MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3030967944 · doi:10.1002/ejhf.1909

Spironolactone Dose in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: Findings from TOPCAT

2020· article· en· W3030967944 on OpenAlexaff
João Pedro Ferreira, Xavier Rosselló, Stuart Pocock, Patrick Rossignol, Brian Claggett, Jean‐Lucien Rouleau, Scott D. Solomon, Bertram Pitt, Marc A. Pfeffer, Faı̈ez Zannad

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Heart Failure · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
FundersCentro Nacional de Investigaciones CardiovascularesAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsSpironolactoneMedicineHeart failureEjection fractionCardiologyInternal medicineHeart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aims Spironolactone up-titration may be limited by side effects that could be minimized at lower than target doses, but whether lower than target doses remain efficacious is unknown. In TOPCAT, spironolactone (or placebo) were started at 15 mg/day, and increased up to a maximum of 45 mg/day. The prognostic implications related to spironolactone dose are yet to be reported. We aimed to assess the average spironolactone/placebo doses provided during the trial, overall and within high-risk subgroups (e.g. elderly, renal dysfunction, high potassium); discontinuation rates; and the efficacy of lower than target doses in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Methods and results Overall, 1767 patients from ‘TOPCAT-Americas’ were included. Linear, logistic and Cox regressions were applied. Patients randomized to spironolactone received lower doses than placebo: 22.5 (15.0–27.5) mg/day vs. 27.5 (17.5–27.5) mg/day (P < 0.001). Patients aged ≥75 years, with an estimated glomerular filtration rate ≤60 mL/min/1.73 m2, and with potassium levels >4.5 mmol/L, received lower spironolactone doses (median ≈ 20 mg/day). This pattern of dose differences was not observed in patients taking placebo, where the between-subgroup placebo doses were similar (spironolactone–placebo by subgroup Pinteraction < 0.05). Among patients taking spironolactone, 25.4% discontinued the drug during the first year, compared with 18.3% of the patients taking placebo (P < 0.001). Discontinuation rates in the aforementioned high-risk subgroups reached 30% during the first year. Spironolactone reduced the primary outcome of heart failure hospitalization/cardiovascular death without significant heterogeneity between the study subgroups (Pinteraction > 0.1). Spironolactone discontinuation was associated with a two to fourfold higher risk of subsequent events. Conclusion Spironolactone (but not placebo) was used at lower doses among the elderly, those with renal dysfunction and with higher potassium levels. The effect of spironolactone was homogeneous across these subgroups. In patients unable to tolerate target doses, a low-dose strategy should be preferred to stopping treatment.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations32
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Heart FailureSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207