Search

This article discusses the management of hypertension and its relationship to heart failure. Despite current recommendations for hypertension treatment, there is still a significant risk of cardiovascular disease and heart failure among patients with hypertension. The article proposes that excessive production of aldosterone, a hormone, is responsible for cardiac alterations in patients with hypertension and contributes to the risk of heart failure. The authors suggest that mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) should be considered as a first-line treatment in some hypertensive patients to prevent cardiac alterations and reduce the risk of heart failure. The article also highlights the need for further research and clinical trials to test the value of MRAs as a treatment for hypertension. [Extracted from the article]

This article discusses the intersection of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and heart failure (HF) and the implications of identifying CKD in patients with HF. The prevalence of CKD in patients with HF is high, and both conditions share common risk factors and pathophysiological mechanisms. The study used the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) definition of CKD to evaluate its incidence in over 1.4 million U.S. Veterans with HF. The study found that CKD was associated with increased mortality and hospitalizations for HF, but impaired kidney function explained only a small part of the increased risk. The relevance of the study to current practice is uncertain, as it included predominantly male U.S. Veterans and did not consider current guideline-recommended therapies. The complexity of estimating risk in patients with HF and CKD requires further research, but the identification of risk factors and mechanisms holds promise for reducing cardiovascular and kidney outcomes. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the potential for targeting systemic inflammation in patients with heart failure through leucocyte immunomodulation. It highlights the high incidence of cardiovascular mortality and hospitalizations for heart failure despite current therapies. The role of inflammation in heart failure is explored, with a focus on the involvement of proinflammatory cytokines and biomarkers. The article introduces a novel approach using a selective cytopheretic device (SCD) to target activated neutrophils and monocytes, which has shown promise in reducing systemic inflammation and improving outcomes in other acute conditions. A case report is presented to demonstrate the potential effectiveness of the SCD in bridging patients to left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. The article concludes by suggesting that further studies are needed to evaluate the use of the SCD and its potential to reduce cardiovascular mortality and hospitalizations in heart failure patients. [Extracted from the article]

'Old-generation' potassium (K) binders [i.e. sodium (SPS) and calcium polystyrene sulfonate] are widely used, but with substantial heterogeneity across countries to treat hyperkalaemia (HK). However, there are no randomized data to support their chronic use to manage HK, nor have they been shown to have a renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitor (RAASi)-enabling effect. These compounds have poor tolerability and an unpredictable onset of action and magnitude of K lowering. Furthermore, SPS may induce fluid overload, owing to the fact that it exchanges K for sodium. Its use has also been associated with colonic necrosis, as emphasized by a black box warning from the US Food and Drug Administration. In contrast, two new K binders, patiromer and sodium zirconium cyclosilicate, have been shown to be safe and well tolerated for chronic management of HK, thereby enabling RAASi optimization, as acknowledged by the latest international cardiorenal guidelines. In view of the lack of reliable evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of the old-generation K binders compared with the placebo-controlled randomized and real-word evidence demonstrating the safety, efficacy and RAASi-enabling effect of the new K binders, clinicians should now use these new K binders to treat HK (primum non nocere !). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses the use of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and severe kidney disease. MRAs, such as spironolactone and eplerenone, have been shown to reduce heart failure hospitalizations and mortality in patients with HFrEF. However, their use remains suboptimal, especially in patients with kidney disease. A study from the Karolinska Institute found that MRA use was safe and not associated with a higher risk of renal events or death in patients with HFrEF and kidney disease. The authors suggest that MRAs should not be withheld due to impaired renal function if close laboratory surveillance is possible. Non-steroidal MRAs, such as finerenone, may be better tolerated and are being studied for their effectiveness in reducing cardiovascular and renal outcomes in patients with renal disease and diabetes. The article concludes that MRAs should be initiated in patients with HFrEF across the spectrum of renal disease, with careful monitoring of serum potassium and renal function. [Extracted from the article]

Background In FIGARO-DKD, finerenone reduced the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and stage 1–4 chronic kidney disease (CKD). In FIDELIO-DKD, finerenone improved kidney and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with advanced CKD. This analysis further explores kidney outcomes in FIGARO-DKD. Methods FIGARO-DKD (NCT02545049) included patients with urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) 30–<300 mg/g and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 25–90 mL/min/1.73 m2 or UACR 300–5000 mg/g and eGFR ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Outcomes included two composite kidney endpoints, a composite of ≥40% decrease in eGFR from baseline sustained over ≥4 weeks, kidney failure or renal death, and a composite of ≥57% decrease in eGFR from baseline sustained over ≥4 weeks, kidney failure or renal death. Changes in albuminuria and eGFR slope were also analyzed. Kidney and CV outcomes were evaluated by baseline UACR. Results A lower incidence rate for the eGFR ≥40% kidney composite endpoint was observed with finerenone compared with placebo, but the between-group difference was not significant [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.76–1.01; P  = .069]. A greater treatment effect was observed on the eGFR ≥57% kidney composite endpoint (HR = 0.77; 95% CI: 0.60–0.99; P  = 0.041) with a 36% relative risk reduction for end-stage kidney disease. A larger magnitude of effect on kidney outcomes was observed with finerenone versus placebo for patients with severely increased albuminuria than with moderately increased albuminuria. Improvements in UACR, eGFR slope and cardiovascular risk were evident in both subgroups with finerenone. Conclusions The present analyses suggest that finerenone protects against kidney disease progression and cardiovascular events in patients with T2D and early- or late-stage CKD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) reduce systolic blood pressure (SBP) and increase serum potassium concentration ([K+]). This indirect comparison investigated any differences in SBP-lowering and hyperkalemia risk between finerenone, a nonsteroidal MRA, and the steroidal MRA spironolactone ± a potassium binder. Methods In FIDELITY (a pooled analysis of FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD), a subgroup of patients with treatment-resistant hypertension (TRH) and chronic kidney disease meeting eligibility criteria of the AMBER trial were identified (FIDELITY-TRH). The main outcomes were mean change in SBP, incidence of serum [K+] ≥5.5 mmol/L and hyperkalemia-associated treatment discontinuation. Results at ∼17 weeks were compared with 12 weeks from AMBER. Results In 624 FIDELITY-TRH patients and 295 AMBER patients, the least squares mean change in SBP (mmHg) from baseline was −7.1 for finerenone and −1.3 for placebo {between-group difference −5.74 [95% confidence interval (CI) −7.99 to −3.49], P  < .0001} versus −11.7 for spironolactone + patiromer and −10.8 for spironolactone + placebo [between-group difference −1.0 (95% CI −4.4–2.4), P  = .58]. The incidence of serum [K+] ≥5.5 mmol/L was 12% for finerenone and 3% for placebo versus 35% with spironolactone + patiromer and 64% with spironolactone + placebo. Treatment discontinuation due to hyperkalemia was 0.3% for finerenone and 0% for placebo versus 7% for spironolactone + patiromer and 23% for spironolactone + placebo. Conclusions In patients with TRH and chronic kidney disease compared with spironolactone with or without patiromer, finerenone was associated with a lower SBP reduction and lower risk of hyperkalemia and treatment discontinuation. Trial Registration: AMBER (NCT03071263), FIDELIO-DKD (NCT02540993), FIGARO-DKD (NCT02545049) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: This prespecified analysis of the FIDELIO‐DKD trial compared the effects of finerenone, a selective non‐steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, on cardiorenal outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) by history of heart failure (HF). Methods and results: Patients with T2D and CKD (urine albumin‐to‐creatinine ratio ≥30–5000 mg/g and estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] ≥25–<75 ml/min/1.73 m2), without symptomatic HF with reduced ejection fraction (New York Heart Association II–IV) and treated with optimized renin–angiotensin system blockade were randomized to finerenone or placebo. The composite cardiovascular (CV) outcome (CV death, non‐fatal myocardial infarction, non‐fatal stroke, or hospitalization for HF) and composite kidney outcome (kidney failure, sustained ≥40% decrease in eGFR from baseline, or renal death) were analysed by investigator‐reported medical history of HF. Of 5674 patients, 436 (7.7%) had a history of HF. Over a median follow‐up of 2.6 years, the effect of finerenone compared with placebo on the composite CV outcome was consistent in patients with and without a history of HF (hazard ratio [HR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50–1.06 and HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77–1.04, respectively; interaction p = 0.33). The effect of finerenone on the composite kidney outcome did not differ by history of HF (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.52–1.20 and HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73–0.94, respectively; interaction p = 0.83). Conclusion: In FIDELIO‐DKD, finerenone improved cardiorenal outcome in patients with CKD and T2D irrespective of baseline HF history. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

B This article refers to 'The effects of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with end-stage renal disease and heart failure' by D.S. Lin I et al i ., published in Eur J Heart Fail 2023;25:98-107. b In patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on chronic renal dialysis the cardiovascular (CV) mortality rate is 10 to 20 times higher than in the general population and among adults younger than 45 years of age the mortality rate is approximately 100 times higher than that in the general population. The ALCHEMIST trial (NCT01848639) which randomized patients to spironolactone up to 25 mg/day or placebo was completed at the end of 2022 and enrolled its scheduled 825 high risk CV haemodialysis patients. However, the number of patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis was rather small and therefore it is difficult to reach any definitive conclusion as to the relative efficacy of MRAs in patients undergoing haemodialysis versus peritoneal dialysis. [Extracted from the article]

Determinants and consequences of renal function variations with aldosterone blocker therapy in heart failure patients after myocardial infarction: insights from the Eplerenone Post-Acute Myocardial Infarction Heart Failure Efficacy and Survival study. B This article refers to 'Screening-guided spironolactone treatment of subclinical left ventricular dysfunction for heart failure prevention in at-risk patients' by E. Potter I et al i ., published in this issue on pages 620-630. b The steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) have been a focus of clinical investigation in patients with heart failure (HF) over several decades and are recommended in the European Society of Cardiology1 and international guidelines as a class I indication for patients with HF and a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). [Extracted from the article]

Thiazide diuretics, alone or in combination, are recommended as initial therapy in patients with hypertension because they have been shown to reduce blood pressure and cardiovascular outcomes. Keywords: aldosterone; hypertension; mineralocorticoid receptor EN aldosterone hypertension mineralocorticoid receptor 991 992 2 03/27/23 20230328 NES 230328 Although pharmacotherapeutic strategies for blood pressure control recommend thiazide diuretics, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors, or calcium channel blockers as first-line therapies, emerging evidence indicates that a large proportion of individuals otherwise thought to have idiopathic hypertension have pathophysiological aldosterone production. However, the use of thiazide diuretics can provoke hypokalemia, especially when there is unrecognized primary aldosteronism pathophysiology, and thiazide diuretics increase insulin resistance and sympathetic nervous system activity, which can be abrogated by MR antagonist therapy. [Extracted from the article]

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]

Aims: To investigate the safety and potential efficacy of the novel non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone in patients with worsening chronic heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF) and at high risk of hyperkalaemia and worsening renal dysfunction.Methods and Results: The MinerAlocorticoid Receptor antagonist Tolerability Study-Heart Failure (ARTS-HF; NCT01807221) is a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, active-comparator-controlled, six-parallel-group, phase 2b dose-finding study. In total, 1060 patients with HFrEF and concomitant type 2 diabetes mellitus and/or chronic kidney disease (CKD) will be randomized within 7 days of emergency presentation to hospital for worsening chronic HF to receive finerenone (one of five doses in the range 2.5-20.0 mg once daily) or eplerenone (25 mg every second day to 50 mg once daily for 90 days). The primary objective is to investigate the safety and potential efficacy (measured as the percentage of individuals with a decrease in plasma N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP] of more than 30% relative to baseline at day 90 ± 2) of different oral doses of finerenone compared with eplerenone. Other objectives are to assess the effects of finerenone on a composite clinical endpoint (death from any cause, cardiovascular hospitalizations, or emergency presentations for worsening chronic HF), and on changes in health-related quality of life from baseline.Conclusions: ARTS-HF is the first phase 2b clinical trial to investigate the effects of finerenone on plasma NT-proBNP in a high-risk population of patients who have worsening chronic HF with type 2 diabetes mellitus and/or CKD presenting at the emergency department. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims To investigate the safety and potential efficacy of the novel non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone in patients with worsening chronic heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction ( HFrEF) and at high risk of hyperkalaemia and worsening renal dysfunction. Methods and results The MinerAlocorticoid Receptor antagonist Tolerability Study-Heart Failure ( ARTS-HF; NCT01807221) is a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, active-comparator-controlled, six-parallel-group, phase 2b dose-finding study. In total, 1060 patients with HFrEF and concomitant type 2 diabetes mellitus and/or chronic kidney disease ( CKD) will be randomized within 7 days of emergency presentation to hospital for worsening chronic HF to receive finerenone (one of five doses in the range 2.5-20.0 mg once daily) or eplerenone (25 mg every second day to 50 mg once daily for 90 days). The primary objective is to investigate the safety and potential efficacy (measured as the percentage of individuals with a decrease in plasma N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [ NT-proBNP] of more than 30% relative to baseline at day 90 ± 2) of different oral doses of finerenone compared with eplerenone. Other objectives are to assess the effects of finerenone on a composite clinical endpoint (death from any cause, cardiovascular hospitalizations, or emergency presentations for worsening chronic HF), and on changes in health-related quality of life from baseline. Conclusions ARTS-HF is the first phase 2b clinical trial to investigate the effects of finerenone on plasma NT-proBNP in a high-risk population of patients who have worsening chronic HF with type 2 diabetes mellitus and/or CKD presenting at the emergency department. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims BAY 94-8862 is a novel, non-steroidal, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist with greater selectivity than spironolactone and stronger mineralocorticoid receptor binding affinity than eplerenone. The aims of the MinerAlocorticoid Receptor Antagonist Tolerability Study (ARTS; NCT01345656) are to evaluate the safety and tolerability of BAY 94-8862 in patients with heart failure associated with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFREF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD), and to examine the effects on biomarkers of cardiac and renal function. Methods ARTS is a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study divided into two parts. In part A, oral BAY 94-8862 [2.5, 5, or 10 mg once daily (o.d.)] is compared with placebo in ∼60 patients with HFREF and mild CKD. Outcome measures include serum potassium concentration, biomarkers of renal injury, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and albuminuria. Part B compares BAY 94-8862 (2.5, 5, or 10 mg o.d., or 5 mg twice daily), placebo, and open-label spironolactone (25–50 mg o.d.) in ∼360 patients with HFREF and moderate CKD. Outcome measures include the change in serum potassium concentration with BAY 94-8862 vs. placebo (primary endpoint) and vs. spironolactone, safety and tolerability, biomarkers of cardiac and renal function or injury, eGFR, and albuminuria. BAY 94-8862 pharmacokinetics are also assessed. Perspectives ARTS is the first phase II clinical trial of BAY 94-8862 and is expected to provide a wealth of information on BAY 94-8862 in patients with HFREF and CKD, including the optimal dose range for further studies. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Aims We evaluated the influence of concomitant mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) on the safety and neurohumoral effects of a direct renin inhibitor in the ALiskiren Observation of Heart Failure Treatment (ALOFT) study. Methods and results Patients with stable New York Heart Association class II–IV heart failure (HF), plasma B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) concentration >100 pg/mL, and treated with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (or angiotensin receptor blocker) and β-blocker were randomized to once-daily, double-blind treatment with aliskiren 150 mg or placebo, added to optimal HF therapy, for 12 weeks. Safety, tolerability, and effects of aliskiren on neurohumoral biomarkers were assessed in patients who received (MRA+) and did not receive (MRA−) MRA treatment at baseline. Of the 302 randomized patients, 101 were receiving MRA treatment (aliskiren, n = 52; placebo, n = 49). Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist status did not affect the ability of aliskiren 150 mg, added to standard HF therapy, to lower BNP, N-terminal proBNP, plasma renin activity, and urinary aldosterone. For example, the end-of-study to baseline ratio of geometric mean for BNP was: MRA+ group: aliskiren 0.68 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47, 0.98], placebo 0.85 (0.58, 1.24); MRA− group: aliskiren 0.62 (0.45, 0.84), placebo 0.85 (0.63, 1.15), interaction P= 0.720. The incidence of pre-specified adverse events (renal dysfunction, symptomatic hypotension, and hyperkalaemia) was low, and there were no significant differences between aliskiren and placebo in either MRA subgroup. Conclusion Aliskiren 150 mg added to standard HF therapy was well tolerated over 12 weeks and provided beneficial changes in neurohumoral biomarkers regardless of concomitant MRA treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To determine the association between obesity and outcomes in post-acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients with systolic heart failure (HF). [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objectives: This analysis from the LUNAR (Limiting UNdertreatment of lipids in ACS with Rosuvastatin) study assessed lipid changes 1 to 4 days after onset of acute coronary syndromes (ACS), before initiation of study treatment. Background: Early studies indicated that cholesterol levels decrease significantly after ACS. However, most studies were small or did not measure low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) directly, and many used nonfasting or retrospective data. More recent studies suggest less pronounced changes in cholesterol levels after ACS. Methods: The LUNAR trial is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-label study in adults hospitalized for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-STEMI, or unstable angina (UA). Blood samples were taken at median times after onset of ACS symptoms of 26 h (Day 1, fasting or nonfasting sample), 43 h (Day 2, fasting sample), and 84 h (Day 4, fasting sample) for direct measurement of serum lipid levels before study treatments were started. Results: Of 507 patients available for analysis, 212 were admitted for STEMI, 176 for non-STEMI, and 119 for UA. The LDL-C levels decreased in the 24 h after admission (from 136.2 to 133.5 mg/dl), followed by an increase over the subsequent 2 days (to 141.8 mg/dl). These changes did not seem to be clinically meaningful. Similar changes were observed for total cholesterol and smaller changes for high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; fasting triglyceride levels did not change. Conclusions: Mean lipid levels vary relatively little in the 4 days after an ACS and can be used to guide selection of lipid-lowering medication. (LUNAR Phase IIIb Study Comparing Rosuvastatin and Atorvastatin in Subjects With Acute Coronary Syndromes; NCT00214630) [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Aims: Because of the prognostic importance of LV dysfunction following an AMI and the increasing use of electrical and/or mechanical interventions in patients with LV systolic dysfunction, this retrospective analysis of EPHESUS patients with LVEF ≤30% at baseline was conducted to determine the value of eplerenone in this setting. Methods and results: In EPHESUS, 6632 patients with LVEF ≤40% and clinical heart failure (HF) post-AMI who were receiving standard therapy were randomized to eplerenone 25 mg/day titrated to 50 mg/day or placebo for a mean follow-up of 16 months. Treatment with eplerenone in the subgroup of patients with LVEF ≤30% (N =2106) resulted in relative risk reductions of 21% versus placebo in both all-cause mortality (P =0.012) and cardiovascular (CV) mortality/CV hospitalization (P =0.001), and 23% for CV mortality (P =0.008). The relative risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) was reduced 33% (P =0.01) and HF mortality/HF hospitalization was reduced 25% (P =0.005) with eplerenone compared with placebo. Within 30 days of randomization, eplerenone resulted in relative risk reductions of 43% for all-cause mortality (P =0.002), 29% for CV mortality/CV hospitalization (P =0.006), and 58% for SCD (P =0.008). Conclusions: Treatment with eplerenone plus standard therapy in patients with post-AMI HF and LVEF ≤30% provided significant incremental benefits in reducing both early and late mortality and morbidity. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objectives: This study sought to assess the impact of the selective aldosterone blocker eplerenone on mortality 30 days after randomization in patients after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40% and clinical signs of heart failure. Background: In the Eplerenone Post-Acute Myocardial Infarction Heart Failure Efficacy and Survival Study (EPHESUS), eplerenone reduced all-cause mortality by 15% (p = 0.008) over a mean follow-up of 16 months when used with standard therapy in patients after AMI with an LVEF ≤40% and clinical signs of heart failure. Methods: We analyzed the effect of eplerenone 25 mg/day initiated 3 to 14 days after AMI (mean, 7.3 days) on the co-primary end points of time to death from any cause and the composite end point of time to death from cardiovascular (CV) causes or hospitalization for CV events, and the secondary end points of CV mortality, sudden cardiac death, and fatal/nonfatal hospitalization for heart failure, after 30 days of therapy in the EPHESUS trial. Results: At 30 days after randomization, eplerenone reduced the risk of all-cause mortality by 31% (3.2% vs. 4.6% in eplerenone and placebo-treated patients, respectively; p = 0.004) and reduced the risk of CV mortality/CV hospitalization by 13% (8.6% vs. 9.9% in eplerenone and placebo-treated patients, respectively; p = 0.074). Eplerenone also reduced the risk of CV mortality by 32% (p = 0.003) and the risk of sudden cardiac death by 37% (p = 0.051). Conclusions: Eplerenone 25 mg/day significantly reduced all-cause mortality 30 days after randomization (when initiated at a mean of 7.3 days after AMI) in addition to conventional therapy in patients with an LVEF ≤40% and signs of heart failure. Based on its early survival benefit, eplerenone should be administered in the hospital after AMI. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The introduction of generic drugs should lower health care costs by reducing the price of drugs. The realization of this goal may, however, not be fully achieved: generic drugs may be underused or misused in comparison to prescription drugs because of a lack of ongoing postgraduate physician education. More importantly, there is little incentive to explore new indications for soon-to-be generic drugs and drugs that are already generic. The failure to explore new indications for soon-to-be and existing generic drugs may result in a missed opportunity to further reduce health care costs. Thus, the apparent savings resulting from the introduction of generic drugs may not be fully realized unless the government and other third-party payers take a more active role in postgraduate drug education and investigation. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Aims Methods and results Conclusion The TRANSFORM‐HF trial found no difference in clinical outcomes between torsemide versus furosemide after hospitalization for heart failure. This analysis aimed to assess the impact of diuretic dosing on the primary and secondary clinical outcomes.This post‐hoc analysis of TRANSFORM‐HF categorized patients into three groups by discharge diuretic dose: (1) ≤40 mg, (2) >40–80 mg, and (3) >80 mg of furosemide equivalents. The associations between discharge dose and 12‐month clinical events, and change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ‐CSS), were assessed. Overall, 2379 patients were included, aged 65 years (interquartile range 56–75), 883 (37.1%) women, and 812 (34.2%) Black. Furosemide had adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) for all‐cause mortality of 1.21 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91–1.59) for discharge dose group 2 and 1.40 (95% CI 1.04–1.88) for group 3, compared with group 1. For torsemide, aHRs were 1.74 (95% CI 1.32–2.30) for group 2 and 1.58 (95% CI 1.14–2.19) for group 3. No evidence of heterogeneity for the association between increased mortality and higher dose was found by loop diuretic type (pinteraction = 0.17). Higher doses of furosemide and torsemide were associated with increased risk of all‐cause hospitalization and the composite of all‐cause mortality and hospitalization, without evidence of heterogeneity by loop diuretic type (pinteraction > 0.2). Changes in KCCQ‐CSS from baseline at 12 months was similar across dose groups for both drugs.Following hospitalization for heart failure, higher loop diuretic dosing was independently associated with worse clinical and patient‐reported outcomes. The correlation between higher loop diuretic dose and outcomes was consistent, regardless of loop diuretic used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents information on a study which tested the hypothesis that the insulin-sensitizing agent troglitazone can enhance the vasodilating effects of insulin via inhibition of voltage-gate calcium channels in vascular smooth muscle cells. How the study was conducted; Changes in calcium paralleling the alterations in vascular reactivity; How troglitazone and insulin may act to modulate vascular reactivity.

Aim: The TRANSFORM‐HF trial demonstrated no significant outcome differences between torsemide and furosemide following hospitalization for heart failure (HF), but may have been impacted by non‐adherence to the randomized diuretic. The current study sought to determine the treatment effect of torsemide versus furosemide using an on‐treatment analysis inclusive of all randomized patients except those confirmed non‐adherent to study diuretic. Methods and results: TRANSFORM‐HF was an open‐label, pragmatic randomized trial of 2859 patients hospitalized for HF from June 2018 through March 2022. Patients were randomized to a loop diuretic strategy of torsemide versus furosemide with investigator‐selected dosage. This post‐hoc on‐treatment analysis included all patients alive with either known or unknown diuretic status, and excluded patients confirmed to be non‐adherent to study diuretic. This modified on‐treatment definition was applied separately at time of hospital discharge and 30‐day follow‐up. All‐cause mortality and hospitalization outcomes were assessed over 12 months. Overall, 2570 (89.9%) and 2374 (83.0%) patients were included in on‐treatment analyses at discharge and 30‐day follow‐up, respectively. There was no significant difference in all‐cause mortality between torsemide and furosemide in patients on‐treatment at discharge (17.5% vs. 17.8%; hazard ratio [HR] 1.01 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83–1.22], p = 0.96) and at 30‐day follow‐up (14.5% vs. 15.0%; HR 1.02 [95% CI 0.81–1.27], p = 0.90). All‐cause mortality or all‐cause hospitalization was similar between torsemide and furosemide in patients who were on‐treatment at discharge (58.3% vs. 61.3%; HR 0.92 [95% CI 0.82–1.03]) and 30‐day follow‐up (60.9% vs. 64.4%; HR 0.93 [95% CI 0.82–1.05]). In patients who were on‐treatment at 30‐day follow‐up, there were 677 total hospitalizations in the torsemide group and 686 total hospitalizations in the furosemide group (rate ratio 0.99 [95% CI 0.86–1.14], p = 0.87). Conclusions: In TRANSFORM‐HF, a post‐hoc on‐treatment analysis did not meaningfully differ from the original trial results. Among those deemed compliant with the assigned diuretic, there remained no significant difference in mortality or hospitalization after HF hospitalization with a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide. Clinical Trail Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03296813. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To describe the baseline characteristics of participants in the FINEARTS‐HF trial, contextualized with prior trials including patients with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF/HFpEF). The FINEARTS‐HF trial is comparing the effects of the non‐steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone with placebo in reducing cardiovascular death and total worsening HF events in patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF. Methods and results: Patients with symptomatic HF, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥40%, estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥ 25 ml/min/1.73 m2, elevated natriuretic peptide levels and evidence of structural heart disease were enrolled and randomized to finerenone titrated to a maximum of 40 mg once daily or matching placebo. We validly randomized 6001 patients to finerenone or placebo (mean age 72 ± 10 years, 46% women). The majority were New York Heart Association functional class II (69%). The baseline mean LVEF was 53 ± 8% (range 34–84%); 36% of participants had a LVEF <50% and 64% had a LVEF ≥50%. The median N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP) was 1041 (interquartile range 449–1946) pg/ml. A total of 1219 (20%) patients were enrolled during or within 7 days of a worsening HF event, and 3247 (54%) patients were enrolled within 3 months of a worsening HF event. Compared with prior large‐scale HFmrEF/HFpEF trials, FINEARTS‐HF participants were more likely to have recent (within 6 months) HF hospitalization and greater symptoms and functional limitations. Further, concomitant medications included a larger percentage of sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors than previous trials. Conclusions: FINEARTS‐HF has enrolled a broad range of high‐risk patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF. The trial will determine the safety and efficacy of finerenone in this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for heart failure (HF), a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide showed no difference in all‐cause mortality or hospitalization. Clinicians have traditionally favoured torsemide in the setting of kidney dysfunction due to better oral bioavailability and longer half‐life, but direct supportive evidence is lacking. Methods and results: The TRANSFORM‐HF trial randomized patients hospitalized for HF to a long‐term strategy of torsemide versus furosemide, and enrolled patients across the spectrum of renal function (without dialysis). In this post‐hoc analysis, baseline renal function during the index hospitalization was assessed as categories of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR; <30, 30–<60, ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2). The interaction between baseline renal function and treatment effect of torsemide versus furosemide was assessed with respect to mortality and hospitalization outcomes, and the change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ‐CSS). Of 2859 patients randomized, 336 (11.8%) had eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m2, 1138 (39.8%) had eGFR 30–<60 ml/min/1.73 m2, and 1385 (48.4%) had eGFR ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2. Baseline eGFR did not modify treatment effects of torsemide versus furosemide on all adverse clinical outcomes including individual components or composites of all‐cause mortality and all‐cause (re)‐hospitalizations, both when assessing eGFR categorically or continuously (p‐value for interaction all >0.108). Similarly, no treatment effect modification by eGFR was found for the change in KCCQ‐CSS (p‐value for interaction all >0.052) when assessing eGFR categorically or continuously. Conclusion: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, there was no significant difference in clinical and patient‐reported outcomes between torsemide and furosemide, irrespective of renal function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) are at risk of atrial fibrillation or flutter (AFF) due to cardiac remodeling and kidney complications. Finerenone, a novel, selective, nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, inhibited cardiac remodeling in preclinical models.Objectives: This work aims to examine the effect of finerenone on new-onset AFF and cardiorenal effects by history of AFF in the Finerenone in Reducing Kidney Failure and Disease Progression in Diabetic Kidney Disease (FIDELIO-DKD) study.Methods: Patients with CKD and T2D were randomized (1:1) to finerenone or placebo. Eligible patients had a urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio ≥30 to ≤5,000 mg/g, an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥25 to <75 ml/min/1.73 m2 and received optimized doses of renin-angiotensin system blockade. Effect on new-onset AFF was evaluated as a pre-specified outcome adjudicated by an independent cardiologist committee. The primary composite outcome (time to first onset of kidney failure, a sustained decrease of ≥40% in eGFR from baseline, or death from renal causes) and key secondary outcome (time to first onset of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure) were analyzed by history of AFF.Results: Of 5,674 patients, 461 (8.1%) had a history of AFF. New-onset AFF occurred in 82 (3.2%) patients on finerenone and 117 (4.5%) patients on placebo (hazard ratio: 0.71; 95% confidence interval: 0.53-0.94; p = 0.016). The effect of finerenone on primary and key secondary kidney and cardiovascular outcomes was not significantly impacted by baseline AFF (interaction p value: 0.16 and 0.85, respectively).Conclusions: In patients with CKD and T2D, finerenone reduced the risk of new-onset AFF. The risk of kidney or cardiovascular events was reduced irrespective of history of AFF at baseline. (EudraCT 2015-000990-11 [A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter, event-driven Phase III study to investigate the efficacy and safety of finerenone, in addition to standard of care, on the progression of kidney disease in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus and the clinical diagnosis of diabetic kidney disease]; Efficacy and Safety of Finerenone in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Diabetic Kidney Disease [FIDELIO-DKD]; NCT02540993). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects >800 million individuals worldwide and is often underrecognized. Early detection, identification and treatment can delay disease progression. Klinrisk is a proprietary CKD progression risk prediction model based on common laboratory data to predict CKD progression. We aimed to externally validate the Klinrisk model for prediction of CKD progression in FIDELITY (a prespecified pooled analysis of two finerenone phase III trials in patients with CKD and type 2 diabetes). In addition, we sought to identify evidence of an interaction between treatment and risk. Methods The validation cohort included all participants in FIDELITY up to 4 years. The primary and secondary composite outcomes included a ≥40% decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or kidney failure, and a ≥57% decrease in eGFR or kidney failure. Prediction discrimination was calculated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Calibration plots were calculated by decile comparing observed with predicted risk. Results At time horizons of 2 and 4 years, 993 and 1795 patients experienced a primary outcome event, respectively. The model predicted the primary outcome accurately with an AUC of 0.81 for 2 years and 0.86 for 4 years. Calibration was appropriate at both 2 and 4 years, with Brier scores of 0.067 and 0.115, respectively. No evidence of interaction between treatment and risk was identified for the primary composite outcome (P  = .31). Conclusions Our findings demonstrate the accuracy and utility of a laboratory-based prediction model for early identification of patients at the highest risk of CKD progression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Patients with heart failure (HF) and mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are often treated with calcium channel blockers (CCBs), although the safety of CCBs in these patients is uncertain. We aimed to investigate the association between CCB use and clinical outcomes in patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF; CCBs were examined overall, as well as by subtype (dihydropyridine and non‐dihydropyridine). Methods and results: We pooled individual patient data from four large HFpEF/HFmrEF trials. The association between CCB use and outcomes was assessed. Among the 16 954 patients included, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 56.8%, and 13 402 (79.0%) had HFpEF (LVEF ≥50%). Altogether, 5874 patients (34.6%) received a CCB (87.6% dihydropyridines). Overall, the risks of death and HF hospitalization were not higher in patients treated with a CCB, particularly dihydropyridines. The risk of pump failure death was significantly lower (hazard ratio [HR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60–0.96), while the risk of stroke was higher (HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.06–1.50) in patients treated with a CCB compared to those not. These risks remained different in patients treated and not treated with a CCB after adjustment for other prognostic variables. Although the majority of patients were treated with dihydropyridine CCBs, the pattern of outcomes was broadly similar for both dihydropyridine and non‐dihydropyridine CCBs. Conclusion: Although this is an observational analysis of non‐randomized treatment, there was no suggestion that CCBs were associated with worse HF outcomes. Indeed, CCB use was associated with a lower incidence of pump failure death. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The SCORED (Effect of Sotagliflozin on Cardiovascular and Renal Events in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Moderate Renal Impairment Who Are at Cardiovascular Risk) and SOLOIST-WHF (Effect of Sotagliflozin on Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Post Worsening Heart Failure) trials demonstrated that sotagliflozin, an SGLT1 and SGLT2 inhibitor, improves outcomes in individuals with type 2 diabetes who have heart failure (HF) or kidney disease. We assessed the efficacy of sotagliflozin on HF clinical outcomes in individuals with differing baseline glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels. We included all adults from SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, hospitalizations for HF, and urgent visits for HF. The efficacy of sotagliflozin compared with placebo was evaluated by baseline HbA1c using competing-risk marginal proportional hazards models. We identified 11,744 adults. Individuals with HbA1c ≤7.5% experienced the primary outcome at a lower rate in the sotagliflozin group (11.2 per 100 person-years) than the placebo group (15.5 per 100 person-years) (HR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.57-0.93). Similarly, individuals with HbA1c of 7.6% to 9.0% experienced the primary outcome at a lower rate in the sotagliflozin group (7.3 per 100 person-years) than the placebo group (9.4 per 100 person-years) (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.63-0.96). These findings were also consistent among individuals with HbA1c >9.0%, with a primary outcome rate in the sotagliflozin group (7.8 per 100 person-years) that was lower than the placebo group (11.6 per 100 person-years) (HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.50-0.84). The efficacy of sotagliflozin was consistent by baseline HbA1c level (P for interaction = 0.58). In individuals with type 2 diabetes and either HF or kidney disease, sotagliflozin reduced HF outcomes irrespective of baseline HbA1c. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A post hoc analysis of the SCORED randomized trial examined the time to clinical benefit with sotagliflozin, a medication used to treat type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease. The study found that sotagliflozin reduced the risk of heart failure outcomes in patients with these conditions. The analysis showed that the benefits of sotagliflozin were observed as early as 95 days after randomization and were sustained throughout the study period. The findings suggest that initiating therapy with sotagliflozin quickly may lead to meaningful improvements in heart failure outcomes. [Extracted from the article]

Chronic activation of the renin‐angiotensin‐aldosterone system (RAAS) promotes and perpetuates the syndromes of congestive heart failure, systemic hypertension, and chronic kidney disease. Excessive circulating and tissue angiotensin II (AngII) and aldosterone levels lead to a pro‐fibrotic, ‐inflammatory, and ‐hypertrophic milieu that causes remodeling and dysfunction in cardiovascular and renal tissues. Understanding of the role of the RAAS in this abnormal pathologic remodeling has grown over the past few decades and numerous medical therapies aimed at suppressing the RAAS have been developed. Despite this, morbidity from these diseases remains high. Continued investigation into the complexities of the RAAS should help clinicians modulate (suppress or enhance) components of this system and improve quality of life and survival. This review focuses on updates in our understanding of the RAAS and the pathophysiology of AngII and aldosterone excess, reviewing what is known about its suppression in cardiovascular and renal diseases, especially in the cat and dog. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study by Boixel and colleagues which found that incubation with aldosterone for 24 hour increased current density in a dose-dependent manner and lengthened the action potential duration. The effects appeared dependent on the mineralocorticoid receptor (MR) because it was blocked with the MR antagonist spironolactone but not with the glucocorticoid receptor antagonist RU-38486.

Aim: Eplerenone reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for heart failure (HF) in patients with HF and a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but it is still frequently underused in routine practice. We evaluated the time course of benefits of eplerenone after its initiation in HFrEF patients from the EMPHASIS‐HF trial. Methods and results: The EMPHASIS‐HF trial was a double‐blind randomized clinical trial assessing the effect of eplerenone in patients (n = 2737, mean age 68.6 ± 7.6 years, 22.3% women) with HFrEF and mild symptoms. The time trajectories for the effect of eplerenone versus placebo on the primary composite endpoint (cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for HF) were investigated using Cox proportional hazards models with truncated data at each day post‐randomization. A significant reduction in the primary composite endpoint was observed 26 days after randomization (hazard ratio 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.34–1.00, p = 0.049). Eplerenone was first associated with a significant reduction in the primary endpoint in 35 days or less in most subgroups, including patients with HF history ≥18 months (day 24), estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 ml/min (day 12), ischaemic HF aetiology (day 28), age ≥65 years (day 28), narrow QRS (day 30), higher MAGGIC score (day 35), lower potassium (day 30), left ventricular ejection fraction ≥30% (day 28) or already treated with beta‐blockers (day 25). Conclusions: Eplerenone provides statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefits shortly after treatment initiation in most patients, irrespective of clinical profile. This result reinforces the need for an early initiation of eplerenone in HFrEF, as part of rapidly instituting guideline‐directed medical therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) improve outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but are underutilized. Hyperkalaemia may be one reason, but the underlying reasons for underuse are unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate the independent predictors of MRA underuse in a large and unselected HFrEF cohort.Methods and Results: We included patients with HFrEF (ejection fraction <40%), New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-IV and heart failure (HF) duration ≥6 months from the Swedish HF Registry. Logistic regression analysis identified independent associations between 39 demographic, clinical, co-treatment, and socioeconomic predictors and MRA non-use. Of 11 215 patients, 27% were women; mean age was 75 ± 11 years; only 4443 (40%) patients received MRA. Selected characteristics independently associated with MRA non-use were in descending order of magnitude: lower creatinine clearance (<60 mL/min), no need for diuretics, no cardiac resynchronization therapy/implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, higher blood pressure, no digoxin use, higher ejection fraction, outpatient setting, older age, lower income, ischaemic heart disease, male sex, follow-up in primary vs. specialty care, lower NYHA class, and absence of hypertension diagnosis. Plasma potassium and N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide levels were not associated with MRA non-use.Conclusion: Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists remain underused in HFrEF. Their use does not decrease with elevated potassium but does with impaired renal function, even in the creatinine clearance 30-59.9 mL/min range where MRAs are not contraindicated. MRA underuse may be further related to non-specialist care, milder HF and no use of other HF therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]