READY: relative efficacy of loop diuretics in patients with chronic systolic heart failure-a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials

A Systematic Critical Review of Clinical Pharmacokinetics of Torasemide

PURPOSE

Torasemide is a potassium-sparing loop diuretic used to treat fluid retention associated with congestive heart failure and kidney and hepatic diseases. This systematic review was conducted to combine all accessible data on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of torasemide in healthy and diseased populations, which may help clinicians avert adverse drug reactions and determine the correct dosage regimen.

METHODS

Four databases were systematically searched to screen for studies associated with the PK of torasemide, and 21 studies met the eligibility criteria. The review protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42023390178).

RESULTS

A decrease in maximum plasma concentration (C max ) was observed for torasemide after administration of the prolonged-release formulation in comparison to that after administration of the immediate-release formulation, that is, 1.12 ± 0.17 versus 1.6 ± 0.2 mcg/mL. After administering an oral dose of torasemide, a 2-fold increase in the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) was reported in patients with congestive heart failure compared with the healthy population. Moreover, the patients with renal failure (clearance < 30 mL/min) showed an increase in value of AUC 0-∞ that is, 42.9 versus 8.091 mcg.h -1 .mL -1 compared with healthy subjects. In addition, some studies have reported interactions with different drugs, in which irbesartan showed a slight increase in the AUC 0-∞ of torasemide, whereas losartan and empagliflozin did not.

CONCLUSIONS

The current review summarizes all available PK parameters of torasemide that may be beneficial for avoiding drug-drug interactions in subjects with renal and hepatic dysfunction and for predicting doses in patients with different diseases.

Diuretic resistance and the role of albumin in congestive heart failure

Diuresis with loop diuretics is the mainstay treatment for volume optimization in patients with congestive heart failure, in which perfusion and volume expansion play a crucial role. There are robust guidelines with extensive evidence for the management of heart failure; however, clear guidance is needed for patients who do not respond to standard diuretic treatment. Diuretic resistance (DR) can be defined as an insufficient quantity of natriuresis with proper diuretic therapy. A combination of diuretic regimens is used to overcome DR and, more recently, SGLT2 inhibitors have been shown to improve diuresis. Despite DR being relatively common, it is challenging to treat and there remains a notable lack of substantial data guiding its management. Moreover, DR has been linked with poor prognosis. This review aims to expose the multiple approaches for treatment of patients with DR and the importance of intravascular volume expansion in the response to therapy.

The Potential Role of Torsemide in Optimizing Loop Diuretic Therapy for Heart Failure Patients

Heart failure is associated with an increased frequency of hospitalization, reduced life span, and greater risk to public health, thus posing a challenge. In India, torsemide is one of the commonly used loop diuretics for decongestion in heart failure. However, this use of torsemide, including its dosing, and up/down titration, is based on practical experience. Loop diuretic therapy for heart failure patients poses several dilemmas due to the lack of robust evidence based on which treatment decisions can be made. To guide physicians on the optimal use of torsemide in heart failure patients with or without renal impairment, a panel of expert cardiologists and nephrologists from India convened to develop this expert opinion document for the use of torsemide. This expert opinion on torsemide will pave the way for optimal management with loop diuretic therapy in real-world heart failure patients.

Diuretic dose trajectories in dilated cardiomyopathy: prognostic implications

BACKGROUND

For patients with heart failure, prescription of loop diuretics (LD) and of higher doses are associated with an adverse prognosis. We investigated LD dose trajectories and their associations with outcomes in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM).

METHODS

Associations between outcomes and both furosemide-equivalent dose (FED) at enrolment and change in FED in the subsequent 24 months were evaluated. According to FED trajectory, patients were classified as (i) dose↑ (FED increase by ≥ 50% or newly initiated); (ii) dose↓ (FED decrease by ≥ 50%); (iii) stable dose (change in FED by < 50%); and (iv) never-users. The primary outcome was all-cause-death/heart transplantation/ventricular-assist-device/heart failure hospitalization. The secondary outcome was all-cause-death/heart transplantation/ventricular-assist-device.

RESULTS

Of 1,131 patients enrolled, 738 (65%) were prescribed LD at baseline. Baseline FED was independently associated with outcome (HR per 20 mg increase: 1.12 [95% CI 1.04-1.22], p = 0.003). Of the 908 with information on FED within 24 months from enrolment, 31% were never-users; 29% were dose↓; 26% were stable dose and 14% were dose↑. In adjusted models, compared to never-users, stable dose had a higher risk of the primary outcome (HR 2.42 [95% CI 1.19-4.93], p = 0.015), while dose↑ had the worst prognosis (HR 2.76 [95% CI 1.27-6.03], p = 0.011). Results were similar for the secondary outcome. Compared to patients who remained on LD, discontinuation of LD (143, 24%) was associated with an improved outcome (HR 0.43 [95% CI 0.28-0.65], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with DCM, LD use and increasing FED are powerful markers of adverse outcomes. Patients who never receive LD have an excellent prognosis. Among 1131 DCM patients 65% received loop diuretics at enrolment (upper left side). The bar chart on the upper right side shows the categorization in never-users/ dose↓/stable dose/ dose↑ over 24 months of follow-up. At the bottom is reported on the left side of each panel (observation period) the trajectory of LD dose in the four groups (left panel) and in patients who have their LD suspended vs those who continue LD (right panel) in the first two years. On the right side of each panel is shown the incidence of primary outcomes during the subsequent follow-up in the subgroups (outcome assessment).

Ten things to know about ten cardiovascular disease risk factors - 2022

The American Society for Preventive Cardiology (ASPC) "Ten things to know about ten cardiovascular disease risk factors - 2022" is a summary document regarding cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors. This 2022 update provides summary tables of ten things to know about 10 CVD risk factors and builds upon the foundation of prior annual versions of "Ten things to know about ten cardiovascular disease risk factors" published since 2020. This 2022 version provides the perspective of ASPC members and includes updated sentinel references (i.e., applicable guidelines and select reviews) for each CVD risk factor section. The ten CVD risk factors include unhealthful dietary intake, physical inactivity, dyslipidemia, pre-diabetes/diabetes, high blood pressure, obesity, considerations of select populations (older age, race/ethnicity, and sex differences), thrombosis (with smoking as a potential contributor to thrombosis), kidney dysfunction and genetics/familial hypercholesterolemia. Other CVD risk factors may be relevant, beyond the CVD risk factors discussed here. However, it is the intent of the ASPC "Ten things to know about ten cardiovascular disease risk factors - 2022" to provide a tabular overview of things to know about ten of the most common CVD risk factors applicable to preventive cardiology and provide ready access to applicable guidelines and sentinel reviews.

Impact of Loop Diuretic on Outcomes in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Loop diuretics are the cornerstone of the treatment of congestion in heart failure patients. The manuscript aims to summarize the most updated information regarding the use of loop diuretics in heart failure.

RECENT FINDINGS

Diuretic response can be highly variable between patients and needs to be carefully evaluated during and after the hospitalization. Diuretic resistance can lead to residual congestion which affects prognosis and can be difficult to detect. The effect of loop diuretics on long-term prognosis remains uncertain but patients with advanced heart failure typically have renal dysfunction and are more inclined to develop loop diuretic resistance, which may lead to an incomplete decongestion and thus to a worse prognosis. Loop diuretics are the most potent diuretics available and their use is recommended in order to alleviate symptoms, improve exercise capacity, and reduce hospitalizations in patients with heart failure. Their use should be limited to the lowest dose necessary to maintain euvolemia because a low dose does not increase the risk of decompensation but reduce the risk of adverse effects and allow the up-titration of disease-modifying drugs.

Analysis of canine cardiovascular therapeutic agent prescriptions using electronic health records in primary care veterinary practices in the United Kingdom

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES

Canine cardiovascular (CV) diseases are often managed in primary care settings. The objectives were to describe CV therapeutic agent (CVTA) prescribing patterns in primary care practices in the United Kingdom (UK) and to evaluate recorded clinical signs, diagnostic tests and justifications for use of torasemide, a recently marketed and authorised loop-diuretic in the UK.

ANIMALS, MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic health records (EHRs) describing 3,579,420 consultations (1,043,042 unique dogs) were collated (1 April 2014 and 31 December 2018) by the Small Animal Veterinary Surveillance Network from 270 veterinary practices. Consultations prescribing at least one CVTA were identified. Annual variation in individual CVTA prescriptions was analysed using mixed-effects binomial regression models. Free-text clinical narratives were manually read to determine the first-prescribing event for torasemide.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine thousand and seven consultations (0.81% of all consultations, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.86) prescribed CVTA in 14,148 (1.36%) dogs. Furosemide (52.8% of CV-prescribing consultations, 95% CI 50.7-54.9) and pimobendan (51.9%, 95% CI 50.1-53.7) were most prescribed. Longitudinal analysis (2014-2018) showed a significant negative temporal trend for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (p < 0.001), and furosemide (p = 0.003) and a positive temporal trend for pimobendan (p = 0.020) and torasemide (p < 0.001). First prescriptions of torasemide were identified in 16.5% of torasemide-prescribing consultations. Where justification for prescription of torasemide was identified (32.5%), furosemide resistance was the most common (92.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

EHRs can be used to temporally monitor prescribing habits, including responses to market authorisations. Despite authorisation in the UK for torasemide use as a first-line diuretic, it was most commonly prescribed after furosemide resistance.

Temporal trends in heart failure medication prescription in a population-based cohort study

OBJECTIVE

We examined temporal heart failure (HF) prescription patterns in a large representative sample of real-world patients in the UK, using electronic health records (EHR).

METHODS

From primary and secondary care EHR, we identified 85 732 patients with a HF diagnosis between 2002 and 2015. Almost 50% of patients with HF were women and the median age was 79.1 (IQR 70.2-85.7) years, with age at diagnosis increasing over time.

RESULTS

We found several trends in pharmacological HF management, including increased beta blocker prescriptions over time (29% in 2002-2005 and 54% in 2013-2015), which was not observed for mineralocorticoid receptor-antagonists (MR-antagonists) (18% in 2002-2005 and 18% in 2013-2015); higher prescription rates of loop diuretics in women and elderly patients together with lower prescription rates of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and/or angiotensin II receptor blockers, beta blockers or MR-antagonists in these patients; little change in medication prescription rates occurred after 6 months of HF diagnosis and, finally, patients hospitalised for HF who had no recorded follow-up in primary care had considerably lower prescription rates compared with patients with a HF diagnosis in primary care with or without HF hospitalisation.

CONCLUSION

In the general population, the use of MR-antagonists for HF remained low and did not change throughout 13 years of follow-up. For most patients, few changes were seen in pharmacological management of HF in the 6 months following diagnosis.

Ten things to know about ten cardiovascular disease risk factors

Given rapid advancements in medical science, it is often challenging for the busy clinician to remain up-to-date on the fundamental and multifaceted aspects of preventive cardiology and maintain awareness of the latest guidelines applicable to cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors. The “American Society for Preventive Cardiology (ASPC) Top Ten CVD Risk Factors 2021 Update” is a summary document (updated yearly) regarding CVD risk factors. This “ASPC Top Ten CVD Risk Factors 2021 Update” summary document reflects the perspective of the section authors regarding ten things to know about ten sentinel CVD risk factors. It also includes quick access to sentinel references (applicable guidelines and select reviews) for each CVD risk factor section. The ten CVD risk factors include unhealthful nutrition, physical inactivity, dyslipidemia, hyperglycemia, high blood pressure, obesity, considerations of select populations (older age, race/ethnicity, and sex differences), thrombosis/smoking, kidney dysfunction and genetics/familial hypercholesterolemia. For the individual patient, other CVD risk factors may be relevant, beyond the CVD risk factors discussed here. However, it is the intent of the “ASPC Top Ten CVD Risk Factors 2021 Update” to provide a succinct overview of things to know about ten common CVD risk factors applicable to preventive cardiology.

Outcomes of diuretics in rheumatic heart disease with compensated chronic heart failure: a retrospective study

Aims

The purpose of this retrospective propensity score‐matched study was to evaluate the superiority of different application approaches [continuous diuretics use (CDU) vs. intermittent diuretics use (IDU)] and types [loop diuretics (LDs) vs. thiazide diuretics (TDs)] of diuretics on long‐term outcomes for rheumatic heart disease (RHD) patients with compensated chronic heart failure (CHF).

