Haemodynamic Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan Initiation in Outpatients with Chronic Heart Failure

Background

Sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) improves outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Data about the immediate, short-, and intermediate-term hemodynamic effects of S/V are limited.

Methods

In this prospective observational study, 37 outpatients with chronic HFrEF were treated with S/V according to current guideline recommendations. Next to clinical, laboratory and echocardiographic parameters, haemodynamic variables were assessed non-invasively by use of inert gas rebreathing and bioimpedance cardiography at baseline and at 2-week, 3-month and 6-month follow-up. The course of variables throughout the study and the relationship between variables were analysed using fractional polynomials.

Results

S/V treatment resulted in short- and intermediate-term improvements in NYHA functional class (2.3 ± 0.6 at baseline vs. 1.9 ± 0.5 at 6-month follow-up, p = 0.14), 6-min walk test (453 ± 110 vs. 528 ± 98 m, p = 0.02), ejection fraction (31 ± 9 vs. 36 ± 12%, p = 0.13), pulmonary artery pressure (39 ± 10 vs. 31 ± 10 mmHg, p = 0.02), and NT-proBNP values (1702 (782–2897 vs. 1004 (599–1627) ng/L, p = 0.03). In addition, S/V caused immediate decreases in systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI) and systolic blood pressure (SBP), which were associated with a simultaneous drop in stroke volume (SV) and cardiac index (CI). However, while SVRI and SBP remained at low levels during further treatment, SV and CI restored rapidly and increased to slightly higher levels thereafter.

Conclusion

The vasodilative effects of S/V result in immediate reductions in SVRI, SBP, SV and CI. However, S/V induces reverse cardiac remodelling, which is apparent shortly after treatment initiation and leads to improvements of clinical, functional, echocardiographic, laboratory and haemodynamic variables.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40256-022-00549-2.

Effects of sacubitril/valsartan on glycemia in patients with diabetes and heart failure: the PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF trials

BACKGROUND

Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan lowered HbA1c and reduced new insulin therapy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and diabetes in the PARADIGM-HF trial. We sought to assess the glycemic effects of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and diabetes, and across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in heart failure and diabetes.

METHODS

We compared the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, relative to valsartan, on HbA1c, new insulin therapy and hypoglycemia in the randomized controlled trial PARAGON-HF, and performed pooled analyses of PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF.

RESULTS

Among 2395 patients with HFpEF and diabetes in PARAGON-HF, sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan reduced HbA1c (baseline-adjusted between-group difference in HbA1c change at 48 weeks: - 0.24%, 95% CI - 0.33 to - 0.16%, P < 0.001). Numerically, new insulin treatment was initiated less often in the sacubitril/valsartan group than in the valsartan group, but the difference was not statistically significant (12.8% vs. 16.1%; HR: 0.80, 95% CI 0.62-1.02, P = 0.07). Hypoglycemia adverse event reports were low, but more frequent in those receiving sacubitril/valsartan than in the valsartan group (4.2% vs. 2.6%; HR: 1.64, 95% CI 1.05-2.56, P = 0.030). In a pooled analysis of PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF, the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on change in HbA1c was not significantly modified by LVEF (Pinteraction = 0.56). Across the spectrum of LVEF, sacubitril/valsartan reduced new insulin therapy (HR: 0.75, 95% CI 0.63-0.89, P = 0.001), compared with enalapril or valsartan.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril/valsartan reduced HbA1c and new insulin therapy in patients with heart failure and diabetes across the spectrum of LVEF but may be associated with a slightly higher risk for hypoglycemia. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01920711.

Efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in an outpatient setting: A single-center real-world retrospective study in HFrEF patients with focus on possible predictors of clinical outcome

BACKGROUND

Currently, data on sacubitril/valsartan therapy from the real-world settings are scarce and the predictors of a good clinical responsiveness to this drug are unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To assess efficacy and safety profile of sacubitril/valsartan and to identify predictors for a better clinical outcome.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Clinical, laboratory and echocardiographic data of 95 chronic heart failure (CHF) patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) were retrospectively analyzed. A good efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan was defined as the fulfilment of at least 2 of the following criteria: improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) or functional status, and reduction of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels or hospitalization rates.

RESULTS

Under sacubitril/valsartan, major improvements were observed in LVEF, the New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, NT-proBNP levels, and hospitalization rates. Patients with a good efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan were characterized by initially worse LVEF (median (interquartile range (IQR)): 29.0% (23.0-33.0%) compared to 32.0% (28.5-38.0%) with more frequent nonischemic etiology (65.4% compared to 41.9%) and hospitalizations for CHF/month (0.016 (0.004-0.057) compared to 0.000 (0.000-0.012)), lower cholesterol (42.3% compared to 65.1%), higher C-reactive protein (CRP) levels at baseline (0.5 mg/L (0.5-1.0 mg/L) compared to 0.5 mg/L (0.5-0.5 mg/L)), and a shorter timespan between CHF diagnosis and the start of sacubitril/valsartan treatment (66.0 (11.0-127.0) compared to 111 (73.0-211.0) months) (p < 0.05 each). In a multivariate Cox analysis, only the last 2 parameters were shown to be independent predictors of good clinical responsiveness to sacubitril/valsartan (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.263, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = [1.048; 1.521]; HR = 0.992, 95% CI = [0.987; 0.997], p < 0.05, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril/valsartan improved LVEF, NYHA class, NT-proBNP levels, and hospitalization rates, mostly without relevant side effects. The independent predictors of a good clinical efficacy were higher CRP levels at baseline and a shorter delay between CHF diagnosis and the initialization of sacubitril/valsartan therapy.

Efficacy and safety of sacubitril-valsartan in patients with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials: A PRISMA-compliant article

BACKGROUND

To investigate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril-valsartan in patients with heart failure, relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were analyzed.

METHODS

We used Cochrane Library, PubMed web of science, CNKI, VIP, Medline, ISI Web of Science, CBMdisc, and Wanfang database to conduct a systematic literature research. A fixed-effects model was used to evaluate the standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals. We conducted sensitivity analysis and analyzed publication bias to comprehensively estimate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril-valsartan in patients with heart failure.

RESULTS

Among 132 retrieved studies, 5 relevant RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. The result showed that left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was improved after sacubitril-valsartan in patients with heart failure, with an SMD (95% CI of 1.1 [1.01, 1.19] and P < .00001 fixed-effects model). Combined outcome indicators showed that, combined outcome indicators showed that, compared with control group, the left ventricular volume index (LAVI) (WMD = -2.18, 95% CI [-3.63, -0.74], P = .003), the E/e' (WMD = -1.01, 95% CI [-1.89, -0.12], P = .03), the cardiovascular death (RR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.83, 0.96], P = .003], and the rehospitalization rate of heart failure (RR = 0.83, 95% CI [0.78, 0.88], P < .01) decreased more significantly, but it had no effect on renal function (WMD = 0.74, 95% CI [0.54, 1.01], P = .06).

CONCLUSIONS

The present meta-analysis suggested that sacubitril-valsartan may improve the cardiac function of heart failure. Given the limited number of included studies, additional large sample-size RCTs are required to determine the long-term effect of cardiac function of sacubitril-valsartan in patients with heart failure.

Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan vs Standard Medical Therapies on Plasma NT-proBNP Concentration and Submaximal Exercise Capacity in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction: The PARALLAX Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

There is limited evidence on the benefits of sacubitril/valsartan vs broader renin angiotensin system inhibitor background therapy on surrogate outcome markers, 6-minute walk distance, and quality of life in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF >40%).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels, 6-minute walk distance, and quality of life vs background medication-based individualized comparators in patients with chronic heart failure and LVEF of more than 40%.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A 24-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel group clinical trial (August 2017-October 2019). Of 4632 patients screened at 396 centers in 32 countries, 2572 patients with heart failure, LVEF of more than 40%, elevated NT-proBNP levels, structural heart disease, and reduced quality of life were enrolled (last follow-up, October 28, 2019).

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized 1:1 either to sacubitril/valsartan (n = 1286) or to background medication-based individualized comparator (n = 1286), ie, enalapril, valsartan, or placebo stratified by prior use of a renin angiotensin system inhibitor.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary end points were change from baseline in plasma NT-proBNP level at week 12 and in the 6-minute walk distance at week 24. Secondary end points were change from baseline in quality of life measures and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class at 24 weeks.

