Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibition compared with enalapril on the risk of clinical progression in surviving patients with heart failure

Clinical and echocardiographic benefit of Sacubitril/Valsartan in a real-world population with HF with reduced ejection fraction

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan (S/V) on clinical, laboratory and echocardiographic parameters and outcomes in a real-world population with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This was a prospective observational study enrolling patients with HFrEF undergoing treatment with S/V. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiac death and HF rehospitalization at 12 months follow-up; secondary outcomes were all-cause death, cardiac death and the occurrence of rehospitalization for worsening HF. The clinical outcome was compared with a retrospective cohort of 90 HFrEF patients treated with standard medical therapy. The study included 90 patients (66.1 ± 11.7 years) treated with S/V. The adjusted regression analysis showed a significantly lower risk for the primary outcome (HR:0.31; 95%CI, 0.11–0.83; p = 0.019) and for HF rehospitalization (HR:0.27; 95%CI, 0.08–0.94; p = 0.039) in S/V patients as compared to the control group. A significant improvement in NYHA class, left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular end systolic volume and systolic pulmonary arterial pressure was observed up to 6 months. S/V did not affect negatively renal function and was associated with a significantly lower dose of furosemide dose prescribed at 6- and 12-month follow-up. In this study, S/V reduced the risk of HF rehospitalization and cardiac death at 1 year in patients with HFrEF. S/V improved NYHA class, echocardiographic parameters and need of furosemide, and preserved renal function.

Intensive care for human hearts in pluripotent stem cell models

Successful drug discovery is ultimately contingent on the availability of workable, relevant, predictive model systems. Conversely, for cardiac muscle, the lack of human preclinical models to inform target validation and compound development has likely contributed to the perennial problem of clinical trial failures, despite encouraging non-human results. By contrast, human cardiomyocytes produced from pluripotent stem cell models have recently been applied to safety pharmacology, phenotypic screening, target validation and high-throughput assays, facilitating cardiac drug discovery. Here, we review the impact of human pluripotent stem cell models in cardiac drug discovery, discussing the range of applications, readouts, and disease models employed, along with the challenges and prospects to advance this fruitful mode of research further.

Effect of Neprilysin Inhibition on Various Natriuretic Peptide Assays

BACKGROUND

With sacubitril/valsartan treatment, B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) concentrations increase; it remains unclear whether change in BNP concentrations is similar across all assays for its measurement. Effects of sacubitril/valsartan on atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP) concentrations in patients are unknown. Lastly, the impact of neprilysin inhibition on mid-regional pro-ANP (MR-proANP), N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-proBNP), proBNP_1-108, or C-type natriuretic peptide (CNP) is not well understood.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to examine the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on results from different natriuretic peptide assays.

METHODS

Twenty-three consecutive stable patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction were initiated and titrated on sacubitril/valsartan. Change in ANP, MR-proANP, BNP (using 5 assays), NT-proBNP (3 assays), proBNP_1-108, and CNP were measured over 3 visits.

RESULTS

Average time to 3 follow-up visits was 22, 46, and 84 days. ANP rapidly and substantially increased with initiation and titration of sacubitril/valsartan, more than doubling by the first follow-up visit (+105.8%). Magnitude of ANP increase was greatest in those with concentrations above the median at baseline (+188%) compared with those with lower baseline concentrations (+44%); ANP increases were sustained. Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan led to inconsistent changes in BNP, which varied across methods assessed. Concentrations of MR-proANP, NT-proBNP, and proBNP_1-108 variably declined after treatment; whereas CNP concentrations showed no consistent change.

CONCLUSIONS

Initiation and titration of sacubitril/valsartan led to variable changes in concentrations of multiple natriuretic peptides. These results provide important insights into the effects of sacubitril/valsartan treatment on individual patient results, and further suggest the benefit of neprilysin inhibition may be partially mediated by increased ANP concentrations.

Pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Approximately half of people with heart failure have chronic kidney disease (CKD). Pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with CKD have the potential to reduce death (any cause) or hospitalisations for decompensated heart failure. However, these interventions are of uncertain benefit and may increase the risk of harm, such as hypotension and electrolyte abnormalities, in those with CKD.

OBJECTIVES

This review aims to look at the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions for HF (i.e., antihypertensive agents, inotropes, and agents that may improve the heart performance indirectly) in people with HF and CKD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies through 12 September 2019 in consultation with an Information Specialist and using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of any pharmacological intervention for acute or chronic heart failure, among people of any age with chronic kidney disease of at least three months duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened the records to identify eligible studies and extracted data on the following dichotomous outcomes: death, hospitalisations, worsening heart failure, worsening kidney function, hyperkalaemia, and hypotension. We used random effects meta-analysis to estimate treatment effects, which we expressed as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool. We applied the GRADE methodology to rate the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

One hundred and twelve studies met our selection criteria: 15 were studies of adults with CKD; 16 studies were conducted in the general population but provided subgroup data for people with CKD; and 81 studies included individuals with CKD, however, data for this subgroup were not provided. The risk of bias in all 112 studies was frequently high or unclear. Of the 31 studies (23,762 participants) with data on CKD patients, follow-up ranged from three months to five years, and study size ranged from 16 to 2916 participants. In total, 26 studies (19,612 participants) reported disaggregated and extractable data on at least one outcome of interest for our review and were included in our meta-analyses. In acute heart failure, the effects of adenosine A1-receptor antagonists, dopamine, nesiritide, or serelaxin on death, hospitalisations, worsening heart failure or kidney function, hyperkalaemia, hypotension or quality of life were uncertain due to sparse data or were not reported. In chronic heart failure, the effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) (4 studies, 5003 participants: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.02; I2 = 78%; low certainty evidence), aldosterone antagonists (2 studies, 34 participants: RR 0.61 95% CI 0.06 to 6.59; very low certainty evidence), and vasopressin receptor antagonists (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.89; 2 studies, 1840 participants; low certainty evidence) on death (any cause) were uncertain. Treatment with beta-blockers may reduce the risk of death (any cause) (4 studies, 3136 participants: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.79; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). Treatment with ACEi or ARB (2 studies, 1368 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.90; I2 = 97%; very low certainty evidence) had uncertain effects on hospitalisation for heart failure, as treatment estimates were consistent with either benefit or harm. Treatment with beta-blockers may decrease hospitalisation for heart failure (3 studies, 2287 participants: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.05; I2 = 87%; low certainty evidence). Aldosterone antagonists may increase the risk of hyperkalaemia compared to placebo or no treatment (3 studies, 826 participants: RR 2.91, 95% CI 2.03 to 4.17; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). Renin inhibitors had uncertain risks of hyperkalaemia (2 studies, 142 participants: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.49; I2 = 0%; very low certainty). We were unable to estimate whether treatment with sinus node inhibitors affects the risk of hyperkalaemia, as there were few studies and meta-analysis was not possible. Hyperkalaemia was not reported for the CKD subgroup in studies investigating other therapies. The effects of ACEi or ARB, or aldosterone antagonists on worsening heart failure or kidney function, hypotension, or quality of life were uncertain due to sparse data or were not reported. Effects of anti-arrhythmic agents, digoxin, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, renin inhibitors, sinus node inhibitors, vasodilators, and vasopressin receptor antagonists were very uncertain due to the paucity of studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with CKD are uncertain and there is insufficient evidence to inform clinical practice. Study data for treatment outcomes in patients with heart failure and CKD are sparse despite the potential impact of kidney impairment on the benefits and harms of treatment. Future research aimed at analysing existing data in general population HF studies to explore the effect in subgroups of patients with CKD, considering stage of disease, may yield valuable insights for the management of people with HF and CKD.

Racial/ethnic differences in circulating natriuretic peptide levels: The Diabetes Prevention Program

Natriuretic peptides are cardiac-derived hormones that enhance insulin sensitivity and reduce fat accumulation. Low natriuretic peptide levels are associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2); a condition with variable prevalence across racial/ethnic groups. Few studies have examined whether circulating natriuretic peptide levels and their response to preventive interventions for DM2 differ by race/ethnicity. The Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) is a clinical trial (July 31, 1996- July 31, 2001) that randomized participants to preventive interventions for DM2. Using stored serum samples, we examined N-terminus pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels in 3,220 individuals (56% white; 19% African-American; 15% Hispanic; 5% American-Indian; 5% Asian). The influence of race/ethnicity on NT-proBNP concentrations at baseline and after two years of treatment with placebo, lifestyle, or metformin was examined with multivariable-adjusted regression. At baseline, NT-proBNP differed significantly by race (P < .001), with the lowest values in African-American individuals. Hispanic individuals also had lower baseline NT-proBNP levels compared with whites (P< .001), while NT-proBNP levels were similar between white, American-Indian, and Asian individuals. At two years of follow-up, NT-proBNP levels decreased in African-Americans in each of the DPP study arms, whereas they were stable or increased in the other racial/ethnic groups. In the DPP, African-American individuals had lower circulating NT-proBNP levels compared with individuals in other racial/ethnic groups at baseline and after two years of preventive interventions. Further studies should examine the cardio-metabolic implications of lower natriuretic peptide levels in African-Americans.

Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00004992

The historical evolution of knowledge of the involvement of neurohormonal systems in the pathophysiology and treatment of heart failure

Our knowledge of the pathophysiology of heart failure (HF) underwent profound changes during the 1980s. Once thought to be of exclusively structural origin, HF began to be seen as the consequence of hormonal imbalance. A number of seminal studies were published in that decade focusing on the impact of neurohormonal activation in HF. Presently, eight neurohormonal systems are known to have a key role in HF development: four stimulate vasoconstriction and sodium/water retention (the sympathetic nervous system, the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system [RAAS], endothelin, and the vasopressin-arginine system), while the other four stimulate vasodilation and natriuresis (the prostaglandin system, nitric oxide, the dopaminergic system, and the natriuretic peptide system [NPS]). These systems are strongly interconnected and are subject to intricate regulation, functioning together in a delicate homeostasis. Disruption of this homeostasis is characteristic of HF. This review explores the historical development of knowledge on the impact of the neurohormonal systems on HF pathophysiology, from the first studies to current understanding. In addition, the therapeutic potential of each of these systems is discussed, and currently used neurohormonal antagonists are characterized. Special emphasis is given to the latest drug approved for use in HF with reduced ejection fraction, sacubitril/valsartan. This drug combines two different molecules, acting on two different systems (RAAS and NPS) simultaneously.

Neprilysin inhibition, endorphin dynamics, and early symptomatic improvement in heart failure: a pilot study

Aim

Sacubitril/valsartan is a first‐in‐class angiotensin receptor‐neprilysin inhibitor developed for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Its benefits are achieved through the inhibition of neprilysin (NEP) and the specific blockade of the angiotensin receptor AT1. The many peptides metabolized by NEP suggest multifaceted potential consequences of its inhibition. We sought to evaluate the short‐term changes in serum endorphin (EP) values and their relation with patients' physical functioning after initiation of sacubitril/valsartan treatment.

Methods and results

A total of 105 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, who were candidates for sacubitril/valsartan treatment, were included in this prospective, observational, multicentre, and international study. In a first visit, and in agreement with current guidelines, treatment with angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blocker was replaced by sacubitril/valsartan because of clinical indication by the responsible physician. By protocol, patients were reevaluated at 30 days after the start of sacubitril/valsartan. Serum levels of α‐ (α‐EP), γ‐Endorphin (γ‐EP), and soluble NEP (sNEP) were measured using enzyme‐linked immunoassays. New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class was used as an indicator of patient's functional status. Baseline median levels of circulating α‐EP, γ‐EP, and sNEP were 582 (160–772), 101 (37–287), and 222 pg/mL (124–820), respectively. There was not a significant increase in α‐EP nor γ‐EP serum values after sacubitril/valsartan treatment (P value = 0.194 and 0.102, respectively). There were no significant differences in sNEP values between 30 days and baseline (P value = 0.103). Medians (IQR) of Δα‐EP, Δγ‐EP, and ΔsNEP between 30 days and baseline were 9.3 (−34 − 44), −3.0 (−46.0 − 18.9), and 0 units (−16.4 − 157.0), respectively. In a pre–post sacubitril/valsartan treatment comparison, there was a significant improvement in NYHA class, with 36 (34.3%) patients experiencing improvement by at least one NYHA class category. Δα‐EP and ΔsNEP showed to be significantly associated with NYHA class after 30 days of treatment (P = 0.014 and P < 0.001, respectively). Δα‐EP was linear and significantly associated with NYHA class improvement after 30 days of sacubitril/valsartan treatment.

Conclusions

These preliminary data suggest that beyond the haemodynamic benefits achieved with sacubitril/valsartan, the altered cleavage of endorphin peptides by NEP inhibition may participate in patients' symptoms improvement.

Sacubitril/Valsartan: Updates and Clinical Evidence for a Disease-Modifying Approach

New therapeutic strategies aimed to tackle the rising socio-economic burden of heart failure (HF) have become an impelling priority. The new pharmacological class of angiotensin (Ang) receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) prompted a real conceptual change in the treatment of HF moving from only the inhibition of the renin-Ang-aldosterone system and sympathetic nervous system to a strategy based on the concomitant pharmacological enhancement of endogenous natriuretic peptides. Sacubitril/valsartan, a first-in-class ARNI, has reduced the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalisation, sudden cardiac death, disease progression and improved quality of life, compared with enalapril, in patients on evidence-based contemporary medical therapy. Our review underlines the increasing body of evidence supporting the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan, which may be considered a new disease-modifying therapy and, after about 30 years of research, a real step forward in HF pharmacological therapy.

Heart is the Target Organ of Endogenous Cardiac Natriuretic Peptides

This study aimed to evaluate whether the heart is the target organ of endogenous atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP) and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).We measured the plasma levels of cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP), which is a second messenger of ANP and BNP, in the aortic root (AO) and coronary sinus (CS) in 237 patients with HFrEF. Plasma levels of cGMP were significantly higher in the CS than those in the AO in 237 patients with HFrEF (10.0 ± 4.5 versus 10.5 ± 4.3 pmoL/mL, P < 0.0001) and were significantly higher in the CS than those in the AO (8.0 ± 3.6 versus 8.9 ± 3.8 pmoL/mL, P < 0.0001) in mild HF patients (New York Heart Association (NYHA) II, n = 114), but there was no difference in plasma cGMP between the AO and the CS (11.9 ± 4.4 versus 11.9 ± 4.3 pmoL/mL, NS) in severe HF patients (NYHA III-IV, n = 123). In mild HF patients, log (ANP + BNP) in the AO was an independent predictor of (CS-AO) cGMP among hemodynamics and nitrate therapy. There was a significant correlation between log [(CS-AO) ANP + (CS-AO) BNP] and (CS-AO) cGMP (r = 0.455, P < 0.0001) in mild HF patients.These findings indicate that cGMP is produced from the failing heart and that the heart is the target organ of endogenous ANP and BNP in patients with HFrEF. In severe HF patients, cGMP production may be attenuated because of the downregulation of biological receptors and/or increased cGMP degradation in the failing heart.

