Efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan versus olmesartan in Japanese patients with essential hypertension: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter study

Plasma renin activity as a marker for predicting the antihypertensive effect of switching to sacubitril/valsartan in treated hypertensive patients: Usefulness in daily clinical practice

The authors investigated the antihypertensive effect of sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) when switching from other drugs and assessed whether brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) or plasma renin activity (PRA) before drug switching was a predictor of blood pressure lowering after switching to Sac/Val. In 92 patients with treated hypertension, clinic blood pressure, plasma BNP, and PRA were examined before and after switching to Sac/Val. Clinic systolic and diastolic blood pressures significantly decreased after drug switching to Sac/Val (p < .0001, respectively). The level before drug switching of BNP had no correlation with the change in systolic blood pressure (Δ-SBP) before and after switching to Sac/Val, but that of PRA was significantly correlated with Δ-SBP (r = .3807, p = .0002). A multiple regression analysis revealed that PRA before drug switching was an independent determinant of Δ-SBP. Our findings suggest that low PRA may become a useful marker to predict the antihypertensive effect of switching to Sac/Val in treated hypertensive patients.

Factors Associated With Sacubitril/Valsartan Continuation and the Methods of Combining Heart Failure Medications in Patients With Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Sacubitril/valsartan (SV) is recommended for patients with heart failure (HF). In addition, a combination of 4 HF medications, including SV, is recommended in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, evidence on the characteristics of patients who could continue SV and its initiation methods is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the factors associated with SV continuation and methods of combining HF medications.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included HF patients who initiated with SV at our institution. The endpoint was SV continuation for 6 months after its initiation. Multivariate analysis was used to extract factors associated with SV continuation. The relationship between the methods of combining HF medications (renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, or sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors), including the number of HF medications, their combination patterns, and the timing of their initiation, and SV continuation was examined in patients with HFrEF.

RESULTS

Of 186 eligible patients, 68.8% had HFrEF, and 79.0% continued SV for 6 months. Significant factors associated with SV continuation were albumin ≥ 3.5 g/dL (odds ratio, 4.81; 95% confidence interval, 2.19-10.59), body mass index (BMI) ≥ 18.5 kg/m2 (4.17; 1.10-15.85), and systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥ 110 mmHg (2.66; 1.12-6.28). In patients with HFrEF, the proportion of HF medications not initiated simultaneously with SV was significantly higher in the continuation group than in the discontinuation group (67.3% vs 33.3%, P = 0.002). The number of HF medications and their combination patterns were not significantly associated with SV continuation.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Albumin, BMI, and SBP are useful indicators for selecting patients who are likely to continue SV. In addition, initiating only SV without simultaneously initiating other HF medications in patients with HFrEF may lead to SV continuation.

Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/Allisartan for the Treatment of Primary Hypertension

Background

The prevalence of hypertension still increases with the very rapidly increasing longevity in some countries, such as China. The control rate remains low.

Objectives

This randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study assessed the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/allisartan, compared with olmesartan in Chinese patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension.

Methods

Eligible patients aged 18 to 75 years (n = 1,197) with mild-to-moderate hypertension were randomized to receive sacubitril/allisartan 240 mg (n = 399), sacubitril/allisartan 480 mg (n = 399), or olmesartan 20 mg (n = 399) once daily for 12 weeks. Patients who completed the 12-week treatment then received another 12-week extended treatment (n = 1,084) and 28-week prolonged treatment (n = 189). The primary end point was a reduction in clinic mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP) from baseline at 12 weeks.

Results

Sacubitril/allisartan 240 mg/d provided a greater reduction in msSBP than olmesartan at 12 weeks (between-group difference: -1.9 mm Hg [95% CI: -4.2 to 0.4 mm Hg]; P = 0.0007, for noninferiority). Sacubitril/allisartan 480 mg/d provided a significantly greater reduction in msSBP than olmesartan at 12 weeks (between-treatment difference: -5.0 mm Hg [95% CI: -7.3 to -2.8 mm Hg]; P < 0.001, for superiority). Greater reductions in 24-hour, and daytime and nighttime systolic and diastolic blood pressure were also observed with both doses of sacubitril/allisartan compared with olmesartan (P ≤ 0.001 for 480 mg/d). The blood pressure reductions tended to be dose-dependent for sacubitril/allisartan. Sacubitril/allisartan was well tolerated, and no cases of angioedema or death were reported.

Conclusions

Sacubitril/allisartan is effective for the treatment of hypertension and well tolerated in Chinese patients.

Clinical Benefit of Sacubitril/Valsartan for Hypertensive Patients in Daily Practice and Predictors of Its Antihypertensive Effect

Background: The blood pressure (BP)-lowering effect of sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) is greater than that of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) but in in real-world clinical practice, Sac/Val is used in a variety of patterns other than switching from ARBs. In the present study we investigated the effects of Sac/Val on BP and biochemical parameters when switching from or adding it to various antihypertensive drugs and examined what factors could be predictors of the antihypertensive effect of Sac/Val. Methods and Results: In 108 hypertensive patients treated with antihypertensive agents (including 4 naïve cases), clinic BP and various biochemical parameters were assessed before and after switching to/adding Sac/Val (200 mg/day). Systolic and diastolic BPs significantly decreased after treatment with Sac/Val (P<0.0001, respectively). As for biochemical parameters, alanine aminotransferase, triglycerides, C-reactive protein, and uric acid significantly decreased after administration of Sac/Val, but renal function, B-type natriuretic peptide, and plasma renin activity (PRA) did not change before or after treatment with Sac/Val. Multiple regression analysis revealed that low PRA and high baseline systolic BP were independent determinants of systolic BP reduction after Sac/Val treatment. Conclusions: Sac/Val is beneficial for poorly controlled hypertension in daily clinical practice and low PRA may be a predictor of the antihypertensive effect of switching to/adding Sac/Val.

Comparison of sacubitril/valsartan with olmesartan for hypertension: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan versus olmesartan remains controversial for the control of hypertension. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the influence of sacubitril/valsartan versus olmesartan on the control of hypertension.

METHODS

We have searched PubMed, Embase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases through July 2023 for randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of sacubitril/valsartan versus olmesartan on the control of hypertension. This meta-analysis is performed using the random-effect model or fixed-effect model based on the heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Seven randomized controlled trials and 3677 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with olmesartan treatment for hypertension, sacubitril/valsartan treatment was associated with substantially decreased systolic blood pressure (mean difference [MD] = -4.58; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -7.90 to -1.25; P = .007), diastolic blood pressure (MD = -1.70; 95% CI = -3.24 to -0.17; P = .03), and pulse pressure (MD = -2.31; 95% CI = -4.41 to -0.21; P = .03), as well as improved systolic blood pressure control (odds ratio [OR] = 1.65; 95% CI = 1.15 to 2.38; P = .006), but had no influence on diastolic blood pressure control (OR = 1.33; 95% CI = 0.93 to 1.88; P = .11) or adverse events (OR = 1.06; 95% CI = 0.90 to 1.24; P = .51).

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril/valsartan is better than olmesartan for the reduction of blood pressure for patients with hypertension.

Sacubitril-Valsartan (LCZ696) in the Treatment of Systemic Hypertension: An Updated Review of Neprilysin Inhibition Combined with Angiotensin II Receptor Blockade

Sacubitril-valsartan (LCZ696) has been demonstrated to be a highly effective treatment for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction since its Food and Drug Administration approval in 2015, and a growing body of evidence suggests its emergence as a hypertensive medication. It acts as an inhibitor of both neprilysin and the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, approaching the control of a multi-faceted pathology in multiple unique ways. Because 48% of US adults are affected by hypertension, with less than half of patients achieving controlled blood pressure, and the high correlation between uncontrolled hypertension and cardiovascular mortality, it is crucial to investigate new pharmacotherapies for managing this disease. This review discusses the current evidence of sacubitril-valsartan trials in hypertension management, with a focus on distinct populations and hypertension subsets. Asian populations are predisposed to salt-sensitive hypertension and have been shown to benefit from sacubitril-valsartan more than olmesartan, an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB). Systolic hypertension from stiff, aging arteries commonly affects individuals over the age of 65 years, and responds demonstrably better to sacubitril-valsartan than ARB monotherapy. Patients with treatment-resistant hypertension, especially those with heart failure, also show significantly improved blood pressure when treated with sacubitril-valsartan over ARBs. We conclude with a discussion of sacubitril-valsartan's potential role in managing noncardiac disease.

The Prevention of the New Onset of Heart Failure in Hypertensive Patients

In 2014, Japan was estimated to have approximately 27 million patients with hypertension (HT), and the ultimate goal of treatment is to prevent complications of HT, including heart failure (HF). The major structural changes in the heart that cause HF are left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy (LVH) and the resulting LV diastolic dysfunction. However, in patients with HT with well-controlled blood pressure (BP), whether they are in HF stage A (only HT) or B (with organic heart disease) is often unclear. It has been reported that strict BP control suppresses LVH, and the improvement of LVH leads to the suppression of cardiovascular complications. Thus, detecting HF stage B HT and providing appropriate treatment lead to the suppression of HF onset. This review focuses on the detection and treatment of organic heart disease in HT.

The Clinical Evolution of Diffuse Myocardial Fibrosis in Patients With Arterial Hypertension and Heart Failure With Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction Treated by Olmesartan or Sacubitril / Valsartan

Aim      A 12-month evaluation of the potentialities of the angiotensin II receptor inhibitor olmesartan (Olme) and the angiotensin receptor and neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan in patients with arterial hypertension (AH) and dyslipidemia in the dynamics of the following indicators of chronic heart failure (CHF): N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), LV global longitudinal strain (LV GLS) in diffuse myocardial fibrosis (MF) previously diagnosed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).Material and methods  Olmesartan medoxomil (n=56) and sacubitril/valsartan (n=63) were used for 12 months in patients with hypertension, dyslipidemia and NYHA functional class II-III CHF with mid-range LVEF (CHFmrEF). MF was diagnosed by the following MRI criteria: late gadolinium enhancement and an increased proportion of extracellular matrix (33% or more). The frequency of persisting late gadolinium enhancement and the increased proportion of extracellular matrix (33% or more) was evaluated at 12 months; changes in systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), NT-proBNP, and LV GLS were evaluated after 3, 6, and 12 months of follow-up.Results Baseline parameters did not differ between groups. The late gadolinium enhancement and increased proportion of extracellular matrix were present at baseline in all patients of both groups (100%; p=1.0). Already at 3 months, statistically significant decreases in SBP and DBP were observed in both groups. In addition, the LV GLS monitoring showed LV GLS significantly increased in both groups after 3 months and continued changing after 6 and 12 months. The NT-proBNP concentration significantly decreased in both groups already after 3 months and continued to decrease after 6 and 12 months. At 6 and 12 months, sacubitril/valsartan was superior to olmesartan in reducing SBP and NT-proBNP and in restoring LV GLS. At 12 months, the incidence of persisting, abnormal late gadolinium enhancement and increased proportion of extracellular matrix was significantly less in the ARNI group.Conclusion      Olmesartan was demonstrated effective in the multi-modality therapy of CHFmrEF and MF in patients with AH and dyslipidemia. ARNI was superior to olmesartan in this regard, but further research of this issue is required.

Adherence to Lifestyle Modification Practices and Its Associated Factors Among Hypertensive Patients in Bahir Dar City Hospitals, North West Ethiopia

Background

Globally, hypertension affects 1.4 billion adults, accounting for 31% of the world population. The prevention and control of hypertension is not addressed only by pharmacological management. Even though the prevalence of uncontrolled hypertension and its complications is increasing every day, Adherence to lifestyle modification practice among diagnosed hypertensive individuals is low for a number of reasons. The study aims to assess adherence to lifestyle modification practices and associated factors among hypertensive patients at Bahir Dar city hospitals, in North West Ethiopia.

Methods

An institutional-based cross-sectional study design was conducted at Bahir Dar city from October 30 to November 30, 2022. A stratified sampling technique was used. For the data quality pre-test was done, the questionnaire was checked for completion, the assumption of binary logistic regression (VIF 1.8 and no outlier), and model fit using the Hosmer and Lemeshow's test was checked. Binary logistic and multivariate logistic regression were used to find significant variables after the data were entered into EpiInfo and analyzed using SPSS version 23.

Results

The overall adherence to lifestyle modification practices was about 32.4%. From the independent factors, above secondary educational status (AOR = 0.201 95% CI (0.081-0.499)), good knowledge (AOR = 3.323 95% CI (1.79-6.168)), good self-efficacy (AOR = 3.553 95% CI (1.91-6.613)), good social support (AOR = 8.339 95% CI (4.251-16.357)), and good patient-physician relationship (AOR = 2.424 95% CI (1.309-4.490)) were statistically significant predictors of adherence to lifestyle modification practices.

