Sacubitril/valsartan for heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction : A retrospective cohort study

Acute Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan with Initial Initiation in Pediatric Patients in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit

There are very few objectively studied and proven medical interventions for the management of pediatric heart failure. Due to improvement in morbidity and mortality in the adult heart failure population, sacubitril/valsartan has started to be used in pediatric patients. The aim of this study was to characterize the acute cardiovascular effects of sacubitril/valsartan in the first 48 h after initiation. Single center retrospective study of pediatric patients in the cardiac intensive care unit who were initiated on sacubitril/valsartan for the first time over a three-year period. Clinical data was collected immediately prior to and within 48 h following initiation. A total of 16 patients with a mean age of 9.6 years were started on sacubitril/valsartan with a mean daily dose of 1.6 mg/kg/day in the first 48 h. Significant decreases were noted in N-terminal brain natriuretic peptide and vasoactive-inotrope score. No significant changes were noted in other clinical variables. The initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in a small cohort of pediatric patients with heart failure in the cardiac intensive care unit is associated with a significant decrease in N-terminal brain natriuretic peptide with a concurrent decrease in vasoactive-inotrope score and without significant change venous oxygen extraction ratio or other hemodynamic variables.

Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: Real-World Experience from Italy (the REAL.IT Study)

Sacubitril/valsartan reduces heart failure (HF)-related hospitalizations and cardiovascular mortality in PARADIGM-HF and has become a foundational treatment for HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, data of its routine real-world use are limited, and evidence from Italian settings is lacking. The REAL.IT study aimed to characterize the demographics, pharmacotherapy, clinical characteristics and outcomes of sacubitril/valsartan-treated Italian patients with HFrEF. Electronic medical records of patients initiating sacubitril/valsartan from October 2016 to June 2019 at nine specialized hospital outpatient HF centers across Italy were reviewed. Overall, 924 adults (mean age 64.5 years, 84.6% male) were included. At baseline, 38.7% had an ischemic HF etiology, 45.9% hypertension, 23.2% atrial fibrillation, 25.4% diabetes mellitus, 26.1% an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and 31.9% coronary artery bypass grafting. There were no clear patterns of patient selection over time. During follow-up, NYHA class improved in 37.5% of patients after a mean of 5.3 ± 3.8 months; 36.1% and 16.7% of patients were in NYHA class III during characterization and after one year of follow-up, respectively. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improved ≥5% in 56.3% of patients at one year; 39.7% had ≥30% reduction of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide; 2.2% had hyperkalemia during characterization and 2.6% during follow-up; and 3.8% had hypotension during characterization and 12% during follow-up. A total of 50 (5.8%) of patients had device implantation (ICD/CRT) during follow-up. HF-related hospitalization was recorded in 19.6% of patients during follow-up; 3.8% of patients died, approximately 1.3% from cardiovascular causes. Our real-world data confirm the favorable effectiveness and tolerability of sacubitril/valsartan observed in pivotal randomized controlled trials.

Effectiveness of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction Using Real-World Data: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

AIM

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess all-cause mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization with sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) compared to standard HF therapy in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) using real-world data.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched PubMed and Google Scholar for the observational studies published in English exploring the clinical outcomes of S/V use in HFrEF till 14/03/2022. Two independent reviewers assessed the quality and risk of bias of the included studies. A random-effect model was used to combine data. The outcomes assessed were all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization associated with S/V use in comparison to standard HF therapy.

RESULTS

A total of nine observational studies comparing S/V to Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I)/Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) in HFrEF were included in the systematic review, with more than 32000 patients included in the final analysis. Overall, S/V use was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (Risk Ratio [RR]= 0.70, 95% CI 0.53-0.93, I²= 83%) and HF hospitalization (RR= 0.62; 95% CI, 0.48-0.80, I²= 94%).

CONCLUSION

Similar to the landmark controlled evidence, real-world data of S/V use in HFrEF demonstrated a significant reduction in all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization.

The Difference between Sacubitril Valsartan and Valsartan on Vascular Endothelial Function, APN, MMP-9, and BNP Levels in Patients with Hypertension and Chronic Heart Failure

Background

Sacubitril valsartan and valsartan are the first new drugs approved for angiotensin receptor neprilysin lysine inhibitors (ARNIs) in outpatients with chronic heart failure (CHF) and hypertension. Compared with enalapril, sacubitril valsartan and valsartan have been shown to reduce the mortality and morbidity of cardiovascular diseases. However, there is little actual evidence regarding the efficacy of ARNIs in hypertensive patients with CHF.

Methods

From January 2019 to January 2021, 60 patients with hypertension and chronic heart failure were diagnosed and treated in our hospital. The patients were randomly divided into an observation group and a control group, with 30 cases in each group. The control group was given valsartan, the observation group was given sacubitril valsartan, and both groups were treated for six months. The endothelium-dependent vasodilation (EDD) function of the brachial artery and serum nitric oxide (NO), endothelin-1 (ET-1), carotid artery intima-media thickness, and glomerular filtration, excess rate (eGFR), and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were compared between the two groups of patients before and after treatment. The serum adiponectin (APN), matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9), and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels were compared before and after treatment.

Results

The total effective rate of treatment in the research group was higher than that in the control group (P < 0.05). After treatment, the cardiac function indexes LVESD and LVEDD of the two groups of patients were lower than before treatment, and LVEF was higher than before treatment, and the improvement rate of the treatment group was better than that of the control group (P < 0.05). After treatment, the serum APN of the two groups was higher than before treatment, the levels of MMP-9 and BNP were lower than before treatment, and the improvement rate of patients in the treatment group was better than that of patients in the control group (P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant in the levels of EDD, NO, and ET-1 of the two groups of patients before treatment (P < 0.05). After treatment, compared with the control group, the EDD function and NO level of the research group were significantly increased (P < 0.05), and the level of ET-1 was significantly reduced (P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in carotid artery intima-media thickness, glomerular filtration rate, and left ventricular ejection fraction before and after treatment in the two groups (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

In the treatment of hypertension and chronic heart failure, sacubitril valsartan can improve the clinical symptoms of patients to the greatest extent and can significantly improve the levels of LVEF, LVEDD, NT-proBNP, heart function, and other indicators. Sacubitril valsartan can increase serum APN levels, reduce MMP-9 and BNP levels, and have good clinical effects. Sacubitril valsartan has a protective effect on the vascular endothelial function of patients with hypertension and CHF. However, these results need to be confirmed in studies involving more subjects and require longer follow-up times.

Sacubitril/valsartan in real-life European patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

We systematically reviewed the European real-world evidence (RWE) about sacubitril-valsartan for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Twenty-one articles, including 16 952 subjects, were identified until 31 October 2020. Taking as reference the PARADIGM-HF cohort, few baseline characteristics were presented in >80% of these studies, most often with high heterogeneity. In random-effects model meta-analysis, age was higher (mean difference +3.84, 95% CI 1.92-5.76), ischaemic aetiology (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64-0.91), hypertension (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.37-0.82), and diabetes (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64-0.92) were less common, and the use of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists was more frequent (OR 3.54, 95% CI 2.27-5.53) in real-life than in PARADIGM-HF. Other clinical and medical features were presented in 19-76% of the selected publications and suggested more severe heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Sacubitril-valsartan was titrated to 97/103 mg b.i.d. in 35% (95% CI 23-47) and discontinued in 12.8% (95% CI 7.4-18.3) patients. When reported, the incidence of hyperkalaemia (six studies, no. 1076), all-cause mortality (five studies, no. 684), and any hospitalization (three studies, no. 390) was 12 (95% CI 5-19)/100 person-year, 8 (95% CI 4-12)/100 person-year, and 24 (95% CI 5-42)/100 person-year, respectively. Knowledge contribution, a metric measuring the proportion of RWE provided by each article based on the number of reported variables and the sample size, was 58.8% and 13.6% for the two biggest investigations (12 082 and 2037 patients), and <5% for all others (most with <100 subjects).

CONCLUSIONS

Limited-quality RWE indicates that there are important differences between European patients prescribed sacubitril-valsartan and the PARADIGM-HF population, including the frequency of target dose achievement.