Understanding the early mortality benefit observed in the PARADIGM-HF trial: considerations for the management of heart failure with sacubitril/valsartan

This review aims to elucidate the optimal dosing of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) therapy in the heart failure (HF) treatment paradigm through examination of the trial population characteristics and the mortality benefit observed in the Prospective Comparison of ARNI with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF; NCT01035255) trial. Considerations regarding the initiation and titration of sacubitril/valsartan, a first-in-class ARNI, will also be addressed. The approval of sacubitril/valsartan heralded the first novel pharmacological class in over a decade for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The PARADIGM-HF trial showed that treatment with valsartan/valsartan reduced the risk of first occurrence of either cardiovascular death or HF-related hospitalization (composite primary endpoint) by 20% compared with enalapril in patients with HFrEF. The incremental benefits of treatment with valsartan/valsartan over enalapril demonstrated in the PARADIGM-HF trial led to strong recommendations for its use over ACEIs or angiotensin receptor blockers to further reduce morbidity and mortality in the 2016 and 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America updates to the guidelines for the management of HF. Although the optimal timing for the initiation of valsartan/valsartan has yet to be determined, its early use is likely to have a positive impact on patient outcomes.

Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Recovery in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction Treated with Sacubitril/Valsartan

BACKGROUND

A significant number of heart failure (HF) patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) experience ventricular function recovery during follow-up. We studied the variables associated with LVEF recovery in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan (SV) in clinical practice.

METHODS

We analyzed data from a prospective and multicenter registry including 249 HF outpatients with reduced LVEF who started SV between October 2016 and March 2017. The patients were classified into 2 groups according to LVEF at the end of follow-up (>35%: group R, or ≤35%: group NR).

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up of 7 ± 0.1 months, 62 patients (24.8%) had LVEF >35%. They were older (71.3 ± 10.8 vs. 67.5 ± 12.1 years, p = 0.025), and suffered more often from hypertension (83.9 vs. 73.8%, p = 0.096) and higher blood pressure before and after SV (both, p < 0.01). They took more often high doses of beta-blockers (30.6 vs. 27.8%, p = 0.002), with a smaller proportion undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (14.8 vs. 29.0%, p = 0.028) and fewer implanted cardioverter defibrillators (ICD; 32.8 vs. 67.9%, p < 0.001), this being the only predictive variable of NR in the multivariate analysis (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.13-0.47, p < 0.0001). At the end of follow-up, the mean LVEF in group R was 41.9 ± 8.1% (vs. 26.3 ± 4.7% in group NR, p < 0.001), with an improvement compared with the initial LVEF of 14.6 ± 10.8% (vs. 0.8 ± 4.5% in group NR, p < 0.0001). Functional class improved in both groups, mainly in group R (p = 0.035), with fewer visits to the emergency department (11.5 vs. 21.6%, p = 0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with LVEF ≤35% treated with SV, not carrying an ICD was independently associated with LVEF recovery, which was related to greater improvement in functional class.

Cyclic Guanosine Monophosphate and Risk of Incident Heart Failure and Other Cardiovascular Events: the ARIC Study

Background

Cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) is a second messenger regulated through natriuretic peptide and nitric oxide pathways. Stimulation of cGMP signaling is a potential therapeutic strategy for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). We hypothesized that plasma cGMP levels would be associated with lower risk for incident HFpEF, any HF, ASCVD, and coronary heart disease (CHD).

Methods and Results

We conducted a case–cohort analysis nested in the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities) study. Plasma cGMP was measured in 875 participants at visit 4 (1996–1998), with oversampling of incident HFpEF cases. We used Cox proportional hazard models to assess associations of cGMP with incident HFpEF, HF, ASCVD (CHD+stroke), and CHD. The mean (SD) age was 62.4 (5.6) years and median (interquartile interval) cGMP was 3.4 pmol/mL (2.4–4.6). During a median follow‐up of 9.9 years, there were 283 incident cases of HFpEF, 329 any HF, 151 ASCVD, and 125 CHD. In models adjusted for CVD risk factors, the hazard ratios (95% CI) associated with the highest cGMP tertile compared with lowest for HFpEF, HF, ASCVD, and CHD were 1.88 (1.17–3.02), 2.18 (1.18–4.06), 2.84 (1.44–5.60), and 2.43 (1.19–5.00), respectively. In models further adjusted for N‐terminal‐proB‐type natriuretic peptide, associations were attenuated for HFpEF and HF but remained statistically significant for ASCVD (2.56 [1.26–5.20]) and CHD (2.25 [1.07–4.71]).

Conclusions

Contrary to our hypothesis, higher cGMP levels were associated with incident CVD in a community‐based cohort. The associations of cGMP with HF or HFpEF may be explained by N‐terminal‐proB‐type natriuretic peptide, but not for ASCVD and CHD.

New pharmacological treatments for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF): A Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has contributed to an increasing number of deaths and readmissions over the past few decades. Despite the appearance of standard treatments, including diuretics, β-receptor blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI), there are still a large number of patients who have progressive deterioration of heart function and, inevitably, end-stage heart failure. In recent years, new medications for treating chronic heart failure have been clinically applied, but there is controversy surrounding drug selection and whether patients with HFrEF benefit from these medications. Therefore, we aimed to compare and rank different new pharmacological treatments in patients with HFrEF.

METHODS

We performed a network meta-analysis to identify both direct and indirect evidence from relevant studies. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO through the OVID database and CENTRAL through the Cochrane Library for clinical randomized controlled trials investigating new pharmacological treatments in patients with HFrEF published up to September 30, 2018. We included trials of ivabradine, levosimendan, omega-3, tolvaptan, recombinant human B-type natriuretic peptide (rhBNP), isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine (ISDN/HYD) and angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition (LCZ696). We extracted the relevant information from these trials with a predefined data extraction sheet and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Based on these items, more than half of the entries were judged as having an overall low to moderate risk of bias; the remaining studies had a high or unclear risk of bias. The outcomes investigated were left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF %), heart rate (HR) and serum level of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP). We performed a random-effects network meta-analysis within a Bayesian framework.

RESULTS

We deemed 32 trials to be eligible that included 3810 patients and 32 treatments. Overall, 32 (94.1%) trials had a low to moderate risk of bias, while 2 (5.9%) trials had a high risk of bias. The quality of the included studies was rated as low in regard to allocation concealment and blinding and high in regard to other domains according to the Cochrane tools. As for increasing LVEF%, levosimendan was better than placebo (-3.77 (-4.96, -2.43)) and was the best intervention for improving ventricle contraction. As for controlling HR, n3-PUFA was better than placebo (4.01 (-0.44, 8.48)) and was the best choice for regulating HR. As for decreasing BNP, omega-3 was better than placebo (941.99 (-47.48, 1952.89) and was the best therapy for improving ventricle wall tension.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirmed the effectiveness of the included new pharmacological treatments for optimizing the structural performance and improving the cardiac function in the management of patients with HFrEF and recommended several interventions for clinical practice.

Pharmaceutical Treatment for Heart Failure

Heart failure (HF) is defined as a clinical syndrome resulting from structural or functional impairment of ventricular fillings or ejections of blood. Currently, HF is divided into three groups which include HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and HF with midrange EF (HFmrEF). Even though major advances have been made in treating HFrEF during the past decades, heart failure is a fatal disease. In this review, we briefly summarize the current advances in pharmaceutical managements for heart failure, which includes drugs used in acute heart failure as well as those that prevent heart failure progression, in each category major clinical trials are also described. In addition, information about some of potential new drugs are also mentioned. Traditional Chinese medicine also shows its potential in treating HF, and we are still lack of medicine to treat HFpEF.

