Adverse Mortality Effect of Central Sympathetic Inhibition with Sustained-Release Moxonidine in Patients with Heart Failure (MOXCON)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The association between sympathetic activation and mortality in chronic heart failure and the favorable effect of beta blocking drugs has raised the possibility of therapeutic efficacy for central sympathetic inhibition with sustained-release (SR) moxonidine, an imidazoline receptor agonist. METHODS: A randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was initiated in 425 centers in 17 countries with a plan to enter 4533 patients with New York Heart Association class II-IV heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction. Moxonidine SR or matching placebo was titrated to a target dose of 1.5 mg BID. The trial was powered to detect a 20% reduction in mortality, which required a total of 724 deaths. FINDINGS: An early increase in death rate and adverse events in the moxonidine SR group led to premature termination of the trial because of safety concerns after 1934 patients were entered. Final analysis revealed 54 deaths (5.5%) in the moxonidine SR group and 32 deaths (3.4%) in the placebo group during the active treatment phase. Survival curves revealed a significantly (P=0.012) worse outcome in the moxonidine SR group. Hospitalization for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction and adverse events were also more frequent in the moxonidine SR group. Plasma norepinephrine was significantly decreased by moxonidine SR (-18.8% from baseline) vs. placebo (+6.9%). INTERPRETATION: Early termination of the trial limited conclusions regarding the long-term effects of central sympathetic inhibition. Nonetheless, the excess early mortality and morbidity suggest the likelihood of an adverse effect of moxonidine SR and raise concerns regarding the efficacy of generalized sympathetic inhibition in heart failure.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".