Comparing torsemide versus furosemide in patients with heart failure

A meta-analysis

Kazuhiko Kido, Mikiko Shimizu, Masayuki Hashiguchi

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of torsemide versus furosemide in patients with heart failure (HF). Data sources: Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar database searches for relevant articles from 1946 to May 2018 were performed with the use of the key words torsemide and furosemide. Study selection: Studies were included if they met the following criteria: (1) cohort studies or randomized controlled trials of adult patients 18 years of age or older who received oral torsemide or furosemide for HF with reduced or preserved ejection fraction; and (2) studies that reported mortality rate, rehospitalization rate for HF or cardiovascular disease (CVD), or New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class changes. Data extraction: Efficacy outcomes were mortality from any cause, rehospitalization for HF, rehospitalization for CVD, and NYHA functional class improvement. Safety outcome included hypokalemia. Results: In the 5 included studies, there was no significant difference in mortality between torsemide and furosemide (odds ratio [OR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.58–1.72; P = 0.99; I2 = 79%). There was no significant difference in rehospitalization rates for HF (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57–1.09; P = 0.15; I2 = 64%) or CVD (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62–1.12; P = 0.22; I2 = 40%) between torsemide- and furosemide-treated patients. The use of torsemide was associated with significant improvement in NYHA functional class compared with furosemide (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.18–1.76; P = 0.0004; I2 = 0%). Conclusion: Our meta-analysis showed that torsemide is associated with statistically significant improvement in NYHA functional class for patients with HF compared with furosemide. However, torsemide did not provide significant benefits in reducing mortality or rehospitalization rates for HF or CVD compared with furosemide. The authors suggest switching from furosemide to torsemide in patients with HF not achieving symptomatic control with the use of furosemide despite maximizing guideline-directed medical therapy and furosemide dosing.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)432-438
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of the American Pharmacists Association
Volume59
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019 May 1

Fingerprint

torsemide
Furosemide
Meta-Analysis
Heart Failure
Cardiovascular Diseases
Odds Ratio
Mortality
Heart Diseases
Library Science

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology (nursing)
  • Pharmacy
  • Pharmacology

Cite this

Comparing torsemide versus furosemide in patients with heart failure : A meta-analysis. / Kido, Kazuhiko; Shimizu, Mikiko; Hashiguchi, Masayuki.

In: Journal of the American Pharmacists Association, Vol. 59, No. 3, 01.05.2019, p. 432-438.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{5b53eb8b4f814f6d964c21f3e5d5b055,
title = "Comparing torsemide versus furosemide in patients with heart failure: A meta-analysis",
abstract = "Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of torsemide versus furosemide in patients with heart failure (HF). Data sources: Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar database searches for relevant articles from 1946 to May 2018 were performed with the use of the key words torsemide and furosemide. Study selection: Studies were included if they met the following criteria: (1) cohort studies or randomized controlled trials of adult patients 18 years of age or older who received oral torsemide or furosemide for HF with reduced or preserved ejection fraction; and (2) studies that reported mortality rate, rehospitalization rate for HF or cardiovascular disease (CVD), or New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class changes. Data extraction: Efficacy outcomes were mortality from any cause, rehospitalization for HF, rehospitalization for CVD, and NYHA functional class improvement. Safety outcome included hypokalemia. Results: In the 5 included studies, there was no significant difference in mortality between torsemide and furosemide (odds ratio [OR] 1.00, 95{\%} CI 0.58–1.72; P = 0.99; I2 = 79{\%}). There was no significant difference in rehospitalization rates for HF (OR 0.79, 95{\%} CI 0.57–1.09; P = 0.15; I2 = 64{\%}) or CVD (OR 0.83, 95{\%} CI 0.62–1.12; P = 0.22; I2 = 40{\%}) between torsemide- and furosemide-treated patients. The use of torsemide was associated with significant improvement in NYHA functional class compared with furosemide (OR 1.44, 95{\%} CI 1.18–1.76; P = 0.0004; I2 = 0{\%}). Conclusion: Our meta-analysis showed that torsemide is associated with statistically significant improvement in NYHA functional class for patients with HF compared with furosemide. However, torsemide did not provide significant benefits in reducing mortality or rehospitalization rates for HF or CVD compared with furosemide. The authors suggest switching from furosemide to torsemide in patients with HF not achieving symptomatic control with the use of furosemide despite maximizing guideline-directed medical therapy and furosemide dosing.",
author = "Kazuhiko Kido and Mikiko Shimizu and Masayuki Hashiguchi",
year = "2019",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.japh.2019.01.014",
language = "English",
volume = "59",
pages = "432--438",
journal = "Journal of the American Pharmacists Association : JAPhA",
issn = "1544-3191",
publisher = "American Pharmacists Association",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing torsemide versus furosemide in patients with heart failure

T2 - A meta-analysis

AU - Kido, Kazuhiko

AU - Shimizu, Mikiko

AU - Hashiguchi, Masayuki

PY - 2019/5/1

Y1 - 2019/5/1

N2 - Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of torsemide versus furosemide in patients with heart failure (HF). Data sources: Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar database searches for relevant articles from 1946 to May 2018 were performed with the use of the key words torsemide and furosemide. Study selection: Studies were included if they met the following criteria: (1) cohort studies or randomized controlled trials of adult patients 18 years of age or older who received oral torsemide or furosemide for HF with reduced or preserved ejection fraction; and (2) studies that reported mortality rate, rehospitalization rate for HF or cardiovascular disease (CVD), or New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class changes. Data extraction: Efficacy outcomes were mortality from any cause, rehospitalization for HF, rehospitalization for CVD, and NYHA functional class improvement. Safety outcome included hypokalemia. Results: In the 5 included studies, there was no significant difference in mortality between torsemide and furosemide (odds ratio [OR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.58–1.72; P = 0.99; I2 = 79%). There was no significant difference in rehospitalization rates for HF (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57–1.09; P = 0.15; I2 = 64%) or CVD (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62–1.12; P = 0.22; I2 = 40%) between torsemide- and furosemide-treated patients. The use of torsemide was associated with significant improvement in NYHA functional class compared with furosemide (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.18–1.76; P = 0.0004; I2 = 0%). Conclusion: Our meta-analysis showed that torsemide is associated with statistically significant improvement in NYHA functional class for patients with HF compared with furosemide. However, torsemide did not provide significant benefits in reducing mortality or rehospitalization rates for HF or CVD compared with furosemide. The authors suggest switching from furosemide to torsemide in patients with HF not achieving symptomatic control with the use of furosemide despite maximizing guideline-directed medical therapy and furosemide dosing.

AB - Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of torsemide versus furosemide in patients with heart failure (HF). Data sources: Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar database searches for relevant articles from 1946 to May 2018 were performed with the use of the key words torsemide and furosemide. Study selection: Studies were included if they met the following criteria: (1) cohort studies or randomized controlled trials of adult patients 18 years of age or older who received oral torsemide or furosemide for HF with reduced or preserved ejection fraction; and (2) studies that reported mortality rate, rehospitalization rate for HF or cardiovascular disease (CVD), or New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class changes. Data extraction: Efficacy outcomes were mortality from any cause, rehospitalization for HF, rehospitalization for CVD, and NYHA functional class improvement. Safety outcome included hypokalemia. Results: In the 5 included studies, there was no significant difference in mortality between torsemide and furosemide (odds ratio [OR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.58–1.72; P = 0.99; I2 = 79%). There was no significant difference in rehospitalization rates for HF (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57–1.09; P = 0.15; I2 = 64%) or CVD (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62–1.12; P = 0.22; I2 = 40%) between torsemide- and furosemide-treated patients. The use of torsemide was associated with significant improvement in NYHA functional class compared with furosemide (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.18–1.76; P = 0.0004; I2 = 0%). Conclusion: Our meta-analysis showed that torsemide is associated with statistically significant improvement in NYHA functional class for patients with HF compared with furosemide. However, torsemide did not provide significant benefits in reducing mortality or rehospitalization rates for HF or CVD compared with furosemide. The authors suggest switching from furosemide to torsemide in patients with HF not achieving symptomatic control with the use of furosemide despite maximizing guideline-directed medical therapy and furosemide dosing.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062259064&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85062259064&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.japh.2019.01.014

DO - 10.1016/j.japh.2019.01.014

M3 - Review article

VL - 59

SP - 432

EP - 438

JO - Journal of the American Pharmacists Association : JAPhA

JF - Journal of the American Pharmacists Association : JAPhA

SN - 1544-3191

IS - 3

ER -