Effect of a Strategy of Comprehensive Vasodilation vs Usual Care on Mortality and Heart Failure Rehospitalization Among Patients With Acute Heart Failure: The GALACTIC Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Short-term infusions of single vasodilators, usually given in a fixed dose, have not improved outcomes in patients with acute heart failure (AHF).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of a strategy that emphasized early intensive and sustained vasodilation using individualized up-titrated doses of established vasodilators in patients with AHF.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Randomized, open-label blinded-end-point trial enrolling 788 patients hospitalized for AHF with dyspnea, increased plasma concentrations of natriuretic peptides, systolic blood pressure of at least 100 mm Hg, and plan for treatment in a general ward in 10 tertiary and secondary hospitals in Switzerland, Bulgaria, Germany, Brazil, and Spain. Enrollment began in December 2007 and follow-up was completed in February 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized 1:1 to a strategy of early intensive and sustained vasodilation throughout the hospitalization (n = 386) or usual care (n = 402). Early intensive and sustained vasodilation was a comprehensive pragmatic approach of maximal and sustained vasodilation combining individualized doses of sublingual and transdermal nitrates, low-dose oral hydralazine for 48 hours, and rapid up-titration of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or sacubitril-valsartan.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was a composite of all-cause mortality or rehospitalization for AHF at 180 days.

RESULTS

Among 788 patients randomized, 781 (99.1%; median age, 78 years; 36.9% women) completed the trial and were eligible for primary end point analysis. Follow-up at 180 days was completed for 779 patients (99.7%). The primary end point, a composite of all-cause mortality or rehospitalization for AHF at 180 days, occurred in 117 patients (30.6%) in the intervention group (including 55 deaths [14.4%]) and in 111 patients (27.8%) in the usual care group (including 61 deaths [15.3%]) (absolute difference for the primary end point, 2.8% [95% CI, -3.7% to 9.3%]; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.83-1.39]; P = .59). The most common clinically significant adverse events with early intensive and sustained vasodilation vs usual care were hypokalemia (23% vs 25%), worsening renal function (21% vs 20%), headache (26% vs 10%), dizziness (15% vs 10%), and hypotension (8% vs 2%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with AHF, a strategy of early intensive and sustained vasodilation, compared with usual care, did not significantly improve a composite outcome of all-cause mortality and AHF rehospitalization at 180 days.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00512759.

Initiation of sacubitril/valsartan shortly after hospitalisation for acutely decompensated heart failure in patients with newly diagnosed (de novo) heart failure: a subgroup analysis of the TRANSITION study

AIMS

Sacubitril/valsartan has shown efficacy and tolerability in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in the ambulatory setting (PARADIGM-HF), and following stabilisation of acutely decompensated HF (ADHF) (PIONEER-HF and TRANSITION). However, data are lacking for the initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in newly diagnosed (de novo) HFrEF. Here, we assess the tolerability of initiating sacubitril/valsartan following ADHF in TRANSITION subgroups of patients with a de novo vs. prior diagnosis of HFrEF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

TRANSITION randomised 1002 patients to pre- and post-discharge initiation of sacubitril/valsartan (analysis set n = 991, following exclusions for mis-randomisation). In this post-hoc analysis, tolerability to sacubitril/valsartan [proportion of patients achieving target dose (97/103 mg b.i.d.) at 10 weeks post-randomisation], adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs) were compared in de novo (n = 286) and prior HFrEF (n = 705) subgroups. More de novo than prior HFrEF patients achieved target dose at Week 10 (56% vs. 45%; relative risk ratio 1.30, 95% confidence interval 1.12-1.52, P < 0.001), and fewer had SAEs and permanent treatment discontinuations. Initiation of sacubitril/valsartan did not prevent the concomitant initiation and up-titration of guideline-directed HF therapies. De novo patients showed faster and greater decreases in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and high-sensitivity troponin-T, and lower rates of HF and all-cause rehospitalisation vs. prior HFrEF.

CONCLUSIONS

After ADHF, first-line initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in de novo HFrEF, alongside the initiation of other guideline-directed therapies, is feasible and is associated with a better risk-benefit profile than in patients with prior HFrEF. Early intervention with sacubitril/valsartan may be considered to delay disease progression in patients with de novo HFrEF.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02661217.

Therapeutic Progress and Knowledge Basis on the Natriuretic Peptide System in Heart Failure

Notwithstanding substantial improvements in diagnosis and treatment, Heart Failure (HF) remains a major disease burden with high prevalence and poor outcomes worldwide. Natriuretic Peptides (NPs) modulate whole cardiovascular system and exhibit multiple cardio-protective effects, including the counteraction of the Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System (RAAS) and Sympathetic Nervous System (SNS), promotion of vasodilatation and natriuresis, and inhibition of hypertrophy and fibrosis. Novel pharmacological therapies based on NPs may achieve a valuable shift in managing patients with HF from inhibiting RAAS and SNS to a reversal of neurohormonal imbalance. Enhancing NP bioavailability through exogenous NP administration and inhibiting Neutral Endopeptidase (NEP) denotes valuable therapeutic strategies for HF. On the one hand, NEP-resistant NPs may be more specific as therapeutic choices in patients with HF. On the other hand, NEP Inhibitors (NEPIs) combined with RAAS inhibitors have proved to exert beneficial effects and reduce adverse events in patients with HF. Highly effective and potentially safe Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Neprilysin Inhibitors (ARNIs) have been developed after the failure of NEPIs and Vasopeptidase Inhibitors (VPIs) due to lacking efficacy and safety. Therapeutic progress and knowledge basis on the NP system in HF are summarized in the current review.

Discovery of Novel Multi-target Inhibitor of angiotensin type 1 receptor and neprilysin inhibitors from Traditional Chinese Medicine

Angiotensin II type-1 receptor–neprilysin inhibitor (ARNi) is consisted of Angiotensin II type-1 receptor (AT1) antagonist and neprilysin (NEP) inhibitor, which could simultaneously increase the vasodilators of the natriuretic peptides and antagonize vasoconstrictors of Ang II. ARNi has been proved a superior effect and lower risks of death on chronic heart failure (CHF) and hypertension. In this paper, ARNi from Traditional Chinese Medicines (TCM) was discovered based on target combination of AT1 and NEP by virtual screening, biological assay and molecular dynamics (MD) simulations. Two customized strategies of combinatorial virtual screening were implemented to discover AT1 antagonist and NEP inhibitor based on pharmacophore modeling and docking computation respectively. Gyrophoric acid (PubChem CID: 135728) from Parmelia saxatilis was selected as AT1 antagonist and assayed with IC₅₀ of 29.76 μM by calcium influx assay. And 3,5,3′-triiodothyronine (PubChem CID: 861) from Bos taurus domesticus was screened as NEP inhibitor and has a dose dependent inhibitory activity by biochemistry fluorescence assay. Combined with MD simulations, these compounds can generate interaction with the target, key interactive residues of ARG167, TRP84, and VAL108 in AT1, and HIS711 in NEP were also identified respectively. This study designs the combinatorial strategy to discover novel frames of ARNi from TCM, and gyrophoric acid and 3,5,3′-triiodothyronine could provide the clues and revelations of drug design and therapeutic method of CHF and hypertension for TCM clinical applications.

Use of sacubitril/valsartan in Marfan syndrome-related cardiomyopathy: The first case report

RATIONALE

Marfan syndrome is a rare cause of heart failure due to primary or secondary cardiomyopathy. Recently, sacubitril/valsartan-an angiotensin receptor blocker-neprilysin inhibitor-has been added in clinical practice as a standard therapy for heart failure. To our knowledge, there are no data on sacubitril/valsartan's effects on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with Marfan syndrome.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 24-year-old man was admitted to our Internal Medicine Department due to dyspnea, ascites, and leg swelling. Arterial blood gas analysis revealed severe hypoxemia with respiratory and metabolic alkalosis. Hilar congestion was highlighted on chest x-ray.

DIAGNOSES

Recurrent acute decompensated heart failure with reduced ejection fraction despite optimal medical therapy in Marfan-related cardiomyopathy.

INTERVENTIONS AND OUTCOMES

Sacubitril/valsartan was added to optimal medical therapy after hemodynamic stabilization allowing progressive clinical, laboratoristic, and echocardiographic improvement. Patient maintained a free survival from heart failure and a good quality of life until 9-month follow-up.

