The effects of sacubitril/valsartan on coronary outcomes in PARADIGM-HF

Possible role of LCZ696 in atherosclerosis: new inroads and perspective

LCZ696 blocks both angiotensin receptor type 1 (ATR1) and neprilysin (NEP), which are intricate in the degradation of natriuretic peptides (NPs) and other endogenous peptides. It has been shown NEP inhibitors and LCZ696 could be effectively in the management of atherosclerosis (AS). However, the underlying mechanism of LCZ696 in AS is needed to be clarified entirely. Hence, this review is directed to reconnoiter the mechanistic role of LCZ696 in AS. The anti-inflammatory role of LCZ696 is related to the inhibition of transforming growth factor beta (TGF-β)-activated kinase 1 (TAK) and nod-like receptor pyrin 3 receptor (NLRP3) inflammasome. Moreover, LCZ696, via inhibition of pro-inflammatory cytokines, oxidative stress, apoptosis and endothelial dysfunction can attenuate the development and progression of AS. In conclusion, LCZ696 could be effective in the management of AS through modulation of inflammatory and oxidative signaling. Preclinical and clinical studies are recommended in this regard.

Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor Effects on Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Events: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Sacubitril-valsartan is an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) associated with a decreased risk of death and hospitalization for selected patients with heart failure (HF). However, its association with improved atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events remains unclear. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the association of ARNI with ASCVD events in patients with HF. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies comparing ARNIs with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in terms of myocardial infarction, stroke, angina pectoris, peripheral artery disease, and the composite end point in patients with HF. A total of 8 randomized controlled trials were included, with 17,541 patients assigned to either the ARNI (8,764 patients) or ACEi/ARB (8,777 patients) groups. The incidence of composite end point (risk ratio [RR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93 to 1.13, p = 0.63), myocardial infarction (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.30, p = 0.85), angina pectoris (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.17, p = 0.70), and stroke (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.16, p = 0.93) were not statistically different between the ARNI and ACEi/ARB groups. However, ARNI was associated with a higher incidence of peripheral artery disease (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.52, p = 0.03). In conclusion, this meta-analysis found no association between ARNI therapy and improved ASCVD events in patients with HF.

The Effects of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibition on Major Coronary Events in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: Insights From the PARADISE-MI Trial

BACKGROUND

In patients who survive an acute myocardial infarction (AMI), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors decrease the risk of subsequent major cardiovascular events. Whether angiotensin-receptor blockade and neprilysin inhibition with sacubitril/valsartan reduce major coronary events more effectively than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in high-risk patients with recent AMI remains unknown. We aimed to compare the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on coronary outcomes in patients with AMI.

METHODS

We conducted a prespecified analysis of the PARADISE-MI trial (Prospective ARNI vs ACE Inhibitors Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI), which compared sacubitril/valsartan (97/103 mg twice daily) with ramipril (5 mg twice daily) for reducing heart failure events after myocardial infarction in 5661 patients with AMI complicated by left ventricular systolic dysfunction, pulmonary congestion, or both. In the present analysis, the prespecified composite coronary outcome was the first occurrence of death from coronary heart disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction, hospitalization for angina, or postrandomization coronary revascularization.

RESULTS

Patients were randomly assigned at a median of 4.4 [3.0-5.8] days after index AMI (ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction 76%, non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction 24%), by which time 89% of patients had undergone coronary reperfusion. Compared with ramipril, sacubitril/valsartan decreased the risk of coronary outcomes (hazard ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.74-0.99], P=0.04) over a median follow-up of 22 months. Rates of the components of the composite outcomes were lower in patients on sacubitril/valsartan but were not individually significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

In survivors of an AMI with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and pulmonary congestion, sacubitril/valsartan-compared with ramipril-reduced the risk of a prespecified major coronary composite outcome. Dedicated studies are necessary to confirm this finding and elucidate its mechanism.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT02924727.

The Application of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor in Cardiovascular Diseases: A Bibliometric Review From 2000 to 2022

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) has become a huge challenge for the global public health system due to its high morbidity, mortality and severe economic burden. In recent years, angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), a new class of drugs, has shown good therapeutic effects on CVD patients in several clinical studies, reducing the morbidity and mortality of CVD patients. In this study, we retrieved publications on ARNI research in the cardiovascular field from the Web of Science core collection and analyzed the annual output, spatial and temporal distribution, institutions and authors, core journals, keywords and co-cited literature based on CiteSpace. As a result, 604 publications were retrieved, and the number of annual publications generally increased year by year, with the largest number of articles. The analysis of the co-occurrence of output countries and authors showed that a few developed countries such as the United States, Canada, and United Kingdom are the most active in this field, forming academic groups represented by John Joseph Valentine McMurray and Scott D. Solomon, and New England Journal of Medicine, Cirulation, and Journal of the American College of Cardiology are the most popular journals in the field, with research hotspots focused on ARNI in the treatment of total ejection fraction heart failure, hypertension and its target organ damage, with the potential for future benefit throughout the cardiovascular event chain as research progresses. This study reveals the prospective application of ARNI in the cardiovascular field and the research hotspots, providing broader and deeper guidance for its use in the clinic, which is beneficial to improve the treatment and prognosis of CVD patients.

Cardiopulmonary exercise test-based assessment of the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on the blood pressure response to exercise in patients with acute myocardial infarction during hospitalization

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effects of sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) on cardiopulmonary function and blood pressure response to exercise during hospitalization in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) based on the cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET).

METHODS

A total of 265 AMI patients were treated with either perindopril or S/V within 24 hours of admission. CPET was completed for all patients before discharge. There were 182 cases in the perindopril group and 83 cases in the S/V group.

RESULTS

The proportion of exercise oscillatory ventilation (EOV) was higher in the S/V group than in the perindopril group (10.8% vs 1.6%, X² = 11.148, P = .001). The resting heart rate (HR), resting diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and warm-up DBP were lower in the S/V group than in the perindopril group (P < .05). The resting systolic blood pressure (SBP) was 9.0 mmHg lower (115.7 ± 17.5 vs 106.7 ± 15.0, P < .001), the SBP during warm-up was 9.5 mmHg lower (124.8 ± 23.7 vs 115.3 ± 22.5,P = .002), the SBP at the anaerobic threshold (AT) was 10.5 mmHg lower (135.3 ± 24.8 vs 127.1 ± 25.1,P = .021),the SBP at max watts was 11.5 mmHg lower (148.9 ± 26.4 vs 137.4 ± 26.4,P = .001), and the SBP during one-minute recovery was 12.3 mmHg lower (146.5 ± 27.1 vs 134.2 ± 24.4, P = .001)in the S/V group than in the perindopril group. The S/V group had a higher oxygen ventilation equivalent and carbon dioxide ventilation equivalent (VE/VCO₂) at AT and a lower oxygen uptake-work rate relationship during max watts (P < .05). The differences in the oxygen pulse, stroke volume, peak oxygen uptake (VO_{2 peak}), and VE/VCO₂ slope were not statistically significant between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with S/V was able to reduce the exercise blood pressure in patients with AMI during hospitalization, but did not significantly improve the VO_{2 peak}, VE/VCO₂ slope, or exercise tolerance.

ARNI in HFrEF—One-Centre Experience in the Era before the 2021 ESC HF Recommendations

Background: Sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), has demonstrated a survival benefit and reduces heart failure hospitalization in patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF); however, our experience in this field is limited. This study aimed to summarize a real clinical practice of the use of ARNI in HFrEF patients hospitalized due to HFrEF in the era before the 2021 ESC HF recommendations, as well as assess their clinical outcome with regard to ARNI administration. Methods and Materials: Overall, 613 patients with HFrEF hospitalized in 2018–2020 were enrolled into a retrospective one-centre cross-sectional analysis. The study population was categorized into patients receiving (82/13.4%) and not-receiving (531/82.6%) ARNI. Clinical outcomes defined as rehospitalization, number of rehospitalizations, time to the first rehospitalization and death from any cause were analysed in the 1–2 year follow-up in the ARNI and non-ARNI groups, matched as to age and LVEF. Results: Clinical characteristics revealed the following differences between ARNI and non-ARNI groups: A higher percentage of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) (p = 0.014) and defibrillators with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-D) (p = 0.038), higher frequency of atrial fibrillation (p = 0.002) and history of stroke (p = 0.024) were in the ARNI group. The percentage of patients with HFrEF NYHA III/IV presented an increasing trend to be higher in the ARNI (64.1%) as compared to the non-ARNI group (51.5%, p = 0.154). Incidence of rehospitalization, number of rehospitalizations and time to the first rehospitalization were comparable between the groups. There were no differences between the numbers of deaths of any cause in the ARNI (28%) and non-ARNI (28%) groups. The independent negative predictor of death in the whole population of ARNI and non-ARNI groups was the coexistence of coronary artery disease (CAD) (beta= −0.924, HR 0.806, p = 0.011). Conclusions: Our current positive experience in ARNI therapy is limited to extremely severe patients with HFrEF. Regardless of the more advanced HF and HF comorbidities, the patients treated with ARNI presented similar mortality and rehospitalizations as the patients treated by standard therapy.

Impact of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: Insights From PARAGON-HF

Background Little is known about the impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods and Results We examined outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, according to COPD status, in the PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial. The primary outcome was a composite of first and recurrent hospitalizations for heart failure and cardiovascular death. Of 4791 patients, 670 (14%) had COPD. Patients with COPD were more likely to be men (58% versus 47%; P<0.001) and had worse New York Heart Association functional class (class III/IV 24% versus 19%), worse Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Scores (69 versus 76; P<0.001) and more frequent history of heart failure hospitalization (54% versus 47%; P<0.001). The decrement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Scores with COPD was greater than for other common comorbidities. Patients with COPD had echocardiographic right ventricular enlargement, higher serum creatinine (100 μmol/L versus 96 μmol/L) and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (2.7 versus 2.5), than those without COPD. After multivariable adjustment, COPD was associated with worse outcomes: adjusted rate ratio for the primary outcome 1.51 (95% CI, 1.25-1.83), total heart failure hospitalization 1.54 (95% CI, 1.24-1.90), cardiovascular death (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.42; 95% CI, 1.10-1.82), and all-cause death (adjusted HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.25-1.84). COPD was associated with worse outcomes than other comorbidities and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Scores declined more in patients with COPD than in those without. Conclusions Approximately 1 in 7 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction had concomitant COPD, which was associated with greater functional limitation and a higher risk of heart failure hospitalization and death. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01920711.

Clinical outcomes of Sacubitril/Valsartan in patients with acute heart failure: A multi-institution study

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness and safety of initiating sacubitril/valsartan therapy among patients who are hospitalized for acute heart failure (HF) is unclear.

METHODS

A cohort of 3736 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) hospitalized for acute HF was identified from Chang Gung Research Database between January 1, 2016 and August 31, 2019. The risks of rehospitalization for HF and death associated with sacubitril/valsartan therapy compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) therapy were evaluated. We used stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting to balance the baseline covariates. The risks of fatal and non-fatal outcomes between the groups were compared using a Cox proportional hazard model and Fine and Gray subdistribution hazard model, respectively.

FINDINGS

The composite of rehospitalization for HF and death occurred in 22.9% of the patients in the sacubitril/valsartan group compared to 32.6% in the ACEI/ARB group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52-0.97) after a mean follow-up period of 11.8 months. The sacubitril/valsartan group had a lower risk of rehospitalization for HF (subdistribution HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.74-0.92) and all-cause death (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27-0.94). There were no significant differences in the rates of worsening renal function or severe hyperkalemia between the two groups.

INTERPRETATION

In real-world practice, initiating sacubitril/valsartan therapy among patients with HFrEF who were hospitalized for acute HF was associated with a lower rate of rehospitalization for HF and death compared with ACEI/ARB therapy.

FUNDING

This study was supported by Novartis Pharmaceuticals.

Potential Therapeutic Benefits of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors in the Context of Ischemic Heart Failure: A State-Of-The-Art Review

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are a class of anti-diabetic agents that block the reabsorption of glucose in the proximal convoluted tubule of the nephron, thereby contributing to glycosuria and lowering blood glucose levels. SGLT2 inhibitors have been associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes in patients with diabetes, including a reduced risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalizations for heart failure. Recently, DAPA-HF and EMPEROR REDUCED trials showed the beneficial cardiovascular effect of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with heart failure with consistently reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) regardless of the presence of diabetes. Moreover, some exploratory studies suggested that these drugs improve Left Ventricular (LV) systolic function and oppose LV adverse remodeling in patients with HFrEF. However, the exact mechanisms that mediated for this benefit are not fully understood. Beyond glycemic control, enhanced natriuresis, increased erythropoiesis, improved endothelial function, changes in myocardial metabolism, anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidative properties may all play an active role in SGLT2 inhibitors' cardiovascular benefits. A deep understanding of the pathophysiological interplay is key to define which HF phenotype could benefit more from SGLT2 inhibitors. Current clinical evidence on the comparison of different HF etiologies is limited to posthoc subgroup analysis of DAPA-HF and EMPEROR-REDUCED, which showed similar outcomes in patients with or without ischemic HF. On the other hand, in earlier studies of patients suffering from diabetes, rates of classic ischemic endpoints, such as myocardial infarction, stroke or coronary revascularization, did not differ between patients treated with SGLT2 inhibitors or placebo. The aim of this review is to discuss whether SGLT2 inhibitors may improve prognosis in patients with ischemic HF, not only in terms of reducing re-hospitalizations and improving left ventricular function but also by limiting coronary artery disease progression and ischemic burden.

Effects of sacubitril/valsartan on clinical symptoms, echocardiographic parameters, and outcomes in HFrEF and HFmrEF patients with coronary heart disease and chronic kidney disease

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) on the clinical symptoms, echocardiographic parameters, and outcomes (cardiovascular death and hospitalization) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) patients with coronary heart disease and chronic kidney disease.

METHOD

A retrospective observational study was conducted from January 2018 to May 2019, with a follow-up period of 95.4 ± 57.8 days (8 months). Data from 127 patients were included.

RESULTS

A statistically significant increase of 68.8% was observed in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in HFrEF patients compared to that in HFmrEF patients, with an increase of 27.2% at 8 months of follow-up. Sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced left ventricular end-systolic volumes (LVESV) in HFrEF patients unlike in HFmrEF patients. The decrease in LVESV was 28.8% in HFrEF patients and 17.1% in HFmrEF patients. A significant reduction in the prevalence of severe secondary mitral regurgitation (EROA > 0.4 cm²) was observed in HFrEF compared to that in HFmrEF patients with the use of sacubitril/valsartan. A reduction of 15.6% was observed in HFrEF patients, whereas a reduction of 7.1% was observed in HFmrEF patients. Improvement in functional classification (NYHA) was observed during follow-up. The prevalence of (NYHA III) reduced from 50% to 15.7% in HFrEF patients, whereas a reduction from 21.1% to 8.8% was observed in HFmrEF patients. There was a significant reduction in NT-proBNP in HFrEF patients compared to that in HFmrEF patients. A reduction of 52% was observed in HFrEF patients, whereas a reduction of 28.7% was observed in HFmrEF pateints. Sacubitril/valsartan reduced primary endpoint events in both groups. The prevalence of HF-related hospitalization was higher in HFrEF than in HFmrEF patients: 12.1% vs 7.5%, respectively. The prevalence of CV death in HFrEF vs HFmrEF patients was 3.7% vs 0.5%, respectively. Cardiovascular (CV) death was higher in patients with atrial fibrillation in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Sacubitril/valsartan significantly improved morphofunctional remodeling parameters and clinical symptoms in HFrEF patients than in HFmrEF patients.

Effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan versus aldosterone antagonists in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A retrospective cohort study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan versus angiotensin receptor antagonist therapy for prevention of heart failure (HF)-related hospitalization and all-cause hospitalization in a large cohort of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

DATA SOURCE

IBM^® MarketScan^® research databases (2014-2018).

PATIENTS

Patients aged 18 years or older with their first HFrEF hospitalization on or after January 1, 2015, who initiated sacubitril/valsartan or angiotensin receptor antagonist after hospital discharge.

INTERVENTION

Sacubitril/Valsartan versus Angiotensin receptor antagonist.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The index date was the first sacubitril/valsartan or angiotensin receptor antagonist fill date. After 1 up to 3 propensity score matching, Cox proportional hazards regression was used with robust variance estimators to compare HF-related and all-cause hospitalizations between treatments. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the main analysis. After propensity score matching, 1,088 sacubitril/valsartan and 2,839 angiotensin receptor antagonist new users were included. The crude incidence of HF-related hospitalization was 13 per 100 person-years for sacubitril/valsartan users and 18 per 100 person-years for angiotensin receptor antagonist users. Compared with angiotensin receptor antagonist use, sacubitril/valsartan use was associated with 27% lower risk of HF-related hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.91; p = 0.006) and 31% lower risk of all-cause hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.79; p < 0.001). Subgroup analyses revealed no significant heterogeneity, including subpopulations with chronic kidney disease or coronary artery disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with angiotensin receptor antagonists, sacubitril/valsartan was associated with lower risk of HF-related and all-cause hospitalizations. Our data suggest that, when added sequentially, sacubitril/valsartan should be the preferred initial agent over angiotensin receptor antagonists.

Translational insights from single-cell technologies across the cardiovascular disease continuum

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death worldwide. The societal health burden it represents can be reduced by taking preventive measures and developing more effective therapies. Reaching these goals, however, requires a better understanding of the pathophysiological processes leading to and occurring in the diseased heart. In the last 5 years, several biological advances applying single-cell technologies have enabled researchers to study cardiovascular diseases with unprecedented resolution. This has produced many new insights into how specific cell types change their gene expression level, activation status and potential cellular interactions with the development of cardiovascular disease, but a comprehensive overview of the clinical implications of these findings is lacking. In this review, we summarize and discuss these recent advances and the promise of single-cell technologies from a translational perspective across the cardiovascular disease continuum, covering both animal and human studies, and explore the future directions of the field.

Narrative review in the current role of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors

Heart failure (HF) accounts for a tremendous burden on health care systems and the society. Since the landmark PARADIGM-HF trial, sacubitril/valsartan, the first in the class of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) showed superiority to enalapril in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We performed a narrative literature review, hand-searched the reference lists of included articles and relevant reviews. Inhibition of neprilysin increases bradykinin, natriuretic peptides and adrenomedullin levels counteract the neurohormal activation that leads to sodium retention, vasoconstriction, and cardiac remodeling. In PARADIGM-HF the primary outcome of CV death or HF hospitalization was reduced 20% in the ARNI group (HR 0.80, P<0.001) similar to mortality due to cardiovascular cause (HR 0.80, P<0.001) in patients with HFrEF, rendering a number needed to treat of 21 patients. This effect was consistent across subgroups. The safety of starting ARNI inpatient once the acute decompensation of HF is stabilized was demonstrated in PIONEER-HF trial. With willingness-to-pay thresholds commonly acceptable in the United States, sacubitril/valsartan is likely to be cost effective, which might not be in other health systems. Although its safety has been reassured in some clinical trials, common side effects are hypotension, worsening kidney function, hyperkalemia and angioedema. In HFpEF (PARAGON-HF), sacubitril/valsartan showed decrease in the level of the cardiac biomarkers, with improve functional NYHA and decrease in hospitalizations, predominately in women and patients with borderline ejection fraction. Some ongoing studies aim to demonstrate the effects of ARNI in acute coronary syndrome, stable ischemic heart disease, advanced HF, mitral regurgitation, aortic impedance and pulmonary hypertension. In conclusion, sacubitril/valsartan has proven to be an effective addition to the HFrEF arsenal, with safety comparable to current standard of care. In HFpEF, it improves quality of life, particularly in women and in patients with borderline ejection fraction, with no effect on mortality.

Targeting Cyclic Guanosine Monophosphate to Treat Heart Failure: JACC Review Topic of the Week

The significant morbidity and mortality associated with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) justify the search for novel therapeutic agents. Reduced cyclic guanosine monophosphate levels contribute to HF progression. Among molecules modulating the nitric oxide (NO)-GMP-phosphodiesterase (PDE) pathway, the evaluation of nitrates, synthetic natriuretic peptides (NP), and NP analogs has yielded mixed results. Conversely, sacubitril/valsartan, combining NP degradation inhibition through neprilysin and angiotensin receptor blockade, has led to groundbreaking findings in HFrEF. Other strategies to increase tissue cyclic guanosine monophosphate have been attempted, such as PDE-3 or PDE-5 inhibition (with negative or neutral results), NO-independent soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) activation, or enhancement of sGC sensitivity to endogenous NO. Following the positive results of the phase 3 VICTORIA (A Study of Vericiguat in Participants With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction) trial on the sGC stimulator vericiguat in HFrEF, the main open questions are the efficacy of the sacubitril/valsartan-vericiguat combination in HFrEF and of vericiguat in HFpEF.

Sacubitril/valsartan for the management of heart failure: A perspective viewpoint on current evidence

Current international guidelines recommend switching angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-i) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) to sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) in stable outpatients affected by heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who remain symptomatic despite being on optimal medical therapy. Since these guidelines were published, new data may support further clinical applications and benefits of S/V beyond ambulatory HFrEF patients. The efficacy of S/V seems to be consistent across a wider array of subgroups including age, sex, etiology of HF, comorbidities, EF and estimated cardiovascular risk, with safety and tolerability profiles similar to ACE-I and ARBs. Additional clinical trial data are required to confirm the potential benefits of S/V in patients with mid-range or preserved EF, as suggested by analysis of PARAGON-HF, or in combination with sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors or in post-myocardial infarction HF. In this article we summarize the new evidence on the effects and safety profile of S/V in HF and discuss current perspectives and persisting gaps. Currently, available evidence may support S/V as a first-line therapy in outpatient or in-hospital HFrEF patients, and possibly also in HFmrEF patients.

Lower Hospitalization and Healthcare Costs With Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor or Angiotensin-Receptor Blocker in a Retrospective Analysis of Patients With Heart Failure

Background

Outcomes data among patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction treated with sacubitril/valsartan (SAC/VAL) are largely limited to clinical trial results. We compared hospitalization and healthcare costs among real‐world patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction treated with SAC/VAL versus angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin‐receptor blocker (ACEI/ARB).

Methods and Results

Using retrospective administrative claims data, stable patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction treated with SAC/VAL or ACEI/ARB from October 2015 to June 2016 were identified. Postindex hospitalization and healthcare costs were assessed in propensity‐matched cohorts using robust variance estimation. Time to first hospitalization was modeled using unadjusted Kaplan–Meier estimates and multivariable models. Postindex all‐cause healthcare costs were modeled using an adjusted multivariable model. Among 279 patients per matched cohort, postindex hospitalization risk was lower for SAC/VAL compared with ACEI/ARB using Kaplan–Meier estimation and unadjusted Cox models. For HF hospitalization, the hazard ratio (95% CI) was 0.56 (0.33–0.94; P=0.030). Adjusted results were similar to unadjusted. Mean (SD) monthly healthcare costs were lower for SAC/VAL versus ACEI/ARB for all categories except pharmacy, with hospital costs being particularly disparate between cohorts: for HF hospitalization, $248 ($1588) for SAC/VAL versus $1122 ($7290) for ACEI/ARB. The adjusted risk of incurring increased all‐cause postindex costs was lower for SAC/VAL versus ACEI/ARB (cost ratio [95% CI] 0.74 [0.59–0.94]; P=0.013).

Conclusions

In clinical practice, patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction treated with SAC/VAL were less likely to be hospitalized than matched patients treated with ACEI/ARB. Despite higher pharmacy costs, SAC/VAL–treated patients incurred lower monthly medical and total healthcare costs.

Sacubitril/valsartan vs. angiotensin receptor inhibition in heart failure: a real-world study in Taiwan

AIMS

This study aimed to compare the efficacy of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) therapy with angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) therapy for cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data were obtained from the Chang Gung Research Database. The cohort entry date of the ARB group was assigned as that of the ARNI group to avoid immortal time bias. Additionally, 1:1 propensity score matching based on age, sex, and baseline left ventricular ejection fraction was conducted. The expectation-maximization imputation method with inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to compare outcomes between the two groups. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for worsening HF. Patients who received ARNI therapy had a significantly lower risk of the primary composite outcome occurring than patients who received ARBs (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.96). The reduction of hospitalization for worsening HF contributed most to the primary outcome benefits. In addition to the primary outcome, the ARNI group had a significantly lower risk of non-fatal myocardial infarction. The improvement of ejection fraction was not significantly different between the groups. The medication doses of ARNI were lower than in clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction, sacubitril/valsartan was superior to ARB therapy in reducing the occurrence of the primary outcome endpoint of hospitalization for worsening HF and cardiovascular death.

Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitior (thiorphan/irbesartan) decreased ischemia-reperfusion induced ventricular arrhythmias in rat; in vivo study

Ventricular arrhythmias are considered as a major risk of sudden cardiac death. This study was designed to investigate the potential effects of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor; thiorphan/irbesartan (TH/IRB) combination therapy on myocardial ischemic-reperfusion (I/R)-induced arrhythmia. Fifty male Wistar rats were divided into 5 groups; (I, II): Sham, I/R both received DMSO intraperitoneally before the procedure. (III, IV, V): TH/IRB + IR (0.1/5 mg/kg, 0.1/10 mg/kg and 0.1/15 mg/kg). The drugs were injected intraperitoneally 15 min before I/R induction. Electrocardiograms changes, mean arterial blood pressure, incidence of ventricular tachycardia (VT), incidence of ventricular fibrillation (VF) and arrhythmia score were assessed. Cardiac levels of creatinine kinase-MB (CK-MB), Malondialdehyde (MDA), superoxide dismutase (SOD), endothelin-1 (ET-1), ATP content, and Na⁺/K⁺-ATPase pump activity were measured. TH (0.1 mg/kg) in combination with IRB (5, 10 and 15 mg/kg) produced significant decrease in QTc interval duration, ST height, incidence of VT and VF, duration of VT + VF, and arrhythmia score compared to I/R group. All treated groups showed significant decrease in the cardiac levels of: CK-MB, MDA and ET-1 and significant increase in SOD, ATP content, and Na⁺/K⁺-ATPase pump activity compared to I/R. TH/IRB + IR (0.1/10 mg/kg) group produced significant decrease in CK-MB, MDA and ET-1 and a significant increase in SOD, ATP content, and Na⁺/K⁺-ATPase pump activity compared to other treated groups. In conclusion, angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (thiorphan/irbesartan) decreased arrhythmia score and decreased cardiac damage. These could be explained in part by its ability to decrease oxidative stress and ET-1, increase ATP, and Na⁺/K⁺-ATPase pump activity in this rat model of I/R-induced arrhythmia.

From ACE Inhibitors/ARBs to ARNIs in Coronary Artery Disease and Heart Failure (Part 2/5)

The pharmacological inhibition of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system as a therapeutic strategy is one of the most significant advances in the treatment and prevention of cardiovascular disease in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and in coronary artery disease. Recently, the addition of neprilysin inhibition to angiotensin receptor blockade has been shown to be even more effective than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition alone in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, marking an important new milestone in heart failure treatment. This review summarizes the major trials that have informed the clinical role of inhibition of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone and neprilysin pathways, as well as the limitations of these strategies.

ARNI in cardiovascular disease: current evidence and future perspectives

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers are the mainstay of therapy for cardiovascular disease and heart failure (HF). The angiotensin receptor II blocker - neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), sacubitril-valsartan has an established role in treatment of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) based on the results of PARADIGM-HF trial. This trial has provided a strong evidence base for treatment of HFrEF in various subsets of patients. Several studies are done using ARNI in various indications such as HFrEF, HFrEF, patients hospitalized with acute decompensated HF, HF with preserved EF, AMI with LVEF <40%, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, pulmonary hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, so on and so forth. This review provides an update of current literature and future perspective on ARNI in various cardiovascular disorders.

Strain-selective efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan on carotid fibrosis in response to injury in two inbred mouse strains

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/val) is more effective than valsartan in lowering BP and mortality in patients with heart failure. Here, we proposed that Sac/val treatment would be more effective in preventing pathological vascular remodelling in 129X1/SvJ (129X1), than in C57BL/6J (B6) inbred mice.

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

Sac/val (60 mg·kg^-1 ·day^-1 ) and valsartan (27 mg·kg^-1 ·day^-1 ) were given as prophylactic or therapeutic treatments, to 129X1 or B6 mice with carotid artery ligation for 14 days. Blood flow was measured by ultrasound. Ex vivo, carotid tissue was analysed with histological and morphometric techniques, together with RNA sequencing and gene ontology.

KEY RESULTS

Sac/val was more effective than valsartan in lowering BP in 129X1 compared with B6 mice. Liver expression of CYP2C9 and plasma cGMP levels were similar across treatments. A reduction in carotid thickening after prophylactic treatment with valsartan or Sac/val also resulted in significant arterial shrinkage in B6 mice. In 129X1 mice, Sac/val and prophylactic treatment with valsartan had no effect on carotid thickening but preserved carotid size. BP lowering significantly correlated with a decline in carotid stiffness (R²  = .37, P = .0096) in 129X1 but not in B6 mice. The gene expression signature associated with hyalurononglucosaminidase activity was down-regulated in injured arteries after both regimens of Sac/val only in 129X1 mice. Administration of Sac/val but not valsartan significantly reduced deposition of hyaluronic acid and carotid fibrosis in 129X1 mice.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

These results underscore the importance of the genetic background in the efficacy of the Sac/val on vascular fibrosis.

ARNi: A Novel Approach to Counteract Cardiovascular Diseases

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) still represent the greatest burden on healthcare systems worldwide. Despite the enormous efforts over the last twenty years to limit the spread of cardiovascular risk factors, their prevalence is growing and control is still suboptimal. Therefore, the availability of new therapeutic tools that may interfere with different pathophysiological pathways to slow the establishment of clinical CVDs is important. Previously, the inhibition of neurohormonal systems, namely the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS) and the sympathetic nervous system, has proven to be useful in the treatment of many CVDs. Attempts have recently been made to target an additional hormonal system, that of the natriuretic peptides (NPs), which, when dysregulated, can also play a role in the development CVDs. Indeed, a new class of drug, the angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors (ARNi), has the ability to counteract the effects of angiotensin II as well as to increase the activity of NPs. ARNi have already been proven to be effective in the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. New evidence has suggested that, in the next years, the field of ARNi application will widen to include other CVDs, such as heart failure, with preserved ejection fraction and hypertension.

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

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

Neprilysin Inhibitor-Angiotensin II Receptor Blocker Combination Therapy (Sacubitril/valsartan) Suppresses Atherosclerotic Plaque Formation and Inhibits Inflammation in Apolipoprotein E- Deficient Mice

We assessed the effects of the sacubitril/valsartan combination drug (LCZ696), in comparison to valsartan alone, on the progression of atherosclerotic plaque formation and inflammatory gene expression in apolipoprotein E- deficient mice (apoE^−/− mice). Seventy-two apoE^−/− mice were fed a western diet and a constrictive silastic tube was used to elicit carotid lesion formation. The animals were separated into a control group, a valsartan group or an LCZ696 group (n = 24 in each group). Plaques in the carotid artery were harvested 12 weeks later for histological examination. The levels of pro-inflammatory genes in the plasma and lesions were detected using real-time PCR and ELISA. Valsartan or LCZ696 treatment remarkably inhibited the expression of pro-inflammatory genes, including interleukin-6, matrix metalloproteinase-8 and monocyte chemotactic protein-1, in comparison with the control group. Meanwhile, both valsartan and LCZ696 suppressed the formation of atherosclerotic plaques by decreasing plaque lipid content and cross-sectional plaque area and increasing the content of plaque collagen and fibrous cap thickness. In particular, LCZ696 performed the best in suppressing atherosclerosis and inhibiting the level of pro-inflammatory genes. LCZ696 significantly ameliorated atherosclerosis and inflammation in apoE^−/− mice compared with valsartan.

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

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

Sacubitril/valsartan in cardiovascular disease: evidence to date and place in therapy

Cardiovascular (CV) disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the developing and the developed world. Mortality from CV disease had plateaued in the recent years raising concerning alarms about the sustained efficacy of available preventive and treatment options. Heart failure (HF) is among the major contributors to the CV-related health care burden, a persisting concern despite the use of clinically proven guideline-directed therapies. A requirement for more efficient medical therapies coupled with recent advances in bio-innovation led to the creation of sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), which demonstrated substantial CV benefit when compared with the standard of care, enalapril, in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction. Further investigations of this novel combination ARNI at the tissue level shed light into the anti-remodeling and cardioprotective effects of sacubitril/valsartan, while clinical studies in the phenotypes of HF with preserved ejection fraction, hypertension and subsets, coronary outcomes, postmyocardial infarction, and renal disease suggested that this combination could be beneficial across a wide spectrum of CV disease. Sacubitril/valsartan is a much-needed therapeutic advance in the avenue of CV disease.

Augmentation of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor signalling by neprilysin inhibition: potential implications for patients with heart failure

Augmentation of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor signalling is an established approach to the treatment of type 2 diabetes. However, endogenous GLP-1 and long-acting GLP-1 receptor analogues are degraded not only by dipeptidyl peptidase-4, but also by neprilysin. This observation raises the possibilities that endogenous GLP-1 contributes to the clinical effects of neprilysin inhibition and that patients concurrently treated with sacubitril/valsartan and incretin-based drugs may experience important drug-drug interactions. Specifically, potentiation of GLP-1 receptor signalling may underlie the antihyperglycaemic actions of sacubitril/valsartan. Neprilysin inhibitors may also be able to augment the effects of long-acting GLP-1 analogues to increase heart rate and myocardial cyclic AMP, and thus, potentiate these deleterious actions; if so, concomitant treatment with GLP-1 receptor agonists may limit the efficacy of neprilysin inhibitors in patients with both heart failure and diabetes. For patients not concurrently treated with GLP-1 analogues, the action of neprilysin to enhance the effects of GLP-1 may be particularly relevant in the brain, where augmentation of GLP-1 and other endogenous peptides may act to inhibit amyloid-induced neuroinflammation and cytotoxicity and improve memory formation and executive functioning. Experimentally, neprilysin inhibitors may also potentiate the effects of endogenous GLP-1 and GLP-1 receptor agonists on blood vessels and the kidney. The role of neprilysin in the metabolism of endogenous GLP-1 and long-acting GLP-1 analogues points to a range of potential pathophysiological effects that may be clinically relevant to patients with heart failure, with or without diabetes.

PARADIGM-HF Trial: Secondary Analyses Address Unanswered Questions

Our aim was to summarize published secondary analyses of the PARADIGM-HF trial. In the original trial, published in September 2014, sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization compared to enalapril. This summary provides a resource for clinicians to review subsequent analyses of the landmark trial evaluating the benefit of sacubitril/valsartan in various subgroups and providing information regarding optimal use of this new therapy in the broader heart failure population. A full list of publications of the existing PARDADIGM-HF post hoc analyses was obtained and summarized, grouped by focus (e.g., severity of illness, tolerability). Twenty-six publications and one abstract analyzing the PARADIGM-HF trial were reviewed, summarizing the most important results that compared the benefits of sacubitril/valsartan to enalapril, including pertinent subgroup information from each analysis. Key publications evaluated the treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan based on heart failure severity (i.e., ejection fraction or heart failure risk scores), impact on alternate outcomes, influence of additional therapies, tolerability in patients with comorbidities (i.e., diabetes), long-term benefits, and cost-effectiveness. In addition, nine ongoing phase III and phase IV clinical trials with sacubitril/valsartan were briefly summarized to address potential future uses in more extensive heart failure settings. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril for the primary endpoint in the PARADIGM-HF trial is maintained throughout numerous secondary analyses. Though the subgroups analyzed are based on participants from a single clinical trial, clinicians can more confidently incorporate this novel therapy into practice with expanded knowledge of these existing analyses as well as ongoing prospective trials.