Sacubitril/Valsartan: From Clinical Trials to Real-world Experience

Real-world effectiveness and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

PARADIGM-HF demonstrated superiority of sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) over enalapril in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, patients in clinical practice may differ in their characteristics and overall risk compared with patients in clinical trials, and additional outcomes can be observed in real world (RW). Hence, a systematic review was conducted to identify and describe RW data on sac/val.

METHODS

RW studies evaluating the effects of sac/val in adult patients with HFrEF with a sample size ≥100 were identified via MEDLINE® and Embase® from 2015 to January 2020. Citations were screened, critically appraised and relevant data were extracted.

RESULTS

A total of 68 unique studies were identified. Nearly half of the studies were conducted in Europe (n = 34), followed by the US (n = 15) and Asia (n = 11). Median follow-up period varied from 1 to 19 months. Mean age ranged between 48.7 and 79.0 years; patients were mostly male and in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II/III, and mean left ventricular ejection fraction varied between 23%and 38%. Of studies performing comparisons, most reported superior efficacy of sac/val in reducing the risk of HF hospitalisations, all-cause hospitalisations, and all-cause mortality as compared to standard-of-care. Many studies reported significant improvements in NYHA functional class and reduction in biomarker levels post sac/val. Hypotension and hyperkalaemia were the most frequently reported adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

This comprehensive overview of currently available RW evidence on sac/val complements the evidence from randomised controlled trials, substantiating its effectiveness in heterogeneous real-world HF populations.

Current evidence of sacubitril/valsartan in the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

Heart failure (HF) is one of the most common reasons for hospital admission in western countries. The measurement of the left ventricular ejection fraction is essential for the classification of HF and deciding on HF treatment. The treatment of HF has been improved in both diagnostic and therapeutic fields over the past two decades. The angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor decreased the cardiovascular mortality in patients with chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction. Sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) improves the imbalance between the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone and natriuretic peptide systems. We present the clinical efficacy, real-world experience, safety and tolerability, the relevance of etiology of cardiomyopathy, and gender differences and regulatory affairs of LCZ696 in the treatment of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction.

Evolution of functional class, biochemical and echocardiographic parameters and clinical outcomes after sacubitril/valsartan initiation in daily practice

Aim: To analyze the impact of sacubitril/valsartan on functional class, surrogate parameters and clinical outcomes in clinical practice. Methods: Retrospective study of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction that started treatment with sacubitril/valsartan. Results: 149 patients (70.7 ± 9.6 years) were included. At baseline, 83.9, 15.4 and 0.7% were taking sacubitril/valsartan 24/26, 49/51 and 97/103 mg, respectively. After 316.1 ± 155.9 days, these numbers moved to 38.9, 39.6, 12.8% (8.7% discontinued). Sacubitril/valsartan improved functional class (from 2.3 ± 0.6 to 1.8 ± 0.5; p < 0.001), increased ejection fraction (from 31.2 ± 7.0 to 37.3 ± 10.5%; p < 0.001) and reduced NT-proBNP (from 3884 ± 4871 to 1975.3 ± 3006.6 pg/ml; p = 0.0001). Rates of any event, cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalization/decompensation were 13.2 events/100 patient-years. Conclusion: Sacubitril/valsartan is effective and safe in routine practice.