Incidence, Predictors, and Outcomes Associated With Hypotensive Episodes Among Heart Failure Patients Receiving Sacubitril/Valsartan or Enalapril: The PARADIGM-HF Trial (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure)

Asymptomatic vs Symptomatic Hypotension With Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction in PARADIGM-HF

BACKGROUND

Hypotension is an important clinical problem in heart failure (HF).

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to examine the association between asymptomatic vs symptomatic hypotension and outcomes in PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure).

METHODS

In a post hoc analysis of PARADIGM-HF, the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared to enalapril were estimated using time-updated Cox proportional hazards models. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization.

RESULTS

Among 8,399 patients in PARADIGM-HF, 1,343 (16.0%) experienced only asymptomatic hypotension, and 936 (11.1%) experienced symptomatic hypotension at least once after randomization. Patients with symptomatic hypotension were older and more frequently had cardiovascular comorbidities compared to those developing only asymptomatic hypotension. By contrast, left ventricular ejection fraction was lower in those with asymptomatic hypotension. Patients who experienced either type of hypotension were at higher risk for all outcomes examined. However, the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on the primary outcome was not diminished in patients experiencing hypotension compared to those who did not: the HR for sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.72-0.89) for no hypotension, 0.87 (95% CI: 0.70-1.08) for asymptomatic hypotension, and 0.51 (95% CI: 0.38-0.69) for symptomatic hypotension (Pinteraction = 0.01), and this was also true for cardiovascular and all-cause deaths. The safety of sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril was also maintained regardless of the occurrence of hypotension. Discontinuation of randomized treatment was less common with sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril in patients experiencing asymptomatic and symptomatic hypotension.

CONCLUSIONS

Although both asymptomatic and symptomatic hypotension during treatment with sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril were associated with worse outcomes, the benefits of sacubitril/valsartan were maintained (or even enhanced) in patients experiencing hypotension.

Global use of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor in heart failure and reduced, below normal and supranormal ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

The global use of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) in clinical practice, especially in patients with heart failure and below-normal ejection fraction (HFbnEF), has not been thoroughly evaluated. We aimed to investigate the characteristics, outcomes, and adverse events in patients treated with ARNI for HF with reduced (HFrEF), below-normal (HFbnEF), and supranormal left ventricular EF (HFsnEF).

METHODS

This observational study analyzed data from the electronic healthcare records (EHR) of patients with HF treated with ARNI between 2015 and 2022 in North and South America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia-Pacific. Based on the left ventricular EF, patients were categorized as HFrEF (< 40%), HFbnEF (40-60%), and HFsnEF (> 60%). Mortality and the incidence of adverse events were investigated.

RESULTS

Of the 11,141 patients analyzed, HFrEF, HFbnEF and HFsnEF accounted for 74%, 22%, and 4%, respectively. Patients with a higher EF were more likely to be older, female, and obese. Hypertension and atrial fibrillation were the most common in HFsnEF. Systolic blood pressure was lower and natriuretic peptide levels were higher in the lower EF groups. Mortality was lowest in HFbnEF (7.7 per 100 patient-years follow-up in HFrEF, 5.8 in HFmrEF, and 6.0 in HFsnEF). Similarly, hypotension and acute kidney injury were the least frequent in HFbnEF. Incidence of elevated serum potassium levels was similar between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis of large-scale EHR, ARNI was mainly used in HFrEF and HFbnEF, consistent with previous randomized trials and pooled analyses. Adverse events were less common in HFbnEF.

Status and timing of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor implementation in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: Data from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry

AIMS

We explored timing, settings and predictors of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) initiation in a large, nationwide cohort of patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with HFrEF (ejection fraction <40%) registered in the Swedish HF Registry in 2017-2021 and naïve to ARNI were evaluated for timing and location of, and their characteristics at ARNI initiation. ARNI use increased from 8.3% in 2017 to 26.7% in 2021. Among 3892 hospitalized patients, 8% initiated ARNI in-hospital or ≤14 days after discharge, 4% between 15 and 90 days, and 88% >90 days after discharge or never initiated. Factors associated with earlier initiation included follow-up in specialized HF care, more severe HF, previous HF treatment use and higher income, whereas older age, higher comorbidity burden and living alone were associated with later/no initiation. Of 16 486 HFrEF patients, 8.1% inpatients and 5.9% outpatients initiated an ARNI at the index date. Factors associated with initiation in outpatients were overall consistent with those linked with an in-hospital/earlier ARNI initiation; 4.9% of 10 209 with HF duration <6 months and 9.1% of 5877 with HF duration ≥6 months initiated ARNI. Predictors of ARNI initiation in HF duration <6 months were inpatient status, lower ejection fraction, hypertension, whereas previous angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker use was associated with less likely initiation. Discontinuation at 1 year ranged between 13% and 20% across the above-reported analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

In-hospital and early initiation of ARNI are limited in real-world care but still slightly more likely than in outpatients. ARNI were more likely initiated in patients with more severe HF, which might suggest its use as a second-line treatment and only following worsening of clinical status. One-year discontinuation rates were consistent regardless of the timing/setting of ARNI initiation.

Incidence and risk factors of hypotension-related adverse events among Japanese patients with heart failure receiving sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril: Results from the PARALLEL-HF study

BACKGROUND

The PARALLEL-HF trial showed that treatment with sacubitril/valsartan resulted in more symptomatic hypotension versus enalapril in Japanese patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction, similar to PARADIGM-HF. Use of sacubitril/valsartan in these patients may be limited by concerns regarding hypotension.

METHODS

This post-hoc analysis characterized hypotension-related adverse events (AEs) and their effects on efficacy using data from PARALLEL-HF, in which patients received sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg twice daily or enalapril 10 mg twice daily.

RESULTS

Of 223 patients, 28.2 % experienced hypotension-related AEs and incidence was higher with sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril (hazard ratio, 2.2; 95 % CI, 1.3-3.8; p = 0.0027). However, reduction in mean systolic blood pressure from baseline to study end did not significantly differ (sacubitril/valsartan: -2.2 mmHg vs enalapril: -1.3 mmHg; p = 0.6895). Patients who experienced hypotension-related AEs had lower mean body mass index, higher median N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide at randomization, and more frequent history of stroke. Hypotension-related AEs leading to treatment discontinuation were not significantly different for sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril (3.4 % vs 6.9 %, p = 0.5957). Reduction in risk of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization was similar with sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril in patients with or without hypotension-related AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Incidence of hypotension-related AEs was higher in the sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril group but did not affect risk of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization, which was similar between treatment groups.

Influence of the medical treatment schedule in new diagnoses patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction

AIMS

Heart failure (HF) guidelines recommend treating all patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) with quadruple therapy, although they do not establish how to start it. This study aimed to evaluate the implementation of these recommendations, analyzing the efficacy and safety of the different therapeutic schedules.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Prospective, observational, and multicenter registry that evaluated the treatment initiated in patients with newly diagnosed HFrEF and its evolution at 3 months. Clinical and analytical data were collected, as well as adverse reactions and events during follow-up. Five hundred and thirty-three patients were included, selecting four hundred and ninety-seven, aged 65.5 ± 12.9 years (72% male). The most frequent etiologies were ischemic (25.5%) and idiopathic (21.1%), with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 28.7 ± 7.4%. Quadruple therapy was started in 314 (63.2%) patients, triple in 120 (24.1%), and double in 63 (12.7%). Follow-up was 112 days [IQI 91; 154], with 10 (2%) patients dying. At 3 months, 78.5% had quadruple therapy (p < 0.001). There were no differences in achieving maximum doses or reducing or withdrawing drugs (< 6%) depending on the starting scheme. Twenty-seven (5.7%) patients had any emergency room visits or admission for HF, less frequent in those with quadruple therapy (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

It is possible to achieve quadruple therapy in patients with newly diagnosed HFrEF early. This strategy makes it possible to reduce admissions and visits to the emergency room for HF without associating a more significant reduction or withdrawal of drugs or significant difficulty in achieving the target doses.

Efficacy of Sacubitril-Valsartan on Survival and Cardiac Remodeling in Hypotensive Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Multicenter Study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether hypotensive patients diagnosed with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) might benefit from angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNis) in real-world practice because patients with baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP) of less than 100 mm Hg have been excluded from landmark trials.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this multicenter study conducted between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2021, a total of 7562 symptomatic patients with HFrEF were enrolled and grouped by SBP (hypotension was defined as an SBP of less than 100 mm Hg) and ARNi use as follows: group 1, hypotensive/non-ARNi users (n=484); group 2, hypotensive/ARNi users (n=308); group 3, nonhypotensive/non-ARNi users (n=4560); and group 4, nonhypotensive/ARNi users (n=2210). Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance baseline characteristics for survival analysis.

RESULTS

Diverse baseline characteristics and lower rates of medication use were found among non-ARNi users compared with ARNi users. Hypotensive/ARNi users had lower ARNi initiation doses than nonhypotensive/ARNi users. We observed significantly lower mortality, composite heart failure hospitalization, and CV death for hypotensive/ARNi and the other 2 nonhypotensive groups (groups 3 and 4) during a median follow-up of 3.43 years (all P<.05), with a similar effect on reverse remodeling for the hypotensive/ARNi group compared with the hypotensive/non-ARNi group. The event-free survival benefits of ARNi vs renin-angiotensin system inhibitors were consistent with the lower boundary of SBP for clinical benefits found until 88 mm Hg (spline curves) after inverse probability of treatment weighting.

CONCLUSION

Patients with HFrEF and hypotension may still benefit from ARNi treatment. Patients with hypotensive HFrEF should not be routinely excluded from ARNi use in a real-world setting.

Association of Sacubitril/Valsartan vs Valsartan With Blood Pressure Changes and Symptomatic Hypotension: the PARAGLIDE-HF Trial

BACKGROUND

In PARAGLIDE-HF, in patients with ejection fraction (EF) > 40%, stabilized after worsening heart failure (WHF), sacubitril/valsartan led to greater reduction in plasma NT-proBNP levels and was associated with clinical benefit compared to valsartan alone, despite more symptomatic hypotension (SH). Concern about SH may be limiting the use of sacubitril/valsartan in appropriate patients.

METHODS

We characterized patients by the occurrence of SH (investigator-reported) after randomization to either sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan. A key trial inclusion criterion was systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥ 100 mmHg for the preceding 6 hours and no SH. We also compared outcomes based on baseline SBP stratified by the median blood pressure. The primary endpoint was time-averaged proportional change in NT-proBNP levels from baseline through weeks 4 and 8. A secondary hierarchical outcome (win ratio) consisted of: (1) cardiovascular death; (2) hospitalizations due to HF; (3) urgent HF visits; and (4) change in NT-proBNP levels.

RESULTS

Among 466 randomized patients, 92 (19.7%) experienced SH (sacubitril/valsartan, n = 56 [24.0%]; valsartan, n = 36 [15.5%]; P = 0.020). The median time to the first SH event was similar between treatment arms (18 days vs 15 days, respectively; P = 0.42) as was the proportion of first SH events classified as serious by investigators. Patients who experienced SH with sacubitril/valsartan were more likely to be white (OR 1.87 [95% CI: 0.31, 11.15]), to have a lower baseline SBP (per 10 mmHg increase, OR 0.68 [95% CI: 0.55, 0.85]), or to have a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of > 60% (OR 2.21 [95% CI: 1.05, 4.65]). Time-averaged change in NT-proBNP levels did not differ between patients with baseline SBP ≥ 128 mmHg vs SBP < 128 mmHg (interaction, P = 0.43). The composite hierarchical outcome for sacubitril/valsartan in patients with baseline SBP ≥ 128 mmHg had a win ratio of 1.34 ([95% CI: 0.91, 1.99]; P = 0.096) vs SBP < 128 mmHg with a win ratio of 1.09 ([95%CI: 0.73, 1.66]; P = 0 .62; interaction P value = 0.42).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with LVEF > 40% stabilized after WHF, incident SH was more common with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan. SH was associated with lower baseline SBP, being white, and having higher LVEF. Treatment benefits with sacubitril/valsartan may be more pronounced in patients with higher baseline SBP and lower LVEF (≤ 60%). (Funded by Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03988634.).

The management of heart failure in Sweden-the physician's perspective: a survey

Aims

To assess the barriers to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) use in heart failure (HF), diagnostic workup and general knowledge about HF among physicians in Sweden.

Methods

A survey about the management of HF was sent to 828 Swedish physicians including general practitioners (GPs) and specialists during 2021-2022. Answers were reported as percentages and comparisons were made by specialty (GPs vs. specialists).

Results

One hundred sixty-eight physicians participated in the survey (40% females, median age 43 years; 41% GPs and 59% specialists). Electrocardiography and New York Heart Association class evaluations are mostly performed once a year by GPs (46%) and at every outpatient visit by specialists (40%). Echocardiography is mostly requested if there is clinical deterioration (60%). One-third of participants screen for iron deficiency only if there is anemia. Major obstacles to implementation of different drug classes in HF with reduced ejection fraction are related to side effects, with no significant differences between specialties. Device implantation is deemed appropriate regardless of aetiology (69%) and patient age (86%). Specialists answered correctly to knowledge questions more often than GPs. Eighty-six percent of participants think that GDMT should be implemented as much as possible. Most participants (57%) believe that regular patient assessment in nurse-led HF clinics improve adherence to GDMT.

Conclusion

Obstacles to GDMT implementation according to physicians in Sweden mainly relate to potential side effects, lack of specialist knowledge and organizational aspects. Further efforts should be placed in educational activities and structuring of nurse-led clinics.

Sacubitril/Valsartan-Related Hypotension in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved or Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

Hypotension is a potential adverse effect of sacubitril/valsartan, but there are limited data regarding the predictors and implications of treatment-related hypotension in heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction.

OBJECTIVES

We investigated predictors of treatment-associated hypotension, clinical outcomes after hypotension, and the relationship between left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and incidence of hypotension in the PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial.

METHODS

PARAGON-HF randomized patients with chronic HF (≥45%) to sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan. Following randomization, hypotension was defined as investigator-reported hypotension with a systolic blood pressure <100 mm Hg. Predictors of hypotension were assessed using multivariable Cox models. Associations between hypotension and clinical outcomes were evaluated in time-updated Cox models. The relationship among treatment, LVEF, and incident rates of hypotension and clinical outcomes was estimated using Poisson regression models.

RESULTS

Of 4,796 patients in PARAGON-HF, 637 (13%) experienced hypotension, more frequently in the sacubitril/valsartan arm (P < 0.001). Following documented hypotension, patients had higher risk of cardiovascular death and total HF hospitalizations (adjusted RR: 1.63; 95% CI: 1.27-2.09; P < 0.001) and all-cause death (adjusted HR: 1.62; 95% CI: 1.28-2.05; P < 0.001). LVEF modified the association between sacubitril/valsartan and risk of hypotension (Pinteraction = 0.019) such that patients with LVEF ≥60% experienced substantially higher treatment-related risks of hypotension.

CONCLUSIONS

In PARAGON-HF, a higher LVEF was associated with an increased risk of hypotension in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan. Because these subjects are also less likely to derive clinical benefit from sacubitril/valsartan, our data reinforce that the benefit/risk ratio favors the use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with LVEF below normal, but not at higher LVEF. (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711).

Longitudinal Trajectory Modeling to Assess Adherence to Sacubitril/Valsartan among Patients with Heart Failure

Medication adherence in chronic conditions is a long-term process. Modeling longitudinal trajectories using routinely collected prescription data is a promising method for describing adherence patterns and identifying at-risk groups. The study aimed to characterize distinct long-term sacubitril/valsartan adherence trajectories and factors associated with them in patients with heart failure (HF). Subjects with incident HF starting sac/val in 2017-2018 were identified from the Campania Regional Database for Medication Consumption. We estimated patients' continuous medication availability (CMA9; R package AdhereR) during a 12-month period. We selected groups with similar CMA9 trajectories (Calinski-Harabasz criterion; R package kml). We performed multinomial regression analysis, assessing the relationship between demographic and clinical factors and adherence trajectory groups. The cohort included 4455 subjects, 70% male. Group-based trajectory modeling identified four distinct adherence trajectories: high adherence (42.6% of subjects; CMA mean 0.91 ± 0.08), partial drop-off (19.6%; CMA 0.63 ± 0.13), moderate adherence (19.3%; CMA 0.54 ± 0.11), and low adherence (18.4%; CMA 0.17 ± 0.12). Polypharmacy was associated with partial drop-off adherence (OR 1.194, 95%CI 1.175-1.214), while the occurrence of ≥1 HF hospitalization (OR 1.165, 95%CI 1.151-1.179) or other hospitalizations (OR 1.481, 95%CI 1.459-1.503) were associated with low adherence. This study found that tailoring patient education, providing support, and ongoing monitoring can boost adherence within different groups, potentially improving health outcomes.

Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure with Hypertension Patients: Real-World Experiences on Different Ages, Drug Doses, and Renal Functions

INTRODUCTION

Hypertension is a significant risk factor in heart failure for worldwide patients. More than half of hypertensive patients suffer from heart failure. Recently, sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) has been approved as an antihypertensive agent in China and Japan. Additionally, it is not approved for treating hypertension in Europe or the USA.

AIM

To accumulate more real-world experiences to investigate the effectiveness and optimize clinical medication of sac/val in hypertensive patients with heart failure.

METHODS

We retrospectively enrolled adult patients diagnosed with hypertension (HTN) and heart failure (HF) and newly treated with sac/val. The baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were retrospectively extracted from electronic medical records (EMR) in three centers. The efficacy and safety of sac/val were first analyzed in all enrolled patients. Stratified analyses were conducted in patients with different ages (≥ 65, < 65), maximum tolerated doses (≥ 200 mg/days, < 200 mg/days), and renal functions (e-GFR ≥ 60 ml/min/1.73 m2, < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2).

RESULTS

Overall, 794 patients diagnosed with both HF and HTN were included in our study. During follow-up, significant reductions were found in blood pressure (BP) (SBP 12.8 ± 21.2 mmHg, P < 0.001, DBP 7.1 ± 16.5 mmHg, P < 0.001), and cardiac biomarkers (cardiac troponin 1.78 ± 19.1 ng/mL, P < 0.001, NT-proBNP 1403 ± 6937 pg/mL, P < 0.001) from baseline. In stratification analyses, the lower dosage group earned a higher BP control rate (83.4% vs. 75.6%, P = 0.025) and an overall improvement rate of cardiac indicators (61.3% vs. 48.0%, P = 0.002). The younger patients' group had significantly less cumulative hazard of recurrent cerebral-cardiovascular events than the elder group (log-rank P value < 0.001). Patients with renal dysfunction were observed with more AE incidences.

CONCLUSIONS

Sac/val could reduce BP and improve cardiac structural and functional parameters in hypertensive patients with HF, even with less than target doses. However, more attention should be paid to older patients and renal dysfunction patients when using sac/val because of additional risks in adverse events.

Efficacy and safety analysis of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibition(ARNI)in patients with heart failure: a real-world retrospective study

BACKGROUND

In a large randomized controlled trial (PARADIGM-HF), ARNI has been shown to significantly reduce cardiovascular mortality and hospitalization for patients with reduced ejection fraction in heart failure. This study analyzed the efficacy and safety of ARNI on the basis of various types of heart failure patients in southwestern Sichuan Province.

METHODS

This study included patients with heart failure who were treated at the Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College from July 2017 to June 2021. This study analyzed the efficacy and safety of ARNI in the treatment of heart failure, and analyzed the risk factors for readmission after ARNI treatment.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, a total of 778 patients were included in the study. The readmission rate for heart failure in patients treated with ARNI (8.7%) was significantly lower than that in the standard treatment group (14.5%) (P = 0.023). Both the proportion of patients with increased LVEF and with decreased LVEF were higher in the ARNI treatment group than in the conventional therapy group. Compared with receiving standard medical treatment, combined ARNI treatment resulted in a greater reduction in SBP (-10.00, 95%CI: -24.00-1.50 vs. -7.00, 95%CI: -20.00-4.14; P = 0.016) in HF patients. Combination ARNI therapy did not increase the risk of adverse events. The study found that age (> 65 vs. ≤65 years) (OR = 4.038, 95%CI: 1.360-13.641, P = 0.013) and HFrEF (OR = 3.162, 95%CI: 1.028-9.724, P = 0.045) were independent predictors of readmission in HF patients treated with ARNI.

CONCLUSION

Patients with heart failure treated with ARNI can improve clinical symptoms and reduce the risk of readmitted hospital admission. Age > ~ 65 years and HFrEF were independent predictors of readmission in HF patients treated in ARNI group.

Effects of switching from sacubitril/valsartan to valsartan alone on plasma levels of natriuretic peptides and myocardial remodeling in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

We examined the effect of switching from angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) to angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) on plasma levels of natriuretic peptides and myocardial remodeling.

METHODS

This is a prospective study that included 11 patients with heart failure (HF) treated with ARNI. The patients were divided into two groups: 5 patients who continued treatment with sacubitril/valsartan 194/206 mg/day (ARNI-continue group) and 6 patients who were switched to valsartan 160 mg/day (ARB-switch group). The primary endpoint was percent change (%Change) in plasma A-, B-, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (ANP, BNP, and NT-proBNP) levels from the baseline to week 24. The secondary endpoint was the change in echocardiographic parameters related to myocardial remodeling from the baseline to week 24.

RESULTS

ANP levels in the ARB-switch group significantly decreased (from 1155.7 ± 592.6 pg/mL to 231.6 ± 233.8 pg/mL, p = 0.035), whereas those in the ARNI-continue group were not significant (p = 0.180). The %Change of decrease in ANP levels was significantly greater in the ARB-switch group than the ARNI-continue group (- 76.9% vs. -9.1%, p = 0.009). BNP levels were not significantly different between the baseline and week 24 in both groups. NT-proBNP levels in the ARB-switch group increased from 1185.3 ± 835.6 pg/mL to 1515.2 ± 1213.5 pg/mL, although the changes were not statistically significant (p = 0.345). The %Change of increase in NT-proBNP levels was significantly greater in the ARB-switch group than the ARNI-continue group (57.9% vs. 17.3%, p = 0.016). In the ARB-switch group, there was a significant increase in left ventricular (LV) end-systolic volume (from 41.3 ± 24.1 mL/m2 to 71.4 ± 8.8 mL/m2, p = 0.043) and LV peak-systolic wall stress (from 187.0 ± 42.7 × 103 dynes/cm2 to 279.7 ± 34.1 × 103 dynes/cm2, p = 0.012) from the baseline to week 24 and a trend toward a decrease in LV ejection fraction (p = 0.080). In the ARNI-continue group, no differences in echocardiographic parameters were observed from the baseline to week 24.

