MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Elegibility for Sacubitril/Valsartan in italian clinical practice: insights from the OPTIMA-HF registry

2024· article· en· W4403802681 on OpenAlexaff
Stefania Paolillo, Flaviana Marzano, Eleonora Nardi, Paola Gargiulo, Piergiuseppe Agostoni, Paolo Calabrò, Gianfranco Sinagra, Roberto Montisci, Franco Guarnaccia, Matteo Cameli, Natale Daniele Brunetti, Angelo Aloisio, Stefano Carugo, Pasquale Perrone Filardi

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre Casa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSacubitril, ValsartanValsartanClinical PracticeInternal medicineSacubitrilCardiologyFamily medicineBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background/Introduction Guidelines strongly recommend patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) be treated with multiple medications proven to improve clinical outcomes, as tolerated. Among them, angiotensin receptor blocker/neprylisin inhibitor (ARNi) are the foundation of neuro-hormonal blockade in patients with HFrEF, however the degree to which gaps in this medication use and dosing persist in outpatient practice is unclear. Purpose To assess the proportion of patients with HFrEF who are eligible for ARNi based on the PARADIGM-HF trial criteria and the association between eligibility and baseline characteristics. Methods The OPTIMA-HF (Optimization of Therapy in the Italian Management of Heart Failure) registry included outpatients in Italy with chronic HFrEF receiving at least 1 oral medication for management of HF. Patients were characterized by baseline use and dose of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI)/angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB)/ARNI, beta-blocker, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) and sodium glucose co-transporter II inhibitor (SGLT2i). Patient-level factors associated with medication use were examined. Results Outpatients with HFrEF from 29 ambulatory cardiology practices and university hospitals in the OPTIMA-HF registry recruited between January 2022 and September 2023 were included. Of 1291 patients, 1018 (79%) met the PARADIGM-HF criteria and 949 of them (93%) were on ARNi. Of the enrolled patients, 342 (27%) were not on ARNi, however only 129 (38%) did not met the PARADIGM-HF inclusion criteria for ARNi prescription. Reasons for not meeting PARADIGM-HF criteria were no beta-blocker background therapy (22%), hyperkalemia (4%), hypotension (15%), chronic kidney disease (65%) and hyperkalemia (79%). In a logistic regression model not being on ARNi was associated with older age, chronic kidney disease, not being on cardiac resynchronization therapy, lower systolic blood pressure, lower BMI, and higher PAPs (Figure), representing the picture of a more fragile patient net of compliance with the PARADIGM-HF criteria. Conclusions Among outpatients with HFrEF in the OPTIMA-HF Registry, 79% met the PARADIGM-HF criteria. Strategies to improve guideline-directed use of HFrEF medications remain urgently needed, and these findings may inform targeted approaches to optimize outpatient medical therapy.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.429
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies→French-language works237,207→