LESSONS

Sacubitril/valsartan should be effective on pathophysiologic mechanisms and cardiovascular outcomes of Marfan syndrome-related cardiovascular complications.

Characteristics and Healthcare Utilization Among Veterans Treated for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Who Switched to Sacubitril/Valsartan

Background:

US guidelines recommend that patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), who tolerate an ACEI (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor) or ARB (angiotensin II receptor blocker), be switched to sacubitril/valsartan to reduce morbidity and mortality. We compared characteristics and healthcare utilization between Veterans with HFrEF who were switched to sacubitril/valsartan versus maintained on an ACEI or ARB.

Methods:

retrospective cohort study of treated HFrEF (July 2015–June 2017) using Veterans Affairs data. The index date was the first fill for sacubitril/valsartan and if none, for an ACEI or ARB. Treated HFrEF was defined by (1) left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%, (2) ≥1 in/outpatient HF encounter, and (3) ≥1 ACEI or ARB fill, all within 1-year preindex. Poisson regression models were used to compare baseline characteristics and 1:1 propensity score-matched adjusted 4-month follow-up healthcare utilization between sacubitril/valsartan switchers and ACEI or ARB maintainers.

Results:

Switchers (1612; 4.2%) were less likely than maintainers (37 065; 95.8%) to have a history of myocardial infarction or hypertension, and more likely to be black, have a lower left ventricular ejection fraction, and higher preindex healthcare utilization. Switchers were less likely to experience follow-up all-cause hospitalizations (11.2% versus 14.0%; risk ratio 0.80 [95% CI, 0.65–0.98], P value 0.035).

Conclusions:

Few Veterans with treated HFrEF were switched to sacubitril/valsartan within the first 2 years of Food and Drug Administration approval. Sacubitril/valsartan use was associated with a lower risk for all-cause hospitalizations at 4 months follow-up. Reasons for lack of guideline-recommended sacubitril/valsartan initiation warrant investigation and may reveal opportunities for HFrEF care optimization.

Sacubitril-valsartan versus enalapril for acute decompensated heart failure: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

The Comparison of Sacubitril–Valsartan versus Enalapril on Effect on NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilised from an Acute Heart Failure Episode (PIONEER-HF) trial demonstrated significant reductions in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide. Our study explored the cost-effectiveness of the use of sacubitril-valsartan versus enalapril in acute decompensated heart failure from the Australian healthcare perspective.

Methods

A Markov model was designed using data from the PIONEER-HF trial to model the clinical progress and costs of patients over a lifetime time horizon. The model consisted of three health states: ‘alive and event-free’, ‘alive after non-fatal hospitalisation for acute decompensated heart failure’ or ‘dead’. Costs and utilities were estimated from published sources. The cost of sacubitril-valsartan (per the Australian pharmaceutical benefits schedule) was AU$7.08/day. Outcomes of interest were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year gained and cost per year of life saved. Cost and benefits were discounted at 5.0% per annum.

Results

Compared to enalapril, sacubitril-valsartan was estimated to cost an additional AU$7464 (discounted) per person, but lead to 0.127 years of life saved (discounted) and 0.096 quality-adjusted life years gained (discounted) over a lifetime analysis. These equated to incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of AU$58,629/year of life saved (US$41,795, EU€58,629, GBP£32,001) and AU$77,889/quality-adjusted life year gained (US$55,526, EU€49,202, GBP£42,504). We have assumed a threshold of AU$50,000/quality-adjusted life year gained to suggest cost-effectiveness.

Conclusions

At its current acquisition price, sacubitril-valsartan in comparison to enalapril is not likely to be cost-effective in the management of acute decompensated heart failure in Australia. A price reduction of more than 25% would confer cost-effectiveness.

Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan on Physical and Social Activity Limitations in Patients With Heart Failure: A Secondary Analysis of the PARADIGM-HF Trial

Importance

Health-related quality of life (HRQL) of patients with heart failure is markedly reduced compared with that in patients with other chronic diseases, demonstrating substantial limitations in physical and social activities. In the Prospective Comparison of ARNI With an ACE-Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial, sacubitril/valsartan improved overall HRQL compared with enalapril, as determined by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ).

Objective

To examine the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on physical and social activities.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The PARADIGM-HF trial was a randomized, double-blind, active treatment-controlled clinical trial performed from December 8, 2009, to March 31, 2014, in 8399 patients with New York Heart Association class II to IV disease and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less at 1043 centers in 38 countries. Data analysis was performed from August 1, 2017, to December 25, 2017.

Interventions

Sacubitril/valsartan, 200 mg twice daily, or enalapril, 10 mg twice daily.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Patients completed HRQL assessments using the KCCQ at randomization, 4-month, 8-month, and annual visits. The effect of sacubitril/valsartan on components of the physical and social limitation sections of the KCCQ at 8 months and longitudinally and related biomarkers and clinical outcomes were studied.

Results

At baseline, 7618 of 8399 patients (90.7%) (mean [SD] age, 64 [11] years; 5987 [78.6%] male and 1631 [21.4%] female) completed the initial KCCQ assessment. Patients reported the greatest limitations at baseline in jogging and sexual relationships. Patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan had significantly better adjusted change scores in most physical and social activities at 8 months and during 36 months compared with those receiving enalapril. The largest improvement over enalapril was in household chores (adjusted change score difference, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.19-3.50; P < .001) and sexual relationships (adjusted change score difference, 2.72; 95% CI, 0.97-4.46; P = .002); both persisted through 36 months (overall change score difference, 1.69 [95% CI, 0.78-2.60], P < .001; and 2.36 [95% CI, 1.01-3.71], P = .001, respectively).

Conclusions and Relevance

In patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, sacubitril/valsartan significantly improved nearly all KCCQ physical and social activities compared with enalapril, with the largest responses in household chores and sexual relationships. In addition to reduced likelihood of cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, and heart failure hospitalization, sacubitril/valsartan may improve limitations in common activities in these patients.

Trial Registration

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01035255.

Cost-Effectiveness of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Germany: An Application of the Efficiency Frontier

BACKGROUND

To assess the cost-effectiveness of new treatments in Germany, the efficiency frontier (EF) method has been developed. We compared the cost-effectiveness analysis using international standards and the German methodology, using the heart failure drug sacubitril/valsartan as an example.

METHODS

A previously developed Markov model was adapted to include 4 treatment options: no treatment, enalapril, candesartan, and sacubitril/valsartan. The internationally used incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated, as well as cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Additionally, EFs, net monetary benefits (NMBs), and price-acceptability curves were created according to German guidelines. All analyses were performed from the perspective of the German Statutory Health Insurance.

RESULTS

The base-case ICER for sacubitril/valsartan compared to enalapril is €19  300/quality-adjusted life-year. On the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, sacubitril/valsartan is most likely to be cost-effective, out of all included comparators, from a hypothetical willingness-to-pay threshold of €18 250/quality-adjusted life-year onward. No EF could be constructed for the base case. Taking the uncertainty of the input parameters into account for the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, a NMB of around -€14 000 was calculated, depending on the outcome considered, with the NMB being zero at a daily price for sacubitril/valsartan ranging from €1.52 to €1.67.

CONCLUSION

We calculated an ICER for Germany, comparable to previously published cost-effectiveness analyses for Europe, which widely concluded sacubitril/valsartan to be cost-effective. Using the German EF approach, a considerable discount needs to be applied before sacubitril/valsartan can be considered cost-effective.

Patients report more severe daily limitations than recognized by their physicians

BACKGROUND

Patient limitations guide selection of heart failure therapies, for which indications often specify New York Heart Association Class.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the extent of patient-reported limitations during daily activities and compare to New York Heart Association class assigned by providers during the same visit, and to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) group.