CONCLUSION

Switching from ARNI to ARB may worsen HF due to returning to myocardial remodeling induced by a sustained decline in ANP levels.

Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: Real-World Experience from Italy (the REAL.IT Study)

Sacubitril/valsartan reduces heart failure (HF)-related hospitalizations and cardiovascular mortality in PARADIGM-HF and has become a foundational treatment for HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, data of its routine real-world use are limited, and evidence from Italian settings is lacking. The REAL.IT study aimed to characterize the demographics, pharmacotherapy, clinical characteristics and outcomes of sacubitril/valsartan-treated Italian patients with HFrEF. Electronic medical records of patients initiating sacubitril/valsartan from October 2016 to June 2019 at nine specialized hospital outpatient HF centers across Italy were reviewed. Overall, 924 adults (mean age 64.5 years, 84.6% male) were included. At baseline, 38.7% had an ischemic HF etiology, 45.9% hypertension, 23.2% atrial fibrillation, 25.4% diabetes mellitus, 26.1% an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and 31.9% coronary artery bypass grafting. There were no clear patterns of patient selection over time. During follow-up, NYHA class improved in 37.5% of patients after a mean of 5.3 ± 3.8 months; 36.1% and 16.7% of patients were in NYHA class III during characterization and after one year of follow-up, respectively. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improved ≥5% in 56.3% of patients at one year; 39.7% had ≥30% reduction of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide; 2.2% had hyperkalemia during characterization and 2.6% during follow-up; and 3.8% had hypotension during characterization and 12% during follow-up. A total of 50 (5.8%) of patients had device implantation (ICD/CRT) during follow-up. HF-related hospitalization was recorded in 19.6% of patients during follow-up; 3.8% of patients died, approximately 1.3% from cardiovascular causes. Our real-world data confirm the favorable effectiveness and tolerability of sacubitril/valsartan observed in pivotal randomized controlled trials.

Blood pressure in heart failure management and prevention

Hypertension is a leading cause of heart failure and other cardiovascular diseases. Its role in the pathogenesis of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) differs from that in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Moreover, rigorous blood pressure control may reduce the incidence of heart failure. However, once heart failure develops, prognosis is affected by blood pressure, which may differ between patients with and without heart failure. Therefore, the association between guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for heart failure and its uptitration must be considered for blood pressure management and should not be overlooked. Heart failure medications affect the blood pressure and efficacy per baseline blood pressure value. This review discusses the potential mechanisms by which hypertension leads to HFrEF or HFpEF, the impact of hypertension on incident heart failure, and the recommended approaches for blood pressure management in patients with heart failure. Comparison between patients with and without heart failure regarding blood pressure The association between CV events and SBP is linear in patients without heart failure; however, it becomes J-shaped or inverse linear in those with heart failure. The management of BP, including optimal BP or pharmacotherapy, differs between the two populations. ACEi angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, ARB angiotensin II receptor blockers; ARNi angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, BB beta-blockers, BP blood pressure, CV cardiovascular, DASH Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension, GDMT guideline-directed medical therapy, HF heart failure, HFrEF heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, MRA mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, SBP systolic blood pressure, SGLT2i sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

Neprilysin Inhibitors in Heart Failure: The Science, Mechanism of Action, Clinical Studies, and Unanswered Questions

This article provides a contemporary review and a new perspective on the role of neprilysin inhibition in heart failure (HF) in the context of recent clinical trials and addresses potential mechanisms and unanswered questions in certain HF patient populations. Neprilysin is an endopeptidase that cleaves a variety of peptides such as natriuretic peptides, bradykinin, adrenomedullin, substance P, angiotensin I and II, and endothelin. It has a broad role in cardiovascular, renal, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, endocrine, and neurologic functions. The combined angiotensin receptor and neprilysin inhibitor (ARNi) has been developed with an intent to increase vasodilatory natriuretic peptides and prevent counterregulatory activation of the angiotensin system. ARNi therapy is very effective in reducing the risks of death and hospitalization for HF in patients with HF and New York Heart Association functional class II to III symptoms, but studies failed to show any benefits with ARNi when compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blocker in patients with advanced HF with reduced ejection fraction or in patients following myocardial infarction with left ventricular dysfunction but without HF. These raise the questions about whether the enzymatic breakdown of natriuretic peptides may not be a very effective solution in advanced HF patients when there is downstream blunting of the response to natriuretic peptides or among post-myocardial infarction patients in the absence of HF when there may not be a need for increased natriuretic peptide availability. Furthermore, there is a need for additional studies to determine the long-term effects of ARNi on albuminuria, obesity, glycemic control and lipid profile, blood pressure, and cognitive function in patients with HF.

Emerging trends in sacubitril/valsartan research: A bibliometric analysis of the years 1995-2021

BACKGROUND

Sacubitril/valsartan has been approved for the treatment of heart failure (HF) patients with reduced ejection fraction; since then, it gradually became a new star drug in the therapy of HF. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan remains under investigation. Thus far, only a few bibliometric studies have systematically analyzed the application of sacubitril/valsartan.

METHODS

Publications on sacubitril/valsartan were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection on April 29, 2021. Data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel 2019 (Redmond, WA), VOS viewer (Redmond, WA), and Cite Space V (Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA).

RESULTS

A total of 1309 publications on sacubitril/valsartan published from 1995 to 2021 were retrieved. The number of publications regarding sacubitril/valsartan increased sharply in the last 6 years (2015-2021), and American scholars authored >40% of those publications. Most were published in the European Journal of Heart Failure, the United States was the bellwether with a solid academic reputation in this area. Solomon published the highest number of related articles and was the most frequently cited author. "Heart failure" was the leading research hotspot. The keywords, "inflammation," "fibrosis," and "oxidative stress" appeared most recently as research fronts.

CONCLUSIONS

Research attention should be focused on clinical trial outcomes. Considering its effectiveness in HF, the mechanisms and further applications of sacubitril/valsartan may become research hotspots in the future and should be closely examined.

The Difference between Sacubitril Valsartan and Valsartan on Vascular Endothelial Function, APN, MMP-9, and BNP Levels in Patients with Hypertension and Chronic Heart Failure

Background

Sacubitril valsartan and valsartan are the first new drugs approved for angiotensin receptor neprilysin lysine inhibitors (ARNIs) in outpatients with chronic heart failure (CHF) and hypertension. Compared with enalapril, sacubitril valsartan and valsartan have been shown to reduce the mortality and morbidity of cardiovascular diseases. However, there is little actual evidence regarding the efficacy of ARNIs in hypertensive patients with CHF.

Methods

From January 2019 to January 2021, 60 patients with hypertension and chronic heart failure were diagnosed and treated in our hospital. The patients were randomly divided into an observation group and a control group, with 30 cases in each group. The control group was given valsartan, the observation group was given sacubitril valsartan, and both groups were treated for six months. The endothelium-dependent vasodilation (EDD) function of the brachial artery and serum nitric oxide (NO), endothelin-1 (ET-1), carotid artery intima-media thickness, and glomerular filtration, excess rate (eGFR), and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were compared between the two groups of patients before and after treatment. The serum adiponectin (APN), matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9), and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels were compared before and after treatment.

Results

The total effective rate of treatment in the research group was higher than that in the control group (P < 0.05). After treatment, the cardiac function indexes LVESD and LVEDD of the two groups of patients were lower than before treatment, and LVEF was higher than before treatment, and the improvement rate of the treatment group was better than that of the control group (P < 0.05). After treatment, the serum APN of the two groups was higher than before treatment, the levels of MMP-9 and BNP were lower than before treatment, and the improvement rate of patients in the treatment group was better than that of patients in the control group (P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant in the levels of EDD, NO, and ET-1 of the two groups of patients before treatment (P < 0.05). After treatment, compared with the control group, the EDD function and NO level of the research group were significantly increased (P < 0.05), and the level of ET-1 was significantly reduced (P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in carotid artery intima-media thickness, glomerular filtration rate, and left ventricular ejection fraction before and after treatment in the two groups (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

In the treatment of hypertension and chronic heart failure, sacubitril valsartan can improve the clinical symptoms of patients to the greatest extent and can significantly improve the levels of LVEF, LVEDD, NT-proBNP, heart function, and other indicators. Sacubitril valsartan can increase serum APN levels, reduce MMP-9 and BNP levels, and have good clinical effects. Sacubitril valsartan has a protective effect on the vascular endothelial function of patients with hypertension and CHF. However, these results need to be confirmed in studies involving more subjects and require longer follow-up times.

Prognostic value of postural hypotension in hospitalized patients with heart failure

Although postural hypotension (PH) is reportedly associated with mortality in the general population, the prognostic value for heart failure is unclear. This was a post-hoc analysis of FRAGILE-HF, a prospective multicenter observational study focusing on frailty in elderly patients with heart failure. Overall, 730 patients aged ≥ 65 years who were hospitalized with heart failure were enrolled. PH was defined by evaluating seated PH, and was defined as a fall of ≥ 20 mmHg in systolic and/or ≥ 10 mmHg in diastolic blood pressure within 3 min after transition from a supine to sitting position. The study endpoints were all-cause death and heart failure readmission at 1 year. Predictive variables for the presence of PH were also evaluated. PH was observed in 160 patients (21.9%). Patients with PH were more likely than those without PH to be male with a New York Heart Association classification of III/IV. Logistic regression analysis showed that male sex, severe heart failure symptoms, and lack of administration of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were independently associated with PH. PH was not associated with 1-year mortality, but was associated with a lower incidence of readmission after discharge after adjustment for other covariates. In conclusion, PH was associated with reduced risk of heart failure readmission but not with 1-year mortality in older patients with heart failure.

2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: Developed by the Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). With the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC

Document Reviewers: Rudolf A. de Boer (CPG Review Coordinator) (Netherlands), P. Christian Schulze (CPG Review Coordinator) (Germany), Magdy Abdelhamid (Egypt), Victor Aboyans (France), Stamatis Adamopoulos (Greece), Stefan D. Anker (Germany), Elena Arbelo (Spain), Riccardo Asteggiano (Italy), Johann Bauersachs (Germany), Antoni Bayes-Genis (Spain), Michael A. Borger (Germany), Werner Budts (Belgium), Maja Cikes (Croatia), Kevin Damman (Netherlands), Victoria Delgado (Netherlands), Paul Dendale (Belgium), Polychronis Dilaveris (Greece), Heinz Drexel (Austria), Justin Ezekowitz (Canada), Volkmar Falk (Germany), Laurent Fauchier (France), Gerasimos Filippatos (Greece), Alan Fraser (United Kingdom), Norbert Frey (Germany), Chris P. Gale (United Kingdom), Finn Gustafsson (Denmark), Julie Harris (United Kingdom), Bernard Iung (France), Stefan Janssens (Belgium), Mariell Jessup (United States of America), Aleksandra Konradi (Russia), Dipak Kotecha (United Kingdom), Ekaterini Lambrinou (Cyprus), Patrizio Lancellotti (Belgium), Ulf Landmesser (Germany), Christophe Leclercq (France), Basil S. Lewis (Israel), Francisco Leyva (United Kingdom), AleVs Linhart (Czech Republic), Maja-Lisa Løchen (Norway), Lars H. Lund (Sweden), Donna Mancini (United States of America), Josep Masip (Spain), Davor Milicic (Croatia), Christian Mueller (Switzerland), Holger Nef (Germany), Jens-Cosedis Nielsen (Denmark), Lis Neubeck (United Kingdom), Michel Noutsias (Germany), Steffen E. Petersen (United Kingdom), Anna Sonia Petronio (Italy), Piotr Ponikowski (Poland), Eva Prescott (Denmark), Amina Rakisheva (Kazakhstan), Dimitrios J. Richter (Greece), Evgeny Schlyakhto (Russia), Petar Seferovic (Serbia), Michele Senni (Italy), Marta Sitges (Spain), Miguel Sousa-Uva (Portugal), Carlo G. Tocchetti (Italy), Rhian M. Touyz (United Kingdom), Carsten Tschoepe (Germany), Johannes Waltenberger (Germany/Switzerland) All experts involved in the development of these guidelines have submitted declarations of interest. These have been compiled in a report and published in a supplementary document simultaneously to the guidelines. The report is also available on the ESC website www.escardio.org/guidelines For the Supplementary Data which include background information and detailed discussion of the data that have provided the basis for the guidelines see European Heart Journal online.

ARNI Pre-Operative Use and Vasoplegic Syndrome in Patients Undergoing Heart Transplantation or Left Ventricular Assist Device Surgery

Background: Vasoplegic syndrome after orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) or left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation is a rare but highly lethal syndrome with complex etiologies. The objective of this study was to assess if the preoperative use of sacubitril-valsartan combination is associated with an increased vasoplegic syndrome (VS) frequency after OHT or LVAD implantation and its relationship with 30-day mortality. Methods: A retrospective review of perioperative data, between January 2016 and December 2017, from 73 consecutive OHT and LVAD surgery adult patients at our institution was performed. VS was defined as normal cardiac output with persistent low systemic resistance requiring a norepinephrine intravenous perfusion > 0.5 µg/kg/min and the absence of sepsis or hemorrhagic shock within 48 h after surgery. Patients were all followed-up for adverse events and all-cause mortality at 30 days. Results: In our cohort of 73 patients (median age 51.7 years, 65% male patients), 25 (34%) patients developed VS. Twenty-two (30.1%) patients were on ARNI at the time of surgery, 31 (42.5%) were on other RAS blockers, 12 (16.4%) were on norepinephrine and 8 (11%) had no pre-operative drug. The pre-operative use of any vasoactive agent, was not significantly associated with VS (OR = 1.36; IC95% [0.78; 2.35]; p = 0.38). The pre-operative use of an ARNI compared to all other groups was not significantly associated with VS (OR = 2.0; IC95% [0.71; 5.62]; p = 0.19). The pre-operative use of an ARNI compared to other RAS blockers was also not significantly associated with VS (OR = 1.25; IC95% [0.37; 4.26]; p = 0.72). At 30 days, 18 (24.7%) patients had died. The pre-operative treatment with ARNI, or other RAS inhibitors was associated with a significantly lower rate of death compared to the absence of treatment (HR = 0.11; IC95% [0.02; 0.55]; p = 0.009 for ARNI and HR = 0.20; IC95% [0.06; 0.69]; p = 0.011 for other RASi). Conclusions: Preoperative use of sacubitril-valsartan was not significantly associated with development of vasoplegic syndrome in patients undergoing OHT or LVAD surgery. Furthermore, our data suggests a significant 30-day survival benefit with efficient renin-angiotensin blockade before surgery.

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.

Potential Implications of Expanded US Food and Drug Administration Labeling for Sacubitril/Valsartan in the US

Importance

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expanded labeling for sacubitril/valsartan for use in individuals with chronic heart failure (HF) with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) lower than normal. The population-level implications of implementation of sacubitril/valsartan at higher LVEF ranges is unknown. While the Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction (PARAGON-HF) trial did not meet its primary end point, the trial may provide useful information in projecting expected clinical events among treated individuals.

Objective

To quantify newly eligible treatment candidates for sacubitril/valsartan under the expanded FDA labeling and to apply treatment effects and the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent 1 worsening HF event derived from subgroups of the PARAGON-HF trial who fall under the revised FDA label.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Newly eligible treatment candidates were estimated by mapping the LVEF distribution from 559 520 adult patients hospitalized between 2014 and 2019 in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry to adults self-identifying with HF in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2015 to 2018). The NNT with 3 years of treatment for 3 end points of interest (total HF hospitalizations, total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death, and total HF hospitalizations and urgent HF visits and cardiovascular death) were estimated from the PARAGON-HF trial. Data were analyzed from February to June 2021.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Number of worsening HF events prevented or postponed if eligible patients were treated with sacubitril/valsartan for 3 years.

Results

Of an estimated 4 682 098 adults, the mean (SE) age was 66.3 (0.8) years, 1 995 037 (42.6%) were women, and 748 045 (16.0%) were Black. The potential number of adults projected to be newly eligible varied by the definition of FDA labeling of lower than normal LVEF from 643 161 (95% CI, 534 433-751 888; LVEF of 41% to 50%) to 1 838 756 (95% CI, 1 527 911-2 149 601; LVEF of 41% to 60%). In the PARAGON-HF trial, the NNT to prevent a worsening HF event (range, 7 to 12 patients) was consistent irrespective of specific LVEF range selected. Comprehensive implementation of sacubitril/valsartan among newly eligible patients was empirically estimated to prevent up to 69 268 (95% CI, 57 558-80 978) worsening HF events (LVEF of 41% to 50%) to 182 592 (95% CI, 151 725-213 460) worsening HF events (LVEF of 41% to 60%).

Conclusions and Relevance

The expanded FDA labeling is positioned to substantially increase the potential HF population eligible for sacubitril/valsartan by up to 1.8 million individuals and has the potential to prevent or postpone as many as 180 000 worsening HF events, depending on the definition of normal LVEF.

Five Years of Sacubitril/Valsartan-a Safety Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials and Real-World Pharmacovigilance

PURPOSE

In PARADIGM-HF, sacubitril/valsartan showed a significant reduction in mortality and hospitalization for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Despite proven efficacy, sacubitril/valsartan has moderate uptake in clinical practice. This study explores the safety profile of sacubitril/valsartan by comparing adverse events in RCT and real-world use.

METHODS

We studied hypotension, renal dysfunction, hyperkalemia, and angioedema associated with sacubitril/valsartan in RCTs and pharmacovigilance databases. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed with six RCTs investigating sacubitril/valsartan vs. control/comparators in heart failure patients. WHO's VigiBase, FAERS, and EMA's EudraVigilance were mined to obtain spontaneously reported real-world adverse events. Disproportionality analysis was performed with the FDA's OpenVigil 2.0.

RESULTS

Six RCTs enrolled 15,538 patients with heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fractions. There was no statistical difference for the composite of hypotension, renal dysfunction, hyperkalemia, and angioedema between sacubitril/valsartan and its comparators viz. ACEi or ARBs (OR 1.23, CI 0.98-1.56; p = 0.08). A total of 103,038 adverse events were registered in the spontaneous reporting systems. Hypotension was the most reported adverse event. Proportions of composite adverse events were 20% in VigiBase, 17% in FAERS, and 39% with EudraVigilance. Disproportionality analysis showed a lower risk of adverse events with sacubitril/valsartan than other guideline-directed heart failure medications used in clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

With increased uptake of sacubitril/valsartan, risks of hypotension, renal dysfunction, hyperkalemia, and angioedema appear low and acceptable in RCTs and global clinical practice.

Effect of sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril on changes in heart failure therapies over time: the PARADIGM-HF trial

AIMS

Sacubitril/valsartan improves morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Whether initiation of sacubitril/valsartan limits the use and dosing of other elements of guideline-directed medical therapy for HFrEF is unknown. We examined the effects of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, on β-blocker and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) use and dosing in a large randomized clinical trial.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with full data on medication use were included. We examined β-blocker and MRA use in patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril through 12-month follow-up. New initiations and discontinuations of β-blocker and MRA were compared between treatment groups. Overall, 8398 (99.9%) had full medication and dose data at baseline. Baseline use of β-blocker and MRA at any dose was 87% and 56%, respectively. Mean doses of β-blocker and MRA were similar between treatment groups at baseline and at 6-month and 12-month follow-up. New initiations through 12-month follow-up were infrequent and similar in the sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril groups for β-blockers [37 (9.0%) vs. 42 (10.2%), P = 0.56] and MRA [127 (7.6%) vs. 143 (9.2%), P = 0.10]. Among patients on MRA therapy at baseline, there were fewer MRA discontinuations in patients on sacubitril/valsartan as compared with enalapril at 12 months [125 (6.2%) vs. 187 (9.0%), P = 0.001]. Discontinuations of β-blockers were not significantly different between groups in follow-up (2.2% vs. 2.6%, P = 0.26).

CONCLUSIONS

Initiation of sacubitril/valsartan, even when titrated to target dose, did not appear to lead to greater discontinuation or dose down-titration of other key guideline-directed medical therapies, and was associated with fewer discontinuations of MRA. Use of sacubitril/valsartan (when compared with enalapril) may promote sustained MRA use in follow-up.

Rapid evidence-based sequencing of foundational drugs for heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction

Foundational therapy for heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction consists of a combination of an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist and a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor. However, the conventional approach to the implementation is based on a historically-driven sequence that is not strongly evidence-based, typically requires ≥6 months, and frequently leads to major gaps in treatment. We propose a rapid sequencing strategy that is based on four principles. First, since drugs act rapidly to reduce morbidity and mortality, patients should be started on all four foundational treatments within 2-4 weeks. Second, since the efficacy of each foundational therapy is independent of treatment with the other drugs, priority can be determined by considerations of relative efficacy, safety and ease-of-use. Third, low starting doses of foundational drugs have substantial therapeutic benefits, and achievement of low doses of all four classes of drugs should take precedence over up-titration to target doses. Fourth, since drugs can influence the tolerability of other foundational agents, sequencing can be based on whether agents started earlier can enhance the safety of agents started simultaneously or later in the sequence. We propose an accelerated three-step approach, which consists of the simultaneous initiation of a beta-blocker and an SGLT2 inhibitor, followed 1-2 weeks later by the initiation of sacubitril/valsartan, and 1-2 weeks later by a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist. The latter two steps can be re-ordered or compressed depending on patient circumstances. Rapid sequencing is a novel evidence-based strategy that has the potential to dramatically improve the implementation of treatments that reduce the morbidity and mortality of patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction.

Sacubitril/valsartan: from the PARADIGM-HF trial results to heart failure patients in internal medicine. A narrative review

Data regarding the treatment of heart failure (HF) patients derived from randomized, controlled clinical trials, which, with rare exceptions, appear to be distant from the real world of internal medicine. Many trials have been conducted in cardiology departments: however, the characteristics of patients admitted to cardiology wards are largely different from those of patients hospitalized in internal medicine wards. Recently, the PARADIGM-HF study established the efficacy of sacubitril-valsartan – the first drug of the angiotensin II receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) class - versus enalapril in increasing survival and reducing hospitalizations in a selected population of HF patients with reduced ventricular function. Although practical guidance on the use of ARNI has been published, it is not specific to HF patients admitted to internal medicine wards. In this review, we examine all available data in order to understand if the characteristics of HF patients followed in internal medicine departments hinder or contraindicate the use of sacubitril-valsartan and what indications appear more appropriate in this setting.

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

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

Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients with High Arrhythmic Risk and an ICD: A Longitudinal Study

PURPOSE

Patients affected by heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) receive clinical and functional beneficial effects from treatment with sacubitril/valsartan. However previous studies have shown that patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) could obtain even greater benefit, but only make up a only a small proportion of patients. In the current study we evaluated the effect of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with an ICD.

METHODS

Thirty-five outpatients with HFrEF (aged 60 ± 11 years, 28 were males), on optimal medical therapy were studied. All patients received an ICD at least 6 months before enrollment or were non-responders to ICD plus resynchronization (CRT-D). An open-label sacubitril/valsartan treatment was established at the maximum tolerated dose. Clinical assessment, 6-min walk test (6MWT) and echocardiography, were performed during follow-up at 90, 180, and 360 days. Quality of life score and perceived fatigue on exercise were assessed.

RESULTS

Clinical conditions dramatically improved in most patients, especially within the first 6 months of therapy (76 % were in NYHA-I and 24 % in NYHA-II at the end of study vs 71 % NYHA-II and 29 % NYHA III at enrollment, p < 0.001). Quality of life and exercise performance significantly improved according to N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) serum levels lowering. Walking distance at 6MWT increased from 274 ± 97 to 389 ± 53 m and walking speed from 0.74 ± 0.27 to 1.07 ± 0.15 m/s (p < 0.001), while oxygen saturation did not differ significantly (from 90 ± 1 % to 91 ± 2 %). More gradual was left ventricular reverse remodeling. Ejection fraction improved mildly (+ 5 points %, p < 0.001). Global longitudinal strain and diastolic function were also assessed over time.

CONCLUSION

Sacubitril/valsartan therapy for HFrEF may lead to significant clinical and functional improvements even in patients with ICD at greater arrhythmic risk. Clinical improvement is obtained within the first 6 months of treatment while reverse remodeling needs more time.

Novel doses of sacubitril/valsartan in patients unable to tolerate traditional therapy: Effects on N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide levels

BACKGROUND

Widespread use of angiotensin receptor blocker and neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) remains low, and many patients are unable to tolerate the medication due to hypotension at the currently recommended starting dose.

HYPOTHESIS

The aim of this study is to assess if lower than standard doses of ARNI, sacubitril/valsartan (S/V), significantly reduces NT-proBNP and leads to any change in diuretic dose, serum potassium, or creatinine.

METHODS

In a retrospective study of 278 patients who were started on a low dose S/V at a single medical center, 45 patients were selected for the study cohort. Patients were subcategorized to Group 1 (n = 10): very low dose S/V (half a tab of 24/26 mg BID), Group 2 (n = 10): very low dose titrated to low dose S/V, and Group 3 (n = 25): low dose S/V (24/26 mg BID). NT-proBNP, diuretic dose, serum potassium, and creatinine were compared before and after initiation of S/V.

RESULTS

Among all groups, there was a significant reduction in NT-proBNP level (Group 1: p < .01, Group 2: p < .01, and Group 3: p < .001). In addition, there was a significant reduction in diuretic dose across all groups combined (furosemide 53 mg/day vs. 73 mg/day; p = .03), with 17.8% (8/45) patients being able to discontinue their diuretic completely. There was no significant change in potassium or creatinine.

CONCLUSIONS

Lower than standard dose of S/V significantly reduces NT-proBNP and diuretic requirement without change in potassium or creatinine, which provides hope that patients who cannot tolerate standard doses of S/V due to hypotension may be able to receive the benefits of S/V therapy.

Efficacy and safety of sacubitril-valsartan in heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Aims

Sacubitril‐valsartan has been shown to have superior effects over angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers in patients with heart failure (HF) and hypertension. The efficacy and safety of sacubitril‐valsartan in patients with HF are controversial. We performed a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess and compare the effect and adverse events of sacubitril‐valsartan, valsartan, and enalapril in patients with HF.

Methods and results

We conducted a systematic search using PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Randomized controlled trials involving the use of sacubitril‐valsartan in patients with HF were included. We assessed the pooled odds ratio (OR) of all‐cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization for HF in fixed‐effects models and the pooled risk ratio (RR) of symptomatic hypotension, worsening renal function, and hyperkalaemia in fixed‐effects models. Of the 315 identified records, six studies involving 14 959 patients were eligible for inclusion. Sacubitril‐valsartan reduced the endpoints of all‐cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in three trials with pooled ORs of 0.83 (P = 0.0006) and 0.78 (P < 0.0001), respectively. Regarding the composite outcome of hospitalization for HF in five trials, the pooled OR was 0.79 (P < 0.00001). Compared with enalapril or valsartan, sacubitril‐valsartan was associated with a high risk of symptomatic hypotension (RR 1.47, P < 0.00001), low risk of worsening renal function (RR 0.81, P = 0.005), and low rate of serious hyperkalaemia (≥6.0 mmol/L) (RR 0.76, P = 0.0007) in all six trials.

Conclusions

Compared with angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, sacubitril‐valsartan significantly decreased the risk of death from all causes or cardiovascular causes in HFrEF and hospitalization for HF in both patients with HFrEF and HF with preserved ejection fraction. Sacubitril‐valsartan reduced the risk of renal dysfunction and serious hyperkalaemia but was associated with more symptomatic hypotension.

New drugs: big changes in conservative heart failure therapy?

During the last 20 years, the prognosis for heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction has steadily improved due to advances in drug treatment and the consistent implementation of guideline-recommended evidence-based drug therapy. Nevertheless, the morbidity and mortality rates of patients with HF can still be improved. The prevalence of HF is high and continues to increase steadily. Thus, timely and efficient drug treatment plays a central role in improving the quality of life and prognosis for patients with HF. Current therapeutic concepts combine inhibition of the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system with blockage of the sympathetic system. New therapeutic approaches such as selective heart rate reduction, attenuation of the degradation of natriuretic peptides by neutral endopeptidase inhibition and treatment of comorbidities (e.g. iron deficiency, diabetes mellitus, hyperkalaemia) have led to a further improvement in the survival, time-out-of hospital and quality of life of affected patients. The goal of this article was to give an overview of the current standard drug therapy for HF and the value of new therapeutic approaches implemented in recent years.

Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sacubitril-Valsartan in Heart Failure: Emerging Clinical Data

One of the defining features of heart failure (HF) is neurohormonal activation. The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system (RAAS) and sympathetic nervous system (SNS) cause vasoconstriction and fluid retention and, in response, the secretion of natriuretic peptides (NPs) from volume and pressure-overloaded myocardium promotes vasodilation and diuresis. Inhibition of the RAAS with either angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) has been the cornerstone of medical treatment for HF with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) but, until recently, it was unclear how the beneficial effects of NPs may be augmented in patients with HF. Neprilysin, a metalloproteinase widely distributed throughout the body, plays a role in degrading the gross excess of circulating NPs in patients with HF. Early studies of neprilysin inhibition suggested possible physiological benefits. In 2014, the PARADIGM-HF trial found that sacubitril-valsartan, a combination of the ARB valsartan, and the neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril, was superior to enalapril in patients with HFrEF, reducing the relative risk of cardiovascular (CV) death or first hospitalisation with HF by 20%. Almost half of the patients with HF symptoms have a “preserved” ejection fraction (HFpEF); however, the PARAGON-HF study found that sacubitril-valsartan in patients with LVEF ≥45% had no effect on CV death or first and recurrent hospitalisations with HF compared to valsartan. Guidelines across the world have changed to include sacubitril-valsartan for patients with HFrEF yet, nearly 6 years after PARADIGM-HF, there is still uncertainty as to when and in whom sacubitril-valsartan should be started. Furthermore, there may yet be subsets of patients with HFpEF who might benefit from treatment with sacubitril-valsartan. This review will describe the mechanisms behind the outcome benefit of sacubitril-valsartan in patients with HFrEF and to consider its future role in the management of patients with HF.

Management of low blood pressure in ambulatory heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients

Low blood pressure is common in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). While spontaneous hypotension predicts risk in HFrEF, there is only limited evidence regarding the relationship between hypotension observed during heart failure (HF) drug titration and outcome. Nevertheless, hypotension (especially orthostatic hypotension) is an important factor limiting the titration of HFrEF treatments in routine practice. In patients with signs of shock and/or severe congestion, hospitalization is advised. However, in the very frequent cases of non-severe and asymptomatic hypotension observed while taking drugs with a class I indication in HFrEF, European and US guidelines recommend maintaining the same drug dosage. In instances of symptomatic or severe persistent hypotension (systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg), it is recommended to first decrease blood pressure reducing drugs not indicated in HFrEF as well as the loop diuretic dose in the absence of associated signs of congestion. Unless the management of hypotension appears urgent, a HF specialist should then be sought rather than stopping or decreasing drugs with a class I indication in HFrEF. If symptoms or severe hypotension persist, no recommendations exist. Our HF group reviewed available evidence and proposes certain steps to follow in such situations in order to improve the pharmacological management of these patients.

Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Blockers and the Risk of Covid-19

BACKGROUND

A potential association between the use of angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) has not been well studied.

METHODS

We carried out a population-based case-control study in the Lombardy region of Italy. A total of 6272 case patients in whom infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was confirmed between February 21 and March 11, 2020, were matched to 30,759 beneficiaries of the Regional Health Service (controls) according to sex, age, and municipality of residence. Information about the use of selected drugs and patients' clinical profiles was obtained from regional databases of health care use. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for associations between drugs and infection, with adjustment for confounders, were estimated by means of logistic regression.

RESULTS

Among both case patients and controls, the mean (±SD) age was 68±13 years, and 37% were women. The use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs was more common among case patients than among controls, as was the use of other antihypertensive and non-antihypertensive drugs, and case patients had a worse clinical profile. Use of ARBs or ACE inhibitors did not show any association with Covid-19 among case patients overall (adjusted odds ratio, 0.95 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.86 to 1.05] for ARBs and 0.96 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.07] for ACE inhibitors) or among patients who had a severe or fatal course of the disease (adjusted odds ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.63 to 1.10] for ARBs and 0.91 [95% CI, 0.69 to 1.21] for ACE inhibitors), and no association between these variables was found according to sex.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large, population-based study, the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs was more frequent among patients with Covid-19 than among controls because of their higher prevalence of cardiovascular disease. However, there was no evidence that ACE inhibitors or ARBs affected the risk of COVID-19.

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

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

Introduction of sacubitril/valsartan in primary care follow-up of heart failure: a prospective observational study (THESEUS)

Aims

Switch from angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor treatment to sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) is associated with benefit in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Reports on management of this switch are largely based on randomized controlled trials, retrospective analyses, and hospital‐based care, while patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) are frequently followed‐up in primary care. The THESEUS study aimed to characterize the transition to sac/val and early maintenance period of HFrEF in primary care.

Method and results

THESEUS was a prospective, observational, non‐interventional study, performed at primary care sites throughout Switzerland. Patient characteristics, sac/val transition, and maintenance were reported at study enrolment and approximately 3 and 6 months after sac/val initiation. The primary endpoint was achievement of 200 mg BID sac/val with maintenance for ≥12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included dosing regimens, healthcare utilization in the 6 months prior to sac/val initiation and during the study, patient well‐being, safety, and tolerability. Fifty‐eight patients with CHF were enrolled from 45 primary care centres. Six patients were excluded, and 19 achieved the primary endpoint (36.5%, Achievers). Non‐Achievers underwent fewer titration steps than Achievers (1.9 ± 0.9 vs. 3.1 ± 1.4). In both groups, patient well‐being improved and the percentage of New York Heart Association III patients decreased. Healthcare utilization decreased (19% vs. 30.8% in the 6 months pre‐enrolment period). The most frequent reasons for target dose non‐achievement were asymptomatic and symptomatic hypotension (15.3% and 12.1%, respectively).

Conclusions

Results from THESEUS suggest that transition to sac/val is manageable in primary care, with a safety profile corresponding to reports from specialized heart failure care.

Sacubitril/Valsartan Improves Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Reverses Cardiac Remodeling in Taiwanese Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction

Background

The angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan is known to improve outcomes of cardiac death and hospitalization due to heart failure in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, data on improvements in ejection fraction after using sacubitril/valsartan are still lacking in Taiwan.

Methods

We conducted this prospective, single armed, observation cohort study to evaluate changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with heart failure and reduced LVEF treated with sacubitril/valsartan. This was an all-comer study. We prescribed sacubitril/valsartan as both first-line and second-line therapy to every eligible patient regardless of whether they were already on standard therapy or newly-diagnosed with HFrEF. The primary outcome was improvements in LVEF. We also collected data about changes in left ventricular chamber size, blood pressure, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and renal function according to serum creatinine level.

Results

During March 2016 to April 2018, 93 patients were enrolled. The mean LVEF improved from 35 ± 6.1% to 50 ± 8.8% at 6 months use of sacubitril/valsartan (p < 0.001). The left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, left ventricular end-systolic diameter, and left atrial diameter all decreased. The average NT-proBNP level decreased from 6379 pg/mL to 1661 pg/dL.

Conclusions

Sacubitril/valsartan demonstrated a significant effect in improving LVEF, left ventricular reverse remodeling, and reduction of NT-proBNP in this Taiwanese cohort.

Sacubitril/Valsartan is useful and safe in elderly people with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. Data from a real-word cohort

BACKGROUND

HF elderly patients are underrepresented in Sacubitril/Valsartan HF trials, and the effect of S/V in real-life patients with advanced age is unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use and safety of S/V in a real-word cohort of elderly patients.

METHODS

We performed a prospective registry of patients who started S/V in clinical practice. We compared baseline characteristics, adverse events during follow-up and causes of S/V withdrawal according to age.

RESULTS

A total of 427 patients started treatment with S/V: 222 (52.0%)<70 years old, 140 (32.8%) between 70 and 79 and 65 (15.2%)≥80. During a mean follow-up of 7.0±0.1months S/V was well tolerated, with no age-related differences in adverse events (26.8%, 25.9%, 23.1% respectively; p=0.83). Symptomatic hypotension tended to be more frequent in the elderly (19.8%, 25.6%, 33.3% respectively; p=0.17). The withdrawal of S/V was more frequent in younger patients (14.4%, 10.0%, 4.6% respectively; p=0.05) and related to poor prognosis (HR 13.51, 95% CI 3.22-56.13, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril/Valsartan is useful and safe in elderly people with HF-rEF in real-life clinical practice, and withdrawal is associated to poor prognosis. The doses achieved are lower in elderly people.

Sacubitril/Valsartan: Updates and Clinical Evidence for a Disease-Modifying Approach

New therapeutic strategies aimed to tackle the rising socio-economic burden of heart failure (HF) have become an impelling priority. The new pharmacological class of angiotensin (Ang) receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) prompted a real conceptual change in the treatment of HF moving from only the inhibition of the renin-Ang-aldosterone system and sympathetic nervous system to a strategy based on the concomitant pharmacological enhancement of endogenous natriuretic peptides. Sacubitril/valsartan, a first-in-class ARNI, has reduced the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalisation, sudden cardiac death, disease progression and improved quality of life, compared with enalapril, in patients on evidence-based contemporary medical therapy. Our review underlines the increasing body of evidence supporting the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan, which may be considered a new disease-modifying therapy and, after about 30 years of research, a real step forward in HF pharmacological therapy.