PERIOCULAR HIGH RISK BCCS AFTER ADDITIONAL/PARALLEL INTAKE OF TORASEMIDE, MOXONIDINE AND MIRABEGRON: IMPORTANT LINKS TO SKIN CANCER RELATED (PHOTO-) NITROSOGENESIS IN THE CONTEXT OF PHARMACO-ONCOGENESIS.

The Nitrosogenesis of skin cancer is a modern newly introduced concept in medicine, mainly concerning melanoma, but also keratinocytic cancers such as basal cell carcinoma. The nitroso-contamination of more than 300 drugs worldwide and the permanent (relatively short-term) intake of mutagen-contaminated drugs could create serious prerequisites for the development of skin cancer. Retrospective but also prospective analyses following potentially contaminated polymedication with a heterogeneous type of nitrosamines in real patients are indicative of a causal connection rather than a sporadic association between 1) intake of a possibly nitrosamine-contaminated drug and 2) generation of keratinocytic skin cancer. The pathogenesis of high-risk periocular localized basal cell carcinomas was until recently shrouded in mystery as it was mainly and until now associated with 1) intake of phototoxic drugs and 2) intense exposure to UV radiation (without intake of drugs), 3) congenital or acquired immunodeficiencies, and 4) Goltz Gorlin syndrome or 5) Xeroderma pigmentosum. Nitrosamines/ NDSRIs within the framework of polycotaminated drug intake appear to be one reasonable additional explanation for the association between carcinogen intake and subsequent skin cancer development and progression, and a relatively short-term one at that. Recently published scientific data provide information on a new ability of some of the nitrosamines - namely that some of them are photocarcinogenic or genotoxic after activation with UVA radiation. We present 4 patients who developed high-risk periocular localized basal cell carcinomas of the skin after/within the intake of potentially nitrosamine-contaminated drugs. The presented data are confirmatory with respect to previously published scientific observations on the carcinogenic effects of valsartan, candesartan, bisoprolol, metoprolol, perindopril, lisinopril and amlodipine. The contribution of newly validated data concerning potential/actual carcinogenic/genotoxic activity in the article is also due to the following newly announced nitroso preparations: torasemide, moxonidine and mirabegron. The expansion of the ˝bases of the pyramid˝ determining the stability of drug related (Photo) Nitrosogenesis/ Carcinogenesis (in terms of skin cancer generation) is growing daily. Exogenously/drug-induced Nitrosogenesis and the subsequently triggered carcinogenesis are a completely new explanatory concepts concerning the pathogenesis of skin tumors that remained unanalyzed and hidden for decades. Until now. The official lack of 1) availability, and of 2) precise concentrations regarding nitrosamines in medicinal preparations, are some of the most unexplained acts of irresponsibility to end-users and remain for the moment without a definitive answer from either regulators and manufacturers respectively. Polycontamination of polymedication in polymorbid patients remains highly problematic, at least as a cofactor in the development and progression of keratinocytic cancers, and this in the short term. Recently published data but also data from the past are suggestive that nitrosamines in tobacco are pivotal in the development of acquired mutations in p53 and RAS oncogenes in humans and rodents. The same genes are also affected by mutations in keratinocytic cancer patients. The overlapping mutation patterns of UV radiation-induced mutations in target genes such as p53 and RAS with those caused by some nitrosamines is indicative of a synergism available in terms of gene toxicity or possibly photocarcinogenicity of the latter. What leads the scientific community to believe that the nitrosamines in drugs, similar in composition and carcinogenic potency, act differently, is unclear. The link between drug intake, nitrosamine contamination, generation of some acquired mutations and subsequent cancer development becomes more than obvious and logically conditioned. The thesis of the controlled spread of cancer sounds more than logical today because: whoever controls and regulates the spread of carcinogens/mutagens/nitrosamines is also able to control the occurrence and spread of skin cancer. The Pharmaco-oncogenesis of skin cancer is determined by exogenously mediated Nitrosogenesis or the permissive availability for certain nitrosamines in drugs worldwide.

Highly fluorescent nitrogen-doped carbon quantum dots prepared using sucrose and urea: Green synthesis, characterization, and use for determination of torsemide in its tablets and plasma samples.