METHODS AND RESULTS

While waiting for their appointment, 948 patients on return visits to an ambulatory HF clinic completed a written questionnaire assessing specific activity limitations, which were compared to physician-assigned NYHA class during the same visit. Patient-reported limitation to perform daily activity ranged from 25% for bathing to 61% for yardwork or housework and 71% for jogging or hurrying. Most patients who did not report limitations to perform daily life activities were correctly classified as NYHA I by the physicians (76%), but 12% of the 376 patients classified as NYHA I reported limitations to showering or bathing and 73% reported limitations while doing yardwork or house work. Limitation to walking was reported by 172 patients (50%) classified as class II. Limitations to walking one block were most common in patients with LVEF ≥40% compared to patients with LVEF <40%, and least commonly, in HF with better EF (improved from 31 ± 13 to 52 ± 7).

CONCLUSIONS

Activity limitations are commonly reported by ambulatory HF patients, but underestimated by physicians. It is not clear how this should guide therapy validated for NYHA class but focused activity questions may merit wider use to track limitations and improvement in ambulatory HF.

Established and Emerging Roles of Biomarkers in Heart Failure

Heart failure (HF) is a complex syndrome with an enormous societal burden in terms of cost, morbidity, and mortality. Natriuretic peptide testing is now widely used to support diagnosis, prognostication, and management of patients with HF and are incorporated into HF clinical practice guidelines. Beyond the natriuretic peptides, novel biomarkers may supplement traditional clinical and laboratory testing to improve understanding of the complex disease process of HF and possibly to personalize care for those affected through better individual phenotyping. In this review, we will discuss natriuretic peptides and the more novel biomarkers by dividing them into categories based on the major pathophysiologic pathways they represent. Given the complex physiology in HF, it is reasonable to expect that the future of biomarker testing lies in the application of multimarker testing panels, precision medicine to improve HF care delivery, and the use of biomarkers in proteomics and metabolomics to further improve HF care.

Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Irbesartan in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease

BACKGROUND

Sacubitril/valsartan reduces the risk of cardiovascular mortality among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, but its effects on kidney function and cardiac biomarkers in people with moderate to severe chronic kidney disease are unknown.

METHODS

The UK HARP-III trial (United Kingdom Heart and Renal Protection-III), a randomized double-blind trial, included 414 participants with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) 20 to 60 mL/min/1.73 m² who were randomly assigned to sacubitril/valsartan 97/103 mg twice daily versus irbesartan 300 mg once daily. The primary outcome was measured GFR at 12 months using ANCOVA with adjustment for each individual's baseline measured GFR. All analyses were by intention to treat.

RESULTS

In total, 207 participants were assigned to sacubitril/valsartan and 207 to irbesartan. Baseline measured GFR was 34.0 (SE, 0.8) and 34.7 (SE, 0.8) mL/min/1.73 m², respectively. At 12 months, there was no difference in measured GFR: 29.8 (SE 0.5) among those assigned sacubitril/valsartan versus 29.9 (SE, 0.5) mL/min/1.73 m² among those assigned irbesartan; difference, -0.1 (0.7) mL/min/1.73 m². Effects were similar in all prespecified subgroups. There was also no significant difference in estimated GFR at 3, 6, 9, or 12 months and no clear difference in urinary albumin:creatinine ratio between treatment arms (study average difference, -9%; 95% CI, -18 to 1). However, compared with irbesartan, allocation to sacubitril/valsartan reduced study average systolic and diastolic blood pressure by 5.4 (95% CI, 3.4-7.4) and 2.1 (95% CI, 1.0-3.3) mm Hg and levels of troponin I and N terminal of prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (tertiary end points) by 16% (95% CI, 8-23) and 18% (95% CI, 11-25), respectively. The incidence of serious adverse events (29.5% versus 28.5%; rate ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.75-1.53), nonserious adverse reactions (36.7% versus 28.0%; rate ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.96-1.90), and potassium ≥5.5 mmol/L (32% versus 24%, P=0.10) was not significantly different between randomized groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Over 12 months, sacubitril/valsartan has similar effects on kidney function and albuminuria to irbesartan, but it has the additional effect of lowering blood pressure and cardiac biomarkers in people with chronic kidney disease.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.isrctn.com . Unique identifier: ISRCTN11958993.

Effect of Sacubitril-Valsartan vs Enalapril on Aortic Stiffness in Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Compared with enalapril, sacubitril-valsartan reduces cardiovascular mortality and heart failure hospitalization in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). These benefits may be related to effects on hemodynamics and cardiac remodeling.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether treatment of HFrEF with sacubitril-valsartan improves central aortic stiffness and cardiac remodeling compared with enalapril.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Randomized, double-blind clinical trial of 464 participants with heart failure and ejection fraction of 40% or less enrolled across 85 US sites between August 17, 2016, and June 28, 2018. Follow-up was completed on January 26, 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

Randomization (1:1) to sacubitril-valsartan (n = 231; target dosage, 97/103 mg twice daily) vs enalapril (n = 233; target dosage, 10 mg twice daily) for 12 weeks.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was change from baseline to week 12 in aortic characteristic impedance (Zc), a measure of central aortic stiffness. Prespecified secondary outcomes included change from baseline to week 12 in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, ejection fraction, global longitudinal strain, mitral annular relaxation velocity, mitral E/e' ratio, left ventricular end-systolic and end-diastolic volume indexes (LVESVI and LVEDVI), left atrial volume index, and ventricular-vascular coupling ratio.

RESULTS

Of 464 validly randomized participants (mean age, 67.3 [SD, 9.1] years; 23.5% women), 427 completed the study. At 12 weeks, Zc decreased from 223.8 to 218.9 dyne × s/cm5 in the sacubitril-valsartan group and increased from 213.2 to 214.4 dyne × s/cm5 in the enalapril group (treatment difference, -2.2 [95% CI, -17.6 to 13.2] dyne × s/cm5; P = .78). Of 9 prespecified secondary end points, no significant between-group difference in change from baseline was seen in 4, including left ventricular ejection fraction (34%-36% with sacubitril-valsartan vs 33 to 35% with enalapril; treatment difference, 0.6% [95% CI, -0.4% to 1.7%]; P = .24). However, greater reductions from baseline were seen with sacubitril-valsartan than with enalapril in all others, including left atrial volume (from 30.4 mL/m2 to 28.2 mL/m2 vs from 29.8 mL/m2 to 30.5 mL/m2; treatment difference, -2.8 mL/m2 [95% CI, -4.0 to -1.6 mL/m2]; P < .001), LVEDVI (from 75.1 mL/m2 to 70.3 mL/m2 vs from 79.1 mL/m2 to 75.6 mL/m2; treatment difference, -2.0 mL/m2 [95% CI, -3.7 to 0.3 mL/m2]; P = .02), LVESVI (from 50.8 mL/m2 to 46.3 mL/m2 vs from 54.1 to 50.6 mL/m2; treatment difference, -1.6 mL/m2 [95% CI, -3.1 to -0.03 mL/m2]; P = .045), and mitral E/e' ratio (from 13.8 to 12.3 vs from 13.4 to 13.8; treatment difference, -1.8 [95% CI, -2.8 to -0.8]; P = .001). Rates of adverse events including hypotension (1.7% vs 3.9%) were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Treatment of HFrEF with sacubitril-valsartan, compared with enalapril, did not significantly reduce central aortic stiffness. The study findings may provide insight into mechanisms underlying the effects of sacubitril-valsartan in HFrEF.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02874794.

Sacubitril/Valsartan Averts Adverse Post-Infarction Ventricular Remodeling and Preserves Systolic Function in Rabbits

BACKGROUND

Sacubitril/valsartan (SAC/VAL) is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated the effects of SAC/VAL on acute myocardial infarction (MI) and cardiac remodeling in a translational rabbit model of MI.

