Benefit-risk of colchicine and spironolactone in acute myocardial infarction: a prespecified generalised pairwise comparisons analysis of the CLEAR trial.

IF 4.4 2区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Heart Pub Date : 2025-09-11 DOI:10.1136/heartjnl-2025-326218
Marc-André d'Entremont, Sanjit S Jolly, Faisal Alharthi, Binita Shah, David Austin, Quilong Yi, Robert F Storey, Matthias Bossard, Jan Cornel, Jeroen Jaspers Focks, Sasko Kedev, Valon Asani, Goran Stankovic, Michael Tsang, Nicholas Valettas, Jessica Tyrwhitt, Jackie Betz, Shun Fu Lee, Rajibul Mian, Johanne Silvain, Farzin Beygui, Andrew Czarnecki, Payam Dehghani, Warren Cantor, Shahar Lavi, James C Spratt, Emilie P Belley-Côté, John W Eikelboom
{"title":"Benefit-risk of colchicine and spironolactone in acute myocardial infarction: a prespecified generalised pairwise comparisons analysis of the CLEAR trial.","authors":"Marc-André d'Entremont, Sanjit S Jolly, Faisal Alharthi, Binita Shah, David Austin, Quilong Yi, Robert F Storey, Matthias Bossard, Jan Cornel, Jeroen Jaspers Focks, Sasko Kedev, Valon Asani, Goran Stankovic, Michael Tsang, Nicholas Valettas, Jessica Tyrwhitt, Jackie Betz, Shun Fu Lee, Rajibul Mian, Johanne Silvain, Farzin Beygui, Andrew Czarnecki, Payam Dehghani, Warren Cantor, Shahar Lavi, James C Spratt, Emilie P Belley-Côté, John W Eikelboom","doi":"10.1136/heartjnl-2025-326218","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Composite outcomes in cardiovascular trials often group events of unequal clinical importance, and conventional analyses may obscure treatment trade-offs. Generalised pairwise comparisons (GPC), expressed as a win ratio (WR), allow for hierarchical ranking of events and incorporation of recurrent outcomes, providing a potentially more intuitive assessment of benefit-risk.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a prespecified exploratory analysis of the 2×2 factorial, randomised CLEAR (Colchicine and Spironolactone in Patients with Myocardial Infarction) trial (7062 patients within 72 hours of acute myocardial infarction (MI) and percutaneous coronary intervention), we applied both time-to-first and recurrent-event GPC to reassess low-dose colchicine (0.5 mg daily) and spironolactone (25 mg daily) versus placebo. For the colchicine comparison, the hierarchical benefit-risk outcome included all-cause death, stroke, recurrent MI, unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisation, serious infection or diarrhoea. For the spironolactone comparison, the outcome included all-cause death, stroke, MI, new or worsening heart failure, significant ventricular arrhythmia, hyperkalaemia or gynaecomastia/gynaecodynia. GPC results were compared with Cox, logistic and Andersen-Gill models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For colchicine, the time-to-first event GPC showed a 12% lower proportional win rate compared with placebo (WR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.98; win difference -2.10%, 95% CI -3.84 to -0.37), driven largely by excess diarrhoea. For spironolactone, patients experienced a 14% lower win rate (WR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99; win difference -1.46%, 95% CI -2.84% to -0.08%), largely attributable to gynaecomastia and hyperkalaemia. Conventional statistical approaches yielded concordant results. Across both interventions, higher-order efficacy outcomes (death, MI, stroke, heart failure) showed no benefit.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients with post-MI, both low-dose colchicine and spironolactone demonstrated disadvantageous benefit-risk profiles, reinforcing that neither agent should be used routinely. This prespecified application of GPC provided results consistent with traditional methods but offered a clinically intuitive framework for interpreting composite outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":12835,"journal":{"name":"Heart","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Heart","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2025-326218","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Composite outcomes in cardiovascular trials often group events of unequal clinical importance, and conventional analyses may obscure treatment trade-offs. Generalised pairwise comparisons (GPC), expressed as a win ratio (WR), allow for hierarchical ranking of events and incorporation of recurrent outcomes, providing a potentially more intuitive assessment of benefit-risk.

