MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391068776 · doi:10.1002/jac5.1920

Evaluation of <scp>PHARM‐HF</scp>, a pharmacist‐led heart failure medication titration clinic: A pre‐post study

2024· article· en· W4391068776 on OpenAlexaffabout
Simroop Ladhar, Nathaniel M. Hawkins, Sean Virani, Ricky D. Turgeon

Bibliographic record

VenueJACCP JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CLINICAL PHARMACY · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEjection fractionInterquartile rangeHeart failureInternal medicinePharmacistCardiomyopathyCardiologyPharmacy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction The PHARM‐HF clinic is a novel, pharmacist‐led medication optimization clinic for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). PHARM‐HF aims to achieve maximum‐tolerated HFrEF guideline‐directed medical therapy (GDMT) as outlined by the latest Canadian Cardiovascular Society heart failure guidelines. Methods This retrospective pre‐post study evaluated consecutive patients attending PHARM‐HF (January 2021–August 2022). The primary outcome was the modified Optimal Medication Therapy (mOMT) score, an aggregate score of HFrEF quadruple therapy. The mOMT score was categorized as suboptimal (score 0–4), acceptable (score 5–7), or optimal (score 8; all four drugs at maximum tolerated dose). Secondary outcomes included change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from baseline to 1 year, and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire‐12 (KCCQ; range 0 [worst] to 100 [best]) from baseline to discharge. Results Of 81 included patients, median age was 68 years, 21% were female, 61% had New York Heart Association (NYHA) class 2 functional capacity, and median LVEF was 30%. Median mOMT improved from 6 (interquartile range [IQR] 4–7) at baseline to 8 (IQR 7–8) at clinic discharge (p < 0.001; increase from 7% to 73% categorized as optimal). LVEF improved from a median of 30% to 38% at 1 year (p < 0.001). Among 16 patients who completed the KCCQ‐12 at both time points, the score was 62 at baseline and 77 at discharge (p = 0.42). Conclusions Uptake of GDMT significantly increased from admission to discharge from the PHARM‐HF medication optimization clinic, during which other cardiovascular clinicians did not modify HFrEF medications. Furthermore, there was an improvement in LVEF at 1 year. A pilot randomized controlled trial is currently underway to guide the development of a multicenter trial to provide definitive evidence for the role of pharmacist‐led medication optimization in HFrEF.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.381 · 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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJACCP JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CLINICAL PHARMACYSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207