A simple and facile microwave-assisted method was developed for the synthesis of highly fluorescent nitrogen-doped carbon quantum dots (N-CQDs) using sucrose and urea. The produced quantum dots exhibited a strong emission band at 376 nm after excitation at 216 nm with quantum yield of 0.57. The as-prepared N-CQDs were characterized using Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, transmission electron microscopy (TEM) images, and ultraviolet-visible (UV-visible) spectra. The average particle size was 7.7 nm. It was found that torsemide (TRS) caused an obvious quenching of the fluorescent N-CQDs; so, they were used for its spectrofluorometric estimation. An excellent linear correlation was found between the fluorescence quenching of N-CQDs and the concentration of the drug in the range of 0.10 to 1.0 µg/mL with limit of quantitation (LOQ) of 0.08 µg/mL and limit of detection (LOD) of 0.027 µg/mL. The method was successfully applied for the assay of the drug in its commercial tablets and spiked human plasma samples, and the results obtained were satisfactory. Complex GAPI was used for greenness assessment of the analytical procedures and the pre-analysis steps. Interference likely to be introduced from co-administered drugs was also studied.

Torsemide Versus Furosemide After Discharge in Patients Hospitalized With Heart Failure Across the Spectrum of Ejection Fraction: Findings From TRANSFORM-HF.

BACKGROUND: The TRANSFORM-HF trial (Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure) found no significant difference in all-cause mortality or hospitalization among patients randomized to a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide following a heart failure (HF) hospitalization. However, outcomes and responses to some therapies differ by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Thus, we sought to explore the effect of torsemide versus furosemide by baseline LVEF and to assess outcomes across LVEF groups. METHODS: We compared baseline patient characteristics and randomized treatment effects for various end points in TRANSFORM-HF stratified by LVEF: HF with reduced LVEF, ≤40% versus HF with mildly reduced LVEF, 41% to 49% versus HF with preserved LVEF, ≥50%. We also evaluated associations between LVEF and clinical outcomes. Study end points were all-cause mortality or hospitalization at 30 days and 12 months, total hospitalizations at 12 months, and change from baseline in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score. RESULTS: Overall, 2635 patients (median 64 years, 36% female, 34% Black) had LVEF data. Compared with HF with reduced LVEF, patients with HF with mildly reduced LVEF and HF with preserved LVEF had a higher prevalence of comorbidities. After adjusting for covariates, there was no significant difference in risk of clinical outcomes across the LVEF groups (adjusted hazard ratio for 12-month all-cause mortality, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.59-1.39] for HF with mildly reduced LVEF versus HF with reduced LVEF and 0.91 [95% CI, 0.70-1.17] for HF with preserved LVEF versus HF with reduced LVEF; P=0.73). In addition, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide (1) for mortality and hospitalization outcomes, irrespective of LVEF group and (2) in changes in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score in any LVEF subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Despite baseline demographic and clinical differences between LVEF cohorts in TRANSFORM-HF, there were no significant differences in the clinical end points with torsemide versus furosemide across the LVEF spectrum. There was a substantial risk for all-cause mortality and subsequent hospitalization independent of baseline LVEF. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03296813.

Application of electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy to examine free radicals formed in indapamide and torasemide storage under UV irradiation and at the higher temperatures which appear under light exposition.

Free radical formation in two diuretics: indapamide and torasemide was examined during UV irradiation and storage at higher temperatures using X-band (9.3 GHz) electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy (EPR). The aim of this study was to investigate the possibility of storing indapamide and torasemide under UV irradiation and at higher temperatures, which may occur during exposure to light. The diuretic samples were exposed to UVA irradiation for 15, 30 and 45 minutes, and stored at temperatures of 40 °C and 50 °C by 30 minutes. The EPR spectra were analyzed to determine the amplitudes (A), linewidths (ΔBpp), and integral intensities (I) and g factors. The concentrations of free radical (N) in the diuretic samples were also determined. The influence of microwave power on amplitudes, linewidths and the asymmetry parameter were evaluated. The result showed that the tested indapamide and torasemide samples exhibited high free radical concentrations in the range of 1018-1019 spin/g after UV irradiation and heat treatment. Therefore, due to the significant free radical formation indapamide and torasemide should not be stored under UV light and at temperatures of 40 °C and 50 °C. The complex character of free radical systems in the diuretic samples was proved as evidenced by the changes of the asymmetry parameters of the EPR lines with increasing microwave power. Fast spin-lattice relaxation processes were observed in all tested diuretic samples, regardless of the storage conditions. Electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy is proposed as a useful method in pharmacy to determine the appropriate storage conditions for diuretics.

