Sacubitril-valsartan vs ACE/ARB in pediatric heart failure: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The first angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor on the market, sacubitril-valsartan, has shown marked improvements in death and hospitalization for heart failure among adults, and is now approved for use in pediatric heart failure. While the ongoing PANORAMA-HF trial is evaluating the effectiveness of sacubitril-valsartan for pediatric patients with a failing systemic left ventricle, the enrollment criteria do not include the majority of pediatric heart failure patients. Additional studies are needed.

METHODS

Using the TriNetX database, we performed a propensity score matched, retrospective cohort study to assess the incidence of a composite of all-cause mortality or heart transplant within 1 year. The 519 patients who received sacubitril-valsartan were compared to 519 matched controls who received an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE) or angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the incidence of the composite outcome with sacubitril-valsartan over an ACE/ARB (13.3% vs 13.2%, p = 0.95), or among the components of mortality (5.0% vs 5.8%, p = 0.58) or heart transplantation (8.7% vs 7.5%, p = 0.50). Patients who were receiving full goal-directed medical therapy (14.4% vs 16.0%, p = 0.55) also showed no difference in the composite outcome. We observed a significantly increased incidence of hypotension (10% vs 5.2%, p = 0.006) and a trend toward reduced number of hospitalizations per year (mean (SD) 1.3 (4.4) vs 2.0 (9.1), p = 0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril-valsartan is not associated with a decrease in the composite of all-cause mortality or heart transplantation within 1 year. Future studies should evaluate the possible reduction in hospitalizations and optimal dosing to minimize hypotension.

A meta-analysis investigating the efficacy and adverse events linked to sacubitril-valsartan in various heart failure subtypes

BACKGROUND

Sacubitril-valsartan, an inhibitor of the angiotensin receptor neprilysin (ARNi), has been purported to exhibit superiority over angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in individuals diagnosed with heart failure.

HYPOTHESIS

This paper gives an updated meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of sacubitril-valsartan to that of standard treatment for different types of heart failure.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis comprised a total of nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs), incorporating data from a substantial sample size of 15 939 patients. The study observed a decrease in overall mortality and mortality related to cardiovascular causes among patients in the heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) category who were treated with sacubitril-valsartan. However, no statistically significant variation in this outcome was seen among patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and HFmrEF. Patients who were administered sacubitril-valsartan had a notably elevated likelihood of experiencing hypotension. Nevertheless, no significant disparities were observed in terms of other adverse events among the various treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Current meta-analysis provide support for use of sacubitril-valsartan in decreasing mortality in patients with HFrEF. However, more numbers of studies are required to draw a definite conclusion on other benefits associated with sacubitril-valsartan use over standard treatment of ACE inhibitors and ARBs.

Systematic Review of Cardiovascular Benefits and Safety of Sacubitril-Valsartan in End-Stage Kidney Disease

Introduction

Patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) frequently develop heart failure, contributing to high mortality. Limited data exist on cardiovascular benefits and safety of sacubitril-valsartan in this population. Our systematic review aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril-valsartan versus standard care in patients with ESKD who are on dialysis.

Methods

We conducted a search in Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases to identify relevant studies and assessed outcomes using random-effect model and generic inverse variance approach.

Results

Analysis of 12 studies involving 799 eligible patients with ESKD revealed improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) with sacubitril-valsartan compared to a control group with pooled mean difference (MD) 6.58% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.86, 11.29). LVEF significantly improved in patients with LVEF <50% (heart failure with reduced ejection fraction [HFrEF] and heart failure with moderately reduced ejection fraction [HFmrEF]) with MD 12.42% (95% CI: 9.39, 15.45). However, patients with LVEF >50% (heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF]) did not exhibit statistically significant effect, MD 2.6% (95% CI: 1.15, 6.35). Sacubitril-valsartan significantly enhanced LVEF in patients with HFrEF, with MD 13.8% (95% CI: 12.04, 15.82). Safety analysis indicated no differences in incidence of hyperkalemia (pooled odds ratio [OR] 0.72; 95% CI: 0.38, 1.36) or hypotension (pooled risk ratio [RR] 1.03; 95% CI: 0.36, 2.98). No cases of angioedema were reported. However, safety analysis relies on evidence of limited robustness due to the observational nature of the studies.

Conclusion

Our systematic review suggests that sacubitril-valsartan benefits patients with ESKD with HFrEF and HFmrEF by improving LVEF without increasing the risk of hyperkalemia, hypotension, or angioedema compared to standard care. However, safety analysis based on observational studies inherently has limitations for establishing causal relationships.

Reverse Remodeling Effects of Sacubitril-Valsartan: Structural and Functional Optimization in Stage C Heart Failure

Sacubitril-valsartan, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, reduces all-cause mortality and the rate of heart failure hospitalizations in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. This study aimed to elucidate the benefits of initiating sacubitril-valsartan on ventricular remodeling in patients previously optimized on guideline-directed medical therapy. In this prospective, single-arm longitudinal study, 40 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction who were optimized on guideline-directed medical therapy were transitioned to sacubitril-valsartan. The primary end point was the change in left ventricular (LV) volume at 1 year as assessed by 3-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography. Other echocardiographic end points included change in LV-function and change in right ventricular (RV) size and function. The mean age was 55 ± 12 years, and 63% were male. At 1 year, LV end-diastolic volume decreased from 242 ± 71 to 157 ± 57 ml (p <0.001) with a corresponding increase in LV ejection fraction from 32 ± 7% to 44 ± 9% (p <0.001). RV end-diastolic volume decreased from 151 ± 51 to 105 ±45 ml (p <0.001). Although RV ejection fraction did not change (51 ± 8 vs 51 ± 10; p = 0.35), RV global longitudinal strain improved from -14.9 ± 3.4 % to -19.3 ± 4.3% (p <0.001). When added to standard medical therapy for heart failure, sacubitril-valsartan induces significant remodeling of both the right and left ventricles as assessed by 3-dimensional echocardiography.

Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor Effects on Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Events: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Sacubitril-valsartan is an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) associated with a decreased risk of death and hospitalization for selected patients with heart failure (HF). However, its association with improved atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events remains unclear. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the association of ARNI with ASCVD events in patients with HF. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies comparing ARNIs with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in terms of myocardial infarction, stroke, angina pectoris, peripheral artery disease, and the composite end point in patients with HF. A total of 8 randomized controlled trials were included, with 17,541 patients assigned to either the ARNI (8,764 patients) or ACEi/ARB (8,777 patients) groups. The incidence of composite end point (risk ratio [RR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93 to 1.13, p = 0.63), myocardial infarction (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.30, p = 0.85), angina pectoris (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.17, p = 0.70), and stroke (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.16, p = 0.93) were not statistically different between the ARNI and ACEi/ARB groups. However, ARNI was associated with a higher incidence of peripheral artery disease (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.52, p = 0.03). In conclusion, this meta-analysis found no association between ARNI therapy and improved ASCVD events in patients with HF.

The efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared with ACEI/ARB in the treatment of heart failure following acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Purpose: To systematically assess the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan (SV) by comparison with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for the treatment of heart failure caused by acute myocardial infarction (HF-AMI) based on current randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: Several electronic databases were searched up to 27 May 2023. Primary endpoints were the efficacy including the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and 6-min walk test (6MWT) and secondary endpoints were the safety including the major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) and adverse reaction (AE). Results: A total of 14 RCTs were included and all patients were from China. Among included 1,991 patients, 997 patients received SVs and 994 patients received ACEIs/ARBs. The pooled results demonstrated that patients in the SV group showed significantly better efficacy representing as increased LVEF [weighted mean difference (WMD): 4.43%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.84%-6.02%, p < 0.001] and 6MWT (WMD: 30.84 m, 95% CI: 25.65 m-36.03 m, p < 0.001) and decreased LVEDD (WMD: -3.24 mm, 95% CI: -4.96 mm ∼ -1.52 mm, p < 0.001) and NT-proBNP (WMD: -188.12 pg/mL, 95% CI: -246.75 pg/mL ∼ 129.49 pg/mL, p < 0.001), which was also verified by subgroup analysis based on the history of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Besides, the SV group showed significantly lower incidence rate of MACE [relative risk (RR): 0.60, 95% CI: 0.47-0.75, p < 0.001] and patients receiving SVs in the non-PCI group also showed lower incidence of AE (RR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.20-0.71, p = 0.002). Conclusion: For the treatment of HF-AMI, SV is more effective and safer than ACEI/ARB based on current evidence, but more high-quality RCTs are still needed to verify above findings.

Effects of sacubitril-valsartan in the treatment of chronic heart failure patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing dialysis

BACKGROUND

The data on the effects of the angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril-valsartan (LCZ696) in chronic heart failure (CHF) patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring dialysis are lacking. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of LCZ696 in CHF patients with ESRD on dialysis.

HYPOTHESIS

LCZ696 treatment can reduce rehospitalization rate for HF, delay the occurrence of rehospitalization for HF, and prolong the survival time.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of CHF patients with ESRD on dialysis who were admitted to the Second Hospital of Tianjin Medical University from August 2019 to October 2021.

RESULTS

Sixty-five patients had primary outcome during the follow-up. The incidence of rehospitalization for HF in the control group was significantly higher than that in the LCZ696 group (73.47% vs. 43.28%, p = .001). There was no significant difference in mortality between the two groups (8.96% vs. 10.20%, p = 1.000). Our study included a time-to-event analysis through 1 year for the primary outcome-Kaplan-Meier curve showed that the LCZ696 group had significantly longer free-event survival time than the control group over 1-year follow-up (median survival time 139.0 days vs. 116.0 days, p = .037).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found that LCZ696 treatment was associated with a reduction in HF rehospitalization without significant effects on serum creatinine and serum potassium levels. LCZ696 is effective and safe in CHF patients with ESRD on dialysis.

What do Spanish registries report about worsening events in chronic heart failure? Needs and challenges

INTRODUCTION

Worsening heart failure (HF) is associated with a high risk of death and rehospitalization. Despite that, real world evidence about the impact of worsening HF on clinical practice is scarce.

AREAS COVERED

A narrative review about registries addressing recent worsening HF events in Spain, with special emphasis on patients recently hospitalized for HF was performed.

EXPERT OPINION

Worsening HF can be defined as situations where the patient's HF deteriorates to the extent that it necessitates initiation or intensification of diuretic treatment (mainly intravenous). The events can occur at the outpatient level, generally in the day hospital, in the emergency department or even hospitalization. Early identification of worsening HF events is essential to establish appropriate treatment as soon as possible. In this context, robust clinical benefits have been reported for renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, sacubitril-valsartan, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, SGLT2 inhibitors, and vericiguat. In Spain, several registries of patients with HF have been developed, some of them including patients recently hospitalized for HF, but not with recent worsening HF events. Therefore, registries addressing recent worsening events would be desirable. Using a practical approach, this review analyzes the importance of worsening HF events, with special emphasis on Spanish data.

Optimal treatment for post-MI heart failure in rats: dapagliflozin first, adding sacubitril-valsartan 2 weeks later

Background

Based on previous research, both dapagliflozin (DAPA) and sacubitril-valsartan (S/V) improve the prognosis of patients with heart failure (HF). Our study aims to investigate whether the early initiation of DAPA or the combination of DAPA with S/V in different orders would exert a greater protective effect on heart function than that of S/V alone in post-myocardial infarction HF (post-MI HF).

Methods

Rats were randomized into six groups: (A) Sham; (B) MI; (C) MI + S/V (1st d); (D) MI + DAPA (1st d); (E) MI + S/V (1st d) + DAPA (14th d); (F) MI + DAPA (1st d) + S/V (14th d). The MI model was established in rats via surgical ligation of the left anterior descending coronary artery. Histology, Western blotting, RNA-seq, and other approaches were used to explore the optimal treatment to preserve the heart function in post-MI HF. A daily dose of 1 mg/kg DAPA and 68 mg/kg S/V was administered.

