MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 12549: What is the Efficacy of New Therapies in Black Patients With Heart Failure and a Reduced Ejection Fraction? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2022· review· en· W4380794623 on OpenAlexaff
Arjun Pandey, Nitish K. Dhingra, Avinash Pandey, Pankaj Puar, Shamon Ahmed, Raj Verma, C. David Mazer, Javed Butler, Mitesh Badiwala, Terrence M. Yau, Bobby Yanagawa, Deepak L. Bhatt, Subodh Verma

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureRandomized controlled trialPlaceboEjection fractionMeta-analysisInternal medicineRelative riskCardiologyConfidence intervalPathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Evaluating the efficacy of newer medical therapies in black patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remains an important and unanswered question. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in HFrEF to compare outcomes in black versus non-black patients with a specific focus on new therapies, namely ARNIs and SGLT2 inhibitors. Methods: Medline, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from inception until May 2022. Pairs of reviewers independently identified RCTs that 1) compared either an SGLT2 inhibitor or an ARNI to placebo/standard of care in HFrEF patients and 2) reported outcomes stratified by race. Outcomes were pooled using the Generic Inverse Variance or Mantel-Haenszel models, and risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool. Results: Four RCTs (n=17,797; 6.6% black) were identified, all of which were published in the past decade. In the placebo/control arm, black patients had a higher rate of heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death compared to non-black/white patients (OR: 1.52, 95% CI: 1.26, 1.84; absolute difference: 81, [95% CI: 43, 124] more events per 1,000 patients). In two RCTs, there was a trend towards a greater reduction in the composite of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization with SGLT2 inhibitors in black patients (n=483; RR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.45, 0.83) compared to white patients (n=6,445; RR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.75, 0.95; p-interaction=0.06). In two RCTs, treatment with an ARNI was associated with reductions in the composite of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization in both black patients (n=744; HR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.40, 1.11) and non-black/white patients (n=6,109; HR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.72, 0.89; p-interaction= p=0.49). Conclusions: Black patients are poorly represented in contemporary heart failure trials, and have worse outcomes compared with non-black patients. Newer therapies such as ARNIs and SGLT2 inhibitors are efficacious in black patients. SGLT2 inhibitors may afford greater risk reduction in black compared to non-black patients.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.062
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.062
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0270.028
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.277 · 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
GenreReview

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 venueCirculation→Same topicHeart Failure Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→