Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan in High-Risk Patients in the PIONEER-HF Trial

The role of sacubitril/valsartan in abnormal renal function patients combined with heart failure: a meta-analysis and systematic analysis

AIMS

This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in abnormal renal function (eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73m2) patients combined with heart failure based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies.

METHODS

The Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant studies from inception to December 2023. Dichotomous variables were described as event counts with the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) values. Continuous variables were expressed as mean standard deviation (SD) with 95% CIs.

RESULTS

A total of 6 RCTs and 8 observational studies were included, involving 17335 eGFR below 60 ml/min/1.73m2 patients combined with heart failure. In terms of efficacy, we analyzed the incidence of cardiovascular events and found that sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization in chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages 3-5 patients with heart failure (OR: 0.65, 95%CI: 0.54-0.78). Moreover, sacubitril/valsartan prevented the serum creatinine elevation (OR: 0.81, 95%CI: 0.68-0.95), the eGFR decline (OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.73-0.95) and the development of end-stage renal disease in this population (OR:0.73, 95%CI:0.60-0.89). As for safety outcomes, we did not find that the rate of hyperkalemia (OR:1.31, 95%CI:0.79-2.17) and hypotension (OR:1.57, 95%CI:0.94-2.62) were increased in sacubitril/valsartan group among CKD stages 3-5 patients with heart failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis proves that sacubitril/valsartan has a favorable effect on cardiac function without obvious risk of adverse events in abnormal renal function patients combined with heart failure, indicating that sacubitril/valsartan has the potential to become perspective treatment for these patients.

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.

Effect of sacubitril-valsartan on left ventricular remodeling in patients with acute myocardial infarction after primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Sacubitril-valsartan has been widely reported for reducing the risk of cardiovascular death and improving left ventricular remodeling in patients with heart failure (HF). However, the effect of sacubitril-valsartan in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains controversial. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to investigate whether sacubitril-valsartan could reverse left ventricular remodeling and reduce cardiovascular adverse events in AMI patients after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI).

Materials and methods

Two researchers independently retrieved the relevant literature from PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the Wanfang database. The retrieval time was limited from inception to 1 June 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) meeting the inclusion criteria were included and analyzed.

Results

In total, 21 RCTs involving 2442 AMI patients who underwent PPCI for revascularization were included in this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that compared with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), sacubitril-valsartan treatment in AMI patients after PPCI significantly reduced left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD) (weighted mean difference (WMD) -3.11, 95%CI: -4.05∼-2.16, p < 0.001), left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) (WMD -7.76, 95%CI: -12.24∼-3.27, p = 0.001), left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) (WMD -6.80, 95%CI: -9.45∼-4.15, p < 0.001) and left ventricular end-systolic dimension (LVESD) (WMD -2.53, 95%CI: -5.30-0.24, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis according to the dose of sacubitril-valsartan yielded a similar result. Meanwhile, PPCI patients using sacubitril-valsartan therapy showed lower risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (OR = 0.36, 95%CI: 0.28-0.46, p < 0.001), myocardial reinfarction (OR = 0.54, 95%CI: 0.30-0.98, p = 0.041) and HF (OR = 0.35, 95%CI: 0.26-0.47, p < 0.001) without increasing the risk of renal insufficiency, hyperkalemia, or symptomatic hypotension. At the same time, the change of LV ejection fraction (LVEF) (WMD 3.91, 95%CI: 3.41-4.41, p < 0.001), 6 min walk test (6MWT) (WMD 43.56, 95%CI: 29.37-57.76, p < 0.001) and NT-proBNP level (WMD -130.27, 95%CI: -159.14∼-101.40, p < 0.001) were statistically significant.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our meta-analysis indicates that compared with ACEI/ARB, sacubitril-valsartan may be superior to reverse left ventricular remodeling, improve cardiac function, and effectively reduce the risk of MACE, myocardial reinfarction, and HF in AMI patients after PPCI during follow-up without increasing the risk of adverse reactions including renal insufficiency, hyperkalemia, and symptomatic hypotension.

The multidimensional value of natriuretic peptides in heart failure, integrating laboratory and clinical aspects

Natriuretic peptides (NP) play an essential role in heart failure (HF) regulation, and their measurement has improved diagnostic and prognostic accuracy. Clinical symptoms and objective measurements, such as NP levels, should be included in the HF definition to render it more reliable and consistent among observers, hospitals, and healthcare systems. BNP and NT-proBNP are reasonable surrogates for cardiac disease, and their measurement is critical to early diagnosis and risk stratification of HF patients. NPs should be measured in all patients presenting with dyspnea or other symptoms suggestive of HF to facilitate early diagnosis and risk stratification. Both BNP and NT-proBNP are currently used for guided HF management and display comparable diagnostic and prognostic accuracy. Standardized cutoffs for each NP assay are essential for data comparison. The value of NP testing is recognized at various levels, including patient empowerment and education, analytical and operational issues, clinical HF management, and cost-effectiveness.

