Effects of spironolactone on long-term mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure and mild or no symptoms

Investigating the efficacy of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists for cardiovascular outcomes in different diseases

AIMS

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) are crucial in managing cardiovascular diseases, with different MRAs demonstrating varying efficacy across diverse disease contexts. This research aims to compare the cardiovascular protective effects of different MRAs across various disease conditions.

METHODS

Evidence from eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, or real-world registry studies that investigated hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) following MRA treatment were searched in four literature databases. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve values were calculated. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the findings.

RESULTS

Data from a total of 21 investigations involving 61 076 participants were included. The control groups comprised placebo arms in RCTs and non-MRA users in observational studies. In heart failure (HF) patients, finerenone showed highest efficacy with HR 0.68 (95% CI 0.47-0.95) versus control, followed by spironolactone (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55-0.89) and eplerenone (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.64-1.10). For non-HF populations, spironolactone showed the most protective effect (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.15-1.10), followed by eplerenone (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.25-1.30) and finerenone (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.50-1.60). In diabetes mellitus population, spironolactone maintained advantage (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.13-2.43) in contrast to finerenone (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.41-1.25) and eplerenone (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.40-1.62). Sensitivity analyses which excluded observational studies and included only RCTs showed consistent results for these disease populations. But the chronic kidney disease/end-stage renal disease population exhibited different patterns: eplerenone showed optimal efficacy in primary analysis (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.32-1.20) followed by spironolactone (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.49-1.06) and finerenone (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.55-1.35). Sensitivity analysis revealed better result for spironolactone in this population (HR 0.40, 0.15-1.10) followed by eplerenone (HR 0.62, 0.27-1.40) and finerenone (HR 0.87, 0.49-1.50).

CONCLUSIONS

MRAs exhibit varying cardiovascular protective effects depending on the disease context. These findings support tailored treatment strategies based on specific disease conditions to optimize patient outcomes. Further research with larger and more diverse datasets is needed to validate these results and inform clinical decision-making.

Association between mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists and kidney harm: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Conflicting data have been reported on the association between mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) and acute kidney injury (AKI). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate whether MRAs affect the risk of AKI. MEDLINE via PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the ClinicalTrials.gov website were comprehensively searched to extract all relevant studies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected that compared MRA versus placebo or no treatment and had study populations consisting of patients with heart or kidney disease. The primary outcome was AKI. The secondary outcome was kidney injury, including AKI and non-AKI. Thirty-three studies were included in the meta-analysis. MRAs were not associated with an increased risk of AKI (risk ratio [RR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-1.46, p = 0.29, I2 = 15%, 18,065 patients, 13 RCTs, moderate certainty). For the secondary outcome, MRAs were associated with an increased risk of kidney injury (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.24-1.87, p < 0.01, I2 = 48%, 27,492 patients, 33 RCTs, low certainty). In particular, only canrenone (RR 5.39, 95% CI 2.17-13.37, p < 0.01) and spironolactone (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.48-2.14, p < 0.01) were associated with an increased risk of kidney injury. However, eplerenone and finerenone seem not to increase the risk of kidney injury in patients with heart or kidney disease. The selection of MRAs might influence the risk of kidney-associated events. Further studies focusing on individual MRAs may be needed to clarify these differences.

The most effective combination of pharmacological therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Evidence for the efficacy of pharmacological therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is growing. However, there is no consensus on the most effective treatment for HFrEF. This study aimed to evaluate the most effective combination of pharmacological therapy in patients with HFrEF.

METHODS

We systematically searched Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL up to Feb 2022, to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of pharmacological treatment among adults (≥ 18 years) with a diagnosis of HFrEF (defined by a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 45%). The outcomes of interest included all-cause death, cardiovascular (CV) death, and hospitalization for heart failure (HHF). A random network meta-analysis using a frequentist framework model was employed to calculate the pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and rank the treatments.

RESULTS

We included 49 RCTs involving 90,529 participants with HFrEF. For reducing all-cause mortality, the combination of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), beta-blockers (BB), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) was most effective (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.32-0.66). For CV death, the combination of ACEI, BB, MRA, and Vericiguat showed the highest efficacy (RR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.12-0.90). Regarding reducing HHF, the combination of ACEI, BB, MRA, and SGLT2i as well as the combination of ACEI, BB, MRA, and Ivabradine were equally the most effective (both RR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.18-0.39).

