MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283837356 · doi:10.1002/ejhf.2608

Efficacy and safety of vericiguat in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction treated with sacubitril/valsartan: insights from the VICTORIA trial

2022· article· en· W4283837356 on OpenAlexaff
Michele Senni, Wendimagegn Alemayehu, David Sim, Frank Edelmann, Javed Butler, Justin A. Ezekowitz, Adrian F. Hernandez, Carolyn S.P. Lam, Christopher M. O’Connor, Burkert Pieske, Piotr Ponikowski, Lothar Roessig, Adriaan A. Voors, Cynthia M. Westerhout, Ciaran J. McMullan, Paul W. Armstrong

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Heart Failure · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsCanadian VIGOUR CentreUniversity of Alberta
FundersMerck Sharp and DohmeBayer
KeywordsMedicineValsartanSacubitril, ValsartanSacubitrilEjection fractionHeart failureHazard ratioRandomizationInternal medicineClinical endpointPlaceboCardiologyConfidence intervalBlood pressureRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: We assessed a subset of the 5040 patients in VICTORIA receiving sacubitril/valsartan, either at randomization (n = 731) or post-randomization drop-in use (n = 425), to evaluate the relationship between the efficacy and safety of combination therapy with vericiguat. METHODS AND RESULTS: The efficacy of vericiguat on the primary composite endpoint, heart failure (HF) hospitalization, and all-cause mortality was assessed. Safety outcomes included symptomatic hypotension, syncope, worsening renal function, and hyperkalaemia. At randomization, 731 patients received sacubitril/valsartan; they were more frequently from Western Europe or North America, had lower ejection fraction and systolic blood pressure, and more use of triple background HF therapy (65.9% vs. 58.6%), biventricular pacemakers (17.9% vs. 14.1%), or implantable cardioverter defibrillators (42.3% vs. 25.3%). For patients on versus not on sacubitril/valsartan at randomization, adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for vericiguat's treatment effect on the primary composite outcome, cardiovascular death, and HF hospitalization were 0.92 (0.71-1.19) versus 0.89 (0.80-0.98), 0.71 (0.45-1.12) versus 0.95 (0.82-1.11), and 0.98 (0.74-1.29) versus 0.87 (0.78-0.98), respectively. No significant interaction existed between sacubitril/valsartan and vericiguat's treatment effect (p-values for interaction: 0.81, 0.23 and 0.47, respectively). Post-randomization, more drop-in sacubitril/valsartan use occurred in those assigned to placebo (n = 238) versus vericiguat (n = 187) (p = 0.007). Symptomatic hypotension (21.0% vs. 23.1%; p = 0.41), renal dysfunction (29.9% vs. 31.9%; p = 0.50), and hyperkalaemia (10.3% vs. 7.9%; p = 0.20) in patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan (n = 992) for ≥3 months were not different by treatment arm. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant use of sacubitril/valsartan for at least 3 months did not alter the efficacy of vericiguat and was similarly safe and tolerated in both study arms. Sacubitril/valsartan was initiated more frequently after randomization in patients assigned to placebo versus vericiguat. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02861534.

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)0.005
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations38
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Heart FailureSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207