MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Clinical effects of metoprolol in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (TEMPO). A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled crossover trial

2021· article· en· W4386661389 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anne M. Dybro, Torsten B. Rasmussen, Roni Nielsen, Mads J. Andersen, Märit Jensen, Steen Hvitfeldt Poulsen

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNovo Nordisk Fonden
KeywordsMedicineMetoprololPlaceboCardiologyInternal medicineHypertrophic cardiomyopathyContext (archaeology)Randomized controlled trialCrossover study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Treatment with beta blockers (BB) has been used for symptomatic relief in patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) for decades. Even so, the guideline recommendation for the use of BB rests on expert opinions and observational cohort studies. Providing comprehensive high-quality data on the effects of BB in obstructive HCM is essential, especially in the context of newly developed pharmacological treatment strategies specifically targeting this disease (1). Purpose The study aimed to investigate the effects of metoprolol on left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction, symptoms, and exercise capacity in patients with obstructive HCM. Methods This double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized crossover trial enrolled 30 patients with obstructive HCM and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class ≥ II symptoms from 1 May 2018 to 1 September 2020. Patients received metoprolol or placebo for two consecutive two-week periods in random order. The effect parameters were LVOT gradients, NYHA class, Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) grading angina class, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Score (KCCQ-OSS), and cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Results Compared with placebo, the LVOT gradient during metoprolol was lower at rest (25 [15–58] mmHg versus 72 [28–87] mmHg; p=0.007), at peak exercise (28 [18–40] mmHg versus 62 [31–113] mmHg; p<0.001), and post-exercise (45 [24–100] mmHg versus 115 [55–171] mmHg; p<0.0001) (figure 1). During metoprolol treatment, 14% of patients were in NYHA class III compared with 38% on placebo (p<0.01). Likewise, no patients were in CCS class ≥ III during metoprolol compared with 10% during placebo (p<0.01). These findings were confirmed by a higher KCCQ-OSS score during metoprolol (76.2 (16.2) versus 73.8 (19.5), p=0.039) (figure 2). Peak oxygen consumption did not differ between study arms. Conclusion Compared with placebo, metoprolol reduced LVOT obstruction at rest and during exercise, provided symptom relief, and improved quality of life in patients with obstructive HCM. However, exercise capacity remained unchanged. Findings from the present study support the guideline recommendations that BB should be the first drug of choice in patients with obstructive HCM who develop symptoms. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Foundation. Main funding source(s): Novo nordic foundation, Skibsreder Per Henriksen, R. og hustrus Foundation

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicCardiomyopathy and Myosin StudiesFrench-language works237,207