CONCLUSION

This study provides robust evidence supporting the use of combination therapies in HFrEF management, with newer agents offering incremental benefits when added to established guideline-directed medical therapy.

Effectiveness and safety of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in heart failure patients with and without diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) have been shown to improve outcomes in various populations of heart failure (HF) patients. However, the impact of concomitant diseases, such as diabetes mellitus (DM), on these outcomes remains unclear. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MRAs in heart failure patients with and without diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases up to April 30, 2024. Data analysis was performed using a random-effects model to account for variability across studies, and statistical analysis was carried out using Review Manager 5.4. Efficacy and safety parameters were evaluated in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included a total of 21,832 subjects from ten studies. The pooled results demonstrated that MRAs, compared to placebo, significantly reduced all-cause mortality in HF patients with and without DM (RR: 0.85; 95%CI 0.75-0.96; p = 0.009). A similar effect was observed in HF patients without DM (RR: 0.83; 95%CI 0.71-0.97; p = 0.02), while no significant effect was detected in the DM subgroup (RR: 0.87; 95%CI 0.69-1.11; p = 0.27). Both treatments had comparable effects on cardiovascular mortality in HF patients with and without DM (RR: 0.88; 95%CI 0.82-0.94; p = 0.0002), in HF patients with DM (RR: 0.90; 95%CI 0.81-1.01; p = 0.08), and in the non-DM subgroup (RR: 0.86; 95%CI 0.79-0.94; p = 0.0009). MRAs significantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular mortality in HF patients with and without DM (RR: 0.82; 95%CI 0.72-0.94; p = 0.005) and in HF patients with DM (RR: 0.79; 95%CI 0.63-0.98; p = 0.03), but no significant effect was observed in the non-DM subgroup (RR: 0.85; 95%CI 0.69-1.05; p = 0.13). Furthermore, compared to placebo, MRAs were associated with an increased risk of hyperkalemia (> 5.5 mEq/L) in HF patients with and without DM (RR: 1.63; 95%CI 1.18-2.24; p = 0.003), particularly in HF patients with DM (RR: 1.44; 95%CI 0.97-2.13; p = 0.07) and in the non-DM subgroup (RR: 1.87; 95%CI 1.34-2.61; p = 0.0002).

CONCLUSION

MRAs are effective in reducing all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and cardiovascular mortality in heart failure patients. However, the use of MRAs is associated with an increased risk of hyperkalemia, necessitating careful monitoring, particularly in patients with diabetes mellitus.

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists and atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of clinical trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) improve cardiovascular outcomes in a variety of settings. This study aimed to assess whether cardioprotective effects of MRAs are modified by heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) status and to study their impact on AF events.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases were searched to 24 March 2023 for randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of MRAs as compared with placebo or usual care in reducing cardiovascular outcomes and AF events in patients with or at risk for cardiovascular diseases. Random-effects models and interaction analyses were used to test for effect modification.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis of seven trials (20 741 participants, mean age: 65.6 years, 32% women) showed that the efficacy of MRAs, as compared with placebo, in reducing a composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization remains consistent across patients with HF [risk ratio = 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.67-0.98] and without HF (risk ratio = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.75-0.93; interaction P = .77). Among patients with HF, MRAs reduced cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization in patients with AF (hazard ratio = 0.95; 95% CI: 0.54-1.66) to a similar extent as in those without AF (hazard ratio = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.63-1.07; interaction P = .65). Pooled data from 20 trials (21 791 participants, mean age: 65.2 years, 31.3% women) showed that MRAs reduce AF events (risk ratio = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.67-0.87) in both patients with and without prior AF.

CONCLUSIONS

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists are similarly effective in preventing cardiovascular events in patients with and without HF and most likely retain their efficacy regardless of AF status. Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists may also be moderately effective in preventing incident or recurrent AF events.

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists for chronic heart failure: a meta-analysis focusing on the number needed to treat

Aims

Recent studies have shown that mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) can decrease mortality in patients with heart failure; however, the application of MRAs in current clinical practice is limited because of adverse effects such as hyperkalemia that occur with treatment. Therefore, this meta-analysis used the number needed to treat (NNT) to assess the efficacy and safety of MRAs in patients with chronic heart failure.

Methods

We meta-analysed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which contrasted the impacts of MRAs with placebo. As of March 2023, all articles are published in English. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and adverse events.

Results

We incorporated seven studies with a total of 9,056 patients, 4,512 of whom received MRAs and 4,544 of whom received a placebo, with a mean follow-up period of 2.1 years. MACE, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality were all reduced by MRAs, with corresponding numbers needed to treat for benefit (NNTB) of 37, 28, and 34; as well as no impact on MI or stroke. MRAs increased the incidence of hyperkalemia and gynecomastia, with the corresponding mean number needed to treat for harm (NNTH) of 18 and 52.

Conclusions

This study showed that enabling one patient with HF to avoid MACE required treating 37 patients with MRAs for 2.1 years. MRAs reduce MACE, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular death; however, they increase the risk of hyperkalemia and gynecomastia.

Comparative cardiovascular outcomes of novel drugs as an addition to conventional triple therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF): a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Currently, there is no head-to-head comparison of novel pharmacological treatments for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). A network meta-analysis aimed to compare effects of both conventional and alternative drug combinations on time to develop primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalisation (PCO).

METHODS

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from Medline, Scopus up to June 2021. The RCTs were included if comparing any single or combination of drugs, that is, ACE inhibitors (ACEI), angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers (BB), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), ivabradine (IVA), angiotensin receptor blocker/neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), soluble guanylyl cyclase and omecamtiv mecarbil and reporting PCO. Data were extracted from Kaplan-Meier curves, individual patient data were generated. A mixed-effect Weibull regression was applied. Median time to PCO, HRs with 95% CI were estimated accordingly. Our findings suggested that ACEI+BB+MRA+SGLT2i, BB+MRA+ARNI, and ACEI+BB+MRA+IVA had lower probability of PCOs than the conventional triple therapy (ACEI+BB+MRA).

RESULTS

Median time to PCOs of ACEI+BB+MRA was 57.7 months whereas median times to those new combinations were longer than 57.7 months. In addition, the three new regimens had a significantly lower PCO risks than ACEI+BB+MRA, with the HRs (95% CI) of 0.51 (0.43 to 0.61), 0.55 (0.46 to 0.65) and 0.56 (0.47 to 0.67), accordingly.

CONCLUSION

This study suggested that SGLT2i, ARNI and IVA in addition to ACEI+BB+MRA may be better in prolonging time to develop PCO in HFrEF patients.

Meta-Analysis on Drug and Device Therapy of New York Heart Association Functional Class IV Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, particularly in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class IV symptoms. Decades of discovery have heralded significant advancements in the pharmacologic management of HFrEF. However, patients with NYHA IV symptoms remain an under-represented population in almost every clinical trial to date, leaving clinicians with limited evidence with which to guide drug treatment decisions in this patient group with severe heart failure. Randomized controlled trials of adult patients with NYHA IV symptoms of HFrEF randomized to current guideline-recommended medical therapy were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The outcomes of interest included the rate of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and heart failure hospitalization. A total of 39 randomized controlled trials were included. A total of 6 studies examined angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, with meta-analyses of 2 demonstrating a reduced risk of all-cause mortality (relative risk (RR) 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 0.97, p = 0.03). A total of 11 studies examined β blockers, with meta-analysis of 6 demonstrating a reduced risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.60 to 0.92, p = 0.008). A study examined the mineralocorticoid antagonist spironolactone, reporting a reduced risk of all-cause mortality in the NYHA IV subgroup. A total of 6 studies examined device therapy, demonstrating the benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy with or without an implantable cardiac defibrillator in reducing hospitalization in the NYHA IV subgroup. Although trial evidence exists for angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, β-blockers, and mineralocorticoid antagonist therapy in the NYHA IV population, the role of angiotensin receptor blockers is unclear. Ivabradine, angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, and sodium-glucose transport protein 2 inhibitors remain underinvestigated and have not been proved to provide any benefit above standard heart failure therapy in patients with HFrEF and NYHA IV symptoms.

An overview of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists as a treatment option for patients with heart failure: the current state-of-the-art and future outlook

INTRODUCTION

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) improve cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure. These benefits of MRAs vary in different heart failure populations based on left ventricular ejection fraction and associated comorbidities.

AREAS COVERED

We define the pharmacologic properties of MRAs and the pathophysiological rationale for their utility in heart failure. We outline the current literature on the use of MRAs in different heart failure populations, including reduced and preserved ejection fraction (HFrEF/HFpEF) and acute heart failure decompensation. Finally, we describe the limitations of currently available data and propose future directions of study.

EXPERT OPINION

While there is strong evidence supporting the use of MRAs in HFrEF, evidence in patients with HFpEF or acute heart failure is less definitive. Comorbidities such as obesity or atrial fibrillation could be clinical modifiers of the response to MRAs and potentially alter the risk/benefit ratio in these subpopulations. Emerging evidence for new non-steroidal MRAs reveal promising preliminary results that, if confirmed in large randomized clinical trials, could favor a change in clinical practice.

Network meta-analysis of medical therapy efficacy in more than 90,000 patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Following the availability of new drugs for chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), we sought to provide an updated and comparative synthesis of the evidence on HFrEF pharmacotherapy efficacy.

METHODS

We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis of phase 2 and 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of medical therapy in HFrEF patient cohorts with more than 90% of the participants with left ventricular ejection fraction less than 45% and all-cause mortality reported.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine RCTs, accounting for 91,741 subjects, were evaluated. The step-wise introduction of new drugs progressively decreased the risk of all-cause death, up to reaching a random-effects hazard ratio (HR) of 0.43 (95% credible intervals [CrI] 0.27-0.63) with beta blockers (BB), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) versus placebo. The risk was further reduced by adding sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i; HR 0.38, 95% CrI 0.22-0.60), ivabradine (HR 0.39, 95% CrI 0.21-0.64), or vericiguat (HR 0.40, 95% CrI 0.22-0.65) to neurohormonal inhibitors, and by angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), BB, and MRA (HR 0.36, 95% CrI 0.20-0.60). In a sensitivity analysis considering the ARNI and non-ARNI subgroups of SGLT2i RCTs, the combination SGLT2i + ARNI + BB + MRA was associated with the lowest HR (0.28, 95% CrI 0.16-0.45 vs. 0.40, 95% CrI 0.24-0.60 for SGLT2i + BB + ACEi + MRA). Consistent results were obtained in sensitivity analyses and by calculating surface under the cumulative ranking area, as well as for cardiovascular mortality (information available for 56 RCTs), HF hospitalization (45 RCTs), and all-cause hospitalization (26 RCTs).

CONCLUSIONS

Combination medical therapy including neurohormonal inhibitors and newer drugs, especially ARNI and SGLT2i, confers the maximum benefit with regard to HFrEF prognosis.

[Three ages of spironolactone. Evolution of views on spironolactone capabilities in the treatment of patients with heart failure.]

The article describes the history of the discovery of aldosterone and the creation of its antagonist, spironolactone. The effects of aldosterone associated with the stimulation of two types of receptors.  Long-term effect (nuclear or genomic) and fast - term (membrane). They are manifested not only by the influence on the water-salt metabolism and the volume of extracellular fluid, but also in the regulation of vascular tone and elasticity of the vascular wall and, most interestingly, the effect on cardiac remodeling. Early after its development  Spironolactone was considered as a medicine for water-salt metabolism regulation, diuresis and normalization of blood pressure. In the following period,  Spironolactone embraced a new area - systolic heart failure. The drug was considered not only to enhance safe diuresis, but also to eliminate the phenomenon of escape of the antialdosterone effect angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. The change in the paradigm of heart failure towards the prevailing changes in her diastolic phenotype, which is based on excessive diffuse myocardial fibrosis, changed role of spironolactone in the treatment of heart failure. Currently, it is considered as an independent drug, due to its powerful antifibrotic effect, blocking which controls the whole complex of endo- and paracrine effects of aldosterone.

Role and Mechanism of the Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System in the Onset and Development of Cardiorenal Syndrome

Cardiorenal syndrome (CRS), a clinical syndrome involving multiple pathological mechanisms, exhibits high morbidity and mortality. According to the primary activity of the disease, CRS can be divided into cardiorenal syndrome (type I and type II), renal heart syndrome (type III and type IV), and secondary heart and kidney disease (type V). The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) is an important humoral regulatory system of the body that exists widely in various tissues and organs. As a compensatory mechanism, the RAAS is typically activated to participate in the regulation of target organ function. RAAS activation plays a key role in the pathogenesis of CRS. The RAAS induces the onset and development of CRS by mediating oxidative stress, uremic toxin overload, and asymmetric dimethylarginine production. Research on the mechanism of RAAS-induced CRS can provide multiple intervention methods that are of great significance for reducing end-stage organ damage and further improving the quality of life of patients with CRS.

Pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Approximately half of people with heart failure have chronic kidney disease (CKD). Pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with CKD have the potential to reduce death (any cause) or hospitalisations for decompensated heart failure. However, these interventions are of uncertain benefit and may increase the risk of harm, such as hypotension and electrolyte abnormalities, in those with CKD.

OBJECTIVES

This review aims to look at the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions for HF (i.e., antihypertensive agents, inotropes, and agents that may improve the heart performance indirectly) in people with HF and CKD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies through 12 September 2019 in consultation with an Information Specialist and using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of any pharmacological intervention for acute or chronic heart failure, among people of any age with chronic kidney disease of at least three months duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened the records to identify eligible studies and extracted data on the following dichotomous outcomes: death, hospitalisations, worsening heart failure, worsening kidney function, hyperkalaemia, and hypotension. We used random effects meta-analysis to estimate treatment effects, which we expressed as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool. We applied the GRADE methodology to rate the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

One hundred and twelve studies met our selection criteria: 15 were studies of adults with CKD; 16 studies were conducted in the general population but provided subgroup data for people with CKD; and 81 studies included individuals with CKD, however, data for this subgroup were not provided. The risk of bias in all 112 studies was frequently high or unclear. Of the 31 studies (23,762 participants) with data on CKD patients, follow-up ranged from three months to five years, and study size ranged from 16 to 2916 participants. In total, 26 studies (19,612 participants) reported disaggregated and extractable data on at least one outcome of interest for our review and were included in our meta-analyses. In acute heart failure, the effects of adenosine A1-receptor antagonists, dopamine, nesiritide, or serelaxin on death, hospitalisations, worsening heart failure or kidney function, hyperkalaemia, hypotension or quality of life were uncertain due to sparse data or were not reported. In chronic heart failure, the effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) (4 studies, 5003 participants: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.02; I2 = 78%; low certainty evidence), aldosterone antagonists (2 studies, 34 participants: RR 0.61 95% CI 0.06 to 6.59; very low certainty evidence), and vasopressin receptor antagonists (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.89; 2 studies, 1840 participants; low certainty evidence) on death (any cause) were uncertain. Treatment with beta-blockers may reduce the risk of death (any cause) (4 studies, 3136 participants: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.79; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). Treatment with ACEi or ARB (2 studies, 1368 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.90; I2 = 97%; very low certainty evidence) had uncertain effects on hospitalisation for heart failure, as treatment estimates were consistent with either benefit or harm. Treatment with beta-blockers may decrease hospitalisation for heart failure (3 studies, 2287 participants: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.05; I2 = 87%; low certainty evidence). Aldosterone antagonists may increase the risk of hyperkalaemia compared to placebo or no treatment (3 studies, 826 participants: RR 2.91, 95% CI 2.03 to 4.17; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). Renin inhibitors had uncertain risks of hyperkalaemia (2 studies, 142 participants: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.49; I2 = 0%; very low certainty). We were unable to estimate whether treatment with sinus node inhibitors affects the risk of hyperkalaemia, as there were few studies and meta-analysis was not possible. Hyperkalaemia was not reported for the CKD subgroup in studies investigating other therapies. The effects of ACEi or ARB, or aldosterone antagonists on worsening heart failure or kidney function, hypotension, or quality of life were uncertain due to sparse data or were not reported. Effects of anti-arrhythmic agents, digoxin, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, renin inhibitors, sinus node inhibitors, vasodilators, and vasopressin receptor antagonists were very uncertain due to the paucity of studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with CKD are uncertain and there is insufficient evidence to inform clinical practice. Study data for treatment outcomes in patients with heart failure and CKD are sparse despite the potential impact of kidney impairment on the benefits and harms of treatment. Future research aimed at analysing existing data in general population HF studies to explore the effect in subgroups of patients with CKD, considering stage of disease, may yield valuable insights for the management of people with HF and CKD.

Efficacy of Pharmacologic and Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Therapies in Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background The treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction has been the subject of numerous randomized controlled trials involving medications and cardiac implantable electronic device therapies. As newer effective pharmacological therapies suggest significant reductions in all-cause mortality, the role of additional device therapy in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction deserves further scrutiny. Methods A systematic review and network meta-analysis on the effect of medication and device therapies in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction on all-cause mortality was performed. Randomized controlled trials published between January 1980 and July 2017 were identified using Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials databases. Pcnetmeta package in R was used to calculate treatment arm-based estimated rates, rate ratios, and probability ranks with 95% credible intervals. Results Combination therapy of ACE (angiotensin-converting enzyme) inhibitors or ARBs (angiotensin receptor blockers) with β-blockers (BBs) alone or in addition to implantable cardiac defibrillators or cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillators demonstrated a significant reduction of all-cause mortality when compared with placebo. By probability rank, implantable cardiac defibrillator+ACE inhibitor or ARB+BB+mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, implantable cardiac defibrillator+ACE inhibitor or ARB+BB, and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor+BB+mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist combination therapies have the highest probability of being ranked the best treatment. There was no significant difference in the rate of mortality when comparing angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor+BB+mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist to implantable cardiac defibrillator+optimal pharmacological combination therapy. Conclusions BB and renin-angiotensin system blockers alone or in combination with defibrillator device therapy have robust evidence for a reduction in mortality compared with placebo. The comparative efficacy of pharmacological therapy with angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors and device therapy deserves further investigation.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Patiromer and Spironolactone Therapy in Heart Failure Patients with Hyperkalemia

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Certain patients with heart failure (HF) are unable to tolerate spironolactone therapy due to hyperkalemia. Patiromer is a novel agent used to treat hyperkalemia and has been shown to be efficacious, safe, and well-tolerated. The potential clinical outcomes and economic value of using patiromer and spironolactone in patients with HF unable to otherwise tolerate spironolactone due to hyperkalemia are unclear. The objective of this analysis was to model the potential pharmacoeconomic value of using patiromer and spironolactone in patients with a history of hyperkalemia that prevents them from utilizing spironolactone.

METHODS

We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment with patiromer, spironolactone, and an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III-IV HF compared with ACEI alone. A Markov model was constructed to simulate a cohort of 65-year-old patients diagnosed with HF from the payer perspective across the lifetime horizon. Clinical inputs were derived from the RALES and OPAL-HK randomized trials of spironolactone and patiromer, respectively. Utility estimates and costs were derived from the literature and list prices. Outcomes assessed included hospitalization, life expectancy, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probability sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model findings.

RESULTS

Treatment with patiromer-spironolactone-ACEI was projected to increase longevity compared with ACEI alone (5.29 vs. 4.62 life-years gained, respectively), greater QALYs (2.79 vs. 2.60), and costs (US$28,200 vs. US$18,200), giving an ICER of US$52,700 per QALY gained. The ICERs ranged from US$40,000 to US$85,800 per QALY gained in 1-way sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that the use of spironolactone-patiromer-ACEI may provide clinical benefit and good economic value in patients with NYHA class III-IV HF unable to tolerate spironolactone due to hyperkalemia.

Diagnosis of chronic heart failure by the soluble suppression of tumorigenicity 2 and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide

OBJECTIVE

Our study was to explore the roles between serum soluble suppression of tumorigenicity 2 (sST2) and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) while evaluating ventricular function to properly diagnose chronic heart failure (CHF).

METHODS

In total, 197 CHF patients were recruited and classified into ventricular function's II, III, and IV groups, and 106 healthy people into normal control group. To detect concentrations of Sst2 and NT-proBNP, ELISA and electro-chemiluminescence immuno assay were implemented. An automatic biochemical analyzer was used to determine the levels of the following: blood urea nitrogen (BUN), creatinine (Cr), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), triglyceride (TG), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and uric acid (UA). A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was adopted to detect the diagnostic value sST2 and NT-ProBNP in CHF and the logistic regression analysis involving the risk factors of CHF.

RESULTS

Serum sST2 and NT-proBNP concentrations were increased significantly in the ventricular function's II, III, and IV groups in a manner dependent on concentration as opposed to the manner the normal control group occupied. The area under the curve (AUC) of sST2, found NT-proBNP and sST2+NT-proBNP to be 0.942 (95% CI: 0.917-0.966), 0.920 (95% CI: 0.891-0.948), and 0.968 (95% CI: 0.953-0.984), respectively. sST2, NT-proBNP, UA, and Cr were verified as important risk factors of CHF.

CONCLUSION

Serum sST2 and NT-ProBNP could act as diagnostic indicators for CHF.

