Abstract 9811: Medical Resource Use, Costs and Quality of Life are Similar Between Patients with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure Treated with Nesiritide Versus Placebo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: In the recent Acute Study of Clinical Effectiveness of Nesiritide in Decompensated Heart Failure Trial (ASCEND-HF), treatment with nesiritide did not reduce heart failure rehospitalization or mortality at 30 days relative to treatment with placebo. Dyspnea was marginally improved with nesiritide, but did not reach pre-specified levels for statistical significance. Our study reports on a prospective economic and quality of life evaluation that was conducted as part of the trial. Objective: Compare medical resource use, costs and quality of life outcomes between patients randomized to nesiritide versus placebo in the ASCEND-HF. Methods: Detailed resource use data, including data on length of stay and readmissions within 30 days were collected on the case report form. Quality of life was assessed using the EQ-5D, administered at baseline, 24 hours, discharge, and 30 days. Hospital billing data representing 1253 admissions for US patients were used to develop a cost prediction model (R 2 =0.70), which was used to generate inpatient cost estimates for patients without billing data (US and non-US). To lessen the influence of geographical variations in length of stay when estimating costs, we applied an adjustment in which length of stay was reweighted based on the mean LOS in the US relative to each country. Generalized linear models were used to compare resource use and costs. Responses to the EQ-5D were converted to US utility weights. Patients who died were assigned an EQ-5D value of 0. ANOVA was used to compare EQ-5D utilities between treatment groups. Results: Of 7141 patients randomized, 7007 received study drug. Estimates of resource use, direct medical costs and EQ-5D utility weights are reported in the Table. Conclusions: Consistent with main study findings, measures of medical resource use, costs, and EQ-5D health utilities were similar between nesiritide and placebo in this trial.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".