Efficacy of sacubitril-valsartan and SGLT2 inhibitors in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Sacubitril-valsartan (SV) monotherapy has been shown to help patients with Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but whether adding a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) improves treatment results even more is unknown.

HYPOTHESIS

The goal of this study was to look at the efficacy of SV with additional SGLT2i in HFrEF patients.

METHODS

For this study, several databases, such as PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, were searched. A coherent search approach was used for data extraction. Review Manager 5.2 and MedCalc were used for conducting the meta-analysis and bias analysis. A meta-regression study correlates patient mean age with primary and secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Seven trials totaling 16 100 patients were included in this meta-analysis. All-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and improvement in mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were the study's major objectives, while hospitalization for heart failure (HF) was calculated to be its secondary outcome. Our analysis showed that HFrEF patients receiving the combination of SV and SGLT2i had better treatment outcomes than the standard SV monotherapy, with risk ratios of 0.76 (0.65-0.88) for all-cause mortality, 0.65 (0.49-0.86) for cardiovascular mortality, 1.41 (-0.59 to 3.42) for change in mean LVEF, and 0.80 (0.64-1.01) for hospitalization for HF. According to the regression analysis, older HFrEF patients have higher rates of hospitalization, cardiovascular disease, and overall death.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of SV and SGLT2i may have a greater cardiovascular protective effect and minimize the risk of death or hospitalization due to heart failure in HFrEF.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

Efficacy and safety of sacubitril valsartan in treating heart failure with midrange ejection fraction after acute myocardial infarction in diabetic patients

Objective to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of sacubitril valsartan in the treatment of heart failure (HF) with midrange ejection fraction after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in diabetic patients. From January 2015 to July 2020, HF patients with diabetes mellitus complicated with AMI were retrospectively analyzed. According to the medication, they were divided into 2 groups, that is, sacubitril valsartan group (84 cases) and valsartan group (86 cases). Valsartan group took valsartan capsule (80 mg/capsule, Beijing Novartis Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd) 80 mg, qd, on the basis of routine treatment. On the basis of routine treatment, the sacubitril valsartan group took sacubitril valsartan sodium tablets (50 mg/tablet, Beijing Novartis Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd), the initial dose was 25 mg, bid, and gradually increased to the target dose according to the patient's blood pressure. After 12 months of treatment, the independent sample t test showed that the left ventricular end diastolic dimension in the sacubitril valsartan group was lower than that in the valsartan group [(47.26 ± 4.71) mm vs (50.05 ± 5.62) mm, P < .001]. The left ventricular ejection fraction in the sacubitril valsartan group was higher than that in the valsartan group [(54.76 ± 4.24)% vs (49.28 ± 3.74)%, P < .001]. χ2 inspection showed that the readmission rate in the sacubitril valsartan group was lower than that in the valsartan group (7.14% vs 18.60%, P < .05). Sacubitril valsartan has good safety and tolerability in patients with diabetes mellitus complicated with AMI who have HF with midrange ejection fraction. Compared with valsartan, sacubitril valsartan can improve the left ventricular function better and reduce the readmission rate due to HF in these patients.

Predictors of right ventricular function improvement with sacubitril/valsartan in a real-life population of patients with chronic heart failure

Background

Observational studies have demonstrated that treatment with sacubitril/valsartan may improve left ventricular (LV) systolic and diastolic function in subjects with reduced LV ejection fraction (LVEF) in real‐world studies. Subjects with heart failure and reduced EF (HFrEF), however, are also characterized by an impaired right ventricular (RV) function. We therefore aimed to evaluate whether also RV function may improve after S/V therapy and possible predictors of RV improvement could be identified at echocardiography and tissue Doppler imaging.

Methods

Fifty consecutive patients (67 ± 8 years, LVEF 28 ± 6%, male 86%) with chronic HFrEF and NYHA class II‐III were followed up for 6 months after therapy with S/V. LV&RV function was assessed at baseline and after 6 months of therapy.

Results

After 6‐month therapy with S/V a significant improvement was shown in the following echocardiography parameters assessing RV function: PAsP (31 ± 11 vs. 35 ± 10 mmHg, p < 0.001), TAPSE (19 ± 3 vs. 18 ± 3 mm, p < 0.001), RV FAC (38 ± 7 vs. 34 ± 6 mm, p < 0.001), RV S’ (12 ± 2 vs. 10 ± 2 cm/s, p < 0.001), RV‐FW‐LS (−20 ± 5 vs. −18 ± 5%, p < 0.001), RV‐4Ch‐LS (−16 ± 5 vs. −14 ± 5%, p < 0.001). At multivariable analysis improvement in RV‐FW‐LS was associated to baseline levels of RV S’ (r 0.75, p < 0.01) and RAV (r –0.32, p < 0.05).

Conclusions

In a real‐world scenario, 6‐month therapy with S/V was associated with an improved RV function in HFrEF. RV function improvement may be predicted by assessing baseline RV S’ and right atrial volume values.