TY - JOUR
T1 - Routine Spironolactone in Acute Myocardial Infarction
AU - CLEAR Investigators
AU - CLEAR Investigators
AU - Jolly, Sanjit S.
AU - d'Entremont, Marc André
AU - Pitt, Bertram
AU - Lee, Shun Fu
AU - Mian, Rajibul
AU - Tyrwhitt, Jessica
AU - Kedev, Sasko
AU - Montalescot, Gilles
AU - Cornel, Jan H.
AU - Stanković, Goran
AU - Moreno, Raul
AU - Storey, Robert F.
AU - Henry, Timothy D.
AU - Mehta, Shamir R.
AU - Bossard, Matthias
AU - Kala, Petr
AU - Bhindi, Ravinay
AU - Zafirovska, Biljana
AU - Devereaux, P. J.
AU - Eikelboom, John
AU - Cairns, John A.
AU - Natarajan, Madhu K.
AU - Schwalm, J. D.
AU - Sharma, Sanjib K.
AU - Tarhuni, Wadea
AU - Conen, David
AU - Tawadros, Sarah
AU - Lavi, Shahar
AU - Asani, Valon
AU - Topic, Dragan
AU - Cantor, Warren J.
AU - Bertrand, Olivier F.
AU - Pourdjabbar, Ali
AU - Yusuf, Salim
AU - Farbaniec, Michael
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2024 Massachusetts Medical Society.
PY - 2025/2/13
Y1 - 2025/2/13
N2 - BACKGROUND: Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists have been shown to reduce mortality in patients after myocardial infarction with congestive heart failure. Whether routine use of spironolactone is beneficial after myocardial infarction is uncertain. METHODS: In this multicenter trial with a 2-by-2 factorial design, we randomly assigned patients with myocardial infarction who had undergone percutaneous coronary intervention to receive either spironolactone or placebo and either colchicine or placebo. The results of the spironolactone trial are reported here. The two primary outcomes were a composite of death from cardiovascular causes or new or worsening heart failure, evaluated as the total number of events; and a composite of the first occurrence of myocardial infarction, stroke, new or worsening heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: We enrolled 7062 patients at 104 centers in 14 countries; 3537 patients were assigned to receive spironolactone and 3525 to receive placebo. At the time of our analyses, the vital status was unknown for 45 patients (0.6%). For the first primary outcome, there were 183 events (1.7 per 100 patient-years) in the spironolactone group as compared with 220 events (2.1 per 100 patient-years) in the placebo group over a median follow-up period of 3 years (hazard ratio adjusted for competing risk of death from noncardiovascular causes, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 1.21; P = 0.51). With respect to the second primary outcome, an event occurred in 280 of 3537 patients (7.9%) in the spironolactone group and 294 of 3525 patients (8.3%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio adjusted for competing risk, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.13; P = 0.60). Serious adverse events were reported in 255 patients (7.2%) in the spironolactone group and 241 (6.8%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with myocardial infarction, spironolactone did not reduce the incidence of death from cardiovascular causes or new or worsening heart failure or the incidence of a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, or new or worsening heart failure. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; CLEAR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03048825.).
AB - BACKGROUND: Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists have been shown to reduce mortality in patients after myocardial infarction with congestive heart failure. Whether routine use of spironolactone is beneficial after myocardial infarction is uncertain. METHODS: In this multicenter trial with a 2-by-2 factorial design, we randomly assigned patients with myocardial infarction who had undergone percutaneous coronary intervention to receive either spironolactone or placebo and either colchicine or placebo. The results of the spironolactone trial are reported here. The two primary outcomes were a composite of death from cardiovascular causes or new or worsening heart failure, evaluated as the total number of events; and a composite of the first occurrence of myocardial infarction, stroke, new or worsening heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: We enrolled 7062 patients at 104 centers in 14 countries; 3537 patients were assigned to receive spironolactone and 3525 to receive placebo. At the time of our analyses, the vital status was unknown for 45 patients (0.6%). For the first primary outcome, there were 183 events (1.7 per 100 patient-years) in the spironolactone group as compared with 220 events (2.1 per 100 patient-years) in the placebo group over a median follow-up period of 3 years (hazard ratio adjusted for competing risk of death from noncardiovascular causes, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 1.21; P = 0.51). With respect to the second primary outcome, an event occurred in 280 of 3537 patients (7.9%) in the spironolactone group and 294 of 3525 patients (8.3%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio adjusted for competing risk, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.13; P = 0.60). Serious adverse events were reported in 255 patients (7.2%) in the spironolactone group and 241 (6.8%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with myocardial infarction, spironolactone did not reduce the incidence of death from cardiovascular causes or new or worsening heart failure or the incidence of a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, or new or worsening heart failure. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; CLEAR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03048825.).
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85218496926
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85218496926#tab=citedBy
U2 - 10.1056/NEJMoa2405923
DO - 10.1056/NEJMoa2405923
M3 - Article
C2 - 39555814
AN - SCOPUS:85218496926
SN - 0028-4793
VL - 392
SP - 643
EP - 652
JO - The New England journal of medicine
JF - The New England journal of medicine
IS - 7
ER -