Single therapeutic and supratherapeutic doses of sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) do not affect cardiac repolarization

Nonclinical Cardiovascular Assessment of the Soluble Guanylate Cyclase Stimulator Vericiguat

Vericiguat and its metabolite M-1 were assessed for proarrhythmic risk in nonclinical in vitro and in vivo studies. In vitro manual voltage-clamp recordings at room temperature determined the effect of vericiguat on human Ether-a-go-go Related Gene (hERG) K+ channels. Effects of vericiguat and M-1 on hERG K+, Nav1.5, hCav1.2, hKvLQT1/1minK, and hKv4.3 channels were investigated via automated voltage-clamp recordings at ambient temperature. Effects of vericiguat and M-1 on hERG K+ and Nav1.5 channels at pathophysiological conditions were explored via manual voltage-clamp recordings at physiologic temperature. Single oral doses of vericiguat (0.6, 2.0, and 6.0 mg/kg) were assessed for in vivo proarrhythmic risk via administration to conscious telemetered dogs; electrocardiogram (ECG) and hemodynamic parameters were monitored. ECG recordings were included in 4- and 39-week dog toxicity studies. In manual voltage-clamp recordings, vericiguat inhibited hERG K+-mediated tail currents in a concentration-dependent manner (20% threshold inhibitory concentration ∼1.9 µM). In automated voltage-clamp recordings, neither vericiguat nor M-1 were associated with biologically relevant inhibition (>20%) of hNav1.5, hCav1.2, hKvLQT1, and hKv4.3. No clinically relevant observations were made for hNav1.5 and hKvLQT1 under simulated pathophysiological conditions. Vericiguat was associated with expected mode-of-action-related dose-dependent changes in systolic arterial blood pressure (up to -20%) and heart rate (up to +53%). At maximum vericiguat dose, corrected QT (QTc) interval changes from baseline varied slightly (-6 to +1%) depending on correction formula. Toxicity studies confirmed absence of significant QTc interval changes. There was no evidence of an increased proarrhythmic risk from nonclinical studies with vericiguat or M-1. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: There was no evidence of an increased proarrhythmic risk from in vitro and in vivo nonclinical studies with vericiguat or M-1. The integrated risk assessment of these nonclinical data combined with existing clinical data demonstrate administration of vericiguat 10 mg once daily in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction is not associated with a proarrhythmic risk.

Vericiguat: A Randomized, Phase Ib, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind, QTc Interval Study in Patients with Chronic Coronary Syndromes

BACKGROUND

Vericiguat is indicated for the treatment of symptomatic chronic heart failure in adult patients with reduced ejection fraction who are stabilized after a recent decompensation event.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effects of vericiguat on QT interval in patients with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS).

METHODS

This was a randomized, phase Ib, placebo-controlled, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter study. Vericiguat once daily was up-titrated from 2.5 mg to 5 mg and then to 10 mg (treatments A, B, and C) at 14-day intervals. Positive control was moxifloxacin 400 mg (single dose on day 8 or day 50; placebo on other days [treatment D]). We evaluated the placebo-adjusted change from baseline of the Frederica-corrected QTc interval (QTcF), pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of vericiguat.

RESULTS

In total, 74 patients with CCS, with mean (standard deviation) age 63.4 (8.0) years, were included and 72 patients completed the study. At each timepoint up to 7 h after administration, mean placebo-corrected change in QTcF from baseline was < 6 ms and the upper limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval of the mean was below the 10-ms threshold for clinical relevance. Moxifloxacin confirmed the assay sensitivity. Median time of maximum concentration of vericiguat was 4.5 h post-dose. The adverse event profile of vericiguat was consistent with its mechanism of action, and the findings did not indicate any safety concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

As part of an integrative risk assessment, this study demonstrated no clinically relevant corrected QT prolongation with vericiguat 10 mg once daily at steady state.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03504982.

Electrophysiologic effects of sacubitril in different arrhythmia models

BACKGROUND

Previous studies report conflicting data regarding anti- or proarrhythmic effects of sacubitril. Aim of this study was to assess the impact of acute sacubitril treatment in different arrhythmia models.

METHODS

Sacubitril was administered (3, 5, 10 μM) in 12 isolated rabbit hearts. Further 12 hearts were treated with erythromycin to simulate long-QT-syndrome-2 (LQT2). Other 12 hearts were perfused with veratridine to mimic long-QT-syndrome-3 (LQT3). Both LQT-groups were treated with sacubitril (5 μM) additionally. Ventricular vulnerability was assessed by a pacing protocol. AV-blocked bradycardic hearts were perfused with a hypokalemic solution to trigger torsade de pointes (TdP). In further 13 hearts, AF was induced by a combination of acetylcholine and isoproterenol and sacubitril (5 μM) was added afterwards.