Clinical effect of torsemide in a horse with congestive heart failure and atrial fibrillation.

In this case report, a high dose of torsemide (6mg/kg, every 12 hours for 3 days followed by 12mg/kg, every 12 hours for 4 days) was administered orally to a horse with congestive heart failure (CHF) and atrial fibrillation. Blood samples for measurement of plasma torsemide concentrations were obtained one hour after each drug administration. Pharmacodynamic effects of oral torsemide were evaluated by daily physical examination, electrocardiography, and serum biochemistry. The horse tolerated administration of torsemide. A decrease in ventral oedema and venous congestion was subjectively noted at day 7. Torsemide plasma concentration markedly increased at day 5 (peak concentration of 15.41 µg/mL). Evidence of an increase in renal markers was observed throughout the study period. Electrolyte measurements revealed mild hyponatremia and hypochloremia, and moderate hypokalaemia. No electrocardiographic changes related to torsemide administration were observed. After seven days of treatment, the horse was euthanised due to his disease stage and poor prognosis. Results indicate that torsemide was absorbed after oral administration and was well tolerated in this horse. Furthermore, clinical improvement in this single case indicates that torsemide might be utilized as an oral alternative to furosemide in the management of equine patients in CHF. The high doses of torsemide used in this case report should be reserved for cases without clinical response to lower doses and with close monitoring of electrolytes and renal function parameters. Further investigation of torsemide clinical efficacy and safety in horses with CHF with a larger cohort and prolonged administration is warranted.

A Systematic Critical Review of Clinical Pharmacokinetics of Torasemide.

PURPOSE: Torasemide is a potassium-sparing loop diuretic used to treat fluid retention associated with congestive heart failure and kidney and hepatic diseases. This systematic review was conducted to combine all accessible data on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of torasemide in healthy and diseased populations, which may help clinicians avert adverse drug reactions and determine the correct dosage regimen. METHODS: Four databases were systematically searched to screen for studies associated with the PK of torasemide, and 21 studies met the eligibility criteria. The review protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42023390178). RESULTS: A decrease in maximum plasma concentration (C max ) was observed for torasemide after administration of the prolonged-release formulation in comparison to that after administration of the immediate-release formulation, that is, 1.12 ± 0.17 versus 1.6 ± 0.2 mcg/mL. After administering an oral dose of torasemide, a 2-fold increase in the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) was reported in patients with congestive heart failure compared with the healthy population. Moreover, the patients with renal failure (clearance < 30 mL/min) showed an increase in value of AUC 0-∞ that is, 42.9 versus 8.091 mcg.h -1 .mL -1 compared with healthy subjects. In addition, some studies have reported interactions with different drugs, in which irbesartan showed a slight increase in the AUC 0-∞ of torasemide, whereas losartan and empagliflozin did not. CONCLUSIONS: The current review summarizes all available PK parameters of torasemide that may be beneficial for avoiding drug-drug interactions in subjects with renal and hepatic dysfunction and for predicting doses in patients with different diseases.

Torsemide vs Furosemide Among Patients With New-Onset vs Worsening Chronic Heart Failure: A Substudy of the TRANSFORM-HF Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Differences in clinical profiles, outcomes, and diuretic treatment effects may exist between patients with de novo heart failure (HF) and worsening chronic HF (WHF). Objectives: To compare clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of torsemide vs furosemide in patients hospitalized with de novo HF vs WHF. Design, Setting, and Participants: All patients with a documented ejection fraction who were randomized in the Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure (TRANSFORM-HF) trial, conducted from June 18 through March 2022, were included in this post hoc analysis. Study data were analyzed March to May 2023. Exposure: Patients were categorized by HF type and further divided by loop diuretic strategy. Main Outcomes and Measures: End points included all-cause mortality and hospitalization outcomes over 12 months, as well as change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS). Results: Among 2858 patients (mean [SD] age, 64.5 [14.0] years; 1803 male [63.1%]), 838 patients (29.3%) had de novo HF, and 2020 patients (70.7%) had WHF. Patients with de novo HF were younger (mean [SD] age, 60.6 [14.5] years vs 66.1 [13.5] years), had a higher glomerular filtration rate (mean [SD], 68.6 [24.9] vs 57.0 [24.0]), lower levels of natriuretic peptides (median [IQR], brain-type natriuretic peptide, 855.0 [423.0-1555.0] pg/mL vs 1022.0 [500.0-1927.0] pg/mL), and tended to be discharged on lower doses of loop diuretic (mean [SD], 50.3 [46.2] mg vs 63.8 [52.4] mg). De novo HF was associated with lower all-cause mortality at 12 months (de novo, 65 of 838 [9.1%] vs WHF, 408 of 2020 [25.4%]; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38-0.66; P < .001). Similarly, lower all-cause first rehospitalization at 12 months and greater improvement from baseline in KCCQ-CSS at 12 months were noted among patients with de novo HF (median [IQR]: de novo, 29.94 [27.35-32.54] vs WHF, 23.68 [21.62-25.74]; adjusted estimated difference in means: 6.26; 95% CI, 3.72-8.81; P < .001). There was no significant difference in mortality with torsemide vs furosemide in either de novo (No. of events [rate per 100 patient-years]: torsemide, 27 [7.4%] vs furosemide, 38 [10.9%]; aHR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.40-1.14; P = .15) or WHF (torsemide 212 [26.8%] vs furosemide, 196 [24.0%]; aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.89-1.32; P = .42; P for interaction = .10), In addition, no significant differences in hospitalizations, first all-cause hospitalization, or total hospitalizations at 12 months were noted with a strategy of torsemide vs furosemide in either de novo HF or WHF. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, de novo HF was associated with better clinical and patient-reported outcomes when compared with WHF. Regardless of HF type, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide with respect to 12-month clinical or patient-reported outcomes.

Comparative Effect of Loop Diuretic Prescription on Mortality and Heart Failure Readmission.

Loop diuretics are a standard pharmacologic therapy in heart failure (HF) management. Although furosemide is most frequently used, torsemide and bumetanide are increasingly prescribed in clinical practice, possibly because of superior bioavailability. Few real-world comparative effectiveness studies have examined outcomes across all 3 loop diuretics. The study goal was to compare the effects of loop diuretic prescribing at HF hospitalization discharge on mortality and HF readmission. We identified patients in Medicare claims data initiating furosemide, torsemide, or bumetanide after an index HF hospitalization from 2007 to 2017. We estimated 6-month risks of all-cause mortality and a composite outcome (HF readmission or all-cause mortality) using inverse probability of treatment weighting to adjust for relevant confounders. We identified 62,632 furosemide, 1,720 torsemide, and 2,389 bumetanide initiators. The 6-month adjusted all-cause mortality risk was lowest for torsemide (13.2%), followed by furosemide (14.5%) and bumetanide (15.6%). The 6-month composite outcome risk was 21.4% for torsemide, 24.7% for furosemide, and 24.9% for bumetanide. Compared with furosemide, the 6-month all-cause mortality risk was 1.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.7, 1.0) lower for torsemide and 1.0% (95% CI: -1.2, 3.2) higher for bumetanide, and the 6-month composite outcome risk was 3.3% (95% CI: -6.3, -0.3) lower for torsemide and 0.2% (95% CI: -2.5, 2.9) higher for bumetanide. In conclusion, the findings suggested that the first prescribed loop diuretic following HF hospitalization is associated with clinically important differences in morbidity in older patients receiving torsemide, bumetanide, or furosemide. These differences were consistent for the effect of all-cause mortality alone, but were not statistically significant.