RESULTS

Among 2572 randomized patients (mean age, 72.6 years [SD, 8.5 years]; 1301 women [50.7%]), 2240 (87.1%) completed the trial. At baseline, the median NT-proBNP levels were 786 pg/mL in the sacubitril/valsartan group and 760 pg/mL in the comparator group. After 12 weeks, patients in the sacubitril/valsartan group (adjusted geometric mean ratio to baseline, 0.82 pg/mL) had a significantly greater reduction in NT-proBNP levels than did those in the comparator group (adjusted geometric mean ratio to baseline, 0.98 pg/mL) with an adjusted geometric mean ratio of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80 to 0.88; P < .001). At week 24, there was no significant between-group difference in median change from baseline in the 6-minute walk distance with an increase of 9.7 m vs 12.2 m (adjusted mean difference, -2.5 m; 95% CI, -8.5 to 3.5; P = .42). There was no significant between-group difference in the mean change in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (12.3 vs 11.8; mean difference, 0.52; 95% CI, -0.93 to 1.97) or improvement in NYHA class (23.6% vs 24.0% of patients; adjusted odds ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.18). The most frequent adverse events in the sacubitril/valsartan group vs the comparator group were hypotension (14.1% vs 5.5%), albuminuria (12.3% vs 7.6%), and hyperkalemia (11.6% vs 10.9%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with heart failure and left ventricular ejection factor of higher than 40%, sacubitril/valsartan treatment compared with standard renin angiotensin system inhibitor treatment or placebo resulted in a significantly greater decrease in plasma N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide levels at 12 weeks but did not significantly improve 6-minute walk distance at 24 weeks. Further research is warranted to evaluate potential clinical benefits of sacubitril/valsartan in these patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03066804.

Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibition in Acute Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

In patients with symptomatic heart failure, sacubitril-valsartan has been found to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death from cardiovascular causes more effectively than an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor. Trials comparing the effects of these drugs in patients with acute myocardial infarction have been lacking.

METHODS

We randomly assigned patients with myocardial infarction complicated by a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, pulmonary congestion, or both to receive either sacubitril-valsartan (97 mg of sacubitril and 103 mg of valsartan twice daily) or ramipril (5 mg twice daily) in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure (outpatient symptomatic heart failure or heart failure leading to hospitalization), whichever occurred first.

RESULTS

A total of 5661 patients underwent randomization; 2830 were assigned to receive sacubitril-valsartan and 2831 to receive ramipril. Over a median of 22 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 338 patients (11.9%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 373 patients (13.2%) in the ramipril group (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 1.04; P = 0.17). Death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 308 patients (10.9%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 335 patients (11.8%) in the ramipril group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.07); death from cardiovascular causes in 168 (5.9%) and 191 (6.7%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.08); and death from any cause in 213 (7.5%) and 242 (8.5%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.05). Treatment was discontinued because of an adverse event in 357 patients (12.6%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 379 patients (13.4%) in the ramipril group.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril-valsartan was not associated with a significantly lower incidence of death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure than ramipril among patients with acute myocardial infarction. (Funded by Novartis; PARADISE-MI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02924727.).

Safety and Efficacy of the Combination of Sacubitril/Valsartan and SGLT2i in HFrEF Patients (SECSI Registry)

ABSTRACT

Recent studies have proven benefit of SGLT2i drugs in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but their safety when combined with angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) has not been established. The Safety and Efficacy of the Combination of Sacubitril/Valsartan and SGLT2i in HFrEF Patients registry was conducted to address this issue. SECSI registry is a consecutive, observational, retrospective, multicentre study conducted in 3 Heart Failure Units in Spain. It included 144 HFrEF patients who were treated with ARNI and iSGLT2. Data were collected at baseline, month 2, and month 6. The primary endpoint was the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), after the initiation of ARNI and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i). Secondary endpoints included potassium levels and functional class (New York Heart Association class). There were 3 prespecified subgroup analyses: Elderly patients (≥70 years), patients with chronic kidney disease (KDIGO classification G3), and the sequence of drug initiation. Mean age was 69.9 ± 10.1 years, and 110 (76.4%) were men. Left ventricular ejection fraction was 32 ± 7.8%, and most patients were symptomatic [123 (87.2%) New York Heart Association II/III/IV]. eGFR decreased at month 2 and this trend was maintained at month 6 [eGFR baseline 68.5 ± 17.3, month 2 62 ± 19.7 and month 6 64.7 ± 8.6 mL/min/1.73 m2 (P < 0.01 for both)]. In prespecified analysis, elder patients and those who simultaneously initiate both treatments showed the steeper decrease in eGFR. To conclude, co-administration of SGLT2i and ARNI in routine care in HFrEF patients produced a slight decrease in eGFR at 6 months of follow-up. This decrease was especially significant in elder patients and those who initiate both drugs simultaneously.

Characteristics of Heart Failure Patients With or Without Hypotension When Transitioning From Nitroprusside to Sacubitril-Valsartan

BACKGROUND

Sacubitril-valsartan is an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor indicated for the treatment of patients with symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Little is known about outcomes of HFrEF patients transitioned from sodium nitroprusside (SNP) to sacubitril-valsartan during an admission for acute decompensated heart failure. We sought to describe characteristics of patients initiated on sacubitril-valsartan while receiving SNP and, in particular, those patients who did and did not experience hypotension requiring interruption or discontinuation of sacubitril-valsartan.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective case series of adult patients (>18 years) with HFrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%) admitted to the University of Michigan cardiac intensive care unit between July 2018 to September 2020 who received sacubitril-valsartan while on SNP.

RESULTS

A total of 15 patients with acute decompensated heart failure were initiated on sacubitril-valsartan while on SNP. The mean age was 57 ± 15.9 years. Seven (46.7%) patients experienced hypotension. The patients in the cohort who experienced hypotension were numerically older (60 ± 17 vs. 55 ± 15.5), and the majority were white (86%). Patients with hypotension had a numerically lower left ventricular ejection fraction (13 ± 4.2 vs. 18 ± 8.2) and higher serum creatinine (1.4 ± 0.54 vs. 0.88 ± 0.25). Seven (100%) patients received a diuretic on the day of sacubitril-valsartan initiation in those who experienced hypotension compared with 2 (25%) in those who did not experience hypotension.

CONCLUSIONS

In almost half of patients admitted to the cardiac intensive care unit with acutely decompensated HFrEF, significant hypotension was seen when initiating sacubitril-valsartan while on SNP. Future studies should evaluate appropriate patients for this transition and delineate appropriate titration parameters.

Sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril on exercise capacity in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study

Sacubitril/valsartan reduces mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) when compared with enalapril. However, it is unknown the effect of both treatments on exercise capacity. We compared sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril in patients with HFrEF based on peak oxygen consumption (VO₂) and 6-minute walk test (6-MWT).

METHODS

We included 52 participants with HFrEF with a left ventricular ejection fraction <40% to receive either sacubitril/valsartan (target dose of 400 mg daily) or enalapril (target dose of 40 mg daily). Peak VO₂ was measured by using cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Six-minute walk test was also performed.

RESULTS

At 12 weeks, the sacubitril/valsartan (mean dose 382.6 ± 57.6 mg daily) group had increased peak VO₂ of 13.1% (19.35 ± 0.99 to 21.89 ± 1.04 mL/kg/min) and enalapril (mean dose 34.4 ± 9.2 mg daily) 5.6% (18.58 ± 1.19 to 19.62 ± 1.25 mL/kg/min). However, no difference was found between groups (P = .332 interaction). At 24 weeks, peak VO₂ increased 13.5% (19.35 ± 0.99 to 21.96 ± 0.98 mL/kg/min) and 12.0% (18.58 ± 1.19 to 20.82 ± 1.18 mL/kg/min) in sacubitril/valsartan (mean dose 400 ± 0 mg daily) and enalapril (mean dose 32.7 ± 11.0 mg daily), respectively. However, no differences were found between groups (P= .332 interaction). At 12 weeks, 6-MWT increased in both groups (sacubitril/valsartan: 459 ± 18 to 488 ± 17 meters [6.3%] and enalapril: 443 ± 22 to 477 ± 21 meters [7.7%]). At 24 weeks, sacubitril/valsartan increased 18.3% from baseline (543 ± 26 meters) and enalapril decreased slightly to 6.8% (473 ± 31 meters), but no differences existed between groups (P= .257 interaction).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan did not substantially improve peak VO₂ or 6-MWT after 12 or 24 weeks in participants with HFrEF. (NEPRIExTol-HF Trial, ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03190304).

Use of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor in Patients on Maintenance Hemodialysis with Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction, Real-World Experience From a Single Center

INTRODUCTION

Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) has been recommended by major guidelines as the leading therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). But little is known about its safety and effectiveness among maintenance hemodialysis patients with HFrEF in real-word practice.

METHODS

An observational study was conducted among maintenance hemodialysis patients who received ARNI at our dialysis center. Enrollment commenced on June 1, 2018; and follow-up was completed on May 31, 2019.

RESULTS

A total of 110 patients included in the study (age: 54.2 ± 14.8 y, 59% males). After 12 months of treatment, the average ARNI daily dose increased from 135 mg to 308 mg. The mean NT-pro- BNP concentration at baseline was 14455 pg/mL and 6435 pg/ mL after 12 months of treatment (P < .001). The left ventricular ejection fraction improved (35.1 vs. 49.8%, P < .001) over the 12 months, while left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, left ventricular mass index, left ventricular end-systolic diameter, and left atrial diameter also changed significantly (167.8 vs. 154.9 g/m, P < .001; 52.2 vs. 51.5 mm, P < .05; 35.9 vs. 36.9 mm, P < .001; 42.2 vs. 40.3 mm, P < .001). Furthermore, we found the quality of life and the NYHA symptom severity class improved significantly (P < .001). Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated that higher dose of ARNI and less vintage of HD were associated with best survival.

