Effect of neprilysin inhibition on renal function in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic heart failure who are receiving target doses of inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system: a secondary analysis of the PARADIGM-HF trial

New Insights Into Mechanisms of Acute Kidney Injury in Heart Disease

Acute kidney injury is a frequent occurrence in patients with heart disease, and is associated with higher risk of adverse outcomes, including mortality. In the setting of decompensated heart failure, acute kidney injury can occur from hemodynamic and neurohormonal activation, venous congestion, and nephrotoxic medications. Certain medications, such as loop diuretics, renin angiotensin system blockers, and mineralocorticoid antagonists can seemingly cause acute kidney injury. However, this increase in creatinine level is not always associated with adverse outcomes and should be carefully differentiated so as to allow deliberate continuation of these cardio- and nephroprotective agents. In other settings such as cardiac surgery, acute kidney injury can occur from factors related to the cardiopulmonary bypass, renal hypoperfusion, or other perioperative factors. Last, patients with heart disease commonly undergo imaging procedures that require contrast administration. Contrast can indeed cause acute kidney injury, but these interventional procedures also can result in kidney injury from atheroembolic phenomena. This is well documented by the recent data reporting a higher risk of acute kidney injury from femoral compared with radial access. The advent of biomarkers of kidney injury present an opportunity for early detection, accurate differential diagnosis, as well as potentially designing innovative biomarker-enriched adaptive clinical trials.

Intrarenal Renin-Angiotensin-System Dysregulation after Kidney Transplantation

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) are beneficial in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Yet, their clinical effects after kidney transplantation (KTx) remain ambiguous and local renin-angiotensin system (RAS) regulation including the ‘classical’ and ‘alternative’ RAS has not been studied so far. Here, we investigated both systemic and kidney allograft-specific intrarenal RAS using tandem mass-spectrometry in KTx recipients with or without established ACEi therapy (n = 48). Transplant patients were grouped into early (<2 years), intermediate (2–12 years) or late periods after KTx (>12 years). Patients on ACEi displayed lower angiotensin (Ang) II plasma levels (P < 0.01) and higher levels of Ang I (P < 0.05) and Ang-(1–7) (P < 0.05) compared to those without ACEi independent of graft vintage. Substantial intrarenal Ang II synthesis was observed regardless of ACEi therapy. Further, we detected maximal allograft Ang II synthesis in the late transplant vintage group (P < 0.005) likely as a consequence of increased allograft chymase activity (P < 0.005). Finally, we could identify neprilysin (NEP) as the central enzyme of ‘alternative RAS’ metabolism in kidney allografts. In summary, a progressive increase of chymase-dependent Ang II synthesis reveals a transplant-specific distortion of RAS regulation after KTx with considerable pathogenic and therapeutic implications.

Neprilysin inhibition: a new therapeutic option for type 2 diabetes?

Neprilysin is a widely expressed peptidase with broad substrate specificity that preferentially hydrolyses oligopeptide substrates, many of which regulate the cardiovascular, nervous and immune systems. Emerging evidence suggests that neprilysin also hydrolyses peptides that play an important role in glucose metabolism. In recent studies in humans, a dual angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNi) improved glycaemic control and insulin sensitivity in individuals with type 2 diabetes and/or obesity. Moreover, preclinical studies have also reported that neprilysin inhibition, alone or in combination with renin-angiotensin system blockers, elicits beneficial effects on glucose homeostasis. Since neprilysin inhibitors have been approved for the treatment of heart failure, their repurposing for treating type 2 diabetes would provide a novel therapeutic strategy. In this review, we evaluate existing evidence from preclinical and clinical studies in which neprilysin is deleted/inhibited, we highlight potential mechanisms underlying the beneficial glycaemic effects of neprilysin inhibition, and discuss possible deleterious effects that may limit the efficacy and safety of neprilysin inhibitors in the clinic. We also review the favourable impact neprilysin inhibition can have on diabetic complications, in addition to glucose control. Finally, we conclude that neprilysin inhibitors may be a useful therapeutic option for treating type 2 diabetes; however, their combination with angiotensin II receptor blockers is needed to circumvent deleterious consequences of neprilysin inhibition alone.

Sacubitril/valsartan eligibility and outcomes in the ESC-EORP-HFA Heart Failure Long-Term Registry: bridging between European Medicines Agency/Food and Drug Administration label, the PARADIGM-HF trial, ESC guidelines, and real world

AIMS

To assess the proportion of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who are eligible for sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) based on the European Medicines Agency/Food and Drug Administration (EMA/FDA) label, the PARADIGM-HF trial and the 2016 ESC guidelines, and the association between eligibility and outcomes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC-EORP-HFA Long-Term Heart Failure (HF-LT) Registry between March 2011 and November 2013 were considered. Criteria for LCZ696 based on EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM-HF and ESC guidelines were applied. Of 5443 patients, 2197 and 2373 had complete information for trial and guideline eligibility assessment, and 84%, 12% and 12% met EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM-HF and guideline criteria, respectively. Absent PARADIGM-HF criteria were low natriuretic peptides (21%), hyperkalemia (4%), hypotension (7%) and sub-optimal pharmacotherapy (74%); absent Guidelines criteria were LVEF>35% (23%), insufficient NP levels (30%) and sub-optimal pharmacotherapy (82%); absent label criteria were absence of symptoms (New York Heart Association class I). When a daily requirement of ACEi/ARB ≥ 10 mg enalapril (instead of ≥ 20 mg) was used, eligibility rose from 12% to 28% based on both PARADIGM-HF and guidelines. One-year heart failure hospitalization was higher (12% and 17% vs. 12%) and all-cause mortality lower (5.3% and 6.5% vs. 7.7%) in registry eligible patients compared to the enalapril arm of PARADIGM-HF.

CONCLUSIONS

Among outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC-EORP-HFA HF-LT Registry, 84% met label criteria, while only 12% and 28% met PARADIGM-HF and guideline criteria for LCZ696 if requiring ≥ 20 mg and ≥ 10 mg enalapril, respectively. Registry patients eligible for LCZ696 had greater heart failure hospitalization but lower mortality rates than the PARADIGM-HF enalapril group.

Neurohormonal modulation: The new paradigm of pharmacological treatment of heart failure

The current paradigm of medical therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is triple neurohormonal blockade with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI), a beta-blocker (BB) and a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA). However, three-year mortality remains over 30%. Stimulation of counter-regulatory systems in addition to neurohormonal blockade constitutes a new paradigm, termed neurohormonal modulation. Sacubitril/valsartan is the first element of this new strategy. PARADIGM-HF was the largest randomized clinical trial conducted in HFrEF. It included 8442 patients and compared the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular mortality and hospitalization due to HF, which occurred in 914 (21.8%) patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan and in 1117 (26.5%) patients receiving enalapril (HR 0.8, 95% CI 0.73-0.87, p=0.0000002; NNT 21). Sacubitril/valsartan reduced both primary endpoint components, as well as sudden cardiac death, death due to worsening HF, and death from all causes. Patients on sacubitril/valsartan reported less frequent deterioration of HF and of quality of life, and discontinued study medication less frequently because of an adverse event. PARADIGM-HF demonstrated the superiority of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril, with a 20% greater impact on cardiovascular mortality compared to ACEIs. Accordingly, in 2016, the European (ESC) and American (ACC/AHA/HFSA) cardiology societies simultaneously issued a class I recommendation for the replacement of ACEIs by sacubitril/valsartan in patients resembling PARADIGM-HF trial participants.

The combination of a neprilysin inhibitor (sacubitril) and angiotensin-II receptor blocker (valsartan) attenuates glomerular and tubular injury in the Zucker Obese rat

OBJECTIVE

Diabetic nephropathy (DN) is characterized by glomerular and tubulointerstitial injury, proteinuria and remodeling. Here we examined whether the combination of an inhibitor of neprilysin (sacubitril), a natriuretic peptide-degrading enzyme, and an angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker (valsartan), suppresses renal injury in a pre-clinical model of early DN more effectively than valsartan monotherapy.

