SynthesisESC heart failure2025
Investigating the efficacy of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists for cardiovascular outcomes in different diseases.
Synthesis in ESC heart failure, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Investigating the efficacy of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists for cardiovascular outcomes in different diseases.ESC heart failure · 2025Pooled it
- Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonist Use in Contemporary Heart Failure Care.Cardiac failure review · 2026Review
- Cardiovascular effects of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in acute coronary syndrome: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsMineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) are crucial in managing cardiovascular diseases, with different MRAs demonstrating varying efficacy across diverse disease contexts. This research aims to compare the cardiovascular protective effects of different MRAs across various disease conditions.
methodsEvidence from eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, or real-world registry studies that investigated hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) following MRA treatment were searched in four literature databases. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve values were calculated. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the findings.
resultsData from a total of 21 investigations involving 61 076 participants were included. The control groups comprised placebo arms in RCTs and non-MRA users in observational studies. In heart failure (HF) patients, finerenone showed highest efficacy with HR 0.68 (95% CI 0.47-0.95) versus control, followed by spironolactone (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55-0.89) and eplerenone (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.64-1.10). For non-HF populations, spironolactone showed the most protective effect (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.15-1.10), followed by eplerenone (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.25-1.30) and finerenone (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.50-1.60). In diabetes mellitus population, spironolactone maintained advantage (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.13-2.43) in contrast to finerenone (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.41-1.25) and eplerenone (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.40-1.62). Sensitivity analyses which excluded observational studies and included only RCTs showed consistent results for these disease populations. But the chronic kidney disease/end-stage renal disease population exhibited different patterns: eplerenone showed optimal efficacy in primary analysis (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.32-1.20) followed by spironolactone (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.49-1.06) and finerenone (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.55-1.35). Sensitivity analysis revealed better result for spironolactone in this population (HR 0.40, 0.15-1.10) followed by eplerenone (HR 0.62, 0.27-1.40) and finerenone (HR 0.87, 0.49-1.50).
conclusionsMRAs exhibit varying cardiovascular protective effects depending on the disease context. These findings support tailored treatment strategies based on specific disease conditions to optimize patient outcomes. Further research with larger and more diverse datasets is needed to validate these results and inform clinical decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.