Geographic variation in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: insights from the VICTORIA trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Geographic differences and background therapy have not been explored in the global VICTORIA trial, which enrolled high-risk patients with recent worsening heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods and results Among 5050 patients enrolled in 5 pre-specified geographic regions, 34% were from Eastern Europe, 18% Western Europe, 23% Asia Pacific, 14% Latin and South America, and 11% North America (Table 1). Patients from Western Europe were older, had more atrial fibrillation, and lower glomerular filtration rates. Patients from Eastern Europe had more coronary artery disease and exhibited more advanced symptoms (∼50% New York Heart Association [NYHA] class III), whereas those from Latin and South America were less symptomatic (∼70% NYHA class II). North American patients had the largest body mass index as well as more diabetes and hypertension. Levels of NT-proBNP at randomization and MAGGIC risk scores were highest in Western European patients. Evidence-based triple medication therapy was used most frequently in Latin and South America and less frequently in North America; conversely, cardiac resynchronization therapy and implantable cardioverter defibrillators were most frequently used in North America and least frequently in Latin and South America. The overall primary composite event rate (cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization) in the placebo arm was 36.6/100 person-years over a median of 10.8 months and after adjusting for the MAGGIC score. When examined by region, these event rates were nominally highest in North America and lowest in Western Europe. Conclusion Substantial regional differences exist in characteristics and treatments among patients in this global trial of patients with HFrEF and a recent worsening event. These findings demonstrate the continuing unmet needs and opportunities for enhancing care in HFrEF. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): VICTORIA was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA and Bayer AG, Wuppertal, Germany.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".