4.5 Article

True rate of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists-related hyperkalemia in placebo-controlled trials: A meta-analysis

Journal

AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL
Volume 188, Issue -, Pages 99-108

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2017.03.011

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) improve survival in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction but are often underused, mostly due to concerns of hyperkalemia. Because hyperkalemia occurs also on placebo, we aimed to determine the truly MRA-related rate of hyperkalemia. Methods We performed a meta-analysis including randomized, placebo-controlled trials reporting hyperkalemia on MRAs in patients after myocardial infarction or with chronic heart failure. We evaluated the truly MRA-related rate of hyperkalemia that represents hyperkalemia on MRA, corrected for hyperkalemia on placebo (Pla), according to the equation: True MRA (%) = (MRA (%)- Pla (%))/MRA (%). Results A total number of 16,065 patients from 7 trials were analyzed. Hyperkalemia was more frequently observed on MRA (9.3%) vs placebo (4.3%) (risk ratio 2.17, 95% CI 1.92-2.45, P <.0001). Truly MRA-related hyperkalemia was 54%, whereas 46% were non-MRA related. In trials using eplerenone, hyperkalemia was documented in 5.0% on eplerenone and in 2.6% on placebo (P <.0001). In spironolactone trials, hyperkalemia was documented in 17.5% and in 7.5% of patients on placebo (P =.0001). Hypokalemia occurred less frequently in patients on MRA (9.3%) compared with placebo (14.8%) (risk ratio 0.58, CI 0.47-0.72, P <.0001). Conclusion This meta-analysis shows that in clinical trials, 54% of hyperkalemia cases were specifically related to the MRA treatment and 46% to other reasons. Therefore, non-MRA-related rises in potassium levels might be underestimated and should be rigorously explored before cessation of the evidence-based therapy with MRAs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available