Why the study?
Do mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists improve cardiovascular surrogate markers and outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease?
Do mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists improve cardiovascular surrogate markers and outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease?
In patients with chronic kidney disease, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists effectively lower blood pressure and improve surrogate cardiovascular markers, but significantly increase the risk of hyperkalemia, highlighting the need for long-term outcome trials.
MRAs lower BP in CKD with hyperkalemia risk requiring monitoring; leaves open effects on hard cardiovascular outcomes.
INTRODUCTION: The safety and actions of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists on surrogate markers of cardiovascular disease as well as major patient level cardiovascular end-points in patients with chronic kidney disease are unclear. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Trip Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Renal Group specialized register, Current Controlled Trials and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for relevant trials. RESULTS: Twenty-nine trials (1581 patients) were included. Overall, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists lowered both systolic and diastolic blood pressure (-5.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.65, -1.82 mmHg; p=0.003 and -1.96, 95% CI -3.22, -0.69 mmHg; p=0.002 respectively). There were insufficient data to perform a meta-analysis of other cardiovascular effects. However, a systematic review of the studies included suggested a consistent improvement in surrogate markers of cardiovascular disease. Overall, the use of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists was associated with an increased serum potassium (0.23, 95% CI 0.13, 0.33 mmol/l; p<0.0001) and higher risk ratio (1.76, 95% CI 1.20, 2.57; p=0.001) of hyperkalemia. Data on long-term cardiovascular outcomes and mortality were not available in any of the trials. CONCLUSIONS: The long-term effects of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists on cardiovascular events, mortality and safety need to be established.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ng et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: