Spironolactone use and renal toxicity: population based longitudinal analysis
BMJ 2010; 340 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c1768 (Published 18 May 2010) Cite this as: BMJ 2010;340:c1768
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
In my short time as a Foundation Doctor I have treated several
patients with elevated U+E's and raised Potassium. On many occasions it is
a patient referred from an evening clinic at the local GP who has received
a result from the lab, taken several hours before. On admission the
patient is well but slightly baffled why they are in hospital and what the
fuss is about. An ECG shows no worrying changes and a repeat sample that
does not have the time to stagnate, settle and haemolyse comes back as
normal.
In addition, many patients admitted with hyperkalamia on Spironolactone
are Chronic Kidney Failure patients. They always run Potassium levels of 6
or even 6.5. Again their ECG is normal. This study has reinforced the
learning points I have taken from consultants - treat the patient and
their symptoms - do not rely on a number.
The paper also raises questions over definitions of renal failure and
hyperkalamia or renal impairment. Since I started working in my hospital
the cut off has changed 3 times and at different hospitals they have
different cut offs. Until this is standardised how can we judge the true
effect of Spironolactone or any drug come to that, if the boundaries for
toxicity keep changing?
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
In a study performed in Tayside during the 70´s there was a constant
rate of cirrhosis presentation of 40 new patients per year (histologically
proven cases) (1). On the other hand, the use of spironolactone in
cirrhotic patients goes as far back as 1961. (2) Thus, it comes to my
attention from Li Wei et al's study that:
1) The low level of spironolactone prescriptions (nearly zero)
in this particular group of patients; before and after the publication of
the RALES (Randomised Aldactone Evaluation Study) results (Fig. 1 in Li Wei et al);
and 2) The low number of patients with
liver cirrhosis (n= 340). This, in a population where high alcohol
consumption is recognized (1).
(1) Hislop WS, Masterton N, Bouchier IA et al. Cirrhosis and primary
liver cell carcinoma in Tayside: a five year study. Scott Med J 1982;27:29
-36.
(2) Lockwood CH. Spironolactone (Aldactone) therapy for ascites due to
cirrhosis of the liver. Can Med Assoc J 1961;85:631-637.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Underestimating Risk: RALES and Hyperkalaemia
The study by Wei et al [1] led the editors of the BMJ to conclude
“spironolactone prescribing seems safe in the NHS, probably owing to
careful monitoring”. However, the authors omit a number of important
comments which the journal’s readership may wish to consider. Wei et al
draw direct and extensive comparison with a much larger Canadian study,
the results of which conflict with their own [2]. There are important
differences between the Wei and Canadian studies.
In the Canadian study, Juurlink et al restricted their analysis to
patients older than 65 years who had been hospitalised for heart failure,
whereas Wei et al did not, 2) Juurlink et al used 4 month intervals for
time series analyses compared with 6 month intervals in the Wei study,
making conclusions of the latter more liable to type II error, and 3)
Juurlink et al considered potential confounders in some detail, whereas
Wei and colleagues did not.
These factors show firstly that the two cohorts are not directly
comparable. The inclusion of younger patients by Wei et al will bias
results towards null. Secondly, the use of a 6 month time interval may be
open to selection bias, a concern which is supported by the marked
variation in ‘rates of hyperkalaemia’ from one 6 month period to the next
shown in figure 3b. The start and end points of the pre- and post RALES
comparison are likely important in determining whether the results are
significant or not.
Concerning rates of biochemical measurements, the study interval
overlaps with the April 2004 introduction of the Quality and Outcomes
Framework (QOF) which remunerated general practitioners for making the
same measurements assessed as outcome by Wei et al. Indeed, their data
support a temporal relationship between the introduction of QOF and an
increase in biochemistry sampling. The conclusion that spironolactone
prescribing per se is monitored better in Tayside than Canada is therefore
suspect.
Finally and importantly, Wei and colleagues report that 76% of
patients with heart failure diagnosed with hyperkalaemia had a prior
creatinine measurement greater than 220µmol/L. Patients with renal
impairment were excluded from the RALES trial [3], and the effects of
spironolactone on mortality in heart failure patients with renal
impairment therefore remains unknown. Hyperkalaemia is a serious
complication of spironolactone therapy, and rather than contradicting the
findings of Juurlink et al, the study by Wei et al should bring into
sharper relief the risks of spironolactone in patients with heart failure
who are elderly or have renal impairment.
1. Wei L, Struthers AD, Fahey T, Watson AD, Macdonald TM:
Spironolactone use and renal toxicity: population based longitudinal
analysis. BMJ (Clinical research ed, 340:c1768.
2. Juurlink DN, Mamdani MM, Lee DS, Kopp A, Austin PC, Laupacis A,
Redelmeier DA: Rates of hyperkalemia after publication of the Randomized
Aldactone Evaluation Study. The New England journal of medicine 2004,
351(6):543-551.
3. Pitt B, Zannad F, Remme WJ, Cody R, Castaigne A, Perez A, Palensky
J, Wittes J: The effect of spironolactone on morbidity and mortality in
patients with severe heart failure. Randomized Aldactone Evaluation Study
Investigators. The New England journal of medicine 1999, 341(10):709-717.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests