MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2505145747 · doi:10.1007/s12325-016-0377-7

Effectiveness and Tolerability of Ivabradine with or Without Concomitant Beta-Blocker Therapy in Patients with Chronic Stable Angina in Routine Clinical Practice

2016· article· en· W2505145747 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stefan Perings, Georg Stöckl, Malte Kelm

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Therapy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart rate and cardiovascular health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersServier Deutschland
KeywordsIvabradineMedicineTolerabilityInternal medicineAnginaConcomitantCardiologyCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyMyocardial infarctionBeta blockerAspirinHeart rateHeart failureAdverse effectBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: In the prospective, open-label, non-interventional, multicenter RESPONSIfVE study, the effectiveness, response rates and tolerability of ivabradine with or without beta blocker (BB) were evaluated in patients with chronic stable angina pectoris (AP) in daily clinical practice. METHODS: In patients with AP, ivabradine was given twice daily in flexible doses for 4 months. Resting heart rate (HR), number of angina attacks, short-acting nitrate use, severity of symptoms [by Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) score] and tolerability with or without existing BB therapy were documented and analyzed using descriptive statistical methods. RESULTS: In total, 1250 patients with AP (mean age 66.0 ± 10.9 years, 59.6% male, 31.9% previous myocardial infarction) and an indication for ivabradine were included. Sixty-five percent of all patients received BB. Further concomitant standard medication included aspirin (74.2%), statins (69.3%), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (84.2%), diuretics (40.0%), long-acting nitrates (15.7%), and calcium antagonists (21.4%). After 4 months of ivabradine treatment (mean daily dose 11.0 ± 2.7 mg), mean HR was reduced from 82.4 ± 11.8 beats per minute (bpm) to 67.1 ± 8.4 bpm. The average number of angina attacks/week decreased from 1.2 ± 1.9 to 0.1 ± 0.6 and the average use of short-acting nitrates/week from 1.5 ± 2.8 units to 0.2 ± 1.0 units. CCS classification of patients improved from 76% classified in CCS grades II or III and 24% in CCS grade I to 66% classified in CCS grade I and only 35% remaining in CCS grades II or III at study end. Response rate to ivabradine (defined as HR <70 bpm or HR reduction ≥10 bpm) reached 87%. HR reduction, symptomatic improvement and response rates were comparable in patients with or without BB. Adverse drug reactions were reported for 2.2% of patients. CONCLUSION: In this prospective study over a four-month period in clinical practice, ivabradine effectively reduced HR, angina attacks, and nitrate consumption in patients with AP with or without concomitant BB therapy. Ivabradine improved CCS scores and achieved a high treatment response rate with good general tolerability. FUNDING: Servier. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled-trials.com identifier, ISRCTN73861224.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.332 · 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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in TherapySame topicHeart rate and cardiovascular healthFrench-language works237,207