MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226245114 · doi:10.1161/jaha.121.024999

Impact of Icosapent Ethyl on Cardiovascular Risk Reduction in Patients With Heart Failure in REDUCE‐IT

2022· article· en· W4226245114 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFatty Acid Research and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
FundersJoslin Diabetes CenterGeorge Washington UniversityUniversity of Pennsylvania
KeywordsHeart failureProportional hazards modelTriglycerideClinical endpointPopulationBody mass indexConfidence intervalDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Patients with heart failure (HF) are at high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Studies of atherothrombotic treatments in this population have been disappointing to date. Icosapent ethyl reduced the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease among a broad array of statin‐treated patients at elevated risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Whether the treatment benefits of icosapent ethyl are consistent among those with HF is unknown. Methods and Results REDUCE‐IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events With Icosapent Ethyl–Intervention Trial) randomized 8179 participants, including 1446 (17.7%) patients with a history of HF (icosapent ethyl, N=703; and placebo, N=743). The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or unstable angina. We used Cox regression to estimate the risk of outcomes of participants with and without HF. We estimated the placebo‐controlled change in triglycerides and hs‐CRP (high‐sensitivity C‐reactive protein) from baseline to 2 years. Among 1446 patients with HF, median age was 63.0 years, median body mass index was 31.0 kg/m 2 , and more were men (69.3%). Icosapent ethyl reduced triglycerides (median reduction, 33.5 mg/dL, or 15.4%; P <0.0001) and hs‐CRP (35.1%; P <0.0001) compared with placebo, similar to patients without HF ( P ‐interaction>0.90). The treatment effect on the primary end point in patients with HF history (hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.70–1.08) was consistent with the effects observed in patients without HF history (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.65–0.81) ( P ‐interaction=0.13). Conclusions In REDUCE‐IT, icosapent ethyl provided similar improvements in triglyceride levels and hs‐CRP as well as similar cardiovascular risk reduction in patients with and without HF. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01492361.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations25
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart AssociationSame topicFatty Acid Research and HealthFrench-language works237,207