Thirty Years of Evidence on the Efficacy of Drug Treatments for Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Treatments that reduce mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), β-blockers (BB), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI), have not been studied in a head-to-head fashion. This network meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of these drugs and their combinations regarding all-cause mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A systematic literature review identified 57 randomized controlled trials published between 1987 and 2015, which were compared in terms of study and patient characteristics, baseline risk, outcome definitions, and the observed treatment effects. Despite differences identified in terms of study duration, New York Heart Association class, ejection fraction, and use of background digoxin, a network meta-analysis was considered feasible and all trials were analyzed simultaneously. The random-effects network meta-analysis suggested that the combination of ACEI+BB+MRA was associated with a 56% reduction in mortality versus placebo (hazard ratio 0.44, 95% credible interval 0.26-0.66); ARNI+BB+MRA was associated with the greatest reduction in all-cause mortality versus placebo (hazard ratio 0.37, 95% credible interval 0.19-0.65). A sensitivity analysis that did not account for background therapy suggested that ARNI monotherapy is more efficacious than ACEI or ARB monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The network meta-analysis showed that treatment with ACEI, ARB, BB, MRA, and ARNI and their combinations were better than the treatment with placebo in reducing all-cause mortality, with the exception of ARB monotherapy and ARB plus ACEI. The combination of ARNI+BB+MRA resulted in the greatest mortality reduction.

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists for heart failure: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) have been associated with improved patient outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) but not preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of selective and nonselective MRAs in HFrEF and HFpEF.

Methods

We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE. We included randomized controlled trials (RCT) of MRAs in adults with HFpEF or HFrEF if they reported data on major adverse cardiac events or drug safety.

Results

We identified 15 studies representing 16321 patients. MRAs were associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular death (RR 0.81 [0.75–0.87], I² 0%), all-cause mortality (RR 0.83 [0.77–0.88], I² 0%), and cardiac hospitalizations (RR 0.80 [0.70–0.92], I² 58.4%). However, an a-priori specified subgroup analysis demonstrated that these benefits were limited to HFrEF (cardiovascular death RR 0.79 [0.73–0.86], I² 0%; all-cause mortality RR 0.81 [0.75–0.87], I² 0%; cardiac hospitalizations RR 0.76 [0.64–0.90], I² 68%), but not HFpEF (all-cause mortality RR 0.92 [0.79–1.08], I² 0%; cardiac hospitalizations RR 0.91 [0.67–1.24], I² 17%). MRAs increased the risk of hyperkalemia (RR 2.03 [1.78–2.31], I² 0%). Nonselective MRAs, but not selective MRAs increased the risk of gynecomastia (RR 7.37 [4.42–12.30], I² 0% vs. RR 0.74 [0.43–1.27], I² 0%). Evidence was of moderate quality for cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality and cardiovascular hospitalizations; and high-quality for hyperkalemia and gynecomastia.

Conclusions

MRAs reduce the risk of adverse cardiac events in HFrEF but not HFpEF. MRA use in HFpEF increases the risk of harm from hyperkalemia and gynecomastia. Selective MRAs are equally effective as nonselective MRAs, without a risk of gynecomastia.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12872-016-0425-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A novel role for the mineralocorticoid receptor in glucocorticoid driven vascular calcification

Vascular calcification, which is common in the elderly and in patients with atherosclerosis, diabetes and chronic renal disease, increases the risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. It is a complex, active and highly regulated cellular process that resembles physiological bone formation. It has previously been established that pharmacological doses of glucocorticoids facilitate arterial calcification. However, the consequences for vascular calcification of endogenous glucocorticoid elevation have yet to be established. Glucocorticoids (cortisol, corticosterone) are released from the adrenal gland, but can also be generated within cells from 11-keto metabolites of glucocorticoids (cortisone, 11-dehydrocorticosterone [11-DHC]) by the enzyme, 11β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 1 (11β-HSD1). In the current study we hypothesized that endogenous glucocorticoids facilitate vascular smooth muscle cell (VSMC) calcification and investigated the receptor-mediated mechanism underpinning this process.

In vitro studies revealed increased phosphate-induced calcification in mouse VSMCs following treatment for 7 days with corticosterone (100 nM; 7.98 fold; P < 0.01), 11-DHC (100 nM; 7.14 fold; P < 0.05) and dexamethasone (10 nM; 7.16 fold; P < 0.05), a synthetic glucocorticoid used as a positive control. Inhibition of 11β-HSD isoenzymes by 10 μM carbenoxolone reduced the calcification induced by 11-DHC (0.37 fold compared to treatment with 11-DHC alone; P < 0.05). The glucocorticoid receptor (GR) antagonist mifepristone (10 μM) had no effect on VSMC calcification in response to corticosterone or 11-DHC. In contrast, the mineralocorticoid receptor (MR) antagonist eplerenone (10 μM) significantly decreased corticosterone- (0.81 fold compared to treatment with corticosterone alone; P < 0.01) and 11-DHC-driven (0.64 fold compared to treatment with 11-DHC alone; P < 0.01) VSMC calcification, suggesting this glucocorticoid effect is MR-driven and not GR-driven. Neither corticosterone nor 11-DHC altered the mRNA levels of the osteogenic markers PiT-1, Osx and Bmp2. However, DAPI staining of pyknotic nuclei and flow cytometry analysis of surface Annexin V expression showed that corticosterone induced apoptosis in VSMCs.