RESULTS

With sacubitril, action potential duration (APD) was abbreviated whereas spatial dispersion of repolarisation (SDR) remained stable. In both LQT groups, APD and SDR were increased. Infusion of sacubitril reduced APD (- 21 ms, p < 0.01) and SDR (- 8 ms) in the LQT2-group and did not alter APD (+2 ms) but reduced SDR (-19 ms, p < 0.01) in the LQT3-group. Ventricular vulnerability was not altered by sacubitril. No TdP were observed with sacubitril or under baseline conditions in any group. Sacubitril significantly suppressed TdP in the LQT2-group (3 vs. 43 episodes, p < 0.05) but not in the LQT3-group (10 vs. 16 episodes, p = ns). Sacubitril reduced inducibility of AF (9 vs. 31 episodes).

CONCLUSION

Sacubitril abbreviated APD. In addition, sacubitril exhibits potential antiarrhythmic effects in LQT2 and may be beneficial in LQT3 and AF.

Evaluating sacubitril/valsartan as a treatment option for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and preserved ejection fraction

INTRODUCTION

Sacubitril/valsartan is the first-in-class angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor approved in 2015 for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). On 16 February 2021, the Food and Drug Administration acknowledged that "Benefits are most clearly evident in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction below normal," thus potentially extending the use in subjects with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

AREAS COVERED

The authors outline the regulatory history, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and risk-benefit profile of sacubitril/valsartan in HFrEF and HFpEF. A critical cross-trial comparison is presented, including sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), together with an insight into the latest European Society of Cardiology guidelines, where the new category of heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction is introduced.

EXPERT OPINION

Sacubitril/valsartan is a foundation of the pharmacological armamentarium in HFrEF to counteract the neuro-hormonal changes and reverse cardiac remodeling, together with beta-blockers, SGLT2i and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. The optimal sequence algorithm is an evolving issue, and the authors provide the reader with their personal perspective. A multidisciplinary management is encouraged to minimize the therapeutic inertia and manage tolerability issues, thus supporting adherence. Pragmatic trials, pharmacovigilance, and high-quality real-world evidence are crucial toward personalized safe prescribing of sacubitril/valsartan.

The Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure Patients: A Review

Heart failure (HF) is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, has been approved for the treatment of HF. At present, there have been few systematic and detailed reviews discussing the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in HF. In this review, we first introduced the pharmacological mechanisms of sacubitril/valsartan, including the reduction in the degradation of natriuretic peptides in the natriuretic peptide system and inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system. Then, we summarized the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan in HF patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) including the reduction in risks of mortality and hospitalization, reversal of cardiac remodeling, regulation of biomarkers of HF, improvement of the quality of life, antiarrhythmia, improving renal dysfunction and regulation of metabolism. Finally, we discussed the safety and tolerability of sacubitril/valsartan in the treatment of HFrEF or HFpEF. Compared with ACEIs/ARBs or placebo, sacubitril/valsartan showed good safety and tolerability, although the risk of hypotension might be high. In conclusion, the overwhelming majority of studies show that sacubitril/valsartan is effective and safe in the treatment of HFrEF patients but that it has little benefit in HFpEF patients. Sacubitril/valsartan will probably be a promising anti-HF drug in the near future.

Duration of Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Associated With Electrocardiographic Outcomes Before and After Sacubitril/Valsartan

AIM

Changes in QRS duration in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) after sacubitril/valsartan therapy is not fully understood. This study aimed to assess the association of duration of HFrEF diagnosis with electrocardiographic and echocardiographic outcomes between before and after sacubitril/valsartan.

METHODS

We included HFrEF patients who received naïve sacubitril/valsartan therapy for ≥3 months, between January 2016 and March 2018. All patients were divided into 2 groups based on their duration of HFrEF. Generalized linear models were analyzed the cardiac outcomes after sacubitril/valsartan therapy by HFrEF duration.

