MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414128681 · doi:10.1161/jaha.125.042943

Comparison of Quadruple Therapy Sequencing Strategies for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

2025· article· en· W4414128681 on OpenAlexafffund
Ricky D. Turgeon, Huynh Van Minh, Peter Loewen, Mohsen Sadatsafavi, Wei Zhang, Blair J. MacDonald, Karen Mackay, Nathaniel M. Hawkins

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsHeart failureEjection fractionAdverse effectHeart failure with preserved ejection fractionHeart diseaseRisk assessment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Guidelines unanimously recommend quadruple therapy for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), yet direct comparative evidence is lacking to recommend a specific order of initiating and titrating these agents (or "sequencing strategy"). In the absence of randomized evidence, we aimed to compare the 1-year efficacy and harms of proposed HFrEF quadruple therapy sequencing strategies using a microsimulation model. METHODS: We conducted a microsimulation study to compare 6 different HFrEF medication sequencing strategies (emulating the range of conventional, 2-drug, and rapid or simultaneous strategies), each with 2 versions (twice-weekly/weekly medication adjustments), applied to treatment-naïve outpatients with HFrEF. We modeled death; total heart failure hospitalization (including recurrent events); the composite of death or first heart failure hospitalization; and adverse drug events (bradycardia, hyperkalemia, hypotension, and renal impairment) at 1 year. RESULTS: At 1 year, an estimated 15.3 per 100 patients died without treatment compared with 6.9 per 100 patients with the conventional sequence adjusted biweekly, and 5.2 to 6.4 per 100 patients with other sequencing strategies. The incidence of heart failure hospitalization decreased from 31.5 per 100 patients without treatment to 11.4 per 100 patients with conventional sequencing adjusted biweekly, and 7.3 to 9.4 per 100 patients with other strategies. The cumulative incidence of total adverse drug events per 100 patients was 14.2 to 16.0 across sequencing strategies. CONCLUSIONS: For treatment-naïve outpatients with HFrEF, sequencing strategies that started 2 to 4 medications on the first visit, followed by titration biweekly or weekly, were associated with lower risk of death and heart failure hospitalization, and similar risk of treatment-related adverse events, at 1 year compared with conventional sequencing.

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)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.322 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart Association→Same topicHeart Failure Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→