MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Assessing hypotension incidence and dosing strategies of sacubitril/valsartan in real-world heart failure management: protocol for a retrospective, multicentre and cohort study

2024· article· en· W4399870703 on OpenAlexaff
Uday Jadhav, Jay Shah, A. K. Mohanty, M Chenniappan, Ameet G. Sattur, Mainak Mukhopadhyay, K. Naveen Krishna, Madhusudan Pramod Raikar, Suchit B. Mahale, Debdatta Majumdar, S. G. Shaila, Gyan Prakash, Iranna Hirapur, Nasar Abdali, Harish Surwade, Mohamed Abid, Vikas Thakran, Alok Sharma, Nipun Mahajan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Clinical Trials · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Canadian institutionsASTER
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSacubitril, ValsartanDosingValsartanIncidence (geometry)Retrospective cohort studyHeart failureProtocol (science)CohortAnesthesiaIntensive care medicineInternal medicineBlood pressureAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The burden of heart failure (HF) and hypertension in India underscores the need for effective management strategies. Sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNi), has emerged as a pivotal therapy for HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, concerns about hypotension often hinder optimal dosing in clinical practice. The primary objective of this study is to observe the incidence of hypotension in HFrEF patients and to evaluate the best clinical practice to achieve an optimal tolerated dose of sacubitril/valsartan without treatment discontinuation. Secondary objectives include evaluating treatment outcomes, tolerability, and factors influencing dosing adjustments. Methods: This is the protocol of a retrospective, multicentre cohort study aimed at assessing real-world usage patterns of sacubitril/valsartan among Indian HFrEF patients. Patients aged 18-80 years diagnosed with HFrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%) and initiated on sacubitril/valsartan between November 2023 and May 2024 will be included. Baseline and follow-up data, including demographics, medical history, and treatment outcomes, will be analysed using appropriate statistical tests. Data from approximately 150 healthcare facilities will be collected using a structured case report form (CRF). The study was initiated in February 2024. As of manuscript submission, 1039 individuals have been enrolled on the study. Data collection is expected to continue until the end of June 2024. Conclusions: This study aims to contribute valuable insights into optimizing sacubitril/valsartan therapy for HFrEF patients in India, addressing concerns about hypotension and dosage optimization. The study seeks to inform clinical practice and enhance patient care by elucidating real-world usage patterns and outcomes.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.196
GPT teacher head0.582
Teacher spread0.386 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Clinical TrialsSame topicHemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyFrench-language works237,207