Conclusion

Only one-third of the participants had adhered to the recommended lifestyle modifications. Educational status, knowledge, self-efficacy, social support, and patient-physician relationships were significant factors. Healthcare organizations should develop programs to raise hypertension patients' awareness and degree of self-efficacy that aid in adherence to advised lifestyle changes.

Efficacy and Safety Comparative of Sacubitril/Valsartan vs. Olmesartan in the Treatment of hypertension: A Meta-analysis of RCTs

BACKGROUND

Sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) is a widely used drug for hypertension in Asia, popular for its efficacy and safety. However, there has been no comprehensive literature review comparing it with olmesartan. This meta-analysis compared the antihypertensive and adverse effects of sacubitril/valsartan and olmesartan.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The data were then analyzed and processed using Revman 5.4 and Stata SE14 software.

RESULTS

Six RCTs with 4,127 patients were identified, showing that LCZ696 had better blood pressure control than olmesartan; mean sitting systolic and diastolic blood pressure, sitting pulse pressure, 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure, and 24-hour ambulatory diastolic blood pressure were significantly decreased with LCZ696 compared with olmesartan. No significant difference between LCZ696 and olmesartan was observed in the occurrence of the majority of adverse events, with a decreased probability of headache in patients with sacubitril/valsartan compared with olmesartan. The subgroup analysis showed treatment with 400 mg/d LCZ696 was better than olmesartan in reducing serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril/valsartan was better than olmesartan in controlling blood pressure in patients with hypertension, with relatively higher safety.

Different Home Blood Pressure Thresholds to Predict Perfect 24-Hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure Control in Treated Hypertension Based on an "All-in-One" Device

BACKGROUND

Home blood pressure (BP) is an important component of digital strategies for hypertension management. However, no studies have used the same device to investigate 24-hour BP control status in relation to different home BP control thresholds.

METHODS

Participants in the general practitioner-based, multicenter HI-JAMP study (Home-Activity Information and Communication Technology-Based Japan Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring Prospective) underwent office BP measurement, then 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring, then home BP monitoring for 5 days. A validated all-in-one BP monitoring device was used to measure office, home, and ambulatory BP. Baseline data were used to investigate ambulatory BP control status in individuals with well-controlled home BP based on the different guideline thresholds (125/75 mm Hg, 130/80 mm Hg, and 135/85 mm Hg).

RESULTS

Data from 2269 patients were analyzed. For individuals with well-controlled home BP <135/85 mm Hg (59.5% of the total population), the prevalence of uncontrolled 24-hour (≥130/80 mm Hg), daytime (≥135/85 mm Hg), and nighttime ambulatory BP (≥120/70 mm Hg) was 19.9%, 18.5%, and 33.6%, respectively. Corresponding prevalence rates in the 42.7% of participants with well-controlled home BP <130/80 mm Hg were 13.4%, 12.9%, and 26.0%, and when well-controlled home BP was strictly defined as <125/75 mm Hg (23.9% of the population), prevalence of rates of uncontrolled 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime ambulatory BP were 7.0%, 9.0%, and 15.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Home BP control status defined using different thresholds could predict 24-hour ambulatory BP control status in treated hypertension. One-third of individuals still had uncontrolled nocturnal hypertension when home BP was controlled to <135/85 mm Hg, but ambulatory BP was quite well controlled when home BP was <125/75 mm Hg.

The Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan Compared to Olmesartan on the Blood Pressure and Glucolipid Metabolism in DM Patients with Primary Hypertension

PURPOSE

Given the beneficial effects of sacubitril/valsartan on blood pressure generally, this study investigates its antihypertension effects in diabetes mellitus (DM) patients with primary hypertension specifically, and the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on glycolipid metabolism.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, open-label, active-controlled study to compare the antihypertension effects of sacubitril/valsartan in DM individuals with primary hypertension. The primary end point was reduction in mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) from baseline with sacubitril/valsartan vs. olmesartan at week 8. The secondary endpoints included the changes in diastolic blood pressure (DBP), daytime SBP/DBP, nighttime SBP/DBP, BP achievement (office sitting BP < 130/80 mmHg), and lipid profile. The trial was registered with chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2200066428) on Dec 22, 2022.

RESULTS

A total of 124 patients were included in the final analysis. SBP decreased to a greater extent in the sacubitril/valsartan group from baseline to 8 weeks [between-treatment difference: 3.51 mm Hg, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.41 to 6.62 mm Hg, P = 0.03]. Furthermore, more patients achieved the blood pressure goal with sacubitril/valasartan (74.60% vs. 54.70%, P = 0.03). Multiple logistical regression analysis showed that sacubitril/valsartan was associated with BP achievement [odds ratio (OR) 0.33, 95% CI 0.14-0.73, P = 0.007], but the difference in SBP, DBP, day time SBP/DBP, and night time SBP/DBP reduction did not approach statistical significance. HbA1C1, total cholesterol, and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol were lower than baseline in both groups (P < 0.05); however, there was no difference in the effects on glucose and lipid metabolism from sacubitril/valsartan compared to olmesartan.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril/valsartan not only provided superior BP reduction compared to olmesartan, it did so without adverse effects on glycemic control and lipid parameters in DM patients with primary hypertension.

Comparative analysis of sacubitril/valsartan and losartan potassium in the treatment of hypertension: efficacy, adverse reactions, and observations

OBJECTIVE

To explore the antihypertensive effect of sacubitril/valsartan and losartan potassium in the treatment of hypertension and the adverse reactions in patients.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted using the medical records of 166 patients with hypertension who were admitted to Hangzhou Fuyang District Lushan sub-district community health service center from June 2022 to June 2023. The control group was treated with losartan potassium, and the observation group was treated with sacubitril/valsartan. Blood pressure, urinary microalbumin, blood urea nitrogen level, liver and kidney function, blood potassium, blood uric acid, cardiac function, inflammatory factors, occurrence of adverse reactions, and treatment efficacy were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

After treatment, the observation group showed significantly lower blood pressure compared to the control group. Furthermore, the observation group exhibited reduced levels of urinary microalbumin and blood urea nitrogen, improved liver and kidney function, decreased inflammatory factor levels, fewer adverse reactions, and a higher treatment efficacy.

CONCLUSION

For patients with hypertension, sacubitril/valsartan has a better treatment efficacy than losartan potassium, because it can effectively reduce blood pressure, the levels of inflammatory factors, and the rate of adverse reactions in patients.

Efficacy and safety of sacubitril/allisartan for the treatment of primary hypertension: a phase 2 randomized, double-blind study

This randomized, double-blind phase 2 study assessed the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/allisartan, an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, compared with placebo in Chinese patients with mild to moderate hypertension. Eligible patients aged 18-75 years (n = 235) with mild to moderate hypertension were randomized to receive sacubitril/allisartan 120 mg (n = 52), sacubitril/allisartan 240 mg (n = 52), sacubitril/allisartan 480 mg (n = 52), placebo (n = 26) or olmesartan 20 mg (n = 53) once daily for 8 weeks. The primary end point was a reduction in clinic systolic blood pressure from baseline with different doses of sacubitril/allisartan versus placebo at 8 weeks. Secondary efficacy variables included clinic diastolic blood pressure and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure for the comparison between sacubitril/allisartan and placebo at 8 weeks. Safety assessments included all adverse events and serious adverse events. Sacubitril/allisartan 480 mg/day provided a significantly greater reduction in clinic systolic blood pressure than placebo at 8 weeks (between-treatment difference: -9.1 mmHg [95% confidence interval -1.6 to -16.6 mmHg], P = 0.02). There were also significant reductions in 24-h, daytime and nighttime systolic and diastolic blood pressure for sacubitril/allisartan 480 mg/day compared with placebo (P ≤ 0.03). Similarly, a greater reduction in daytime systolic blood pressure was observed for sacubitril/allisartan 240 mg/day compared with placebo (between-treatment difference: -7.3 mmHg [95% confidence interval -0.5 to -14.0 mmHg], P = 0.04). Sacubitril/allisartan was well tolerated, and no cases of angioedema were reported. Sacubitril/allisartan is effective for the treatment of hypertension in Chinese patients and is well tolerated.

Network meta-analysis of sacubitril/valsartan for the treatment of essential hypertension

AIM

Sacubitril/valsartan has been demonstrated to reduce blood pressure in hypertensive patients, but the best dose remains unclear. We performed this network meta-analysis to determine the comparative efficacy and safety of three available doses of sacubitril/valsartan (i.e., 100, 200, and 400 mg).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched four databases for relevant studies published before January 2022. Mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures in the sitting position (msSBP and msDBP) and ambulatory condition (24-h maSBP and maDBP) and adverse events (AEs) were assessed. Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 5474 patients were included. Sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg once daily was slightly better than 400 mg once daily in lowering 24-h maDBP (MD, 1.31 mmHg; 95% CI 0.61-2.01 mmHg), slightly better than 100 mg once daily in lowering 24-h maSBP (MD, - 3.70 mmHg; 95% CI  - 6.22 to - 1.18 mmHg) and 24-h maDBP (MD, - 2.98; 95% CI - 5.11 to - 0.85), and slightly better than Valsartan 160 mg once daily in lowering 24-h maSBP (MD, - 3.23 mmHg; 95% CI, - 5.25 to - 1.21). 400 mg once daily of sacubitril/valsartan was better than 200 mg once daily in lowering msDBP (MD, - 9.38 mmHg; 95% CI - 17.79 to - 0.97 mmHg). Interestingly, 400 mg once daily of sacubitril/valsartan had fewer trial-specified AEs than 200 mg once daily (OR, 0.74; 95%CI 0.55-0.99). There was no statistical difference for the remaining comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

In hypertensive patients, 200 mg once daily of sacubitril/valsartan may exert a greater reduction in ambulatory blood pressure than 100 mg once daily and 200 mg once daily may not be inferior to 400 mg once daily. Moreover, it is not clear that sacubitril/valsartan lowers blood pressure more than an angiotensin receptor blocker. Further trials are required to determine the incremental value of sacubitril/valsartan as an anti-hypertensive agent.

Different Doses of Scubitril/Valsartan Compared with Olmesartan in Patients with Essential Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Since sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) has neprilysin inhibition and angiotensin receptor-blocking properties, it is anticipated to have strong antihypertensive effects. However, there is not enough evidence to compare the safety and efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan to those of olmesartan in patients with hypertension.

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan versus olmesartan in patients with hypertension.

METHODS

This study follows the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for relevant clinical trials. We extracted outcome endpoints regarding mean ambulatory systolic/diastolic blood pressure (maSBP/maDBP), mean sitting systolic/diastolic blood pressure (msSBP/msDBP), mean ambulatory/mean sitting pulse pressure (maPP/msPP), the proportion of patients achieving blood pressure control (< 140/90 mmHg), and adverse events. We used Review Manager Software for the conduction of the analysis of this study. The effect estimates of the studies were pooled as Mean difference or risk ratio and 95% confidence interval. We also conducted a subgroup analysis based on the dose of sacubitril/valsartan.

RESULTS

A total of six clinical trials were included. The studies showed an overall low risk of bias. The pooled effect estimate revealed that sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduces maSBP, maDBP, maPP, msSBP, and msDBP measurements compared with olmesartan (p < 0.001). A significantly higher portion of patients achieved blood pressure control in the sacubitril/valsartan group (p < 0.001). The test of subgroup difference showed that 400 mg dose is significantly more effective than 200 mg dose in reducing maSBP. Regarding the safety profile, olmesartan was associated with more side effects due to drug discontinuation and more serious side effects.

CONCLUSION

Sacubitril/valsartan or LCZ696 is more effective and safer than olmesartan for controlling blood pressure in patients with hypertension.

The role of blood pressure management in stroke prevention: current status and future prospects

INTRODUCTION

Stroke is the second-leading cause of death worldwide and the second-leading cause of disability-adjusted life-years. It is well known that hypertension is a significant risk factor for cardiovascular events, including stroke.

AREAS COVERED

Recent interventional trials have demonstrated the superiority of intensive blood pressure (BP) control for prevention of cardiovascular events compared to standard BP control. Notably, in the Strategy of Blood Pressure Intervention in Elderly Hypertensive Patients (STEP) trial, intensive BP control showed superiority in the prevention of stroke events in elderly hypertensive patients. Novel medications such as angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors and sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors have the potential to suppress various CVD events including stroke. Non-pharmacological antihypertensive therapies such as renal denervation have demonstrated BP-lowering effects and may be useful for stroke prevention. Additionally, new methods and systems of BP monitoring including various kinds of nighttime BP measurement devices, wearable devices, and methods using information and communication technology can be used to assess the pathophysiology of BP variability as a risk factor and an event trigger of stroke incidence.

EXPERT OPINION

Novel therapies and new technologies for BP evaluation strongly support the development of individualized anticipatory medicine, which should be useful for the prevention of stroke.

Sacubitril-valsartan for the treatment of hypertension in China: A cost-utility analysis based on meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Sacubitril-valsartan was recommended for heart failure (HF) and proven cost-effective in HF. Recently, sacubitril-valsartan has been recommended to treat hypertension by the Chinese expert consensus. The cost utility of sacubitril-valsartan for hypertension remains uninvestigated.

Methods

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed to investigate the real efficacy of sacubitril-valsartan on blood pressure, compared with angiotensin receptor blockers or placebo. A lifetime Markov model was developed to compare the cost utility of sacubitril-valsartan vs. valsartan. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR), representing the ratio of incremental costs to the incremental utility. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was three times of per capita gross domestic product (GDP) in China in 2021. Sacubitril-valsartan was considered cost-effective if the ICUR obtained was lower than the WTP threshold, otherwise, sacubitril-valsartanis was not cost-effective.

Results

A total of 10 RCTs of 5,781 patients were included in the meta-analysis. For comparison of sacubitril-valsartan 400 mg/day vs. valsartan 320 mg/day, a reduction in blood pressure (BP) of -5.97 (-6.38, -5.56) (p < 0.01) was observed. Cost-utility analysis showed that for a 60-year-old patient with hypertension, if sacubitril-valsartan was prescribed as the antihypertensive agent, he had a life expectancy of 11.91 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with costs of 65,066 CNY, and if valsartan was prescribed as the antihypertensive agent, the life expectancy would be 11.82 QALY with costs of 54,769 CNY; thus, an ICUR of 108,622 CNY/QALY was obtained, lower than the WTP threshold.

Conclusion

Compared with valsartan, sacubitril-valsartan is more effective in reducing blood pressure and may result in more quality-adjusted life-year, although with higher costs. Sacubitril-valsartan is cost-effective for hypertension in the current China setting under the willingness-to-pay threshold of 3 times of per capita GDP.

New and developing pharmacotherapies for hypertension

INTRODUCTION

Despite the significant contribution of hypertension to the global burden of disease, disease control remains poor worldwide. Considering this unmet clinical need, several new antihypertensive drugs with novel mechanisms of action are under development.

AREAS COVERED

The present review summarizes the recent advances in the development of emerging pharmacological agents for the management of hypertension. The latest technological innovations in the design of optimized formulations of available antihypertensive drugs and the potential role of the modification of intestinal microbiota to improve blood pressure (BP) control are also covered.

EXPERT OPINION

Significant efforts have been made to develop new antihypertensive agents with novel actions that target the main mechanisms involved in resistant hypertension. Sacubitril/valsartan may emerge as a potential first-line drug due to its superiority over renin angiotensin system inhibitors, and SGLT2 inhibitors can reduce BP in difficult-to-control hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes. In addition, firibastat and aprocitentan may expand the therapeutic options for resistant hypertension by novel mechanism of actions. Since gut dysbiosis not only leads to hypertension but also causes direct target organ damage, prebiotics and probiotics could represent a potential strategy to prevent or reduce the development of hypertension and to contribute to BP control.

Roles of Natriuretic Peptides and the Significance of Neprilysin in Cardiovascular Diseases

Atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP) and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) activate the guanylyl cyclase A receptor (GC-A), which synthesizes the second messenger cGMP in a wide variety of tissues and cells. C-type natriuretic peptide (CNP) activates the cGMP-producing guanylyl cyclase B receptor (GC-B) in chondrocytes, endothelial cells, and possibly smooth muscle cells, cardiomyocytes, and cardiac fibroblasts. The development of genetically modified mice has helped elucidate the physiological roles of natriuretic peptides via GC-A or GC-B. These include the hormonal effects of ANP/BNP in the vasculature, autocrine effects of ANP/BNP in cardiomyocytes, and paracrine effects of CNP in the vasculature and cardiomyocytes. Neprilysin (NEP) is a transmembrane neutral endopeptidase that degrades the three natriuretic peptides. Recently, mice overexpressing NEP, specifically in cardiomyocytes, revealed that local cardiac NEP plays a vital role in regulating natriuretic peptides in the heart tissue. Since NEP inhibition is a clinically accepted approach for heart failure treatment, the physiological roles of natriuretic peptides have regained attention. This article focuses on the physiological roles of natriuretic peptides elucidated in mice with GC-A or GC-B deletion, the significance of NEP in natriuretic peptide metabolism, and the long-term effects of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) on cardiovascular diseases.

Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan on Reducing the Risk of Arrhythmia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background and Objective

Relevant data of PARADIGM-HF reveals sacubitril/valsartan (SV) therapy led to a greater reduction in the risks of arrhythmia, and sudden cardiac death than angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI)/angiotensin receptor inhibitor (ARB) therapy in HFrEF, however, inconsistent results were reported in subsequent studies. Here, we conduct a meta-analysis of related randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the protective effect of SV on reducing the risk of arrhythmias.

Methods and Results

RCTs focused on the difference in therapeutic outcomes between SV and ACEI/ARB were searched from PUBMED, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Library. The results were extracted from each individual study, expressed as binary risk, 95% confidence interval (CI) and relative risk (RR). Sixteen RCTs including 22, 563 patients met the study criteria. Compared with ACEI/ARB therapy, SV therapy did significantly reduce in the risks of severe arrhythmias among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73–0.95, p = 0.006), ventricular tachycardia (VT) among patients with HFrEF (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51–0.92, p = 0.01), cardiac arrest among patients with heart failure (HF) (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.37–0.73, p = 0.0002), cardiac arrest among patients with HFrEF (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.32–0.76, p = 0.001), cardiac arrest or ventricular fibrillation (VF) among patients with HF (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.48–0.83, p = 0.001), and cardiac arrest or VF among patients with HFrEF (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.47–0.89, p = 0.008), but reduced the risks of arrhythmias (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.74–1.01, p = 0.07), atrial arrhythmias (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.83–1.16, p = 0.85), and atrial fibrillation (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82–1.17, p = 0.82) among all patients with no significant between-group difference. The merged result was robust after sensitivity analysis, and there was no publication bias.

Conclusion

Our meta-analysis provides evidence that, compared with ACEI/ARB, SV can additionally reduce the risks of most arrhythmias, just the significant differences are revealed in reducing the risks of VT, severe arrhythmias, and cardiac arrest in patients with HFrEF. Besides, the positive effect of SV on VF according to statistical result of combining VF with cardiac arrest in patients with HFrEF is credibility.

Cost-effectiveness of digital therapeutics for essential hypertension

Hypertension increases the risk of cardiovascular and other diseases. Lifestyle modification is a significant component of nonpharmacological treatments for hypertension. We previously reported the clinical efficacy of digital therapeutics (DTx) in the HERB-DH1 trial. However, there is still a lack of cost-effectiveness assessments evaluating the impact of prescription DTx. This study aimed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of using prescription DTx in treating hypertension. We developed a monthly cycle Markov model and conducted Monte Carlo simulations using the HERB-DH1 trial data to investigate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the cost of DTx for hypertension plus guideline-based lifestyle modification consultation treatment as usual (TAU), comparing DTx + TAU and TAU-only groups with a lifetime horizon. The model inputs were obtained from the HERB-DH1 trial, published or publicly available data, and expert assumptions. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY was used as the benchmark for cost-effectiveness. We performed probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) using the Monte Carlo simulation with two million sets. The DTx + TAU strategy produced 18.778 QALYs and was associated with ¥3,924,075 ($34,122) expected costs, compared with 18.686 QALYs and ¥3,813,358 ($33,160) generated by the TAU-only strategy over a lifetime horizon, resulting in an ICER of ¥1,199,880 ($10,434)/QALY gained for DTx + TAU. The monthly cost and attrition rate of DTx for hypertension have a significant impact on ICERs. In the PSA, the probability of the DTx arm being a cost-effective option was 87.8% at a threshold value of ¥5 million ($43,478)/QALY gained. In conclusion, the DTx + TAU strategy was more cost-effective than the TAU-only strategy.

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.

Seven-action approaches for the management of hypertension in Asia - The HOPE Asia network

Asia is a large continent and there is significant diversity between countries and regions. Over the last 30 years, absolute blood pressure (BP) levels in Asia have increased to a greater extent than those in other regions. In diverse Asia‐Pacific populations, for choosing an Asia‐specific approach to hypertension management is important to prevent target organ damage and cardiovascular diseases. In this consensus document of HOPE Asia Network, we introduce seven action approaches for management of hypertension in Asia.