Department of Epidemiology Research, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Department of Epidemiology Research, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark2Department of Medicine, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Oct;174(10):1597-604. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3258.
The β-blockers carvedilol and metoprolol succinate both reduce mortality in patients with heart failure (HF), but the comparative clinical effectiveness of these drugs is unknown.
To investigate whether carvedilol is associated with improved survival compared with metoprolol succinate.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cohort study of patients with incident HF with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (≤40%) who received carvedilol (n = 6026) or metoprolol succinate (n = 5638) using data from a Danish national HF registry linked with health care and administrative databases.
All-cause mortality (primary outcome) and cardiovascular mortality (secondary outcome) were analyzed using Cox regression with adjustment for a propensity score, derived from a range of clinical, socioeconomic, and demographic characteristics.
The mean (SD) age of the patients was 69.3 (9.1) years, 71% were men, and 51% were hospitalized at index HF diagnosis. During a median (interquartile range) 2.4 (1.0-3.0) years of follow-up, 875 carvedilol users and 754 metoprolol users died; the cumulative incidence of mortality was 18.3% and 18.8%, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio for carvedilol users vs metoprolol users was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.88 to 1.11), corresponding to an absolute risk difference of -0.07 (95% CI, -0.84 to 0.77) deaths per 100 person-years. Estimates were consistent across subgroup analyses by sex, age, levels of LVEF, New York Heart Association classification, and history of ischemic heart disease. A higher proportion of carvedilol users achieved the recommended daily target dose (50 mg; 3124 [52%]) than did metoprolol users (200 mg; 689 [12%]); among patients who reached the target dose, the adjusted hazard ratio was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.72-1.30). A robustness analysis with 1:1 propensity score matching confirmed the primary findings (hazard ratio, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.84-1.13]). The adjusted hazard ratio for cardiovascular mortality was 1.05 (95% CI, 0.88-1.26).
These findings from real-world clinical practice indicate that the effectiveness of carvedilol and metoprolol succinate in patients with HF is similar.
β受体阻滞剂卡维地洛和琥珀酸美托洛尔均可降低心力衰竭(HF)患者的死亡率,但这两种药物的临床疗效比较尚不清楚。
研究卡维地洛与琥珀酸美托洛尔相比是否与生存率的提高相关。
设计、设置和参与者:使用丹麦全国 HF 登记处与医疗保健和行政数据库相关联的数据,对左心室射血分数(LVEF)降低(≤40%)的新发 HF 患者(n=6026)接受卡维地洛或琥珀酸美托洛尔治疗的队列研究(n=5638)。
使用 Cox 回归分析全因死亡率(主要结局)和心血管死亡率(次要结局),并对倾向评分进行调整,该评分源自一系列临床、社会经济和人口统计学特征。
患者的平均(SD)年龄为 69.3(9.1)岁,71%为男性,51%在指数 HF 诊断时住院。在中位(四分位间距)2.4(1.0-3.0)年的随访期间,875 名卡维地洛使用者和 754 名琥珀酸美托洛尔使用者死亡;死亡率的累积发生率分别为 18.3%和 18.8%。卡维地洛使用者与琥珀酸美托洛尔使用者的调整后风险比为 0.99(95%CI,0.88 至 1.11),这对应于每 100 人年死亡风险差异为 -0.07(95%CI,-0.84 至 0.77)。按性别、年龄、LVEF 水平、纽约心脏协会分类和缺血性心脏病史进行亚组分析的结果一致。与琥珀酸美托洛尔使用者(200mg;689[12%])相比,更多的卡维地洛使用者达到了推荐的每日目标剂量(50mg;3124[52%]);在达到目标剂量的患者中,调整后的风险比为 0.97(95%CI,0.72-1.30)。使用 1:1 倾向评分匹配的稳健性分析证实了主要发现(风险比,0.97[95%CI,0.84-1.13])。心血管死亡率的调整后风险比为 1.05(95%CI,0.88-1.26)。
这些来自真实临床实践的研究结果表明,HF 患者中卡维地洛和琥珀酸美托洛尔的疗效相似。