Optimized antianginal therapy: a randomized, comparative study of long-acting isosorbide-5-mononitrate and isosorbide dinitrate in patients with coronary heart disease and stable effort angina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim. To compare effectiveness and tolerability of a regular treatment with two nitrates – moderately long-acting isosorbide dinitrate and very long-acting isosorbide-5-mononitrate – in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) and stable effort angina. Material and methods. The study included 30 patients with verified CHD: 4 females, 26 males; mean age 50.5 years. In total, 21 participants had myocardial infarction (MI) in anamnesis, including 3 with recurrent MI. At coronaroangiography, 6 individuals had coronary stenosis of ≥75%, in at least one artery. Mean duration of stable angina was 8.2 years; 21 patients had functional class (FC) II angina, and 9 – FC III angina, by Canadian Cardiology Association’s classification. Pharmacodynamics was studied in placebo, isosorbide-5-mononitrate, and isosorbide dinitrate treatment regimens. Antianginal and antiischemic effects were assessed by increased physical stress (PS) tolerance – increased time before moderately intensive angina episode, by at least 120 s, comparing to placebo. Each drug was administered for 4 weeks, control period between the courses lasted for 7 days. Results. All patients regularly received individually selected doses of antianginal medications. The therapy was associated with statistically significant increase in all PS tolerance parameters, measured one hour after medication’s intake, comparing to placebo. Isosorbide-5-mononitrate and isosorbide dinitrate treatment was associated with 14 and 18 adverse events, respectively. Conclusion. In CHD patients with FC II-III stable effort angina, isosorbide-5-mononitrate therapy (in an individual dose, once per day) demonstrated a clear, sustained antianginal effect, was well-tolerated, and did not cause clinically manifested tolerance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".