Influence of Age on Efficacy and Safety of Spironolactone in Heart Failure

Hyperkalemic effect of drug-drug interaction between esaxerenone and trimethoprim in patients with hypertension: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

We examined whether the pharmacodynamic drug-drug interaction between esaxerenone and trimethoprim enhances the hyperkalemic effect.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was conducted to identify patients >18 years undertaking esaxerenone alone or esaxerenone plus trimethoprim at Mie University Hospital from May 2019 to December 2022. We performed propensity score-matching (1:1) to compare between-group differences in the maximum change in serum potassium levels (ΔK) using the Mann-Whitney U test. For esaxerenone plus trimethoprim, Spearman's correlation coefficients were used to examine correlations between ΔK and variables, including changes in blood urea nitrogen (ΔBUN), serum creatinine levels (ΔCr), and weekly trimethoprim cumulative dose.

RESULTS

Out of propensity score-matched groups (n=8 each), serum potassium levels significantly increased after administration of esaxerenone alone (4.4 [4.2 to 4.7] meq/L to 5.2 [4.7 to 5.4] meq/L, p=0.008) and esaxerenone plus trimethoprim (4.2 [4.0 to 5.1] meq/L to 5.4 [4.7 to 5.5] meq/L, p=0.023). ΔK did not significantly differ between the groups (esaxerenone alone; 0.6 [0.3 to 0.9] meq/L vs. esaxerenone plus trimethoprim; 1.0 [0.4 to 1.3] meq/L, p=0.342). ΔK positively correlated with ΔBUN (r=0.988, p<0.001) or ΔCr (r=0.800, p=0.017). There was a trend of correlation of ΔK with a weekly cumulative trimethoprim dose (r=0.607, p=0.110).

CONCLUSIONS

The hyperkalemic effect of the drug-drug interaction between esaxerenone and trimethoprim is not notable and related to renal function and trimethoprim dosage.

Kidney and cardiovascular-protective benefits of combination drug therapies in chronic kidney disease associated with type 2 diabetes

Given the substantial burden of chronic kidney disease associated with type 2 diabetes, an aggressive approach to treatment is required. Despite the benefits of guideline-directed therapy, there remains a high residual risk of continuing progression of chronic kidney disease and of cardiovascular events. Historically, a linear approach to pharmacologic management of chronic kidney disease has been used, in which drugs are added, then adjusted, optimized, or stopped in a stepwise manner based on their efficacy, toxicity, effects on a patient's quality of life, and cost. However, there are disadvantages to this approach, which may result in missing a window of opportunity to slow chronic kidney disease progression. Instead, a pillar approach has been proposed to enable earlier treatment that simultaneously targets multiple pathways involved in disease progression. Combination therapy in patients with chronic kidney disease associated with type 2 diabetes is being investigated in several clinical trials. In this article, we discuss current treatment options for patients with chronic kidney disease associated with type 2 diabetes and provide a rationale for tailored combinations of therapies with complementary mechanisms of action to optimize therapy using a pillar-based treatment strategy. [This article includes a plain language summary as an additional file].

Finerenone in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction: Rationale and design of the FINEARTS-HF trial

AIM

Steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), spironolactone and eplerenone, are strongly recommended in the treatment of patients with chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), but the balance of efficacy and safety in those with higher LVEF has not been well established. Broad use of steroidal MRAs has further been limited in part due to safety concerns around risks of hyperkalaemia, gynecomastia, and kidney dysfunction. These risks may be mitigated by the unique pharmacological properties of the non-steroidal MRA finerenone. The FINEARTS-HF trial is designed to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of the selective non-steroidal MRA finerenone among patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction.

METHODS

FINEARTS-HF is a global, multicentre, event-driven randomized trial evaluating oral finerenone versus matching placebo in symptomatic patients with HF with LVEF ≥40%. Adults (≥40 years) with HF with New York Heart Association class II-IV symptoms, LVEF ≥40%, evidence of structural heart disease, and diuretic use for at least the previous 30 days were eligible. All patients required elevated natriuretic peptide levels: for patients in sinus rhythm, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) ≥300 pg/ml (or B-type natriuretic peptide [BNP] ≥100 pg/ml) were required, measured within 30 days (in those without a recent worsening HF event) or within 90 days (in those with a recent worsening HF event). Qualifying levels of NT-proBNP or BNP were tripled if a patient was in atrial fibrillation at screening. Estimated glomerular filtration rate <25 ml/min/1.73 m2 or serum potassium >5.0 mmol/L were key exclusion criteria. Patients were enrolled irrespective of clinical care setting (whether hospitalized, recently hospitalized, or ambulatory). The primary endpoint is the composite of cardiovascular death and total (first and recurrent) HF events. The trial started on 14 September 2020 and has validly randomized 6001 participants across 37 countries. Approximately 2375 total primary composite events are targeted.

CONCLUSIONS

The FINEARTS-HF trial will determine the efficacy and safety of the non-steroidal MRA finerenone in a broad population of hospitalized and ambulatory patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04435626 and EudraCT 2020-000306-29.

