Role of vericiguat in management of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction after worsening episode

Worsening heart failure (HF) is a vulnerable period in which the patient has a markedly high risk of death or HF hospitalization (up to 10% and 30%, respectively, within the first weeks after episode). The prognosis of HF patients can be improved through a comprehensive approach that considers the different neurohormonal systems, with the early introduction and optimization of the quadruple therapy with sacubitril-valsartan, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and inhibitors. Despite that, there is a residual risk that is not targeted with these therapies. Currently, it is recognized that the cyclic guanosine monophosphate deficiency has a negative direct impact on the pathogenesis of HF, and vericiguat, an oral stimulator of soluble guanylate cyclase, can restore this pathway. The effect of vericiguat has been explored in the VICTORIA study, the largest chronic HF clinical trial that has mainly focused on patients with recent worsening HF, evidencing a significant 10% risk reduction of the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization (number needed to treat 24), after adding vericiguat to standard therapy. This benefit was independent of background HF therapy. Therefore, optimization of treatment should be performed as earlier as possible, particularly within vulnerable periods, considering also the use of vericiguat.

Efficacy and safety profile of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors in the management of heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Several guidelines have recommended the use of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) as replacement for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in the management of heart failure. Till date, there are no reviews done that comprehensively cover different aspects of efficacy and safety parameters. Hence, we have performed a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis on role of ARNIs for the management of heart failure patients. Searches were done in Embase, Scopus, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, PubMed Central, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect and Clinicaltrials.gov until June 2022. Risk of bias assessment was done with Cochrane's risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis was carried out using random-effects model. Pooled standardized mean difference (SMD)/mean difference (MD) and/or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was reported. In total, we analysed 34 studies, with almost all of them had a high risk of bias. Pooled RR was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.82-0.95) for all-cause mortality, 0.84 (95% CI: 0.77-0.92) for cardiovascular mortality and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.70-0.87) for hospitalization. Pooled MD was 3.74 (95% CI: 1.93-5.55) for left ventricular ejection fraction, -2.16 (95% CI: -3.58 to -0.74) for left atrial volume index, -3.80 (95% CI: -6.60 to -1.00) for left ventricular end-diastolic dimension and -1.16 (95% CI: -1.98 to -0.35) for E/E' ratio. Regarding adverse events, pooled RR was 1.55 (95% CI: 1.31-1.85) for symptomatic hypotension, 0.93 (95% CI: 0.78-1.11) for worsening renal function, 1.09 (95% CI: 0.94-1.26) for hyperkalaemia and 1.29 (95% CI: 0.67-2.50) for angioedema. ARNIs had beneficial efficacy and safety profile on the management of heart failure especially patients with reduced ejection fraction.

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.

Impact of Sacubitril-Valsartan Treatment on Diastolic Function in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction

INTRODUCTION

Sacubitril/valsartan (S-V) has been shown to reduce clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This benefit has been mostly attributed to an improvement in systolic function.

AIM

This study aimed to evaluate longitudinal changes in several echocardiographic parameters of diastolic function in a cohort of patients with HFrEF receiving S-V.

METHODS

Echocardiographic parameters of consecutive patients receiving S-V, such as diastolic dysfunction (DD) grade and other individual diastolic and systolic function parameters, were prospectively collected at baseline and at 6-month follow-up. New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class was also recorded.

RESULTS

65 patients (73.9% males; 61.5 ± 13 years) with HFrEF in NYHA class II-IV were evaluated. There was a significant reduction in DD grade after treatment with maximal tolerated doses (p < 0.001). Patients with advanced DD showed the most significant improvements: 75% and 60% of patients with initial grade 3 and 2, respectively, had better grade after 6 months of S-V. Moreover, there was a reduction in E/e' ratio (p = 0.004), left atrial longitudinal strain (p = 0.002), and an improvement of left ventricle ejection fraction (p < 0.001) and NYHA functional class (p = 0.001). Among those subjects who improved their functional class, a higher percentage improved their DD grade (39.3%, p = 0.025) in comparison with those not improving their NYHA class (25%, p = 0.434).

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to an improvement in systolic function parameters, patients with HFrEF receiving S-V improved their diastolic function. This echocardiographic improvement is particularly relevant in those patients with better NYHA class at 6-month follow-up.