Key result
Digital health technologies showed no significant effect on 90-day KCCQ OSS compared to usual care, though Noom improved Total Symptom Score (+4.2 vs -1 points; P=0.006).
Why the study?
Digital health tools may improve quality of life in patients with heart failure by promoting self-care, knowledge, and engagement, but their effects require evaluation.
Do digital health technologies improve quality of life in patients with heart failure?
RCT (n=182)
Do digital health technologies improve quality of life in patients with heart failure?
While three digital health interventions did not improve overall KCCQ summary scores at 90 days in heart failure patients, the Noom smartphone application significantly improved symptom and clinical summary scores compared to usual care.
Does not support digital health for HF quality of life; challenges broad adoption and leaves app-specific effects open.
BACKGROUND: Digital health tools may improve quality of life (QoL) in patients with heart failure (HF) by promoting self-care, knowledge, and engagement. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluates the effect of 3 digital technologies on QoL in patients with HF. METHODS: A total of 182 patients were randomized to usual care or one of the technologies promoting self-care: Bodyport (cardiac scale), Conversa (conversational platform), or Noom (smartphone application). The primary outcome was 90-day change in QoL, as assessed by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) Overall Summary Score (OSS). RESULTS: A total of 151 participants (83%) completed their 90-day surveys. The median age of enrolled participants was 61 years (IQR: 53-69 years), and 37.9% were women. No group had any significant change in KCCQ OSS or improvement relative to usual care. However, symptoms and physical function at 90 days, as assessed by the Total Symptom Score (TSS) and Clinical Summary Score (CSS), were significantly improved in the Noom group relative to usual care: TSS median change of +4.2 points (IQR -1 to +16.7) vs -1 points (IQR: -13.5 to +7.8; P = 0.006); CSS median change of +2.8 points (IQR: -1 to +14.6) vs -3.1 points (IQR: -10.2 to +3; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Three digital interventions showed no independent effect on QoL as assessed by the KCCQ OSS. However, participants randomized to the Noom technology demonstrated improved KCCQ TSS and CSS relative to usual care. Although digital tools may be an important component of longitudinal care for patients with HF, larger studies are needed to better understand their effectiveness and optimal deployment. (Evaluating Efficacy of Digital Health Technology in the Treatment of Congestive Heart Failure; NCT04394754).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Victoria‐Castro et al. (2023) conducted an RCT in Heart failure (n=182). Digital health technologies (Bodyport, Conversa, or Noom) vs. Usual care was evaluated on 90-day change in QoL, as assessed by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) Overall Summary Score (OSS). Digital health technologies showed no significant effect on 90-day KCCQ OSS compared to usual care, though Noom improved Total Symptom Score (+4.2 vs -1 points; P=0.006).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: