MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2982047277 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz747.0373

P773Initiation of sacubitril/valsartan and optimisation of evidence-based heart failure therapies after hospitalisation for acute decompensated heart failure: An analysis of the TRANSITION study

2019· article· en· W2982047277 on OpenAlexaff
Rolf Wachter, Domingo A. Pascual‐Figal, Jan Bělohlávek, Ewa Straburzyńska‐Migaj, Klaus K. Witte, Cândida Fonseca, Yüksel Çavuşoğlu, Anne–Catherine Pouleur, Eva Gonçalvesová, Eva Lonn, Adele Noè, H. Schwende, W. Bao, Dmytro Butylin, Michele Senni

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSacubitril, ValsartanHeart failureSacubitrilAcute decompensated heart failureEjection fractionClinical endpointValsartanConcomitantInternal medicineCardiologyPopulationRandomized controlled trialBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Optimisation of chronic heart failure (HF) therapy remains the key strategy to improve outcomes after hospitalisation for acute decompensated HF (ADHF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Initiation and uptitration of disease-modifying therapies is challenging in this vulnerable patient population. We aimed to describe the patterns of treatment optimisation including sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) in the TRANSITION study. Methods TRANSITION (NCT02661217) was a randomised, open-label study comparing S/V initiation pre- vs. post-discharge (1–14 days) in patients admitted for ADHF after haemodynamic stabilisation. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving 97/103 mg S/V twice daily (bid) at 10 weeks post-randomisation. Up-titration of S/V was as per label. Information on dose of S/V and on the use of concomitant HF medication was collected at each study visit up to week 26. Results A total of 493 patients received at least one dose of S/V in the pre-discharge arm and 489 patients in the post-discharge arm. One month after randomisation, 45% of patients in the pre-d/c arm vs. 44% in the post-discharge arm used 24/26 mg bid starting dose and 42% vs. 40% were on 49/51 mg S/V bid, respectively. At week 10, 47% of patients had achieved the target dose in the pre-discharge arm vs. 51% in the post-discharge arm. At the end of the follow-up at 26 weeks, the proportion of patients on S/V target dose further increased to 53% in the pre-discharge and 61% in the post-discharge arm (Figure 1). At week 10, the mean dose of S/V was 132 mg in the pre-discharge arm and 136 mg in the post-discharge arm, and at week 26, it was 140 mg and 147 mg, respectively. Before hospital admission, 52% and 54% of the patients received a beta-blocker (BB) in the pre-discharge and post-discharge group, respectively, and 42% in both arms received a mineralcorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA). At time of discharge, 68% and 71%% of the patients received a BB and 68% and 65% an MRA, in the pre-discharge and post-discharge groups, respectively. These proportions remained stable to week 10 and week 26. Uptitration of sacubitril/valsartan Conclusions In the vulnerable post-ADHF population, initiation of S/V and up-titration to target dose was feasible within 10 weeks in half of the patients alongside with a 20% increase in the use of other disease-modifying medications that remained stable through the end of the 6-month follow-up. Acknowledgement/Funding The TRANSITION study was funded by Novartis

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.009
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicHeart Failure Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→