METHODS

New Zealand White rabbits were sedated and underwent conscious MI (45-min ischemia) by balloon inflation (previously implanted surgically) followed by 72 h (acute protocol) or 10 weeks (chronic protocols) of reperfusion. "Infarct-sparing" protocol: SAC/VAL, VAL, or placebo were randomly allocated and administered at reperfusion. "HFrEF-treatment" protocol: rabbits were randomized, and treatment commenced after echocardiography-confirmed left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%. "HFrEF-prevention" protocol: treatment started at reperfusion and continued daily throughout the study.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, SAC/VAL and VAL significantly reduced infarct size (TTC staining) and plasma troponin levels; however, only SAC/VAL preserved LVEF at 72 h post-MI. In the HFrEF-treatment protocol, LVEF improvement was observed with SAC/VAL compared with both placebo and VAL starting 2 weeks post-treatment, a benefit that persisted throughout study duration. In the HFrEF-prevention protocol, SAC/VAL and VAL attenuated the decline in LVEF post-MI, although SAC/VAL offered better functional protection. The functional improvement observed in both treatment protocols was paralleled by significant reduction in left ventricular (LV) scar size (Picrosirius red staining) in the SAC/VAL groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Reperfusion therapy with SAC/VAL or VAL offers robust acute infarct-sparing benefits; however, SAC/VAL treatment offered superior short-term and long-term benefits in preventing MI-induced LV dysfunction compared with VAL. SAC/VAL also significantly attenuated LV scar size following MI compared with placebo, whereas VAL did not reach statistical significance in scar reduction.

Differential Regulation of ANP and BNP in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure: Deficiency of ANP

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated the differential regulation of circulating atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP) and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) and tested the hypothesis that a relative deficiency of ANP exists in a subgroup of patients with ADHF.

BACKGROUND

The endocrine heart releases the cardiac hormones ANP and BNP, which play a key role in cardiovascular (CV), renal, and metabolic homeostasis. In heart failure (HF), both plasma ANP and BNP are increased as a compensatory homeostatic response to myocardial overload.

METHODS

ANP and BNP concentrations were measured in a small group of patients with ADHF (n = 112). To support this study's goal, a total of 129 healthy subjects were prospectively recruited to establish contemporary normal values for ANP and BNP. Plasma 3',5'cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP), ejection fraction (EF), and body mass index (BMI) were measured in these subjects.

RESULTS

In cases of ADHF, 74% of patients showed elevated ANP and BNP. Importantly, 26% of patients were characterized as having normal ANP (21% of this subgroup had normal ANP and elevated BNP). Cyclic GMP was lowest in the ADHF group with normal levels of ANP (p < 0.001), whereas BMI and EF were inversely related to ANP levels (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Among a subgroup of patients hospitalized with ADHF, the presence of an ANP deficiency is consistent with a differential regulation of ANP and BNP and suggests the existence of a potentially compromised compensatory cardiac endocrine response. These findings have implications for the pathophysiology, diagnostics, and therapeutics of human HF.

Cardiac Troponin I and Cardiovascular Risk in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Background

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have increased risk of cardiovascular events.

Objectives

This study evaluated the association between high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I concentration and cardiovascular events in patients with COPD and heightened cardiovascular risk.

Methods

In a double-blind randomized controlled trial, 16,485 patients with COPD and cardiovascular disease or risk factors were randomized to once daily inhaled placebo, fluticasone furoate (100 μg), vilanterol (25 μg), or their combination. Plasma high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I concentrations were measured in a subgroup of 1,599 patients. Outcomes were on-treatment cardiovascular events and COPD exacerbations over a median of 18 months, and cardiovascular death over a median of 27 months.

Results

Baseline plasma cardiac troponin I concentrations were above the limit of detection (1.2 ng/l) in 1,542 (96%) patients. Concentrations were unaffected by inhaled therapies at 3 months (p > 0.05). Compared with the lowest quintile (cardiac troponin <2.3 ng/l), patients in the highest quintile (≥7.7 ng/l) were at greater risk of cardiovascular events (hazard ratio [HR] 3.7; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.3 to 10.1; p = 0.012) and cardiovascular death (HR: 20.1; 95% CI: 2.4 to 165.2; p = 0.005) after adjustment for risk factors. By contrast, there were no differences in exacerbations between quintiles (HR: 1.1; 95% CI: 0.8 to 1.5; p = 0.548).

Conclusions

In patients with COPD and heightened cardiovascular risk, plasma cardiac troponin I concentrations are a specific and major indicator of future cardiovascular events and cardiovascular death. Inhaled therapies did not affect cardiac troponin I concentrations consistent with their neutral effect on mortality and cardiovascular outcomes. (Study to Evaluate the Effect of Fluticasone Furoate/Vilanterol on Survival in Subjects With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease [SUMMIT]; NCT01313676)

Evolution of B-type natriuretic peptide and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide during acute decompensated heart failure in a chronic heart failure patient with reduced ejection fraction treated with Sacubitril/Valsartan: a case report

Background

B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and the N-terminal proBNP (NT-proBNP) exhibit different evolution in chronic heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction treated with Sacubitril/Valsartan; BNP increasing or remaining stable, while NT-proBNP decreases. However, how this difference translates upon acute decompensation is unknown.

Case summary

Herein, we described in a 78-year-old woman with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction treated with Sacubitril/Valsartan who had acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). BNP and NT-proBNP were markedly high during ADHF and showed parallel return to baseline level after clinical improvement.

Discussion

BNP and NT-proBNP retained similar value for the diagnosis of ADHF in patient treated with Sacubitril/Valsartan. These findings strongly suggest that either BNP or NT-proBNP can be used indifferently in this context, while their relative use is debated in chronic heart failure.

Cardiovascular Pleiotropic Effects of Natriuretic Peptides

Atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP) is a cardiac hormone belonging to the family of natriuretic peptides (NPs). ANP exerts diuretic, natriuretic, and vasodilatory effects that contribute to maintain water–salt balance and regulate blood pressure. Besides these systemic properties, ANP displays important pleiotropic effects in the heart and in the vascular system that are independent of blood pressure regulation. These functions occur through autocrine and paracrine mechanisms. Previous works examining the cardiac phenotype of loss-of-function mouse models of ANP signaling showed that both mice with gene deletion of ANP or its receptor natriuretic peptide receptor A (NPR-A) developed cardiac hypertrophy and dysfunction in response to pressure overload and chronic ischemic remodeling. Conversely, ANP administration has been shown to improve cardiac function in response to remodeling and reduces ischemia-reperfusion (I/R) injury. ANP also acts as a pro-angiogenetic, anti-inflammatory, and anti-atherosclerotic factor in the vascular system. Pleiotropic effects regarding brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and C-type natriuretic peptide (CNP) were also reported. In this review, we discuss the current evidence underlying the pleiotropic effects of NPs, underlying their importance in cardiovascular homeostasis.

Renal Clearance of N-Terminal pro-Brain Natriuretic Peptide Is Markedly Decreased in Chronic Kidney Disease

Background: The ratio of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) secretion from the heart to peripheral NT-proBNP remains unknown in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Methods and Results: We measured plasma NT-proBNP in the aortic root (AO; NT-proBNPAO) and in the coronary sinus (CS; NT-proBNPCS) in 544 patients. Patients were classified into 6 categories based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR): G1, n=44, eGFR ≥90 mL/min/1.73 m2; G2, n=221, 60≤eGFR<90 mL/min/1.73 m2; G3a, n=132, 45≤eGFR<60 mL/min/1.73 m2; G3b, n=77, 30≤eGFR<45 mL/min/1.73 m2; G4, n=34, 15≤eGFR<30 mL/min/1.73 m2; and G5, n=36, eGFR <15 mL/min/1.73 m2. In non-CKD patients, hemodynamics but not eGFR were independent predictors of log NT-proBNP. In CKD patients, eGFR and hemodynamics were independent predictors of log NT-proBNP. The ratio of NT-proBNP secretion from the heart to NT-proBNPAO significantly decreased with decreasing eGFR in 6 groups (P<0.0001): G1, 67±38%; G2, 50±24%; G3a, 40±21%; G3b, 30±16%; G4, 14.8±7.9%; and G5, 3.5±2.4%, respectively. Conclusions: eGFR contributes to the value of NT-proBNP for prediction of hemodynamic overload in CKD patients but not in non-CKD patients, and the ratio of NT-proBNP secretion from the heart to peripheral NT-proBNP is markedly decreased in CKD patients, especially those with eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2.

Improving heart failure patient outcomes utilizing guideline-directed therapy

Heart failure (HF) prevalence continues to rise and remains a significant burden to patients, caregivers, providers, and the healthcare system. Guideline-directed medical therapy with standard neurohormonal blockade has been the cornerstone of medical management for many years. Despite aggressive utilization of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers, and aldosterone antagonists, HF hospitalizations and readmissions are common and residual mortality remains high. With the development of two novel medical therapies (sacubitril/valsartan and ivabradine), the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and Heart Failure Society of America released a pharmacologic update to provide guidelines for incorporation of these agents into clinical practice. Although effective via different mechanisms of action, both agents now have a prominent role in risk reduction. HF medical regimens often become quite complex, especially when associated with comorbid conditions, and require frequent follow-up. Providers must be proficient in patient monitoring, medication dose titration, and therapy optimization. Individualized patient care strategies such as guideline-directed therapy can promote long-term adherence and quality of life.

Soluble Neprilysin in the General Population: Clinical Determinants and Its Relationship to Cardiovascular Disease

Background

Neprilysin is a metalloprotease involved in proteolysis of numerous peptides, including natriuretic peptides, and is of prognostic and therapeutic importance in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. No studies have investigated circulating neprilysin in the community, its clinical correlates, or its relationship to cardiovascular disease in the general population.

Methods and Results

Plasma neprilysin was measured in 1536 participants from Olmsted County, Minnesota, using a commercially available sandwich ELISA assay. Clinical and echocardiographic correlates and subsequent outcomes were determined. Soluble neprilysin is non‐normally distributed in the community (median: 3.9 ng/mL; interquartile range: 1.0–43.0 ng/mL). There was no relationship between plasma neprilysin and age (Spearman correlation: −0.04, P=0.16); body mass index (Spearman correlation: −0.04, P=0.16); glomerular filtration rate (Spearman correlation: −0.007, P=0.8); or A‐, B‐, or C‐type natriuretic peptides (Spearman correlation: 0.03, P=0.22; −0.001, P=0.96; 0.01, P=0.67, respectively). Among tertiles of neprilysin, the lowest tertile group had the highest prevalence of smokers (P<0.001), hypertension (P=0.04), dyslipidemia (P=0.03), and diastolic dysfunction (P=0.02). Soluble neprilysin was not prospectively associated with death or heart failure over a median of 10.7 years.

Conclusions

In a large community‐based cohort, for the first time, we described the distribution of circulating neprilysin in the general community. We observed that neprilysin does not correlate with natriuretic peptide levels and is not independently associated with adverse outcomes. The novel associations observed between low soluble neprilysin levels and an adverse cardiometabolic and smoking profile requires further investigation.

BNP as a Major Player in the Heart-Kidney Connection

Brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) is an important biomarker for patients with heart failure, hypertension and cardiac hypertrophy. Although it is known that BNP levels are relatively higher in patients with chronic kidney disease and no heart disease, the mechanism remains unknown. Here, we review the functions and the roles of BNP in the heart-kidney interaction. In addition, we discuss the relevant molecular mechanisms that suggest BNP is protective against chronic kidney diseases and heart failure, especially in terms of the counterparts of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS). The renal medulla has been reported to express depressor substances. The extract of the papillary tips from kidneys may induce the expression and secretion of BNP from cardiomyocytes. A better understanding of these processes will help accelerate pharmacological treatments for heart-kidney disease.

Independent Prognostic Value of Serum Soluble ST2 Measurements in Patients With Heart Failure and a Reduced Ejection Fraction in the PARADIGM-HF Trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure)

BACKGROUND

Soluble ST2 (sST2) is associated with cardiac remodeling and fibrosis. In chronic heart failure, the predictive value of sST2 has not been evaluated in a model that includes both NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) and hs-TnT (high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T), in a trial in which treatment had a major impact. Therefore, the effects of treatment on sST2 levels in PARADIGM-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure), the relationships between sST2 and outcomes, and the prognostic utility of various sST2 partition values were examined.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Baseline (n=2002), 1-month (n=1936), and 8-month postrandomization (n=1758) sST2 levels were compared between treatment groups (sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril). Relationships between baseline sST2 and (1) heart failure hospitalization, (2) cardiovascular death, and (3) combined heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death were assessed using restricted cubic spline models. Adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine the impact of sST2 change from baseline to 1 month on the hazard of experiencing each outcome. Sacubitril/valsartan led to more reductions and fewer increases in sST2 levels versus enalapril. After adjusting for other predictors, including NT-proBNP and hs-TnT, baseline sST2 remained an independent predictor of outcomes. Associations between baseline sST2 and outcomes were linear. sST2 increases at 1 month were associated with worse subsequent outcomes and decreased with better outcomes (P=0.001, 0.012, and 0.009 for the 3 outcomes, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril/valsartan resulted in greater reductions and less increases in sST2 levels than enalapril. No specific threshold was associated with risk, as linear relationships between baseline sST2 and outcomes were observed. Changes in sST2 from baseline to 1 month were independently associated with the risk of outcomes.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255.

Chronic Myocardial Injury and Risk for Stroke

BACKGROUND

Chronic myocardial injury, defined as persistent troponin levels >99th percentile values when measured with high-sensitivity assays (hs-cTn), is common. The association between chronic myocardial injury and stroke is unknown. This study aimed to investigate the association between chronic myocardial injury and stroke.

METHODS

From 2011 to 2014, we included patients with chest pain and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T levels measured concurrently but without acute conditions associated with elevated high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T levels. Cox regression was used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for stroke in patients with stable high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T levels of 5-9, 10-14, 15-29, 30-49, and ≥50 ng/L, using <5 ng/L as reference group. Categories >14 ng/L were defined as chronic myocardial injury.

RESULTS

A total of 19,460 patients were included, among whom 1528 (7.9%) had chronic myocardial injury. During a mean follow-up of 2.1 years, there were 244 (1.2%) strokes. With increasing high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T levels yearly stroke rates increased from 0.24% to 4.0%. Adjusted hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals for stroke were 1.83 (1.27-2.64) in patients with high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T levels of 5-9 ng/L, increasing to 1.95 (1.21-3.14), 3.38 (1.80-6.35), and 4.32 (1.89-9.91) in patients with high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T levels of 15-29, 30-49, and ≥50 ng/L, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with chronic myocardial injury have up to a 4-fold increased risk of stroke compared with patients with high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T levels <5 ng/L. Our findings indicate that patients with any detectable high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T level, in particular those with chronic myocardial injury, have an increased risk of stroke and require further attention.

Evolving Use of Biomarkers in the Management of Heart Failure

Objective, noninvasive, clinical assessment of patients with heart failure can be made using biomarker measurements, including natriuretic peptides, cardiac troponins, soluble suppression of tumorigenicity 2, and galectin-3. The aim of this review is to provide clinicians with guidance on the use of heart failure biomarkers in clinical practice. The authors provide a didactic narrative based on current literature, an exemplary case study, and their clinical experience.