A systematic review of pharmacologic therapies for the cardiomyopathy of Duchenne muscular dystrophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of studies evaluating pharmacologic therapies for the cardiomyopathy of Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). METHODS: PubMed, Google Scholar, and Embase were searched through October 8, 2020. Articles were selected using pre-determined criteria; 26 underwent detailed review by two co-authors. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scoring system (NOS); GRADE assessment evaluated their overall clinical importance. RESULTS: There were few randomized controlled trials. Two of four trials of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) or ACEI plus beta-blockers (BB) found improved LV function. Two of two randomized trials of aldosterone antagonists (AA), when added to ACEI and BB therapy, demonstrated less decline of LV circumferential strain over 1 year of treatment. Observational studies of ACEI and BB had differing patient ages, symptomatology, cohort size, study duration and baseline heart function. LV function, assessed via unblinded imaging, was the most frequent outcome measure. LV dysfunction improved in some trials but was unconfirmed in others. Class IV heart failure patients had transient improvement of symptoms and LVEF. Most NOS scores reflected a low level of study quality. The Grade certainty rating, used for the summation of studies, was between "low" and "moderate." CONCLUSION: Randomized trial evidence was inconsistent that either ACEI or BB or their combination improve LV function and/or alter progressive LV dysfunction. When ACEI and BB therapy are initiated for symptomatic Class IV heart failure, symptoms and LVEF improve transiently. AAs retard the rate of decline of LV function when initiated in younger DMD patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".