of these patients. The DAPA-HF (Study to Evaluate the Effect of Dapagliflozin on the Incidence of Worsening Heart Failure or Cardiovascular Death in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure) trial is a landmark study that marks the beginning of a completely new era in the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.1 In this global study, 4744 patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (EF < 45%) were randomized to receive the sodium-glucose transport protein 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) dapagliflozin 10 mg daily or matching placebo. In addition to evidence of reduced ejection fraction, patients were enrolled if they were symptomatic despite optimal heart failure therapy, had evidence of moderately elevated natriuretic peptides levels, and had an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥ 30 mL/min/1.73 m2. Diabetes was neither an inclusion nor exclusion criteria. Dapagliflozin reduced the primary outcome—a composite of worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death—by 26% [hazard ratio (HR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65–0.85; P < 0.001]. Individual components of the primary outcome were reduced—worsening heart failure by 30% (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59–0.83) and cardiovascular mortality by 18% (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69–0.98). Importantly, all-cause mortality was reduced by 17% (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71–0.97). The key findings are summarized in Figure 1. Remarkably, these benefits were observed in addition to excellent standard of care which included angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (56%), angiotensin receptor blocker (28%), beta-blockers (96%), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (72%). Furthermore, in post hoc analyses, consistent benefits were observed in those treated with and without sacubitril–valsartan (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.50–1.13 and HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.65–0.86, respectively). Most intriguingly, the benefits were entirely consistent in those with and without type 2 diabetes (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63–0.90 among those with type 2 diabetes and HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60–0.88 among those without type 2 diabetes) and were similar across the entire spectrum of glycated haemoglobin (A1C, assessed either continuously or categorically). From a safety standpoint, rates of discontinuation were low and similar between both groups, and there were no excess volume depletion or renal side effects. Treatment with dapagliflozin was also associated with a significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes as assessed by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire.2 Recent sub-analyses from the trial demonstrate efficacy and safety across the broad range of patient age,3 eGFR,4 and ejection fraction.2 Strikingly, the benefit was statistically significant by 28 days after treatment initiation.5
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».