MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Rationale and Design of the VITALITY-HFpEF Trial

2019· article· en· W2946323141 on OpenAlexaff
Javed Butler, Carolyn S.P. Lam, Kevin J. Anstrom, Justin A. Ezekowitz, Adrian F. Hernandez, Christopher M. O’Connor, Burkert Pieske, Piotr Ponikowski, Sanjiv J. Shah, Scott D. Solomon, Adriaan A. Voors, Yi Wu, Francine Carvalho, Luke Bamber, Robert O. Blaustein, Lothar Roessig, Paul W. Armstrong

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Heart Failure · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian VIGOUR Centre
FundersNational Institute of General Medical Sciences
KeywordsMedicineHeart failure with preserved ejection fractionHeart failureCardiologyEjection fractionInternal medicineVitalityQuality of life (healthcare)Clinical endpointPlaceboPhysical therapyExercise intoleranceClinical trialPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The VITALITY-HFpEF trial (Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of the Oral sGC Stimulator Vericiguat to Improve Physical Functioning in Daily Living Activities of Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction) is designed to determine the efficacy and safety of a novel oral soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator, vericiguat, on quality of life and exercise tolerance in heart failure patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Impaired physical functioning reduces the quality of life in patients with HFpEF. The primary goal of HF treatment along with improving survival is to improve function, reduce symptoms, and maximize quality of life. Abnormal cyclic guanosine monophosphate signaling may contribute to physical limitations in patients with HFpEF via central and peripheral mechanisms. Exploratory post hoc analyses from a prior trial showed that vericiguat can improve patient-relevant domains of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, especially the physical limitation score. Methods and Results VITALITY-HFpEF is a placebo-controlled, double-blind, multi-center, phase IIb trial of ≈735 patients, ≥45 years with HFpEF and ejection fraction ≥45% who will be randomized 1:1:1 to placebo, 10 mg, or 15 mg vericiguat. The primary end point is change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire physical limitation score from baseline to week 24 and change in 6-minute walk test from baseline to week 24 is the secondary end point. Conclusions VITALITY-HFpEF is the first trial designed to assess the efficacy of vericiguat in patients with HFpEF using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire physical limitation score as a novel primary end point. This study will also extend the prior dosing experience with vericiguat in HF by studying the safety and efficacy of a 15 mg dose. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT03547583.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations44
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Heart FailureSame topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studiesFrench-language works237,207