Paradigm-HF: a Paradigm Shift in Heart Failure Treatment?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the first semester of this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a new drug for the treatment of heart failure, LCZ696, commercially known as Entresto. This new treatment option was evaluated by the FDA on a priority basis (fast track designation), which allowed a faster release than usual. In Brazil, the drug is being evaluated by the National Health Surveillance Agency (Agencia Nacional de Vigilância Sanitaria- ANVISA), similarly to what occurs in Canada and the European Union countries. The scientific evidence that has supported the approval of the new drug by the FDA was primarily obtained from the results of the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure) randomized clinical trial,1 which proved that LCZ696 was more effective than enalapril in a sample of more than 8,000 patients with systolic heart failure. The enthusiasm for the new drug is due to the fact that this is the first, among several drugs tested over more than 20 years, to demonstrate increased efficacy when compared to traditional treatment with Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, beta-blockers and spironolactone. However, in the presence of exaggerated enthusiasm, one must carefully evaluate how much this feeling is proportional to the level of evidence. In a systematic analysis, we can say that the PARADIGM-HF trial has a low risk of bias and random errors when concluding that the LCZ696 is superior to enalapril at a dose of 20 mg daily. As for the size of the benefit, 21 patients need to use LCZ696 rather than enalapril for 27 months to prevent an event (death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure). This effect is qualitatively and quantitatively relevant. But does the PARADIGM-HF, in fact, represent a change in the paradigm of heart failure treatment?
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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 teacher head, 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".