Search

Aims: An excessive production of aldosterone influences outcome in patients with heart failure (HF) and in obese patients. Findings from laboratory studies suggest that chronic aldosterone blockade maybe more beneficial in abdominally obese HF-prone rats. In the current study, we investigated if the clinical response to a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist in mildly symptomatic HF patients varied by abdominal obesity.Methods and Results: A total of 2587 NYHA class II, reduced ejection fraction HF (HFrEF) patients enrolled in the EMPHASIS-HF trial were randomly assigned to eplerenone and placebo. In this post hoc analysis, patients were categorized according to waist circumference (WC) (normal if WC < 102 cm in men and < 88 cm in women; abdominal obesity if WC ≥ 102 cm in men and ≥ 88 cm women). The potential statistical interaction between the treatment and WC was assessed on the primary endpoint of death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for HF and other secondary endpoints. Over a median follow-up of 21 months, a significant benefit of eplerenone for the primary outcome was noted in both normal [hazard ratio (HR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.98, P = 0.03] and increased (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.37-0.63, P < 0.0001) WC subgroups, but the latter patients appeared to receive greater benefit than patients with normal WC (P for interaction = 0.01). This suggests a significant quantitative (treatment effect varies in magnitude by subgroup, but is always in same direction) rather than a qualitative interaction (direction of the treatment effect varies by subgroup) between eplerenone and WC in the adjusted analysis. Mean doses of eplerenone, blood pressure and serum potassium changes and adverse events were similar between WC subgroups.Conclusion: In EMPHASIS-HF, eplerenone improved outcomes in HFrEF patients with and without abdominal obesity, although the benefit appeared to be more pronounced among those with abdominal obesity. The findings are potentially hypothesis generating and need to be replicated in other HFrEF populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: We evaluated the effects of patiromer, a potassium (K(+))-binding polymer, in a pre-specified analysis of hyperkalaemic patients with heart failure (HF) in the OPAL-HK trial.Methods and Results: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients on renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASi) with serum K(+) levels ≥5.1 mEq/L to <6.5 mEq/L (n = 243) received patiromer (4.2 g or 8.4 g BID initially) for 4 weeks (initial treatment phase); the primary efficacy endpoint was mean change in serum K(+) from baseline to week 4. Eligible patients (those with baseline K(+) ≥5.5 mEq/L to <6.5 mEq/L and levels ≥3.8 mEq/L to <5.1 mEq/L at the end of week 4) entered an 8-week randomized withdrawal phase and were randomly assigned to continue patiromer or switch to placebo; the primary efficacy endpoint was the between-group difference in median change in the serum K(+) over the first 4 weeks of that phase. One hundred and two patients (42%) had heart failure (HF). The mean [± standard error (SE)] change in serum K(+) from baseline to week 4 was -1.06 ± 0.05 mEq/L [95% confidence interval (CI), -1.16,-0.95; P < 0.001]; 76% (95% CI, 69,84) achieved serum K(+), 3.8 mEq/L to <5.1 mEq/L. In the randomized withdrawal phase, the median increase in serum K(+) from baseline of that phase was greater with placebo (n = 22) than patiromer (n = 27) (P < 0.001); recurrent hyperkalaemia (serum K(+), ≥5.5 mEq/L) occurred in 52% on placebo and 8% on patiromer (P < 0.001). Mild-to-moderate constipation was the most common adverse event (11%); hypokalaemia occurred in 3%.Conclusion: In patients with CKD and HF who were hyperkalaemic on RAASi, patiromer was well tolerated, decreased serum K(+), and, compared with placebo, reduced recurrent hyperkalaemia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The ELITE study showed an association between the angiotensin II antagonist losartan and an unexpected survival benefit in elderly heart-failure patients, compared with captopril, an angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitor. We did the ELITE II Losartan Heart Failure Survival Study to confirm whether losartan is superior to captopril in improving survival and is better tolerated.Methods: We undertook a double-blind, randomised, controlled trial of 3,152 patients aged 60 years or older with New York Heart Association class II-IV heart failure and ejection fraction of 40% or less. Patients, stratified for beta-blocker use, were randomly assigned losartan (n=1,578) titrated to 50 mg once daily or captopril (n=1,574) titrated to 50 mg three times daily. The primary and secondary endpoints were all-cause mortality, and sudden death or resuscitated arrest. We assessed safety and tolerability. Analysis was by intention to treat.Findings: Median follow-up was 555 days. There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality (11.7 vs 10.4% average annual mortality rate) or sudden death or resuscitated arrests (9.0 vs 7.3%) between the two treatment groups (hazard ratios 1.13 [95.7% CI 0.95-1.35], p=0.16 and 1.25 [95% CI 0.98-1.60], p=0.08). Significantly fewer patients in the losartan group (excluding those who died) discontinued study treatment because of adverse effects (9.7 vs 14.7%, p<0.001), including cough (0.3 vs 2.7%). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on a study on impact of angiotensin II-receptor blockers (ARBs) on hypertension and heart failure treatment. Topics discussed include angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors' impact on renin-angiotensin system, angiotensin II type 1 (AT1) receptors activation by ARBs, bradykinin degradation regulated by angiotensin II and ARBs, blood pressure-lowering effect associated with ARBs and the ACE inhibitor Enalapril and angiotensin II effect blocked by the AT1 receptor.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Spironolactone for Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction," by B. Pitt and colleagues in the April 10, 2014 issue.

The results of the CRIB-2 trial, which show that the mineralocorticoid receptor blocker (MRB) spironolactone improves left ventricular mass and aortic stiffness in patients with early stage chronic kidney disease (CKD), provide impetus for large-scale clinical trials to evaluate the effects of this strategy on clinical outcomes. The optimum choice of MRB and its dose, however, remain uncertain given the potential risk of hyperkalemla in patients with CKD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Health status outcomes, including symptoms, function, and quality of life, are worse for Black compared with White patients with heart failure. Sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) reduce cardiovascular mortality and improve health status in patients with heart failure, but whether the health status benefit of SGLT2is is similar across races is not established. The objective of this study was to compare the treatment effect of SGLT2is (versus placebo) on health status for Black compared with White patients with heart failure. METHODS: We combined patient-level data from 3 randomized clinical trials of SGLT2is: DEFINE-HF (Dapagliflozin Effect on Symptoms and Biomarkers in Patients With Heart Failure; n=263), PRESERVED-HF (Dapagliflozin in Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure; n=324), and CHIEF-HF (A Study on Impact of Canagliflozin on Health Status, Quality of Life, and Functional Status in Heart Failure; n=448). These 3 United States–based trials enrolled a substantial proportion of Black patients, and each used the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) to measure health status at baseline and after 12 weeks of treatment. Among 1035 total participants, selecting self-identified Black and White patients with complete information yielded a final analytic cohort of 935 patients. The primary endpoint was KCCQ Clinical Summary score. Twelve-week change in KCCQ with SGLT2is versus placebo was compared between Black and White patients by testing the interaction between race and treatment using multivariable linear regression models adjusted for trial, baseline KCCQ (as a restricted cubic spline), race, and treatment. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. RESULTS: Among 935 participants, 236 (25%) self-identified as Black, and 469 (50.2%) were treated with an SGLT2i. Treatment with an SGLT2i, compared with placebo, resulted in KCCQ Clinical Summary score improvements at 12 weeks of +4.0 points (95% CI, 1.7–6.3; P =0.0007) in White patients and +4.7 points (95% CI, 0.7–8.7; P =0.02) in Black patients, with no significant interaction by race and treatment (P =0.76). Other KCCQ scales showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with an SGLT2i resulted in consistent and significant improvements in health status for both Black and White patients with heart failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Disorders of potassium homeostasis can potentiate the already elevated risk of arrhythmia in heart failure. Heart failure patients have a high prevalence of chronic kidney disease, which further heightens the risk of hyperkalemia, especially when renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors are used. Acute treatment for hyperkalemia may not be tolerated in the long term. Recent data for patiromer and sodium zirconium cyclosilicate, used to treat and prevent high serum potassium levels on a more chronic basis, have sparked interest in the treatment of hyperkalemia, as well as the potential use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors in patients who were previously unable to take these drugs or tolerated only low doses. This review discusses the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and outcomes of hyperkalemia in heart failure; provides an overview of traditional and novel ways to approach management of hyperkalemia; and discusses the need for further research to optimally treat heart failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: It is not known whether concomitant use of aspirin might attenuate the beneficial effects of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs). The purpose of this subgroup analysis was to explore the interaction between baseline aspirin treatment and the effect of eplerenone on the primary efficacy outcomes (composite of hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular mortality), its components, and safety markers [estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and serum potassium >5.5 mmol/L] in the Eplerenone in Mild Patients Hospitalization and SurvIval Study in Heart Failure trial (EMPHASIS-HF).Methods and Results: Patients with chronic heart failure, reduced ejection fraction (HFREF), and mild symptoms were enrolled in EMPHASIS-HF. We evaluated baseline characteristics according to aspirin use. We explored the interaction between aspirin and eplerenone, using Cox proportional hazards models providing adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and P-values for interaction. Of the 2737 patients randomized, 1605 patients (58.6%) were taking aspirin. The beneficial effects of eplerenone on the primary endpoint were similar in patients not treated (adjusted HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46-0.75) or treated (adjusted HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.59-0.87) with aspirin at baseline (interaction P-value = 0.19). We did not observe any significant modification of the safety markers by aspirin that was clinically meaningful.Conclusion: Aspirin use in patients with chronic systolic heart failure and mild symptoms did not substantially reduce the overall beneficial effects of the MRA eplerenone contrary to what has been described in some studies with ACE inhibitors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the findings of the study ONTARGET and TRANSCEND which examines the efficacy of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibition and blockade to reduce the mortality and morbidity rate of cardiovascular diseases in the U.S. It notes that the effectiveness of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) with angiotensin receptor blocking agents has been studied. It relates that the effective strategy to prevent the effects of RAAS activation has been provided.

Presents a study that investigated the association of serum digoxin levels with mortality and hospitalization in patients with congestive heart failure and systolic left ventricular dysfunction. Design; Intervention; Outcome measures; Results; Commentary.

Background: Aldosterone blockade reduces mortality and morbidity among patients with severe heart failure. We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluating the effect of eplerenone, a selective aldosterone blocker, on morbidity and mortality among patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by left ventricular dysfunction and heart failure. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to eplerenone (25 mg per day initially, titrated to a maximum of 50 mg per day; 3313 patients) or placebo (3319 patients) in addition to optimal medical therapy. The study continued until 1012 deaths occurred. The primary end points were death from any cause and death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, or ventricular arrhythmia. Results: During a mean follow-up of 16 months, there were 478 deaths in the eplerenone group and 554 deaths in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.85; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.75 to 0.96; P=0.008). Of these deaths, 407 in the eplerenone group and 483 in the placebo group were attributed to cardiovascular causes (relative risk, 0.83; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.72 to 0.94; P=0.005). The rate of the other primary end point, death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for cardiovascular events, was reduced by eplerenone (relative risk, 0.87; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.79 to 0.95; P=0.002), as was the secondary end point of death from any cause or any hospitalization (relative risk, 0.92; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.86 to 0.98; P=0.02). There was also a reduction in the rate of sudden death from cardiac causes (relative risk, 0.79; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.64 to 0.97; P=0.03). The rate of serious hyperkalemia was 5.5 percent in the eplerenone group and 3.9 percent in the placebo group (P=0.002), whereas the rate of hypokalemia was 8.4 percent in the eplerenone group and 13.1 percent in the placebo group (P<0.001). Conclusions: The addition of eplerenone to optimal medical therapy reduces morbidity and mortality among patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by left ventricular dysfunction and heart failure. N Engl J Med 2003;348:1309-21. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During ATMOSPHERE, a trial comparing aliskiren, enalapril, or both for heart failure, two other trials suggested harm from aliskiren in patients with diabetes, and regulators stopped aliskiren in such patients in ATMOSPHERE. The data monitoring committee suggests that regulators should trust the DMC to ensure patient safety in a clinical trial. The trial sponsor (Novartis) and the regulatory agencies have responded in letters to the editor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: and Methods Aldosterone is important in the pathophysiology of heart failure. In a double-blind study, we enrolled 1663 patients who had severe heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of no more than 35 percent and who were being treated with an angiotensin-converting–enzyme inhibitor, a loop diuretic, and in most cases digoxin. A total of 822 patients were randomly assigned to receive 25 mg of spironolactone daily, and 841 to receive placebo. The primary end point was death from all causes. Results: The trial was discontinued early, after a mean follow-up period of 24 months, because an interim analysis determined that spironolactone was efficacious. There were 386 deaths in the placebo group (46 percent) and 284 in the spironolactone group (35 percent; relative risk of death, 0.70; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.60 to 0.82; P<0.001). This 30 percent reduction in the risk of death among patients in the spironolactone group was attributed to a lower risk of both death from progressive heart failure and sudden death from cardiac causes. The frequency of hospitalization for worsening heart failure was 35 percent lower in the spironolactone group than in the placebo group (relative risk of hospitalization, 0.65; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.54 to 0.77; P<0.001). In addition, patients who received spironolactone had a significant improvement in the symptoms of heart failure, as assessed on the basis of the New York Heart Association functional class (P<0.001). Gynecomastia or breast pain was reported in 10 percent of men who were treated with spironolactone, as compared with 1 percent of men in the placebo group (P<0.001). The incidence of serious hyperkalemia was minimal in both groups of patients. Conclusions: Blockade of aldosterone receptors by spironolactone, in addition to standard therapy, substantially reduces the risk of both morbidity and death among patients with severe heart failure. (N Engl J Med 1999:341:709-17.) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Heart failure continues to significantly impact morbidity and mortality after acute myocardial infarction (AMI), especially when associated with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD). Therefore, routine use of optimal therapy for patients with heart failure after AMI is needed in the future. Data from the Eplerenone Post–Acute Myocardial Infarction Heart Failure Efficacy and Survival Study (EPHESUS) has demonstrated that addition of eplerenone to standard therapy in patients with LVSD and clinical heart failure post-AMI significantly improves outcomes in these patients, providing the basis for acceptance of aldosterone blockade as an integral component of therapy. However, further studies are needed to more broadly explore the usefulness of aldosterone blockade in heart failure therapy. As research clarifies the many complex pathophysiologic processes involved in post-AMI remodeling, treatment should continue to move beyond symptom-targeted therapies to disease- and mechanism-targeted therapies that will further improve outcomes in the setting of heart failure post-AMI and beyond. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Aims: Recent guidelines have advocated for stricter systolic blood pressure (SBP) control in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), though data regarding the optimal SBP in HFpEF are sparse.Methods and Results: We analysed participants from the Americas from the Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist (TOPCAT) study with available baseline and 8-week visit SBP data (n = 1645). We related baseline SBP to several efficacy and safety outcomes. To determine whether blood pressure lowering was responsible for the potential beneficial effects of spironolactone observed in the Americas, we assessed the randomized treatment adjusting for baseline and change in 8-week SBP. The average age was 71.7 ± 9.7 years, 50% were women, and 79% were White. Patients in the lowest baseline SBP quartile were less often female, more often White, had lower body mass index, lower baseline diastolic blood pressure and pulse pressure, and more often had atrial fibrillation. After multivariable adjustment, there was no relationship observed between baseline SBP quartiles and any outcome. Spironolactone reduced SBP by 4.4 ± 0.6 mmHg compared with placebo (and consistently across baseline SBP quartiles). There was minimal change in the treatment effect for all outcomes after adjusting for baseline SBP and 8-week change in SBP.Conclusion: No relationship was observed between baseline SBP quartiles and outcomes in TOPCAT. The anti-hypertensive effects of spironolactone did not account for the potential benefit in cardiovascular outcomes in the Americas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To examine associations of below-target and target dose of enalapril, an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, with outcomes in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in the Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction (SOLVD) Treatment trial.Methods and Results: Two thousand five hundred and sixty-nine patients with HFrEF (ejection fraction ≤35%) were randomized to below-target (5-10 mg/day) dose placebo (n = 1284) or enalapril (n = 1285). One month post-randomization, blind up-titration to target (20 mg/day) dose was attempted for both study drugs in 2458 patients. Among the 1444 patients who achieved dose up-titration (placebo, n = 748; enalapril, n = 696; mean dose for both groups, 20.0 mg/day), target dose enalapril (vs. target dose placebo) was associated with a 9% absolute lower risk of the combined endpoint of heart failure hospitalization or all-cause mortality [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-0.81; P < 0.001] during 4 years of follow-up. Among the 1014 patients who could not achieve target dose (placebo, n = 486; enalapril, n = 528; mean dose for both groups, 8.8 mg/day), below-target dose enalapril (vs. below-target dose placebo) was associated with a 12% absolute lower risk of the combined endpoint of heart failure hospitalization or all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.57-0.81; P < 0.001). Among the 1224 patients receiving enalapril, target (vs. below-target) dose had no association with the combined endpoint of heart failure hospitalization or all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.87-1.23; P = 0.695).Conclusion: In patients with HFrEF, the clinical benefits of ACE inhibitors appear to be similar at both below-target and target doses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims To examine associations of below-target and target dose of enalapril, an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, with outcomes in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in the Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction (SOLVD) Treatment trial. Methods and results Two thousand five hundred and sixty-nine patients with HFrEF (ejection fraction =35%) were randomized to below-target (5-10 mg/day) dose placebo (n = 1284) or enalapril (n = 1285). One month post-randomization, blind up-titration to target (20 mg/day) dose was attempted for both study drugs in 2458 patients. Among the 1444 patients who achieved dose up-titration (placebo, n=748; enalapril, n=696; mean dose for both groups, 20.0 mg/day), target dose enalapril (vs. target dose placebo) was associated with a 9% absolute lower risk of the combined endpoint of heart failure hospitalization or all-cause mortality [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-0.81; P < 0.001] during 4 years of follow-up. Among the 1014 patients who could not achieve target dose (placebo, n=486; enalapril, n=528; mean dose for both groups, 8.8 mg/day), below-target dose enalapril (vs. below-target dose placebo) was associated with a 12% absolute lower risk of the combined endpoint of heart failure hospitalization or all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.57-0.81; P < 0.001). Among the 1224 patients receiving enalapril, target (vs. below-target) dose had no association with the combined endpoint of heart failure hospitalization or all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.87-1.23; P = 0.695). Conclusion In patients with HFrEF, the clinical benefits of ACE inhibitors appear to be similar at both below-target and target doses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Physical activity (PA) is inversely associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes in healthy populations, but the impact of physical activity in patients with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction is less well characterized.Methods: The baseline self-reported PA of 1751 subjects enrolled in the Americas region of the TOPCAT trial (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure With an Aldosterone Antagonist) was categorized as poor, intermediate, or ideal PA with American Heart Association criteria. PA was related to the primary composite outcome (HF hospitalization, cardiovascular mortality, or aborted cardiac arrest), its components, and all-cause mortality with the use of multivariable Cox models.Results: The mean age at enrollment was 68.6±9.6 years. Few patients met American Heart Association criteria for ideal activity (11% ideal, 14% intermediate, 75% poor). Over a median follow-up of 2.4 years, the primary composite outcome occurred in 519 patients (397 HF hospitalizations, 222 cardiovascular deaths, and 6 aborted cardiac arrests). Compared with those with ideal baseline PA, poor and intermediate baseline PA was associated with a greater risk of the primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR], 2.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.28-3.28; HR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.15-3.33, respectively), HF hospitalization (HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.16-3.22; HR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.02-3.31), cardiovascular mortality (HR, 4.36; 95% CI, 1.37-13.83; HR, 4.05; 95% CI, 1.17-14.04), and all-cause mortality (HR, 2.95; 95% CI, 1.44-6.02; HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 0.90-4.67) after multivariable adjustment for potential confounders.Conclusions: In patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction, both poor and intermediate self-reported PA were associated with higher risk of HF hospitalization and mortality.Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00094302. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of personalized medicine is to offer a tailored approach to each patient in order to provide the most effective therapy, while reducing risks and side effects. The use of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) has demonstrated major benefits in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), results with challenging inconsistencies in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and 'neutral' preliminary results in acute heart failure. Data derived from landmark trials are generally applied in a 'one size fits all' manner and the development and implementation of more personalized MRA management would offer the potential to improve outcomes and reduce side effects. However, the personalization of pharmacotherapy regimens remains poorly defined in the cardiovascular field (in light of current knowledge) and until further trials targeting specific subpopulations have been conducted, MRAs should be provided to the great majority of HFrEF patients in the absence of contraindication. Spironolactone should be considered for symptomatic HFpEF patients with elevated natriuretic peptides. In the near future, trials should target HFrEF patients using exclusion criteria sourced from landmark trials (e.g. severe renal impairment), select more homogeneous HFpEF populations (e.g. with elevated BNP and structural abnormalities on echocardiography), and determine which patients are likely to benefit from MRAs (e.g. according to prespecified biomarkers). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hyperkalemia is a common electrolyte disorder, especially in chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, or heart failure. Hyperkalemia can lead to potentially fatal cardiac dysrhythmias, and it is associated with increased mortality. Determining whether emergency therapy is warranted is largely based on subjective clinical judgment. The Investigator Network Initiative Cardiovascular and Renal Clinical Trialists (INI-CRCT) aimed to evaluate the current knowledge pertaining to the emergency treatment of hyperkalemia. The INI-CRCT developed a treatment algorithm reflecting expert opinion of best practices in the context of current evidence, identified gaps in knowledge, and set priorities for future research. We searched PubMed (to August 4, 2015) for consensus guidelines, reviews, randomized clinical trials, and observational studies, limited to English language but not by publication date. Treatment approaches are based on small studies, anecdotal experience, and traditional practice patterns. The safety and real-world effectiveness of standard therapies remain unproven. Prospective research is needed and should include studies to better characterize the population, define the serum potassium thresholds where life-threatening arrhythmias are imminent, assess the potassium and electrocardiogram response to standard interventions. Randomized, controlled trials are needed to test the safety and efficacy of new potassium binders for the emergency treatment of severe hyperkalemia in hemodynamically stable patients. Existing emergency treatments for severe hyperkalemia are not supported by a compelling body of evidence, and they are used inconsistently across institutions, with potentially significant associated side effects. Further research is needed to fill knowledge gaps, and definitive clinical trials are needed to better define optimal management strategies, and ultimately to improve outcomes in these patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hyperkalemia is a common clinical problem, especially in patients with chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, or heart failure. Treatment with renin angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitors exacerbates the risk of hyperkalemia in these patients. Concern about hyperkalemia can result in the failure to initiate, suboptimal dosing, or discontinuation of renin angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitor therapy in patients; effective treatments for hyperkalemia might mitigate such undertreatment. New treatments for hyperkalemia in development may offer better efficacy, tolerability and safety profiles than do existing approved treatments. These compounds might enable more eligible patients to receive renin angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitor therapy or to receive renin angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitors at target doses. The evidence needed to support a treatment claim (reduction in serum potassium) differs from that needed to support a prevention claim (preventing hyperkalemia to allow renin angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitor treatment). Thus, several issues related to clinical trial design and drug development need to be considered. This paper summarizes and expands upon a discussion at the Global Cardiovascular Clinical Trialists 2014 Forum and examines methodologic considerations for trials of new potassium binders for the prevention and management of hyperkalemia in patients with renin angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitor indications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Impairment in left ventricular systolic function has been described in heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but its prognostic relevance is not known. We determined whether left ventricular longitudinal strain (LS) is predictive of cardiovascular outcomes in HFpEF beyond clinical and conventional echocardiographic measures. Methods and Results: LS was assessed by 2-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography at baseline in 447 patients with HFpEF enrolled in the Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure With an Aldosterone Antagonist (TOPCAT) trial. At a median follow-up of 2.6 years (interquartile range, 1.5-3.9 years), 115 patients experienced the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death, HF hospitalization, or aborted cardiac arrest. Impaired LS, defined as an absolute LS <15.8%, was present in 52% of patients and was predictive of the composite outcome (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-3.66; P=0.005), cardiovascular death alone (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.44-7.12; P=0.004), and HF hospitalization alone (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-4.28; P=0.016) after adjustment for clinical and conventional echocardiographic variables. LS was the strongest echocardiographic predictor of the composite outcome. Exploratory analysis in a subset of 131 patients with follow-up LS assessed after 12 to 18 months demonstrated a trend toward improvement in LS associated with spironolactone in patients enrolled in the Americas but not in Russia or Georgia. Conclusions: Impaired left ventricular systolic function is a powerful predictor of HF hospitalization, cardiovascular death, or aborted cardiac arrest in HFpEF independent of clinical predictors. Impaired LS represents a novel imaging biomarker to identify patients with HFpEF at particularly high risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00094302. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim In the Eplerenone in Mild Patients Hospitalization and Survival Study in Heart Failure (EMPHASIS-HF), aldosterone blockade with eplerenone decreased mortality and hospitalisation in patients with mild symptoms (New York Heart Association class II) and chronic systolic heart failure (HF). The present study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of eplerenone in the treatment of these patients in the UK and Spain. Methods and results Results from the EMPHASIS-HF trial were used to develop a discrete-event simulation model estimating lifetime direct costs and effects (life years and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained) of the addition of eplerenone to standard care among patients with chronic systolic HF and mild symptoms. Eplerenone plus standard care compared with standard care alone increased lifetime direct costs per patient by £4284 for the UK and €7358 for Spain, with additional quality-adjusted life expectancy of 1.22 QALYs for the UK and 1.33 QALYs for Spain. Mean lifetime costs were £3520 per QALY in the UK and €5532 per QALY in Spain. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested a 100% likelihood of eplerenone being regarded as cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY (UK) or €30 000 per QALY (Spain). Conclusions By currently accepted standards of value for money, the addition of eplerenone to optimal medical therapy for patients with chronic systolic HF and mild symptoms is likely to be cost-effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of our study is to investigate the effect of spironolactone on 30-day outcomes in patients with acute heart failure (AHF) and the association between treatment and outcomes stratified by biomarkers. We conducted a secondary analysis of the biomarker substudy of the multicenter COACH (Co-ordinating Study Evaluating Outcomes of Advising and Counseling in Heart Failure) trial involving 534 AHF patients for 30-day mortality and HF rehospitalizations. Spironolactone therapy was initiated and terminated at the discretion of the treating physician; 30-day outcomes were compared between patients who were treated with spironolactone and those who were not. Outcomes with spironolactone therapy were explored based on N-terminal proeB-type natriuretic peptide, ST2, galectin-3, and creatinine levels. Spironolactone was prescribed to 297 (55.6%) patients at discharge (158 new and 139 continued). There were 19 deaths and 30 HF rehospitalizations among 46 patients by 30 days. Patients discharged on spironolactone had significantly less 30-day event (hazard ratio 0.538, p[0.039) after adjustment for multiple risk factors. Initiation of spironolactone in patients who were not on spironolactone before admission was associated with a significant reduction in event rate (hazard ratio 0.362, p[0.027). The survival benefit of spironolactone was more prominent in patient groups with elevations of creatinine, N-terminal proeB-type natriuretic peptide, ST2, or galectin-3. In conclusion, AHF patients who received spironolactone during hospitalization had significantly fewer 30-day mortality and HF rehospitalizations, especially in high-risk patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on assessment of hospitalization incidence rate group with spironolactone usage in the Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist (TOPCAT) clinical trial. Its states observation of regional discrepancies in usage of spironolactone usage among repository participants in the TOPCAT trial. It mentions observation of participants with dosage of spironolactone along with canrenone drug concentrations.

Aims EPHESUS was a multicentre, double-blind clinical trial in which 6632 patients with acute myocardial infarction ( AMI) complicated by LV systolic dysfunction ( LVSD) were randomized to receive eplerenone ( n = 3319) or placebo ( n = 3313). A total of 1580 EPHESUS patients were treated with PCI, which is now the standard treatment for AMI. This EPHESUS substudy examined the effects of eplerenone upon cardiovascular outcomes in PCI-treated patients. Methods and results EPHESUS patients were divided into PCI-treated and non- PCI-treated cohorts, and the effect of eplerenone upon mortality and other major adverse cardiovascular outcomes was assessed in each cohort. The PCI-treated patients ( n = 1580) were younger, and had better renal function and fewer co-morbidities than non- PCI-treated patients ( n = 5052). Cardiovascular mortality was significantly lower in PCI-treated patients as compared with non- PCI-treated patients (7% vs. 16%, P < 0.0001). However, the incidence of non-fatal events was similar in PCI-treated and non- PCI-treated cohorts. There was no statistical difference between the PCI-treated and non- PCI-treated cohorts in the primary or secondary outcomes of the trial. Eplerenone administration, compared with placebo, in the PCI-treated cohort did not affect PCI-related clinical outcomes, including recurrence of angina, the occurrence of acute coronary syndromes, or the need for further revascularization. Conclusions The beneficial effects of eplerenone in the EPHESUS trial exist for both PCI- and non- PCI-treated AMI patients with LVSD. Eplerenone has minimal, if any, effect upon reducing PCI-related adverse events in the PCI-treated cohort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Combination therapy with benazepril 40 mg and amlodipine 10 mg (BDA) has been shown to be more effective than benazepril 40 mg and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg (BDH) in reducing cardiovascular (CV) events in high-risk patients with stage 2 hypertension with similar blood pressure reductions. In the present post hoc analysis, we evaluated whether BDA is more effective than BDH for reducing CV events in patients with known coronary artery disease (CAD) at baseline in a subgroup analysis of the Avoiding Cardiovascular events through COMbination therapy in Patients LIving with Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) study. The main trial randomized 11,506 patients. Of those, 5,744 received BDA and 5,762 received BDH. Of the 11,506 patients, 5,314 (46%) were classified as having CAD at baseline. The mean patient follow-up period was 35.7 months for the BDA group and 35.6 months for the BDH group. The primary end point was the interval to the first event of composite CV morbidity and mortality. At baseline, significant differences were present between the 5,314 with CAD and the 6,192 without CAD. The patients with CAD had a lower systolic blood pressure and heart rate, a lower incidence of diabetes, and greater incidence of dyslipidemia. However, no baseline differences were found between the randomized BDA and BDH groups. In the patients with CAD, an 18% reduction occurred in the hazard ratio for CV events (primary end point) with BDA versus BDH (p [ 0.0016). In a prespecified secondary analysis of the composite end point, including only CV death, myocardial infarction, and stroke, the hazard ratio in the patients with CAD was reduced by 25% (p[0.0033) in the BDA group compared with the BDH group. BDA was more effective than BDH at comparable blood pressure reductions for reducing CV events in patients, regardless of the presence of CAD. In conclusion, our findings suggest that the combination of BDA should be preferentially used for older patients with high-risk, stage 2 hypertension. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: Randomized controlled trials in hypertension demonstrate cardiovascular benefits when systolic blood pressures are reduced from higher values to<160 mm Hg. The value of lower targets has not been fully defined, although major guidelines recommend achieving systolic blood pressures of<140 mm Hg. This study was conducted to explore cardiovascular outcomes at differing on-treatment blood pressure levels. Methods: On the basis of a prespecified plan to explore relationships between clinical outcomes and systolic blood pressures, the pooled cohort of high-risk hypertensive patients (N=10,705) in the Avoiding Cardiovascular Events through Combination Therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension trial were divided into 4 strata of systolic blood pressure levels: >140 mm Hg, 130 to <140 mm Hg, 120 to <130 mm Hg, and 110 to <120 mm Hg. The primary end point was cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke. Outcomes comparisons between the blood pressure groups were by Cox regression. Results: The mean patient age was 68 years, and the study duration was 35.7 months. The primary end point occurred in 171 of 3429 patients (5.0%) with systolic blood pressure in the 10 mm Hg range<140 and in 179 of 2354 patients (7.6%) with systolic blood pressure≥140 mm Hg (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.50-0.77; P =.0001). Likewise, cardiovascular death decreased by 36% (P =.0147), total myocardial infarction (fatal+nonfatal) decreased by 37% (P =.0028), and stroke decreased by 47% (P =.0002). Cardiovascular event rates in those with systolic blood pressure<130 mm Hg were not different from those with systolic blood pressure<140 mm Hg. However, compared with systolic blood pressure<130 mm Hg, stroke incidence in those with systolic blood pressure<120 mm Hg was lower (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.35-1.01; P =.0529), but myocardial function was higher (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.00-2.29; P =.0437), as were composite coronary events (myocardial infarction, hospitalized angina, or sudden death) (HR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.18-2.24; P =.0023). The renal end point of a sustained>50% increase in serum creatinine was significantly lower in those with systolic blood pressure<140 mm Hg than in any of the other higher or lower blood pressure ranges. Conclusions: In high-risk hypertensive patients, major cardiovascular events are significantly lower in those with systolic blood pressures<140 mm Hg and<130 mm Hg than in those with levels>140 mm Hg. There are stroke benefits at levels<120 mm Hg, but they are offset by increased coronary events. Renal function is best protected in the 130 to 139 mm Hg range. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The article presents the study which examines the effects of body size and hypertension treatments on cardiovascular event rates in high-risk hypertensive patients. In the study, the results of the Avoiding Cardiovascular Events Through Combination Therapy in Patients Living With Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) trial is analyzed. The trial was conducted in the U.S., Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine which combination therapy in patients with hypertension and diabetes most effectively decreases cardiovascular events. Background: The ACCOMPLISH (Avoiding Cardiovascular Events Through COMbination Therapy in Patients Living With Systolic Hypertension) trial compared the outcomes effects of a renin-angiotensin system blocker, benazepril, combined with amlodipine (B+A) or hydrochlorothiazide (B+H). A separate analysis in diabetic patients was pre-specified. Methods: A total of 6,946 patients with diabetes were randomized to treatment with B+A or B+H. A subgroup of 2,842 diabetic patients at very high risk (previous cardiovascular or stroke events) was also analyzed, as were 4,559 patients without diabetes. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for angina, resuscitated arrest, and coronary revascularization. Results: In the full diabetes group, the mean achieved blood pressures in the B+A and B+H groups were 131.5/72.6 and 132.7/73.7 mm Hg; during 30 months, there were 307 (8.8%) and 383 (11.0%) primary events (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68 to 0.92, p = 0.003). For the diabetic patients at very high risk, there were 195 (13.6%) and 244 (17.3%) primary events (HR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.64 to 0.93, p = 0.007). In the nondiabetic patients, there were 245 (10.8%) and 296 (12.9%) primary events (HR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.69 to 0.97, p = 0.020). In the diabetic patients, there were clear coronary benefits with B+A, including both acute clinical events (p = 0.013) and revascularizations (p = 0.024). There were no unexpected adverse events. Conclusions: In patients with diabetes and hypertension, combining a renin-angiotensin system blocker with amlodipine, compared with hydrochlorothiazide, was superior in reducing cardiovascular events and could influence future management of hypertension in patients with diabetes. (Avoiding Cardiovascular Events Through COMbination Therapy in Patients Living With Systolic Hypertension [ACCOMPLISH]; NCT00170950) [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The article discusses a study which investigated the effects of antihypertensive therapy with benazepril plus amlodipine and benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide on progression of chronic kidney disease. The study is a prespecified secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial involving patients with systolic hypertension undertaken in several countries, including the U.S., Sweden and Norway. The researchers concluded that benazepril plus amlodipine is more effective in patients with hypertension at high risk for cardiovascular events.

A letter to the editor is presented on laboratory monitoring of renal function and electrolyte levels during the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist therapy in patients with heart failure.

The article presents a randomized, double-blind trial which tests the efficacy of hypertension treatment with a combination angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and a dihydropyridine calcium-channel blocker compared with treatment with an ACE inhibitor plus a thiazide diuretic in reducing the rate of cardiovascular events. 11,506 patients with hypertension at high risk for cardiovascular events received treatment with either benazepril plus amlodipine or benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide. The time to the first event, a composite of cardiovascular event and death from cardiovascular causes, was the primary endpoint. Researchers found that the combination treatment benazepril with amlodipine was superior to benazepril with hydrochlorothiazide in reducing cardiovascular events.

Background. ACCOMPLISH is a "new-generation" hypertension trial assessing single-tablet combination therapy for initial treatment of high-risk hypertension. At baseline, 97% of subjects were treated with anti-hypertensive medication at entry, but only 37% of participants had blood pressure (BP) control (<140/90 mmHg). Single-tablet combination therapy may improve control rates. Methods. The mean BP change from baseline at the end of 6 months (the time point when subjects should have had all of the drug titrations to achieve BP control) was examined for 10,704 randomized patients. Within-group changes were examined using t-tests. Comparisons between subgroups were made using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and covariance (ANCOVA). Results. Mean (±SD) BP fell from 145±18/80±11 mmHg at randomization to 132±16/74±10 mmHg. The 6-month BP control rate was 73% in the overall trial (78% in the US), 43% in diabetics and 40% in patients with renal disease. Of the patients uncontrolled, 61% were not on maximal medications, suggesting potential increases in control rates. Serious hypotensive events occurred in 1.8% of participants. Conclusion. ACCOMPLISH BP control rates are the highest of any multi-national trial to date. Whereas current guidelines recommend combination therapy only for stage 2 hypertension, in this trial it is expedient and safe for both stage 1 and 2 hypertension. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: There is minimal evidence that HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) are beneficial in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). Treatment with statins may lead to a lower mortality in CHF, independent of cholesterol levels, CHF etiology and clinical status. Methods: In a first study, we included 3132 patients with CHF from the ELITE 2 study in whom information on body mass index (BMI) and statin use at baseline were available. In a second study, we pooled the databases of 5 tertiary referral centers with 2068 CHF patients. In this cohort 705 patients were on a statin (34%), 585 of 1202 (49%) patients with ischemic etiology, and 120 of 866 (14%) patients with non-ischemic etiology (established by coronary angiography). Findings: Patients in ELITE 2 who received statin therapy at baseline (n =397, 13%) had lower mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.61, 95% CI 0.45–0.83; p =0.0007). In univariate analysis, increasing age, NYHA class, creatinine, and decreasing BMI, LVEF, and cholesterol, as well as lack of beta-blocker treatment and ischemic etiology (all p <0.002) related to higher mortality. In multivariable analysis, statin therapy related to lower mortality independently of all these variables (adjusted HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47–0.93; p =0.017). In the second study CHF patients on statins had lower mortality (adjusted HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.44–0.77; p =0.0001). Both in patients with ischemic (p <0.0001) and non-ischemic etiology (p =0.028) statin treatment related to better survival. Interpretation: In chronic heart failure, treatment with statins is related to lower mortality, independent of cholesterol levels, disease etiology and clinical status. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: In randomized trials of secondary prevention, pravastatin sodium and aspirin reduce risks of cardiovascular disease. Pravastatin has a predominantly delayed antiatherogenic effect, and aspirin has an immediate antiplatelet effect, raising the possibility of additive clinical benefits. Methods: In 5 randomized trials of secondary prevention with pravastatin (40 mg/d), comprising 73 900 patient-years of observation, aspirin use was also prescribed in varying frequencies, and data were available on a large number of confounding variables. We tested whether pravastatin and aspirin have additive benefits in the 2 large trials (Long-term Intervention With Pravastatin in Ischaemic Disease trial and the Cholesterol and Recurrent Events trial) that were designed to test clinical benefits. We also performed meta-analyses of these 2 trials and 3 smaller angiographic trials that collected clinical end points. In all analyses, multivariate models were used to adjust for a large number of cardiovascular disease risk factors. Results: Individual trials and all meta-analyses demonstrated similar additive benefits of pravastatin and aspirin on cardiovascular disease. In meta-analysis, the relative risk reductions for fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction were 31% for pravastatin plus aspirin vs aspirin alone and 26% for pravastatin plus aspirin vs pravastatin alone. For ischemic stroke, the corresponding relative risk reductions were 29% and 31%. For the composite end point of coronary heart disease death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, or ischemic stroke, the relative risk reductions were 24% and 13%. All relative risk reductions were statistically significant. Conclusion: More widespread and appropriate combined use of statins and aspirin in secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease will avoid large numbers of premature deaths. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Losartan Heart Failure ELITE Study recently found that in patients with symptomatic heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of ≤0.40, losartan compared to captopril improved survival with better tolerability. The objective of this study was to perform an economic evaluation of losartan versus captopril based on the results of the Losartan Heart Failure ELITE Study. The Losartan Heart Failure ELITE Study was a multinational, double-blind, randomized 48-week study comparing the safety and efficacy of losartan to captopril in angiotensin-converting enzyme-inhibitor-naive patients ≥65 years with symptomatic heart failure. Data on health care resource utilization were collected as part of the trial. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to estimate the lifetime benefits of treatment and the associated costs. We observed no differences between treatments in the number of hospitalizations, hospital days, and emergency room visits per patient over the trial period. We estimated the total cost of losartan to be USD 54 (95% CI: USD –1,717, USD 1,755) less per patient than captopril over this time frame. We also estimated that over the projected remaining lifetime of the study population, losartan compared to captopril would increase survival by 0.20 years (undiscounted) at an average cost of USD 769 (discounted) more per patient. This cost increase translated into a cost-effectiveness ratio of USD 4,047 per year of life gained for losartan relative to captopril. In patients with symptomatic heart failure, losartan compared to captopril increased survival with better tolerability at a cost well within the range accepted as cost-effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Survival With ORal D-sotalol (SWORD) trial tested the hypothesis that the prophylactic administration of oral d-sotalol would reduce total mortality in patients surviving myocardial infarction (MI) with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of < or = 40%. Two index MI groups were included: recent (6 to 42 days) and remote (> 42 days) with clinical heart failure (n = 915 and 2,206, respectively). The trial was discontinued when the statistical boundary for harm was crossed (RR = 1.65; p = 0.006). All baseline variables known to be associated with mortality risk (e.g., LVEF, heart failure class, age) as well as variables related to torsades de pointes (e.g., time from beginning of therapy, QTc, gender, potassium, renal function, dose of d-sotalol) were assessed for interaction of each variable with treatment assignment, computing RR and 95% confidence interval (CI) from Cox regression models. The d-sotalol-associated mortality was greatest in the group with remote MI and LVEFs of 31% to 40% (RR = 7.9; 95% CI 2.4 to 26.2). Most variables known to be associated with torsades de pointes were not differentially predictive of d-sotalol-associated risk, except female gender (RR = 4.7; 95% CI 1.4 to 16.5). These findings suggest that (1) most of the d-sotalol-associated risk was in patients remote from MI with a LVEF of 31% to 40%; comparable placebo patients had a very low mortality (0.5%); and (2) very little objective data supports torsades de pointes or any specific proarrhythmic mechanism as an explanation for d-sotalol-associated mortality risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Older people are predisposed to hyperkalemia because of impaired renal function, comorbid conditions, and polypharmacy. Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASi), which are recommended to treat chronic kidney disease and heart failure augment the risk. Patiromer, a nonabsorbed potassium binder, was shown in the phase 3 OPAL-HK study to decrease serum potassium in patients with chronic kidney disease taking RAASi. We studied the efficacy and safety of patiromer in a prespecified subgroup of patients aged ≥65 years from OPAL-HK.Methods: Chronic kidney disease patients with mild or moderate-to-severe hyperkalemia received patiromer, initially 8.4 g/d or 16.8 g/d, respectively, for 4 weeks (treatment phase, part A). Eligible patients entered an 8-week randomized withdrawal phase (part B) and continued patiromer or switched to placebo.Results: Mean ± standard error change in serum potassium from baseline to week 4 of part A (primary endpoint) in patients aged ≥65 years was -1.01 ± 0.05 mEq/L (P < .001); 97% achieved serum potassium 3.8-<5.1 mEq/L. The serum potassium increase during the first 4 weeks of part B was greater in patients taking placebo than in those taking patiromer (P < .001). Fewer patients taking patiromer (30%) than placebo (92%) developed recurrent hyperkalemia (serum potassium ≥5.1 mEq/L). Mild-to-moderate constipation occurred in 15% (part A) and 7% (part B) of patients aged ≥65 years. Serum potassium <3.5 mEq/L and serum magnesium <1.4 mg/dL were infrequent (4% each in patients aged ≥65 years in part A).Conclusions: Patiromer reduced recurrent hyperkalemia and was well tolerated in older chronic kidney disease patients taking RAASi. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]