Effects of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor on renal function in patients with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) has been recommended as a first-line treatment in patients with heart failure (HF). However, the effects of ARNI on renal function remain controversial.The PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library of Trials and Web of Science were searched in the period from inception to 31 January 2021. Randomised controlled trial, cohort studies and observational studies reporting at least one of renal function indicators were included.In patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), ARNI did not lead to a significant decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR, p=0.87), and the risk of worsening renal function (WRF) dropped by 11% compared with control group. Though the level of serum creatinine (SCr) and serum potassium had a slight increase (p=0.01; p=0.02), in contrast to the baseline level, but without clinical significance. In patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), the level of SCr and serum potassium did not have a significant change, and patients with HFpEF assigned to ARNI had a much lower rate of WRF (p=0.0007). In contrast to control group, both patients with HFrEF and HFpEF had a less decrease in eGFR and a lower rate of hyperkalaemia in ARNI group.ARNI did not lead to a significant decrease in eGFR in HFrEF. Compared with control group, ARNI could delay the progression of decrease in eGFR and result in less events of hyperkalaemia in patients with HF. Besides, patients with HFpEF had a lower rate in the events of WRF.

SGLT2i versus ARNI in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aims

This study aimed to determine the effects of sodium‐glucose cotransporter‐2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), compare the effect of SGLT2i with angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), and find whether combination of SGLT2i and ARNI is better than monotherapy.

Methods and results

Embase, Medline, and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating SGLT2i or ARNI in HFrEF. And a total of six trials were included. SGLT2i was found to significantly reduce the risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure by 27% [hazard ratio (HR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67–0.80], hospitalization for heart failure by 31% (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.62–0.77), cardiovascular death by 16% (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74–0.95), and all‐cause death by 16% (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75–0.94) in HFrEF only with a statistically higher risk of genital infection (risk ratio (RR) 2.78, 95% CI 1.46–5.29). The reduction in cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure was of similar magnitude in patients with or without diabetes mellitus (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.64–0.80 vs. HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65–0.87) using SGLT2i. Indirect treatment comparison showed that SGLT2i and ARNI had similar effects on primary outcome (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.82–1.06). And combination of SGLT2i and ARNI achieved a better prognosis performance (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53–0.89) compared with ARNI monotherapy.

Conclusions

SGLT2i could safely reduce cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure in HFrEF regardless of diabetes mellitus status. SGLT2i and ARNI demonstrate similar effects, while combination of SGLT2i and ARNI results in a better cardiovascular protective effect.

A Meta-Analysis on the Effect and Safety of LCZ696 in the Treatment of Hypertension

Objectives

To systematically evaluate the differences in effect and safety of LCZ696 and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in the treatment of hypertension.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Ovid, collected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about the effect and safety of LCZ696 and ARBs in hypertensive patients, extracted relevant data and evaluated the quality of the included literature according to the RCT quality evaluation standard recommended by Cochrane Reviewer's Handbook, using RevMan 5.3, and performed meta-analysis.

Results

Eight RCTs studies were included, with a total of 4313 patients. Compared with ARBs, LCZ696 can better reduce systolic blood pressure (msSBP) (WMD −4.29 mmHg; 95% CI: −5.37 to −3.21; P < 0.001), diastolic blood pressure (msDBP) (WMD −1.87 mmHg; 95% CI:−2.38 to −1.36; P < 0.01), ambulatory systolic blood pressure (maSBP) (WMD −3.37 mmHg; 95% CI:−4.26 to −2.47; P < 0.01), and ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (maDBP) (WMD −1.47 mmHg; 95% CI: −1.97 to −0.97; P < 0.01). In terms of safety, LCZ696 is basically the same as ARBs, but LCZ696 is more likely to cause cough than ARBs (OR = 2.38; 95% CI: 1.27 to 4.47; P < 0.01).

Conclusion

LCZ696 can significantly reduce the blood pressure level of patients with hypertension, but it is necessary to pay attention to whether the patient will experience coughing after taking the drug.

