Meta-Analysis of Efficacy of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

Comparative effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan versus angiotensin receptor blockers in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: A real-world study

PURPOSE

Sacubitril/valsartan (SAC/VAL) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are recommended therapy for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but little is known about their real-world comparative effectiveness among patients with HFpEF. The objective of this study was to determine the comparative effectiveness of SAC/VAL vs ARBs in preventing HF-related hospitalization or all-cause hospitalization among patients with HFpEF.

METHODS

We conducted a cohort study using IBM MarketScan commercial and Medicare supplemental databases to identify patients aged 18 years or older with a diagnosis of HFpEF and initiation of SAC/VAL (2015-2020) or ARB (2009-2014) therapy. The index date was the date of the first SAC/VAL or ARB prescription fill. After propensity score (PS) matching with a ratio of 1 up to 3, Cox proportional hazards regression was used with robust variance estimators to compare the risks of HF-related hospitalization and all-cause hospitalization between the 2 therapies. Several subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted to check the robustness of the main analysis.

RESULTS

After PS matching, 2,520 patients (846 receiving SAC/VAL and 1,674 receiving an ARB) were included in the final analyses. After controlling for covariates, there was no difference in the risk of HF-related hospitalization between SAC/VAL and ARB recipients (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99-1.77). There was also no difference in the risk of all-cause hospitalization between SAC/VAL and ARB recipients (aHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.91-1.24).

CONCLUSION

Among individuals with private or Medicare Advantage insurance plans, there was no significant difference in the risk of HF-related hospitalization or all-cause hospitalization between adults with HFpEF who received SAC/VAL and those who received ARB therapy.

Sex Differences in the Effectiveness of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors, Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers, and Sacubitril-Valsartan for the Treatment of Heart Failure

Background PARAGON-HF (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction) suggested a potential benefit of sacubitril-valsartan in women with preserved ejection fraction. Among patients with heart failure previously treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), we studied whether effectiveness of treatment with sacubitril-valsartan compared with ACEI/ARB monotherapy differed between men and women for both preserved and reduced ejection fraction. Methods and Results Data were derived from the Truven Health MarketScan Databases between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2018. We included patients with a primary diagnosis of heart failure on treatment with ACEIs, ARBs, or sacubitril-valsartan on the basis of the first prescription after diagnosis. A total of 7181 patients treated with sacubitril-valsartan, 25 408 patients using an ACEI, and 16 177 patients treated with ARBs were included. A total of 790 readmissions or deaths occurred among 7181 patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 11 901 events in 41 585 patients treated with an ACEI/ARB. Adjusted for covariates, the hazard ratio (HR) for treatment with sacubitril-valsartan compared with an ACEI or ARB was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.68-0.80). The protective effect of sacubitril-valsartan was evident for men and women (women: HR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.66-0.86]; P<0.01; men: HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.64-0.79]; P<0.01; P interaction 0.03). A protective effect for both sexes was seen only among those with systolic dysfunction. Conclusions Treatment with sacubitril-valsartan is more effective at reducing death and admission to the hospital for heart failure compared with ACEIs/ARBs similarly among men and women with systolic dysfunction; sex differences in the effectiveness of sacubitril-valsartan in diastolic dysfunction requires further investigation.

Cardiac metabolism in HFpEF: from fuel to signalling

Heart failure (HF) is marked by distinctive changes in myocardial uptake and utilization of energy substrates. Among the different types of HF, HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a highly prevalent, complex, and heterogeneous condition for which metabolic derangements seem to dictate disease progression. Changes in intermediate metabolism in cardiometabolic HFpEF-among the most prevalent forms of HFpEF-have a large impact both on energy provision and on a number of signalling pathways in the heart. This dual, metabolic vs. signalling, role is played in particular by long-chain fatty acids (LCFAs) and short-chain carbon sources [namely, short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) and ketone bodies (KBs)]. LCFAs are key fuels for the heart, but their excess can be harmful, as in the case of toxic accumulation of lipid by-products (i.e. lipotoxicity). SCFAs and KBs have been proposed as a potential major, alternative source of energy in HFpEF. At the same time, both LCFAs and short-chain carbon sources are substrate for protein post-translational modifications and other forms of direct and indirect signalling of pivotal importance in HFpEF pathogenesis. An in-depth molecular understanding of the biological functions of energy substrates and their signalling role will be instrumental in the development of novel therapeutic approaches to HFpEF. Here, we summarize the current evidence on changes in energy metabolism in HFpEF, discuss the signalling role of intermediate metabolites through, at least in part, their fate as substrates for post-translational modifications, and highlight clinical and translational challenges around metabolic therapy in HFpEF.

Sacubitril/valsartan reduces cardiac decompensation in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The impact of sacubitril-valsartan on heart failure (HF) patients with preserved ejection fractions (HFpEF) is uncertain. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to explore the clinical advantages and safety of sacubitril-valsartan in patients with HFpEF.

METHODS

PubMed and Web of Science were searched without any restrictions from inception to 8 May 2022 to identify valuable articles. The studies that met the inclusion criteria were analyzed.

RESULTS

Four trials, with a total of 7008 patients were included. Compared with valsartan, sacubitril-valsartan significantly reduced the rate of HF decompensation and of the combined end point of HF decompensation and all-cause mortality. All-cause mortality, New York Heart Association class improvement and rate of hyperkalemia were not significantly different between the two groups. Regarding safety, sacubitril-valsartan was more likely to increase the risk of hypotension.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggests that sacubitril-valsartan may be an effective strategy to reduce HF decompensation events in patients with HFpEF.Systematic Review registration: CRD42022336077.

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.

Relationship of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease and Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

Although there is an established bidirectional relationship between heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and liver disease, the association between heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and liver diseases, such as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), has not been well explored. In this paper, the authors provide an in-depth review of the relationship between HFpEF and NAFLD and propose 3 NAFLD-related HFpEF phenotypes (obstructive HFpEF, metabolic HFpEF, and advanced liver fibrosis HFpEF). The authors also discuss diagnostic challenges related to the concurrent presence of NAFLD and HFpEF and offer several treatment options for NAFLD-related HFpEF phenotypes. The authors propose that NAFLD-related HFpEF should be recognized as a distinct HFpEF phenotype.

Hypertension and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: position paper by the European Society of Hypertension

Hypertension constitutes a major risk factor for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). HFpEF is a prevalent clinical syndrome with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Specific guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for HFpEF is not established due to lack of positive outcome data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and limitations of available studies. Although available evidence is limited, control of blood pressure (BP) is widely regarded as central to the prevention and clinical care in HFpEF. Thus, in current guidelines including the 2018 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and European Society of Hypertension (ESH) Guidelines, blockade of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) with either angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers provides the backbone of BP-lowering therapy in hypertensive patients. Although superiority of RAS blockers has not been clearly shown in dedicated RCTs designed for HFpEF, we propose that this core drug treatment strategy is also applicable for hypertensive patients with HFpEF with the addition of some modifications. The latter apply to the use of spironolactone apart from the treatment of resistant hypertension and the use of the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor. In addition, novel agents such as sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors, currently already indicated for high-risk patients with diabetes to reduce heart failure hospitalizations, and finerenone represent promising therapies and results from ongoing RCTs are eagerly awaited. The development of an effective and practical classification of HFpEF phenotypes and GDMT through dedicated high-quality RCTs are major unmet needs in hypertension research and calls for action.