CONCLUSION

In our study, ARNI appeared to be safe, relieved heart failure symptoms, and improved the scores of KCCQ physical and social activities in hemodialysis patients in real-world practice.

Five Years of Sacubitril/Valsartan-a Safety Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials and Real-World Pharmacovigilance

PURPOSE

In PARADIGM-HF, sacubitril/valsartan showed a significant reduction in mortality and hospitalization for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Despite proven efficacy, sacubitril/valsartan has moderate uptake in clinical practice. This study explores the safety profile of sacubitril/valsartan by comparing adverse events in RCT and real-world use.

METHODS

We studied hypotension, renal dysfunction, hyperkalemia, and angioedema associated with sacubitril/valsartan in RCTs and pharmacovigilance databases. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed with six RCTs investigating sacubitril/valsartan vs. control/comparators in heart failure patients. WHO's VigiBase, FAERS, and EMA's EudraVigilance were mined to obtain spontaneously reported real-world adverse events. Disproportionality analysis was performed with the FDA's OpenVigil 2.0.

RESULTS

Six RCTs enrolled 15,538 patients with heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fractions. There was no statistical difference for the composite of hypotension, renal dysfunction, hyperkalemia, and angioedema between sacubitril/valsartan and its comparators viz. ACEi or ARBs (OR 1.23, CI 0.98-1.56; p = 0.08). A total of 103,038 adverse events were registered in the spontaneous reporting systems. Hypotension was the most reported adverse event. Proportions of composite adverse events were 20% in VigiBase, 17% in FAERS, and 39% with EudraVigilance. Disproportionality analysis showed a lower risk of adverse events with sacubitril/valsartan than other guideline-directed heart failure medications used in clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

With increased uptake of sacubitril/valsartan, risks of hypotension, renal dysfunction, hyperkalemia, and angioedema appear low and acceptable in RCTs and global clinical practice.

Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 for Short-term Management of Essential Hypertension Compared With ARBs: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

ABSTRACT

Whether LCZ696 (neprilysin inhibitor + valsartan) has greater advantages of blood pressure (BP) lowering than angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers (ARBs) is unclear. To provide more detailed information about the benefits of LCZ696, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LCZ696 for short-term management of hypertension compared with ARBs. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov, using relevant keywords. We used a random or fixed effects model to calculate the weighted mean difference (WMD) of changes in BP and the risk ratio (RR) for BP control rates and adverse events (AEs). In this meta-analysis, 9 studies were incorporated. Compared with ARBs, LCZ696 revealed a significant reduction in mean sitting systolic BP [msSBP; WMD -4.79 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval (CI): -5.46 to -4.11 mm Hg], mean sitting diastolic BP (msDBP; WMD -2.12 mm Hg; 95% CI: -2.53 to -1.71 mm Hg), mean sitting pulse pressure (msPP; WMD -2.79 mm Hg; 95% CI: -3.52 to -2.07 mm Hg), and mean ambulatory pulse pressure (maPP; WMD -2.96 mm Hg; 95% CI: -3.35 to -2.57 mm Hg). LCZ696 had a higher BP control rate than ARBs (OR = 1.55; 95% CI: 1.39 to 1.73). There was no significant difference between LCZ696 and ARBs in the incidence of AEs (RR = 1.10; 95% CI: 0.96 to 1.25) and discontinuations because of AEs (RR = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.54 to 1.32). Overall, in short-term treatment, LCZ696 has greater advantages of antihypertensive efficacy and the safety is not inferior to ARBs. Further long-term studies are required to rule out the potential risks of beta amyloid accumulation and the potential for Alzheimer's disease.

Clinical relevance of transient worsening renal function after initiation of sacubitril/valsartan

BACKGROUND

The worsening of renal function after the start of valsartan therapy is relatively common in clinical practice. However, few data are available on the incidence of worsening renal function after the beginning of therapy with sacubitril/valsartan.

METHODS

We retrospectively enrolled 202 outpatients with HFrEF that started therapy with sacubitril/valsartan to evaluate the prevalence of worsening renal function and its clinical significance.

