MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3129156895 · doi:10.1161/jaha.120.019238

Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Insights From PARADIGM‐HF

2021· article· en· W3129156895 on OpenAlexaff
Solmaz Ehteshami‐Afshar, Leanne Mooney, Pooja Dewan, Akshay S. Desai, Ninian N. Lang, Martin Lefkowitz, Mark C. Petrie, Adel R. Rizkala, Jean L. Rouleau, Scott D. Solomon, Karl Swedberg, Victor Shi, Michael R. Zile, Milton Packer, John J.V. McMurray, Pardeep S. Jhund, Nathaniel M. Hawkins

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
FundersRelypsaRegeneron PharmaceuticalsNational Institutes of HealthMyoKardiaNovo NordiskDaiichi Sankyo EuropeGilead SciencesServierUniversity of GlasgowBritish Heart FoundationCytokineticsIronwood Pharmaceuticals, IncorporatedNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteSun PharmaDefense Acquisition Program AdministrationBoston Scientific CorporationAlnylam PharmaceuticalsSanofiGlaxoSmithKlineCelladon CorporationAmgenVifor PharmaPfizerAstraZenecaEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsMedicineEjection fractionCOPDHeart failureInternal medicineCardiologyHazard ratioEnalaprilValsartanNatriuretic peptideHeart failure with preserved ejection fractionAngiotensin-converting enzymeConfidence intervalBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common comorbidity in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, associated with undertreatment and worse outcomes. New treatments for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction may be particularly important in patients with concomitant COPD. Methods and Results We examined outcomes in 8399 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, according to COPD status, in the PARADIGM‐HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Blocker–Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin‐Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial. Cox regression models were used to compare COPD versus non‐COPD subgroups and the effects of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril. Patients with COPD (n=1080, 12.9%) were older than patients without COPD (mean 67 versus 63 years; P <0.001), with similar left ventricular ejection fraction (29.9% versus 29.4%), but higher NT‐proBNP (N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide; median, 1741 pg/mL versus 1591 pg/mL; P=0.01), worse functional class (New York Heart Association III/IV 37% versus 23%; P <0.001) and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire–Clinical Summary Score (73 versus 81; P <0.001), and more congestion and comorbidity. Medical therapy was similar in patients with and without COPD except for beta‐blockade (87% versus 94%; P <0.001) and diuretics (85% versus 80%; P <0.001). After multivariable adjustment, COPD was associated with higher risks of heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR], 1.32; 95% CI, 1.13–1.54), and the composite of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.05–1.34), but not cardiovascular death (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.94–1.30), or all‐cause mortality (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.99–1.31). COPD was also associated with higher risk of all cardiovascular hospitalization (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.05–1.31) and noncardiovascular hospitalization (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.29–1.64). The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril was consistent in patients with and without COPD for all end points. Conclusions In PARADIGM‐HF, COPD was associated with lower use of beta‐blockers and worse health status and was an independent predictor of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular hospitalization. Sacubitril/valsartan was beneficial in this high‐risk subgroup. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01035255.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations52
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart AssociationSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207