Evidence Hub

Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists and Empagliflozin in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction

Ferreira JP, Butler J, Zannad F, Filippatos G, Schueler E, Steubl D, Zeller C, Januzzi JL et al.

Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2022

5,988 participants · 46 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) may be beneficial in reducing heart failure (HF) hospitalizations in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction. The effect of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction according to MRA background therapy has not been reported.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to examine the effect of empagliflozin in MRA users and nonusers in the EMPEROR-Preserved (Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial.

METHODS

Survival analyses were conducted comparing the effects of empagliflozin vs placebo in MRA users and nonusers at baseline with treatment-by-MRA use interaction terms.

RESULTS

A total of 5,988 patients were included, of whom 2,244 (37.5%) were using MRAs at baseline. MRA users had higher event rates than MRA nonusers (placebo group primary outcome 9.4 vs 8.2 events per 100 person-years). The benefit of empagliflozin to reduce the primary outcome was not significantly different between MRA nonusers and MRA users (HR: 0.73 [95% CI: 0.62-0.87] and HR: 0.87 [95% CI: 0.71-1.06]; interaction P = 0.22). The effect of empagliflozin to reduce first and recurrent HF hospitalizations was more pronounced in MRA nonusers than in MRA users (HR: 0.60 [95% CI: 0.47-0.77] and HR: 0.90 [95% CI: 0.68-1.19]; interaction P = 0.038). MRA users experienced almost twice as many hyperkalemia events as MRA nonusers, and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 5,988 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free