JACC. Heart failure · 2023
Effect of Canagliflozin on Heart Failure Hospitalization in Diabetes According to Baseline Heart Failure Risk.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Khan Muhammad Shahzeb, Segar Matthew W, Usman Muhammad Shariq, Patel Kershaw V, Van Spall Harriette G C, DeVore Adam D, Vaduganathan Muthiah, Lam Carolyn S P, Zannad Faiez, Verma Subodh, Butler Javed, Tang W H Wilson, Pandey Ambarish
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In the CANVAS (Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study) program, canagliflozin reduced the risk of heart failure (HF) hospitalization among individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate heterogeneity in absolute and relative treatment effects of canagliflozin on HF hospitalization according to baseline HF risk as assessed by diabetes-specific HF risk scores (WATCH-DM [Weight (body mass index), Age, hyperTension, Creatinine, HDL-C, Diabetes control (fasting plasma glucose) and QRS Duration, MI and CABG] and TRS-HFDM [TIMI Risk Score for HF in Diabetes]).
METHODS: Participants in the CANVAS trial were categorized into low, medium, and high risk for HF using the WATCH-DM score (for participants without prevalent HF) and the TRS-HFDM score (for all participants). The outcome of interest was time to first HF hospitalization. The treatment effect of canagliflozin vs placebo for HF hospitalization was compared across risk strata.
RESULTS: Among 10,137 participants with available HF data, 1,446 (14.3%) had HF at baseline. Among participants without baseline HF, WATCH-DM risk category did not modify the treatment effect of canagliflozin (vs placebo) on HF hospitalization (P interaction = 0.56). However, the absolute and relative risk reduction with canagliflozin was numerically greater in the high-risk group (cumulative incidence, canagliflozin vs placebo: 8.1% vs 12.7%; HR: 0.62 [95% CI: 0.37-0.93]; P = 0.03; number needed to treat: 22) than in the low- and intermediate-risk groups. When overall study participants were categorized according to the TRS-HFDM score, a statistically significant difference in the treatment effect of canagliflozin across risk strata was observed (P interaction = 0.04). Canagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of HF hospitalization by 39% in the high-risk group (HR: 0.61 [95% CI: 0.48-0.78]; P < 0.001; number needed to treat: 20) but not in the intermediate- or low-risk groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Among participants with T2DM, the WATCH-DM and TRS-HFDM can reliably identify those at high risk for HF hospitalization and most likely to benefit from canagliflozin.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate heterogeneity in absolute and relative treatment effects of canagliflozin on HF hospitalization according to baseline HF risk as assessed by diabetes-specific HF risk scores (WATCH-DM [Weight (body mass index), Age, hyperTension, Creatinine, HDL-C, Diabetes control (fasting plasma glucose) and QRS Duration, MI and CABG] and TRS-HFDM [TIMI Risk Score for HF in Diabetes]).
METHODS: Participants in the CANVAS trial were categorized into low, medium, and high risk for HF using the WATCH-DM score (for participants without prevalent HF) and the TRS-HFDM score (for all participants). The outcome of interest was time to first HF hospitalization. The treatment effect of canagliflozin vs placebo for HF hospitalization was compared across risk strata.
RESULTS: Among 10,137 participants with available HF data, 1,446 (14.3%) had HF at baseline. Among participants without baseline HF, WATCH-DM risk category did not modify the treatment effect of canagliflozin (vs placebo) on HF hospitalization (P interaction = 0.56). However, the absolute and relative risk reduction with canagliflozin was numerically greater in the high-risk group (cumulative incidence, canagliflozin vs placebo: 8.1% vs 12.7%; HR: 0.62 [95% CI: 0.37-0.93]; P = 0.03; number needed to treat: 22) than in the low- and intermediate-risk groups. When overall study participants were categorized according to the TRS-HFDM score, a statistically significant difference in the treatment effect of canagliflozin across risk strata was observed (P interaction = 0.04). Canagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of HF hospitalization by 39% in the high-risk group (HR: 0.61 [95% CI: 0.48-0.78]; P < 0.001; number needed to treat: 20) but not in the intermediate- or low-risk groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Among participants with T2DM, the WATCH-DM and TRS-HFDM can reliably identify those at high risk for HF hospitalization and most likely to benefit from canagliflozin.