Chioncel Ovidiu, Davison Beth, Adamo Marianna, Antohi Laura E, Arrigo Mattia, Barros Marianela, Biegus Jan, Čerlinskaitė-Bajorė Kamilė, Celutkiene Jelena, Cohen-Solal Alain, Damasceno Albertino, Diaz Rafael, Edwards Christopher, Filippatos Gerasimos, Kimmoun Antoine, Lam Carolyn S P, Metra Marco, Novosadova Maria, Pagnesi Matteo, Pang Peter S, Ponikowski Piotr, Radu Razvan I, Saidu Hadiza, Sliwa Karen, Voors Adriaan A, Takagi Koji, Ter Maaten Jozine M, Tomasoni Daniela, Cotter Gad, Mebazaa Alexandre
Emergency Institute for Cardiovascular Diseases 'Prof. C.C. Iliescu', University of Medicine "Carol Davila", Bucharest, Romania.
Université Paris Cité, INSERM UMR-S 942(MASCOT), Paris, France.
Eur J Heart Fail. 2023 Nov;25(11):1994-2006. doi: 10.1002/ejhf.3039. Epub 2023 Oct 4.
To assess the potential interaction between non-cardiac comorbidities (NCCs) and the efficacy and safety of high-intensity care (HIC) versus usual care (UC) in the STRONG-HF trial, including stable patients with improved but still elevated natriuretic peptides.
In the trial, eight NCCs were reported: anaemia, diabetes, renal dysfunction, severe liver disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/asthma, stroke/transient ischaemic attack, psychiatric/neurological disorders, and malignancies. Patients were classified by NCC number (0, 1, 2 and ≥3). The treatment effect of HIC versus UC on the primary endpoint, 180-day death or heart failure (HF) rehospitalization, was compared by NCC number and by each individual comorbidity. Among the 1078 patients, the prevalence of 0, 1, 2 and ≥3 NCCs was 24.3%, 39.8%, 24.5% and 11.4%, respectively. Achievement of full doses of HF therapies at 90 and 180 days in the HIC was similar irrespective of NCC number. In HIC, the primary endpoint occurred in 10.0%, 16.6%, 13.6% and 26.2%, in those with 0, 1, 2 and ≥3 NCCs, respectively, as compared to 19.1%, 25.4%, 23.3% and 26.2% in UC (interaction-p = 0.80). The treatment benefit of HIC versus UC on the primary endpoint did not differ significantly by each individual comorbidity. There was no significant treatment interaction by NCC number in quality-of-life improvement (p = 0.98) or the incidence of serious adverse events (p = 0.11).
In the STRONG-HF trial, NCCs neither limited the rapid up-titration of HF therapies, nor attenuated the benefit of HIC on the primary endpoint. In the context of a clinical trial, the benefit-risk ratio favours the rapid up-titration of HF therapies even in patients with multiple NCCs.
在STRONG-HF试验中,评估非心脏合并症(NCCs)与高强度治疗(HIC)对比常规治疗(UC)的疗效和安全性之间的潜在相互作用,该试验纳入了利钠肽改善但仍升高的稳定患者。
在该试验中,报告了8种NCCs:贫血、糖尿病、肾功能不全、严重肝病、慢性阻塞性肺疾病/哮喘、中风/短暂性脑缺血发作、精神/神经疾病和恶性肿瘤。患者按NCC数量(0、1、2和≥3)进行分类。通过NCC数量和每种单独的合并症比较HIC与UC对主要终点(180天死亡或心力衰竭(HF)再住院)的治疗效果。在1078例患者中,0、1、2和≥3种NCCs的患病率分别为24.3%、39.8%、24.5%和11.4%。无论NCC数量如何,HIC在90天和180天时达到全剂量HF治疗的情况相似。在HIC组中,0、1、2和≥3种NCCs的患者主要终点发生率分别为10.0%、16.6%、13.6%和26.2%,而UC组分别为19.1%、25.4%、23.3%和26.2%(交互作用P = 0.80)。HIC与UC在主要终点上的治疗获益在每种单独的合并症中无显著差异。在生活质量改善方面(P = 0.98)或严重不良事件发生率方面(P = 0.11),按NCC数量分类无显著的治疗交互作用。
在STRONG-HF试验中,NCCs既未限制HF治疗的快速滴定,也未减弱HIC在主要终点上的获益。在临床试验背景下,即使在有多种NCCs的患者中,获益风险比也支持HF治疗的快速滴定。