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 OpenAlexaff
Cecilia Danielson, Gabriele Lileikyte, Wouter Ouwerkerk, Carolyn S.P. Lam, David Erlinge, Tiew‐Hwa Katherine Teng

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.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.071
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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

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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations18
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueESC Heart FailureSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207