The Effects of LCZ696 in Patients With Hypertension Compared With Angiotensin Receptor Blockers

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.

Sacubitril-Valsartan (LCZ696) in the Treatment of Systemic Hypertension: An Updated Review of Neprilysin Inhibition Combined with Angiotensin II Receptor Blockade

Sacubitril-valsartan (LCZ696) has been demonstrated to be a highly effective treatment for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction since its Food and Drug Administration approval in 2015, and a growing body of evidence suggests its emergence as a hypertensive medication. It acts as an inhibitor of both neprilysin and the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, approaching the control of a multi-faceted pathology in multiple unique ways. Because 48% of US adults are affected by hypertension, with less than half of patients achieving controlled blood pressure, and the high correlation between uncontrolled hypertension and cardiovascular mortality, it is crucial to investigate new pharmacotherapies for managing this disease. This review discusses the current evidence of sacubitril-valsartan trials in hypertension management, with a focus on distinct populations and hypertension subsets. Asian populations are predisposed to salt-sensitive hypertension and have been shown to benefit from sacubitril-valsartan more than olmesartan, an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB). Systolic hypertension from stiff, aging arteries commonly affects individuals over the age of 65 years, and responds demonstrably better to sacubitril-valsartan than ARB monotherapy. Patients with treatment-resistant hypertension, especially those with heart failure, also show significantly improved blood pressure when treated with sacubitril-valsartan over ARBs. We conclude with a discussion of sacubitril-valsartan's potential role in managing noncardiac disease.

Neprilysin inhibitors and risk of Alzheimer's disease: A future perspective

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a heterogeneous neurodegenerative disease with multifaceted neuropathological disorders. AD is characterized by intracellular accumulation of phosphorylated tau proteins and extracellular deposition of amyloid beta (Aβ). Various protease enzymes, including neprilysin (NEP), are concerned with the degradation and clearance of Aβ. Indeed, a defective neuronal clearance pathway due to the dysfunction of degradation enzymes might be a possible mechanism for the accumulation of Aβ and subsequent progression of AD neuropathology. NEP is one of the most imperative metalloproteinase enzymes involved in the clearance of Aβ. This review aimed to highlight the possible role of NEP inhibitors in AD. The combination of sacubitril and valsartan which is called angiotensin receptor blocker and NEP inhibitor (ARNI) may produce beneficial and deleterious effects on AD neuropathology. NEP inhibitors might increase the risk of AD by the inhibition of Aβ clearance, and increase brain bradykinin (BK) and natriuretic peptides (NPs), which augment the pathogenesis of AD. These verdicts come from animal model studies, though they may not be applied to humans. However, clinical studies revealed promising safety findings regarding the use of ARNI. Moreover, NEP inhibition increases various neuroprotective peptides involved in inflammation, glucose homeostasis and nerve conduction. Also, NEP inhibitors may inhibit dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) expression, ameliorating insulin and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) levels. These findings proposed that NEP inhibitors may have a protective effect against AD development by increasing GLP-1, neuropeptide Y (NPY) and substance P, and deleterious effects by increasing brain BK. Preclinical and clinical studies are recommended in this regard.

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].

Efficacy and Safety Comparative of Sacubitril/Valsartan vs. Olmesartan in the Treatment of hypertension: A Meta-analysis of RCTs

BACKGROUND

Sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) is a widely used drug for hypertension in Asia, popular for its efficacy and safety. However, there has been no comprehensive literature review comparing it with olmesartan. This meta-analysis compared the antihypertensive and adverse effects of sacubitril/valsartan and olmesartan.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The data were then analyzed and processed using Revman 5.4 and Stata SE14 software.

RESULTS

Six RCTs with 4,127 patients were identified, showing that LCZ696 had better blood pressure control than olmesartan; mean sitting systolic and diastolic blood pressure, sitting pulse pressure, 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure, and 24-hour ambulatory diastolic blood pressure were significantly decreased with LCZ696 compared with olmesartan. No significant difference between LCZ696 and olmesartan was observed in the occurrence of the majority of adverse events, with a decreased probability of headache in patients with sacubitril/valsartan compared with olmesartan. The subgroup analysis showed treatment with 400 mg/d LCZ696 was better than olmesartan in reducing serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril/valsartan was better than olmesartan in controlling blood pressure in patients with hypertension, with relatively higher safety.

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.

Effectiveness and safety evaluation of sacubitril/valsartan in blood pressure control and clinical outcomes for elderly patients with heart failure and hypertension: A prospective cohort study

AIM

This study was conducted to investigate the safety and effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) for elderly patients with hypertension and heart failure in the real-world setting.

METHODS

Patients with established hypertension complicated with structural or functional impairment of ventricular fillings [New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II-IV)] were enrolled. The effectiveness of sac/val in terms of BP reduction and improvement in frailty and echocardiographic evaluation of cardiac function were examined from baseline to 6-month administration.

RESULTS

Overall, 241 patients were treated with sac/val and 227 with renin angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitor (RAASi) for hypertension control. There were significant difference in the degree of systolic blood pressure reduction between two groups. Echocardiography showed that sac/val significantly improved left ventricular ejection fraction [4.0% (95% CI: 2.0-7.5) vs -1.0 (95% CI: -4.0-2.0), P = 0.001] during the follow-up visits. Significant improvements in NYHA function class and FRAIL scores post sac/val were observed after 3 and 6 month treatment. The rate of primary cardiovascular composite outcome was higher in patients in the RAASi group (26.9%; 95% CI: 19.6-34.0) than in the sac/val group (22.0%; 95% CI: 16.7-27.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Sac/val may be useful not only for reducing BP, but also for improving the structural and functional parameters of echocardiography, eventually resulting in a significant improvement of the overall symptomatic status, a significant reduction in NYHA class, and functional improvement.

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

Introduction

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

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.

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.

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.

Sacubitril-valsartan as a treatment for apparent resistant hypertension in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction

Aims

Patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) frequently have difficult-to-control hypertension. We examined the effect of neprilysin inhibition on ‘apparent resistant hypertension’ in patients with HFpEF in the PARAGON-HF trial, which compared the effect of sacubitril–valsartan with valsartan.

Methods and results

In this post hoc analysis, patients were categorized according to systolic blood pressure at the end of the valsartan run-in (n = 4795). ‘Apparent resistant hypertension’ was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥140 mmHg (≥135 mmHg if diabetes) despite treatment with valsartan, a calcium channel blocker, and a diuretic. ‘Apparent mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA)-resistant’ hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥140 mmHg (≥135 mmHg if diabetes) despite the above treatments and an MRA. The primary outcome in the PARAGON-HF trial was a composite of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. We examined clinical endpoints and the safety of sacubitril–valsartan according to the hypertension category. We also examined reductions in blood pressure from the end of valsartan run-in to Weeks 4 and 16 after randomization. Overall, 731 patients (15.2%) had apparent resistant hypertension and 135 (2.8%) had apparent MRA-resistant hypertension. The rate of the primary outcome was higher in patients with apparent resistant hypertension [17.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 15.6–19.1 per 100 person-years] compared to those with a controlled systolic blood pressure (13.4; 12.7–14.3 per 100 person-years), with an adjusted rate ratio of 1.28 (95% CI 1.05–1.57). The reduction in systolic blood pressure at Weeks 4 and 16, respectively, was greater with sacubitril–valsartan vs. valsartan in patients with apparent resistant hypertension [−4.8 (−7.0 to −2.5) and 3.9 (−6.6 to −1.3) mmHg] and apparent MRA-resistant hypertension [−8.8 (−14.0 to −3.5) and −6.3 (−12.5 to −0.1) mmHg]. The proportion of patients with apparent resistant hypertension achieving a controlled systolic blood pressure by Week 16 was 47.9% in the sacubitril–valsartan group and 34.3% in the valsartan group [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.78, 95% CI 1.30–2.43]. In patients with apparent MRA-resistant hypertension, the respective proportions were 43.6% vs. 28.4% (adjusted OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.18–5.89).

Conclusion

Sacubitril–valsartan may be useful in treating apparent resistant hypertension in patients with HFpEF, even in those who continue to have an elevated blood pressure despite treatment with at least four antihypertensive drug classes, including an MRA.

Clinical trial registration

PARAGON-HF: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01920711.

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.

Hypertension: Current trends and future perspectives

Hypertension is a significant and increasing global health issue. It is a leading cause of cardiovascular disease and premature death worldwide due to its effects on end organs, and through its associations with chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus and obesity. Despite current management strategies, many patients do not achieve adequate blood pressure (BP) control. Hypertension-related cardiovascular mortality rates are rising in tandem with the increasing global prevalence of chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus and obesity. Improving BP control must therefore be urgently prioritised. Strategies include utilising existing antihypertensive agents more effectively, and using treatments developed for co-existing conditions (such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors for diabetes mellitus) that offer additional BP-lowering and cardiovascular benefits. Additionally, novel therapeutic agents that target alternative prohypertensive pathways and that offer broader cardiovascular protection are under development, including dual angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors. Nonpharmacological strategies such as immunotherapy are also being explored. Finally, advancing knowledge of the human genome and molecular modification technology may usher in an exciting new era of personalised medicine, with the potential to revolutionise the management of hypertension.

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

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

Comparative efficacy of different types of antihypertensive drugs in reversing left ventricular hypertrophy as determined with echocardiography in hypertensive patients: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Reversing left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) can reduce the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events. However, there is no clear superiority-inferiority differentiation between angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), beta-blockers (BB), calcium channel blockers (CCB), and diuretics in reversing LVH in hypertensive patients. To provide further evidence for choosing the optimal antihypertensive drug for improving LVH, we performed a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) based on the Cochrane library database, Embase, and Pubmed, and identified 49 studies involving 5402 patients that were eligible for inclusion. It was found that ARB could improve LVH in hypertensive patients more effectively than CCB (MD -4.07, 95%CI -8.03 to -0.24) and BB (MD -4.57, 95%CI -8.07 to -1.12). Matched comparison of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) showed that the effect of ACEI in reducing left ventricular mass index (LVMi) was not effective as that of ARB (MD -3.72, 95%CI -7.52 to -0.11). The surface under the cumulative ranking for each intervention indicated that the use of ARB was more effective among the different types of antihypertensive drugs (97%). This network meta-analysis revealed that the use of ARB in antihypertensive therapy could achieve better efficacy in reversing LVH in hypertensive patients.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

Emerging Drug Classes and Their Potential Use in Hypertension

Despite the availability of multiple antihypertensive drugs targeting the different pathways implicated in its pathophysiology, hypertension remains poorly controlled worldwide, and its prevalence is increasing because of the aging of the population and the obesity epidemic. Although nonadherence to treatment contributes to uncontrolled hypertension, it is likely that not all the pathophysiological mechanisms are neutralized by the various classes of antihypertensive treatment currently available, and, the counter-regulatory mechanisms triggered by these treatments may decrease their blood pressure–lowering effect. The development of new antihypertensive drugs acting on new targets, with different modes of action, therefore, remains essential, to improve blood pressure control and reduce the residual burden of cardiovascular risks further. However, the difficulties encountered in the conception, development, costs, and delivery to the market of new classes of antihypertensive agents highlights the hurdles that must be overcome to release and to evaluate their long-term safety and efficacy for hypertension only, especially because of the market pressure of cheap generic drugs. New chemical entities with blood pressure–lowering efficacy are thus being developed more for heart failure or diabetic kidney disease, 2 diseases pathophysiologically associated with hypertension. These include dual angiotensin II receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators, nonsteroidal dihydropyridine-based mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, as well as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. However, centrally acting aminopeptidase A inhibitors and endothelin receptor antagonists have a dedicated program of development for hypertension. All these emergent drug classes and their potential use in hypertension are reviewed here.

Angiotensin II receptor blocker LCZ696 attenuates cardiac remodeling through the inhibition of the ERK signaling pathway in mice with pregnancy-associated cardiomyopathy

Pregnancy-associated cardiomyopathy (PAH) represents a pregnancy-associated myocardial disease that is characterized by the progression of heart failure due to marked left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Compelling evidence has highlighted the potential of angiotensin (Ang) receptor inhibitors as therapeutic targets in PAH treatment. The present study aims to elucidate the molecular mechanisms underlying Ang II receptor inhibitor LCZ696 treatment in PAH. Initially, a PAH mouse model was induced, followed by intraperitoneal injection of LCZ696. Subsequently, cardiomyocytes and fibroblasts were isolated, cultured, and treated with Ang II and LCZ696, followed by detection of the total survival rate, cardiac injury, cardiac fibrosis and apoptosis. Moreover, in order to quantify the cardiac hypertrophy and fibrosis degree of cardiac fibroblasts, the expression levels of markers of cardiac hypertrophy (ANP, βMHC and TIMP2) and markers of fibrosis (collagen I, collagen III and TGF-β) were evaluated. Furthermore, the potential effect of LCZ696 on the extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) signaling pathway was examined. The acquired findings revealed that LCZ696 increased the total survival rate of PAH mice, but decreased cardiac injury, cardiac fibrosis, and apoptosis in vitro. LCZ696 attenuated cardiac injury induced by Ang II through the inhibition the expression of markers of cardiac hypertrophy, fibrosis and apoptosis by inhibiting ERK phosphorylation in vivo and in vitro. Altogether, LCZ676 could potentially alleviate cardiac remodeling in mice with PAH via blockade of the ERK signaling pathway activation. Our findings suggest that LCZ696 could be a potential target for PAH therapy.

Effects of the Angiotensin-Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor on Cardiac Reverse Remodeling: Meta-Analysis

Background The angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan was shown to be superior to the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril in terms of reducing cardiovascular mortality in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) study. However, the impact of ARNI on cardiac reverse remodeling (CRR) has not been established. Methods and Results We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the effects of ARNI versus angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers on CRR indices. We searched databases for studies published between 2010 and 2019 that reported CRR indices following ARNI administration. Effect size was expressed as mean difference (MD) with 95% CIs. Twenty studies enrolling 10 175 patients were included. ARNI improved functional capacity in patients with heart failure (HF) and a reduced ejection fraction (EF), including increasing New York Heart Association functional class (MD -0.79, 95% CI -0.86, -0.71) and 6-minute walking distance (MD 27.62 m, 95% CI 15.76, 39.48). ARNI outperformed angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers in terms of CRR indices, with striking changes in left ventricular EF, diameter, and volume. However, there were no significant improvements in indices except left ventricular mass index (MD -3.25 g/m2, 95% CI -3.78, -2.72) and left atrial volume (MD -7.20 mL, 95% CI -14.11, -0.29) in HF patients with preserved EF treated with ARNI. Improvements in CRR indices were observed at 3 months and became more significant with longer follow-up to 12 months. The regression equation for the relationship between left ventricular EF and end-diastolic dimension was y=0.041+0.071x+0.045x2+0.006x3. Conclusions ARNI distinctly improved left ventricular size and hypertrophy compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers in HF with reduced EF patients, even after short-term follow-up. Patients appeared to benefit more in terms of CRR treated with ARNI as early as possible and for at least 3 months. Further large sample trials are required to determine the effects of ARNI on CRR in HF with preserved EF patients.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Strain-selective efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan on carotid fibrosis in response to injury in two inbred mouse strains

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/val) is more effective than valsartan in lowering BP and mortality in patients with heart failure. Here, we proposed that Sac/val treatment would be more effective in preventing pathological vascular remodelling in 129X1/SvJ (129X1), than in C57BL/6J (B6) inbred mice.

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

Sac/val (60 mg·kg^-1 ·day^-1 ) and valsartan (27 mg·kg^-1 ·day^-1 ) were given as prophylactic or therapeutic treatments, to 129X1 or B6 mice with carotid artery ligation for 14 days. Blood flow was measured by ultrasound. Ex vivo, carotid tissue was analysed with histological and morphometric techniques, together with RNA sequencing and gene ontology.

KEY RESULTS

Sac/val was more effective than valsartan in lowering BP in 129X1 compared with B6 mice. Liver expression of CYP2C9 and plasma cGMP levels were similar across treatments. A reduction in carotid thickening after prophylactic treatment with valsartan or Sac/val also resulted in significant arterial shrinkage in B6 mice. In 129X1 mice, Sac/val and prophylactic treatment with valsartan had no effect on carotid thickening but preserved carotid size. BP lowering significantly correlated with a decline in carotid stiffness (R²  = .37, P = .0096) in 129X1 but not in B6 mice. The gene expression signature associated with hyalurononglucosaminidase activity was down-regulated in injured arteries after both regimens of Sac/val only in 129X1 mice. Administration of Sac/val but not valsartan significantly reduced deposition of hyaluronic acid and carotid fibrosis in 129X1 mice.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

These results underscore the importance of the genetic background in the efficacy of the Sac/val on vascular fibrosis.

AHU377+Valsartan (LCZ696) Modulates Renin-Angiotensin System (RAS) in the Cardiac of Female Spontaneously Hypertensive Rats Compared With Valsartan

BACKGROUND

Hypertension is a major cause of death and morbidity worldwide and is increasing in prevalence. The Renin-angiotensin system (RAS) is the most common mechanism involved in the pathophysiology of hypertension. Understanding the mechanism of the pathophysiologic processes will help direct potential therapeutic strategies to treat hypertension and improve cardiac function. Recently, a novel drug LCZ696 containing both an angiotensin receptor blocker valsartan and a neprilysin inhibitor (AHU377) has shown a promising effect on the treatment of hypertension. However, the effects of LCZ696 on the expression of main components of RAS, namely, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE), angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), angiotensin II type 1 receptor (AT1 R), angiotensin II type 2 receptor (AT2 R), and angiotensin (1-7) receptor/Mas receptor (MasR) remain unclear. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of LCZ696 on the protective arms of RAS in the cardiac tissue when compared with valsartan under the equal inhibition of AT1 R. We hypothesized that the superior effects of LCZ696 may contribute to its greater effect on the RAS than valsartan.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixteen-week-old female spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHRs) were used in this study. Wistar-Kyoto (WKY) rats were used as controls. All rats were randomly divided into LCZ696 (n = 10), valsartan (n = 10), SHR (n = 10), and WKY (n = 10) groups under a 12-hour dark and 12-hour light cycle and provided with regular chow diet and water. The tail-cuff method was performed to measure blood pressure. Cardiac function was assessed by echocardiography.

RESULTS

The blood pressure value was lower in LCZ696 than valsartan in SHR after 12 weeks of treatment. Further, LCZ696 inhibits the ACE and AT1 R protein expression in the cardiac of SHR and significantly upregulate the protective axis of RAS components, including ACE2, MasR, and AT2 R. Left ventricular AT2 R messenger RNA (mRNA) expression was higher in the LCZ696+SHR group compared with valsartan. In addition, real-time polymerase chain reaction analysis revealed that LCZ696 enhanced the mRNA expression of antihypertensive components AT2 R, ACE2, and MasR and decreased the expression of AT1 R. However, only AT2 R and ACE2 mRNA expressions have a statistical difference between the LCZ696 and valsartan groups. No difference was observed in the mRNA expression of ACE and MasR. The stronger positive signal of transforming growth factor β in the left ventricle was inhibited in each administrated group compared with SHR groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LCZ696 ameliorates the vasoconstrictor axis of the RAS AT1 R and stimulate the protective arm effectors, ACE2 and AT2 R, as well as reverses the compensatory upregulation of neuronal nitric oxide synthase and endothelial nitric oxide synthase in SHR. These findings suggest the mechanistic insight of the cardiac-protective and greater hypotensive effects of LCZ696.

Neprilysin Inhibitors: Filling a Gap in Heart Failure Management, Albeit Amidst Controversy and at a Significant Cost

Dual angiotensin and neprilysin inhibition using the combination drug sacubitril-valsartan has ushered in a new era in the treatment of heart failure (HF). The randomized controlled PARADIGM-HF trial, which randomized 8399 patients with HF to enalapril or sacubitril-valsartan, showed a 20% reduction in mortality and HF hospitalization with the new drug. This has been heralded as a step toward filling a crucial gap in HF management by providing strong evidence that combined inhibition of the angiotensin receptor and neprilysin is superior to inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system alone in stable patients with chronic HF as it negates the deleterious effects of angiotensin while concomitantly augmenting the beneficial effects of the endogenous natriuretic peptide system. This new therapy is costly, and other confirmatory studies have been lacking for over 2 years since its approval by major regulatory authorities. As such, controversy and heated discussions have amassed, as has detailed information from a plethora of secondary analyses of this pivotal trial about the pros and cons of this promising new therapeutic strategy in HF management. The aim of this review was to provide a critical assessment of all these aspects.

Endopeptidase inhibition attenuates the contraction induced by big endothelin-1 of isolated human penile erectile tissue

Peptides, such as C-type natriuretic peptide (CNP), vasoactive intestinal polypeptide (VIP) and endothelin 1 (ET-1), are involved in the control of penile erectile tissue (corpus cavernosum = CC). Inhibiting the degradation of CNP and VIP or conversion of Big ET-1 into ET-1 by endopeptidase enzymes should result in an enhancement of CC smooth muscle relaxation. Using the tissue bath technique, responses of isolated CC, challenged by noradrenaline (NA, 1 μm), to increasing concentrations of the endopeptidase inhibitor KC 12615 (1 nm - 10 μm), CNP and VIP (0.1 nm - 1 μm), were investigated. Effects of CNP, VIP and Big ET-1 (0.1 nm - 100 nm) on the tissue tension were also evaluated following pre-exposure to 10 μm of KC 12615. Big ET-1 induced contraction of the CC amounting to a force generation of 1,200 mg. The contraction was attenuated in the presence of KC 12615 by 35% and 50%, respectively. The tension induced by NA was reversed by VIP and CNP to 38.7% ± 15.8% and 61% ± 13%, respectively, of the initial force. The findings might be of significance with regard to future pharmacological treatment options for male ED, where an endothelial dysfunction exists.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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