METHODS

Sixty-four male Zucker Obese rats (ZO) at 16 weeks of age were distributed into 4 different groups: Group 1: saline control (ZOC); Group 2: sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) (68 mg kg^-1 day^-1; ZOSV); and Group 3: valsartan (val) (31 mg kg^-1 day^-1; ZOV). Group 4 received hydralazine, an anti-hypertensive drug (30 mg kg^-1 day^-1, ZOH). Six Zucker Lean (ZL) rats received saline (Group 5) and served as lean controls (ZLC). Drugs were administered daily for 10 weeks by oral gavage.

RESULTS

Mean arterial pressure (MAP) increased in ZOC (+ 28%), but not in ZOSV (- 4.2%), ZOV (- 3.9%) or ZOH (- 3.7%), during the 10 week-study period. ZOC were mildly hyperglycemic, hyperinsulinemic and hypercholesterolemic. ZOC exhibited proteinuria, hyperfiltration, elevated renal resistivity index (RRI), glomerular mesangial expansion and podocyte foot process flattening and effacement, reduced nephrin and podocin expression, tubulointerstitial and periarterial fibrosis, increased NOX2, NOX4 and AT₁R expression, glomerular and tubular nitroso-oxidative stress, with associated increases in urinary markers of tubular injury. None of the drugs reduced fasting glucose or HbA1c. Hypercholesterolemia was reduced in ZOSV (- 43%) and ZOV (- 34%) (p < 0.05), but not in ZOH (- 13%) (ZOSV > ZOV > ZOH). Proteinuria was ameliorated in ZOSV (- 47%; p < 0.05) and ZOV (- 30%; p > 0.05), but was exacerbated in ZOH (+ 28%; p > 0.05) (ZOSV > ZOV > ZOH). Compared to ZOC, hyperfiltration was improved in ZOSV (p < 0.05 vs ZOC), but not in ZOV or ZOH. None of the drugs improved RRI. Mesangial expansion was reduced by all 3 treatments (ZOV > ZOSV > ZOH). Importantly, sac/val was more effective in improving podocyte and tubular mitochondrial ultrastructure than val or hydralazine (ZOSV > ZOV > ZOH) and this was associated with increases in nephrin and podocin gene expression in ZOSV (p < 0.05), but not ZOV or ZOH. Periarterial and tubulointerstitial fibrosis and nitroso-oxidative stress were reduced in all 3 treatment groups to a similar extent. Of the eight urinary proximal tubule cell injury markers examined, five were elevated in ZOC (p < 0.05). Clusterin and KIM-1 were reduced in ZOSV (p < 0.05), clusterin alone was reduced in ZOV and no markers were reduced in ZOH (ZOSV > ZOV > ZOH).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to val monotherapy, sac/val was more effective in reducing proteinuria, renal ultrastructure and tubular injury in a clinically relevant animal model of early DN. More importantly, these renoprotective effects were independent of improvements in blood pressure, glycemia and nitroso-oxidative stress. These novel findings warrant future clinical investigations designed to test whether sac/val may offer renoprotection in the setting of DN.

Concurrent neprilysin inhibition and renin-angiotensin system modulations prevented diabetic nephropathy

AIMS

Renin-angiotensin system (RAS) and natriuretic peptides system (NPS) perturbations govern the development of diabetic nephropathy (DN). Hence, in search of a novel therapy against DN, present study targeted both, NPS and RAS simultaneously using a neprilysin inhibitor (NEPi) in combination with either angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) or angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) activator.

METHODS

We induced diabetes in male Wistar rats by a single dose of streptozotocin (55 mg/kg, i.p.). After four weeks, we treated diabetic rats with thiorphan, telmisartan or diminazene aceturate (Dize) 0.1, 10, 5 mg/kg/day, p.o. alone as monotherapy, or both thiorphan/telmisartan or thiorphan/Dize as combination therapy, for four weeks. Then, plasma and urine biochemistry were performed, and kidneys from all the groups were collected and processed separately for histopathology, ELISA and Western blotting.

KEY FINDINGS

Proposed combination therapies attenuated metabolic perturbations, prevented renal functional decline, and normalised adverse alterations in renal ACE, ACE2, Ang-II, Ang-(1-7), neprilysin and cGMP levels in diabetic rats. Histopathological evaluation revealed a significant reduction in glomerular and tubulointerstitial fibrosis by combination therapies. Importantly, combination therapies inhibited inflammatory, profibrotic and apoptotic signalling, way better than respective monotherapies, in preventing DN.

CONCLUSION

Renoprotective potential of thiorphan (NEPi)/telmisartan (ARB) and thiorphan/Dize (ACE2 activator) combination therapies against the development of DN is primarily attributed to normalisation of RAS and NPS components and inhibition of pathological signalling related to inflammation, fibrosis, and apoptosis. Hence, we can conclude that NEPi/ARB and NEPi/ACE2 activator combination therapies might be new therapeutic strategies in preventing DN.

Neprilysin Inhibitors: Filling a Gap in Heart Failure Management, Albeit Amidst Controversy and at a Significant Cost

Dual angiotensin and neprilysin inhibition using the combination drug sacubitril-valsartan has ushered in a new era in the treatment of heart failure (HF). The randomized controlled PARADIGM-HF trial, which randomized 8399 patients with HF to enalapril or sacubitril-valsartan, showed a 20% reduction in mortality and HF hospitalization with the new drug. This has been heralded as a step toward filling a crucial gap in HF management by providing strong evidence that combined inhibition of the angiotensin receptor and neprilysin is superior to inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system alone in stable patients with chronic HF as it negates the deleterious effects of angiotensin while concomitantly augmenting the beneficial effects of the endogenous natriuretic peptide system. This new therapy is costly, and other confirmatory studies have been lacking for over 2 years since its approval by major regulatory authorities. As such, controversy and heated discussions have amassed, as has detailed information from a plethora of secondary analyses of this pivotal trial about the pros and cons of this promising new therapeutic strategy in HF management. The aim of this review was to provide a critical assessment of all these aspects.

Efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared with olmesartan in Asian patients with essential hypertension: A randomized, double-blind, 8-week study

This study assessed the efficacy and safety of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan vs olmesartan in Asian patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Patients (N = 1438; mean age, 57.7 years) with mild-to-moderate hypertension were randomized to receive once daily administration of sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg (n = 479), sacubitril/valsartan 400 mg (n = 473), or olmesartan 20 mg (n = 486) for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was reduction in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP) from baseline with sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg vs olmesartan 20 mg at Week 8. Secondary endpoints included msSBP reduction with sacubitril/valsartan 400 mg, and reductions in clinic and ambulatory BP and pulse pressure (PP) vs olmesartan. In addition, changes in msBP from baseline in the Chinese subpopulation, elderly (≥65 years), and in patients with isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) were assessed. Sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg provided a significantly greater reduction in msSBP than olmesartan 20 mg at Week 8 (between-treatment difference: -2.33 mm Hg [95% confidence interval (CI) -4.00 to -0.66 mm Hg], P < 0.05 for non-inferiority and superiority). Greater reductions in msSBP were also observed with sacubitril/valsartan 400 mg vs olmesartan 20 mg (-3.52 [-5.19 to -1.84 mm Hg], P < 0.001 for superiority). Similarly, greater reductions in msBP were observed in the Chinese subpopulation, in elderly patients, and those with ISH. In addition, both doses of sacubitril/valsartan provided significantly greater reductions from baseline in nighttime mean ambulatory BP vs olmesartan. Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan 200 or 400 mg once daily is effective and provided superior BP reduction than olmesartan 20 mg in Asian patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension and is generally safe and well tolerated.