ArticleCardiology and therapy2026
Comparative Effectiveness of TTR Stabilizers for the Treatment of ATTR-CM Using Real-World Evidence.
Article in Cardiology and therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionProgression of transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM) can cause worsening congestion, requiring diuretic intensification (DI), heart failure (HF)-related hospitalizations (HFH), and death. Acoramidis and tafamidis are approved for ATTR-CM, but head-to-head trials are lacking. We evaluated the real-world comparative effectiveness of acoramidis versus tafamidis in newly treated patients with ATTR-CM.
methodsRetrospective study using Komodo Healthcare Map® US claims data tokenized to Claritas. Patients aged ≥18 years newly initiating acoramidis or tafamidis between 12/11/2024 and 04/30/2025 with ≥1 prescription claim (first defined as index date), ≥6 months continuous enrollment preindex date, no multiple myeloma, light chain amyloidosis, or hematopoietic stem cell treatments, and no prior treatments for ATTR-CM were included and followed until disenrollment, death, treatment switch, or study end (07/31/2025). Outcomes included DI (initiation or dose-equivalent escalation of oral loop diuretics, parenteral loop diuretic use, or addition of thiazide-like diuretic) and composite of DI, HFH (inpatient admission with HF-related International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification, diagnosis code in any position), and mortality. Propensity score weighting balanced baseline characteristics, disease severity, comorbidity burden, and baseline medication use. Time-to-event outcomes were assessed using weighted Cox proportional hazards models.
resultsAfter weighting, patients treated with acoramidis (n = 170) and tafamidis (weighted sample size = 448) were comparable. Mean follow-up was 139 and 143 days, respectively. DI cumulative incidence curves separated early and remained divergent. Acoramidis significantly reduced the hazard of DI events by 43% versus tafamidis (11.8% vs. 20.5%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; 95% CI, 0.35-0.92; p = 0.021). Acoramidis had a significantly lower risk of composite events, with a 34% hazard reduction compared with tafamidis (17.6% vs. 26.4%; HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.44-0.99; p = 0.046).
conclusionsIn this first real-world comparative effectiveness study of newly treated patients, acoramidis had a significantly lower risk of DI events and composite events of DI, HFH, and mortality than tafamidis, potentially supporting improved clinical stability with acoramidis initiation. Additional evaluation with longer follow-up, larger cohorts, and/or prospective clinical outcomes is warranted. Graphical abstract available for this article.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42776416What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.