MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333113037 · doi:10.1056/nejm200105033441802

Lesser Response to Angiotensin-Converting–Enzyme Inhibitor Therapy in Black as Compared with White Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction

2001· article· en· W2333113037 on OpenAlexafffund
Derek V. Exner, Daniel L. Dries, Michaël Domanski, Jay N. Cohn

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFondation pour la Recherche Médicale
KeywordsMedicineEnalaprilPlaceboInternal medicineHeart failureEjection fractionRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalACE inhibitorClinical trialCardiologyCohortAngiotensin-converting enzymeSurgeryBlood pressurePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Black patients with heart failure have a poorer prognosis than white patients, a difference that has not been adequately explained. Whether racial differences in the response to drug treatment contribute to differences in outcome is unclear. To address this issue, we pooled and analyzed data from the Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction (SOLVD) prevention and treatment trials, two large, randomized trials comparing enalapril with placebo in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. METHODS: We used a matched-cohort design in which up to four white patients were matched with each black patient according to trial, treatment assignment, sex, left ventricular ejection fraction, and age. A total of 1196 white patients (580 from the prevention trial and 616 from the treatment trial) were matched with 800 black patients (404 from the prevention trial and 396 from the treatment trial). The average duration of follow-up was 35 months in the prevention trial and 33 months in the treatment trial. RESULTS: The black patients and the matched white patients had similar demographic and clinical characteristics, but the black patients had higher rates of death from any cause (12.2 vs. 9.7 per 100 person-years) and of hospitalization for heart failure (13.2 vs. 7.7 per 100 person-years). Despite similar doses of drug in the two groups, enalapril therapy, as compared with placebo, was associated with a 44 percent reduction (95 percent confidence interval, 27 to 57 percent) in the risk of hospitalization for heart failure among the white patients (P<0.001) but with no significant reduction among black patients (P=0.74). At one year, enalapril therapy was associated with significant reductions from base line in systolic blood pressure (by a mean [+/-SD] of 5.0+/-17.1 mm Hg) and diastolic blood pressure (3.6+/-10.6 mm Hg) among the white patients, but not among the black patients. No significant change in the risk of death was observed in association with enalapril therapy in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Enalapril therapy is associated with a significant reduction in the risk of hospitalization for heart failure among white patients with left ventricular dysfunction, but not among similar black patients. This finding underscores the need for additional research on the efficacy of therapies for heart failure in black patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations581
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207