Hi everybody,
A small post to ask you what do you think about the drug class of the aldosterone antagonists/blockers, also known as mineralocorticoid receptors antagonists/blockers for longevity, or just in general.
This class of medication works by blocking the effect of the adrenal gland hormone aldosterone wich main effect is on the kidney : it increases the reabsorption of sodium, and make you pee potassium.
The mineralocorticoid receptors are also present on the heart, blood vessels, and liver. It seems like blocking this hormone helps wich kidney disease, heart failure and improves insulin sensitivity.
The main side effect is hyperkalemia, wich mostly happens if your potassium is high to begin with and if your kidneys are sick.
The three main drugs of this family is spironolactone (blocks the aldosterone receptors, but also androgen receptors and progesterone receptors), eplerenone (blocks the aldosterone receptors, not as much nevertheless, and almost no AR, or PR antagonism), and finerenone, the best of the three, ultra sensitive and powerful on the MR, and no other antagonism.
I think spironolactone is not good for men in most situations but might be useful for women in certain situations. Possibly good for hair regrowth in women.
I use low dose eplerenone daily, I think it is beneficial. It helps balance sodium and potassium favoring potassium and reduces water retention. It has some heart and kidney health benefits.
āDespite similar BP-lowering, only patients with TRH who were allocated to eplerenone experienced a reduction of LVM. Thus, our data suggest that in patients with TRH, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists should be used preferentially in order to achieve an effective reduction of LVM along with the improvement of BP control.ā
āThe beneļ¬ts of eplerenone are attributed almost exclusively to the reduction of related hospitalisations.ā
āThe primary efficacy end point occurred in 249 (18.3%) patients in the eplerenone group compared with 356 (25.9%) patients in the placebo group; this translated into a statistically significant difference in the time to the composite primary end point of CV death or first HF hospitalization favouring eplerenoneā
āAll-cause mortality was a secondary efficacy outcome, which occurred in 171 (12.5%) patients in the eplerenone group compared with 213 (15.5%) in the placebo group; this translated into a statistically significant difference in time to all-cause mortality favouring eplerenone (HR 0.76; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.93)ā
āCV mortality as an individual end point was a secondary efficacy outcome, which occurred in 147 (10.8%) patients in the eplerenone group compared with 185 (13.5%) in the placebo group; this translated into a statistically significant difference in time to CV death favouring eplerenoneā
āAll-cause hospitalization was a secondary efficacy outcome, which occurred in 408 (29.9%) patients in the eplerenone group compared with 491 (35.8%) in the placebo group; this translated into a statistically significant difference in the time to all-cause hospitalization favouring eplerenoneā
āHF-related hospitalization, as an individual end point, was a secondary efficacy outcome, which occurred in 164 (12.0%) patients in the eplerenone group compared with 253 (18.4%) in the placebo group; this translated into a statistically significant difference in the time to HF-related hospitalization favouring eplerenoneā
āCV-related hospitalization was a secondary efficacy outcome, which occurred in 304 (22.3%) patients in the eplerenone group compared with 399 (29.1%) in the placebo group; this translated into a statistically significant difference in time to CV-related hospitalization favouring eplerenoneā
āOf the 1,887 (68.9%) patients included in the analysis, 32 of 950 (3.4%) patients in the eplerenone group compared with 52 of 937 (5.5%) in the placebo group developed new AF or flutter; this was associated with an HR of 0.59 (95% CI, 0.38 to 0.91) favouring eplerenoneā