Ranolazine: impact on quality of life in patients with stable angina pectoris, results from an observational study in Austria – the ARETHA AT study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Assessment of treatment routine and outcome for ranolazine in clinical practice as second-line treatment for stable angina pectoris (AP). DESIGN AND SETTING: Multicenter, prospective, uncontrolled, non-interventional study at 88 sites including internal specialists, cardiologists, pneumologists, angiologists and primary care practices in Austria. PARTICIPANTS: In this study 292 patients receiving ranolazine in the course of routine treatment on top of beta blockers or calcium channel blockers after failure of first-line therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Dosage and symptoms were recorded at two visits (at intervals of 12 weeks), complemented by treatment rationale and disease characteristics at baseline. Disease intensity was quantified by angina symptoms, nitrate use and by Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) grading. Quality of life (QoL) was assessed through a 10-grade scale. Data were analyzed by descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Ranolazine was prescribed in order to improve exercise capacity (84.3%), reduce symptoms (83.2%) and reduce AP (77.1%). Of the patients 87.3% received the recommended starting dose of 375 mg and subsequent dose changes were reported for 39.8%. The number of AP attacks was reduced from 5.3 ± 4.5 to 0.8 ± 1.3 per week; nitrate use was reduced from 3.4 ± 4.1 to 0.4 ± 0.9 applications per week. Of the patients 94.0% reported improved exercise capacity and 93.7% reduced symptoms. For the majority of patients, the CCS improved from grade II to I and QoL improved accordingly. Of the patients 3 experienced adverse drug reactions and 95.5% continued ranolazine. CONCLUSION: In this real-world study, ranolazine was shown to be effective, safe and well tolerable. Symptoms of AP were improved, as illustrated by the reduced number of angina attacks, reduced rate of nitrate use, reduced CCS scores and improved QoL.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".