MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2981593252 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz745.1160

P4784Efficacy and safety of dronedarone by duration of atrial fibrillation history: a post-hoc analysis of the ATHENA trial

2019· article· en· W2981593252 on OpenAlexaff
Carina Blomström‐Lundqvist, Nassir Marrouche, Stuart J. Connolly, Mattias Wieloch, Andrew Koren, Stefan H. Hohnloser

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationSinus rhythmInternal medicineAtrial flutterCardiologyCardioversionAmiodaronePost-hoc analysisDronedarone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) is known to progress over time and the effectiveness of antiarrhythmic therapy may vary based on the duration of a patient's AF history. Outcomes with dronedarone (DRO) based on duration of AF/atrial flutter (AFL) history have not been previously characterized. Purpose To evaluate the efficacy and safety of DRO by time since first known AF/AFL episode in patients studied in the ATHENA trial. Methods 2859 (61.8%) patients from ATHENA with documented first known AF/AFL episode (of 4628 total patients randomized) were included in the analysis. Among these patients, first AF/AFL episode was reported at <3 months (shorter history), 3 to <24 months (intermediate), and ≥24 months (longer) in 1296 (45.3%), 845 (29.6%) and 718 (25.1%) patients, respectively. AF/AFL recurrence was evaluated in patients in sinus rhythm at baseline by ECG during study visits or symptom recurrence. Results Demographics (age, sex) were similar across all groups. Patients with longer AF/AFL history tended to have higher prevalence of coronary heart disease and structural heart disease; and were more likely to have AF/AFL (by 12-lead ECG) at baseline (30%) compared to 26% and 16% for intermediate and shorter history groups. Patients with a longer AF history likely had a prior ablation for AF/AFL (7%) vs patients with an intermediate (2%) or shorter AF/AFL history (1%), and more likely required cardioversion during the study (24%) vs intermediate (17%) and shorter history groups (11%). Outcomes and efficacy are reported in Table 1. Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), serious TEAEs, permanent drug discontinuations, and deaths were similar across all AF/AFL groups. Table 1. Outcomes and efficacy summary Relative Risk, dronedarone (DRO) vs placebo (PBO)1 (95% CI)1,2 AF/AFL <3 months AF/AFL 3 to <24 months AF/AFL ≥24 months PBO (n=626) DRO (n=670) PBO (n=429) DRO (n=416) PBO (n=363) DRO (n=355) First CV hospitalization3 or death (any cause) 0.79 (0.65, 0.96) 0.72 (0.56, 0.92) 0.84 (0.66, 1.07) First CV hospitalization 0.78 (0.64, 0.96) 0.70 (0.55, 0.91) 0.82 (0.63, 1.05) Death (any cause) 0.82 (0.54, 1.24) 0.85 (0.43, 1.68) 1.13 (0.61, 2.10) First AF/AFL recurrence4 0.80 (0.65, 0.97) 0.67 (0.53, 0.84) 0.81 (0.65, 1.02) 1Cox regression model. 2On study period, all randomized patients. 3Main reason was AF/other supraventricular rhythm disorders. 4On selected patients in sinus rhythm at baseline (AF/AFL <3 months: PBO n=514, DRO n=529; 3 to <24 months: PBO n=288, DRO n=312; ≥24 months: PBO n=252, DRO n=250). CV = Cardiovascular. Conclusions Nearly half the patients in ATHENA had a shorter history (<3 months) of AF/AFL prior to randomization. Patients with a longer history of AF/AFL had a greater burden of AF/AFL based on baseline rhythm status, ablation history, and cardioversions required post randomization. Despite these differences, clinical outcomes, efficacy, and safety of DRO appeared to be generally consistent irrespective of duration of AF/AFL history. Acknowledgement/Funding Sanofi, New York, New York, United States of America

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.007
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→