Aims To assess the proportion of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who are eligible for sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) based on the European Medicines Agency/Food and Drug Administration (EMA/FDA) label, the PARADIGM‐HF trial and the 2016 ESC guidelines, and the association between eligibility and outcomes. Methods and results Outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC‐EORP‐HFA Long‐Term Heart Failure (HF‐LT) Registry between March 2011 and November 2013 were considered. Criteria for LCZ696 based on EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM‐HF and ESC guidelines were applied. Of 5443 patients, 2197 and 2373 had complete information for trial and guideline eligibility assessment, and 84%, 12% and 12% met EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM‐HF and guideline criteria, respectively. Absent PARADIGM‐HF criteria were low natriuretic peptides (21%), hyperkalemia (4%), hypotension (7%) and sub‐optimal pharmacotherapy (74%); absent Guidelines criteria were LVEF>35% (23%), insufficient NP levels (30%) and sub‐optimal pharmacotherapy (82%); absent label criteria were absence of symptoms (New York Heart Association class I). When a daily requirement of ACEi/ARB ≥ 10 mg enalapril (instead of ≥ 20 mg) was used, eligibility rose from 12% to 28% based on both PARADIGM‐HF and guidelines. One‐year heart failure hospitalization was higher (12% and 17% vs. 12%) and all‐cause mortality lower (5.3% and 6.5% vs. 7.7%) in registry eligible patients compared to the enalapril arm of PARADIGM‐HF. Conclusions Among outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC‐EORP‐HFA HF‐LT Registry, 84% met label criteria, while only 12% and 28% met PARADIGM‐HF and guideline criteria for LCZ696 if requiring ≥ 20 mg and ≥ 10 mg enalapril, respectively. Registry patients eligible for LCZ696 had greater heart failure hospitalization but lower mortality rates than the PARADIGM‐HF enalapril group.
Cancer-free women who are from families with an inherited form of breast and/or ovarian cancer (BRCA1/2) are referred to as 'unaffected non-carriers' when the results of genetic testing for the inherited gene are negative. Recent studies have identified overscreening behaviours (undergoing more screening tests for cancer than are medically warranted) among these women, even though they do not require specific cancer monitoring. Overscreening behaviours deserve particular attention due to their potential psychological drivers and implications. The principal objective of this study was to examine the factors, including state anxiety, feelings of self-vulnerability, and the comparative perception of cancer risk that might explain these overscreening behaviours. Unaffected non-carriers women (n = 77) were asked about these different variables. Overscreening was associated with and determined by feelings of self-vulnerability and the comparative perception of cancer risk, but was not associated with anxiety. An increase in feelings of self-vulnerability or elevated comparative pessimism (CP) was related to the participants' decision to be frequently screened. Patients' perceptions of the risk should be considered in measures or information aimed at preventing inappropriate overscreening behaviours.
This study aimed to 1) compare the cancer screening practices of unaffected noncarrier women under 40 and those aged 40 to 49, following the age-based medical screening guidelines, and 2) consider the way the patients justified their practices of screening or over-screening. For this study, 131 unaffected noncarriers-77 women under age 40 and 54 between 40 and 49, all belonging to a BRCA1/2 family-responded to a questionnaire on breast or ovarian cancer screenings they had undergone since receiving their negative genetic test results, their motives for seeking these screenings, and their intentions to pursue these screenings in the future. Unaffected noncarriers under age 40 admitted practices that could be qualified as over-screening. Apart from mammogram and breast ultrasounds, which the women under 40 reported seeking less often, these women's screening practices were comparable to those of women between 40 and 49. Cancer prevention and a family history of cancer were the two most frequently cited justifications for pursuing these screenings. We suggest that health care professionals discuss with women under 50 the ineffectiveness of breast and ovarian cancer screenings so that they will adapt their practices to conform to medical guidelines and limit their exposure to the potentially negative impacts of early cancer screening.
Several common characteristics are shared by competition and comparative optimism; and comparative optimism has often been observed in competitive environments like entrepreneurial fields or areas that require skills. Competitive context could be an explanatory factor for comparative optimism neglected to date. The aim of this article is to test the links between competition (vs. cooperation) and comparative optimism. In Study 1, participants in different academic majors with a more or less competitive nature (respectively, medical studies and human sciences studies) answered questions about their future and that of others. In Study 2, for the participants in the less competitive course of study (human sciences studies), we presented their studies as being either competitive or cooperative. The impact of this context was tested as a function of the closeness or distance between the participants and the comparison targets. The results of both studies showed that competition increased the expression of comparative optimism. In Study 2, this effect emerged more when the comparison target was distant than when it was close, with proximity hindering the competitive relationship between the self and others. The feeling of competition with others contributed to a better understanding of comparative optimism and initiated new explanations for its emergence.
We usually think that positive events are more likely to occur to us than to others and vice versa for negative events. This phenomenon, called comparative optimism, increases both social utility and the tendency to present oneself as above average. The literature highlights the same elements in competition. Our objective was to study the links between comparative optimism and competition and to argue that social utility can explain this relation. In our study, we presented participants with comparative optimistic, comparative pessimistic or neutral targets. We observed that a comparative optimistic target was perceived to fit better with a competitive situation than other targets because he/she was deemed socially useful (e.g., assertive, selfconfident). Participants also felt that a comparative optimistic target pursued more performance goals than the other targets. This effect was mediated by the perception of this target as a competitive person. These results, consistent with our assumptions, highlight the competitive dimension of comparative optimism.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.