Effectiveness of Ivabradine Treatment in Different Subpopulations with Stable Angina in Clinical Practice: A Pooled Analysis of Observational Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The efficacy of ivabradine has been demonstrated in different subpopulations of stable angina patients in randomized clinical trials. This study explored its effectiveness in subpopulations seen in clinical practice as they often differ from those of randomized trials. METHODS: Data were pooled from three German observational studies with similar inclusion criteria (stable angina and heart rate ≥60 bpm). All patients received 2.5, 5, or 7.5 mg b.i.d. of ivabradine for 4 months, with or without concomitant beta-blocker. Antianginal effectiveness was analyzed in subpopulations defined by gender, age, heart rate, angina severity, use of concomitant beta-blocker, previous percutaneous coronary intervention procedure, and comorbidities (including previous myocardial infarction and diabetes). RESULTS: Treatment data were available on 8,555 patients, where therapy with ivabradine was associated with a significant reduction in the frequency of angina attacks and consumption of short-acting nitrates of 87%. Effectiveness was maintained in all investigated subpopulations, with a reduction in antianginal parameters of 82-90%. Clinical status (Canadian Cardiovascular Society class) and quality of life were also improved. Ivabradine was well tolerated in all subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Ivabradine is effective and safe in all subpopulations of angina patients seen in clinical practice, independent of age, comorbidities, and use of beta-blocker.
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 | 0.031 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".