Torsemide Crystalline Salts with a Significant Spring-Parachute Effect.

Torsemide is a long acting pyridine sulfonylurea diuretic. Torsemide hydrochloride is widely used now, there are only a few organic acid salts reported. Cocrystallization with organic acids is an effective way to improve its solubility. Here, we reported maleate and phthalate of torsemide, in which the organic acid lost a proton transferring to the pyridine of torsemide, and torsemide interacted with organic acid through N+ - H⋯O- hydrogen bond to form salts crystal. Surprisingly, maleate showed a clear "spring" pattern in apparent solubility, whereas phthalate had a "spring-parachute" effect. Both crystalline salts kept a higher solubility than torsemide without falling. The "spring-parachute" effect of crystalline salts promoted rapid dissolution of torsemide and kept a high concentration, thereby increasing its bioavailability.

Torsemide in Edema Associated with Chronic Kidney Disease.

Torsemide is a loop diuretic used to manage edema associated with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and acute kidney injury (AKI). It acts by inhibiting sodium and chloride ions reabsorption in the ascending limb of the loop of Henle, thereby increasing urine output and reducing fluid accumulation. Compared to other diuretics, torsemide has an extended duration of action, higher bioavailability, and its elimination route is primarily through the hepatic route, making it effective in patients with CKD and AKI. Clinical studies indicate that torsemide can improve symptoms of fluid overload and potentially enhance renal function.

Torsemide in Edema Associated with Hepatic Impairment.

Hepatic edema is caused by decreased hepatic protein synthesis, a consequence of decompensated liver cirrhosis. Fluid accumulation occurs when there is an increase in hydrostatic pressure in the hepatic sinusoids and splanchnic capillaries, as well as low albumin. The first-line treatment for cirrhosis-related ascites is an aldosterone antagonist (spironolactone); however, in severe and recurring ascites, a combination of aldosterone antagonists and loop diuretics (torsemide, furosemide, and bumetanide) is preferable. Torsemide outperformed furosemide in terms of natriuretic and diuretic effects at an equivalent dose. Pharmacological features of torsemide, such as lesser hypokalemia effect, longer duration of action, higher bioavailability, and extended half-life, make it a better alternative than furosemide. In clinical studies, it is considered a safer and more acceptable choice with fewer complications.

Torsemide in the Management of Essential Hypertension.

Torsemide, a loop diuretic, is increasingly recognized for its role in managing essential hypertension. Its mechanism of action involves inhibiting the reabsorption of sodium and chloride ions in the ascending loop of Henle in the kidneys. By doing so, torsemide promotes diuresis, which refers to increased urine production, and subsequently lowers blood pressure. Studies have shown that torsemide is comparably effective to other antihypertensive agents in lowering blood pressure, with the added benefit of potentially improving renal function. However, while torsemide shows promise in hypertensive management, further research is necessary to fully understand its long-term effects and to establish optimal dosing strategies. Future research should focus on clarifying its role in long-term blood pressure control and refining its use in clinical practice to maximize efficacy and minimize adverse effects.

Torsemide as a Primary Choice in Edema Associated with Heart Failure.

Heart failure (HF) is the fastest-growing disease with a higher fatality rate. The most differentiating feature of HF is pulmonary or peripheral edema, which is characterized by a gradient between intravascular and extravascular pressure. Loop diuretics were chosen as the primary treatment for edema associated with HF due to their efficacy and early onset of action. If an oral dose had not been provided, intravenous (IV) administration of torsemide, or equal doses of furosemide and bumetanide, was preferred. However, the key variables for selecting and administering loop diuretics are their pharmacological qualities as well as their clinical efficacy. Torsemide has greater bioavailability, a higher rate of absorption, a longer duration of action, and lesser ototoxicity, making it the primary choice in the management of edematous HF.

Torsemide in the Management of Pulmonary Edema.

Pulmonary edema, either cardiogenic or noncardiogenic, is caused by fluid accumulation in the alveolar spaces. Cardiogenic pulmonary edema (CPE), one of the causes of congestive heart failure (CHF), is treated with loop diuretics. Torsemide and furosemide were found to be useful in the treatment of CHF-associated pulmonary edema due to their ability to lower pulmonary capillary pressure and left ventricular end-diastolic pressure, respectively. Pharmacological features of torsemide, such as greater bioavailability, higher absorption rate, and efficacy, make it a better alternative for treating pulmonary edema than the regularly used loop diuretic, furosemide. Torsemide administered intravenously was found to be both efficacious and well tolerated in CPE. However, more research is needed to determine its usefulness in non-CPE.

Unique Pharmacological Properties and Safety Profiles of Loop Diuretics.

Loop diuretics are regarded as essential for the treatment of edematous conditions in heart failure, cirrhosis, and renal disease. The principal mechanism of action involves inhibiting the reabsorption of ions (Na+, 2Cl-, and K+) from the ascending loop of Henle. The pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) features of the commonly used diuretics (torsemide, furosemide, and bumetanide) influence the selection of diuretics in various disease states and dosing regimens. However, torsemide demonstrates superior PK and PD qualities, making it the preferred choice. Genetic polymorphisms must be explored to better understand the diversity of PK and PD parameters of loop diuretics between individuals.

Fixed-dose Combination of Torsemide and Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists.

The combination of torsemide and spironolactone presents a promising approach to managing conditions such as edema and hypertension. Torsemide, a loop diuretic, enhances diuresis by inhibiting sodium reabsorption in the kidneys, while spironolactone, a potassium-sparing diuretic and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), complements this effect by preventing potassium loss and offering additional cardiovascular benefits. This review examines clinical evidence supporting their combined effectiveness in treating fluid retention and improving outcomes in conditions like heart failure (HF). Given the limited research available, it is essential to carefully evaluate patient-specific factors. However, several side effects necessitate careful patient selection and monitoring. Moreover, optimizing dosing regimens is crucial to ensure the safety and efficacy of torsemide and MRAs in clinical settings.

UMOD Genotype-Blinded Trial of Ambulatory Blood Pressure Response to Torasemide.

BACKGROUND: UMOD (uromodulin) has been linked to hypertension through potential activation of Na+-K+-2Cl- cotransporter (NKCC2), a target of loop diuretics. We posited that hypertensive patients carrying the rs13333226-AA UMOD genotype would demonstrate greater blood pressure responses to loop diuretics, potentially mediated by this UMOD/NKCC2 interaction. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, genotype-blinded trial evaluated torasemide (torsemide) efficacy on systolic blood pressure (SBP) reduction over 16 weeks in nondiabetic, hypertensive participants uncontrolled on ≥1 nondiuretic antihypertensive for >3 months. The primary end point was the change in 24-hour ambulatory SBP (ABPM SBP) and SBP response trajectories between baseline and 16 weeks by genotype (AA versus AG/GG) due to nonrandomized groups at baseline (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03354897). RESULTS: Of 251 enrolled participants, 222 received torasemide and 174 demonstrated satisfactory treatment adherence and had genotype data. The study participants were middle-aged (59±11 years), predominantly male (62%), obese (body mass index, 32±7 kg/m2), with normal eGFR (92±17 mL/min/1.73 m²) and an average baseline ABPM of 138/81 mm Hg. Significant reductions in mean ABPM SBP were observed in both groups after 16 weeks (AA, -6.57 mm Hg [95% CI, -8.44 to -4.69]; P<0.0001; AG/GG, -3.22 [95% CI, -5.93 to -0.51]; P=0.021). The change in mean ABPM SBP (baseline to 16 weeks) showed a difference of -3.35 mm Hg ([95% CI, -6.64 to -0.05]; P=0.048) AA versus AG/GG genotypes. The AG/GG group displayed a rebound in SBP from 8 weeks, differing from the consistent decrease in the AA group (P=0.004 for difference in trajectories). CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm a plausible interaction between UMOD and NKCC2 and suggest a potential role for genotype-guided use of loop diuretics in hypertension management. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03354897.

Torsemide versus Furosemide in the Treatment of Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. / Torsemida em Comparação com Furosemida no Tratamento da Insuficiência Cardíaca: Uma Revisão Sistemática e Metanálise de Ensaios Clínicos Randomizados.

Furosemide is the most used diuretic for volume overload symptoms in patients with heart failure (HF). Recent data suggested that torsemide may be superior to furosemide in this setting. However, whether this translates into better clinical outcomes in this population remains unclear. To assess whether torsemide is superior to furosemide in the setting of HF. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing the efficacy of torsemide versus furosemide in patients with HF. PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for eligible trials. Outcomes of interest were all-cause hospitalizations, hospitalizations for HF (HHF), hospitalizations for all cardiovascular causes, all-cause mortality, and NYHA class improvement. Echocardiographic parameters were also assessed. We applied a random-effects model to calculate risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and a 0.05 level of significance. 12 RCTs were included, comprising 4,115 patients. Torsemide significantly reduced HHF (RR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.83; p=0.002; I2=0%), hospitalization for cardiovascular causes (RR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.88; p=0.0009; I2=0%), and improved LVEF (MD 4.51%; 95% CI, 2.94 to 6.07; p<0.0001; I2=0%) compared with furosemide. There was no significant difference in all-cause hospitalizations (RR 0.93; 95% CI, 0.86-1.00; p=0.04; I2=0%), all-cause mortality (RR 0.98; 95% CI, 0.87-1.10; p=0.73; I2=0%), NYHA class improvement (RR 1.25; 95% CI, 0.92-1.68; p=0.15; I2=0%), or NYHA class change (MD -0.04; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.16; p=0.70; I2=15%) between groups. Torsemide significantly reduced hospitalizations for HF and cardiovascular causes, also improving LVEF.

A furosemida é o diurético mais utilizado para o tratamento de sintomas de sobrecarga de volume em pacientes com insuficiência cardíaca. Dados recentes sugerem que a torsemida pode ser superior à furosemida neste contexto. No entanto, ainda não é claro se isso se traduz em melhores resultados clínicos nesta população. Avaliar se a torsemida é superior à furosemida no contexto da insuficiência cardíaca. Realizamos uma revisão sistemática e metanálise de estudos clínicos randomizados (ECRs) comparando a eficácia da torsemida em comparação com a furosemida em pacientes com insuficiência cardíaca. PubMed, Embase e Web of Science foram as bases de dados pesquisadas em busca de estudos elegíveis. Os desfechos de interesse foram internações por todas as causas, internações por insuficiência cardíaca (IIC), internações por todas as causas cardiovasculares, mortalidade por todas as causas, e melhoria de classe da NYHA. Parâmetros ecocardiográficos também foram avaliados. Foi aplicado um modelo de efeitos aleatórios para calcular as razões de risco (RR) e as diferenças médias (DM) com intervalos de confiança (IC) de 95% e nível de significância de 0,05. Foram incluídos 12 ECRs, envolvendo 4.115 pacientes. A torsemida reduziu significativamente a IIC (RR de 0,60; IC de 95%, 0,43-0,83; p=0,002; I2=0%), internação por causas cardiovasculares (RR de 0,72; IC de 95%, 0,60-0,88; p=0,0009; I2=0%), e melhora da fração de ejeção do ventrículo esquerdo (FEVE) (DM de 4,51%; IC de 95%, 2,94 a 6,07; p<0,0001; I2=0%) em comparação com a furosemida. Não houve diferença significativa no número de internações por todas as causas (RR de 0,93; IC de 95%, 0,86-1,00; p=0,04; I2=0%), mortalidade por todas as causas (RR de 0,98; IC de 95%, 0,87-1,10; p=0,73; I2=0%), melhora da classe NYHA (RR de 1,25; IC de 95%, 0,92-1,68; p=0,15; I2=0%), ou mudança de classe NYHA (DM de -0,04; IC de 95%, -0,24 a 0,16; p=0,70; I2=15%) entre os grupos. A torsemida reduziu significativamente as internações por insuficiência cardíaca e causas cardiovasculares, melhorando também a FEVE.

On-treatment analysis of torsemide versus furosemide for patients hospitalized for heart failure: A post-hoc analysis of TRANSFORM-HF.

AIM: The TRANSFORM-HF trial demonstrated no significant outcome differences between torsemide and furosemide following hospitalization for heart failure (HF), but may have been impacted by non-adherence to the randomized diuretic. The current study sought to determine the treatment effect of torsemide versus furosemide using an on-treatment analysis inclusive of all randomized patients except those confirmed non-adherent to study diuretic. METHODS AND RESULTS: TRANSFORM-HF was an open-label, pragmatic randomized trial of 2859 patients hospitalized for HF from June 2018 through March 2022. Patients were randomized to a loop diuretic strategy of torsemide versus furosemide with investigator-selected dosage. This post-hoc on-treatment analysis included all patients alive with either known or unknown diuretic status, and excluded patients confirmed to be non-adherent to study diuretic. This modified on-treatment definition was applied separately at time of hospital discharge and 30-day follow-up. All-cause mortality and hospitalization outcomes were assessed over 12 months. Overall, 2570 (89.9%) and 2374 (83.0%) patients were included in on-treatment analyses at discharge and 30-day follow-up, respectively. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between torsemide and furosemide in patients on-treatment at discharge (17.5% vs. 17.8%; hazard ratio [HR] 1.01 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-1.22], p = 0.96) and at 30-day follow-up (14.5% vs. 15.0%; HR 1.02 [95% CI 0.81-1.27], p = 0.90). All-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization was similar between torsemide and furosemide in patients who were on-treatment at discharge (58.3% vs. 61.3%; HR 0.92 [95% CI 0.82-1.03]) and 30-day follow-up (60.9% vs. 64.4%; HR 0.93 [95% CI 0.82-1.05]). In patients who were on-treatment at 30-day follow-up, there were 677 total hospitalizations in the torsemide group and 686 total hospitalizations in the furosemide group (rate ratio 0.99 [95% CI 0.86-1.14], p = 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: In TRANSFORM-HF, a post-hoc on-treatment analysis did not meaningfully differ from the original trial results. Among those deemed compliant with the assigned diuretic, there remained no significant difference in mortality or hospitalization after HF hospitalization with a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide. CLINICAL TRAIL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03296813.

Impact of baseline kidney dysfunction on oral diuretic efficacy following hospitalization for heart failure - insights from TRANSFORM-HF.

AIM: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for heart failure (HF), a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide showed no difference in all-cause mortality or hospitalization. Clinicians have traditionally favoured torsemide in the setting of kidney dysfunction due to better oral bioavailability and longer half-life, but direct supportive evidence is lacking. METHODS AND RESULTS: The TRANSFORM-HF trial randomized patients hospitalized for HF to a long-term strategy of torsemide versus furosemide, and enrolled patients across the spectrum of renal function (without dialysis). In this post-hoc analysis, baseline renal function during the index hospitalization was assessed as categories of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR; <30, 30-<60, ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2). The interaction between baseline renal function and treatment effect of torsemide versus furosemide was assessed with respect to mortality and hospitalization outcomes, and the change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS). Of 2859 patients randomized, 336 (11.8%) had eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m2, 1138 (39.8%) had eGFR 30-<60 ml/min/1.73 m2, and 1385 (48.4%) had eGFR ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2. Baseline eGFR did not modify treatment effects of torsemide versus furosemide on all adverse clinical outcomes including individual components or composites of all-cause mortality and all-cause (re)-hospitalizations, both when assessing eGFR categorically or continuously (p-value for interaction all >0.108). Similarly, no treatment effect modification by eGFR was found for the change in KCCQ-CSS (p-value for interaction all >0.052) when assessing eGFR categorically or continuously. CONCLUSION: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, there was no significant difference in clinical and patient-reported outcomes between torsemide and furosemide, irrespective of renal function.

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.