Methods and results

A total of 494 RHD patients with compensated CHF were analysed after propensity score matching. Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to investigate the associations of different diuretic application approaches and types with all‐cause mortality, cardiovascular death (CVD), and cerebrovascular death. Binary logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate the associations of different diuretic application approaches and types with 1‐, 3‐, and 5‐year heart failure (HF) re‐hospitalization as well as new‐onset atrial fibrillation (AF). In the comparison between IDU and CDU strategies for RHD patients with compensated CHF, CDU was associated with increased risks of all‐cause mortality [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 2.47, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.54–3.97, P < 0.001] and CVD (adjusted HR = 3.67, 95% CI: 1.95–6.89, P < 0.001) except cerebrovascular death (adjusted HR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.34–3.41, P = 0.905). CDU was also associated with increased risks of 3‐year [adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 1.80, 95% CI: 1.09–2.96, P = 0.022] and 5‐year (adjusted OR = 2.02, 95% CI: 1.18–3.45, P = 0.010) HF re‐hospitalization risk and new‐onset AF (adjusted OR = 2.34, 95% CI: 1.31–4.20, P = 0.004) except 1‐year HF re‐hospitalization risk (adjusted OR = 1.54, 95% CI: 0.88–2.70, P = 0.130). In the comparison between TDs and LDs among study participants receiving IDU strategy, LDs were only associated with decreased 1‐year HF re‐hospitalization risk (adjusted OR = 0.30, 95% CI: 0.12–0.77, P = 0.012) rather than all‐cause mortality, CVD, cerebrovascular death, 3‐ and 5‐year HF re‐hospitalization, and new‐onset AF (all adjusted P > 0.05). In the comparison between TDs and LDs among study participants receiving CDU strategy, LDs were not associated with cerebrovascular death and 1‐year HF re‐hospitalization (both adjusted P > 0.05) but with increased risks of all‐cause mortality (adjusted HR = 1.80, 95% CI: 1.09–2.99, P = 0.023), CVD (adjusted HR = 1.89, 95% CI: 1.04–3.44, P = 0.037), 3‐year (adjusted OR = 1.91, 95% CI: 1.06–3.43, P = 0.031) and 5‐year (adjusted OR = 2.16, 95% CI: 1.12–4.19, P = 0.022) HF re‐hospitalization, and new‐onset AF (adjusted OR = 2.66, 95% CI: 1.25–5.68, P = 0.012).

Conclusions

Continuous diuretics use (especially LDs) was associated with increased risks of all‐cause mortality, CVD, medium‐term/long‐term HF re‐hospitalization, and new‐onset AF in RHD patients with compensated CHF.

Treatment outcomes of bumetanide continuous infusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The clinical use of continuous bumetanide infusion for acute heart failure and volume overload is common. However, there is not enough supporting evidence for the use of continuous bumetanide infusion. Thus, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis aiming to describe the treatment outcomes of continuous bumetanide infusion. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library for eligible publications. Inclusion criteria were patients age ≥18 years with bumetanide infusion for heart failure, acute kidney injury (AKI) or volume overload. From 1564 citations, three studies (n = 94 patients) were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The mean dose of bumetanide was 1.08 ± 0.43 mg/hour with a mean treatment duration of 45.09 ± 10.12 hours. Mean urine output in response to continuous bumetanide infusion was 1.88 mL/kg/hour (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.72-2.05). The incidence of AKI with continuous bumetanide infusion was 24.7% (95% CI, 8.2-54.6). By using Pearson's correlation coefficient, increasing doses of bumetanide were correlated with increased urine output (P = .026) and increased incidence of AKI (P < .01). There was no correlation between increasing urine output and the incidence of AKI (P = .739). In conclusion, with available evidence, continuous bumetanide infusion may be used in the treatment of acute heart failure or volume overload with close monitoring for new-onset or worsening AKI.

Evolving understanding of cardiovascular protection by SGLT2 inhibitors: focus on renal protection, myocardial effects, uric acid, and magnesium balance

Robust clinical data indicate that inhibitors of the sodium/glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) dramatically improve clinical outcomes in diabetes, especially heart failure and progression of kidney disease. Factors that may contribute to these findings include: 1) improved glycemic control, 2) diuresis and reduced extracellular fluid volume, 3) reduced serum uric acid levels, 3) direct myocardial effects, 4) reduction in proteinuria and preservation of kidney function, and 5) correction of diabetic magnesium deficiency. Understanding the mechanisms by which SGLT2 inhibitors improve cardiovascular outcomes has the potential to improve clinical management not only of diabetes, but also of other cardiovascular disorders such as heart failure and chronic kidney disease.

Ten things to know about ten cardiovascular disease risk factors ("ASPC Top Ten - 2020")

Preventive cardiology involves understanding and managing multiple cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors. Given the rapid advancements in medical science, it may be challenging for the busy clinician to remain up-to-date on the multifaceted and fundamental aspects of CVD prevention, and maintain awareness of the newest applicable guidelines. The "American Society for Preventive Cardiology (ASPC) Top Ten 2020" summarizes ten essential things to know about ten important CVD risk factors, listed in tabular formats. The ten CVD risk factors include unhealthful nutrition, physical inactivity, dyslipidemia, hyperglycemia, high blood pressure, obesity, considerations of select populations (older age, race/ethnicity, and gender), thrombosis/smoking, kidney dysfunction and genetics/familial hypercholesterolemia. For the individual patient, other CVD risk factors may be relevant, beyond the CVD risk factors discussed here. However, it is the intent of the "ASPC Top Ten 2020" to provide a succinct overview of things to know about ten common CVD risk factors applicable to preventive cardiology.