Abstract:Background: Data on diuretic treatment in nephrotic syndrome (NS) are scarce. Our goal was to assess the non-inferiority of the combined oral diuretics (furosemide/hydrochlorothiazide/amiloride) compared to intravenous (i.v.) furosemide in patients with NS and resistant edema. Methods: We conducted a prospective randomized trial on 22 patients with resistant nephrotic edema (RNE), defined as hypervolemia and a FENa < 0.2%. Based on a computer-generated 1:1 randomization, we assigned patients to receive either intravenous furosemide (40 mg bolus and then continuous administration of 5 mg/h) or oral furosemide (40 mg/day) and hydrochlorothiazide/amiloride (50/5 mg/day) for a period of 5 days. Clinical and laboratory measurements were performed daily. Hydration status was assessed by bioimpedance on day 1 and at the end of day 5 after treatment initiation. The primary endpoint was weight change from baseline to day 5. Secondary endpoints were hydration status change measured by bioimpedance and safety outcomes (low blood pressure, severe electrolyte disturbances, acute kidney injury and worsening hypervolemia). Results: Primary endpoint analysis showed that after 5 days of treatment, there was a significant difference in weight change from baseline between groups [adjusted mean difference: -3.33 kg (95% CI: -6.34 to -0.31), p = 0.03], with a higher mean weight change in the oral diuretic treatment group [-7.10 kg (95% CI: -18.30 to -4.30) vs. -4.55 kg (95%CI: -6.73 to -2.36)]. Secondary endpoint analysis showed that there was no significant difference between groups regarding hydration status change [adjusted mean difference: -0.05 L (95% CI: -2.6 to 2.6), p = 0.96], with a mean hydration status change in the oral diuretic treatment group of -4.71 L (95% CI: -6.87 to -2.54) and -3.91 L (95% CI: -5.69 to -2.13) in the i.v. diuretic treatment group. We observed a significant decrease in adjusted mean serum sodium of -2.15 mmol/L [(95% CI: -4.25 to -0.05), p = 0.04]), favored by the combined oral diuretic treatment [-2.70 mmol/L (95% CI: -4.89 to -0.50) vs. -0.10 mmol/L (95%CI: -1.30 to 1.10)]. No statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of adverse events. Conclusions: A combination of oral diuretics based on furosemide, amiloride and hydrochlorothiazide is non-inferior to i.v. furosemide in weight control of patients with RNE and a similar safety profile.

Comparison of the chronic effects of bendrofluazide, bumetanide and frusemide on plasma biochemical variables.

Comparison of the acute vascular effects of frusemide and bumetanide

Comparison of the acute renal and peripheral vascular responses to frusemide and bumetanide at low and high dose

Effects of piretanide, bumetanide and frusemide on electrolyte and urate excretion in normal subjects

Treatment of fluid retention in cirrhosis: a comparison of bumetanide and frusemide

Comparison of bumetanide- and metolazone-based diuretic regimens to furosemide in acute heart failure

Comparison of loop diuretics in patients with chronic renal insufficiency

Bumetanide and frusemide: a comparison of dose-response curves in healthy men

Comparison of adverse reactions to bumetanide and furosemide

A comparison of bumetanide and furosemide in the treatment of ascites. Cooperative study

Long-term bumetanide treatment of renal edema. Comparison with furosemide

Enalapril versus bendroflumethiazide in type 2 diabetes complicated by hypertension

Bumetanide. A review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic use

Diuresis Efficacy in Ambulatory Congested Heart Failure Patients: Intra-patient Comparison of Three Diuretic Regimens (DEA-HF)

Bumetanide in refractory ascites of cirrhosis of the liver: a comparison with furosemide

Effect of finerenone on ambulatory blood pressure in chronic kidney disease in type 2 diabetes

Oral Furosemide and Hydrochlorothiazide/Amiloride versus Intravenous Furosemide for the Treatment of Resistant Nephrotic Syndrome

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

Comparison of three diuretic treatment strategies for patients with acute decompensated heart failure

How safe are bioequivalence studies in healthy volunteers?

Diuretic efficiency of a single dose of subcutaneous versus oral furosemide after heart failure hospitalization across diuretic resistance strata: A pilot randomized controlled trial