Efficacy and Safety of Crystalline Valsartan/Sacubitril (LCZ696) Compared With Placebo and Combinations of Free Valsartan and Sacubitril in Patients With Systolic Hypertension: The RATIO Study

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.

Graphical abstract

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.

Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan on resistant hypertension and myocardial work in hemodialysis patients

Growing evidences have confirmed the effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan (SV) on antihypertension and cardiac protection in general population. However, there was no prospective study about the effect and safety of SV on resistant hypertension and myocardial work in hemodialysis patients. In this single‐center, prospective, before‐after study, enrolled patients were endured with resistant hypertension for more than 6 months. Participants were initially instructed to take SV 50 mg twice daily, and the dosage was gradually increased up to 100 mg twice daily. The primary outcomes were blood pressure (BP) control, N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP), myocardial work (MW), fatigue and life quality. In addition, the adverse events were also recorded in this cohort. A total of 18 patients (34–64 years old) was finally enrolled and completed in this study. The SV‐based regimen provided significantly mean sitting systolic BP (msSBP) and mean sitting diastolic BP (msDBP) reductions from baseline (‐20.7/‐8.3 mm Hg), respectively. The cardiac remodeling parameters were partially improved. Compared to the baseline, NT‐proBNP was significantly reduced at week 4 (8119.50 [3710.75, 29300] pg/ml to 7216.50 [4124.75, 17455.00] pg/ml, p = .046), which was much lower at week 12 (3130.50 [2244.50, 9565.70] pg/ml, p = .037). Global MW index was higher at week 12 compared to the baseline (p = .026). MW efficiency was also improved accordingly compared to the baseline, even though the statistical difference was not significant (p = .226). Life quality and fatigue were improved at week 12 compared to the baseline (all p = .000). There was no serious adverse events were observed. SV safely and effectively controlled resistant hypertension and improved MW as well as life quality in hemodialysis patients.

Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors: Comprehensive review and implications in hypertension treatment

Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) are a new class of cardiovascular agents characterized by their dual action on the major regulators of the cardiovascular system, including the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) and the natriuretic peptide (NP) system. The apparent clinical benefit of one ARNI, sacubitril/valsartan, as shown in clinical trials, has positioned the drug class as a first-line therapy in patients with heart failure, particularly with reduced ejection fraction. Accumulating evidence also suggests that sacubitril/valsartan is superior to conventional RAS blockers in lowering blood pressure in patients with hypertension. To decide whether to apply an ARNI to treat hypertension clinically, it is important to understand the potential properties of the drug in modulating multiple factors inside and outside the cardiovascular system beyond its effect on reducing peripheral blood pressure. In this context, ARNIs are distinct from preexisting antihypertensive medications in terms of the multiple actions of NPs in various organs and the pharmacological potential of neprilysin inhibitors to modulate multiple cardiac and noncardiac peptides. In particular, analysis of the clinical trials of sacubitril/valsartan implies that ARNIs can provide additional clinical benefits independent of their original purpose, including alleviation of glycemic control and renal impairment in patients with heart failure. Understanding the potential mechanisms of action of ARNIs will help interpret the relevance of their additional benefits beyond lowering blood pressure in hypertension. This review summarizes the comprehensive clinical evidence and relevance of ARNIs by specifically focusing on the potential properties of this new drug class in treating patients with hypertension.

The Antihypertensive Effects and Safety of LCZ696 in Patients with Hypertension: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: The management of hypertension remains suboptimal throughout the world. Methods: We performed a random-effects model meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to determine the effectiveness and safety of sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) for the treatment of high arterial pressure. Relevant published articles from PubMed, Cochrane base, and Medline were examined, and the last search date was December 2020. Only published randomized controlled trials and double-blind studies were selected for further analysis. The mean reductions in systolic blood pressure (msSBP) and diastolic blood pressure (msDBP) in the sitting position, as well as the mean reductions in ambulatory systolic blood pressure (maSBP) and ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (maDBP), were assumed as efficacy endpoints. Adverse events (AEs) were considered as safety outcomes. Results: Ten studies with a total of 5931patients were included for analysis. Compared with placebo, LCZ696 had a significant reduction in msSBP (weight mean difference (WMD) = −6.52 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI): −8.57 to −4.47; p < 0.001), msDBP (WMD = −3.32 mmHg, 95% CI: −4.57 to −2.07; p < 0.001), maSBP (WMD = −7.08 mmHg, 95% CI: −10.48 to −3.68; p < 0.001), maDBP (WMD = −3.57 mmHg, 95% CI: −5.71 to −1.44, p < 0.001). In subgroup analysis, only 200 mg and 400 mg LCZ696 showed a significant BP reduction. There was no difference in the AE rate between the LCZ696 and placebo groups (WMD = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.83 to 1.27, p = 0.54). Egger’s test revealed a potential publication bias for msSBP (p = 0.025), but no publication bias for other outcomes. Conclusion: LCZ696 may reduce blood pressure more efficaciously than traditional therapy in hypertensive patients without increasing adverse effects.

Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 for Short-term Management of Essential Hypertension Compared With ARBs: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

ABSTRACT

Whether LCZ696 (neprilysin inhibitor + valsartan) has greater advantages of blood pressure (BP) lowering than angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers (ARBs) is unclear. To provide more detailed information about the benefits of LCZ696, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LCZ696 for short-term management of hypertension compared with ARBs. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov, using relevant keywords. We used a random or fixed effects model to calculate the weighted mean difference (WMD) of changes in BP and the risk ratio (RR) for BP control rates and adverse events (AEs). In this meta-analysis, 9 studies were incorporated. Compared with ARBs, LCZ696 revealed a significant reduction in mean sitting systolic BP [msSBP; WMD -4.79 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval (CI): -5.46 to -4.11 mm Hg], mean sitting diastolic BP (msDBP; WMD -2.12 mm Hg; 95% CI: -2.53 to -1.71 mm Hg), mean sitting pulse pressure (msPP; WMD -2.79 mm Hg; 95% CI: -3.52 to -2.07 mm Hg), and mean ambulatory pulse pressure (maPP; WMD -2.96 mm Hg; 95% CI: -3.35 to -2.57 mm Hg). LCZ696 had a higher BP control rate than ARBs (OR = 1.55; 95% CI: 1.39 to 1.73). There was no significant difference between LCZ696 and ARBs in the incidence of AEs (RR = 1.10; 95% CI: 0.96 to 1.25) and discontinuations because of AEs (RR = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.54 to 1.32). Overall, in short-term treatment, LCZ696 has greater advantages of antihypertensive efficacy and the safety is not inferior to ARBs. Further long-term studies are required to rule out the potential risks of beta amyloid accumulation and the potential for Alzheimer's disease.

Adverse events of sacubitril/valsartan: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

ABSTRACT

This review aimed to summarize the adverse events (AEs) reported during the use of sacubitril/valsartan versus ACEI/ARB. Studies containing safety outcomes or AEs during the use of sacubitril/valsartan versus ACEI/ARB were retrieved from the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane library databases and clinical trials. From the selected studies, the pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) of dichotomous outcomes were assessed by a random or fixed effects model in our meta-analysis. Fourteen studies involving 20261 patients were included in this review. No significant differences were found in total AEs between the sacubitril/valsartan and ACEI/ARB groups. Compared with ACEI/ARB, sacubitril/valsartan decreased the risk of death, discontinuation due to AEs and renal dysfunction, while it increased the risk of hypotension. Specifically, sacubitril/valsartan decreased the risk of death compared with ACEI/ARB, while it increased the risk of hypotension for patients with heart failure (HF) and decreased the risk of discontinuation due to AEs in Caucasians. It also increased the risk of dizziness in Asians and decreased the risk of hyperkalemia and renal dysfunction, while it increased the risk of hypotension when the study duration ≥48 weeks. The available evidence showed that sacubitril/valsartan was associated with fewer side effects than ACEI/ARB, except for hypotension. Study duration, race, and patients with primary diseases affected the AEs of sacubitril/valsartan.

A Meta-Analysis on the Effect and Safety of LCZ696 in the Treatment of Hypertension

Objectives

To systematically evaluate the differences in effect and safety of LCZ696 and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in the treatment of hypertension.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Ovid, collected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about the effect and safety of LCZ696 and ARBs in hypertensive patients, extracted relevant data and evaluated the quality of the included literature according to the RCT quality evaluation standard recommended by Cochrane Reviewer's Handbook, using RevMan 5.3, and performed meta-analysis.

Results

Eight RCTs studies were included, with a total of 4313 patients. Compared with ARBs, LCZ696 can better reduce systolic blood pressure (msSBP) (WMD −4.29 mmHg; 95% CI: −5.37 to −3.21; P < 0.001), diastolic blood pressure (msDBP) (WMD −1.87 mmHg; 95% CI:−2.38 to −1.36; P < 0.01), ambulatory systolic blood pressure (maSBP) (WMD −3.37 mmHg; 95% CI:−4.26 to −2.47; P < 0.01), and ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (maDBP) (WMD −1.47 mmHg; 95% CI: −1.97 to −0.97; P < 0.01). In terms of safety, LCZ696 is basically the same as ARBs, but LCZ696 is more likely to cause cough than ARBs (OR = 2.38; 95% CI: 1.27 to 4.47; P < 0.01).

Conclusion

LCZ696 can significantly reduce the blood pressure level of patients with hypertension, but it is necessary to pay attention to whether the patient will experience coughing after taking the drug.

Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor as a novel antihypertensive drug: Evidence from Asia and around the globe

Hypertension is a worldwide epidemic that continues to grow, with a subset of patients responding poorly to current treatment available. This is especially relevant in Asia, which constitutes 61% of the global population. Hypertension in Asia is a unique entity that is often salt-sensitive, nocturnal, and systolic predominant. Sacubitril/valsartan is a first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor that was first used in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Sacubitril inhibits neprilysin, a metallopeptidase that degrades natriuretic peptides (NPs). NPs exert sympatholytic, diuretic, natriuretic, vasodilatory, and insulin-sensitizing effects mostly via cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP)-mediated pathways. As an antihypertensive agent, sacubitril/valsartan has outperformed angiotensin II receptor type 1 blockers (ARBs), with additional reductions of office systolic blood pressures ranging between 5 and 7 mmHg, in multiple studies in Asia and around the globe. The drug was well tolerated even in the elderly or those with chronic kidney disease. Its mechanisms of actions are particularly attractive for treatment of hypertension in Asia. Sacubitril/valsartan offers a novel, dual class, single-molecule property that may be considered as first-line antihypertensive therapy. Further investigations are needed to validate its safety for long-term use and to explore other potentials such as in the management of insulin resistance and obesity, which often coexist with hypertension in Asia.

Safety and tolerability of sacubitril-valsartan: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction: Sacubitril-valsartan is a recently approved drug. However, there are few data regarding safety issues. We aimed to summarize the available evidence regarding sacubitril-valsartan's safety and tolerability.Methods: We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling patients receiving sacubitril-valsartan for any condition, compared with standard therapy or placebo. Database search was performed in October 2019. Outcomes were adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), discontinuation due to AEs, and five AEs of special interest. Data were reported using risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI).Results: We included 20 RCTs (22510 participants). When compared with active controls, there were no differences in SAEs (RR=0.93, 95%CI 0.86-1.01) and AEs (RR=1.00, 95%CI 0.97-1.03). However, sacubitril-valsartan resulted in an 8% risk reduction in discontinuation due to AEs (95%CI 0.85-0.99) and an increased risk of hypotension (RR=1.45, 95%CI 1.27-1.67). The risk of angioedema was higher with follow-ups greater than 12 months (RR=2.36, 95%CI 1.29-4.33). There were no further significant differences in the remaining AEs' risk.Conclusions: Sacubitril-valsartan was at least as safe and tolerable as active control, with a similar need of administration cautiousness, except for a higher risk of hypotension. However, one should consider the study's limitations.

Effects of LCZ696 (Sacubitril/Valsartan) on Blood Pressure in Patients with Hypertension: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

LCZ696 (sacubitril/valsartan), a first-in-class angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, can significantly reduce blood pressure in patients with heart failure. We performed this meta-analysis to determine the antihypertensive effect of LCZ696 in patients with hypertension.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials were searched in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov. Twelve studies with a total of 6,064 participants were included.

RESULTS

Compared with angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), LCZ696 100 mg caused a significant reduction in systolic blood pressure (SBP) (mean difference [MD] -1.58 mm Hg, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.09 to -1.07, p < 0.05) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (MD -0.66 mm Hg, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.33, p < 0.05). LCZ696 200 mg caused a significant reduction in SBP (MD -4.94 mm Hg, 95% CI -6.54 to -3.35, p < 0.05), DBP (MD -2.24 mm Hg, 95% CI -2.74 to -1.75, p < 0.05), 24-h ambulatory SBP (24 h ASBP; MD -3.69 mm Hg, 95% CI -4.80 to -2.58, p < 0.05), and 24-h ADBP (MD -1.71 mm Hg, 95% CI -2.13 to -1.28, p < 0.05). LCZ696 400 mg caused a significant reduction in SBP (MD -6.25 mm Hg, 95% CI -7.90 to -4.61, p < 0.05), DBP (MD -2.30 mm Hg, 95% CI -2.80 to -1.80, p < 0.05), 24-h ASBP (MD -4.31 mm Hg, 95% CI -6.56 to -2.07, p < 0.05), and 24 h ADBP (MD -1.69 mm Hg, 95% CI -2.59 to -0.79, p < 0.05). Compared with LCZ696 200 mg, LCZ696 400 mg caused a significant reduction in SBP (MD 1.71 mm Hg, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.27, p < 0.05), DBP (MD 0.90 mm Hg, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.16, p < 0.05), 24-h ASBP (MD 1.50 mm Hg, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.17, p < 0.05), and 24-h ADBP (MD 0.76 mm Hg, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.06, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The blood pressure-lowering effect of LCZ696 is dose-related. This meta-analysis confirms the antihypertensive effects of LCZ696.

Effects of Low-Dose Sacubitril/Valsartan on Different Stages of Cardiac Hypertrophy in Salt-Loaded Hypertensive Rats

BACKGROUND

Sacubitril/valsartan was shown to attenuate the development of cardiac hypertrophy with enhanced blood pressure reduction compared with valsartan alone in animal models. We investigated whether a low-dose sacubitril/valsartan has blood pressure-independent effects on cardiac hypertrophy and pulmonary edema using a rat model of hypertension and obesity.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In plan 1, male SHR/NDmcr-cp rats fed normal or phase-increased high salt were treated with vehicle, 6-mg/kg sacubitril/valsartan or 3-mg/kg valsartan, for 6 months. In plan 2, after high-salt loading for 6 months, drugs were administered for 4 months. Antihypertensive effects of the 2 drugs were similar during all study periods. In plan 1 with normal salt, there were no differences between treatments in the left ventricle weight/body weight (BW), or lung weight/BW as an index of cardiac hypertrophy or pulmonary edema, respectively. These indexes were smaller in high-salt-fed rats with sacubitril/valsartan than vehicle. In plan 2, both indexes did not differ between vehicle and sacubitril/valsartan. Ventricle weight/BW was lower in valsartan than sacubitril/valsartan. In plan 2, gene markers of cardiac dysfunction were upregulated by sacubitril/valsartan compared with the other groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose sacubitril/valsartan may have different effects depending on the stage of cardiac hypertrophy in rats.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

Effect and safety of LCZ696 in the treatment of hypertension: A meta-analysis of 9 RCT studies

BACKGROUND

LCZ696 has been introduced in patients with hypertension in several trials. Here, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect and safety of LCZ696 in hypertensive patients.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched to identify the available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effect and safety of LCZ696 in hypertension patients. The last search date was October 31, 2018.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs with 6765 subjects were finally included, in which 8 trials compared the effect and safety between LCZ696 and angiotensin receptor antagonists (ARBs). Evidences showed LCZ696, compared with ARBs, achieved a better blood pressure control rate (OR 1.24, 95% CI: 1.14-1.35), specifically, LCZ696 were better at reducing systolic blood pressure [WMD -4.11 mmHg, 95% CI: (-5.13, -3.08) mmHg], diastolic blood pressure [WMD -1.79 mmHg, 95% CI: (-2.22, -1.37) mmHg], mean 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure [WMD -3.24 mmHg, 95% CI: (-4.48, -1.99) mmHg] and mean 24-hour ambulatory diastolic blood pressure [WMD -1.25 mmHg, 95% CI: (-1.81, -0.69) mmHg]. There was no difference in the events of adverse events (risk ratio [RR] 1.01, 95% CI: 0.39-1.09), serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI: 0.52-1.22) and discontinuation of treatment for any adverse events (RR 0.79, 95% CI: 0.56-1.11) between LCZ696 group and ARB/placebo group, except LCZ696 reduced the rate of headaches (RR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.48-0.99) while increased cough (RR 2.12, 95% CI: 1.11-4.04; P = .02; I = 25%).

CONCLUSION

Our finding provides evidence that LCZ 696 was more effective than ARB on blood pressure control and was safe enough in patients with hypertension.

Antihypertensive effect of sacubitril/valsartan: a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan used as an antihypertensive agent has not yet been completely assessed. Thus, to investigate them in elderly hypertensive patients, a meta-analysis has been performed.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The meta-analysis incorporated only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which sacubitril/valsartan was compared with a reference drug. The mean reductions in systolic blood pressure (msSBP) and diastolic blood pressure (msDBP) in the sitting position as well as the mean reductions in ambulatory systolic blood pressure (maSBP) and ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (maDBP), were assumed as efficacy endpoints. Adverse events were taken as safety outcomes.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Five RCTs were included for a total of 1513 patients for analysis. In all studies, the comparator drug was an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) - valsartan in two cases and olmesartan in the remaining three cases. Compared with ARBs, there was a significant reduction in msSBP (weight mean difference [WMD] -5.41 mmHg, 95% CI: -7.0 to -3.8; P<0.01), msDBP (WMD=-1.22 mmHg, 95% CI: -2.15 to -0.3; P<0.01), maSBP (WMD=-4.58 mmHg, 95% CI: -5.62 to -3.54; P<0.01) and maDBP (WMD=-2.17 mmHg, 95% CI: - 2.78 to -1.56; P<0.01) in elderly hypertensive patients at 12 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril/valsartan may reduce arterial pressure more efficaciously than ARBs in elderly hypertensive patients.

Emerging Therapy in Hypertension

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

Pharmacology remains the mainstay of treatment for hypertension across the globe. In what may seem like a well-trodden field, there are actually an exciting array of new pathways for the treatment of hypertension on the horizon. This review seeks to discuss the most recent research in ongoing areas of drug development in the field of hypertension.

RECENT FINDINGS

Novel areas of research in the field of hypertension pharmacology include central nervous system regulators, peripheral noradrenergic inhibitors, gastrointestinal sodium modulators, and a counter-regulatory arm of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. This review discusses these pathways in a look into the current status of emerging pharmacological therapies for hypertension.

Anti-Hypertensive Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

For elderly patients suffering from arterial hypertension, a complete assessment of the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan used as an anti-hypertensive agent is not available yet. Therefore, we decided to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to explore some endpoints concerning anti-hypertensive efficacy as well as safety of sacubitril/valsartan in elderly hypertensive patients.

Methods

PubMed and Scopus have been extensively investigated with the help of some key words until June 15, 2018. The meta-analysis incorporated exclusively RCTs in which the anti-hypertensive efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan were compared with those of a reference drug (comparator) that could be an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi), an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), a calcium channel blocker (CCB) or a beta-blocker. Continuous ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was required as an inclusion criterion in the studies to be included in the meta-analysis. The mean reductions in systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure in the sitting position (msSBP and msDBP, respectively), as well as the mean reductions in ambulatory systolic blood pressure (maSBP) and ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (maDBP), were assumed as efficacy endpoints. Adverse events (AEs) were taken as safety outcomes.

Results

Five RCTs were included with a total of 1,513 patients for analysis. In all studies, the comparator drug was an ARB (valsartan in two cases and olmesartan in the remaining three cases). Compared with ARBs, after 12 weeks there was a significant reduction in msSBP (weight mean difference (WMD) = - 5.41 mm Hg, 95% confidence interval (CI): -7.0 to -3.8; P < 0.01), msDBP (WMD = -1.22 mm Hg, 95% CI : -2.15 to -0.3; P < 0.01), maSBP (WMD = -4.58 mm Hg, 95% CI: -5.62 to -3.54; P < 0.01) and maDBP (WMD = -2.17 mm Hg, 95% CI: - 2.78 to -1.56; P < 0.01) in elderly hypertensive patients at 12 weeks.

Conclusions

Sacubitril/valsartan may reduce arterial pressure more efficaciously than ARBs in elderly hypertensive patients. These results have to be confirmed by further RCTs with a good methodological quality, possibly with a greater sample size.

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.

Efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared with olmesartan in Asian patients with essential hypertension: A randomized, double-blind, 8-week study

This study assessed the efficacy and safety of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan vs olmesartan in Asian patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Patients (N = 1438; mean age, 57.7 years) with mild-to-moderate hypertension were randomized to receive once daily administration of sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg (n = 479), sacubitril/valsartan 400 mg (n = 473), or olmesartan 20 mg (n = 486) for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was reduction in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP) from baseline with sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg vs olmesartan 20 mg at Week 8. Secondary endpoints included msSBP reduction with sacubitril/valsartan 400 mg, and reductions in clinic and ambulatory BP and pulse pressure (PP) vs olmesartan. In addition, changes in msBP from baseline in the Chinese subpopulation, elderly (≥65 years), and in patients with isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) were assessed. Sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg provided a significantly greater reduction in msSBP than olmesartan 20 mg at Week 8 (between-treatment difference: -2.33 mm Hg [95% confidence interval (CI) -4.00 to -0.66 mm Hg], P < 0.05 for non-inferiority and superiority). Greater reductions in msSBP were also observed with sacubitril/valsartan 400 mg vs olmesartan 20 mg (-3.52 [-5.19 to -1.84 mm Hg], P < 0.001 for superiority). Similarly, greater reductions in msBP were observed in the Chinese subpopulation, in elderly patients, and those with ISH. In addition, both doses of sacubitril/valsartan provided significantly greater reductions from baseline in nighttime mean ambulatory BP vs olmesartan. Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan 200 or 400 mg once daily is effective and provided superior BP reduction than olmesartan 20 mg in Asian patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension and is generally safe and well tolerated.

Novel Medical Treatments for Hypertension and Related Comorbidities

Purpose of Review

The purpose of this review is to summarize the most recent data available on advances in development of novel medical treatments for hypertension and related comorbidities.

Recent Findings

Approximately half of all hypertensive patients have not achieved goal blood pressure with current available antihypertensive medications. Recent landmark studies and new hypertension guidelines have called for stricter blood pressure control, creating a need for better strategies for lowering blood pressure. This has led to a shift in focus, in recent years, to the development of combination pills as a means of achieving improved blood pressure control by increasing adherence to prescribed medications along with further research and development of promising novel drugs based on discovery of new molecular targets such as the counter-regulatory renin-angiotensin system.

Summary

Fixed-dose combination pills and novel treatments based on recently discovered pathogenic mechanisms of hypertension that have demonstrated promising results as treatments for hypertension and related comorbidities will be discussed in this review.

Sacubitril/valsartan: evaluation of safety and efficacy as an antihypertensive treatment

Hypertension (HTN) is a common disease state associated with extensive morbidity and mortality worldwide. It is often difficult for patients with HTN to achieve and maintain a goal blood pressure (BP), despite there being many effective treatment options available. Sacubitril/valsartan is a first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) that has garnered approval by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency as a first-line treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. During clinical trials for heart failure as well as in independent trials for HTN, sacubitril/valsartan has demonstrated safety and efficacy when it comes to BP lowering, making it a promising antihypertensive agent. Most trials of sacubitril/valsartan were 8 to 12 weeks in length and demonstrated a clinically relevant BP lowering that was frequently more significant than its comparators. While more data are needed to confirm its role as an antihypertensive agent, the data available are promising and it is anticipated that sacubitril/valsartan will gain an indication of HTN.

Efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with essential hypertension uncontrolled by olmesartan: A randomized, double-blind, 8-week study

A majority of patients with hypertension fail to achieve blood pressure (BP) control despite treatment with commonly prescribed drugs. This randomized, double-blind phase III trial assessed the superiority of sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg (97/103 mg) to continued olmesartan 20 mg in reducing ambulatory systolic BP after 8-week treatment in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension uncontrolled with olmesartan 20 mg alone. A total of 376 patients were randomized to receive either sacubitril/valsartan (n = 188) or olmesartan (n = 188). Superior reductions in 24-hour mean ambulatory systolic BP were observed in the sacubitril/valsartan group vs the olmesartan group (-4.3 mm Hg vs -1.1 mm Hg, P < .001). Reductions in 24-hour mean ambulatory diastolic BP and pulse pressure and office systolic BP and diastolic BP were significantly greater with sacubitril/valsartan vs olmesartan (P < .014). A greater proportion of patients achieved BP control with sacubitril/valsartan vs olmesartan. The overall incidence of adverse events was comparable between the groups. Compared with continued olmesartan, sacubitril/valsartan was more effective and generally safe in patients with hypertension uncontrolled with olmesartan 20 mg.

LCZ696, a promising novel agent in treating hypertension (a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials)

Background

To determine the effectiveness and safety of LCZ696 for the clinical treatment of hypertension, we performed a meta-analysis of the previous clinical trials.

Methods

Relevant English articles and randomized controlled trials were searched in Pubmed, Embase, EBSCO, Cochrane base and ClinicalTrials.gov. The last search date was July 20th, 2017.

Results

Compared with 20mg olmesartan, 200mg and 400mg LCZ696 outperformed olmesartan in terms of reducing mean sitting systolic blood pressure, mean ambulatory systolic blood pressure, mean sitting diastolic blood pressure and mean ambulatory diastolic blood pressure. Compared with 20mg olmesartan, 200mg and 400mg LCZ696 was better than olmesartan in terms of reducing mean sitting pulse pressure. And these studies showed that 400mg LCZ696 was better than 20mg olmesartan in terms of reducing mean ambulatory pulse pressure, however, there was no significant difference between 200mg LCZ696 and 20mg olmesartan in terms of redducing mean ambulatory pulse pressure. In addition, 200mg and 400mg LCZ696 was better than placebo in terms of reducing blood pressure parameters mentioned above. Compared with placebo or 20 mg olmesartan, LCZ696 showed no superiority in terms of reducing adverse events or serious adverse events.

Conclusions

LCZ696 at 200 mg or 400 mg was better at reducing most of blood pressure parameters than 20 mg olmesartan or placebo. Compared with placebo or 20 mg olmesartan, 200 mg or 400 mg LCZ696 do not result in more adverse events in treating hypertension.

Safety of the neprilysin/renin-angiotensin system inhibitor LCZ696

Objectives

The combined neprilysin/rennin-angiotensin system inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) has shown its superiority over ACEI/ARB therapy. In view of the existing concern of its adverse effects, we aimed to provide evidence of the safety of the new drug.

Results

A total of 6 randomized trials with 11,821 subjects were included in this analysis. No significant differences were found in any adverse effects between LCZ696 and ACEI/ARB or placebo groups. LCZ696 significantly decreased the risks of serious adverse events and death compared with ACEI/ARB. LCZ696 also significantly decrease the risk of discontinuation of treatment for any adverse event no matter compared with ACEI/ARB or a placebo. LCZ696 significantly increased the risk of angioedema and dizziness, while it decreased the risk of renal dysfunction and bronchitis. There was no difference for hypotension, hyperkalemia, cough, upper respiratory tract inflammation, diarrhoea, back pain, nasopharyngitis, headache and influenza between the LCZ696 group and the ACEI/ARB group.

Materials and Methods

A meta-analysis of eligible studies that used LCZ696 in heart failure and hypertension was performed. Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with data on any adverse effects, serious adverse events, discontinuation of treatment for any adverse event, death, angioedema, hypotension, hyperkalemia, and other adverse effects to perform this meta-analysis.

Conclusions

In addition to the beneficial effect of LCZ696 on end point events, the available evidences showed that LCZ696 was associated with less drug-risks than a placebo and ACEI/ARB.