MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409912113 · doi:10.1002/ejhf.3669

The Efficacy of Finerenone on Hierarchical Composite Endpoint Analysed Using Win Statistics in Patients with Heart Failure and Mildly Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Prespecified Analysis of FINEARTS-HF

2025· article· en· W4409912113 on OpenAlexaff
Toru Kondo, Pardeep S. Jhund, Alasdair D Henderson, Brian Claggett, Akshay S. Desai, Meike Brinker, James Lay‐Flurrie, Patrick Schloemer, Prabhakar Viswanathan, Flaviana Amarante, Chern‐En Chiang, Carolyn S.P. Lam, Mark C. Petrie, Michele Senni, Morten Schou, Subodh Verma, Adriaan A. Voors, Dirk von Lewinski, Faiez Zannad, Bertram Pitt, Muthiah Vaduganathan, Scott D. Solomon, John J.V. McMurray

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Heart Failure · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceGreat Britain Sasakawa FoundationBritish Heart FoundationBayer
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalHeart failureEjection fractionInternal medicineOdds ratioPlaceboClinical endpointRandomized controlled trialRandomizationCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: FINEARTS-HF demonstrated the efficacy of finerenone in reducing total worsening heart failure (HF) events (first and recurrent) and cardiovascular death, compared to placebo, in patients with HF and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. We examined the effect of finerenone on these events according to their clinical importance using win statistics. METHODS AND RESULTS: We developed a prespecified hierarchical composite endpoint including the components of the original primary outcome: cardiovascular death (tier 1), total HF hospitalizations (tier 2), and total urgent HF visits (tier 3). For tiers 2 and 3, the number of events was analysed first, followed by the time-to-first event. Because win statistics are affected by the censoring distribution, we assessed the hierarchical composite outcome over a fixed period of 24 months. The 6001 participants analysed were randomized equally to finerenone (n = 3003) or placebo (n = 2998). At 24 months, a total of 825 cardiovascular deaths and worsening HF events were observed in the finerenone group, compared with 1012 events in the placebo group. The win ratio was 1.17 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.32) (p = 0.010), demonstrating more wins than losses in the finerenone group. The win odds, corresponding to the treatment effect, was 1.05 (95% CI 1.01-1.09), and the net benefit, corresponding to the absolute risk difference, was 2.6% (95% CI 0.6-4.5%). The win ratio remained above 1.0 from 60 days after randomization and reached a plateau after approximately 12 months. HF hospitalizations contributed more to the overall results than cardiovascular death. The win odds at 12 months was 1.04 (95% CI 1.01-1.08), and when adding the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score to the hierarchical endpoint as a continuous variable, that increased to 1.07, which is almost identical to the win ratio due to the decrease in ties. CONCLUSION: Finerenone treatment led to a significant improvement in a composite hierarchical outcome that incorporated cardiovascular death, total HF hospitalizations, and total urgent HF visits, with early onset of benefit. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT04435626.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations10
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Heart FailureSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207