Effect of Torsemide Versus Furosemide on Symptoms and Quality of Life Among Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure: The TRANSFORM-HF Randomized Clinical Trial.

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 prespecified secondary end points, the TRANSFORM-HF trial (Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure) 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 2859 patients hospitalized for HF (regardless of ejection fraction) across 60 hospitals in the United States. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a loop diuretic strategy of torsemide or furosemide with investigator-selected dosage. This report examined effects on prespecified secondary end points, 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 (range, 0-6; score ≥3 supporting evaluation for depression) over 12 months. RESULTS: Baseline data were available for 2787 (97.5%) patients for KCCQ-CSS and 2624 (91.8%) patients for Patient Health Questionnaire-2. Median (interquartile range) 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 Patient Health Questionnaire-2 score ≥3 (15.1% versus 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 before 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, previous loop diuretic use, and baseline health status. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03296813.

Effect of Torsemide vs Furosemide After Discharge on All-Cause Mortality in Patients Hospitalized With Heart Failure: The TRANSFORM-HF Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Although furosemide is the most commonly used loop diuretic in patients with heart failure, some studies suggest a potential benefit for torsemide. Objective: To determine whether torsemide results in decreased mortality compared with furosemide among patients hospitalized for heart failure. Design, Setting, and Participants: TRANSFORM-HF was an open-label, pragmatic randomized trial that recruited 2859 participants hospitalized with heart failure (regardless of ejection fraction) at 60 hospitals in the United States. Recruitment occurred from June 2018 through March 2022, with follow-up through 30 months for death and 12 months for hospitalizations. The final date for follow-up data collection was July 2022. Interventions: Loop diuretic strategy of torsemide (n = 1431) or furosemide (n = 1428) with investigator-selected dosage. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality in a time-to-event analysis. There were 5 secondary outcomes with all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization and total hospitalizations assessed over 12 months being highest in the hierarchy. The prespecified primary hypothesis was that torsemide would reduce all-cause mortality by 20% compared with furosemide. Results: TRANSFORM-HF randomized 2859 participants with a median age of 65 years (IQR, 56-75), 36.9% were women, and 33.9% were Black. Over a median follow-up of 17.4 months, a total of 113 patients (53 [3.7%] in the torsemide group and 60 [4.2%] in the furosemide group) withdrew consent from the trial prior to completion. Death occurred in 373 of 1431 patients (26.1%) in the torsemide group and 374 of 1428 patients (26.2%) in the furosemide group (hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.89-1.18]). Over 12 months following randomization, all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization occurred in 677 patients (47.3%) in the torsemide group and 704 patients (49.3%) in the furosemide group (hazard ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.83-1.02]). There were 940 total hospitalizations among 536 participants in the torsemide group and 987 total hospitalizations among 577 participants in the furosemide group (rate ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.84-1.07]). Results were similar across prespecified subgroups, including among patients with reduced, mildly reduced, or preserved ejection fraction. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for heart failure, torsemide compared with furosemide did not result in a significant difference in all-cause mortality over 12 months. However, interpretation of these findings is limited by loss to follow-up and participant crossover and nonadherence. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03296813.

Impact of baseline kidney dysfunction on oral diuretic efficacy following hospitalization for heart failure - insights from TRANSFORM-HF.

AIM: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for heart failure (HF), a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide showed no difference in all-cause mortality or hospitalization. Clinicians have traditionally favoured torsemide in the setting of kidney dysfunction due to better oral bioavailability and longer half-life, but direct supportive evidence is lacking. METHODS AND RESULTS: The TRANSFORM-HF trial randomized patients hospitalized for HF to a long-term strategy of torsemide versus furosemide, and enrolled patients across the spectrum of renal function (without dialysis). In this post-hoc analysis, baseline renal function during the index hospitalization was assessed as categories of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR; <30, 30-<60, ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2). The interaction between baseline renal function and treatment effect of torsemide versus furosemide was assessed with respect to mortality and hospitalization outcomes, and the change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS). Of 2859 patients randomized, 336 (11.8%) had eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m2, 1138 (39.8%) had eGFR 30-<60 ml/min/1.73 m2, and 1385 (48.4%) had eGFR ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2. Baseline eGFR did not modify treatment effects of torsemide versus furosemide on all adverse clinical outcomes including individual components or composites of all-cause mortality and all-cause (re)-hospitalizations, both when assessing eGFR categorically or continuously (p-value for interaction all >0.108). Similarly, no treatment effect modification by eGFR was found for the change in KCCQ-CSS (p-value for interaction all >0.052) when assessing eGFR categorically or continuously. CONCLUSION: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, there was no significant difference in clinical and patient-reported outcomes between torsemide and furosemide, irrespective of renal function.

On-treatment analysis of torsemide versus furosemide for patients hospitalized for heart failure: A post-hoc analysis of TRANSFORM-HF.