Blood pressure and intensive treatment up-titration after acute heart failure hospitalization: Insights from the STRONG-HF trial

AIMS

A high-intensity care (HIC) strategy with rapid guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) up-titration and close follow-up visits improved outcomes, compared to usual care (UC), in patients recently hospitalized for acute heart failure (AHF). Hypotension is a major limitation to GDMT implementation. We aimed to assess the impact of baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP) on the effects of HIC versus UC and the role of early SBP changes in STRONG-HF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 1075 patients hospitalized for AHF with SBP ≥100 mmHg were included in STRONG-HF. For the purpose of this post-hoc analysis, patients were stratified by tertiles of baseline SBP (<118, 118-128, and ≥129 mmHg) and, in the HIC arm, by tertiles of changes in SBP from the values measured before discharge to those measured at 1 week after discharge (≥2 mmHg increase, ≤7 mmHg decrease to <2 mmHg increase, and ≥8 mmHg decrease). The primary endpoint was 180-day heart failure rehospitalization or death. The effect of HIC versus UC on the primary endpoint was independent of baseline SBP evaluated as tertiles (pinteraction = 0.77) or as a continuous variable (pinteraction = 0.91). In the HIC arm, patients with increased, stable and decreased SBP at 1 week reached 83.5%, 76.2% and 75.3% of target doses of GDMT at day 90. The risk of the primary endpoint was not significantly different between patients with different SBP changes at 1 week (adjusted p = 0.46).

CONCLUSIONS

In STRONG-HF, the benefits of HIC versus UC were independent of baseline SBP. Rapid GDMT up-titration was performed also in patients with an early SBP drop, resulting in similar 180-day outcome as compared to patients with stable or increased SBP.

Early Initiation of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients With Acute Heart Failure and Renal Dysfunction: An Analysis of the TRANSITION Study

BACKGROUND

Treatment of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and renal dysfunction (RD) is challenging owing to the risk of further deterioration in renal function, especially after acute decompensated HF (ADHF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We assessed the effect of RD (estimated glomerular filtration rate of ≥30 to <60 mL/min/1.73 m2) on initiation, up-titration, and tolerability of sacubitril/valsartan in hemodynamically stabilized patients with HFrEF admitted for ADHF (RD, n = 476; non-RD, n = 483). At week 10, the target dose of sacubitril/valsartan (97/103 mg twice daily) was achieved by 42% patients in RD subgroup vs 54% in non-RD patients (P < .001). Sacubitril/valsartan was associated with greater estimated glomerular filtration rate improvements in RD subgroup than non-RD (change from baseline least squares mean 4.1 mL/min/1.73 m2, 95% confidence interval 2.2-6.1, P < .001). Cardiac biomarkers improved significantly in both subgroups; however, compared with the RD subgroup, the improvement was greater in those without RD (N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, -28.6% vs -44.8%, high-sensitivity troponin T -20.3% vs -33.9%) (P < .001). Patients in the RD subgroup compared with those without RD experienced higher rates of hyperkalemia (16.3% vs 6.5%, P < .001), investigator-reported cardiac failure (9.7% vs 5.6%, P = .029), and renal impairment (6.4% vs 2.1%, P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients with HFrEF and concomitant RD hospitalized for ADHF tolerated early initiation of sacubitril/valsartan and showed significant improvements in estimated glomerular filtration rate and cardiac biomarkers.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02661217.

The efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Sacubitril/valsartan, a new pharmacological class of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, is beneficial to heart failure through blocking the degradation of natriuretic peptides and inhibiting renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) activation which also relate to the pathophysiologic mechanisms of chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, its effects on CKD remain unclear. To assess the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan for patients with CKD, we performed this meta-analysis.

METHODS

The Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared sacubitril/valsartan with ACEI/ARBs in patients with CKD whose estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was below 60 mL/min/1.73 m2. We adopted the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing the risk of bias. The effect size was estimated using the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Six trials with a total of 6217 patients with CKD were included. In terms of cardiovascular events, sacubitril/valsartan attenuated the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization (OR: 0.68, 95% CI 0.61-0.76, P < 0.00001, I2 = 43%). With respect to renal function, sacubitril/valsartan prevented the incidence of serum creatinine (Scr) elevation among patients with CKD (OR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.67-0.95, P = 0.01, I2 = 0%). Subgroup analysis about eGFR demonstrated that with long follow-up, sacubitril/valsartan significantly decreased the number of patients with more than 50% reduction in eGFR compared with ACEI/ARBs (OR: 0.52, 95% CI 0.32-0.84, P = 0.008, I2 = 9%). In patients with CKD, the incidence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) was reduced with sacubitril/valsartan treatment, despite no statistically significant difference between the two groups (OR: 0.59, 95% CI 0.29-1.20, P = 0.14, I2 = 0%). As for the safety, we found that sacubitril/valsartan was associated with the occurrence of hypotension (OR: 1.71, 95% CI 1.15-2.56, P = 0.008, I2 = 51%). However, there was no trend towards increasing the risk of hyperkalemia in patients who received sacubitril/valsartan (OR: 1.09, 95% CI 0.75-1.60, P = 0.64, I2 = 64%).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis indicated that sacubitril/valsartan improved renal function and conferred effective cardiovascular benefits in patients with CKD, without serious safety issues being observed. Thus, sacubitril/valsartan may be a promising option for patients with CKD. Certainly, further large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these conclusions.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

[ https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2022-4-0045/ ], identifier [INPLASY202240045].

New Challenges in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: Managing Worsening Events

Patients with an established diagnosis of heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are prone to experience episodes of worsening symptoms and signs despite continued therapy, termed "worsening heart failure" (WHF). Despite guideline-directed medical therapy, worsening of chronic heart failure accounts for almost 50% of all hospital admissions for HF, and patients experiencing WHF carry a substantially higher risk of death and hospitalization than patients with "stable" HF. New drugs are emerging as arrows in the quiver for clinicians to address the residual risk of HF hospitalization and cardiovascular deaths in patients with WHF. This question-and-answer-based review will discuss the emerging definition of WHF in light of the recent clinical consensus released by the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), the new therapeutic approaches to treat WHF and then move on to their timing and safety concerns (i.e., renal profile).

Sequencing Quadruple Therapy for Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: Does It Really Matter?

The conventional sequence of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) initiation in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) assumes that the effectiveness and tolerability of GDMT agents mirror their order of discovery, which is not true. In this review, the authors discuss flexible GDMT sequencing that should be permitted in special populations, such as patients with bradycardia, chronic kidney disease, or atrial fibrillation. Moreover, the initiation of certain GDMT medications may enable tolerance of other GDMT medications. Most importantly, the achievement of partial doses of all four pillars of GDMT is better than achievement of target dosing of only a couple.

The Worsening of Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: The Impact of the Number of Hospital Admissions in a Cohort of Patients

BACKGROUND

Worsening heart failure (WFH) includes heart failure (HF) hospitalisation, representing a strong predictor of mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, there is little evidence analysing the impact of the number of previous HF admissions. Our main objective was to analyse the clinical profile according to the number of previous admissions for HF and its prognostic impact in the medium and long term.

METHODS

A retrospective study of a cohort of patients with HFrEF, classified according to previous admissions: cohort-1 (0-1 previous admission) and cohort-2 (≥2 previous admissions). Clinical, echocardiographic and therapeutic variables were analysed, and the medium- and long-term impacts in terms of hospital readmissions and cardiovascular mortality were assessed. A total of 406 patients were analysed.

RESULTS

The mean age was 67.3 ± 12.6 years, with male predominance (73.9%). Some 88.9% (361 patients) were included in cohort-1, and 45 patients (11.1%) were included in cohort-2. Cohort-2 had a higher proportion of atrial fibrillation (49.9% vs. 73.3%; p = 0.003), chronic kidney disease (36.3% vs. 82.2%; p < 0.001), and anaemia (28.8% vs. 53.3%; p = 0.001). Despite having similar baseline ventricular structural parameters, cohort-1 showed better reverse remodelling. With a median follow-up of 60 months, cohort-1 had longer survival free of hospital readmissions for HF (37.5% vs. 92%; p < 0.001) and cardiovascular mortality (26.2% vs. 71.9%; p < 0.001), with differences from the first month.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with HFrEF and ≥2 previous admissions for HF have a higher proportion of comorbidities. These patients are associated with worse reverse remodelling and worse medium- and long-term prognoses from the early stages, wherein early identification is essential for close follow-up and optimal intensive treatment.

Hypotension at heart failure discharge: Should it be a limiting factor for drug titration?

BACKGROUND

Medical treatment in Heart Failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF; LVEF ≤40%) has shifted towards quadruple therapy. Maximum tolerated dose is the goal, yet no hypotension's cut-off point has been specified. In this work, we analyze the impact of intensive drug titration in clinical events, focusing on low blood pressure (BP) patients at hospital discharge.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Retrospective analysis of 713 patients with HFrEF discharged after an acute HF event (mean LVEF 30 ± 5%). Mean SBP was 112.4 ± 16.5 mmHg and 50.6% were discharged on triple therapy. We considered hypotension as a Systolic blood pressure (SBP) <100 mmHg (21.7% of patients, mean SBP was 112.4 ± 16.5 mmHg) and codified the intensity of drug therapy in 5 stages from untreated to very high therapy intensity. The impact of the intensity of treatment was analysed with a propensity score and increasing the intensity was associated in the whole cohort with a reduction of the composite outcome of all-cause mortality and HF readmission, (HR 0.69; CI95% 0.57-0.85, p < 0.001) and benefit in mortality was maintained for SBP < 100 mmHg (HR 0.42; CI95% 0.22-0.82; p = 0.011). Moreover, therapy intensity was clearly associated with lower risk of HF-hospitalization and death after the additional regression, considering SBP as a covariate, in the whole cohort (HR 0.70; CI95% 0.57-0.85; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective cohort analysis, patients with HFrEF and an acute-HF admission, intensive drug dose titration was related to better outcomes, even in patients with low blood pressure at hospital discharge. Therefore, hypotension is not a contraindication for NHB uptitration.

Beyond Stage C: Considerations in the Management of Patients with Heart Failure Progression and Gaps in Evidence

Despite treatment with contemporary medical therapies for chronic heart failure (HF), there has been an increase in the prevalence of patients progressing to more advanced disease. Patients progressing to and living at the interface of severe Stage C and Stage D HF are underrepresented in clinical trials, and there is a lack of high-quality evidence to guide clinical decision making. For patients with a severe HF phenotype, the medical therapies used for patients with a less advanced stage of illness are often no longer tolerated nor provide adequate clinical stability. The limited data on these patients highlights the need to increase formal research characterizing this high-risk population. This review summarizes existing clinical trial data on and incorporates our considerations for approaches to the medical management of patients advanced "beyond Stage C" HF.

Natriuretic Peptides: It Is Time for Guided Therapeutic Strategies Based on Their Molecular Mechanisms

Natriuretic peptides (NPs) are the principal expression products of the endocrine function of the heart. They exert several beneficial effects, mostly mediated through guanylate cyclase-A coupled receptors, including natriuresis, diuresis, vasorelaxation, blood volume and blood pressure reduction, and regulation of electrolyte homeostasis. As a result of their biological functions, NPs counterbalance neurohormonal dysregulation in heart failure and other cardiovascular diseases. NPs have been also validated as diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers in cardiovascular diseases such as atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, and valvular heart disease, as well as in the presence of left ventricular hypertrophy and severe cardiac remodeling. Serial measurements of their levels may be used to contribute to more accurate risk stratification by identifying patients who are more likely to experience death from cardiovascular causes, heart failure, and cardiac hospitalizations and to guide tailored pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies with the aim to improve clinical outcomes. On these premises, multiple therapeutic strategies based on the biological properties of NPs have been attempted to develop new targeted cardiovascular therapies. Apart from the introduction of the class of angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitors to the current management of heart failure, novel promising molecules including M-atrial natriuretic peptide (a novel atrial NP-based compound) have been tested for the treatment of human hypertension with promising results. Moreover, different therapeutic strategies based on the molecular mechanisms involved in NP regulation and function are under development for the management of heart failure, hypertension, and other cardiovascular conditions.

Efficacy and safety of low-dose sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Controversy has persisted over the clinical benefits of low-dose sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure (HF).

HYPOTHESIS

Low-dose sacubitril/valsartan might also be effective and safe in HF patients.

METHODS

Electronic databases including PubMed, Ovid, and Cochrane Library were systematically retrieved from inception to August 5, 2021. Review manager 5.4 and Stata 15.1 were employed in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Key efficacy outcomes of interest included HF hospitalization, all-cause mortality, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), together with New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class. The safety outcome was systolic blood pressure (SBP). The grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation approach was conducted to evaluate the quality of evidence for each outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 1269 studies were screened and 9 real-world studies met the inclusion criteria were included in the meta-analysis, with 1697 participants. Compared with low-dose sacubitril/valsartan, high-dose sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced the risk of HF hospitalization (odds ratio [OR]: 0.4, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.27-0.61, p < .0001) and the risk of all-cause mortality (OR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.11-0.47, p < .0001). However, there were no appreciable differences in improvements of NYHA (OR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.15-2.35, p = .45), changes of LVEF (mean difference [MD]: 2.73%, 95% CI: -2.24% to 7.7%, p = .28), changes of NT-proBNP (MD: 43.09, 95% CI: -28.41 to 114.59, p = .24) and changes of SBP (MD: 3.01, 95% CI: -4.62 to 10.64, p = .44) between groups with low-dose and high-dose sacubitril/valsartan.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with high-dose sacubitril/valsartan, low-dose sacubitril/valsartan was associated with increased risks of HF hospitalization and all-cause mortality. However, no distinct between-group differences in improvements of NYHA, changes of LVEF, changes of NT-proBNP and changes of SBP were observed.

Endocrine functions of the heart: from bench to bedside

Heart has a recognized endocrine function as it produces several biologically active substances with hormonal properties. Among these hormones, the natriuretic peptide (NP) system has been extensively characterized and represents a prominent expression of the endocrine function of the heart. Over the years, knowledge about the mechanisms governing their synthesis, secretion, processing, and receptors interaction of NPs has been intensively investigated. Their main physiological endocrine and paracrine effects on cardiovascular and renal systems are mostly mediated through guanylate cyclase-A coupled receptors. The potential role of NPs in the pathophysiology of heart failure and particularly their counterbalancing action opposing the overactivation of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone and sympathetic nervous systems has been described. In addition, NPs are used today as key biomarkers in cardiovascular diseases with both diagnostic and prognostic significance. On these premises, multiple therapeutic strategies based on the biological properties of NPs have been attempted to develop new cardiovascular therapies. Apart from the introduction of the class of angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitors in the current management of heart failure, novel promising molecules, including M-atrial natriuretic peptide (a novel atrial NP-based compound), have been tested for the treatment of human hypertension. The development of new drugs is currently underway, and we are probably only at the dawn of novel NPs-based therapeutic strategies. The present article also provides an updated overview of the regulation of NPs synthesis and secretion by microRNAs and epigenetics as well as interactions of cardiac hormones with other endocrine systems.

Low blood pressure and guideline-directed medical therapy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Patients with heart failure (HF) presenting with low blood pressure (BP) have been underrepresented in large-scale clinical trials. We investigated the characteristics and implementation of conventional guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT; renin-angiotensin system inhibitors and β-blockers) in patients with low BP hospitalized for HF with systolic dysfunction.

METHODS

Conventional GDMT was evaluated by discharge BP among 2043 consecutive patients with HF and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 50% in the WET-HF registry. Among the 708 (34.7%) patients with lower discharge BP (≤ 100 mmHg; the lower tertiles), exploratory subgroups included patients with previous HF hospitalization, inotrope use, New York Heart Association (NYHA) III-IV class, and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and LVEF (lower than median value). We evaluated the risk-adjusted association between GDMT implementation and 2-year adverse events (all-cause mortality or HF rehospitalization).

RESULTS

Among the 2043 patients (age 74 [63-82] years), the median systolic BP was 108 (98-120) mmHg. Among patients with lower BP, GDMT prescription rate was 62.7%, and GDMT use was associated with decreased adverse events (HR:0.74, 95%CI:0.58-0.94). GDMT prescription rates were lower among higher-NYHA class and lower-eGFR subgroups compared with their reference subgroups, and directionally similar outcomes were noted in all subgroups (favoring GDMT use); however, this association was somewhat attenuated in the lower-eGFR group (HR:0.87, 95%CI:0.64-1.17).

CONCLUSIONS

Conventional GDMT use was associated with decreased adverse outcomes in most patients with HF compounded by systolic dysfunction and low BP, albeit caution is warranted in patients with renal dysfunction.

Promising directions in the treatment of chronic heart failure: improving old or developing new ones?

Unprecedented advances of recent decades in clinical pharmacology, cardiac surgery, arrhythmology, and cardiac pacing have significantly improved the prognosis in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). However, unfortunately, heart failure continues to be associated with high mortality. The solution to this problem consists in simultaneous comprehensive use in clinical practice of all relevant capabilities of continuously improving methods of heart failure treatment proven to be effective in randomized controlled trials (especially when confirmed by the results of studies in real clinical practice), on the one hand, and in development and implementation of innovative approaches to CHF treatment, on the other hand. This is especially relevant for CHF patients with mildly reduced and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, as poor evidence base for the possibility of improving the prognosis in such patients cannot justify inaction and leaving them without hope of a clinical improvement in their condition. The lecture consistently covers the general principles of CHF treatment and a set of measures aimed at inotropic stimulation and unloading (neurohormonal, volumetric, hemodynamic, and immune) of the heart and outlines some promising areas of disease-modifying therapy.

The Relationship between Angiotensin–Neprilysin Treatment, Echocardiographic Parameters, and NT-proBNP Levels in HFpEF Patients with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure

Background

The valsartan-sacubitril therapy improved the outcomes of patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) of a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In ADHF patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), it is not yet clear whether the same treatment regimen may be safely used to treat ADHF.

Methods

For this study, HFpEF patients hospitalized due to ADHF were enrolled. Following hemodynamic stabilization, patients were randomized into two groups that were treated with enalapril or sacubitril-valsartan. In this trial, the primary efficacy outcomes were changes in echocardiographic parameters and NT-proBNP levels from baseline to 8 weeks treatment.

Results

ARNI treatment resulted in a significant decrease in NT-proBNP levels and an increase in LVEF in patients with HFpEF. However, HFpEF patients that underwent ARNI treatment achieved better outcomes than did patients that underwent ACEI treatment.

Conclusion

Sacubitril-valsartan treatment, which lowered NT-proBNP levels and improved cardiac function, was more effective in HFpEF patients with acute decompensated heart failure than enalapril.

Sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure: efficacy and safety in and outside clinical trials

Heart failure (HF) treatment has changed substantially over the last 30 years, leading to significant reductions in mortality and hospital admissions in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Currently, the optimization of guideline-directed chronic HF therapy remains the mainstay to further improve quality of life, mortality, and HF hospitalizations for patients with HFrEF. The angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) has an important role in the treatment of patients with HFrEF. The PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) randomized controlled trial has established solid evidence for the treatment of HFrEF in various subgroups. Apart from HFrEF, several studies have been conducted using S/V in various indications: patients hospitalized with acute decompensated HF, HF with preserved ejection fraction, acute myocardial infarction with reduced ejection fraction, uncontrolled and resistant hypertension, and chronic kidney disease. Data from the German Institute for Drug Use Evaluation reveal that implementation of S/V has increased steadily over time and, by the end of 2021, an estimated 266 000 patients were treated with S/V in Germany. The estimated cumulative real-world patient exposure is >5.5 million patient-treatment years worldwide. The number of patients treated with S/V largely exceeds the number of patients treated in clinical trials, and the current indication for S/V is larger than the strict inclusion/exclusion criteria of the randomized trials. Especially elderly patients, women, and patients with more and more severe comorbidities are underrepresented in the clinical trials. We therefore aimed to summarize the importance of S/V in HF in terms of efficacy and safety in clinical trials and daily clinical practice.

Application of Angiotensin Receptor–Neprilysin Inhibitor in Chronic Kidney Disease Patients: Chinese Expert Consensus

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a global public health problem, and cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death in patients with CKD. The incidence and prevalence of cardiovascular events during the early stages of CKD increases significantly with a decline in renal function. More than 50% of dialysis patients die from cardiovascular disease, including coronary heart disease, heart failure, arrhythmia, and sudden cardiac death. Therefore, developing effective methods to control risk factors and improve prognosis is the primary focus during the diagnosis and treatment of CKD. For example, the SPRINT study demonstrated that CKD drugs are effective in reducing cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events by controlling blood pressure. Uncontrolled blood pressure not only increases the risk of these events but also accelerates the progression of CKD. A co-crystal complex of sacubitril, which is a neprilysin inhibitor, and valsartan, which is an angiotensin receptor blockade, has the potential to be widely used against CKD. Sacubitril inhibits neprilysin, which further reduces the degradation of natriuretic peptides and enhances the beneficial effects of the natriuretic peptide system. In contrast, valsartan alone can block the angiotensin II-1 (AT1) receptor and therefore inhibit the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system. These two components can act synergistically to relax blood vessels, prevent and reverse cardiovascular remodeling, and promote natriuresis. Recent studies have repeatedly confirmed that the first and so far the only angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan can reduce blood pressure more effectively than renin–angiotensin system inhibitors and improve the prognosis of heart failure in patients with CKD. Here, we propose clinical recommendations based on an expert consensus to guide ARNI-based therapeutics and reduce the occurrence of cardiovascular events in patients with CKD.

Sacubitril/valsartan use patterns among older adults with heart failure in clinical practice: a population-based cohort study of >25 000 Medicare beneficiaries

AIMS

Sacubitril/valsartan is strongly supported in guidelines for the management of heart failure, but suboptimal adherence and treatment non-persistence may limit the population-level benefit that this therapy might otherwise offer.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We identified a cohort of Medicare beneficiaries (2014-2017) initiating sacubitril/valsartan after ≥6 months of continuous enrolment. We assessed adherence as the proportion of days covered (PDC) and proportion of patients non-persistent (having no prescription available) at 180 days after initiation. We fit a multivariable negative binomial model with a count of adherent days to evaluate independent factors associated with of sacubitril/valsartan adherence. Among 27 063 new sacubitril/valsartan users, most (n = 17 663, 65%) were prescribed low-dose at 24 mg/26 mg and most (n = 19 984, 74%) were switched from prior angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ACEi/ARB) rather than being RASi treatment naïve. Median 180-day PDC was 86% (25th-75th percentiles 58-98%). Black patients, those with high comorbid disease burden (≥8 comorbidities), and patients with recent hospitalization within 30 days had fewer adherent days, while those treated with preceding ACEi/ARB had more adherent days. Thirty-four percent of patients did not have an active sacubitril/valsartan prescription at day 180. Among these, few had preceding dose down-titrations (6% among patients on 49 mg/51 mg and 9% among patients on 97 mg/103 mg) and 68% did not have a subsequent ACEi/ARB prescription. Among patients who remained persistent, dose up-titrations occurred in 29% of patients who started on 24 mg/26 mg and 27% of patients on 49 mg/51 mg.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall adherence to sacubitril/valsartan among Medicare beneficiaries is acceptable, but is lower in Black patients, those with higher comorbidities or those who started therapy after recent hospitalization. While broad implementation of guideline-directed medical therapy is a key priority, additional focused efforts to improve adherence early after hospitalization and among at-risk patients are needed in parallel.

Sacubitril/Valsartan for heart failure: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Sacubitril-valsartan has been shown to have superior effects over angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers in patients with heart failure (HF). However, the effects of sacubitril-valsartan have never been systematically evaluated. Therefore, we performed a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril-valsartan in patients with HF.

METHODS

We selected 8 databases, including PubMed, the Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, the Chinese Science Journal Database, Wanfang Data, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. The search time was from database establishment to March 2022. Two reviewers will screen the records and include quality studies according to inclusion criteria independently. Two reviewers will assess the risk of bias of the included studies by the "Risk of Bias Assessment Tool" of the Cochrane Handbook for randomized controlled trials. Statistical analysis will be performed with Review Manager software 5.3.

RESULTS

A synthesis of current evidence of sacubitril-valsartan for treating HF will be provided in this protocol.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study will provide a theoretical basis for the clinical use of sacubitril-valsartan to treat HF.

Blood Pressure Drops During Hospitalization for Acute Heart Failure Treated With Serelaxin: A Patient-Level Analysis of 4 Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Hypotensive events and drops in systolic blood pressure (SBP-drop) are frequent in patients hospitalized with acute heart failure. We investigated whether SBP-drops are associated with outcomes in patients treated with serelaxin.

METHODS

Patient-level retrospective analyses of 4 prospective trials investigating serelaxin in acute heart failure. Main inclusion criteria were SBP 125 to 180 mm Hg, pulmonary congestion, and elevated NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide). SBP-drops were prospectively defined as SBP<100 mm Hg, or, if SBP remained >100 mm Hg, a drop from baseline of 40 mm Hg from baseline. Outcomes were a short-term composite outcome (worsening heart failure, hospital readmission for heart failure or all-cause mortality through 14 days) and 180-day mortality.

RESULTS

Overall, 2559/11 226 (23%) patients had an SBP-drop. SBP-drop, versus no SBP-drop, was associated with a worse outcome: cumulative incidence of 180-day mortality (11% versus 9%, hazard ratio [HR]. 1.21 [95% CI, 1.05-1.39]; P=0.009) and the short-term outcome (11% versus 9%, HR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.13-1.49]; P<0.001). Of the 2 SBP-drop components, an SBP<100 mm Hg was associated with the worst outcome compared with a 40 mm Hg drop: short-term outcome (11% versus 10%) and HRs of 1.32 (95% CI, 1.13-1.55; P=0.0005) and 1.22 (95% CI, 0.97-1.56; P=0.09), for each component respectively, with a P value for interaction of 0.05. SBP-drops were associated with a worse short-term outcome in the placebo group (HR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.19-1.79]; P=0.0003), but not in the serelaxin-group (HR, 1.18 [95% CI, 0.97-1.42]; P=0.10); P interaction=0.003.

