Why the study?
Conventional risk metrics may suggest greater benefits of therapy in high-risk patients, whereas restricted mean survival time can provide projections of long-term survival to better explain expected treatment effects to clinicians and patients.
Do heart failure therapies improve long-term survival as estimated by restricted mean survival time (RMST) in patients with HFrEF?
Do heart failure therapies improve long-term survival as estimated by restricted mean survival time (RMST) in patients with HFrEF?
Restricted mean survival time (RMST) provides a clinically useful metric to explain potential long-term benefits of heart failure treatments, demonstrating that younger and lower-risk patients may gain more event-free survival time despite smaller absolute risk reductions.
May aid shared decision-making on ARNI benefits in HFrEF; leaves open validation in prospective trials.
OBJECTIVES: This study compared ways of describing treatment effects. The objective was to better explain to clinicians and patients what they might expect from a given treatment, not only in terms of relative and absolute risk reduction, but also in projections of long-term survival. BACKGROUND: The restricted mean survival time (RMST) can be used to estimate of long-term survival, providing a complementary approach to more conventional metrics (e.g., absolute and relative risk), which may suggest greater benefits of therapy in high-risk patients compared with low-risk patients. METHODS: Relative and absolute risk, as well as the RMST, were calculated in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) trials. RESULTS: As examples, in the RALES trial (more severe HFrEF), the treatment effect metrics for spironolactone versus placebo on heart failure hospitalization and/or cardiovascular death were a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.5 to 0.77), number needed to treat = 9 (7 to 14), and age extension of event-free survival +1.1 years (-0.1 to + 2.3 years). The corresponding metrics for EMPHASIS-HF (eplerenone vs. placebo in less severe HFrEF) were 0.64 (0.54 to 0.75), 14 (1 to 22), and +2.9 (1.2 to 4.5). In patients in PARADIGM-HF aged younger than 65 years, the metrics for sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril were 0.77 (95% CI: 0.68 to 0.88), 23 (15 to 44), and +1.7 (0.6 to 2.8) years; for those aged 65 years or older, the metrics were 0.83 (95% CI: 0.73 to 0.94), 29 (17 to 83), and +0.9 (0.2 to 1.6) years, which provided evidence of a greater potential life extension in younger patients. Similar observations were found for lower risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: RMST event-free (and overall) survival estimates provided a complementary means of evaluating the effect of therapy in relation to age and risk. They also provided a clinically useful metric that should be routinely reported and used to explain the potential long-term benefits of a given treatment, especially to younger and less symptomatic patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ferreira et al. (2020) studied Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (n=19,599). Heart failure therapies (sacubitril/valsartan, spironolactone, eplerenone, digoxin) vs. Placebo or enalapril was evaluated on Cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization (PARADIGM-HF) (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.88, p=<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: