Rationale and Design of the VITALITY-HFpEF Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.042 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.010 |
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".