MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2340145920 · doi:10.1136/bmj.i1855

Effect of age and sex on efficacy and tolerability of β blockers in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: individual patient data meta-analysis

2016· review· en· W2340145920 on OpenAlexaff
Dipak Kotecha, Luís Manzano, Henry Krum, Giuseppe Rosano, Jane Holmes, Douglas G. Altman, Peter Collins, Milton Packer, John Wikstrand, Andrew J.S. Coats, John G.F. Cleland, Paulus Kirchhof, Thomas G. von Lueder, Alan S. Rigby, Bert Andersson, Gregory Y.H. Lip, Dirk J. van Veldhuisen, Marcelo C. Shibata, Hans Wedel, Michael Böhm, Marcus Flather

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersImperial College LondonNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchBritish Heart FoundationGlaxoSmithKlineAstraZeneca
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioEjection fractionHeart failureTolerabilityPlaceboInternal medicineProportional hazards modelConfidence intervalSinus rhythmCardiologyAdverse effectAtrial fibrillation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and tolerability of β blockers in a broad age range of women and men with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) by pooling individual patient data from placebo controlled randomised trials. DESIGN: Prospectively designed meta-analysis of individual patient data from patients aged 40-85 in sinus rhythm at baseline, with left ventricular ejection fraction <0.45. PARTICIPANTS: 13,833 patients from 11 trials; median age 64; 24% women. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was all cause mortality; the major secondary outcome was admission to hospital for heart failure. Analysis was by intention to treat with an adjusted one stage Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, β blockers were effective in reducing mortality across all ages: hazard ratios were 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.53 to 0.83) for the first quarter of age distribution (median age 50); 0.71 (0.58 to 0.87) for the second quarter (median age 60); 0.65 (0.53 to 0.78) for the third quarter (median age 68); and 0.77 (0.64 to 0.92) for the fourth quarter (median age 75). There was no significant interaction when age was modelled continuously (P=0.1), and the absolute reduction in mortality was 4.3% over a median follow-up of 1.3 years (number needed to treat 23). Admission to hospital for heart failure was significantly reduced by β blockers, although this effect was attenuated at older ages (interaction P=0.05). There was no evidence of an interaction between treatment effect and sex in any age group. Drug discontinuation was similar regardless of treatment allocation, age, or sex (14.4% in those give β blockers, 15.6% in those receiving placebo). CONCLUSION: Irrespective of age or sex, patients with HFrEF in sinus rhythm should receive β blockers to reduce the risk of death and admission to hospital.Registration PROSPERO CRD42014010012; Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00832442.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.064
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations137
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207