AIM: The TRANSFORM-HF trial demonstrated no significant outcome differences between torsemide and furosemide following hospitalization for heart failure (HF), but may have been impacted by non-adherence to the randomized diuretic. The current study sought to determine the treatment effect of torsemide versus furosemide using an on-treatment analysis inclusive of all randomized patients except those confirmed non-adherent to study diuretic. METHODS AND RESULTS: TRANSFORM-HF was an open-label, pragmatic randomized trial of 2859 patients hospitalized for HF from June 2018 through March 2022. Patients were randomized to a loop diuretic strategy of torsemide versus furosemide with investigator-selected dosage. This post-hoc on-treatment analysis included all patients alive with either known or unknown diuretic status, and excluded patients confirmed to be non-adherent to study diuretic. This modified on-treatment definition was applied separately at time of hospital discharge and 30-day follow-up. All-cause mortality and hospitalization outcomes were assessed over 12 months. Overall, 2570 (89.9%) and 2374 (83.0%) patients were included in on-treatment analyses at discharge and 30-day follow-up, respectively. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between torsemide and furosemide in patients on-treatment at discharge (17.5% vs. 17.8%; hazard ratio [HR] 1.01 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-1.22], p = 0.96) and at 30-day follow-up (14.5% vs. 15.0%; HR 1.02 [95% CI 0.81-1.27], p = 0.90). All-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization was similar between torsemide and furosemide in patients who were on-treatment at discharge (58.3% vs. 61.3%; HR 0.92 [95% CI 0.82-1.03]) and 30-day follow-up (60.9% vs. 64.4%; HR 0.93 [95% CI 0.82-1.05]). In patients who were on-treatment at 30-day follow-up, there were 677 total hospitalizations in the torsemide group and 686 total hospitalizations in the furosemide group (rate ratio 0.99 [95% CI 0.86-1.14], p = 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: In TRANSFORM-HF, a post-hoc on-treatment analysis did not meaningfully differ from the original trial results. Among those deemed compliant with the assigned diuretic, there remained no significant difference in mortality or hospitalization after HF hospitalization with a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide. CLINICAL TRAIL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03296813.

Pragmatic Design of Randomized Clinical Trials for Heart Failure: Rationale and Design of the TRANSFORM-HF Trial.

Randomized clinical trials are the foundation of evidence-based medicine and central to practice guidelines and patient care decisions. Nonetheless, randomized trials in heart failure (HF) populations have become increasingly difficult to conduct and are frequently associated with slow patient enrollment, highly selected populations, extensive data collection, and high costs. The traditional model for HF trials has become particularly difficult to execute in the United States, where challenges to site-based research have frequently led to modest U.S. representation in global trials. In this context, the TRANSFORM-HF (Torsemide Comparison with Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure) trial aims to overcome traditional trial challenges and compare the effects of torsemide versus furosemide among patients with HF in the United States. Loop diuretic agents are regularly used by most patients with HF and practice guidelines recommend optimal use of diuretic agents as key to a successful treatment strategy. Long-time clinical experience has contributed to dominant use of furosemide for loop diuretic therapy, although preclinical and small clinical studies suggest potential advantages of torsemide. However, due to the lack of appropriately powered clinical outcome studies, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that torsemide should be routinely recommended over furosemide. Given this gap in knowledge and the fundamental role of loop diuretic agents in HF care, the TRANSFORM-HF trial was designed as a prospective, randomized, event-driven, pragmatic, comparative-effectiveness study to definitively compare the effect of a treatment strategy of torsemide versus furosemide on long-term mortality, hospitalization, and patient-reported outcomes among patients with HF. (TRANSFORM-HF: ToRsemide compArisoN With furoSemide FORManagement of Heart Failure [TRANSFORM-HF]; NCT03296813).

Deconstructing Syndemics: The Many Layers of Clustering Multi-Comorbidities in People Living with HIV.

The HIV epidemic has dramatically changed over the past 30 years; there are now fewer newly infected people (especially children), fewer AIDS-related deaths, and more people with HIV (PWH) receiving treatment. However, the HIV epidemic is far from over. Despite the tremendous advances in anti-retroviral therapies (ART) and the implementation of ART regimens, HIV incidence (number of new infections over a defined period of time) and prevalence (the burden of HIV infection) in certain regions of the world and socio-economic groups are still on the rise. HIV continues to disproportionally affect highly marginalized populations that constitute higher-risk and stigmatized groups, underserved and/or neglected populations. In addition, it is not uncommon for PWH to suffer enhanced debilitating conditions resulting from the synergistic interactions of both communicable diseases (CDs) and non-communicable diseases (NCDs). While research utilizing only a comorbidities framework has advanced our understanding of the biological settings of the co-occurring conditions from a molecular and mechanistic view, harmful interactions between comorbidities are often overlooked, particularly under adverse socio-economical and behavioral circumstances, likely prompting disease clustering in PWH. Synergistic epidemics (syndemics) research aims to capture these understudied interactions: the mainly non-biological aspects that are central to interpret disease clustering in the comorbidities/multi-morbidities only framework. Connecting population-level clustering of social and health problems through syndemic interventions has proved to be a critical knowledge gap that will need to be addressed in order to improve prevention and care strategies and bring us a step closer to ending the HIV epidemic.

