4.7 Article

The Efficacy of the Mineralcorticoid Receptor Antagonist Canrenone in COVID-19 Patients

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 9, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9092943

关键词

COVID-19; angiotensin-converting enzyme-2; renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system; mineralcorticoid receptor antagonist; aldosterone; canrenone

资金

  1. Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In COVID-19 patients, aldosterone via angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 deregulation may be responsible for systemic and pulmonary vasoconstriction, inflammation, and oxidative organ damage. Aim: To verify retrospectively the impact of the mineralcorticoid receptor antagonist canrenone i.v. on the need of invasive ventilatory support and/or all-cause in-hospital mortality. Methods: Sixty-nine consecutive COVID-19 patients, hospitalized for moderate to severe respiratory failure at Fondazione Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico of Milan, received two different therapeutic approaches in usual care according to the personal skills and pharmacological management experience of the referral medical team. Group A (n= 39) were given vasodilator agents or renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors and group B (n= 30) were given canrenone i.v. Results: Among the 69 consecutive COVID-19 patients, those not receiving canrenone i.v. (group A) had an event-free rate of 51% and a survival rate of 64%. Group B (given a mean dose of 200 mg/q.d. of canrenone for at least two days of continuous administration) showed an event-free rate of 80% with a survival rate of 87%. Kaplan-Meier analysis for composite outcomes and mortality showed log rank statistics of 0.0004 and 0.0052, respectively. Conclusions: The novelty of our observation relies on the independent positive impact of canrenone on the all-cause mortality and clinical improvement of COVID-19 patients ranging from moderate to severe diseases.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据