RESULTS

At 1 month, a worsening renal function (defined as a > 20% decrease in eGFR occurring after 1 month of ARNi therapy) was found in 68 patients (33%), however after a mean follow-up of 650 ± 80 days, Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no significant in terms of HF-related deaths, HF-related hospitalizations, and the need for renal replacement therapy (25.2 vs. 23.6%; p = .812). In addition, the renal function recovered in patients with early WRF at 3 months (62 + 9.3 ml/min/1.73 m² vs. 63 ± 13.8 ml/min/1.73 m²; p < .05), with an improvement in estimated glomerular filtration rate at 1 year compared with baseline value (62 ± 9.3 ml/min/1.73 m² vs. 69 ± 8.6 ml/min/1.73 m²; p < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

WRF occurs in nearly 30% of HFrEF patients without impacting clinical outcomes; HF specialists should be aware of these changes to avoid unnecessary discontinuation of sacubitril/valsartan therapy.

Sacubitril-Valsartan Improves Anemia of Cardiorenal Syndrome (CRS)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Anemia is a common complication of heart failure and Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD). Sacubitril-valsartan is a novel therapy for the treatment of chronic Heart Failure with a reduced Ejection Fraction (HFrEF). We have evaluated the short-term effects of sacubitril- valsartan on the anemia of CRS.

METHODS

The study group comprised 39 patients with HFrEF, who were followed-up for three months. The study is a retrospective analysis of clinical data. Data of 3 months' and baseline visits were recorded including plasmatic creatinine, glomerular filtration rate, cystatin C, kaliemia, haemoglobin, pro-BNP, and albuminuria.

RESULTS

In all, 34 patients ended the follow-up. Mean sacubitril-valsartan dosage at baseline was 101 ± 62 mg/day and 126 ± 59 mg/day at end. Mean hemoglobin increased from 12.2 ± 1.1 g/dl at baseline to 12.9 ± 1.0 g/dl (p = 0.001,). Prevalence of anemia was 64.7% (95%CI, 47.9-78.5%) at baseline and 38.4 (95%CI, 23.9-55.0%) after the follow-up (p = 0.016). Serum cystatin C levels decreased from 2.71 ± 1.0 to 2.48 ± 1.0 mg/l (p = 0.028). Serum K levels remained unchanged (baseline 4.94 ± 0.60, three months visit 4.94 ± 0.61 mmol/l, p = 0.998).

CONCLUSION

Sacubitril-valsartan improves anemia in CRS patients. An improvement in serum cystatin levels was observed. Few untoward effects were detected. These findings should be confirmed in wider clinical trials.

Sacubitril/valsartan-treated patients with exacerbated acute heart failure: approaches to care in the emergency department and on the ward

OBJECTIVES

To describe the pattern of care usually given to patients with acute heart failure (AHF) who are taking sacubitril/valsartan (SV) and to explore the effects of care characteristics on clinical outcomes.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Exploratory study of AHF cases in patients taking SV who were included in the register for the Epidemiology of Acute Heart Failure in Emergency Departments during the sixth period of data collection (EAHFE-6). We extracted baseline and episode variables and information related to SV treatment. We also analyzed associations between the discontinuation of SV therapy and adverse events within 180 days (all-cause mortality) and after discharge (emergency revisits, admission for AHF, death from any cause, or a composite event).

RESULTS

. Fifty patients on SV were included. The median time on SV therapy was 81 days (interquartile range, 43-284 days). SV was discontinued in 19 cases (38%; 5 in the emergency department and 14 on the ward). Sixteen records specified the reason for discontinuing SV: renal insufficiency, 4 cases; arterial hypotension, 3; weakness/dizziness, 3; and exacerbated AHF, 3. SV discontinuation was associated with older age, absence of treatment with a betablocker, and hyperkalemia. The EAHFE-6 cases did not reveal significant differences related to SV discontinuation with respect to the rates of adverse events within 180 days or on discharge after the index event.

CONCLUSION

Long-term SV therapy is discontinued in over a third of patients who present with exacerbated AHF even though no association with clinical outcomes could be identified.

Systolic Blood Pressure in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction Treated With Sacubitril/Valsartan

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend targeting systolic blood pressure (SBP) <130 mm Hg in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) with limited data.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to determine the optimal achieved SBP and whether the treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan on outcomes are related to BP lowering, particularly among women who derive greater benefit from sacubitril/valsartan.

METHODS

Using 4,795 trial participants, this study related baseline and time-updated mean achieved SBP quartiles (<120, 120 to 129, 130 to 139, ≥140 mm Hg) to the primary outcome (cardiovascular death and total heart failure hospitalization), its components, myocardial infarction or stroke, and a renal composite outcome. At the 16-week visit, the study assessed the relationship between SBP change and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score (KCCQ-OSS) and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). The study analyzed whether the BP-lowering effects of sacubitril/valsartan accounted for its treatment effects.