Effect of Furosemide Versus Torsemide on Hospitalizations and Mortality in Patients With Heart Failure: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Loop diuretics are essential in the treatment of patients with heart failure (HF) who develop congestion. Furosemide is the most commonly used diuretic; however, some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown varying results associated with torsemide and furosemide in terms of hospitalizations and mortality. We performed an updated meta-analysis of currently available RCTs comparing furosemide and torsemide to see if there is any difference in clinical outcomes in patients treated with these loop diuretics. PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched for RCTs comparing the outcomes in patients with HF treated with furosemide versus torsemide. The primary end points included all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalizations, cardiovascular-related hospitalizations, and HF-related hospitalizations. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). A total of 10 RCTs with 4,127 patients (2,088 in the furosemide group and 2,039 in the torsemide group) were included in this analysis. A total of 56% of the patients were men and the mean age was 68 years. No significant difference was noted in all-cause mortality between the furosemide and torsemide groups (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.15, p = 0.70); however, patients treated with furosemide compared with torsemide had higher risks of cardiovascular hospitalizations (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.65, p = 0.001), HF-related hospitalizations (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.24, p = 0.001), and all-cause hospitalizations (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.11, p = 0.02). In conclusion, patients with HF treated with torsemide have a reduced risk of hospitalizations compared with those treated with furosemide, without any difference in mortality. These data indicate that torsemide may be a better choice to treat patients with HF.

Clinical Outcomes With Furosemide Versus Torsemide in Patients With Heart Failure: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Despite potential advantages of torsemide over furosemide, <10% of the patients with heart failure (HF) are on torsemide in clinical practice. Prior studies comparing furosemide to torsemide in patients with HF have shown conflicting findings, regarding hospitalizations and mortality. We aimed to pool all the studies conducted to date and provide the most updated and comprehensive evidence, regarding the effect of furosemide vs torsemide in reducing mortality and hospitalizations in patients with HF. We conducted a comprehensive literature search of the PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Library and Scopus from inception till June 2023, for randomized and nonrandomized studies comparing furosemide to torsemide in adult patients (>18 years) with acute or chronic HF. Data about all-cause mortality, HF-related hospitalizations and all-cause hospitalizations was extracted, pooled, and analyzed. Forest plots were created based on the random effects model. A total of 17 studies (n = 11,996 patients) were included in our analysis with a median follow-up time of 8 months. Our pooled analysis demonstrated no difference in all-cause mortality between furosemide and torsemide groups in HF patients (OR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.75-1.29, P = 0.89). However, torsemide was associated with a significantly lesser incidence of HF-related hospitalizations (OR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.54-0.99, P = 0.04), and all-cause hospitalizations (OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.73-0.98, P = 0.03), as compared to furosemide. Torsemide significantly reduces HF-related and all-cause hospitalizations as compared to furosemide, with no difference in mortality. We recommend transitioning from furosemide to torsemide in HF patients who are not attaining symptomatic control.

Torsemide increases arsenic concentrations by inhibition of multidrug resistance protein 4 in arsenic trioxide treated acute promyelocytic leukemia patients.

Torsemide is commonly used to relieve edema during the treatment of acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) with arsenic trioxide (ATO). We explored the effect of torsemide on the plasma concentrations of inorganic arsenic (iAs), monomethylarsonic acid (MMAV) and dimethyarsinic acid (DMAV) in APL patients treated with ATO and clarified its molecular mechanism in rats and cells. The study included 146 APL patients treated with ATO. 60（41.1 %) of these 146 patients were co-administered with torsemide. The treatment of torsemide increased plasma concentrations of iAs (P < 0.05) and DMAV (P < 0.05) in APL patients. The single co-administration of ATO and torsemide in rats significantly increased the plasma concentrations and AUC(0-t) of iAs (P < 0.05) and MMAV (P < 0.05), decreased the urinary excretion rates and the urine concentrations of iAs (P < 0.05) and DMAV (P < 0.05), and enhanced iAs (P < 0.05) and MMAV (P < 0.05) concentrations in the kidneys of rats. In addition, torsemide decreased the expression of multidrug resistance protein 4 (MRP4) in rat kidneys after 7 days of continuous co-administration (P < 0.05). We also treated MRP4-overexpressing HEK293T cells with ATO and different concentrations of torsemide. Torsemide markedly increased the concentrations of iAs, MMAV and DMAV by inhibiting MRP4 compared with ATO alone (P < 0.05). In conclusion, torsemide increased the plasma concentrations of arsenic metabolites in APL patients treated with ATO by inhibiting the transporter MRP4 in a dose-dependent manner.

Evaluation of the short-term echocardiographic effects of two loop diuretics, furosemide and torsemide, in a group of dogs.

BACKGROUND: Two loop diuretics, torsemide and frusemide, can affect the urinary system and consequently the cardiordiovascular haemodynamics in different ways. OBJECTIVES: This study compared a number of echocardiographic parameters and systemic arterial blood pressure (ABP) changes following administration of furosemide or torsemide. METHODS: Five shelter dogs underwent transthoracic two-dimensional M-mode echocardiography to obtain the following measurements: left ventricular internal dimension at end-systole (LVIDs), left ventricular internal dimension at end-diastole (LVIDd), fractional shortening (FS), heart rate (HR) and the distance between the mitral valve socket and the ventricle wall (septal to E Point, SEP). Arterial blood pressure was measured using the oscillometric method. Measurements recorded before treatment (baseline data) were compared to those after the dogs received furosemide (5 mg/kg) or torsemide (0.5 mg/kg). RESULTS: Torsemide significantly reduced blood pressure 1 h after administration, but this was not seen with furosemide. Fractional shortening, LVIDd and SEP decreased following both treatments, but there were no significant differences between the treatment groups. Torsemide increased heart rate above that seen in the furosemide groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that 1 h after administration, torsemide increases heart rate and decreases blood pressure when compared to furosemide, but both drugs have similar effects on measured cardiovascular indices.

Effect of Torsemide Versus Furosemide on Symptoms and Quality of Life Among Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure: The TRANSFORM-HF Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Loop diuretics are a primary therapy for the symptomatic treatment of heart failure (HF), but whether torsemide improves patient symptoms and quality of life better than furosemide remains unknown. As prespecified secondary end points, the TRANSFORM-HF trial (Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure) compared the effect of torsemide versus furosemide on patient-reported outcomes among patients with HF. METHODS: TRANSFORM-HF was an open-label, pragmatic, randomized trial of 2859 patients hospitalized for HF (regardless of ejection fraction) across 60 hospitals in the United States. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a loop diuretic strategy of torsemide or furosemide with investigator-selected dosage. This report examined effects on prespecified secondary end points, which included Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS; assessed as adjusted mean difference in change from baseline; range, 0-100 with 100 indicating best health status; clinically important difference, ≥5 points) and Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (range, 0-6; score ≥3 supporting evaluation for depression) over 12 months. RESULTS: Baseline data were available for 2787 (97.5%) patients for KCCQ-CSS and 2624 (91.8%) patients for Patient Health Questionnaire-2. Median (interquartile range) baseline KCCQ-CSS was 42 (27-60) in the torsemide group and 40 (24-59) in the furosemide group. At 12 months, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide in change from baseline in KCCQ-CSS (adjusted mean difference, 0.06 [95% CI, -2.26 to 2.37]; P=0.96) or the proportion of patients with Patient Health Questionnaire-2 score ≥3 (15.1% versus 13.2%: P=0.34). Results for KCCQ-CSS were similar at 1 month (adjusted mean difference, 1.36 [95% CI, -0.64 to 3.36]; P=0.18) and 6-month follow-up (adjusted mean difference, -0.37 [95% CI, -2.52 to 1.78]; P=0.73), and across subgroups by ejection fraction phenotype, New York Heart Association class at randomization, and loop diuretic agent before hospitalization. Irrespective of baseline KCCQ-CSS tertile, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide on change in KCCQ-CSS, all-cause mortality, or all-cause hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, a strategy of torsemide compared with furosemide did not improve symptoms or quality of life over 12 months. The effects of torsemide and furosemide on patient-reported outcomes were similar regardless of ejection fraction, previous loop diuretic use, and baseline health status. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03296813.

