Sodium Zirconium Cyclosilicate for Management of Hyperkalemia During Spironolactone Optimization in Patients With Heart Failure
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) improve outcomes in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) but are underused in clinical practice. Observational data suggest that hyperkalemia is the leading obstacle for the suboptimal use of MRA. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the effects of sodium zirconium cyclosilicate (SZC) in optimizing use of spironolactone among participants with HFrEF and hyperkalemia. METHODS: REALIZE-K (Study to Assess Efficacy and Safety of SZC for the Management of High Potassium in Patients With Symptomatic HFrEF Receiving Spironolactone) was a prospective, double-blind, randomized- withdrawal trial in participants with HFrEF (NYHA functional class II-IV; left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%), optimal guideline-directed therapy (except MRA), and prevalent or incident MRA-induced hyperkalemia. During open-label run-in, participants underwent spironolactone titration (target: 50 mg/day); those with hyperkalemia started SZC. Participants with normokalemia (potassium: 3.5-5.0 mEq/L) on SZC and spironolactone ≥25 mg/day were randomized to continued SZC or placebo for 6 months. The primary endpoint was optimal treatment response (normokalemia on spironolactone ≥25 mg/day without rescue therapy for hyperkalemia [months 1-6]). The 5 secondary endpoints were tested hierarchically. Exploratory endpoints included a composite of adjudicated cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure (HF) events (hospitalizations and urgent visits). RESULTS: Overall, 203 participants were randomized (SZC: 102; placebo: 101). Higher percentage of SZC- vs placebo-treated participants had optimal response (71% vs 36%; OR: 4.45; 95% CI: 2.89-6.86; P < 0.001). SZC (vs placebo) improved the first 4 secondary endpoints: normokalemia on randomization dose of spironolactone and without rescue therapy (58% vs 23%; OR: 4.58; 95% CI: 2.78-7.55; P < 0.001); receiving spironolactone ≥25 mg/day (81% vs 50%; OR: 4.33; 95% CI: 2.50-7.52; P < 0.001); time to hyperkalemia (HR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.37-0.71; P < 0.001); and time to decrease/discontinuation of spironolactone due to hyperkalemia (HR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.17-0.73; P = 0.006). There was no between-group difference in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Clinical Summary Score at 6 months (-1.01 points; 95% CI: -6.64 to 4.63; P = 0.72). Adverse events (64% vs 63%) and serious adverse events (23% vs 22%) were balanced between SZC and placebo, respectively. Composite of cardiovascular (CV) death or worsening HF occurred in 11 (11%) participants in the SZC group (1 with CV death, 10 with HF events) and 3 (3%) participants in the placebo group (1 with CV death, 2 with HF events; log-rank nominal P = 0.034). CONCLUSIONS: In participants with HFrEF and hyperkalemia, SZC led to large improvements in the percentage of participants with normokalemia while on optimal spironolactone dose, and reduced risk of hyperkalemia and down-titration/discontinuation of spironolactone. Although underpowered for clinical outcomes, more participants had HF events with SZC than placebo, which should be factored into the clinical decision making. (Study to Assess Efficacy and Safety of SZC for the Management of High Potassium in Patients With Symptomatic HFrEF Receiving Spironolactone; NCT04676646).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle