Association Between NT-Probnp Changes and Clinical Outcomes in Paediatric Patients with Heart Failure: Insights from PANORAMA-HF and PARADIGM-HF
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The PANORAMA-HF trial demonstrated significant N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) reductions in paediatric patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction with sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril treatment over 52 weeks. This post hoc analysis aims to correlate changes in NT-proBNP levels with clinical outcomes in PANORAMA-HF patients receiving either sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril. Additionally, NT-proBNP reductions in the paediatric population were compared with a subset of adult heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients from the PARADIGM-HF trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: This post hoc analysis utilized data from Part 2 of the PANORAMA-HF trial. Associations between baseline NT-proBNP levels, changes post-baseline and the risk of HF clinical events in paediatric patients on sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril were assessed. The paediatric HF population from PANORAMA-HF was categorized into age groups (AG): AG1 (aged 6 to <18 years), AG2a (aged 2 to <6 years) and AG3a (aged 1 month to <2 years). The Cox proportional hazard model evaluated the relationship between NT-proBNP and clinical outcomes. Analysis of 361 paediatric patients (sacubitril/valsartan, n = 179; enalapril, n = 182) demonstrated overall higher baseline NT-proBNP levels in younger AGs. At Week 52, both treatment groups exhibited reduced NT-proBNP levels across all AGs. Reductions were comparable between sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril, with a numerically greater reduction observed in adult patients versus children. Strong associations between NT-proBNP levels and HF clinical outcomes were observed in paediatric populations in PANORAMA-HF and in adult DCM patients with HFrEF in PARADIGM-HF. Doubling of NT-proBNP levels was associated with a ≥1.7-fold increased risk of HF clinical events, while halving of the levels correlated with a 52% reduction in the risk of clinical events. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first prospective, randomized large-scale study to demonstrate a strong correlation between NT-proBNP levels and risks of HF clinical events in paediatric patients with HF.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".