RESULTS

Among these, 42 patients were HFrEF duration of <1 year and 47 patients were ≥1 year. The mean difference of QRS duration was lesser in the <1-year group than in the ≥1-year group (-2.3 msec vs 6.3 msec; P = .029). However, the mean difference of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was higher in the ≥1-year group (13.8% vs 5.8%; P = .008). After adjusting for patient demographics and clinical characteristics, the ≥1-year group had a significantly prolonged QRS duration (coefficient = 11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.3-21.7) and an unfavorable LVEF recovery (coefficient = -10.3; 95% CI -14.5 to -6.1) compared with the <1-year group.

CONCLUSION

Prolonged QRS durations and unfavorable LVEF recoveries after sacubitril/valsartan therapy were observed in patients with HFrEF duration of ≥1 year. Earlier diagnosis of HFrEF and appropriate medication treatment may be beneficial in the improvement of QRS duration and LVEF recovery.

Effect of sacubitril/valsartan on investigator-reported ventricular arrhythmias in PARADIGM-HF

Aims

Sudden death is a leading cause of mortality in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In PARADIGM‐HF, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the incidence of sudden death. The purpose of this post hoc study was to analyse the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, compared to enalapril, on the incidence of ventricular arrhythmias.

Methods and results

Adverse event reports related to ventricular arrhythmias were examined in PARADIGM‐HF. The effect of randomized treatment on two arrhythmia outcomes was analysed: ventricular arrhythmias and the composite of a ventricular arrhythmia, implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shock or resuscitated cardiac arrest. The risk of death related to a ventricular arrhythmia was examined in time‐updated models. The interaction between heart failure aetiology, or baseline ICD/cardiac resynchronization therapy‐defibrillator (CRT‐D) use, and the effect of sacubitril/valsartan was analysed. Of the 8399 participants, 333 (4.0%) reported a ventricular arrhythmia and 372 (4.4%) the composite arrhythmia outcome. Ventricular arrhythmias were associated with higher mortality. Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the risk of a ventricular arrhythmia (hazard ratio [HR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62–0.95; p = 0.015) and the composite arrhythmia outcome (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65–0.97; p = 0.025). The treatment effect was maintained after adjustment and accounting for the competing risk of death. Baseline ICD/CRT‐D use did not modify the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, but aetiology did: HR in patients with an ischaemic aetiology 0.93 (95% CI 0.71–1.21) versus 0.53 (95% CI 0.37–0.78) in those without an ischaemic aetiology (p for interaction = 0.020).

Conclusions

Sacubitril/valsartan reduced the incidence of investigator‐reported ventricular arrhythmias in patients with HFrEF. This effect may have been greater in patients with a non‐ischaemic aetiology.

Effect of SAcubitril/Valsartan on left vEntricular ejection fraction and on the potential indication for Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator in primary prevention: the SAVE-ICD study

PURPOSE

Sacubitril/valsartan has been associated with a positive reverse left ventricular remodelling in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). These patients may also benefit from an ICD implant. We aimed to assess EF improvement after 6 months of treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, evaluating when ICD as primary prevention was no longer indicated.

METHODS

Multicentre, observational, prospective study enrolling all consecutive patients with HFrEF and EF ≤ 35% with an ICD as primary prevention and starting treatment with sacubitril/valsartan (NCT03935087). Resynchronization therapy and patients experiencing appropriate ICD therapies before sacubitril/valsartan were excluded.

RESULTS

Two-hundred-and-thirty patients were enrolled (73.9% males, mean age 64.3 ± 12.1 years) After 6 months of treatment, a reduction in left ventricular end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes was noted and LVEF increased from 28.3 ± 5.6% to 32.2 ± 6.5% (p < 0.001). At 6 months, a non-ischemic aetiology of cardiomyopathy and a final dose of sacubitril/valsartan > 24/26 mg twice daily were associated with a higher probability of an absolute increase of > 5% in LVEF. A total of 5.3% of primary prevention patients still had an arrhythmic event in the first 6 months after treatment with sacubitril/valsartan started.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril/valsartan improves systolic function in HFrEF, mainly due to reverse left ventricular remodelling. Improvement in EF after 6 months of treatment could help prevent ICD implantation in nearly one out of four patients, with important clinical and economic implications. However, the risk of sudden cardiac death in this recovered HFrEF population has not been thoroughly studied, and the present data should be interpreted only as hypothesis-generating.

Exploring the Food and Drug Administration's review and approval of Entresto (sacubitril/valsartan)

Federal regulatory agencies such as the United States Food and Drug Administration review pharmacological evidence to ensure the safety and efficacy of new and repurposed pharmaceuticals prior to market approval. The discussions, disagreements and procedural decisions contained within such reviews offer unique insight into a pharmaceutical's strengths, weaknesses and opportunities, yet are often overlooked as a significant source of pharmacological information for research and development. To highlight the value of such resources, we present a case study on Entresto, a first-in-class angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and explore the regulatory rationale underlying its market approval. Using information extracted from Entresto's online approval package at Drugs@FDA, we explore some of the procedural complexities underlying market approval of new pharmaceuticals, discuss the broad pharmacological implications contained within regulatory agency grey literature, and highlight opportunities for future therapeutic development.

Effect of angiotensin/neprilysin inhibition on ventricular repolarization and clinical arrhythmogenesis

Background: The most common reason for sudden cardiac death in heart failure is malign ventricular arrhythmias. LCZ 696 improves hospitalization and sudden cardiac death outcomes in heart failure, however mechanisms in preventing sudden cardiac death are still unknown. There is little information available assessing effect of LCZ 696 on Tp-e interval and related calculations. In this study, we aimed to investigate the impact of Sacubitril/valsartan therapy on Tp-e interval, Tp-e/QT ratio and Tp-e/QTc ratio in heart failure patients and its reflections on clinical arrhythmogenesis. Methods: The study was designed as a prospective observational fashion. 265 patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), who were on regular follow up at Samsun Training and Research Hospital Outpatient Heart Failure Clinic, were validated for the study. Clinical, echocardiographic, electrocardiogram and device data before initiation and six months after dose optimizing were obtained. Results: Stroke volume, cardiac output and ejection fraction significantly improved after LCZ 696 treatment. T wave related parameters, QT and QTC intervals significantly diminished. Furthermore, there was a negative correlation between baseline Tp-e interval duration and the absolute percentile increase of stroke volume(r:-0.234, p: 0.042) and cardiac output (r: -0.240, p: 0.037). Conclusion: In our study, switching Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone-System inhibitor with Angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor was associated with increase in left ventricle performance and decrease of sustained ventricular arrhythmias that required ICD shocks. These positive findings were accompanied by improvements in surface electrocaridogram changes such as Tp-e and related indices.

An evaluation of the fixed-dose combination sacubitril/valsartan for the treatment of arterial hypertension

INTRODUCTION

Essential hypertension is a significant risk factor for cardiovascular disease, renal disease, and mortality with increasing prevalence. Despite the availability of various antihypertensive agents, hypertension is still poorly controlled. Therefore, new chemical compounds with antihypertensive efficacy need to be developed. The dual angiotensin II receptor-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 is a single molecule synthesized by co-crystallization of valsartan and the neprilysin inhibitor prodrug sacubitril (1:1 molar ratio).

AREAS COVERED

This review includes an overview of hypertension and the current pharmacotherapy. The authors summarize the LCZ696 drug chemistry, pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, metabolism, randomized control trials (RCTs), and safety concerns. Databases searched included PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

EXPERT OPINION

LCZ696 is effective in hypertension treatment. Short-term RCTs have shown that the highest doses of LCZ696 (200 and 400 mg [q.d.]) were more effective at lowering office and ambulatory blood pressure than angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) alone while having a similar tolerability profile. The effects of LCZ696 on hypertensive organ damage are only sparsely investigated and so far no studies have established the impact of LCZ696 on cardiovascular event rates. Future studies should focus on the comparison of LCZ696 and combination therapies already in use such as ARB and calcium channel blockers.

LCZ696 Therapy Reduces Ventricular Tachyarrhythmia Inducibility in a Myocardial Infarction-Induced Heart Failure Rat Model

Background

LCZ696 (valsartan/sacubitril) therapy significantly reduced mortality in patients with heart failure (HF). Although a clinical trial (PARADISE-MI Trial) has been ongoing to examine the effects of LCZ696 in myocardial infarction (MI) patients, the effects of LCZ696 on remodeling of cardiac electrophysiology in animal models remain largely unclear.

Methods

We performed coronary artery ligation to create MI in Sprague-Dawley rats. Echocardiography was performed one week after MI to confirm the development of HF with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40%. MI rats were randomly assigned to receive medical therapy for 4 weeks: LCZ696, enalapril, or vehicle. The sham-operation rats received sham operation without MI creation. In vivo electrophysiological exams were performed under general anesthesia. Western blot analyses were conducted to quantify ion channel proteins.

Results

The HF-vehicle group did not show significant changes in LVEF. Both enalapril and LCZ696 therapy significantly improved LVEF. The HF-vehicle group had higher ventricular arrhythmia (VA) inducibility than the sham group. As compared with the HF-vehicle group, LCZ696 therapy significantly reduced VA inducibility, but enalapril therapy did not. Western blot analyses showed significant downregulation of Na_V1.5, ERG, KCNE1, and KCNE2 channel proteins in the HF vehicle group compared with the sham group. LCZ696 therapy upregulated protein expression of ERG, KCNE1, and KCNE2.

Conclusion

As compared with enalapril therapy, LCZ696 therapy led to improvement of LVEF, reduced VA inducibility, and upregulated expression of K⁺ channel proteins.

Effects of Calcium, Magnesium, and Potassium Concentrations on Ventricular Repolarization in Unselected Individuals

BACKGROUND

Subclinical changes on the electrocardiogram are risk factors for cardiovascular mortality. Recognition and knowledge of electrolyte associations in cardiac electrophysiology are based on only in vitro models and observations in patients with severe medical conditions.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to investigate associations between serum electrolyte concentrations and changes in cardiac electrophysiology in the general population.

METHODS

Summary results collected from 153,014 individuals (54.4% women; mean age 55.1 ± 12.1 years) from 33 studies (of 5 ancestries) were meta-analyzed. Linear regression analyses examining associations between electrolyte concentrations (mmol/l of calcium, potassium, sodium, and magnesium), and electrocardiographic intervals (RR, QT, QRS, JT, and PR intervals) were performed. The study adjusted for potential confounders and also stratified by ancestry, sex, and use of antihypertensive drugs.

RESULTS

Lower calcium was associated with longer QT intervals (-11.5 ms; 99.75% confidence interval [CI]: -13.7 to -9.3) and JT duration, with sex-specific effects. In contrast, higher magnesium was associated with longer QT intervals (7.2 ms; 99.75% CI: 1.3 to 13.1) and JT. Lower potassium was associated with longer QT intervals (-2.8 ms; 99.75% CI: -3.5 to -2.0), JT, QRS, and PR durations, but all potassium associations were driven by use of antihypertensive drugs. No physiologically relevant associations were observed for sodium or RR intervals.

CONCLUSIONS

The study identified physiologically relevant associations between electrolytes and electrocardiographic intervals in a large-scale analysis combining cohorts from different settings. The results provide insights for further cardiac electrophysiology research and could potentially influence clinical practice, especially the association between calcium and QT duration, by which calcium levels at the bottom 2% of the population distribution led to clinically relevant QT prolongation by >5 ms.

Clinical characteristics of patients with sustained ventricular arrhythmias after sacubitril/valsartan initiation

Our aim was to describe the clinical profile of patients presenting sustained ventricular arrhythmias after sacubitril/valsartan (SV) initiation. All cases of sustained ventricular arrhythmias in patients receiving SV were consecutively recorded in two centers. Nineteen patients had sustained ventricular arrhythmias after SV. All were men and were previously receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, or angiotensin II receptor blockers before SV initiation. Fifteen patients (78.9%) had electrical stability in the previous 6 months. Nine patients (47.4%) initiated SV at the lowest available dose (24/26 mg). Globally, in all but five patients alive at discharge, SV was discontinued after the event. Six patients presented new arrhythmic events after discontinuation of SV. Two deaths and three heart transplants occurred (one due to heart failure and the other two due to persistent ventricular arrhythmias). All patients had a high arrhythmic risk, and 17 (89.5%) had an implanted cardioverter defibrillator. No specific triggers for the arrhythmic event were found. Male sex and previous episodes of ventricular arrhythmias could be associated with an increased risk of sustained ventricular tachycardia after SV initiation. Discontinuation of the drug might be an additional approach to enable a better control of ventricular arrhythmias in some patients.

Ventricular Arrhythmic Storm after Initiating Sacubitril/Valsartan

Objectives: Sacubitril/valsartan was approved recently for the treatment of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. We present 6 cases of ventricular arrhythmia, that occurred shortly after sacubitril/valsartan initiation, that required drug withdrawal. Other potential triggering factors of electrical storm were ruled out and, from the arrhythmic perspective, all of the patients were stable in the previous year. Our aim is to describe the possible association of sacubitril/valsartan with arrhythmic storm. Methods: This was an observational monocentric study performed in the first 7 months of sacubitril/valsartan commercialization in Spain (October 2016). All patients were included in the SUMA (Sacubitril/Varsartan Usado Ambulatoriamente en Madrid [Sacubitril/Valsartan Used in Outpatients in Madrid]) registry. Patients were consecutively enrolled on the day they started the drug. Ventricular arrhythmic storm was defined as ≥2 episodes of sustained ventricular arrhythmia or defibrillator therapy application in 24 h. Results: From 108 patients who received the drug, 6 presented with ventricular arrhythmic storm (5.6%). Baseline characteristics were similar in the patients with and without ventricular arrhythmic storm. The total number of days that sacubitril/valsartan was administered to each patient was 5, 6, 44 (8 since titration), 84, 93, and 136 (105 since titration), respectively. Conclusions: Our data are not enough to infer a cause-and-effect relationship. Further investigations regarding a potential proarrhythmic effect of sacubitril/valsartan are probably needed.

Erratum to: Clinical Pharmacokinetics of Sacubitril/Valsartan (LCZ696): A Novel Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor

Sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) is indicated for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Absorption of sacubitril/valsartan and conversion of sacubitril (prodrug) to sacubitrilat (neprilysin inhibitor) was rapid with maximum plasma concentrations of sacubitril, sacubitrilat, and valsartan (angiotensin receptor blocker) reaching within 0.5, 1.5-2.0, and 2.0-3.0 h, respectively. With a twofold increase in dose, an increase in the area under the plasma concentration-time curve was proportional for sacubitril, ~1.9-fold for sacubitrilat, and ~1.7-fold for valsartan in healthy subjects. Following multiple twice-daily administration, steady-state maximum plasma concentration was reached within 3 days, showing no accumulation for sacubitril and valsartan, while ~1.6-fold accumulation for sacubitrilat. Sacubitril is eliminated predominantly as sacubitrilat through the kidney; valsartan is eliminated mainly by biliary route. Drug-drug interactions of sacubitril/valsartan were evaluated with medications commonly used in patients with heart failure including furosemide, warfarin, digoxin, carvedilol, levonorgestrel/ethinyl estradiol combination, amlodipine, omeprazole, hydrochlorothiazide, intravenous nitrates, metformin, statins, and sildenafil. Co-administration with sacubitril/valsartan increased the maximum plasma concentration (~2.0-fold) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve (1.3-fold) of atorvastatin; however, it did not affect the pharmacokinetics of simvastatin. Age, sex, or ethnicity did not affect the pharmacokinetics of sacubitril/valsartan. In patients with heart failure vs. healthy subjects, area under the plasma concentration-time curves of sacubitril, sacubitrilat, and valsartan were higher by approximately 1.6-, 2.1-, and 2.3-fold, respectively. Renal impairment had no significant impact on sacubitril and valsartan area under the plasma concentration-time curves, while the area under the plasma concentration-time curve of sacubitrilat correlated with degree of renal function (1.3-, 2.3-, 2.9-, and 3.3-fold with mild, moderate, and severe renal impairment, and end-stage renal disease, respectively). Moderate hepatic impairment increased the area under the plasma concentration-time curves of valsartan and sacubitrilat ~2.1-fold.

Sacubitril/Valsartan (LCZ696) in Heart Failure

It has been known since the 1990s that long-term morbidity and mortality is improved in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) by treatments that target the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS). It has also long been thought that enhancement of the activity of natriuretic peptides (NPs) could potentially benefit patients with HFrEF, but multiple attempts to realize this benefit had failed over the years - until 2014, when a large, phase III, randomized, controlled clinical trial (PARADIGM-HF) was completed comparing sacubitril/valsartan with enalapril, a well-established treatment for HFrEF. Sacubitril/valsartan (formerly known as LCZ696) is a first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) that simultaneously suppresses RAAS activation through blockade of angiotensin II type 1 receptors and enhances vasoactive peptides including NPs through inhibition of neprilysin, the enzyme responsible for their degradation. In PARADIGM-HF, patients with HFrEF treated with sacubitril/valsartan had 20% less risk for cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure (the primary endpoint), 20% less risk for cardiovascular death, 21% less risk for first hospitalization for heart failure, and 16% less risk for death from any cause, compared with enalapril (all p < 0.001). Concerning tolerability, the sacubitril/valsartan group had higher proportions of patients with hypotension and nonserious angioedema but lower proportions with renal impairment, hyperkalemia, and cough, compared with the enalapril group. The use of sacubitril/valsartan has been endorsed by the latest heart failure treatment guidelines in Europe and the USA. This chapter reviews the discoveries, scientific reasoning, and clinical evidence that led to the development of sacubitril/valsartan, the first novel therapy in a new drug class to improve survival in HFrEF in the last 15 years.