MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281295151 · doi:10.1002/ehf2.13974

Sex Differences in Efficacy of Pharmacological Therapies in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Meta-Analysis

2022· review· en· W4281295151 on OpenAlex
Cecilia Danielson, Gabriele Lileikyte, Wouter Ouwerkerk, Carolyn S.P. Lam, David Erlinge, Tiew‐Hwa Katherine Teng

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueESC Heart Failure · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeart failureMedicineEjection fractionMeta-analysisInternal medicineCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aims Recent studies have suggested potential sex differences in treatment response to pharmacological therapies in heart failure (HF). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing treatment effects between men and women with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) using established guideline-directed medical therapy and other emerging pharmacological treatments. Methods and results Systematic search was performed on PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials published in 1990–2021. Outcomes were all-cause mortality and combined outcome of all-cause mortality and/or hospitalization for HF. Of 618 articles identified, 25 articles and 100 213 patients (mean age 62 ± 1.7 years, women 23.1%, mean left ventricular ejection fraction 26.6 ± 1.3%) were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. For the outcome of all-cause mortality, there was no evidence of treatment heterogeneity by sex for renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) [hazard ratio (HR) 0.86 (95% confidence interval 0.75–0.99) in men; HR 0.97 (0.77–1.23) in women; Pinteraction = 0.288], or for beta-blockers (BB) [HR 0.71 (0.59–0.86) in men; HR 0.87 (0.73–1.03) in women; Pinteraction = 0.345]. Similarly, for the composite outcome of death or HF hospitalization, there was no evidence of treatment heterogeneity by sex for RASi [HR 0.84 (0.77–0.93) in men; HR 0.94 (0.81–1.08) in women; Pinteraction = 0.210] or BB [HR 0.76 (0.64–0.90) in men; HR 0.72 (0.60–0.86) in women; Pinteraction = 0.650]. Results for mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) from previously published meta-analyses were included in the review. For the combined outcome of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization, no significant interaction for sex was observed for MRA (Pinteraction = 0.78) or SGLT2i (Pinteraction = 0.37). Results for emerging pharmacological treatments, such as soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators and cardiac myosin activators, were included in the review and showed consistent treatment effects between men and women. Conclusions Our meta-analysis showed no differences between sex in treatment effect for BB and RASi. Review on previously published trials for MRA, SGLT2i, and emerging therapies presented consistent treatment effects between men and women.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.755
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.256 · 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