A simple and inexpensive particle agglutination test to distinguish recent from established HIV-1 infection.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to modify the Serodia HIV-1/HIV-2 particle agglutination assay (PA), a simple and cost-effective HIV assay that is used globally for the detection of HIV antibodies, as a sensitive/less sensitive test (S/LS) to identify recently infected individuals and to estimate HIV incidence. METHODS: The Serodia PA test was modified as an S/LS test (PA-LS) by using HIV antigen-coated gelatin particles at a dilution of 1:68 and a specific diluent, and calibrated using 37 HIV clade B seroconversion panels (309 samples) from Trinidad and from a commercial source that were tested at dilution intervals from 1:10 to 1:80,000. The greatest sensitivity for correctly classifying samples from recent and established infections was determined by receiver operator curve (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: At a 1:40,000 sample dilution and a days post-seroconversion cutoff of 190 days, the PA-LS test yielded a 97% sensitivity for classifying recent and established infection samples. Furthermore, at a 1:20,000 dilution, the positive predictive value for correctly identifying recently infected individuals was 99%. The PA-LS test offers a 30-44-fold cost saving over currently available S/LS tests. CONCLUSION: A modified, low cost and simple-to-perform PA test is appropriate for use in resource-limited countries, and has exhibited excellence in distinguishing recent from established HIV infection.

A 10-minute, US Food and Drug Administration-approved HIV test.

It is now an established fact that rapid HIV tests have important applications in a number of testing situations. Currently, four rapid HIV assays have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, including the one discussed in this review. A rapid, lateral flow HIV assay was evaluated at the University of Maryland, USA, one of several sites involved in the clinical evaluation. Samples used in the evaluation totaled 9000 and consisted of serum, plasma and venous whole-blood sets of samples from 3000 study subjects that included population groups considered to be at high risk for HIV infection (n=1000), from HIV-positive individuals (n=1000), and from population groups considered at low risk for HIV infection (n=1000). US Food and Drug Administration-licensed screening and confirmatory assays were used as reference tests. The rapid assay exhibited a sensitivity of 100% across all three sample media and exhibited a specificity of 99.8% using whole blood and plasma and 99.7% using serum. This rapid assay is an excellent addition to the existing US Food and Drug Administration-approved rapid HIV tests, and provides versatility by allowing the testing of venipuncture and fingerstick whole-blood samples in addition to serum and plasma.

Rapid confirmation of HIV infection.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the utility of a prototype rapid confirmatory HIV assay which offers specific results in 5 min and has applications in a variety of important testing situations. METHODS: The performance of the rapid confirmatory assay was assessed with 849 blood samples, including serum, plasma, venipuncture whole blood, and peripheral blood collected via fingerstick. Included were over 700 HIV Western blot (WB)-confirmed antibody positive sera, and others which were classified as negative or indeterminate by WB. The analytic sensitivity of the rapid confirmatory assay was assessed using 13 HIV-1 seroconversion panels, and all results were compared to those of an FDA-licensed WB reference test. RESULTS: The rapid test exhibited 100% concordance with the reference test when testing HIV-1 WB-confirmed positive samples, and 92.3% concordance with samples having WB-inconclusive results. The sensitivity for confirming recent seroconversion was as good, or better than, the FDA-licensed HIV-1 WB in 10/13 panels. The rapid assay performed accurately with whole blood collected from fingerstick, and exhibited excellent precision and reproducibility. CONCLUSION: We conclude that this rapid HIV confirmatory assay, the first of its kind, demonstrates proof of principle for the accurate confirmation of HIV-1 infection and offers important advantages in public health and clinical testing venues.

Prevalence of human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C among homeless persons with co-occurring severe mental illness and substance use disorders.

This study was undertaken to determine the prevalence of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), and hepatitis C virus (HCV) among homeless persons with co-occurring severe mental illness (SMI) and substance use disorders and to determine associated risk factors. As part of a longitudinal study of the effectiveness of integrated treatment for homeless persons with SMI and substance abuse or dependence, serological testing was performed to ascertain the prevalence of HIV, HBV, and HCV. At baseline, 6.2% of participants (11/172) were HIV-positive. Nearly one third of participants (37/114) had evidence of prior exposure to HBV, and 30% (34/114) were antibody positive for HCV. About 44% of participants (50/114) had a reactive test for either HBV or HCV. Having a reactive test was strongly associated with substance use, especially with a history of injection drug use. A significant threat exists to the health and well-being of homeless person with SMI due to high prevalence of blood-borne pathogens. Mental health providers need to play a proactive role in the identification of health-related needs and to assist with access to general health services for persons with SMI.