Search

Importance: Dapagliflozin has been shown to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure (HF) in patients with chronic HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, clinical inertia often underlies deferred initiation of effective therapies., Objective: To examine timing of onset of clinical benefit with dapagliflozin and magnitude as a function of proximity to prior HF hospitalization., Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a secondary analysis of a completed multinational trial. The Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse-Outcomes in Heart Failure trial was a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial of dapagliflozin in patients with chronic HFrEF (n = 4744). From February 2017 to August 2018, the study enrolled patients in New York Heart Association classes II through IV and with left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less; the median (range) follow-up time was 18.2 (0-27.8) months. Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated for the primary efficacy outcome with dapagliflozin vs placebo by time following randomization. Efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin were assessed according to the timing of the most recent HF hospitalization prior to trial enrollment., Exposures: None., Main Outcomes and Measures: Composite of cardiovascular death or worsening HF., Results: A total of 4744 patients were included (1109 women [23.4%]; mean [SD] age, 66.3 [10.9] years). The reduction in the primary outcome with dapagliflozin was rapidly apparent, with a sustained statistically significant benefit by 28 days after randomization (HR at 28 days, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.28-0.94]; P = .03). A total of 2251 patients (47.4%) had been previously hospitalized for HF, and 1301 (27.4%) had been hospitalized within 12 months prior to enrollment. Among patients treated with placebo, there was a stepwise gradient of risk for the primary outcome according to timing of most recent HF hospitalization, with 2-year Kaplan-Meier rates of 21.1%, 25.3%, and 33.8% (adjusted P = .003) for patients with a prior HF hospitalization never, more than 12 months ago, and 12 or fewer months ago, respectively. Across these subgroups, dapagliflozin reduced the relative risk of the primary outcome by 16% (HR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.69-1.01]), 27% (HR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.54-0.99]), and 36% (HR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.51-0.80]), respectively (P = .07 for trend). Accordingly, patients with a more recent HF hospitalization tended to experience greater absolute risk reductions with dapagliflozin at 2 years: 2.1% (95% CI, -1.9% to 6.1%), 4.1% (95% CI, -3.6% to 11.7%), and 9.9% (95% CI, 3.3%-16.5%), respectively (P = .05 for trend)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, treatment with dapagliflozin was associated with rapid reduction in the risk of cardiovascular death or worsening HF, with a sustained statistically significant benefit emerging very early after randomization. Patients with a more recent HF hospitalization were at particularly high risk and experienced greater relative and absolute risk reductions with dapagliflozin., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03036124.

Importance: Patient-reported outcomes are increasingly used as end points in clinical trials, assessments in clinical care, and tools for population health, with an increasing role in quality assessment. For patients with coronary artery disease, the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) has emerged as the most commonly used measure of disease-specific health status to quantify patients' symptoms of angina and the extent to which their angina affects their functioning and quality of life. This review explains how to interpret the SAQ and describes the construction and face validity of the SAQ, focusing on aligning scores and changes in scores with clinical constructs., Observations: The SAQ asks questions similar to those an experienced clinician would ask of a patient with stable ischemic heart disease. Therefore, SAQ scores can be aligned with clinical constructs (eg, scores on the SAQ angina frequency scale of 0-30 points indicate daily angina, 31-60 points indicate weekly angina, 61-99 points indicate monthly angina, and 100 points indicate no angina), and changes in scores can be described by aligning them with changes in question responses. After clinical thresholds are defined, it is important for clinical trials to not simply report mean differences between treatment arms but to also report the distributions of patients who have had clinically important benefits so that a number needed to treat can be generated., Conclusions and Relevance: The widespread use of the SAQ is a consequence of its well-established validity, reproducibility, prognostic importance, and sensitivity to clinical change. Nevertheless, interpreting the SAQ can be challenging because of lack of familiarity with the clinical importance of its domains, either cross-sectionally or longitudinally. This review provides an overview of the interpretability of the SAQ as a foundation for its use as an end point in clinical trials, a tool to support more patient-centered care, and a means of facilitating population health strategies to provide a better foundation for the integration of patient experiences with clinical care.