MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dapagliflozin Improves Heart Failure Symptoms and Physical Limitations Across the Full Range of Ejection Fraction: Pooled Patient-Level Analysis From DEFINE-HF and PRESERVED-HF Trials

2023· article· en· W4377093422 on OpenAlexaff
Michael E. Nassif, Sheryl L. Windsor, Kensey Gosch, Barry A. Borlaug, Mansoor Husain, Silvio E. Inzucchi, Dalane W. Kitzman, Darren K. McGuire, Bertram Pitt, Benjamin M. Scirica, Sanjiv J. Shah, Guillermo E. Umpierrez, Bethany A. Austin, Sumant Lamba, Taiyeb Khumri, Kavita Sharma, Mikhail Kosiborod

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Heart Failure · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsTed Rogers Centre for Heart Research
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteRelypsaVifor PharmaImpulse DynamicsIntercept PharmaceuticalsProthenaIronwood Pharmaceuticals, IncorporatedNational Institutes of HealthDexcomRegeneron PharmaceuticalsEmory UniversityBoston Scientific CorporationUniversity of PittsburghUnited Therapeutics CorporationEli Lilly and CompanyU.S. Department of DefenseSanofiNational Institute on AgingCSL BehringBristol-Myers SquibbAllerganAstraZenecaEdwards LifesciencesAmgenPfizerTenax TherapeuticsEsperion TherapeuticsAlnylam PharmaceuticalsNovo NordiskMyoKardiaGilead SciencesEisaiCytokineticsBrigham and Women's Hospital
KeywordsDapagliflozinEjection fractionMedicinePlaceboHeart failureInternal medicineCardiologyHeart failure with preserved ejection fractionRandomized controlled trialAtrial fibrillationDiabetes mellitusType 2 diabetesEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patients with heart failure (HF) have a high burden of symptoms and physical limitations, regardless of ejection fraction (EF). Whether the benefits of SGLT2 (sodium-glucose cotransporter-2) inhibitors on these outcomes vary across the full range of EF remains unclear. METHODS: Patient-level data were pooled from the DEFINE-HF trial (Dapagliflozin Effects on Biomarkers, Symptoms, and Functional Status in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction) of 263 participants with reduced EF (≤40%), and PRESERVED-HF trial (Effects of Dapagliflozin on Biomarkers, Symptoms and Functional Status in Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure) of 324 participants with preserved EF (≥45%). Both were randomized, double-blind 12-week trials of dapagliflozin versus placebo, recruiting participants with New York Heart Association class II or higher and elevated natriuretic peptides. The effect of dapagliflozin on the change in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) Clinical Summary Score (CSS) at 12 weeks was tested with ANCOVA adjusted for sex, baseline KCCQ, EF, atrial fibrillation, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and type 2 diabetes. Interaction of dapagliflozin effects on KCCQ-CSS by EF was assessed using EF both categorically and continuously with restricted cubic spline. Responder analyses, examining proportions of patients with deterioration, and clinically meaningful improvements in KCCQ-CSS were conducted using logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 587 patients randomized (293 dapagliflozin, 294 placebo), EF was ≤40, >40-≤60, and >60% in 262 (45%), 199 (34%), and 126 (21%), respectively. Dapagliflozin improved KCCQ-CSS at 12 weeks (placebo-adjusted difference 5.0 points [95% CI, 2.6–7.5]; P <0.001). This was consistent in participants with EF≤40 (4.6 points [95% CI, 1.0–8.1]; P =0.01), >40 to ≤60 (4.9 points [95% CI, 0.8–9.0]; P =0.02) and >60% (6.8 points [95% CI, 1.5–12.1]; P =0.01; P interaction =0.79). Benefits of dapagliflozin on KCCQ-CSS were also consistent when analyzing EF continuously ( P interaction =0.94). In responder analyses, fewer dapagliflozin-treated patients had deterioration and more had small, moderate, and large KCCQ-CSS improvements versus placebo; these results were also consistent regardless of EF (all P interaction values nonsignificant). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HF, dapagliflozin significantly improves symptoms and physical limitations after 12 weeks of treatment, with consistent and clinically meaningful benefits across the full range of EF. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifiers: NCT02653482 and NCT03030235.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.024
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations60
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Heart FailureSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207