Key result
In a real-world cohort with T2DM and worsening HF, 27.2% were eligible for sotagliflozin based on literal trial criteria, compared to 62.8% based on pragmatic criteria.
Why the study?
Selection criteria in trials may limit generalizability, so the authors investigated eligibility for sotagliflozin based on SOLOIST-WHF criteria in a real-world HF population.
What proportion of real-world patients with T2DM and recent worsening HF are eligible for sotagliflozin based on SOLOIST-WHF trial criteria?
Observational (n=5,453)
Yes
What proportion of real-world patients with T2DM and recent worsening HF are eligible for sotagliflozin based on SOLOIST-WHF trial criteria?
A significant proportion of real-world patients with T2DM and worsening HF are eligible for sotagliflozin, especially when pragmatic criteria are applied, and these eligible patients represent a high-risk group with elevated event rates.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Pragmatic criteria identify more high-risk T2DM-HF patients eligible for sotagliflozin; leaves optimal selection open pending prospective trials.
AIMS: The SOLOIST-WHF trial demonstrated efficacy of sotagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and recent worsening heart failure (HF) regardless of ejection fraction (EF). Selection criteria in trials may limit their generalizability. Therefore, we aimed to investigate eligibility for sotagliflozin based on the SOLOIST-WHF criteria in a real-world HF population. METHODS AND RESULTS: SOLOIST-WHF criteria were applied to patients stabilized after HF hospitalization in the Swedish HF Registry according to (i) literal scenario (all inclusion/exclusion criteria) or (ii) pragmatic scenario (only criteria likely to influence treatment decisions). Of 5453 inpatients with T2DM and recent worsening HF, 51.4% had reduced EF (HFrEF), 19.1% mildly reduced (HFmrEF), and 29.5% preserved EF (HFpEF). Eligibility (literal) was: 27.2% (32.4% in HFrEF, 24.7% in HFmrEF, 19.7% in HFpEF) and eligibility (pragmatic) was 62.8% (69.1%, 60.3%, 53.4%, respectively). In the literal scenario, criteria limiting eligibility were HF duration <3 months, eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m2, age >85 years, acute coronary syndrome <3 months, and insufficiently high N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels. Eligible vs. non-eligible patients had more severe HF, higher cardiovascular (CV) comorbidity burden, higher use of HF treatments, and higher event rates (all-cause death 30.8 vs. 27.2 per 100 patient-years, CV death 19.1 vs. 16.6, and HF hospitalization 36.7 vs. 24.0). CONCLUSION: In this large, real-world HF cohort with T2DM, ∼1/3 of patients were eligible for sotagliflozin in the literal and ∼2/3 of patients in the pragmatic scenario. Eligible patients had more severe HF and higher event rates, in particular CV and HF events.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Becher et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Type 2 diabetes mellitus and recent worsening heart failure (n=5,453). Literal SOLOIST-WHF criteria vs. Pragmatic SOLOIST-WHF criteria was evaluated on Eligibility for sotagliflozin. In a real-world cohort with T2DM and worsening HF, 27.2% were eligible for sotagliflozin based on literal trial criteria, compared to 62.8% based on pragmatic criteria.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: