Association between Initial Treatment Strategy and Long-Term Survival in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rationale The relationship between the initial treatment strategy and survival in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) remains uncertain. Objectives To evaluate the long-term survival of patients with PAH categorized according to the initial treatment strategy. Methods A retrospective analysis of incident patients with idiopathic, heritable, or anorexigen-induced PAH enrolled in the French Pulmonary Hypertension Registry (January 2006 to December 2018) was conducted. Survival was assessed according to the initial strategy: monotherapy, dual therapy, or triple-combination therapy (two oral medications and a parenteral prostacyclin). Measurements and Main Results Among 1,611 enrolled patients, 984 were initiated on monotherapy, 551 were initiated on dual therapy, and 76 were initiated on triple therapy. The triple-combination group was younger and had fewer comorbidities but had a higher mortality risk. The survival rate was higher with the use of triple therapy (91% at 5 yr) as compared with dual therapy or monotherapy (both 61% at 5 yr) (P < 0.001). Propensity score matching of age, sex, and pulmonary vascular resistance also showed significant differences between triple therapy and dual therapy (10-yr survival, 85% vs. 65%). In high-risk patients (n = 243), the survival rate was higher with triple therapy than with monotherapy or dual therapy, whereas there was no difference between monotherapy and double therapy. In intermediate-risk patients (n = 1,134), survival improved with an increasing number of therapies. In multivariable Cox regression, triple therapy was independently associated with a lower risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.11–0.80; P = 0.017). Among the 148 patients initiated on a parenteral prostacyclin, those on triple therapy had a higher survival rate than those on monotherapy or dual therapy. Conclusions Initial triple-combination therapy that includes parenteral prostacyclin seems to be associated with a higher survival rate in PAH, particularly in the youngest high-risk 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".