Cardiovascular safety of nintedanib in subgroups by cardiovascular risk at baseline in the TOMORROW and INPULSIS trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
in patients with a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) and/or one or more cardiovascular risk factors at baseline ("higher cardiovascular risk") and patients with no history of atherosclerotic CVD and no cardiovascular risk factors at baseline ("lower cardiovascular risk").Incidence rates were calculated for 1231 patients (n=723 nintedanib and n=508 placebo), of whom 89.9% had higher cardiovascular risk. Incidence rates of major adverse cardiovascular events were similar in the nintedanib and placebo groups in patients with higher cardiovascular risk (3.88 (95% CI 2.58-5.84) and 3.49 (95% CI 2.10-5.79) per 100 patient-years, respectively) and lower cardiovascular risk (4.78 (95% CI 1.54-14.82) and 5.37 (95% CI 1.73-16.65) per 100 patient-years, respectively). Incidence rates of myocardial infarction in the nintedanib and placebo groups, respectively, were 3.03 (95% CI 1.91-4.81) and 1.16 (95% CI 0.48-2.79) per 100 patient-years in patients with higher cardiovascular risk and 1.59 (95% CI 0.22-11.29) and 1.78 (95% CI 0.25-12.64) per 100 patient-years in patients with lower cardiovascular risk. Incidence rates of other ischaemic heart disease in the nintedanib and placebo groups, respectively, were 1.85 (95% CI 1.02-3.34) and 3.28 (95% CI 1.94-5.54) per 100 patient-years in patients with higher cardiovascular risk and 0 and 1.80 (95% CI 0.25-12.78) per 100 patient-years in patients with lower cardiovascular risk.These data help to establish the cardiovascular safety profile of nintedanib in IPF.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".