RESPITE: switching to riociguat in pulmonary arterial hypertension patients with inadequate response to phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A proportion of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) patients do not reach treatment goals with phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5i). RESPITE investigated the safety, feasibility and benefit of switching from PDE5i to riociguat in these patients. RESPITE was a 24-week, open-label, multicentre, uncontrolled study. Patients in World Health Organization (WHO) functional class (FC) III, with 6-min walking distance (6MWD) 165–440 m, cardiac index <3.0 L·min −1 ·m −2 and pulmonary vascular resistance >400 dyn·s·cm −5 underwent a 1–3 day PDE5i treatment-free period before receiving riociguat adjusted up to 2.5 mg maximum t.i.d . Exploratory end-points included change in 6MWD, WHO FC, N -terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and safety. Of 61 patients enrolled, 51 (84%) completed RESPITE. 50 (82%) were receiving concomitant endothelin receptor antagonists. At week 24, mean± sd 6MWD had increased by 31±63 m, NT-proBNP decreased by 347±1235 pg·mL −1 and WHO FC improved in 28 patients (54%). 32 patients (52%) experienced study drug-related adverse events and 10 (16%) experienced serious adverse events (2 (3%) study drug-related, none during the PDE5i treatment-free period). Six patients (10%) experienced clinical worsening, including death in two (not study drug-related). In conclusion, selected patients with PAH may benefit from switching from PDE5i to riociguat, but this strategy needs to be further studied.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".