Results

The results of our study revealed that DAPA or S/V substantially improved the cardiac structure and function. DAPA and S/V monotherapy resulted in comparable reduction in infarct size, fibrosis, myocardium hypertrophy, and apoptosis. The administration of DAPA followed by S/V results in a superior improvement in heart function in rats with post-MI HF than those in other treatment groups. The administration of DAPA following S/V did not result in any additional improvement in heart function as compared to S/V monotherapy in rats with post-MI HF. Our findings further suggest that the combination of DAPA and S/V should not be administered within 3 days after acute myocardial infarction (AMI), as it resulted in a considerable increase in mortality. Our RNA-Seq data revealed that DAPA treatment after AMI altered the expression of genes related to myocardial mitochondrial biogenesis and oxidative phosphorylation.

Conclusions

Our study revealed no notable difference in the cardioprotective effects of singular DAPA or S/V in rats with post-MI HF. Based on our preclinical investigation, the most effective treatment strategy for post-MI HF is the administration of DAPA during the 2 weeks, followed by the addition of S/V to DAPA later. Conversely, adopting a therapeutic scheme whereby S/V was administered first, followed by later addition of DAPA, failed to further improve the cardiac function compared to S/V monotherapy.

Cost-Effectiveness of Quadruple Therapy in Management of Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction in the United States

BACKGROUND

The 2022 clinical guidelines for management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction call for quadruple therapy. Quadruple therapy consists of an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNi), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, and beta blocker. The ARNi and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor are newer additions to standard of care with the ARNi replacing ACE (angiotensin-converting enzyme) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers.

METHODS

We investigate the cost-effectiveness of sequentially adding the SGLT2i and ARNi to form quadruple therapy as compared with the previous standard of care with ACE inhibitor/mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist/beta blocker. Using a 2-stage Markov model, we projected the expected lifetime discounted costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of a simulated cohort of US patients who underwent each treatment option and calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. We assessed incremental cost-effectiveness ratios using criteria for health care value (<$50 000/quality-adjusted life year [QALY] indicating high-value, $50 000-150 000/QALY indicating intermediate value, and >$150 000/QALY indicating low-value) and a standard $100 000/QALY cost-effectiveness threshold.

RESULTS

Compared with the previous standard of care, the SGLT2i addition had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $73 000/QALY and weakly dominated the ARNi addition. The addition of both the ARNi and SGLT2i for quadruple therapy offered 0.68 additional discounted QALYs over the SGLT2i addition alone at a lifetime discounted cost of $66 700, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $98 500/QALY. In sensitivity analysis varying drug prices, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for quadruple therapy ranged from $73 500/QALY using prices available to the US Department of Veterans Affairs to $110 000/QALY using drug list prices.

CONCLUSIONS

While quadruple therapy offers intermediate value, it is borderline cost effective compared with adding the SGLT2i alone to previous standard of care. Thus, its cost-effectiveness is sensitive to a payer's ability to negotiate discounts off the increasing list prices for ARNI and SGLT2is. The demonstrated benefits of ARNi and SGLT2is should be weighed against their high prices in payer and policy considerations.

Evaluation of early left-sided cardiac reverse remodeling under combined therapy of sacubitril-valsartan and spironolactone compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and spironolactone

We aimed to compare therapies of sacubitril/valsartan + spironolactone (S/V + S) with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors + spironolactone (ACEI + S) on the left-sided cardiac reverse remodeling (L-CRR). The second objective was to analyze the usefulness of GLS and LVEF in response to therapy.

Methods

78 patients (mean age 63.4 years, 20 females) with symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction were randomized to groups of equal numbers, i.e., 39 patients, and started on therapy of S/V + S or ACEI + S. Second evaluations were made after 6-8 weeks of therapy.

Results

GLS changed from -7.4% to -9.4% (18% improvement) in both arms equally. More than 50% of patients, initially with very severe systolic dysfunction (GLS > -8%), were reclassified to severe (GLS -8% to -12%). LVEF did not improve in any of the groups. The quality of life measured by MLHFQ and walking distance by 6-MWT increased. Positive correlations between GLS and 6MWT (r = 0.41, p = 0.02) and GLS and MHFLQ (r = 0.42, p = 0.03) were found. The S/V + S subgroup demonstrated improvements in LVEDV (Δ16.7 vs. 4.5 ml), E/e ratio (Δ 2.8 vs. 1.4), and LAVI (Δ 9.4 vs. 8.4 ml/m2) as compared to ACEI + S.

Conclusion

GLS, unlike LVEF, detects early changes in LV systolic function after 6-8 weeks of combined therapy, i.e., SV + S and ACE + S. GLS is more useful than LVEF in assessing early response to treatment. The effect of S/V + S and ACEI + S on LV systolic function was comparable, but the improvement in diastolic function as expressed by E/e', LAVI, and LVEDV was more pronounced with S/V + S.

Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure Hospitalization: Two Pills a Day to Keep Hospitalizations Away?

Heart failure (HF) is a clinical syndrome with signs and symptoms that result from any structural or functional deterioration of ventricular filling or ejection of blood. It is the final stage of various cardiovascular diseases (e.g., coronary artery disease, hypertension, previous myocardial infarction) and remains one of the leading causes of hospitalization. It poses severe health and economic burden worldwide. Patients usually present with shortness of breath due to impaired cardiac ventricular filling and decreased cardiac output. Cardiac remodeling due to the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system overactivation is the final pathological mechanism leading to these changes. The natriuretic peptide system is also activated to stop the remodeling. Sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor, has prompted a substantial conceptual change in HF treatment. Its primary mechanism is the inhibition of cardiac remodeling and the prevention of natriuretic peptide degradation by inhibiting the enzyme neprilysin. It is an efficacious, safe, and cost-effective therapy that improves the quality of life and survival rate in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction. It has been demonstrated to significantly reduce hospitalization rates and rehospitalization for HF when compared to enalapril. In this review, we have discussed the benefits of sacubitril/valsartan in treating patients with HFrEF, particularly in reducing hospitalizations and readmissions. We have also compiled studies to examine the drug's effect on adverse cardiac events. Finally, the cost benefits of the drug and optimal dosing strategies are also reviewed. Our review article, combined with the recommendations of the 2022 American Heart Association guidelines for heart failure, strongly suggests that sacubitril/valsartan is a cost-effective strategy that reduces hospitalizations for HFrEF patients when started early with optimal doses. There is still much uncertainty regarding the optimal usage of this drug, its use in HFrEF, and the cost benefits when used alone compared with enalapril.

The Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril-Valsartan for the Treatment of Heart Failure in Adults: A Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The current meta-analysis reviews the different randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of sacubitril-valsartan (SV) thoroughly and assesses its effectiveness and safety as a drug for heart failure.

DATA SOURCES

Relevant articles for meta-analysis were searched from PubMed, MEDLINE, and Central databases using appropriate keywords.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Studies were included as per the predefined PICOS criteria. Demographic summary and event data change in heart conditions after drug intake and adverse effects of drugs under both the SV and control arms were determined. The risk of bias and comparative drug efficiency in terms of diagnostic odds ratio (OR) and risk ratio (RR) were determined using RevMan software.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Ten RCTs with total 18 164 heart failure patients were included according to the inclusion criteria from the year 2015 to 2022. Included studies have patients of different age groups treated with either SV or control. For the change in number of patients with heart conditions after drug intake, we obtained the pooled OR of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.71-0.91) and pooled RR of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.88-0.96). The OR value less than 1 is indicative of high efficiency of SV in lowering the number of heart patients. All these values are statistically significant (P < 0.05) and suggested better recovery of patients with SV as compared with the control drugs with minimal risk and side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

The present evidence shows that SV is effective in the treatment of heart failure, reducing hospitalization and cardiovascular mortality, and that the adverse effects are comparable or fewer than those associated with other drugs used for this indication.

Optimizing the management of patients with worsening heart failure: beyond heart failure hospitalization

INTRODUCTION

Worsening heart failure (HF) is associated with a high risk of death and HF hospitalization.

AREAS COVERED

A systematic search was conducted on PubMed (MEDLINE), using the MeSH terms [Heart failure] + [Worsening] + [Treatment] + [Vulnerable period] up to February 2023. Original data from clinical trials, and observational studies were critically analyzed.

EXPERT OPINION

Although the vulnerable period has been traditionally limited to the first 6 months after HF hospitalization, the fact is that there are other clinical scenarios in which the patient is particularly vulnerable. These vulnerable patients may also include those that require parenteral administration of diuretics in the day hospital or emergency department, those in which the increase of oral diuretic dose in an outpatient setting is needed to relief congestive symptoms, as well as those that remain symptomatic despite treatment. On the other hand, HF is a complex disease in which different neurohormonal systems are involved. Therefore, to actually reduce the HF burden, a comprehensive management, targeting all the neurohormonal systems that are involved in the pathogenesis of HF, through the use of those drugs that have demonstrated to positively modify the clinical course of HF, is needed.

Effect of sacubitril-valsartan on the incidence of atrial fibrillation: A meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Sacubitril/valsartan reduces all-cause mortality in heart failure (HF) patients compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). ACEIs/ARBs have been shown to decrease the incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF). We hypothesized sacubitril-valsartan decreases the incidence of AF compared to ACEis/ARBs.

METHODS

Clinicaltrials.gov was searched for trials by terms sacubitril/valsartan, entresto, sacubitril, valsartan. Randomized controlled human trials of sacubitril/valsartan reporting AF were included. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Data was pooled using a random effect model. Publication bias was evaluated by funnel plots.

RESULTS

A total of 11 trials including 11,458 patients on sacubitril/valsartan and 10,128 patients on ACEI/ARBs were identified. A total of 284 AF events were reported in the sacubitril/valsartan group compared to 256 AF events in ACEIs/ARBs. Patients on sacubitril/valsartan were as likely as patients on ACEIs/ARBs to develop AF (pooled odds ratio [OR] = 1.091, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.917-1.298, p = .324). Six atrial flutter (AFl) events were reported in six trials; 48 out of 9165 patients in the sacubitril/valsartan group developed AFl compared to 46 out of 8759 in ACEi/ARBs group. There was no difference in AFl risk between the two groups (pooled OR = 1.028, 95% CI = 0.681-1.553, p = .894). Finally, sacubitril/valsartan did not reduce the risk of atrial arrhythmias (AF + AFl) compared to ACEi/ARBs (pooled OR = 1.081, 95% CI = 0.922-1.269, p = .337).

CONCLUSION

Although sacubitril/valsartan reduces mortality compared to ACEIs/ARBs in HF patients, they do not reduce AF risk compared to these drugs.

Effect of Emergency Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Combined with Sacubitril and Valsartan on the Cardiac Prognosis in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction

Purpose

This study aimed to investigate the effect of emergency percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) combined with sacubitril-valsartan (Entresto) on the cardiac prognosis in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

Patients and Methods

A total of 78 AMI patients who were treated in our hospital between January 2020 and September 2021 were included and randomly divided into treatment group and control group (n=39 per group). In the control group, patients were treated with primary PCI combined with irbesartan; in the treatment group, patients were treated with primary PCI combined with Entresto; pharmacotherapy lasted for 3 months. The left ventricular remodeling indexes, serum N-terminal B-type natriuretic peptide precursor (NT-proBNP), serum homocysteine (HCY), cystatin C (CysC) and results of 6-minute walk test (6MWT) before and after treatment were compared between two groups. The incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) was determined and compared between them.

Results

(1) Before treatment, there were no marked differences in the left ventricular end-systolic diameter (LVESD), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), interventricular septum thickness (IVST), NT-proBNP, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), HCY, CysC, and results of 6MWT between two groups (P>0.05). After treatment, the LVEDS, LVEDD, NT-proBNP, HCY and CysC in the control group were significantly higher than in the treatment group (P<0.05). The recovery of LVEF and 6MWT in the treatment group was significantly better than in the control group (P<0.05). After treatment, there was no significant difference in the IVST between two groups (P>0.05). (2) The incidence of MACE in the control group was significantly higher than in the treatment group (P<0.05).

Conclusion

Compared with irbesartan, Entresto can further improve the cardiac function, prevent ventricular remodeling, and further optimize the clinical efficacy of PCI in AMI patients.

A comparison of heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction in the Moravian Midlands Registry with the LCZ696 patients in the Paradigm-HF trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There are limited data on real clinical practice in heart failure patients in the Czech Republic. We analysed the clinical parameters from the Moravian Midlands Registry (MMR) and compared them to LCZ696 patients in the Paradigm-HF trial. The Moravian Midlands Registry is a retrospective patient database from two outpatient cardiology centres in the Czech Republic. The Paradigm-HF is a large-scale prospective randomized multicentre trial with more than 8000 individuals with stabilized chronic heart failure.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients from two outpatient cardiology centres in the Czech Republic from October 2016 to December 2019.

RESULTS

Patients in the MMR were younger (60.5 ± 10.7 vs 63.8 ± 11.5 years, P<0.05), had a higher body mass index (30.3 ± 5.0 vs 28.1 ± 5.5, P<0.05) and higher serum creatinine level (101.9 ± 36.0 vs 99.9 ± 26.5 µmol/L, P<0.05). MMR patients had lower left ventricular ejection fraction (27.8 ± 6.9 vs 29.6 ± 6.1%, P<0.05). The serum N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, [2563.5 (377-3536) vs 1631 (885-3154), was non significantly higher P=0.07]. Pharmacotherapy use differed for mineralocorticoid antagonist (91.4% in MMR vs 54.2% in Paradigm-HF), and digoxin (13.5% vs 29.2%). Beta-blocker use was similar (96.2% vs 93.1%) as was angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors - (71.2% vs 78.0%) and angiotensin-receptor blockers - ARB (27.9% vs 22.2%). Dosages of the commonly used ACE inhibitors at the screening visit (Paradigm-HF) / before angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor administration (MMR) differed significantly only for ramipril (7.0 ± 3.1 mg vs 4.8 ± 2.9 mg, P<0.05), dosages of ARB were - losartan (67.1 ± 30.2 vs 39.6 ± 32.0 mg, P=0.09) and valsartan (181.5 ± 71.1 vs 130.9 ± 82.2 mg, P=0.07). There was a substantial difference in device-based therapy (ICD in 60.6%, CRT 25.9% in MMR vs 14.9% and 7.0% in Paradigm-HF).

CONCLUSION

The differences between the groups for the majority of clinical parameters compared were minimal, except for younger age, higher body mass index and serum creatinine level and lower left ventricular ejection fraction and substantially lower dosage of administered ramipril prior to commencing sacubitril/valsartan therapy. There was a higher prevalence of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in the MMR group.

Management of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction in Elderly Patients: Effectiveness and Safety

The proportion of the elderly population continues to increase due to the global increase in longevity. Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is common in the elderly due to cellular aging, myocardial stiffness, and multiple comorbidities. This age group is often under-represented in clinical trials. In this narrative review, we looked into the latest evidence-based lines of management of HFpEF in this vulnerable cohort. In this narrative review, we brought the latest evidence on the treatment of HFpEf in the elderly. We searched the largest three scientific databases (Pubmed, Google Scholar, and EMBASE) using the search words (elderly, HFpEF, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, guidelines, treatment, and management) in different combinations. To date, screening for and treatment of the causes of HFpEF (such as hypertension, coronary artery disease [CAD], valvular heart disease, and cardiac amyloidosis) and associated comorbidities (such as diabetes mellitus [DM], iron deficiency, obesity, and thyroid dysfunction) are the main line of management of HFpEF. A multidisciplinary team, including an HF specialist cardiologist, an HF nurse, a geriatrician, a dietician, a psychologist, a physiotherapist, and an occupational therapist, should manage HFpEF elderly patients. Other specialist input may be needed according to the patient's requirements. The evidence on the effective management of HFpEF in the elderly age group is scarce and controversial. Some studied non-pharmacological approaches include supervised exercise training, pulmonary artery pressure monitoring, and the interatrial shunt device (an emerging modality that includes a small percutaneously inserted interatrial left to right valve aiming to reduce the left atrial and pulmonary wedge pressures). These modalities can only improve the symptoms and HF hospitalizations without robustly impacting cardiovascular (CV) death. Among the pharmacological approaches to treat HFpEF, only the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors proved efficacy in reducing the hard outcomes of CV death, HF hospitalizations, and urgent visits for HF when used in elderly HFpEF patients, irrespective of the presence of diabetes mellitus. Diuretics are only beneficial to alleviate the symptoms of fluid overload, with a risk of renal impairment in volume-depleted patients. The evidence on the effectiveness of other HF-specific disease-modifying agents in elderly HFpEF patients is controversial. Elderly patients have a higher risk of having side effects from HF medications due to the higher prevalence of polypharmacy, cognitive decline, and impairment of kidney and liver functions. Therefore, cautious initiation of HF treatment with a close follow-up of the blood pressure, liver functions, kidney functions, and electrolytes are of utmost importance.

The Effect of Sacubitril-Valsartan on Ventricular Arrhythmia Burden in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

Introduction Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients are prone to developing ventricular arrhythmias. In the PARADIGM-HF trial, sacubitril-valsartan (SV) showed a reduction in the composite endpoint of death and HF hospitalization in HFrEF patients; subgroup analysis of this trial revealed a reduction in both sudden death and deaths from worsening HF. The mechanism by which SV may affect the incidence of ventricular arrhythmias is currently under debate, and the literature provides conflicting results. The aim of our study was to evaluate the potential antiarrhythmic effect of this drug in patients with HFrEF carrying an implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) or a cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT-D). Methods This was a single-center, observational and retrospective study. Inclusion criteria were implantation of an ICD or CRT-D device between 2009 and 2019, age ≥18 years, left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class ≥II, and treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker for at least 12 months, followed by replacement with SV. Exclusion criteria were NYHA class IV, frequent alterations in chronic medication for HFrEF, and implantation of an ICD or CRT-D after the introduction of SV. The primary outcome was the occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias in the form of appropriate device shocks, ventricular fibrillation, or ventricular tachycardia. The comparisons were performed between two periods of time (12 months before and 12 months after SV) in the same group of patients. Results Fifty-four patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 69.5 ± 1.65 years, and 74.1% of patients were male. The number of patients experiencing appropriate shocks was significantly lower after SV initiation (2% vs. 18%; p=0.016). The percentage of VT (13 vs. 20%; p=0.549) and VF episodes (4% vs. 13% for VF; p=0.289) were also lower, but these differences were not statistically significant. There were no significant differences in the value of NT-proBNP (1128 vs. 775 pg/mL; p=0.858), LVEF (28.4 vs. 29.6%; p=0.315), and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (65.0 vs. 66.0 mm; p=0.5492). Conclusion SV seems to reduce the risk of arrhythmic events requiring appropriate shock therapy.

