MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Pulmonary arterial hypertension associated with congenital heart disease: real-world analysis of clinical characteristics, treatment patterns and outcomes from EXPOSURE

2022· article· en· W4306319429 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
P Escribano, Seán Gaine, R Klement, Audrey Muller, Tobias J. Lange, Stefan Söderberg

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEisenmenger syndromeInternal medicinePulmonary hypertensionObservational studyCardiologyHeart diseaseProspective cohort studyPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Treatment patterns for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension associated with congenital heart disease (PAH-CHD) are currently not well described. Purpose To use real-world data from the EXPOSURE study to describe clinical characteristics, treatment patterns and outcomes of PAH-CHD patients in current clinical practice. Methods EXPOSURE (EUPAS19085) is an ongoing, multicentre, prospective, observational study of PAH patients initiating a PAH-specific therapy in Europe and Canada. Clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, hospitalisation and mortality are described for PAH-CHD patients classified into four clinical subgroups. Baseline was considered to be within 30 days of PAH-specific treatment initiation. Results Between September 2017 and November 2021, there were 1588 PAH patients with follow-up data in EXPOSURE, of whom 168 (11%) had PAH-CHD. Of these, 40% (N=67) had Eisenmenger's Syndrome (ES), 25% (N=42) had PAH with coincidental CHD, 21% (N=35) had PAH with left-to-right shunts, and 14% (N=24) had PAH after CHD corrective surgery. Baseline characteristics are summarised in the Table. Across the subgroups, the median age was 46–53 years. Compared to the other subgroups, at baseline, ES patients had a substantially longer time from diagnosis (median [Q1, Q3]: 12.6 [3.3, 31.5] years), a lower 6MWD (median [Q1, Q3]: 400 [309, 480] m) and were more likely to be in WHO FC III/IV (Table). The majority of patients across all subgroups initiated a new PAH-specific therapy as part of combination therapy at enrolment (Table). Treatment patterns over time for ES patients are shown in the Figure. The majority of ES patients received double or triple combination therapy at baseline. Overall, most ES patients remained on the same treatment regimen 6 months after baseline, with limited treatment escalation (Figure). The median observation period ranged between 15.0 and 23.0 months for all subgroups (Table). Incidence of all-cause hospitalisation during this time was generally comparable across subgroups (Table). All-cause mortality incidence rates (95% CI) were higher in patients with ES (6.3 [2.3, 13.7]) and PAH after CHD corrective surgery (8.1 [1.7, 23.8]) compared to the other two subgroups (Table). Conclusions In EXPOSURE, 11% of patients were PAH-CHD patients, with ES being the most common PAH-CHD aetiology. The majority of PAH-CHD patients were enrolled on combination therapy. ES patients had a longer time from diagnosis compared to other subgroups and their treatment patterns followed a stepwise approach. At 6 months post-baseline, the majority of ES patients were on double or triple combination therapy. Hospitalisation was comparable between subgroups and mortality was higher in ES and PAH after CHD corrective surgery patients. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Other. Main funding source(s): Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd, a Janssen Pharmaceutical Company of Johnson & Johnson

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.340
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 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments→French-language works237,207→