Effect of Torsemide vs Furosemide After Discharge on All-Cause Mortality in Patients Hospitalized With Heart Failure: The TRANSFORM-HF Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Although furosemide is the most commonly used loop diuretic in patients with heart failure, some studies suggest a potential benefit for torsemide. Objective: To determine whether torsemide results in decreased mortality compared with furosemide among patients hospitalized for heart failure. Design, Setting, and Participants: TRANSFORM-HF was an open-label, pragmatic randomized trial that recruited 2859 participants hospitalized with heart failure (regardless of ejection fraction) at 60 hospitals in the United States. Recruitment occurred from June 2018 through March 2022, with follow-up through 30 months for death and 12 months for hospitalizations. The final date for follow-up data collection was July 2022. Interventions: Loop diuretic strategy of torsemide (n = 1431) or furosemide (n = 1428) with investigator-selected dosage. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality in a time-to-event analysis. There were 5 secondary outcomes with all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization and total hospitalizations assessed over 12 months being highest in the hierarchy. The prespecified primary hypothesis was that torsemide would reduce all-cause mortality by 20% compared with furosemide. Results: TRANSFORM-HF randomized 2859 participants with a median age of 65 years (IQR, 56-75), 36.9% were women, and 33.9% were Black. Over a median follow-up of 17.4 months, a total of 113 patients (53 [3.7%] in the torsemide group and 60 [4.2%] in the furosemide group) withdrew consent from the trial prior to completion. Death occurred in 373 of 1431 patients (26.1%) in the torsemide group and 374 of 1428 patients (26.2%) in the furosemide group (hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.89-1.18]). Over 12 months following randomization, all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization occurred in 677 patients (47.3%) in the torsemide group and 704 patients (49.3%) in the furosemide group (hazard ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.83-1.02]). There were 940 total hospitalizations among 536 participants in the torsemide group and 987 total hospitalizations among 577 participants in the furosemide group (rate ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.84-1.07]). Results were similar across prespecified subgroups, including among patients with reduced, mildly reduced, or preserved ejection fraction. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for heart failure, torsemide compared with furosemide did not result in a significant difference in all-cause mortality over 12 months. However, interpretation of these findings is limited by loss to follow-up and participant crossover and nonadherence. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03296813.

The loop diuretic torasemide but not azosemide potentiates the anti-seizure and disease-modifying effects of midazolam in a rat model of birth asphyxia.

Loop diuretics such as furosemide and bumetanide, which act by inhibiting the Na-K-2Cl cotransporter NKCC2 at the thick ascending limb of the loop of Henle, have been shown to exert anti-seizure effects. However, the exact mechanism of this effect is not known. For bumetanide, it has been suggested that inhibition of the NKCC isoform NKCC1 in the membrane of brain neurons may be involved; however, NKCC1 is expressed by virtually all cell types in the brain, which makes any specific targeting of neuronal NKCC1 by bumetanide impossible. In addition, bumetanide only poorly penetrates the brain. We have previously shown that loop diuretics azosemide and torasemide also potently inhibit NKCC1. In contrast to bumetanide and furosemide, azosemide and torasemide lack a carboxylic group, which should allow them to better penetrate through biomembranes by passive diffusion. Because of the urgent medical need to develop new treatments for neonatal seizures and their adverse outcome, we evaluated the effects of azosemide and torasemide, administered alone or in combination with phenobarbital or midazolam, in a rat model of birth asphyxia and neonatal seizures. Neither diuretic suppressed the seizures when administered alone but torasemide potentiated the anti-seizure effect of midazolam. Brain levels of torasemide were below those needed to inhibit NKCC1. In addition to suppressing seizures, the combination of torasemide and midazolam, but not midazolam alone, prevented the cognitive impairment of the post-asphyxial rats at 3 months after asphyxia. Furthermore, aberrant mossy fiber sprouting in the hippocampus was more effectively prevented by the combination. We assume that either an effect on NKCC1 at the blood-brain barrier and/or cells in the periphery or the NKCC2-mediated diuretic effect of torasemide are involved in the present findings. Our data suggest that torasemide may be a useful option for improving the treatment of neonatal seizures and their adverse outcome.