Comparative Risk of Angioedema With Sacubitril-Valsartan vs Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone Inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Data on angioedema risk among sacubitril-valsartan (SV) users in real-world settings are limited.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to evaluate the risk of angioedema among SV new users compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and angiotensin-receptor-blocker (ARB) new users separately.

METHODS

We conducted a propensity score-matched cohort study, comparing SV new users (no use of SV, ACE inhibitor, ARB 6 months before) and SV new users with prior use (within 183 or 14 days) of ACE inhibitor or ARB (ACE inhibitor-SV and ARB-SV users; recent ACE inhibitor-SV and recent ARB-SV users, respectively) vs ACE inhibitor and ARB new users separately.

RESULTS

Compared with ACE inhibitor, SV new (HR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.11-0.29) and ACE inhibitor-SV users (HR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.23-0.43) showed lower risk of angioedema. On the other hand, there was no difference in angioedema risk when SV new users (HR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.35-1.01) or ARB-SV users (HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.58-1.26) were compared with ARB new users. Compared with SV new users, ACE inhibitor-SV users (HR: 1.62; 95% CI: 0.91-2.89) trended toward higher angioedema risk, which intensified when the ACE inhibitor to SV switch occurred within 14 days (recent ACE inhibitor-SV) (HR: 1.98; 95% CI: 1.11-3.53). Similarly, ARB-SV users (HR: 2.03; 95% CI: 1.16-3.54) experienced an increased risk compared with SV new users, which intensified for the more recent switchers (recent ARB-SV) (HR: 2.45; 95% CI: 1.36-4.43).

CONCLUSIONS

We did not observe an increased risk of angioedema among SV new users compared with ACE inhibitor or ARB users. However, there was an increased risk of angioedema among SV users who recently switched from ACE inhibitor or ARB compared with SV new users.

Clinical efficacy of sacubitril-valsartan combined with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction after reperfusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Several studies have investigated the combined use of sacubitril- valsartan after reperfusion in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, the sample sizes of these studies were small and their results were somewhat heterogeneous. To determine the effect of sacubitril-valsartan on myocardial ischemia-reperfusion.

Methods

Search PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library, CNKI database, VIP database and Wanfang digital journal full-text database for eligible articles from their date of inception up to April, 2022. All data were meta-analyzed using Review Manager 5.3 and STATA 16.0 software.

Results

A total of 23 studies including 2,326 patients with acute STEMI were included. These results of this meta-analysis indicated that left ventricular ejection fractions (LVEF) value within 6 months after surgery (OR, 4.29; 95% confidence interval, 3.78-4.80; P < 0.00001), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) value within 6 months after surgery (OR, -3.11; 95% CI, -3.87 to -2.35; P < 0.00001) and left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) value 6 months after operation (OR, -6.22; 95% CI, -7.10 to -5.35; P < 0.00001) are better than without sacubitril and valsartan.

Conclusion

To sum up the above, the results of this study suggest that sacubitril- valsartan can reduce the reperfusion injury of ischemic myocardium by improving cardiac function within a follow-up period of 6 months.

Effects of sacubitril-valsartan on heart failure patients with mid-range ejection fractions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim: The effect of sacubitril-valsartan (ARNI) in heart failure (HF) patients with mid-range ejection fractions (HFmrEF) remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the effects of ARNI in HFmrEF patients. Methods: From inception to 15 February 2022, articles were searched via PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Whip, and Wanfang databases. Left ventricular functions, indicators related to HF, quality of life score, 6-Minute Walk Test, total effective rate, mortality, readmission rate, and adverse events were the outcomes. Relative risk (RR), weighted mean difference (WMD), and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to evaluate the outcomes. The heterogeneity test was conducted for each indicator and measured by I2 statistics. Subgroup analysis was performed regarding the type of study and duration of treatment. Results: Sixteen studies involving 1,937 patients were included in this study. Our results showed ARNI was likely to improve left ventricular function by increasing the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (WMD: 2.36, 95%CI: 1.09-3.62), stroke volume (WMD: 16.800, 95%CI: 11.385-22.215), and left ventricular short-axis shortening rate (WMD: 2.05, 95%CI: 0.25-3.86), decreasing left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (WMD: -2.48, 95%CI: -3.83 to -1.13), left atrial diameter (WMD: -2.23, 95%CI: -2.83 to -1.63), C-reactive protein level (WMD: -1.40, 95%CI: -2.62 to -0.18), and N-terminal-pro B-type natriuretic peptide level (WMD: -494.92, 95%CI: -641.34 to -348.50). ARNI has a higher total effective rate (RR: 1.15, 95%CI: 1.08-1.21), Kansas City cardiomyopathy questionnaire (WMD: 4.13, 95%CI: 3.46-4.81), and 6-Minute Walk Test (WMD: 51.35, 95%CI: 26.99-75.71) compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB). In addition, ARNI decreased the readmission rate (RR: 0.54, 95%CI: 0.43-0.68) (all p < 0.05). Nevertheless, there were no significant differences in the adverse outcomes. Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests ARNI may be an effective strategy with which to improve the left ventricular function, and quality of life, and reduce the readmission rate in HFmrEF patients. However, long-term clinical studies with large samples are still needed to further explore the efficacy and safety of ARNI compared with ACEI or ARB in the HFmrEF population.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of sacubitril-valsartan in the treatment of ventricular remodeling in patients with heart failure after acute myocardial infarction

Objective

To systematically review the efficacy and safety of sacubitril and valsartan in treating acute myocardial infarction complicated with heart failure and to observe whether it can further improve patients’ cardiac function, delay left ventricular remodeling, and reduce major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs).