Methods: In a prespecified exploratory analysis of the 2×2 factorial, randomised CLEAR (Colchicine and Spironolactone in Patients with Myocardial Infarction) trial (7062 patients within 72 hours of acute myocardial infarction (MI) and percutaneous coronary intervention), we applied both time-to-first and recurrent-event GPC to reassess low-dose colchicine (0.5 mg daily) and spironolactone (25 mg daily) versus placebo. For the colchicine comparison, the hierarchical benefit-risk outcome included all-cause death, stroke, recurrent MI, unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisation, serious infection or diarrhoea. For the spironolactone comparison, the outcome included all-cause death, stroke, MI, new or worsening heart failure, significant ventricular arrhythmia, hyperkalaemia or gynaecomastia/gynaecodynia. GPC results were compared with Cox, logistic and Andersen-Gill models.

Results: For colchicine, the time-to-first event GPC showed a 12% lower proportional win rate compared with placebo (WR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.98; win difference -2.10%, 95% CI -3.84 to -0.37), driven largely by excess diarrhoea. For spironolactone, patients experienced a 14% lower win rate (WR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99; win difference -1.46%, 95% CI -2.84% to -0.08%), largely attributable to gynaecomastia and hyperkalaemia. Conventional statistical approaches yielded concordant results. Across both interventions, higher-order efficacy outcomes (death, MI, stroke, heart failure) showed no benefit.

Conclusions: In patients with post-MI, both low-dose colchicine and spironolactone demonstrated disadvantageous benefit-risk profiles, reinforcing that neither agent should be used routinely. This prespecified application of GPC provided results consistent with traditional methods but offered a clinically intuitive framework for interpreting composite outcomes.

秋水仙碱和螺内酯在急性心肌梗死中的获益-风险:CLEAR试验的预先指定的一般两两比较分析。
背景:心血管试验中的综合结果通常将临床重要性不相等的事件分组,传统分析可能会模糊治疗权衡。以胜率(WR)表示的广义两两比较(GPC)允许对事件进行分层排序,并纳入经常性结果,从而提供潜在的更直观的收益-风险评估。方法:在2×2因子的预先指定的探索分析中,随机CLEAR(秋水仙碱和螺内酯在心肌梗死患者中的应用)试验(7062例急性心肌梗死(MI)和经皮冠状动脉介入治疗72小时内的患者),我们应用时间到头和复发事件GPC重新评估低剂量秋水仙碱(0.5 mg /天)和螺内酯(25 mg /天)与安慰剂。对于秋水仙碱的比较,分级获益-风险结果包括全因死亡、中风、复发性心肌梗死、计划外缺血驱动的血运重建、严重感染或腹泻。对于安内酯组的比较,结果包括全因死亡、中风、心肌梗死、新发或恶化的心力衰竭、显著性室性心律失常、高钾血症或妇科乳房发育/妇科痛。GPC结果与Cox、logistic和Andersen-Gill模型进行比较。结果:对于秋水仙碱,与安慰剂相比,首次事件发生时间GPC的比例胜率低12% (WR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79至0.98;胜率差-2.10%,95% CI -3.84至-0.37),主要是由过量腹泻引起的。对于安内酯,患者的胜率降低14% (WR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75至0.99;胜率差-1.46%,95% CI -2.84%至-0.08%),主要归因于妇科乳房发育和高钾血症。传统的统计方法得出了一致的结果。在两种干预措施中,高阶疗效结果(死亡、心肌梗死、中风、心力衰竭)均未显示出获益。结论:在心肌梗死后患者中,低剂量秋水仙碱和螺内酯均显示出不利的获益-风险概况,这强化了这两种药物都不应常规使用。这种预先指定的GPC应用提供了与传统方法一致的结果,但为解释综合结果提供了临床直观的框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Heart
Heart 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
5.30%
发文量
320
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Heart is an international peer reviewed journal that keeps cardiologists up to date with important research advances in cardiovascular disease. New scientific developments are highlighted in editorials and put in context with concise review articles. There is one free Editor’s Choice article in each issue, with open access options available to authors for all articles. Education in Heart articles provide a comprehensive, continuously updated, cardiology curriculum.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信