MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2924040793 · doi:10.1161/circ.135.suppl_1.p171

Abstract P171: Potential Mortality Reduction with Optimal Usage of sacubitril/valsartan Therapy for the Treatment of Heart Failure in Canada

2017· article· en· W2924040793 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robert S. McKelvie, Michel White, Marc Vaillancourt, Paola Haddad, N. Zaour

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsNovartis (Canada)Montreal Heart InstituteHamilton General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineValsartanSacubitril, ValsartanSacubitrilHeart failureEjection fractionPopulationNumber needed to treatInternal medicineClinical trialCardiologyIntensive care medicineConfidence intervalRelative riskBlood pressureEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Despite well-recognized standard of care therapies, heart failure (HF) continues to be characterized by high mortality rates. Sacubitril/valsartan, a first-in-class treatment for HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) provided incremental cardiovascular and overall survival benefit in PARADIGM-HF, the largest clinical trial ever conducted in HF patients. We hypothesized that optimal use of sacubitril/valsartan in the treatment of HFrEF in Canada would be associated with potential benefits in terms of deaths avoided. Objective: The objective of this analysis was to quantify the number of potential deaths avoided with optimal usage of sacubitril/valsartan in the treatment of HFrEF in Canada. Methods: Data from Statistics Canada was used to quantify the population above 18 years of age. A literature search was then conducted to determine the prevalence of HF in Canada, the proportion of these with NYHA class II and III, and finally the proportion of patients with HFrEF. The number needed to treat (NNT) to avoid one death, standardized to 12 months was derived from the PARADIGM-HF trial. The NNT using product limit survival rates and actual follow-up times from the PARADIGM-HF trial was also derived. The potential number of deaths prevented as a result of optimal usage of sacubitril/valsartan as per current approved usage in Canada (HFrEF patients with NYHA class II or III) were estimated along with multiple-way sensitivity analysis using the analysis-of-extremes method. The main outcome and measure was all-cause mortality. Results: A Canadian prevalence of 2.31% was applied to determine the number of HF patients. From those, 64% were classified as NYHA Class II and III of which 56% were considered as rEF. It was estimated that in Canada, approximately 242,200 patients are affected with HFrEF with NYHA class II and III. Based on a NNT of 80, optimal usage of sacubitril/valsartan therapy was estimated to prevent 3,014 deaths per year (range, 1,930 – 4,331 per year). Based on the alternate NNT (71.3) using the product limit survival rates and actual follow-up times from PARADIGM-HF, a total of 3,397 patient deaths could be potentially prevented each year (range, 2,718 – 4,076 per year). Conclusion: Standard of care treatment for HF is well-established and has shown important mortality reduction but there is still a need for additional therapies to further improve survival rates for patients living with HFrEF. The findings from this analysis suggest that a substantial number of deaths in Canada could potentially be avoided by optimal usage of sacubitril/valsartan therapy. This analysis supports the importance of rapidly implementing evidence-based therapy, in this case sacubitril/valsartan, into routine clinical practice to improve clinical outcomes for HFrEF patients in Canada.

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)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicHeart Failure Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→