CONCLUSIONS

SBP-drops in patients with acute heart failure and normal to high SBP at admission is associated with worse short- and long-term outcomes especially for SBP <100 mm Hg. However, in patients treated with the intravenous vasodilator serelaxin, SBP-drops seemed less harmful.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT02064868, NCT02007720, NCT01870778, NCT00520806.

In-hospital Initiation and Up-titration of Guideline-directed Medical Therapies for Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

Implementation of guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with heart failure is suboptimal. The use of guideline-directed medical therapy improves minimally after heart failure hospitalisation, despite this event clearly indicating increased risk of further hospitalisation and death. In-hospital initiation and titration of guideline-directed medical therapies is one potential strategy to fill these gaps in care, both in the acute vulnerable period after hospital discharge and in the long term. The purpose of this article is to review the knowledge gaps in best practices of in-hospital initiation and up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapies, the benefits and risks of in-hospital initiation and post-discharge focused titration of guideline-directed medical therapies, the recent literature evaluating these practices, and propose strategies to apply these principles to the care of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

Contemporary Pillars of Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction Medical Therapy

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a clinical condition associated with cardiac contractility impairment. HFrEF is a significant public health issue with a high morbidity and mortality burden. Pathological left ventricular (LV) remodeling and progressive dilatation are hallmarks of HFrEF pathogenesis, ultimately leading to adverse clinical outcomes. Therefore, cardiac remodeling attenuation has become a treatment goal and a standard of care over the last three decades. Guideline-directed medical therapy mainly targeting the sympathetic nervous system and the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS) has led to improved survival and a reduction in HF hospitalization in this population. More recently, novel pharmacological therapies targeting other pathways implicated in the pathophysiology of HFrEF have emerged at an exciting rate, with landmark clinical trials demonstrating additive clinical benefits in patients with HFrEF. Among these novel therapies, angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI), sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), vericiguat (a novel oral guanylate cyclase stimulator), and omecamtiv mecarbil (a selective cardiac myosin activator) have shown improved clinical benefit when added to the traditional standard-of-care medical therapy in HFrEF. These new comprehensive data have led to a remarkable change in the medical therapy paradigm in the setting of HFrEF. This article will review the pivotal studies involving these novel agents and present a suggestive paradigm of pharmacological therapy representing the 2021 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for the treatment of chronic HFrEF.

ANMCO POSITION PAPER: Use of sacubitril/valsartan in hospitalized patients with acute heart failure

Sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) has been shown to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization and improve symptoms in chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction compared with enalapril. After 7 years since the publication of the results of PARADIGM-HF, further insight has been gained with potential new indications. Two prospective randomized multicentre studies (PIONEER-HF and TRANSITION) in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (AHF) have shown an improved clinical outcome and biomarker profile as compared with enalapril, and good tolerability, safety, and feasibility of initiating in-hospital administration of S/V. Furthermore, some studies have highlighted the favourable effects of S/V in attenuating adverse myocardial remodelling, supporting an early benefit after treatment. Observational data from non-randomized studies in AHF report that in-hospital and pre-discharge prescription of evidence-based drugs associated with better survival still remain suboptimal. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic has also negatively impacted on outpatient activities. Therefore, hospitalization, a real crossroad in the history of heart failure, must become a management and therapeutic opportunity for our patients. The objective of this ANMCO position paper is to encourage and facilitate early S/V administration in stabilized patients during hospitalization after an AHF episode, with the aim of improving care efficiency and clinical outcome.

Angiotensin receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitors

Heart failure (HF) is a clinical syndrome that results from a structural or functional cardiac disorder that reduces the ability of the ventricle of the heart to fill with, or eject, blood. It is a multifaceted clinical condition that affects up to 2% of the population in the developed world, and is linked to significant morbidity and mortality; it is therefore considered a major concern for public health. Regarding the mechanism of HF, three neurohumoral factors - the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, the sympathetic nervous system, and natriuretic peptides — are related to the pathology of chronic HF (CHF), and the targets of treatment. Angiotensin receptor blocker and neprilysin inhibitor (angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor), namely sacubitril/valsartan (SAC/VAL), has been introduced as a treatment for CHF. SAC/VAL is an efficacious, safe, and cost-effective therapy that improves quality of life and longevity in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), and reduces hospital admissions. An in-hospital initiation strategy offers a potential new avenue to improve the clinical uptake of SAC/VAL. In the last five years, SAC/VAL has been established as a cornerstone component of comprehensive disease-modifying medical therapy in the management of chronic HFrEF. On the other hand, further work, with carefully designed and controlled preclinical studies, is necessary for understanding the molecular mechanisms, effects, and confirmation of issues such as long-term safety in both human and animal models.