RESULTS

Average age was 73 ± 8 years, and 52% of participants were women. After multivariable adjustment, baseline and mean achieved SBP of 120 to 129 mm Hg demonstrated the lowest risk for all outcomes. Sacubitril/valsartan reduced SBP by 5.2 mm Hg (95% confidence interval: 4.4 to 6.0) compared with valsartan at 4 weeks, which was not modified by baseline SBP. However, sacubitril/valsartan reduced SBP more in women (6.3 mm Hg) than men (4.0 mm Hg) (interaction p = 0.005). Change in SBP was directly associated with change in NT-proBNP (p < 0.001) but not KCCQ-OSS (p = 0.40). The association between sacubitril/valsartan and the primary outcome was not modified by baseline SBP (interaction p = 0.50) and was similar when adjusting for time-updated SBP, regardless of sex.

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline and mean achieved SBP of 120 to 129 mm Hg identified the lowest risk patients with HFpEF. Baseline SBP did not modify the treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan, and the BP-lowering effects of sacubitril/valsartan did not account for its effects on outcomes, regardless of sex. (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711).

Sacubitril/Valsartan is useful and safe in elderly people with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. Data from a real-word cohort

BACKGROUND

HF elderly patients are underrepresented in Sacubitril/Valsartan HF trials, and the effect of S/V in real-life patients with advanced age is unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use and safety of S/V in a real-word cohort of elderly patients.

METHODS

We performed a prospective registry of patients who started S/V in clinical practice. We compared baseline characteristics, adverse events during follow-up and causes of S/V withdrawal according to age.

RESULTS

A total of 427 patients started treatment with S/V: 222 (52.0%)<70 years old, 140 (32.8%) between 70 and 79 and 65 (15.2%)≥80. During a mean follow-up of 7.0±0.1months S/V was well tolerated, with no age-related differences in adverse events (26.8%, 25.9%, 23.1% respectively; p=0.83). Symptomatic hypotension tended to be more frequent in the elderly (19.8%, 25.6%, 33.3% respectively; p=0.17). The withdrawal of S/V was more frequent in younger patients (14.4%, 10.0%, 4.6% respectively; p=0.05) and related to poor prognosis (HR 13.51, 95% CI 3.22-56.13, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril/Valsartan is useful and safe in elderly people with HF-rEF in real-life clinical practice, and withdrawal is associated to poor prognosis. The doses achieved are lower in elderly people.

In-silico simulated prototype-patients using TPMS technology to study a potential adverse effect of sacubitril and valsartan

Unveiling the mechanism of action of a drug is key to understand the benefits and adverse reactions of a medication in an organism. However, in complex diseases such as heart diseases there is not a unique mechanism of action but a wide range of different responses depending on the patient. Exploring this collection of mechanisms is one of the clues for a future personalized medicine. The Therapeutic Performance Mapping System (TPMS) is a Systems Biology approach that generates multiple models of the mechanism of action of a drug. Each molecular mechanism generated could be associated to particular individuals, here defined as prototype-patients, hence the generation of models using TPMS technology may be used for detecting adverse effects to specific patients. TPMS operates by (1) modelling the responses in humans with an accurate description of a protein network and (2) applying a Multilayer Perceptron-like and sampling strategy to find all plausible solutions. In the present study, TPMS is applied to explore the diversity of mechanisms of action of the drug combination sacubitril/valsartan. We use TPMS to generate a wide range of models explaining the relationship between sacubitril/valsartan and heart failure (the indication), as well as evaluating their association with macular degeneration (a potential adverse effect). Among the models generated, we identify a set of mechanisms of action associated to a better response in terms of heart failure treatment, which could also be associated to macular degeneration development. Finally, a set of 30 potential biomarkers are proposed to identify mechanisms (or prototype-patients) more prone of suffering macular degeneration when presenting good heart failure response. All prototype-patients models generated are completely theoretical and therefore they do not necessarily involve clinical effects in real patients. Data and accession to software are available at http://sbi.upf.edu/data/tpms/

Renal effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a real life 1-year follow-up study

