MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Characterisation of pulmonary arterial hypertension patients with cardiovascular comorbidities treated with selexipag: real-world evidence from the EXPOSURE study

2022· article· en· W4306319851 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stefan Söderberg, Seán Gaine, Audrey Muller, R Klement, T Lange, P Escribano

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineComorbidityInternal medicineDiabetes mellitusCombination therapyCardiologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background A recent post-hoc analysis of the GRIPHON randomised controlled trial [1] showed that selexipag reduces the risk of a morbidity/mortality event versus placebo in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) patients, irrespective of comorbidity burden. Real-world evidence is needed on the management of PAH patients with cardiovascular comorbidities receiving selexipag. Purpose To describe characteristics, treatment patterns and outcomes of PAH patients with cardiovascular comorbidities receiving selexipag in the real world. Methods EXPOSURE is an ongoing, multicentre, prospective, observational study of PAH patients initiating a PAH-specific therapy in Europe and Canada. Patients initiating selexipag were grouped by number of cardiovascular comorbidities present prior to or at therapy initiation: BMI ≥30 kg/m2, systemic hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and coronary artery disease. Results As of November 2020, 382 selexipag-treated patients had follow-up and comorbidity data available: 44% (n=169) had 0, 30% (n=114) had 1, 18% (n=70) had 2, and 8% (n=29) had ≥3 comorbidities. At selexipag initiation, patients with comorbidities were older, more likely to have idiopathic/heritable PAH and had worse functional capacity (lower median 6-minute walk distance, higher proportion in WHO functional class III/IV) vs those without comorbidities (Table 1). Overall, haemodynamic parameters were similar across groups (Table 1). Patients with a higher comorbidity burden were more likely to be at high-risk of 1-year mortality (COMPERA method) vs those with a lower comorbidity burden (Table 1). Patients predominantly initiated selexipag as part of triple combination therapy (mainly in addition to an endothelin receptor antagonist and phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor), regardless of comorbidity burden (76–79% across groups). The duration of exposure and the median selexipag maintenance dose were similar across groups (Table 2). The proportion of patients hospitalised and the proportion who discontinued selexipag during the exposure period are shown in Table 2. 5% (n=8) of patients in the 0 comorbidities group, 12% (n=14) in the 1 comorbidity group, 0% in the 2 comorbidities group, and 10% (n=3) in the ≥3 comorbidities group died during the exposure period. Conclusions These real-world data from Europe and Canada suggest that more than 50% of patients who initiated selexipag had ≥1 cardiovascular comorbidity. Patients with comorbidities had more severe functional impairment vs those without. Overall haemodynamic profiles reflected Group 1 Pulmonary Hypertension and were similar across groups. Selexipag was initiated predominantly as part of triple combination therapy in all groups and most patients remained on selexipag, regardless of comorbidity burden. 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.207 · 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→