Pharmacist- or Nurse Practitioner-Led Assessment and Titration of Sacubitril/Valsartan in a Heart Failure Clinic: A Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Sacubitril/valsartan is a first-in-class angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor indicated in the management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, based on the results of the PARADIGM-HF trial. Practice-based studies are needed to validate its effect in real-world settings. Clinical pharmacists are ideally situated to assess and titrate sacubitril/valsartan.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the utilization, safety, and tolerability of sacubitril/valsartan in a multidisciplinary heart failure clinic, with assessment and titration by a clinical pharmacist or a nurse practitioner.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a heart failure clinic in Abbotsford, Canada. Included were adult patients with heart failure who were currently or formerly taking sacubitril/valsartan. Data collected for the period October 2015 to February 2019 included patient characteristics, New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification, concurrent medications, sacubitril/valsartan dose, adverse effects, and discontinuation rate.

RESULTS

In total, 128 patients were included. Mean age was 70.1 years, 98 (77%) of the patients were men, and 79 (62%) had NYHA class 2 heart failure. The clinical pharmacist managed care for 78 (61%) of the patients, and the nurse practitioner managed care for 50 (39%). Forty-one (32%) of the patients met modified PARADIGM-HF inclusion criteria. Eighty-five (66%) of the patients achieved the target dose of sacubitril/valsartan, with similar proportions for the clinical pharmacist and nurse practitioner groups, over a mean of 2.2 clinic visits. Patients who achieved the sacubitril/valsartan target dose, relative to those who did not, were significantly younger and had higher mean systolic blood pressure at baseline. Twenty-nine percent of patients (35/119) had an improvement in NYHA classification from before initiation of sacubitril/valsartan to achievement of target or maximally tolerated dose. Eighty-five (66%) of the patients experienced an adverse effect, primarily hypotension, and 12 (9%) required a dose reduction. Only 9 (7%) patients discontinued therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the real-world safety and tolerability of sacubitril/valsartan in the treatment of heart failure, and reinforces that clinical pharmacists can effectively assess and titrate medications in a multidisciplinary heart failure clinic.

Favorable Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan on the Peak Atrial Longitudinal Strain in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure and a History of One or More Episodes of Atrial Fibrillation: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

The peak atrial longitudinal strain (PALS) is primarily an index of the reservoir function of atrial chambers. The conceptual basis exists to hypothesize that sacubitril/valsartan improves the expandability of atrial chambers in the reservoir phase of the atrial mechanical cycle, as a consequence of its effect of prolonging the half-life of natriuretic peptides. Therefore in this retrospective study we evaluated the repercussions of the administration of sacubitril/valsartan maintained for at least 12 months on the PALS.

Methods

In our retrospective study a cohort of 40 patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan has been compared with a second cohort subjected to the conventional treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker. A general criterion to be satisfied was the presence of at least one episode of atrial fibrillation (AF) in the history of the enrolled patients. The study population was composed of New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II/III chronic heart failure (CHF) patients, due to the fact that the treating physicians of the patients whose clinical records were used as source of data, complied with the international guidelines that have so far validated sacubitril/valsartan exclusively for the CHF therapy. The aims were to verify whether the 1-year administration of sacubitril/valsartan is effective in improving the PALS, and also ascertain whether the drug is associated with a decreased risk of AF relapses over a mean retrospective observation period of 12 months.

Results

Sacubitril/valsartan cohort was proven to benefit from a significant increase in average values of PALS (median: 26.5%; interquartile range (IQR): 22% - 30%), opposed to the much less pronounced increase in PALS found in the conventional therapy cohort (median: 22.5%; IQR: 18% - 25.5%). Additionally, the comparison made by means of one-way analysis of variance regarding the mean changes of PALS values, outlined clearly that the sacubitril/valsartan users had an increase in PALS after 1 year of therapy significantly greater (P < 0.001) compared to the patients taking the conventional drugs. Moreover, a risk significantly higher of AF recurrences (P = 0.001) was identified in the conventional therapy group compared to the sacubitril/valsartan group during a 12-month retrospective observation period.

