Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Aug 28:40:101105.
doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101105. eCollection 2021 Oct.

Effects of Selenium treatment on cardiac function in Chagas heart disease: Results from the STCC randomized Trial

Affiliations

Effects of Selenium treatment on cardiac function in Chagas heart disease: Results from the STCC randomized Trial

Marcelo T Holanda et al. EClinicalMedicine. .

Abstract

Background: Chagas disease (caused by Trypanosoma cruzi infection) evolves to chronic chagasic cardiomyopathy (CCC) affecting 1.8 million people worldwide. This is the first randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, clinical trial designed to estimate efficacy and safety of selenium (Se) treatment in CCC.

Methods: 66 patients with CCC stages B1 (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] > 45% and no heart failure; n = 54) or B2 (LVEF < 45% and no heart failure; n = 12) were randomly assigned to receive 100 mcg/day sodium selenite (Se, n = 32) or placebo (Pla, n = 34) for one year (study period: May 2014-September 2018). LVEF changes over time and adverse effects were investigated. Trial registration number: NCT00875173 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Findings: No significant differences between the two groups were observed for the primary outcome: mean LVEF after 6 (β= +1.1 p = 0.51 for Se vs Pla) and 12 months (β= +2.1; p = 0.23). In a subgroup analysis, statistically significant longitudinal changes were observed for mean LVEF in the stage B2 subgroup (β= +10.1; p = 0.02 for Se [n = 4] vs Pla [n = 8]). Se treatment was safe for CCC patients, and the few adverse effects observed were similarly distributed across the two groups.

Interpretation: Se treatment did not improve cardiac function (evaluated from LVEF) in CCC. However, in the subgroup of patients at B2 stage, a potential beneficial influence of Se was observed. Complementary studies are necessary to explore diverse Se dose and/or associations in different CCC stages (B2 and C), as well as in A and B1 stages with longer follow-up.

Funding: Brazilian Ministry of Health, Fiocruz, CNPq, FAPERJ.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig. 1
CONSORT 2010 flowchart of study participants indicating the two groups: Selenium (active treatment) and Placebo.
Fig 2
Fig. 2
Adjusted trajectories of LVEF during the follow-up of the two trial groups: Placebo (dashed line) and Selenium (solid line).
Fig 3
Fig. 3
Crude individual LVEF trajectories of patients treated with Placebo (A, C) or Selenium (B, D) during one year of follow-up, shown in the two different subgroups presenting baseline (BL) LVEF ≥ 45% (A, B) or <45% (C, D). Solid black lines highlight patients with rising trajectories, increasing > 5 absolute percentual points in LVEF. Dotted lines show cases with falling trajectories, decreasing > 10 absolute percentual points. Gray lines indicate patients varying < 5 percentual points in LFEV during 12 months of follow-up. Note that all the 6 patients showing an increase in LVEF (solid black lines) are only in the Selenium group (B, D).
Fig 4
Fig. 4
Frequency distribution of patients (percentage) in different ranges of selenium plasma levels measured by ICP-MS, comparing baseline (thin lines) with one-year follow-up (thick lines) in participants treated with Placebo (dashed lines) or Selenium (Solid lines). Note that curves do differ only after treatment with selenium. A shift to the right was detected in the frequency curve of selenium-treated participants, contrasting with the three other conditions. Abnormal low (< 64 mcg/L) was detected only in 10 out of 66 patients at baseline.

References

    1. World Health Organization. Chagas disease (American trypanosomiasis). Fact sheet updated March 11th, 2020. Last accessed on March 07 2021,, https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/chagas-disease-(america...)
    1. Pérez-Molina J.A., Molina I. Chagas disease. Lancet. 2017;(17):31612–31614. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31612-4. S0140-6736. - DOI
    1. Schmunis G.A., Yadon Z.E. Chagas disease: a Latin American health problem becoming a world health problem. Acta Trop. 2010;115:14. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2009.11.003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Viotti R., Alarcón de Noya B., Araujo-Jorge T.C. Towards a paradigm shift in the treatment of chronic Chagas disease. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58:635. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01662-13R. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hasslocher-Moreno A.M., Saraiva R.M., Sangenis L.H.C. Benznidazole decreases the risk of chronic Chagas disease progression and cardiovascular events: a long-term follow up study. EClin Med. 2021:31. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100694. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Associated data