Efficacy and safety of LCZ696, a first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, in Asian patients with hypertension: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

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.

Genetic and Epigenetic Mechanisms Regulating Blood Pressure and Kidney Dysfunction

The pioneering work of Dr Lewis K. Dahl established a relationship between kidney, salt, and high blood pressure (BP), which led to the major genetic-based experimental model of hypertension. BP, a heritable quantitative trait affected by numerous biological and environmental stimuli, is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide and is considered to be a primary modifiable factor in renal, cardiovascular, and cerebrovascular diseases. Genome-wide association studies have identified monogenic and polygenic variants affecting BP in humans. Single nucleotide polymorphisms identified in genome-wide association studies have quantified the heritability of BP and the effect of genetics on hypertensive phenotype. Changes in the transcriptional program of genes may represent consequential determinants of BP, so understanding the mechanisms of the disease process has become a priority in the field. At the molecular level, the onset of hypertension is associated with reprogramming of gene expression influenced by epigenomics. This review highlights the specific genetic variants, mutations, and epigenetic factors associated with high BP and how these mechanisms affect the regulation of hypertension and kidney dysfunction.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring profiles in Asia

High blood pressure (BP) remains a major health problem globally, with a proportion of hypertension-mediated organ damage (HMOD) increasing worldwide including in Asia region. Cardiovascular (CV), cerebral and kidney diseases related to hypertension were reported to be closely associated with morning surge and nocturnal hypertension-a subset of BP variability-which can be detected by out-of-office BP measurement. Ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) and Home BP monitoring (HBPM) have been recommended by major guidelines to be used in the evaluation of BP variability and outcomes' prediction of hypertension patients. However, an interesting profile of ABPM in Asia has been reported and hypothesized to correlate with different outcomes. This review will focus on the current recommendation of ABPM use by the guidelines, the major different profiles of ABPM in Asia as compared to Western countries according to clinical indications, and the challenges in implementing optimal use of ABPM in Asian countries based on available evidence.

Management of Resistant Hypertension

Resistant hypertension (RH) is a severe form of hypertension associated with increased cardiovascular risk. Although true RH affects less than 10% of the patients receiving antihypertensive therapy, the absolute number is high and continues to increase. The workup of these patients requires screening for secondary hypertension and pseudoresistance, including poor adherence to prescribed medicines and the white-coat phenomenon. The treatment of RH consists of lifestyle modifications and pharmacological therapies. Lifestyle modifications include dietary adjustments, weight loss, physical activity, and limiting alcohol consumption; pharmacological therapies include diuretics, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, beta blockers, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, and others. Over the last 15 years, interventional approaches have emerged as adjunct treatment options; we highlight catheter-based renal denervation. This review summarizes the rationales and latest clinical evidence and, based thereon, proposes an updated algorithm for the management of RH.

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].

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

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

Effects of sacubitril-valsartan in patients undergoing maintenance dialysis

OBJECTIVES

Data on angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril-valsartan (SV) in patients undergoing maintenance dialysis is scarce. Our study aimed to investigate the effect of SV on patients undergoing dialysis.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the data of end-stage kidney disease (ESRD) patients undergoing either peritoneal dialysis (PD) or hemodialysis (HD) in our center. A total of 51 patients receiving SV treatment were enrolled in the SV group. Another 51 age and sex-matched patients on dialysis without SV treatment were selected as the control group. All the patients were regularly followed up in the dialysis clinic. Their clinical, biochemical, and echocardiographic parameters were all recorded at baseline and during follow-up. The effect and safety of SV were further analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 102 ESRD patients on dialysis (51 patients in the SV group and 51 patients in the control group) were finally enrolled. The median follow-up time was 349 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 217-535 days). The level of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) (median [IQR] before and after SV treatment: 596.35 pg/ml [190.6-1714.85] vs. 188.7 pg/ml [83.34-600.35], p < 0.001) or N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) (median [IQR]: 6316.00 pg/ml [4552.00-28598.00] vs. 5074.00 pg/ml [2229.00-9851.00], p = 0.022) were significantly decreased after treatment with SV. The variant rate of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was significantly higher in the SV group compared to the control group, especially in the PD subgroup. No significant difference was found in other echocardiographic parameters between SV and control group. Subgroup analysis of the PD group showed an increase in daily PD ultrafiltration (median [IQR]: 400 ml/d [200-500] vs. 500 ml/d [200-850], p = 0.114) after SV treatment. Variant rate of overhydration (OH) measured by the body composition monitor (BCM) of the SV group were significantly different from the control group (median [IQR]: -13.13% [-42.85%-27.84%] vs. 0% [-17.95%-53.85%], p = 0.049). The rate of hyperkalemia was slightly higher but without significant difference before and after the introduction of SV (19.6% vs. 27.5%, p = 0.350). No event of hypotension and angioedema were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

SV might have a cardio-protective role in ESRD patients undergoing dialysis, especially in PD patients. Serum potassium should be monitored during the treatment.

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.

Evaluation of the Efficacy of Sacubitril/Valsartan on Radiofrequency Ablation in Patients with Hypertension and Persistent Atrial Fibrillation

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether the effect of radiofrequency ablation can be improved by using sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) to control blood pressure in hypertensive patients with persistent atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

A total of 63 and 67 hypertension patients with persistent atrial fibrillation were enrolled in an S/V group and ACEI/ARB group, respectively. All patients underwent radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA). The blood pressure of the two groups was controlled within the range of 100-140 mmHg (high pressure) and 60-90 mmHg (low pressure). The clinical outcomes of the two groups were observed after 12 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

No significant differences in blood pressure were observed between the S/V and ACEI/ARB groups. In addition, the recurrence rate of atrial fibrillation between the two groups was not different. The left atrial diameter was an independent predictor of recurrence (HR = 1.063, P = 0.008). However, in the heart failure subgroup, the recurrence rate of S/V was significantly lower than that of the ACEI/ARB group (P = 0.005), and Cox regression analysis showed that the recurrence risk of atrial fibrillation of the S/V group was 0.302 lower than that of the ACEI/ARB group. NT-proBNP, LVEF, and LAD were significantly improved in hypertension patients with heart failure when comparing cases before and at the end of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

S/V is better than ACEI/ARB in reducing the recurrence of persistent atrial fibrillation in patients with hypertension and heart failure after RFCA.

Sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan in regressing myocardial fibrosis in hypertension: a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint clinical trial protocol

Background

Diffuse interstitial myocardial fibrosis is a key common pathological manifestation in hypertensive heart disease (HHD) progressing to heart failure (HF). Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNi), now a front-line treatment for HF, confer benefits independent of blood pressure, signifying a multifactorial mode of action beyond hemodynamic regulation. We aim to test the hypothesis that compared with angiotensin II receptor blockade (ARB) alone, ARNi is more effective in regressing diffuse interstitial myocardial fibrosis in HHD.

Methods

Role of ARNi in Ventricular Remodeling in Hypertensive LVH (REVERSE-LVH) is a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint (PROBE) clinical trial. Adults with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) according to Asian sex- and age-specific thresholds on cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging are randomized to treatment with either sacubitril/valsartan (an ARNi) or valsartan (an ARB) in 1:1 ratio for a duration of 52 weeks, at the end of which a repeat CMR is performed to assess differential changes from baseline between the two groups. The primary endpoint is the change in CMR-derived diffuse interstitial fibrosis volume. Secondary endpoints include changes in CMR-derived left ventricular mass, volumes, and functional parameters. Serum samples are collected and stored to assess the effects of ARNi, compared with ARB, on circulating biomarkers of cardiac remodeling. The endpoints will be analyzed with reference to the corresponding baseline parameters to evaluate the therapeutic effect of sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan.

Discussion

REVERSE-LVH will examine the anti-fibrotic potential of sacubitril/valsartan and will offer mechanistic insights into the clinical benefits of sacubitril/valsartan in hypertension in relation to cardiac remodeling. Advancing the knowledge of the pathophysiology of HHD will consolidate effective risk stratification and personalized treatment through a multimodal manner integrating complementary CMR and biomarkers into the conventional care approach.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier, NCT03553810.

Sacubitril/Valsartan Shows Improvement of the Cardio-Ankle Vascular Index in a Hypertensive Patient

A 72-year-old man presented to our clinic with hypertension. Arterial stiffness evaluated by cardio ankle vascular index (CAVI) was markedly increased at 13.5. We treated him using 80 mg/day of valsartan for three months. CAVI was decreased from 13.5 to 13.0. However, his BP fluctuations were still high. We changed the treatment to angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) with increasing doses up to 400 mg. Independent of the change in blood pressure at the time of measurement, CAVI improved with ARNI dose. Hypertension treatment with an awareness of the cardio-vascular interaction might be a possibility prevents future heart failure development effectively.

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

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

Denervation or stimulation? Role of sympatho-vagal imbalance in HFpEF with hypertension

Heart failure (HF) in the elderly is an increasingly large and complex problem in modern society. Notably, the cause of HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is multifactorial and its pathophysiology is not fully understood. Among these, hypertension has emerged as a pivotal factor in the pathophysiology and therapeutic targets of HFpEF. Neuronal elements distributed throughout the cardiac autonomic nervous system, from the level of the central autonomic network including the insular cortex to the intrinsic cardiac nervous system, regulate the human cardiovascular system. Specifically, increased sympathetic nervous system activity due to sympatho-vagal imbalance is suggested to be associated the relationship between hypertension and HFpEF. While several new pharmacological therapies, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, have been shown to be effective in HFpEF, neuromodulatory therapies of renal denervation and vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) have received recent attention. The current review explores the pathophysiology of the brain-heart axis that underlies the relationship between hypertension and HFpEF and the rationale for therapeutic neuromodulation of HFpEF by non-invasive transcutaneous VNS.

Clinical Trials in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Therapy: A Comprehensive Analysis of Trials Registered in Global Clinical Databases

Background

With the disappointing results associated with the use of cardiac myosin inhibitors in the treatment of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), the development of new therapies in clinical trials for HCM has rapidly increased. We assessed the characteristics of therapeutic intervention in HCM registered on ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional, descriptive study of clinical trials for therapeutic intervention in HCM registered on ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP.

Results

This study analyzed 137 registered trials. Regarding study designs of these trials, 77.37% were purpose of treatment, 59.12% were randomized, 50.36% were parallel assignment, 45.26% were performed with masking, 48.18% recruited less than 50 participants, and 27.74% were Phase 2 trials. In total, 67 trials were new drug trials, of which 35 drugs were tested in these trials, and 13 trials involved treatment with mavacamten. Of these 67 clinical drug trials, 44.78% of trials involved the study of amines, and 16.42% involved 1-ring heterocyclic compounds. Regarding the NCI Thesaurus Tree, 23.81% of trials involved myosin inhibitors, 23.81% of trials involved drugs belonging to agents affecting the cardiovascular system, and 20.63% were involved in testing cation channel blockers. The drug-target network showed that myosin-7, potassium voltage-gated channel subfamily h member 2, beta-1 adrenergic receptor, carnitine o-palmitoyltransferase 1, and liver isoform were the most targeted pathways of the clinical trials analyzed in the drug-target network.

Conclusion

The number of clinical trials investigating therapeutic interventions for HCM has increased in recent years. Ultimately, recent HCM therapeutic clinical trials generally did not incorporate either randomized controlled trials or masking and were small studies recruiting fewer than 50 participants. Although recent research has focused on targeting myosin-7, the molecular signaling mechanisms involved in the pathogenesis of HCM have the potential to elucidate novel target pathways.

Ambulatory Resistant Hypertension and Risk of Heart Failure in the Elderly

(1) Background: The aim of the study was to assess the risk of heart failure (HF) in elderly treated hypertensive patients with white coat uncontrolled hypertension (WUCH), ambulatory nonresistant hypertension (ANRH) and ambulatory resistant hypertension (ARH), when compared to those with controlled hypertension (CH). (2) We studied 745 treated hypertensive subjects older than 65 years. CH was defined as clinic blood pressure (BP) < 140/90 mmHg and 24-h BP < 130/80 mmHg; WUCH was defined as clinic BP ≥ 140/90 mmHg and 24-h BP < 130/80 mmHg; ANRH was defined as 24-h BP ≥ 130/80 mmHg in patients receiving ≤2 antihypertensive drugs; ARH was defined as 24-h BP ≥ 130/80 mmHg in patients receiving ≥3 antihypertensive drugs. (3) Results: 153 patients had CH, 153 had WUCH, 307 had ANRH and 132 (18%) had ARH. During the follow-up (8.4 ± 4.8 years), 82 HF events occurred. After adjustment for various covariates, when compared to CH, the hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) for HF was 1.30 (0.51-3.32), 2.14 (1.03-4.43) and 3.52 (1.56-7.96) in WUCH, ANRH and ARH, respectively. (4) Conclusions: among elderly treated hypertensive patients, those with ARH are at a considerably higher risk of developing HF when compared to CH.

Signaling pathways in vascular function and hypertension: molecular mechanisms and therapeutic interventions

Hypertension is a global public health issue and the leading cause of premature death in humans. Despite more than a century of research, hypertension remains difficult to cure due to its complex mechanisms involving multiple interactive factors and our limited understanding of it. Hypertension is a condition that is named after its clinical features. Vascular function is a factor that affects blood pressure directly, and it is a main strategy for clinically controlling BP to regulate constriction/relaxation function of blood vessels. Vascular elasticity, caliber, and reactivity are all characteristic indicators reflecting vascular function. Blood vessels are composed of three distinct layers, out of which the endothelial cells in intima and the smooth muscle cells in media are the main performers of vascular function. The alterations in signaling pathways in these cells are the key molecular mechanisms underlying vascular dysfunction and hypertension development. In this manuscript, we will comprehensively review the signaling pathways involved in vascular function regulation and hypertension progression, including calcium pathway, NO-NOsGC-cGMP pathway, various vascular remodeling pathways and some important upstream pathways such as renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, oxidative stress-related signaling pathway, immunity/inflammation pathway, etc. Meanwhile, we will also summarize the treatment methods of hypertension that targets vascular function regulation and discuss the possibility of these signaling pathways being applied to clinical work.

Benefits of sacubitril/valsartan use in patients with chronic heart failure after cardiac valve surgery: a single-center retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan for the treatment of patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) after cardiac valve surgery (CVS).

METHODS

Data were collected from 259 patients who underwent CVS due to valvular heart disease and were admitted to the hospital with CHF from January 2018 to December 2020. The patients were divided into Group A (treatment with sacubitril/valsartan) and Group B (treatment without sacubitril/valsartan). The duration of treatment and follow-up was 6 months. The two groups' prior and clinical characteristics, post-treatment data, mortality, and follow-up data were analysed.

RESULTS

The effective rate of Group A was higher than that of Group B (82.56% versus 65.52%, P < 0.05). The left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, %) was improved in both groups. The final value minus the initial value was (11.14 ± 10.16 versus 7.15 ± 11.18, P = 0.004). The left ventricular end-diastolic/-systolic diameter (LVEDD/LVESD, mm) in Group A decreased more than in Group B. The final value minus the initial value was (-3.58 ± 9.21 versus - 0.27 ± 14.44, P = 0.026; -4.21 ± 8.15 versus - 1.14 ± 12.12, P = 0.016, respectively). Both groups decreased the N-terminal prohormone of B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP, pg/ml). The final value minus initial value was [-902.0(-2226.0, -269.5) versus - 535.0(-1738, -7.0), P = 0.029]. The systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP/DBP, mmHg) in Group A decreased more than in Group B. The final value minus the initial value was (-13.13 ± 23.98 versus - 1.81 ± 10.89, P < 0.001; -8.28 ± 17.79 versus - 2.37 ± 11.41, P = 0.005, respectively). Liver and renal insufficiency, hyperkalaemia, symptomatic hypotension, angioedema, and acute heart failure had no statistical differences between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril/valsartan can effectively improve the cardiac function of patients with CHF after CVS by increasing LVEF and reducing LVEDD, LVESD, NT-proBNP, and BP, with good safety.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

The history and mystery of sacubitril/valsartan: From clinical trial to the real world