Conclusions

In the present retrospective cohort study a higher increase of PALS has been shown in the cohort treated with sacubitril/valsartan. Moreover, a reduced risk of AF recurrences has been shown in the sacubitril/valsartan users compared to the patients with CHF subjected to conventional treatment.

Sacubitril-Valsartan in a routine community population: attention to volume status critical to achieving target dose

AIMS

In the PARADIGM-heart failure trial, sacubitril-valsartan demonstrated a reduction in heart failure admissions and reduced all-cause mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Although real world data have shown similar benefits regarding efficacy and safety, there has been difficulty in achieving the target dose (TD). The factors preventing the achievement of TD remains unclear. This study assesses the tolerability, ability to achieve, and factors linked to attaining TD in a routine clinical population.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This is a retrospective single-centre review of patients switched from angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers to sacubitril-valsartan between May 2016 and August 2018. Baseline and follow-up clinical characteristics and biomarker profiles were collected. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to analyse predictors of achieving TD. Clinical response to sacubitril-valsartan was defined as a reduction in N terminal pro BNP of ≥30%, or an increase in left ventricular ejection fraction of ≥5% compared with baseline values. To date, a total of 322 patients (75% male patients) have been switched to sacubitril-valsartan. Those still in the titration phase were excluded (n = 25). Sacubitril-valsartan was not tolerated in 40 patients (12.4%). Those intolerant were older (73.4 years [68.3, 80.6] vs. 69.1 years [61.2, 76]; P = 0.003) and had worse renal function with estimated glomerular filtration rate (53.5 mL/min/1.72 m² [36.8, 60.2] vs 60 mL/min/1.72 m² [47, 77]; P ≤ 0.001). Of the remaining 257 patients, TD (97/103 mg BD) was achieved in 194 patients (75.5%), while 37 patients (11.4%) were maintained on 49/51 mg BD and 26 patients (8.1%) remained on 24/26 mg BD. Symptomatic hypotension (74.6%) was the main impediment to attaining TD, followed by renal deterioration (12.7%), and to a lesser extent hyperkalaemia and gastrointestinal symptoms (4.8% each). Diuretic dose decrease was achieved in 37.2% of patients, and this was the strongest independent predictor of achieving TD (odds ratio = 2.1; 95% confidence interval [1.16, 3.8]; P = 0.014). Responder status by N terminal pro BNP criterion was observed in 99 of 214 patients (46.3%) while 70 of 142 (49.3%) attained the left ventricular ejection fraction response status. Achieving this response was independently linked to achieving TD.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril-valsartan was well tolerated. Achievement of TD was possible in the majority of the cohort and was linked to response metrics. Reduction in diuretic was required in a large percentage of the population and was the strongest predictor of attaining TD. Therefore, careful clinical attention to volume status assessment is essential to maximising the benefits of sacubitril-valsartan.

Sacubitril/valsartan improves left ventricular longitudinal deformation in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Clinical efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan administered for the recommended indication of patients with reduced (<40%) left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF) belonging to NYHA classes II-III appears to be higher than that one would expect based on the drug-induced variations of the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). More thorough investigations with the use of indicators of longitudinal systolic function have been therefore recommended, to verify whether a part of the clinical improvement achieved with the use of sacubitril/valsartan might be supported by a reverse remodeling ensuing from changes other than a simple LVEF increase.

METHODS

In the present retrospective cohort study, which collected the pertinent data from two centers devoted to clinical management of outpatients with CHF and dating back to the years 2017 and 2018, we separated patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan from those treated with conventional medical therapy, including ACE inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). For the rest, the therapies practiced in the two cohorts - patients under sacubitril/valsartan and controls - were almost identical, including similar doses of beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), plus loop diuretics, the latter administered at variable doses depending on the signs and symptoms of congestion. The endpoints were the variations of LVEF and global left ventricular longitudinal strain (GLS) over a study period not shorter than one year.

RESULTS

Patients collected within our retrospective cohort study were 132, of whom 44 treated with sacubitril/valsartan and 88 subjected to conventional therapy. All patients were marked by heart failure with reduced (LVEF<40%) left ventricular ejection fraction (HFREF). The mean duration of the retrospective observation period was 14±3 months. In the controls, LVEF was improved after one year of therapy - from 38.071±5.445% (mean±SD) to 41.595±5.282%; P=0.003. On the contrary, no significant improvement in the controls was identified for the GLS - from -12.059±4.016% to -12.250±4.287%; P=0.406. In analogy with controls, patients assigned to sacubitril/valsartan showed a significant increase in LVEF after one year of treatment - from 39.714±4.789% to 42.119±5.683%- (P<0.001). However, differently from the controls, sacubitril/valsartan group exhibited a significant improvement in GLS - from -10.142±3.080% to -18.238±7.284%; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The present retrospective cohort study demonstrates that the use of sacubitril/valsartan for HFREF patients, extended for a mean duration of 14 months, yields a significant improvement in the echocardiographic parameters of systolic function along the transverse (LVEF)and longitudinal (GLS) axes. For the GLS in particular a clear superiority emerges in comparison with conventional therapy including ACE-i or ARBs. From this data the hypothesis of a possible useful role of sacubitril/valsartan also for the therapy of HFpEF could be derived. In this regard, more exhaustive clarifications ensuing from the ongoing randomized controlled trials are eagerly awaited.

Sacubitril/Valsartan Therapy for 14 Months Induces a Marked Improvement of Global Longitudinal Strain in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Clinical efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan administered for the recommended indication of chronic heart failure (CHF) patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) classes II-III appears to be higher than one would expect based on the drug-induced variations of the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). More thorough investigations with the use of indicators of longitudinal systolic function have been therefore recommended to verify whether a part of the clinical improvement achieved with the use of sacubitril/valsartan could be supported by a reverse remodeling ensuing from changes other than a simple LVEF increase.

METHODS

In the present retrospective cohort study, which collected the pertinent data from two centers devoted to clinical management of outpatients with CHF and dating back to the years 2017 and 2018, we separated patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan from those treated with conventional medical therapy, including angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs). For the rest, the therapies practiced in the two groups, patients under sacubitril/valsartan and controls, were almost identical, including similar doses of beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) in the two cohorts, plus loop diuretics, with the latter administered at variable doses. The endpoints were the variations of LVEF and global left ventricular longitudinal strain (GLS) over a study period not shorter than 1 year.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-two patients were collected within our retrospective cohort study, of whom 44 were treated with sacubitril/valsartan and 88 were subjected to conventional therapy. All patients were marked by heart failure with reduced (LVEF ≤ 40%) left ventricular ejection fraction (HFREF). The mean duration of the retrospective observation period was 14 ± 3 months. In controls, LVEF was improved after a year of therapy from 38.071 ± 5.445% (mean ± standard deviation) to 41.595 ± 5.282%. On the contrary, no significant improvement in the controls could be identified for the GLS, from -12.059 ± 4.016% to -12.250 ± 4.287%. In analogy with controls, patients assigned to sacubitril/valsartan showed a significant increase in LVEF after 1 year of treatment from 39.714 ± 4.789% to 42.119 ± 5.683% (P < 0.001). However, differently from the controls, sacubitril/valsartan group exhibited a significant improvement in GLS from -10.142 ± 3.080% to -18.238 ± 7.284% (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The present retrospective cohort study demonstrated that the use of sacubitril/valsartan for HFREF patients, extended for a mean duration of 14 months, yields a significant improvement in the echocardiographic parameters of systolic function along the transverse (LVEF) and longitudinal (GLS) axis. For the GLS in particular, a clear superiority emerges in comparison with conventional therapy including ACE inhibitor or ARBs. From these data, the hypothesis could be derived of a possible useful role of sacubitril/valsartan also for the therapy of HFpEF. In this regard, more exhaustive clarifications ensuing from the ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are eagerly awaited.

