MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Rationale and design of the CADENCE trial: evaluating sotatercept in Cpc-PH secondary to HFpEF

2025· article· en· W7127623174 on OpenAlexaff
M Gomberg-Maitland, David Langleben, S Rosenkranz, R J Tedford, Alessia Urbinati, A G Cornell, A D Jones, B Miller, J L Vachiery

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical endpointHeart failurePulmonary wedge pressureEjection fractionHeart failure with preserved ejection fractionPulmonary arteryPlaceboPulmonary hypertension

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background/Introduction Combined post- and precapillary pulmonary hypertension (Cpc-PH) complicates heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), contributing to an increase in morbidity and mortality. There is no approved therapy for this condition, in addition to recommended treatment for the underlying disorder. Sotatercept, a first-in-class activin signaling inhibitor, may offer a novel therapeutic approach. Purpose The ongoing CADENCE trial evaluates the efficacy and safety of sotatercept in Cpc-PH associated with HFpEF, aiming to improve clinical outcomes. Methods This phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study enrolled approximately 150 adults (18-85 years) with Cpc-PH associated with HFpEF, who were on stable doses (≥30 days) of guideline-directed medical therapies for HF and other chronic conditions. Inclusion criteria mandated left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥50%, mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) >20 mmHg, pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) ≥4 Wood units, and pulmonary artery wedge pressure (PAWP) >15 mmHg but <30 mmHg. Participants were also required to have New York Heart Association functional class (NYHA-FC) II or III and a 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) ≥100 m. Key exclusion criteria included significant lung disease, severe valvular conditions, uncontrolled hypertension, recent coronary events, and prior use of PAH-related therapies. Participants were stratified by NYHA-FC and randomized 1:1:1 to receive subcutaneous sotatercept (0.3 mg/kg or 0.3 mg/kg escalating to 0.7 mg/kg) or placebo every 3 weeks for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint is the change in PVR at week 24, with 6MWD a key secondary endpoint. Other secondary endpoints include time-to-clinical worsening (TTCW; a composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, heart failure- or PH-related hospitalizations, intravenous diuretic initiation, or ≥15% decrease in 6MWD), echocardiographic and hemodynamic parameters, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels, and NYHA-FC. Exploratory outcomes include patient-reported outcomes and biomarkers. An interim analysis is planned. Those initially assigned to placebo will be re-randomized to one of the sotatercept dose groups in an open-label extension study. An independent data monitoring committee (DMC) oversees periodic safety reviews. Conclusion The ongoing CADENCE trial aims to demonstrate whether sotatercept improves pulmonary hemodynamics, exercise capacity, and reduces risk of fatal and non-fatal clinical worsening events in patients with Cpc-PH associated with HFpEF, potentially addressing a need for effective treatments in this high-risk population.

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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.190

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.004

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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207