Impact of adherence to guideline-directed therapy on risk of death in HF patients across an ejection fraction spectrum

AIMS

How different degrees of adherence to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) affect mortality risk in patients with heart failure (HF) in a real-world clinical setting is poorly understood. This study sought to investigate how different levels of adherence to GDMT were associated with the risk of all-cause mortality in patients with HF across a spectrum of left ventricular ejection fractions (LVEFs) in a real-world clinical setting.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 64 610 HF patients with no missing value of LVEF from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry were included in the study. Patients were divided according to different LVEFs (<30%, 30-39%, 40-49%, and≥50%) and stratified by an adherence score (good, moderate, or poor) according to the triple, double, and single one usage of GDMT: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. The outcome is time to all-cause mortality. The mean age of the whole cohort was 73.9 ± 12.1 years, and the proportion of patients in LVEF < 30%, 30-39%, 40-49%, and≥50% groups was 27.6%, 26.9%, 22.1%, and 23.3%, respectively. Patients with LVEF < 30% had the highest mortality rate, almost 20% higher than those with LVEF ≥ 50% {hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.80 [0.71-0.90], P < 0.001}. After treatment of GDMT with good adherence, patients with LVEF < 30% had similar mortality to those with LVEF ≥ 50% [HR (95% CI): 0.97 (0.86-1.10), P = 0.664]. However, the percentage of moderate or poor GDMT was alarmingly high, with good adherence only in 20% of the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Good adherence to GDMT works best in patients with LVEF < 50%, whereas moderate adherence to GDMT varies in efficacy depending on the components of the drug combinations.

Aldosterone antagonists in addition to renin angiotensin system antagonists for preventing the progression of chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) is used to reduce proteinuria and retard the progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, resolution of proteinuria may be incomplete with these therapies and the addition of an aldosterone antagonist may be added to further prevent progression of CKD. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2009 and updated in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of aldosterone antagonists (selective (eplerenone), non-selective (spironolactone or canrenone), or non-steroidal mineralocorticoid antagonists (finerenone)) in adults who have CKD with proteinuria (nephrotic and non-nephrotic range) on: patient-centred endpoints including kidney failure (previously know as end-stage kidney disease (ESKD)), major cardiovascular events, and death (any cause); kidney function (proteinuria, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and doubling of serum creatinine); blood pressure; and adverse events (including hyperkalaemia, acute kidney injury, and gynaecomastia).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 13 January 2020 through contact with the Information Specialist 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 (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared aldosterone antagonists in combination with ACEi or ARB (or both) to other anti-hypertensive strategies or placebo in participants with proteinuric CKD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. Data were summarised using random effects meta-analysis. We expressed summary treatment estimates as a risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, or standardised mean difference (SMD) when different scales were used together with their 95% confidence interval (CI). Risk of bias were assessed using the Cochrane tool. Evidence certainty was evaluated using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-four studies (5745 participants) were included. Risk of bias in the evaluated methodological domains were unclear or high risk in most studies. Adequate random sequence generation was present in 12 studies, allocation concealment in five studies, blinding of participant and investigators in 18 studies, blinding of outcome assessment in 15 studies, and complete outcome reporting in 24 studies. All studies comparing aldosterone antagonists to placebo or standard care were used in addition to an ACEi or ARB (or both). None of the studies were powered to detect differences in patient-level outcomes including kidney failure, major cardiovascular events or death. Aldosterone antagonists had uncertain effects on kidney failure (2 studies, 84 participants: RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 27.65, I² = 0%; very low certainty evidence), death (3 studies, 421 participants: RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.10 to 3.50, I² = 0%; low certainty evidence), and cardiovascular events (3 studies, 1067 participants: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.26 to 3.56; I² = 42%; low certainty evidence) compared to placebo or standard care. Aldosterone antagonists may reduce protein excretion (14 studies, 1193 participants: SMD -0.51, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.20, I² = 82%; very low certainty evidence), eGFR (13 studies, 1165 participants, MD -3.00 mL/min/1.73 m², 95% CI -5.51 to -0.49, I² = 0%, low certainty evidence) and systolic blood pressure (14 studies, 911 participants: MD -4.98 mmHg, 95% CI -8.22 to -1.75, I² = 87%; very low certainty evidence) compared to placebo or standard care. Aldosterone antagonists probably increase the risk of hyperkalaemia (17 studies, 3001 participants: RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.47 to 3.22, I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence), acute kidney injury (5 studies, 1446 participants: RR 2.04, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.97, I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence), and gynaecomastia (4 studies, 281 participants: RR 5.14, 95% CI 1.14 to 23.23, I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence) compared to placebo or standard care. Non-selective aldosterone antagonists plus ACEi or ARB had uncertain effects on protein excretion (2 studies, 139 participants: SMD -1.59, 95% CI -3.80 to 0.62, I² = 93%; very low certainty evidence) but may increase serum potassium (2 studies, 121 participants: MD 0.31 mEq/L, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.45, I² = 0%; low certainty evidence) compared to diuretics plus ACEi or ARB. Selective aldosterone antagonists may increase the risk of hyperkalaemia (2 studies, 500 participants: RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.66 to 3.95, I² = 0%; low certainty evidence) compared ACEi or ARB (or both). There were insufficient studies to perform meta-analyses for the comparison between non-selective aldosterone antagonists and calcium channel blockers, selective aldosterone antagonists plus ACEi or ARB (or both) and nitrate plus ACEi or ARB (or both), and non-steroidal mineralocorticoid antagonists and selective aldosterone antagonists.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of aldosterone antagonists when added to ACEi or ARB (or both) on the risks of death, major cardiovascular events, and kidney failure in people with proteinuric CKD are uncertain. Aldosterone antagonists may reduce proteinuria, eGFR, and systolic blood pressure in adults who have mild to moderate CKD but may increase the risk of hyperkalaemia, acute kidney injury and gynaecomastia when added to ACEi and/or ARB.