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

Angiotensin receptor blocker-neprilysin inhibitor for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a clinical syndrome characterized by volume overload, impaired exercise capacity, and recurrent hospital admissions. A major contributor to the pathophysiology and clinical presentation of heart failure is the activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS). Normally, RAAS is responsible for the homeostatic regulation of blood pressure, extracellular fluid volume, and serum sodium concentration. In HFrEF, RAAS gets chronically activated in response to decreased cardiac output, further aggravating the congestion and cardiotoxic effects. Hence, inhibition of RAAS is a major approach in the pharmacologic treatment of those patients. The most recently introduced RAAS antagonizing medication class is angiotensin receptor blocker/ neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI). In this paper, we discuss ARNIs' superiority over traditional RAAS antagonizing agents in reducing heart failure hospitalization and mortality. We also tease out the evidence that shows ARNIs' renoprotective functions in heart failure patients including those with chronic or end stage kidney disease. We also discuss the evidence showing the added benefit resulting from combining ARNIs with a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor. Moreover, how ARNIs decrease the risk of arrhythmias and reverse cardiac remodeling, ultimately lowering the risk of cardiovascular death, is also discussed. We then present the positive outcome of ARNIs' use in patients with diabetes mellitus and those recovering from acute decompensated heart failure. ARNIs' side effects are also appreciated and discussed. Taken together, the provided insight and critical appraisal of the evidence justifies and supports the implementation of ARNIs in the guidelines for the treatment of HFrEF.

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 reversal of left ventricular remodeling is associated with improved hemodynamics in resistant hypertension

BACKGROUND

Sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) has been shown to be an effective antihypertensive drug combination. However, its therapeutic effects on blood pressure (BP), hemodynamics, and left ventricular (LV) remodeling in resistant hypertension (RHTN) remain unclear.

METHODS

Eighty-six patients completed this self-control study, during which olmesartan was administered within the first 8 weeks (phase 1), followed by S/V within the second 8 weeks (phase 2), with nifedipine and hydrochlorothiazide taken as background medications. Office BP, echocardiography, and hemodynamics assessment using impedance cardiography were performed at baseline and at the eighth and sixteenth weeks.

RESULTS

The reduction in office BP was larger in phase 2 than in phase 1 (19.59/11.66 mmHg vs. 2.88/1.15 mmHg). Furthermore, the treatment in phase 2 provided greater reductions in systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI) and thoracic blood saturation ratio (TBR), with differences between the two phases of -226.59 (-1212.80 to 509.55) dyn·s/cm5/m2 and -0.02 (-0.04 to 0.02). Switching from olmesartan to S/V also significantly reduced E/E', LV mass index, LV end-diastolic volume index, and LV end-systolic volume index (all P < 0.05). Decreases in arterial stiffness, SVRI, and TBR were correlated with changes in indicators of LV remodeling (all P < 0.05). This correlation persisted even after adjusting for confounders including changes in BP.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching from olmesartan to S/V effectively lowered BP and reversed ventricular remodeling in RHTN. In addition, hemodynamic improvement was also observed. Changes in hemodynamics played an important role in reversing LV remodeling of S/V, and were independent of its antihypertensive effect.

Unique characteristics of Asians with hypertension: what is known and what can be done?

Hypertension remains the leading modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease worldwide. Over the past 30 years, the prevalence of hypertension has been increasing in East and Southeast Asia to a greater extent as compared with other Western countries. Asians with hypertension have unique characteristics. This can be attributed to increased impact of obesity on Asians with hypertension, excessive salt intake and increased salt sensitivity, loss of diurnal rhythm in blood pressure and primary aldosteronism. The impact of hypertension on cardiovascular (particularly strokes) and chronic kidney disease is greater in Asians. These unique characteristics underpinned by the diverse socioeconomic backgrounds pose its own challenges in the diagnosis and management of hypertension in Asia.

Comparison of the effects of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors and thiazide diuretic/renin-angiotensin system inhibitor combination therapy in hypertensive patients: a retrospective cohort study

Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) have been approved as antihypertensive agents in Japan, and thiazide diuretics (TZDs) are widely used concomitantly with renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASIs) for hypertension. This retrospective study included patients with hypertension who switched from RASI to ARNI therapy (ARNI group) and those who were prescribed TZDs with RASIs (TZD/RASI group). Drug-related changes in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), blood pressure (BP), body weight (BW), serum electrolytes, uric acid (UA), and triglyceride levels were compared between the two groups. Overall, 70 participants (31 and 39 in the ARNI and TZD/RASI groups, respectively) were enrolled and observed for a median of 2 months. According to linear mixed models, compared with the TZD/RASI group, the ARNI group exhibited a significant change in mean eGFR of 3.71 mL/min/1.73 m2 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.57-6.84; P = 0.02] from the time of switching drug to the next outpatient visit. Further, compared with the TZD/RASI group, the ARNI group exhibited significant changes in mean serum UA (-1.27; 95% CI, -1.66 to -0.88), sodium (1.22; 95% CI, 0.12 to -2.32), chloride (2.14; 95% CI, 0.75-3.52), and triglyceride (-52.1; 95% CI, -100.9 to -3.29) levels. Conversely, serum potassium levels, BW, and systolic and diastolic BP did not differ significantly between the two groups (P = 0.69, 0.44, 0.49, and 0.66, respectively). Compared with the combination therapy of TZD and RASI, ARNI therapy causes less renal dysfunction, hyperuricemia, and hypertriglyceridemia with fewer electrolyte abnormalities and no significant difference in antihypertensive effects.

Effects of sacubitril/valsartan on cardiac reverse remodeling and cardiac resynchronization in patients with acute myocardial infarction

Introduction

In 2014, the PARADIGM-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) has shown that sacubitril/valsartan can reduce the risk of hospitalization and death from cardiovascular causes more effectively than enalapril (an ACEI) in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Similarly, the PARADIGM-HF trial (Comparison of Sacubitril-Valsartan vs. Enalapril on Effect on NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized from an Acute Heart Failure Episode) came to similar conclusions and extended the PARADIGM-HF trial results in 2019. Since then, numerous new studies have provided further insight in HFrEF, sacubitril/valsartan can reduce N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels, increase left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), reverse ventricular remodeling, and reduce other non-fatal manifestations of clinical deterioration as compared to ACEI/ARB. However, few trials have compared the effects of these drugs in patients shortly after AMI. Therefore, it is necessary to further explore the clinical efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan in patients with AMI.

Methods

We conducted an open-label, prospective, randomized controlled trial to determine the superiority in ameliorating ventricular remodeling and preventing of heart failure in patients with AMI after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), 148 patients were randomly assigned (85 to sacubitril/valsartan and 63 to valsartan).

Results

LAV, LVDV, and LVSV were all decreased in the sacubitril/valsartan group when compared with before treatment, but there was no difference between the sacubitril/valsartan group and the valsartan group. In addition, compared with before treatment in the sacubitril/valsartan group, the heart global work index (GWI) and the global work efficiency (GWE) increased, while the heart global wasted work (GWW) decreased. Patients in the sacubitril/valsartan group have similar MACE and adverse side effects to those in the valsartan group.

Conclusion

Sacubitril/valsartan has the same performance as valsartan in inhibiting ventricular remodeling and preventing heart failure after PCI in patients with AMI, and its clinical application is safe. It provides a clinical foundation for the application of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with AMI.

Cost Effectiveness of the First-in-Class ARNI (Sacubitril/Valsartan) for the Treatment of Essential Hypertension in a Chinese Setting

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to model the potential long-term disease progression and pharmacoeconomic value of sacubitril/valsartan for the treatment of essential hypertension from a Chinese healthcare system perspective.

METHODS

A Markov cohort model with five health states was constructed to simulate the incidence of acute cardiovascular events and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with sacubitril/valsartan compared with allisartan isoproxil and valsartan over a lifetime horizon with an annual cycle. Multivariable risk regression models derived from China-PAR data accompanied by hazard ratios were used to transform the dual mechanism of sacubitril/valsartan to lower blood pressure and left ventricular mass index into long-term fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular risks. Efficacy data were calculated using a network meta-analysis integrated by the results of clinical trials. Healthcare costs were determined from a real-world study and published literature, supplemented by expert opinion. Utilities were derived from literature. Both costs and health outcomes were discounted at 5.0% annually, and prices corresponded to 2021. Model validation, deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of results.

RESULTS

For simulated patients with hypertension, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the rates of myocardial infarction by 6.67% and 6.39%, stroke by 9.38% and 8.98%, and heart failure hospitalization by 9.92% and 9.62% relative to allisartan isoproxil and valsartan, respectively. It was also associated with gains in life expectancy among hypertensive individuals of 0.362-0.382 years. Eventually, lifetime costs per patient were CN¥59,272 (US$9187) for sacubitril/valsartan, CN¥54,783 (US$8492) for allisartan isoproxil, and CN¥56,714 (US$8791) for valsartan; total QALYs were 11.38, 11.24, and 11.25, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was CN¥31,805/QALY (US$4930/QALY) compared with allisartan isoproxil, and CN¥19,247/QALY (US$2983/QALY) compared with valsartan, both of which are below the one time per-capita GDP of CN¥80,976/QALY (US$12,551/QALY) in China. Similar results were obtained in various extensive sensitivity analysis scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

This was the first study to evaluate the cost effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan in the treatment of hypertension. Sacubitril/valsartan compares favorably with allisartan isoproxil and valsartan in the Chinese setting, which is mainly due to its higher efficacy resulting in fewer cardiovascular events and ultimately less related mortality over time. The results could inform deliberations regarding reimbursement and access to this treatment in China and may provide reference for facilitating more reasonable and efficient allocation of limited resources in such low- and middle-income countries.

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

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

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.

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

This phase III study assessed the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared with those of olmesartan in Japanese patients with essential hypertension. Patients (n = 1161, aged ≥20 years) with mild to moderate hypertension (mean sitting systolic blood pressure [msSBP] ≥150 to <180 mmHg) were randomized to receive sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg (n = 387), sacubitril/valsartan 400 mg (n = 385), or olmesartan 20 mg (n = 389) once daily for 8 weeks. The primary assessment was a reduction in msSBP from baseline with sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg vs. olmesartan 20 mg at Week 8. Secondary assessments included msSBP reduction with sacubitril/valsartan 400 mg vs. olmesartan at Week 8 and reductions in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (msDBP), mean sitting pulse pressure (msPP), and overall blood pressure (BP) control rate for all treatment groups at Week 8. Sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg provided a significantly greater reduction in msSBP from baseline than olmesartan at Week 8 (between-treatment difference: −5.01 mmHg [95% confidence interval: −6.95 to −3.06 mmHg, P < 0.001 for noninferiority and superiority]). Greater reductions in msSBP with sacubitril/valsartan 400 mg vs. olmesartan, as well as in msDBP and msPP with both doses of sacubitril/valsartan vs. olmesartan (P < 0.05 for all), were also observed. Patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan achieved an overall higher BP control rate. The safety and tolerability profiles of sacubitril/valsartan were generally comparable to those of olmesartan. The adverse event rate with sacubitril/valsartan was not dose-dependent. Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan was effective and provided superior BP reduction, with a higher proportion of patients achieving target BP goals than treatment with olmesartan in Japanese patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension.

Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan is effective and provided superior blood pressure (BP) reductions with a higher proportion of patients achieving target BP goals versus olmesartan in Japanese patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension.

Nocturnal Hypertension and Heart Failure: Mechanisms, Evidence, and New Treatments

Heart failure (HF) is a common condition with an increasing prevalence. Despite a variety of evidence-based treatments for patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction, morbidity and mortality rates remain high. Furthermore, there are currently no treatments that have yet been shown to reduce complication and death rates in patients who have HF with preserved ejection fraction. Hypertension is a common comorbidity in patients with HF, contributing to disease development and prognosis. For example, hypertension is closely associated with the development of left ventricular hypertrophy, which an important precursor of HF. In particular, nighttime blood pressure (BP) appears to be an important, modifiable risk factor. Both nighttime BP and an abnormal circadian pattern of nighttime BP dipping have been shown to predict development of HF and the occurrence of cardiovascular events, independent of office BP. Key mechanisms for this association include sodium handling/salt sensitivity and increased sympathetic activation. These pathogenic mechanisms are targeted by several new treatment options, including sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and renal denervation. All of these could form part of antihypertensive strategies designed to control nighttime BP and contribute to the goal of achieving perfect 24-hour BP management. Nevertheless, additional research is needed to determine the effects of reducing nighttime BP and improving the circadian BP profile on the rate of HF, other cardiovascular events, and mortality.