MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 4136009: Adherence and Persistence to Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy in Patients with Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2024· review· en· W4404302537 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jungyeon Moon, Alberto Rodríguez-Fuster, Aya Ozaki, Douglas S. Lee, Freny Vaghaiwalla Mody, Jacob A. Udell, Cynthia A. Jackevicius

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMedical therapyHeart failureGuidelineIntensive care medicineMeta-analysisPersistence (discontinuity)Systematic reviewMEDLINEInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Since individual adherence/persistence studies for heart failure (HF) guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) have mainly focused on single classes or had limited sample sizes, providing inconclusive estimates, a comprehensive analysis is needed to understand the magnitude of the problem. Hypothesis: Adherence and persistence to HF GDMT are suboptimal and are associated with increased risks of HF admission and mortality. Aims: To generate estimates of real-world HF medication adherence and persistence and associated clinical outcomes. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL for observational studies on adherence and persistence in HF GDMT from inception to 9/25/23. We evaluated bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Primary outcomes were adherence and persistence rates using a restricted maximum-likelihood model. Adherence was summarized as the mean proportion of days covered (PDC) and medication possession ratio (MPR), proportion of patients with good adherence (PDC/MPR≥80%), and persistence. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and HF readmission with summary hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) estimated. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed using Cochran’s Q, I squared statistics, funnel plots, and Egger's tests, while subgroup analyses explored variations across studies. Results: The 48 studies included comprised 1,614,985 patients (mean age 71; 57% men). The overall mean PDC/MPR was 76%, with good adherence of 54%, and persistence rates of 60%. Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors had the highest mean PDC/MPR of 78%, good adherence of 56%, and persistence of 64%, while mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) had the lowest at 71%, 47%, and 49% respectively. Nonadherence/nonpersistence to GDMT was associated with a higher rate of mortality (HR 1.27 [95% CI 1.19–1.35]) and HF admission (HR 1.25 [95% CI 1.14-1.37]). Conclusions: Suboptimal adherence/persistence to HF GDMT is common, with only half of patients showing good adherence. Given the association with worse clinical outcomes, clinicians should prioritize identifying barriers to and addressing nonadherence/nonpersistence to HF GDMT, particularly with MRAs.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.032
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicHeart Failure Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→