Cited by 226Heart Failure Treatment and ManagementStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Analysing recurrent hospitalizations in heart failure: a review of statistical methodology, with application to CHARM-Preserved

Open access
Rogers, Jennifer K., Pocock, Stuart J., McMurray, John J.V., Granger, Christopher B., Michelson, Eric L., Östergren, Jan, Pfeffer, Marc A., Solomon, Scott D. +2 more·2014·European Journal of Heart Failure

Abstract

Aims: Heart failure is characterized by recurrent hospitalizations, but often only the first event is considered in clinical trial reports. In chronic diseases, such as heart failure, analysing all events gives a more complete picture of treatment benefit. We describe methods of analysing repeat hospitalizations, and illustrate their value in one major trial. Methods and results: The Candesartan in Heart failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM)-Preserved study compared candesartan with placebo in 3023 patients with heart failure and preserved systolic function. The heart failure hospitalization rates were 12.5 and 8.9 per 100 patient-years in the placebo and candesartan groups, respectively. The repeat hospitalizations were analysed using the Andersen–Gill, Poisson, and negative binomial methods. Death was incorporated into analyses by treating it as an additional event. The win ratio method and a method that jointly models hospitalizations and mortality were also considered. Using repeat events gave larger treatment benefits than time to first event analysis. The negative binomial method for the composite of recurrent heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular death gave a rate ratio of 0.75 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62–0.91, P = 0.003], whereas the hazard ratio for time to first heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death was 0.86 (95% CI 0.74–1.00, P = 0.050). Conclusions: In patients with preserved EF, candesartan reduces the rate of admissions for worsening heart failure, to a greater extent than apparent from analysing only first hospitalizations. Recurrent events should be routinely incorporated into the analysis of future clinical trials in heart failure.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ejhf.29

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • As a pre-specified statistical method, negative binomial regression was used to calculate rates and rate ratios for total cardiovascular events.

    “As a pre-specified statistical method, we used the negative binomial regression model to calculate rates and rate ratios for total cardiovascular events, which accounts for the variability in each patient's risk of events (45-47).”

    From Effects of Icosapent Ethyl on Total Ischemic Events (2019) · cites this paper as [46]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rogers, J. K., Pocock, S. J., McMurray, J. J. V., Granger, C. B., Michelson, E. L., Östergren, J., Pfeffer, M. A., Solomon, S. D., Swedberg, K., & Yusuf, S.
Affiliations
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • University of Glasgow (GB)
  • Duke University (US)
  • AstraZeneca (United States) (US)
  • Karolinska University Hospital (SE)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • Hamilton Health Sciences (CA)
Corresponding author
Rogers, Jennifer K.
Venue
European Journal of Heart Failure
Published
2013-12-18
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
33-40
ISSN
  • 1388-9842 (ISSN-L)
  • 1879-0844
OpenAlex
W1870916828
Cited by
226
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 2
FWCI
10.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of Heart Failure (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Bank (Australian Catholic University) (submittedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • AstraZeneca
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (PDF-2013-06-024)
  • Medical Research Council (MC_EX_G0800814)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Failure Treatment and Management
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
heart failure, recurrent hospitalization, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, candesartan, Andersen-Gill model, negative binomial regression, Poisson regression, win ratio, treatment benefit, cardiovascular mortality
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Heart Failure, Hospitalization, Humans, Morbidity, Global Health, Survival Rate, Risk Assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review