MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4388595562 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehad655.625

An online international survey study into the incidence and potential reasons of therapy non-adherence in catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia: preliminary results

2023· article· en· W4388595562 on OpenAlexaff
Puck J. Peltenburg, Lieke M. van den Heuvel, Dania Kallas, Vincent Probst, Nico A. Blom, Arthur A.M. Wilde, Sally‐Ann B. Clur, Christian van der Werf

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
Canadian institutionsBC Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCatecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardiaFlecainideInterquartile rangeVentricular tachycardiaInternal medicineIncidence (geometry)Likert scaleSudden cardiac deathCardiologyEmergency medicineAtrial fibrillation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Since the first description of catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT), a rare inherited cardiac arrhythmia, effective medical therapy to prevent the arrhythmic events – syncope, sudden cardiac arrest, sudden cardiac death – have been described. However, a significant proportion of patients experience breakthrough events despite optimal medical therapy, which are regularly associated with therapy non-adherence. Purpose To investigate the incidence of and potential reasons for therapy non-adherence in a large cohort of patients with CPVT. Methods An online survey was created in Dutch, English, and French and shared with CPVT patients at the outpatient clinic, through peer-recruitment, and on social media from November 1, 2022 onwards. Self-reported non-adherence was measured using the validated Medication Adherence Rating Scale (MARS, contains five 5-Point Likert scale questions, non-adherence was defined as a score <22). The Beliefs about Medication Questionnaire (BMQ, eleven 5-Point Likert scale statements regarding concern and necessity of CPVT medication and eight 5-Point Likert scale questions regarding overuse and harm of medication in general) and Illness Perception Questionnaire (IPQ, statements rated with a scale from 0 to 10) were used to explore associations between patient beliefs and non-adherence. Results After three months, 85 patients had completed the survey, of whom 77 (91%) used medication (32 [42%] used a beta-blocker, 5 [6%] flecainide, and 40 [52%] beta-blocker and flecainide dual therapy). Of the patients using medication, current median age was 37 (interquartile range [IQR]: 26-55) years, 56 (73%) were female, and 15 (20%) suffered from syncope, aborted cardiac arrest or appropriate ICD shock after diagnosis. Ten (13%) of the patients were non-adherent. Clinical characteristics of non-adherent patients did not differ from adherent patients (Table). Non-adherent patients reported a significantly higher agreement with statements regarding concern about CPVT-related medication (17.5 [15.2-20.8] vs. 14.0 [12.0-18.0], p=0.039), specifically the statement about unpleasant adverse effects (4.0 [3.2-4.8] vs. 3.0 [2.0-4.0], p=0.008, Figure). The IPQ statements did not differ between non-adherent and adherent patients (Figure). Conclusion Preliminary data of this survey study shows that the rate of self-reported non-adherence is significant and is associated with concern regarding CPVT-related medication. This knowledge could assist in improving patient education aimed at therapy adherence. In addition, this preliminary data show that it is feasible and useful to study non-adherence in a CPVT population using online surveys.TableFigure

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)0.006
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.289 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicCardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments→French-language works237,207→