Methods

Electronic databases including Pubmed, Embase, the Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, CNKI, Wanfang Data, and VIP were searched. The search period was from the establishment of the database to March 2022 to search for relevant controlled trials. Two investigators independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Revman5.3 and Stata14 software were used for statistical analysis.

Results

A total of 13 studies, with 6,968 patients were included. Meta-analysis results showed that sacubitril-valsartan increased left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and decreased NT-proBNP level was better at 6 months and within 3 months of follow-up compared with the control group (P < 0.00001), but there was no significant difference at the 12-month follow-up (P > 0.05). Sacubitril-valsartan reducing LVEDD [MD = −2.55, 95%CI(−3.21, −1.88), P < 0.00001], LVEDVI [MD = −3.61, 95%CI(−6.82, −0.39), P = 0.03], LVESVI [MD = −3.77, 95%CI(−6.05, −1.49), P = 0.001], and increasing the distance of the 6-min walk test [MD = 48.20, 95%CI(40.31, 56.09), P < 0.00001] were more effective. Compared with ACEI/ARB, the use of ARNI can further reduce the total incidence of adverse cardiovascular events [RR = 0.72, 95%CI(0.62, 0.84), P<0.0001] and the rate of HF rehospitalization [RR = 0.73, 95%CI(0.61, 0.86), P = 0.0002] in patients with acute myocardial infarction and heart failure; there was no significant difference in the incidence of cardiac death, recurrence of myocardial infarction, and malignant arrhythmia between the experimental group and the control group (P > 0.05). In terms of the incidence of adverse reactions, the incidence of cough in ARNI was lower than that in ACEI/ARB group [RR = 0.69, 95%CI(0.60, 0.80), P < 0.00001], but the incidence of hypotension was higher [RR = 1.29, 95%CI(1.18, 1.41), P < 0.00001], and the adverse reactions of hyperkalemia, angioedema and renal insufficiency were not increased (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

The use of sacubitril-valsartan sodium in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated with heart failure can significantly improve cardiac function and reverse ventricular remodeling, reducing the risk of re-hospitalization for heart failure. There is no apparent adverse reaction except easy cause hypotension.

Systematic trial registration

[www.ClinicalTrials.gov], identifier [CRD42022322901].

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.

Effects of Sacubitril-Valsartan on Clinical, Echocardiographic, and Polygraphic Parameters in Patients Affected by Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction and Sleep Apnea

Background

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a clinical condition frequently diagnosed in clinical practice. In patients affected by HFrEF, sleep apnea (SA) can be detected among the most frequent comorbidities. Sacubitril–valsartan (sac/val) association has been proven to be effective in reducing disease progression and all-cause mortality in HFrEF patients. Sac/val treatment can potentially attenuate SA development via several pathophysiologic mechanisms, including improvement of global hemodynamics, reduction of extracellular fluid overload, and decrease of sympathetic neural activity.

Methods

We recruited 132 patients affected by HFrEF and SA, already under treatment with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), which was discontinued 24 h before the scheduled study timepoints. Physical examination, echocardiography, nocturnal cardio-respiratory monitoring, and laboratory tests were performed in each patient at baseline and after a 6-month treatment with sac/val.

Results

After 6 months, sac/val induced statistically significant changes in clinical, hemodynamic, biohumoral (NT-proBNP, serum electrolytes, creatinine, and uric acid), and echocardiographic parameters. In particular, cardiac index (CI), both atrial and ventricular volumes and global longitudinal strain (GLS) improved. Moreover, polysomnography, carried out during a temporary CPAP interruption, revealed a significant reduction in global apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) value (p < 0.0001), central AHI (p < 0.0001), obstructive AHI (p < 0.0001), oxygen desaturation index (ODI) (p < 0.0001), and percentage time of saturation below 90% (TC90) (p < 0.0001). The changes of CI, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), NT-proBNP, and tricuspid annular plane excursion (TAPSE) contributed to 23.6, 7.6, 7.3, and 4.8% of AHI variability, respectively, and the whole model accounted for a 43.3% of AHI variation.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that treatment with sac/val is able to significantly improve the cardiorespiratory performance of patients with HFrEF and SA, integrating the positive impact of CPAP. Thus, both CPAP and sac/val therapy may synergistically contribute to lower the risks of both cardiac and pulmonary complications in HFrEF patients with SA.

Efficacy and safety of sacubitril-valsartan in patients with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials: A PRISMA-compliant article

BACKGROUND

To investigate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril-valsartan in patients with heart failure, relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were analyzed.

METHODS

We used Cochrane Library, PubMed web of science, CNKI, VIP, Medline, ISI Web of Science, CBMdisc, and Wanfang database to conduct a systematic literature research. A fixed-effects model was used to evaluate the standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals. We conducted sensitivity analysis and analyzed publication bias to comprehensively estimate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril-valsartan in patients with heart failure.

RESULTS

Among 132 retrieved studies, 5 relevant RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. The result showed that left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was improved after sacubitril-valsartan in patients with heart failure, with an SMD (95% CI of 1.1 [1.01, 1.19] and P < .00001 fixed-effects model). Combined outcome indicators showed that, combined outcome indicators showed that, compared with control group, the left ventricular volume index (LAVI) (WMD = -2.18, 95% CI [-3.63, -0.74], P = .003), the E/e' (WMD = -1.01, 95% CI [-1.89, -0.12], P = .03), the cardiovascular death (RR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.83, 0.96], P = .003], and the rehospitalization rate of heart failure (RR = 0.83, 95% CI [0.78, 0.88], P < .01) decreased more significantly, but it had no effect on renal function (WMD = 0.74, 95% CI [0.54, 1.01], P = .06).

CONCLUSIONS

The present meta-analysis suggested that sacubitril-valsartan may improve the cardiac function of heart failure. Given the limited number of included studies, additional large sample-size RCTs are required to determine the long-term effect of cardiac function of sacubitril-valsartan in patients with heart failure.