Real-life data confirming the favourable renal outcome in patients with heart failure (HF) treated with Sacubitril/Valsartan, previously found in several trials (RCTs), are still scant. We evaluated the renal effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan in a real-life sample of HF patients. Observational analysis of 54 consecutive outpatients affected by HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and clinical indication for Sacubitril/Valsartan. Patients were evaluated at baseline (T0) and after six (T6) and twelve (T12) months after initiating Sacubitril/Valsartan and compared with a group of 30 historical controls. Mean age: 65.5 ± 11.7 years. Older patients: 29 (53.7%). Mean baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR): 59.4 ± 19.2 ml/min/1.73 m². Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), defined by an eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m², were 29 (53.7%). Sacubitril/Valsartan was less titrated in both older patients and patients with CKD. There were no changes in diuretics during follow-up. Systolic blood pressure (BP) decreased during follow-up (p = 0.014), while left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) slighly increased (p < 0.001). Renal function improved after 12 months compared to historical controls (p for interaction < 0.001) and a greater benefit was found in subjects aged < 65 years (p for interaction = 0.002) and patients with CKD (p for interaction = 0.009). A statistically (p = 0.009), but not clinically significant increase in serum potassium was also found, regardless of age and CKD. This is the first study focused on the renal effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan in HFrEF patients followed for 12 months in a real-life clinical context. The improved eGFR, despite lower BP, represents an important confirmation outside the peculiar world of RCTs.

Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibition in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

The angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril-valsartan led to a reduced risk of hospitalization for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes among patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. The effect of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibition in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is unclear.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 4822 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II to IV heart failure, ejection fraction of 45% or higher, elevated level of natriuretic peptides, and structural heart disease to receive sacubitril-valsartan (target dose, 97 mg of sacubitril with 103 mg of valsartan twice daily) or valsartan (target dose, 160 mg twice daily). The primary outcome was a composite of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. Primary outcome components, secondary outcomes (including NYHA class change, worsening renal function, and change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire [KCCQ] clinical summary score [scale, 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating fewer symptoms and physical limitations]), and safety were also assessed.

RESULTS

There were 894 primary events in 526 patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 1009 primary events in 557 patients in the valsartan group (rate ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 1.01; P = 0.06). The incidence of death from cardiovascular causes was 8.5% in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 8.9% in the valsartan group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.16); there were 690 and 797 total hospitalizations for heart failure, respectively (rate ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.00). NYHA class improved in 15.0% of the patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 12.6% of those in the valsartan group (odds ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.86); renal function worsened in 1.4% and 2.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.77). The mean change in the KCCQ clinical summary score at 8 months was 1.0 point (95% CI, 0.0 to 2.1) higher in the sacubitril-valsartan group. Patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group had a higher incidence of hypotension and angioedema and a lower incidence of hyperkalemia. Among 12 prespecified subgroups, there was suggestion of heterogeneity with possible benefit with sacubitril-valsartan in patients with lower ejection fraction and in women.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril-valsartan did not result in a significantly lower rate of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes among patients with heart failure and an ejection fraction of 45% or higher. (Funded by Novartis; PARAGON-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01920711.).

Echocardiographic evaluation of the effects of sacubitril-valsartan on vascular properties in heart failure patients

Increased vascular stiffness is known to be an independent predictor of mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The effects of sacubitril-valsartan on vascular structure and function have not been systematically studied in this patient population. We hypothesized that aortic distensibility (AD) and fractional area change (AFAC), as assessed by 2D transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), would improve over time in HFrEF patients on sacubitril-valsartan therapy, due to the vasodilatory properties of the medication. We prospectively studied 30 patients with HFrEF (25 < EF < 40%) on optimal guideline-directed medical therapy who were subsequently started on sacubitril-valsartan. Patients underwent serial 2D TTE imaging at baseline, 3 and 6 months following therapy initiation. Ascending aortic diameters were measured 3 cm above the aortic valve in the parasternal long-axis view and used to calculate AD and AFAC, two markers of vascular compliance. For reference, we also measured AD and AFAC in 30 healthy, age and gender-matched controls at a single time point. Normal controls had significantly higher values of AD and AFAC than HFrEF patients at baseline (AD: 4.0 ± 1.1 vs. 2.2 ± 0.9 cm²dyne^-110^-3, p < 0.0001 and AFAC: 18.8 ± 3.7% vs. 10.3 ± 4.3%, p < 0.0001). In HFrEF patients on sacubitril-valsartan, both indices of aortic compliance progressively improved towards normal from baseline to 6 months: AD from 2.2 ± 0.9 to 3.6 ± 1.5 cm²dyne^-110^-3 (p < 0.0001) and AFAC from 10.3 ± 4.3 to 13.7 ± 4.1% (p < 0.0001). In conclusion, AD and AFAC are decreased in patients with HFrEF and gradually improve with sacubitril-valsartan treatment. The echocardiographic markers used in this study may become a useful tool to assess the effectiveness of sacubitril-valsartan therapy in HFrEF patients.