Comparison of effects of aldosterone receptor antagonists spironolactone and eplerenone on cardiovascular outcomes and safety in patients with acute decompensated heart failure

Comparative effectiveness and safety of eplerenone and spironolactone in patients with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Eplerenone and spironolactone, recognized as mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), have been reported to improve clinical prognosis among individuals diagnosed with heart failure (HF). However, the difference in the clinical effects between eplerenone and spironolactone in individuals with HF remains uncertain. We aimed to assess the impact of eplerenone compared to spironolactone on clinical outcomes within the HF population.

METHODS

An extensive search was executed in several databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library). All relevant studies evaluating eplerenone compared to spironolactone in patients with HF were included. Dichotomous data were pooled as Hazard ratio (HR) or Risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Our main outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included death from cardiovascular causes, treatment withdrawal, and gynecomastia.

RESULTS

Ten studies, comprising 21,930 HF individuals, were included in our investigation. Eplerenone showed a lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR = 0.78, 95%CI [0.64 to 0.94], P = 0.009) and cardiovascular mortality (HR = 0.54, 95%CI [0.39, 0.74], P = 0.0001) compared to spironolactone. Furthermore, eplerenone exhibited a reduced risk of treatment withdrawal (RR = 0.69, 95% CI [0.62, 0.78], P = 0.0001) and gynecomastia (RR = 0.07, 95% CI [0.02 to 0.31], P = 0.0001) than spironolactone.

CONCLUSION

Eplerenone revealed lower all-cause and cardiovascular mortality events in comparison to spironolactone. Moreover, eplerenone was associated with lower gynecomastia and treatment withdrawal events compared to spironolactone. Further well-designed randomized controlled trials are still warranted better to identify the clinical differences between eplerenone and spironolactone.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Protocol registration: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/VNMGK.

Serum aldosterone in right ventricular failure versus left ventricular failure before and after mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists: case-control clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) is a global growing health threat. This case-control clinical trial aimed to detect the predictive value and difference in aldosterone level between right side heart failure, heart failure with decreased ejection fraction (HFrEF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and compare the efficacy and safety of adding mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) for treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We recruited 151 participants, 135 HF patients divided equally into 45 patients in each group:(1) right side HF (2) HFrEF and (3) HFpEF and 16 healthy controls. Serum aldosterone, troponin and echocardiography were evaluated at the beginning of the study, three and six months after administration of MRA.

RESULTS

Aldosterone level was significantly greater in HF patients relative to controls. Aldosterone level can detect HF with excellent accuracy. There were significantly lower levels of aldosterone in right side HF compared to left side HF. There was a significant decrease in right ventricle dimensions, pulmonary artery systolic pressure and pulmonary artery size and significant increase in tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion after treatment in patients with right side HF. In the HFrEF group, there was a significant decrease in left ventricular end diastolic dimension and a significant increase in left ventricular EF after treatment. In the HFpEF group, there was a significant decrease in E/A and E/e' after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Aldosterone may have pathogenic role in HF. Measuring and follow-up of aldosterone levels should be considered in HF patients. MRA treatment gives a significant improvement in right side HF group.

The Effectiveness of Eplerenone vs Spironolactone on Left Ventricular Systolic Function, Hospitalization and Cardiovascular Death in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure-HFrEF

Background

Heart failure remains one of the most prevalent clinical syndromes associated with significant morbidity and mortality. According to current guidelines, the prescription of a MRA is recommended to reduce the risk of HF hospitalization and death in all patients with symptomatic heart failure and no contraindications for this therapy.

Objective

The aim of our study was to determine the efficacy of eplerenone vs. spironolactone on left ventricular systolic function by measuring left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with chronic heart failure, especially their effect on preventing hospitalization, reducing mortality, and improving clinical status among patients with chronic HF.

Methods

From June 2021 to June 2022, the study was a randomized, prospective clinical trial single blind study. A total of 142 patients of chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction were selected by random sampling. Each patient was randomly allocated into either of the two groups and was continued receiving treatment with either spironolactone (Spiron-HF group) or eplerenone (Epler-HF group). Patients in Epler-HF group were compared with an arm of the same size and matched by age and gender patients in Spiron-HF group for management of chronic HFrEF. Each patient was evaluated clinically, biochemically, and echocardiographically at the beginning of treatment (baseline) after 6 months and at the end of 12th month. Echocardiography was performed to find out change in left ventricular systolic function.

Results

After 12 months of treatment, significant improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction was observed in eplerenone treated arm (37.9 ± 3.8 ± 4.6 in Spiron-HF group versus 40.1 ± 5.7 in Epler-HF group; P < 0.05). A significant reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume (6.3 ± 2.5ml in Spiron-HF versus 17.8± 4.4ml in Epler-HF group; P < 0.05) and left ventricular systolic diameter volume (2.7 ± 0.5ml in Spiron-HF versus 6.7 ± 0.2ml in Epler-HF group; P < 0.05), occurred after 12 months of treatment. Left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LV GLS) was significantly improved in Epler-HF group compared with Spiron-HF group (0.6 ± 0.4 versus 3.4 ± 0.9; P < 0.05). There were no significant differences observed in reduction of left ventricular end-diastolic volume (2.2 ± 0.5 ml versus 4.7 ± 1.1ml; P =0.103) and left ventricular diastolic diameter (1.2 ± 0.6 versus 1.7 ± 0.3; P=0.082) in both arms. The effects of both MRA agents spironolactone and eplerenone on the primary composite outcome, each of the individual mortality and hospital admission outcomes are shown in Figure 1 and 2. Patients of the Epler-HF group showed statistically significant lower cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.53; 95% CI 0.34-0.82; p= 0.007) and all-cause mortality (HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.44-0.93; p= 0.022) than patients of the Spiron-HF group. The statistical analysis did not show a statistically significant difference between Epler -HF and Spiron-HF study groups regarding the risk of the primary composite outcome; cardiovascular death or hospitalization due to HF (Hazard Ratio (HR) eplerenone vs. spironolactone = 0.95; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.73- 1.27; p= 0.675).

Conclusion

Our study has demonstrated favorable effects of eplerenone on cardiac remodeling parameters and reduction of cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality compared with spironolactone in the treatment of HFrEF. The ability of eplerenone to effectively block the mineralocorticoid receptor while minimizing side effects and a significant reduction in the risk of hospitalization and cardiovascular death confirms its key role in the treatment of patients with chronic HFrEF.

Management of adreno-cortical adenomas using microwave ablation: study of the effects of the fat tissue

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Adrenocortical neoplasms are the main causes of secondary hypertension and related comorbidities including hypokalemia and cardiovascular diseases. Conventional techniques for the management of this condition are often invasive and not resolutive. Recent studies proposed microwave thermal ablation (MWA) to eradicate adrenocortical adenomas arising in proximity to sensitive structures. This study explores a new MWA approach to selectively direct the electromagnetic energy into the target and shield the surrounding tissues. The new solution relies on the anatomical and dielectric characteristics of the adrenal gland and the surrounding fat capsule.

METHODS

A 3 D model of the adrenal gland is developed, and a cooled microwave applicator is placed parallel to the interface between the fat and adrenal tissue. Numerical simulations are conducted at 2.45 GHz accounting for two energy delivery settings, two orientations of the applicator and blood perfusion of the tissues. Ex vivo and in vivo ablation procedures are conducted on ovine adrenal glands. Histology analysis completes the experimental studies.

RESULTS

Numerical results show asymmetric ablation profiles in ex vivo and in vivo conditions. The asymmetry ratio is influenced by the procedure settings and orientation of the applicator. Ablation zones obtained experimentally agree with those predicted by the numerical simulations. Histology analysis confirms irreversible cellular changes only in the adrenal tissue close to the applicator.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes show that the dielectric contrast between the fat layer and tissue target can be a tool in MWA to shape ablation zones to protect the surrounding structures from excessive temperature increases.

The Time to Reconsider Mineralocorticoid Receptor Blocking Strategy: Arrival of Nonsteroidal Mineralocorticoid Receptor Blockers

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The study aims to verify the advantages of nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor blockers (MRBs) in the management of hypertension and cardiovascular and renal diseases, comparing with conventional MRBs.

RECENT FINDINGS

Based on the unique structures, the nonsteroidal MRBs have higher selectivity for mineralocorticoid receptors (MRs) and show no agonist activity for major steroid hormone receptors in contrast to steroidal MRBs. Today, there are two nonsteroidal MRBs, esaxerenone and finerenone, which completed phase 3 clinical trials. Series of clinical trials have shown that both agents achieve similar MR blockade with smaller doses as compared with steroidal MRBs, but have no off-target side effect such as gynecomastia. Esaxerenone has persistent blood pressure-lowering effects in various hypertensive populations, including essential hypertension and those with diabetes and/or chronic kidney disease, while finerenone has demonstrated reduction of the cardiovascular risk rather than blood pressure in patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease. Nonsteroidal MRBs are a more refined agent which contributes to appropriate MR blocking with minimized unpleasant adverse effects.

Real world comparison of spironolactone and eplerenone in patients with heart failure

AIMS

In the absence of previous direct comparative studies, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of spironolactone and eplerenone in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in a real-world clinical setting.

METHODS

Using Fine-Gray´s competing risk regression, we compared the clinical outcomes of 293 patients with chronic HF and left ventricular ejection fraction <40% treated with eplerenone and 293 propensity-score matched individuals treated with spironolactone. Study subjects were selected from a prospective cohort of 1404 ambulatory patients with HFrEF seen since 2010 to 2019 in a single specialized HF clinic, among which 992 received a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist at baseline. Median follow-up was 3.95 years.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences between patients treated with eplerenone versus spironolactone were observed with regard to the risk of the primary composite end-point cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization (HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.73-1.23; p= 0.677). However, eplerenone use was associated to lower cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.35-0.85; p= 0.008) and lower all-cause mortality (HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.47-0.95; p= 0.027). The incidence of drug suspension due to side effects (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40-0.85; p= 0.005) and drug suspension due to any reason (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51-0.97; p= 0.033) were lower among patients treated with eplerenone.

CONCLUSIONS

In this observational, real-world, propensity-score matched study of patients with HFrEF, eplerenone was associated to lower cardiovascular mortality and lower all-cause mortality than spironolactone.

Differentiation between emerging non-steroidal and established steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists: head-to-head comparisons of pharmacological and clinical characteristics

INTRODUCTION

Mineralocorticoid receptor (MR) antagonists (MRAs) provide cardiorenal protection. However steroidal MRAs might induce hyperkalemia and sex hormone-related adverse effects. Several novel non-steroidal MRAs are being developed that are highly selective for the MR and may have an improved safety profile.

AREAS COVERED

This narrative review summarizes data from head-to-head comparisons of emerging non-steroidal MRAs with older steroidal MRAs, including pharmacological characteristics, pharmacokinetic properties, clinical outcomes, and safety, and highlights similarities and differences between emerging agents and established steroidal MRAs.

EXPERT OPINION

Head-to-head comparisons in phase 2 trials suggest that the new non-steroidal MRAs exhibit at least equivalent efficacy to steroidal MRAs but may have a better safety profile in patients with heart failure and/or kidney disease. When also taking into account data from recent phase 3 placebo-controlled trials, these novel non-steroidal MRAs have the potential to provide a cardiorenal benefit above that of current optimized standard-of-care treatment in a high-risk population with reduced renal function, and with a lower risk of hyperkalemia. To optimize therapy, further research is needed to clarify the molecular differences in the mode of action of non-steroidal MRAs versus steroidal MRAs, and biomarkers that are predictive of MRA response need to be identified and validated.

The Effects of Spironolactone and Eplerenone on Left Ventricular Function Using Echocardiography in Symptomatic Patients With New-Onset Systolic Heart Failure: A Comparative Randomised Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF), as a serious health condition, is characterised by the decreasing ability of the heart to pump enough blood around the body. This study compared the effects of spironolactone and eplerenone on the echocardiographic variables of the left ventricular (LV) function in symptomatic patients diagnosed with new-onset systolic HF.

METHOD

This study was a randomised controlled trial, including 85 symptomatic patients with new-onset systolic HF (namely, dilated cardiomyopathy). The patients were then randomly assigned to two groups in a 1:1 ratio and received either spironolactone or eplerenone in addition to optimal HF therapy for 6 months. Echocardiography was performed to visualise alterations in two-dimensional, pulse Doppler, tissue Doppler, and deformation indices of LV function.

RESULTS

The results revealed that the group receiving eplerenone had a significantly greater increase in LV ejection fraction (LVEF) and a decrease in end-systolic LV internal diameter compared with the group receiving spironolactone (intergroup p=0.002 and p=0.006, respectively). There was a significant reduction in the end-diastolic LV internal diameter and the left atrial diameter, and a significant rise in tissue Doppler peak systolic mitral annular velocity in the group taking eplerenone; there were no significant changes in these variables in the group receiving spironolactone (intergroup p=0.006 and p=0.049, respectively). Accordingly, eplerenone had greater favourable effects on LVEF and the global longitudinal strain than spironolactone (B=5.207 [p<0.001] and B= -2.072 [p=0.044]), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study established that adding eplerenone to optimal HF therapy might be associated with more improvements in echocardiographic variables of LV function than spironolactone in symptomatic patients with new-onset systolic HF.

Spotlight on Spironolactone Oral Suspension for the Treatment of Heart Failure: Focus on Patient Selection and Perspectives

Spironolactone, an antagonist of aldosterone, initially used as a potassium-sparing diuretic, was subsequently shown to be a very effective adjunctive agent in the treatment of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, by halting the disease progression, with significant beneficial effects on both morbidity and mortality. Other uses comprise resistant hypertension, edema in patients with cirrhosis, and other on- and off-label uses. Recent data indicate that spironolactone also may offer some symptomatic relief in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction. However, a variable percentage of patients, particularly among the aged group, may have difficulty in swallowing or may be unable to swallow tablets and thus are deprived of the benefits of such therapy. In 2017, the FDA approved a liquid suspension formulation of spironolactone, CaroSpir^®, which will enable more heart failure and other patients in need of aldosterone inhibition to avail themselves of the protective and beneficial effects of spironolactone. The new drug formulation comes as a banana-flavored oral suspension that contains 25 mg/5 mL of spironolactone, supplied in 4-ounce (118 mL) and 16-ounce (473 mL) bottles. The details of this drug formulation development and the benefits of spironolactone use in patients with heart failure with a focus on patient selection are herein reviewed.