MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283362162 · doi:10.1002/ehf2.14026

Pharmacogenomic Study of Heart Failure and Candesartan Response from the CHARM Programme

2022· article· en· W4283362162 on OpenAlexaff
Marie‐Pierre Dubé, Olympe Chazara, Audrey Lemaçon, Géraldine Asselin, Sylvie Provost, Amina Barhdadi, Louis‐Philippe Lemieux Perreault, Ian Mongrain, Quanli Wang, Keren Carss, Dirk S. Paul, Jonathan W. Cunningham, Jean L. Rouleau, Scott D. Solomon, John J.V. McMurray, Salim Yusuf, C. B. Granger, Carolina Haefliger, Simon de Denus, Jean‐Claude Tardif

Bibliographic record

VenueESC Heart Failure · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research InstituteUniversité de MontréalHamilton Health SciencesMontreal Heart Institute
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteBritish Heart FoundationAstraZeneca
KeywordsCandesartanMedicineHeart failureCharm (quantum number)Internal medicinePharmacogenomicsCardiologyPharmacologyAngiotensin IIParticle physicsReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: The Candesartan in Heart failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme consisted of three parallel, randomized, double-blind clinical trials comparing candesartan with placebo in patients with heart failure (HF) categorized according to left ventricular ejection fraction and tolerability to an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor. We conducted a pharmacogenomic study of the CHARM trials with the objective of identifying genetic predictors of HF progression and of the efficacy and safety of treatment with candesartan. METHODS: We performed genome-wide association studies in 2727 patients of European ancestry from CHARM-Overall and stratified by CHARM study according to preserved and reduced ejection fraction and according to assignment to the interventional treatment with candesartan. We tested genetic association with the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure for drug efficacy in candesartan-treated patients and for HF progression using patients from both candesartan and placebo arms. The safety endpoints for response to candesartan were hyperkalaemia, renal dysfunction, hypotension, and change in systolic blood pressure between baseline and 6 weeks of treatment. To support our observations, we conducted a genome-wide gene-level collapsing analysis from whole-exome sequencing data with the composite cardiovascular endpoint. RESULTS: ). The association was independent of candesartan treatment, and the genetic variant was not associated with the cardiovascular endpoint in patients with reduced ejection fraction. None of the genome-wide association studies for candesartan safety or efficacy conducted in patients treated with candesartan passed the significance threshold. We found no significant association from the gene-level collapsing analysis. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified a candidate genetic variant potentially predictive of the progression of heart failure in patients with preserved ejection fraction. The findings require further replication, and we cannot exclude the possibility that the results may be chance findings.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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