Antihypertensive effect of sacubitril/valsartan: a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan used as an antihypertensive agent has not yet been completely assessed. Thus, to investigate them in elderly hypertensive patients, a meta-analysis has been performed.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The meta-analysis incorporated only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which sacubitril/valsartan was compared with a reference drug. The mean reductions in systolic blood pressure (msSBP) and diastolic blood pressure (msDBP) in the sitting position as well as the mean reductions in ambulatory systolic blood pressure (maSBP) and ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (maDBP), were assumed as efficacy endpoints. Adverse events were taken as safety outcomes.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Five RCTs were included for a total of 1513 patients for analysis. In all studies, the comparator drug was an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) - valsartan in two cases and olmesartan in the remaining three cases. Compared with ARBs, there was a significant reduction in msSBP (weight mean difference [WMD] -5.41 mmHg, 95% CI: -7.0 to -3.8; P<0.01), msDBP (WMD=-1.22 mmHg, 95% CI: -2.15 to -0.3; P<0.01), maSBP (WMD=-4.58 mmHg, 95% CI: -5.62 to -3.54; P<0.01) and maDBP (WMD=-2.17 mmHg, 95% CI: - 2.78 to -1.56; P<0.01) in elderly hypertensive patients at 12 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril/valsartan may reduce arterial pressure more efficaciously than ARBs in elderly hypertensive patients.

Practical guidance on the use of sacubitril/valsartan for heart failure

Sacubitril/valsartan is a first-in-class angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) that has been recommended in clinical practice guidelines to reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic, symptomatic heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This review provides an overview of ARNI therapy, proposes strategies to improve the implementation of sacubitril/valsartan in clinical practice, and provides clinicians with evidence-based, practical guidance on the use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFrEF. Despite evidence demonstrating the benefits of ARNI therapy over standard of care, only a fraction of eligible patients takes sacubitril/valsartan. Barriers preventing the prescription of sacubitril/valsartan in eligible patients may include practitioners' unfamiliarity with ARNIs, safety concerns, and payer reimbursement issues. The optimal implementation of sacubitril/valsartan in clinical practice has the potential to reduce the overall burden of HF. Throughout this review, we describe our experience with sacubitril/valsartan, including strategies for the management of adverse events and common patient concerns. In addition, a strategy for the gradual introduction of sacubitril/valsartan using a treatment sequence scheme is proposed.

Anti-Hypertensive Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

For elderly patients suffering from arterial hypertension, a complete assessment of the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan used as an anti-hypertensive agent is not available yet. Therefore, we decided to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to explore some endpoints concerning anti-hypertensive efficacy as well as safety of sacubitril/valsartan in elderly hypertensive patients.

Methods

PubMed and Scopus have been extensively investigated with the help of some key words until June 15, 2018. The meta-analysis incorporated exclusively RCTs in which the anti-hypertensive efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan were compared with those of a reference drug (comparator) that could be an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi), an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), a calcium channel blocker (CCB) or a beta-blocker. Continuous ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was required as an inclusion criterion in the studies to be included in the meta-analysis. The mean reductions in systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure in the sitting position (msSBP and msDBP, respectively), as well as the mean reductions in ambulatory systolic blood pressure (maSBP) and ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (maDBP), were assumed as efficacy endpoints. Adverse events (AEs) were taken as safety outcomes.

Results

Five RCTs were included with a total of 1,513 patients for analysis. In all studies, the comparator drug was an ARB (valsartan in two cases and olmesartan in the remaining three cases). Compared with ARBs, after 12 weeks there was a significant reduction in msSBP (weight mean difference (WMD) = - 5.41 mm Hg, 95% confidence interval (CI): -7.0 to -3.8; P < 0.01), msDBP (WMD = -1.22 mm Hg, 95% CI : -2.15 to -0.3; P < 0.01), maSBP (WMD = -4.58 mm Hg, 95% CI: -5.62 to -3.54; P < 0.01) and maDBP (WMD = -2.17 mm Hg, 95% CI: - 2.78 to -1.56; P < 0.01) in elderly hypertensive patients at 12 weeks.

Conclusions

Sacubitril/valsartan may reduce arterial pressure more efficaciously than ARBs in elderly hypertensive patients. These results have to be confirmed by further RCTs with a good methodological quality, possibly with a greater sample size.