Heart failure is a serious threat to human health, with morbidity and mortality rates increasing despite the existence of multiple treatment options. Therefore, it is necessary to identify new therapeutic targets for this disease. Sacubitril/valsartan is a supramolecular sodium salt complex of the enkephalinase inhibitor prodrug sacubitril and the angiotensin receptor blocker valsartan. Its combined action increases endogenous natriuretic peptides while inhibiting the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and exerting cardioprotective effects. Clinical evidence suggests that sacubitril/valsartan is superior to conventional renin-angiotensin-aldosterone inhibitor therapy for patients with reduced ejection fraction heart failure who can tolerate angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers. The therapy reduces the risk of heart failure hospitalization, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality and has a better safety and tolerability record. This review describes the potential pathophysiological mechanisms of cardiomyocyte injury amelioration by sacubitril/valsartan. We explore the protective effects of sacubitril/valsartan and outline the therapeutic value in patients with heart failure by summarizing the results of recent large clinical trials. Furthermore, a preliminary outlook shows that sacubitril/valsartan may be effective at treating other diseases, and provides some exploratory observations that lay the foundation for future studies on this drug.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Effect of add-on sacubitril/valsartan on the left ventricular hypertrophy of a patient with hypertension

The combination of sacubitril and valsartan has recently become eligible for reimbursement in Japan for the treatment of hypertension. However, the real-world clinical efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with hypertension who are taking multiple anti-hypertensive medications remains to be characterized. We treated a man in his late 40s who had undergone a percutaneous coronary intervention and had hypertension that was refractory to multiple anti-hypertensive medications. We initiated sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg/day as an add-on therapy, and 3 months later, his blood pressure had decreased from 154/78 mmHg to 134/70 mmHg, in the absence of any drug-related adverse events. Furthermore, his left ventricular mass index had improved from 135 g/m² to 112 g/m². Thus, sacubitril/valsartan might ameliorate hypertrophy in patients with hypertension.

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

Aim

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

Methods and results

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

Conclusions

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

Graphical abstract

Novel antihypertensive agents for resistant hypertension: what does the future hold?

Finding complementary compelling novel therapeutic agents for better control of blood pressure in people with resistant hypertension is moving into unchartered territory. The latest therapeutic developments explore approaches in the clinical arena that were either not examined or could only be examined in animal models two decades ago. Four main mechanisms have now been explored and operationalized in drug development: (a) mineralocorticoid receptor blockade using a nonsteroidal structure with many fewer side effects, (b) an aminopeptidase A inhibitor that has central effects on vasopressin, (c) a combined endothelin A and B receptor blocker and (d) an aldosterone synthase inhibitor devoid of glucocorticoid activity. All these agents are either completing Phase II development and starting Phase III or are involved in the ongoing recruitment of Phase III trials. Additionally, novel agents use antisense inhibition to block angiotensinogen development in the liver. These agents are discussed only for completeness, as they are still in Phase II trial development. Last, another agent that was initially being developed as an antihypertensive and once the data were reviewed by the company clearly showed efficacy as a heart failure agent was sacubitril/valsartan, which was ultimately approved. However, there are some discussions about reinvigorating the quest for an indication for hypertension, although no such steps have been formally initiated.

Progress and prospects of Sacubitril/Valsartan: Based on heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is present in nearly half of patients with heart failure. The prevalence of heart failure with normal or near-normal ejection fractions increases more rapidly than in patients with reduced ejection fractions. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI), angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), aldosterone antagonist, β-blocker, and calcium channel blocker have not shown significant efficacy in HFpEF clinical trials. Sacubitril/Valsartan, combined angiotensin receptor blocker (Valsartan) with neprilysin inhibitor (Sacubitril), was the first-of-its-kind angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) to be developed. It has shown significant efficacy on HFpEF in recent studies. It is considered that most of the current Sacubitril/Valsartan studies are still concentrated in the field of heart failure, especially heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This review discusses the latest advances in cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic aspects of Sacubitril/Valsartan, mainly in HFpEF, providing more evidence for further future research on Sacubitril/Valsartan and raising issues that should be paid attention. At the same time, this review will introduce the academic consensus on Sacubitril/Valsartan in treating HFpEF in China.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Update on Hypertension Research in 2021

In 2021, 217 excellent manuscripts were published in Hypertension Research. Editorial teams greatly appreciate the authors' contribution to hypertension research progress. Here, our editorial members have summarized twelve topics from published work and discussed current topics in depth. We hope you enjoy our special feature, "Update on Hypertension Research in 2021".

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 Increases Ultrafiltration in Patients Undergoing Peritoneal Dialysis: A Short-Term Retrospective Self-Controlled Study

Aim

There are few data about the effectiveness and safety of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril-valsartan in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis (PD). The present study was conducted to evaluate the association between sacubitril-valsartan treatment and peritoneal ultrafiltration (PUF) in PD patients.

Methods and Results

Forty-seven ESRD patients undergoing PD for at least 3 months without severe congestive heart failure (CHF) were included in this study. Sacubitril-valsartan (generally 100 mg b.i.d) was administered after consultation with the nephrologist. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) were required to be discontinued 36 h before prescribing sacubitril-valsartan. Other treatments and dialysis modality did not change. Baseline demographic and clinical parameters were collected before ARNI administration, and daily PUF, urine volume, total output, blood pressure (BP), and body weight were collected within 7 days before and after ARNI treatment. After treated with sacubitril-valsartan, 30 patients (63.8%) had a significant increase of PUF [up to 150.4 (110.7, 232.1) ml per day], while the remaining 17 (36.2%) had a slight decrease. The overall increase of PUF was 66.4 (21.4, 123.2) ml/24 h within the 7 days after sacubitril-valsartan administration, which was significantly higher than those before (P = 0.004). Total output, BP, and body weight also significantly improved. No adverse drug reactions were observed.

Conclusions

Our study indicated that sacubitril-valsartan was associated with the increase of short-term PUF and total output in PD patients.

Impact of Sacubitril/Valsartan on Lipid Parameters in Patients with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, has been shown to significantly reduce cardiovascular mortality, heart failure hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. This study aims to investigate the long-term impact of the sacubitril/valsartan combination on lipid parameters in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

METHODS

For this single-center retrospective cross-sectional study, data of patients using sacubitril/valsartan because of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction were collected. In addition to routine controls, the patients' lipid levels were measured at 3-month intervals. The parameters that were obtained over 3 years included total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglyceride, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels.

RESULTS

A total of 192 patients with a functional capacity New York Heart Association II-V, and who were using sacubitril/valsartan because of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, were included in this study. Independent of statin use, there was a decrease in total cholesterol levels (196.1 ± 44.8 mg/dL vs 161.5 ± 41.7 mg/dL, p < 0.001) and triglyceride levels (159.1 ± 10.4 mg/dL vs 121.4 ± 6.9 mg/dL, p < 0.001), and there was an improvement in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (44.9 ± 1.9 mg/dL vs 48.2 ± 2.4 mg/dL, p < 0.001) when comparing baseline levels with third-year levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, independent of statin use, may cause a decrease in total cholesterol and triglyceride levels and an improvement in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels.

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

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

Efficacy of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor in Asian patients with refractory hypertension

Sacubitril/valsartan, simultaneously inhibits neprilysin and angiotensin II receptor, showed an effect in reducing blood pressure (BP). The authors aimed to study whether it can be used as an antihypertensive agent in patients with refractory hypertension who have already been treated. A total of 66 Chinese patients with refractory hypertension were enrolled. Patients received sacubitril/valsartan  200 instead of angiotensin II receptor blocker or angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor while other agents continued. If BP was uncontrolled after 4 weeks, sacubitril/valsartan was increased to 400 mg. The BP reduction was evaluated by office BP and ambulatory BP monitoring after 8‐week treatment. The baseline office BP and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were 150.0/95.0 mmHg and 113.3 mmHg. BP and MAP reduced to 130.6/83.2 mmHg and 99.0 mmHg at week 8. Office BP and MAP reductions were 19.4/11.8 mmHg and 14.3 mmHg at endpoint (all p < .001). The 24‐h, daytime and nighttime ambulatory BP were 146.2/89.1, 148.1/90.3, and 137.5/83.7 mmHg, respectively at baseline, and BP reduced to 129.6/79.8, 130.6/81.1, and 121.7/75.8 mmHg, respectively at week 8. The 24‐h, daytime and nighttime ambulatory BP reductions were 16.6/9.3, 17.5/9.2, and 15.8/7.9 mmHg, respectively at endpoint (all p < .001). Sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced office and ambulatory BP in refractory hypertension patients. Our study provided new evidence for sacubitril/valsartan in refractory hypertension.

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

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

Newer Drugs to Reduce High Blood Pressure and Mitigate Hypertensive Target Organ Damage

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to investigate the blood pressure (BP)-lowering effects of emerging drugs developed to treat diabetic kidney disease and heart failure (HF). We summarize the potential pathophysiological mechanisms responsible for mitigating hypertensive target organ damage and evaluating the available clinical data on these newer drugs.

RECENT FINDINGS

Nonsteroidal dihydropyridine-based mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), dual angiotensin II receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (valsartan with sacubitril), sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), and soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators are new classes of chemical agents that have distinct mechanisms of action and have been shown to be effective for the treatment of cardiovascular (CV) disease (CVD), HF, and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D). These drugs can be used either alone or in combination with other antihypertensive and CV drugs. Among these, SGLT2i and valsartan with sacubitril offer new avenues to reduce CVD mortality. SGLT2i have a mild-to-moderate effect on BP lowering with a favorable effect on CV and renal hemodynamics and have been shown to produce a significant reduction in the incidence of major adverse CVD events (as monotherapy or add-on therapy) compared with controls (placebo or non-SGLT2i treatment). Most of the participants in these studies had hypertension (HTN) at baseline and were receiving antihypertensive therapy, including renin-angiotensin system blockers. The combination of valsartan with sacubitril also lowers BP in the short term and has demonstrated a striking reduction in CVD mortality and morbidity in HF patients with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. If widely adopted, these novel therapeutic agents hold significant promise for reducing the public health burden posed by HTN and CVD. Based on the results of several clinical trials and considering the high prevalence of HTN and T2D, these new classes of agents have emerged as powerful therapeutic tools in managing and lowering the BP of patients with diabetic kidney disease and HF.

What the near Future Holds for Sacubitril/Valsartan: A Summary of Major Ongoing Studies

Early research on neprilysin inhibition showed that sacubitril/valsartan, a combination of the valsartan and the neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril, was superior to enalapril in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in the PARADIGM-HF study in 2014. Therefore, for patients with HFrEF, worldwide recommendations have been reformed to include sacubitril/valsartan. In addition, sacubitril/valsartan has been investigated in other cardiovascular disease states, such as patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and following myocardial infarction (MI) events. In February 2021, the FDA expanded the indication use of sacubitril/valsartan to include the HFpEF patient population based on the results of the PARAGON-HF trial. However, randomized clinical trials post-MI did not show promising results. Sacubitril/valsartan is currently being investigated in many other cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular conditions. This review aims to shed light and summarize the ongoing sacubitril/valsartan registered studies on the United States National Library of Medicine clinical trials registry.

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

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

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

Potential effects and application prospect of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor in diabetic kidney disease

Diabetic kidney disease (DKD) is one of the main causes of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and all-cause mortality in diabetic patients, despite the extensive use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) and angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB). Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), combining ARB and neutral endopeptidase inhibitor (NEPI), is likely to have potential favorable effects in DKD. This review summarizes existing preclinical and clinical studies on mechanism of ARNI and its potential effects on DKD. In preclinical studies, ARNI manifested its renoprotective effects by improving natriuresis, ameliorating inflammation, oxidative stress and renal dysfunction, and slowing down glomerulosclerosis and tubulointerstitial injury of kidney, but its effect on proteinuria is still controversial. Beneficial effects of ARNI on blood glucose regulation and glycometabolism have also been reported. There are no clinical studies of ARNI that specifically focus on DKD patients so far. ARNI has application potential in DKD, but there still need clinical studies that focus on DKD patients to determine its effectiveness, safety and underlying mechanism.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single, and multiple dose-escalation Phase I clinical trial to investigate the safety, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic profiles of oral S086, a novel angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, in healthy Chinese volunteers

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetic (PK), and pharmacodynamic (PD) profiles of single ascending doses (SAD) and multiple ascending doses (MAD) of S086 in healthy Chinese volunteers.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase I clinical trial enrolled 113 subjects, including 65 subjects in the SAD (60-1080 mg) study and 48 subjects in the MAD study (180-720 mg). The safety, PK (sacubitril, LBQ657, and EXP3174) and PD (MAD study: blood pressure, pulse) of S086 were assessed.

RESULTS

There were no deaths, serious adverse events, or discontinuations due to TEAEs, and there were no significant safety concerns associated with S086. PK parameters for sacubitril, LBQ657, and EXP3174 increased in a dose-dependent manner after single oral doses of S086. Plasma concentrations of sacubitril, LBQ657, and EXP3174 were maintained at steady state within 5 days of once-daily oral administration of S086. In the MAD study, S086 administration was associated with a dose-dependent decrease in mean diastolic and systolic blood pressure compared to baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

The safety and PK profile profiles of S086 support the use of S086 240 mg once daily in a future Phase II study in patients with heart failure.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial is registered at chinadrugtrials.org.cn (CT.gov identifier: CTR20182350 and CTR20182351).

Cardiovascular Prognosis in Drug-Resistant Hypertension Stratified by 24-Hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure: The JAMP Study

[Figure: see text].

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.

Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor (ARNI) and Cardiac Arrhythmias

The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) plays a major role in cardiovascular health and disease. Short-term RAAS activation controls water and salt retention and causes vasoconstriction, which are beneficial for maintaining cardiac output in low blood pressure and early stage heart failure. However, prolonged RAAS activation is detrimental, leading to structural remodeling and cardiac dysfunction. Natriuretic peptides (NPs) are activated to counterbalance the effect of RAAS and sympathetic nervous system by facilitating water and salt excretion and causing vasodilation. Neprilysin is a major NP-degrading enzyme that degrades multiple vaso-modulatory substances. Although the inhibition of neprilysin alone is not sufficient to counterbalance RAAS activation in cardiovascular diseases (e.g., hypertension and heart failure), a combination of angiotensin receptor blocker and neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) was highly effective in several clinical trials and may modulate the risk of atrial and ventricular arrhythmias. This review summarizes the possible link between ARNI and cardiac arrhythmias and discusses potential underlying mechanisms, providing novel insights about the therapeutic role and safety profile of ARNI in the cardiovascular system.

Cardioprotective effects of early intervention with sacubitril/valsartan on pressure overloaded rat hearts

Left ventricular remodeling due to pressure overload is associated with poor prognosis. Sacubitril/valsartan is the first-in-class Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor and has been demonstrated to have superior beneficial effects in the settings of heart failure. The aim of this study was to determine whether sacubitril/valsartan has cardioprotective effect in the early intervention of pressure overloaded hearts and whether it is superior to valsartan alone. We induced persistent left ventricular pressure overload in rats by ascending aortic constriction surgery and orally administrated sacubitril/valsartan, valsartan, or vehicle one week post operation for 10 weeks. We also determined the effects of sacubitril/valsartan over valsartan on adult ventricular myocytes and fibroblasts that were isolated from healthy rats and treated in culture. We found that early intervention with sacubitril/valsartan is superior to valsartan in reducing pressure overload-induced ventricular fibrosis and in reducing angiotensin II-induced adult ventricular fibroblast activation. While neither sacubitril/valsartan nor valsartan changes cardiac hypertrophy development, early intervention with sacubitril/valsartan protects ventricular myocytes from mitochondrial dysfunction and is superior to valsartan in reducing mitochondrial oxidative stress in response to persistent left ventricular pressure overload. In conclusion, our findings demonstrate that sacubitril/valsartan has a superior cardioprotective effect over valsartan in the early intervention of pressure overloaded hearts, which is independent of the reduction of left ventricular afterload. Our study provides evidence in support of potential benefits of the use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with resistant hypertension or in patients with severe aortic stenosis.

The effects of sacubitril/valsartan on heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, Sacubitril/Valsartan has been reported to have superior results. However, the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are still in dispute.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to evaluate the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on the treatment of HFpEF patients.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov were used to search for randomised controlled trials of sacubitril/valsartan in HFpEF patients from inception to 7 December 2020.

RESULTS

Four studies, with a total of 7739 participants, met the inclusion criteria. The present meta-analysis results showed that compared with the control group, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the hospitalisation rate of HF in HFpEF patients [Risk Ratio(RR): 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.79-0.93; p = 0.0002). Regarding all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and the improvement in NYHA class, sacubitril/valsartan did not show apparent advantages. Although sacubitril/valsartan was linked to increasing the risk of symptomatic hypotension (RR: 1.44; 95% CI: 1.25-1.66; p﹤0.00001), there was no evidence supporting the incidence of renal function worsening and hyperkalemia.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that compared with valsartan or individualised medical therapy (IMT), there were not different between the two groups except for the hospitalisation rate which was favoured by Sacubitril/Valsartan treatment group for HFpEF patients.

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

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

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

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

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

ABSTRACT

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