This study suggests that in mouse VSMCs, corticosterone acts through the MR to induce pro-calcification effects, and identifies 11β-HSD-inhibition as a novel potential treatment for vascular calcification.

Impact of Aldosterone Antagonists on Sudden Cardiac Death Prevention in Heart Failure and Post-Myocardial Infarction Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background and Objectives

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is a severe burden of modern medicine. Aldosterone antagonist is publicized as effective in reducing mortality in patients with heart failure (HF) or post myocardial infarction (MI). Our study aimed to assess the efficacy of AAs on mortality including SCD, hospitalization admission and several common adverse effects.

Methods

We searched Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane library and clinicaltrial.gov for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assigning AAs in patients with HF or post MI through May 2015. The comparator included standard medication or placebo, or both. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Event rates were compared using a random effects model. Prospective RCTs of AAs with durations of at least 8 weeks were selected if they included at least one of the following outcomes: SCD, all-cause/cardiovascular mortality, all-cause/cardiovascular hospitalization and common side effects (hyperkalemia, renal function degradation and gynecomastia).

Results

Data from 19,333 patients enrolled in 25 trials were included. In patients with HF, this treatment significantly reduced the risk of SCD by 19% (RR 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67–0.98; p = 0.03); all-cause mortality by 19% (RR 0.81; 95% CI, 0.74–0.88, p<0.00001) and cardiovascular death by 21% (RR 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70–0.89, p<0.00001). In patients with post-MI, the matching reduced risks were 20% (RR 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66–0.98; p = 0.03), 15% (RR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76–0.95, p = 0.003) and 17% (RR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74–0.94, p = 0.003), respectively. Concerning both subgroups, the relative risks respectively decreased by 19% (RR 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71–0.92; p = 0.002) for SCD, 18% (RR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77–0.88, p < 0.0001) for all-cause mortality and 20% (RR 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74–0.87, p < 0.0001) for cardiovascular mortality in patients treated with AAs. As well, hospitalizations were significantly reduced, while common adverse effects were significantly increased.

Conclusion

Aldosterone antagonists appear to be effective in reducing SCD and other mortality events, compared with placebo or standard medication in patients with HF and/or after a MI.

Aldosterone and the Mineralocorticoid Receptor: Risk Factors for Cardiometabolic Disorders

Preclinical studies have convincingly demonstrated a role for the mineralocorticoid receptor (MR) in adipose tissue physiology. These studies show that increased MR activation causes adipocyte dysfunction leading to decreased production of insulin-sensitizing products and increased production of inflammatory factors, creating an environment conducive to metabolic and cardiovascular disease. Accumulating data also suggest that MR activation may be an important link between obesity and metabolic syndrome. Moreover, MR activation may mediate the pathogenic consequences of metabolic syndrome. Recent attempts at reversing cardiometabolic damage in patients with type 2 diabetes using MR antagonists have shown promising results. MR antagonists are already used to treat heart failure where their use decreases mortality and morbidity over and above the use of traditional therapies alone. However, more data are needed to establish the benefits of MR antagonists in diabetes, obesity, and metabolic syndrome.

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist in heart failure: Past, present and future perspectives

Aldosterone is involved in various deleterious effects on the cardiovascular system, including sodium and fluid retention, myocardial fibrosis, vascular stiffening, endothelial dysfunction, catecholamine release and stimulation of cardiac arrhythmias. Therefore, aldosterone receptor blockade may have several potential benefits in patients with cardiovascular disease. Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) have been shown to prevent many of the maladaptive effects of aldosterone, in particular among patients with heart failure (HF). Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated efficacy of MRA in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, both in patients with NYHA functional classes III and IV and in asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic patients (NYHA classes I and II). Recent data in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction are encouraging. MRA could also have anti-arrhythmic effects on atrial and ventricular arrhythmias and may be helpful in patient ischemic heart disease through prevention of myocardial fibrosis and vascular damage. This article aims to discuss the pathophysiological effects of aldosterone in patients with cardiovascular disease and to review the current data that support the use of MRA in heart failure.