Effect of Torsemide vs Furosemide on Symptoms and Quality of Life Among Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure: The TRANSFORM-HF Randomized Clinical Trial.
Stephen J GreeneEric J VelazquezKevin J AnstromRobert M ClareTracy A DeWaldMitchell A PsotkaAndrew P AmbrosyGerin R StevensJohn J RommelTamas AlexyFassil KetemaDong-Yun KimPatrice Desvigne-NickensBertram PittEric L EisensteinRobert J Mentznull nullPublished in: Circulation (2023)
Background: Loop diuretics are a primary therapy for the symptomatic treatment of heart failure (HF), but whether torsemide improves patient symptoms and quality of life better than furosemide remains unknown. As pre-specified secondary endpoints, the TRANSFORM-HF trial compared the effect of torsemide versus furosemide on patient-reported outcomes among patients with HF. Methods: TRANSFORM-HF was an open-label, pragmatic, randomized trial of 2,859 patients hospitalized for HF (regardless of ejection fraction) across 60 hospitals in the United States. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to a loop diuretic strategy of torsemide or furosemide with investigator-selected dosage. This report examined effects on pre-specified secondary endpoints, which included Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS) (assessed as adjusted mean difference in change from baseline; range, 0-100 with 100 indicating best health status; clinically important difference, ≥5 points) and Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) (range, 0-6; score ≥3 supporting evaluation for depression) over 12 months. Results: Baseline data were available for 2,787 (97.5%) patients for KCCQ-CSS and 2,624 (91.8%) patients for PHQ-2. Median baseline KCCQ-CSS was 42 (27-60) in the torsemide group and 40 (24-59) in the furosemide group. At 12-months, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide in change from baseline in KCCQ-CSS (adjusted mean difference 0.06 [95% CI, -2.26 to 2.37]; P =0.96) or the proportion of patients with PHQ-2 score ≥3 (15.1% vs 13.2%: P =0.34). Results for KCCQ-CSS were similar at 1-month (adjusted mean difference 1.36 [95% CI, -0.64 to 3.36]; P =0.18) and 6-month follow-up (adjusted mean difference -0.37 [95% CI, -2.52 to 1.78]; P =0.73), and across subgroups by ejection fraction phenotype, New York Heart Association class at randomization, and loop diuretic agent prior to hospitalization. Irrespective of baseline KCCQ-CSS tertile, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide on change in KCCQ-CSS, all-cause mortality, or all-cause hospitalization. Conclusions: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, a strategy of torsemide compared with furosemide did not improve symptoms or quality of life over 12 months. The effects of torsemide and furosemide on patient-reported outcomes were similar regardless of ejection fraction, prior loop diuretic use, and baseline health status.
Keyphrases
- ejection fraction
- patient reported outcomes
- heart failure
- aortic stenosis
- end stage renal disease
- acute heart failure
- newly diagnosed
- healthcare
- peritoneal dialysis
- risk assessment
- transcription factor
- public health
- clinical trial
- mental health
- randomized controlled trial
- case report
- phase iii
- prognostic factors
- coronary artery disease
- machine learning
- sleep quality
- cross sectional
- smoking cessation
- health information
- phase ii
- electronic health record
- open label
- left ventricular
- health promotion