Tsutsui 2016.
Study characteristics | ||
Methods |
Study design: RCT Unit of randomisation: No information Total duration of study: 15 months (December 2013 to February 2015) Run‐in period: 2 weeks Intervention time: 6 weeks Follow‐up: 2 weeks Setting: 73 institutions in Japan |
|
Participants |
Type of heart failure: CHF, LV‐dysfunction N = 126 (ivabradine and BB: 84; placebo: 42) Mean age: 59 ± 13.1 years Gender: 108 (85.7%) male, 18 (14.3%) female Severity of condition: HFrEF ≤ 35% Inclusion criteria:
Exclusion criteria:
Withdrawals:
|
|
Interventions |
Intervention:
Comparison: Placebo Concomitant medications:
Excluded medications:
|
|
Outcomes |
Outcomes and time points measured in the study: [0, 6 weeks] Primary endpoint:
Secondary endpoint:
Conclusion: "Ivabradine starting at 2.5 or 5 mg BID effectively reduced resting HR in Japanese HF patients. Ivabradine at the starting dose of 2.5 mg BID could be safer than 5 mg BID." |
|
Notes |
Funding for trial: "This trial was designed and performed by the sponsor (Ono Pharmaceutical)." Notable conflicts of interest of authors: "The data were collected and analyzed and the first draft manuscript was written by the sponsor. It was fully reviewed and revised by the authors." Contact to authors/unpublished data: We contacted H Tsuitsui via email on 22 November 2018 to ask for way of randomisation and missing data. H Tsuitsui answered on 26 November 2018, providing information about method of randomisation and that there were no additional data. |
|
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | "We used a computer‐based dynamic allocation method by baseline resting heart rate and the dose of beta‐blocker to balance the baseline." (H Tsuitsui via email on 22 November 2018) |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Insufficient information to base judgement |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Low risk | "The pts and investigators were masked to the treatment allocation." |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Insufficient information to base judgement |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Less than 20% missing data. Outcomes reported for 122 of 126 participants (96.8%). |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | All outcomes stated in the methods section were adequately reported or explained in the results. |
Other bias | Unclear risk | "This trial was designed and performed by the sponsor (Ono Pharmaceutical). The data were collected and analyzed and the first draft manuscript was written by the sponsor. It was fully reviewed and revised by the authors." |