Evidence Hub

The traditional Chinese medicine Qiliqiangxin in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

I. Cheang, W. Yao, Yan-Li Zhou, Xu Zhu, Ge-Hui Ni, Xinyi Lu, S. Liao, Rong-Rong Gao et al.

Nature Medicine, 2024

3,110 participants · 90 citations

Abstract

Previous findings have indicated the potential benefits of the Chinese traditional medicine Qiliqiangxin (QLQX) in heart failure. Here we performed a double-blind, randomized controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of QLQX in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This multicenter trial, conducted in 133 hospitals in China, enrolled 3,110 patients with HFrEF with NT-proBNP levels of ≥450 pg ml−1 and left ventricular ejection fraction of ≤40%. Participants were randomized to receive either QLQX capsules or placebo (four capsules three times daily) alongside standard heart failure therapy. The trial met its primary outcome, which was a composite of hospitalization for heart failure and cardiovascular death: over a median follow-up of 18.3 months, the primary outcome occurred in 389 patients (25.02%) in the QLQX group and 467 patients (30.03%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio (HR), 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.68−0.90; P < 0.001). In an analysis of secondary outcomes, the QLQX group showed reductions in both hospitalization for heart failure (15.63% versus 19.16%; HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64−0.90; P = 0.002) and cardiovascular death (13.31% versus 15.95%; HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68−0.996; P = 0.045) compared to the placebo group. All-cause mortality did not differ significantly between the two groups (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70−1.01; P = 0.058) and adverse events were also comparable between the groups. The results of this trial indicate…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 3,110 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free