Benefits and adverse effects of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with chronic heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

This review aims to assess the benefits and adverse effects of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure, with a focus on important patient outcomes. A systematic review was conducted of double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing sacubitril/valsartan versus a reference drug, in heart failure patients with reduced (HFrEF) and preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction, published in French or English. Searches were undertaken of Medline, Cochrane Central, and Embase. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and adverse events. From 2 082 articles analyzed, 5 were included. For all-cause mortality, the absolute numbers for HFrEF (2 RCTs, 4627 patients) were 16% on sacubitril/valsartan and 18% on enalapril, with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.85 [CI = 0.78, 0.93], and 13% vs 14% in with HFpEF (2 RCTs, 5097 patients), with no statistical difference. Under the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, the evidence for HFrEF patients was of moderate quality. For HFrEF patients, an increased risk of symptomatic hypotension and angioedema (low quality of evidence) was shown. There was no statistical difference for the risk of hyperkalemia or worsening renal function. There was a protective RR (0.50 [0.34, 0.75]) for worsening renal function for patients with HFpEF, with a high quality of evidence despite similar absolute numbers (1.4% vs. 2.8%). To keep in mind for shared decision-making, sacubitril/valsartan reduces all-cause mortality in HFrEF patients but for HFpEF further data are needed. Take into consideration the small number of studies to date to assess the risks.

Effects of Sacubitril-Valsartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction in Patients Undergoing Peritoneal Dialysis

Aims: The effect of the angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril-valsartan in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains unclear, and data on ARNI treatment in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients are lacking. The present study was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of sacubitril-valsartan in patients with HFpEF undergoing peritoneal dialysis.

Methods and Results: End-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients undergoing PD for 3 months with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II–IV heart failure, ejection fraction of 50% or higher, and elevated levels of N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) were assigned to receive sacubitril-valsartan. Patients were followed up regularly after medication treatment. The alterations in clinical and biochemical parameters before and after taking sacubitril-valsartan (generally 50–100 mg b.i.d) were investigated, and safety was also assessed. Twenty-one patients were recruited in this study. Compared with baseline levels, NT-proBNP levels [9769.0 (3093.5–21941.0) vs. 3034.0 (1493.2–6503.0), P = 0.002], and heart rate [80.0 (74.5–90.5) vs. 75.0 (70.3–87.0), P = 0.031] were markedly decreased after treatment with sacubitril-valsartan. Signs and symptoms of heart failure (21/21 vs. 15/21, P = 0.021) were obviously alleviated, NYHA classification and E/e' ratio showed a notable trend of improvement after 3–12 months of follow-up. None of the patients showed adverse drug reactions.

Conclusions: The present data suggested that sacubitril-valsartan treatment in patients with HFpEF undergoing PD was effective and safe.

Myocardial protective effect of sacubitril-valsartan on rats with acute myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to explore the effect of sacubitril-valsartan on rats with acute myocardial infarction.

METHODS

Sprague-dawley rats were randomly divided into six groups. Rats in Group A and B were threaded without deligation and treated with valsartan (34 mg/kg) or sacubitril-valsartan (68 mg/kg) after operation. Rats in Group C and D were given the two drugs (34 mg/kg, 68 mg/kg) after ligation of the left anterior descending branch for 40 minutes. Rats in Group E and F were restored the blood of the coronary artery after ligation, and given the two drugs (34 mg/kg, 68 mg/kg) at the same time. N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, high sensitivity troponin T, aldosterone and Cyclic guanosine monophosphate were measured and Color Doppler echocardiography was performed. Six weeks later, the rats were killed, the hearts were weighed and stained with Masson staining.

RESULTS

Compared with Group A and B, the levels of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, high sensitivity troponin T, aldosterone and Cyclic guanosine monophosphate in other groups were significantly increased (p < 0.05). Before treatment, the left ventricular end diastolic diameter and left ventricular end systolic diameter were similar in each group. After treatment, the levels of left ventricular end diastolic diameter and left ventricular end systolic diameter, and collagen fiber range stained with blue in other groups were significantly increased in comparison with Group A and B (p < 0.05). In addition, the left ventricular volume and collagen fiber range stained with blue were notably decreased, the levels of ejection fraction (EF) were increased in sacubitril-valsartan groups in comparison with valsartan groups (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Early application of sacubitril-valsartan has a protective effect on rats with acute myocardial infarction.

Safety and tolerability of sacubitril-valsartan: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction: Sacubitril-valsartan is a recently approved drug. However, there are few data regarding safety issues. We aimed to summarize the available evidence regarding sacubitril-valsartan's safety and tolerability.Methods: We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling patients receiving sacubitril-valsartan for any condition, compared with standard therapy or placebo. Database search was performed in October 2019. Outcomes were adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), discontinuation due to AEs, and five AEs of special interest. Data were reported using risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI).Results: We included 20 RCTs (22510 participants). When compared with active controls, there were no differences in SAEs (RR=0.93, 95%CI 0.86-1.01) and AEs (RR=1.00, 95%CI 0.97-1.03). However, sacubitril-valsartan resulted in an 8% risk reduction in discontinuation due to AEs (95%CI 0.85-0.99) and an increased risk of hypotension (RR=1.45, 95%CI 1.27-1.67). The risk of angioedema was higher with follow-ups greater than 12 months (RR=2.36, 95%CI 1.29-4.33). There were no further significant differences in the remaining AEs' risk.Conclusions: Sacubitril-valsartan was at least as safe and tolerable as active control, with a similar need of administration cautiousness, except for a higher risk of hypotension. However, one should consider the study's limitations.

Sacubitril-Valsartan Improves Anemia of Cardiorenal Syndrome (CRS)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Anemia is a common complication of heart failure and Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD). Sacubitril-valsartan is a novel therapy for the treatment of chronic Heart Failure with a reduced Ejection Fraction (HFrEF). We have evaluated the short-term effects of sacubitril- valsartan on the anemia of CRS.

METHODS

The study group comprised 39 patients with HFrEF, who were followed-up for three months. The study is a retrospective analysis of clinical data. Data of 3 months' and baseline visits were recorded including plasmatic creatinine, glomerular filtration rate, cystatin C, kaliemia, haemoglobin, pro-BNP, and albuminuria.

RESULTS

In all, 34 patients ended the follow-up. Mean sacubitril-valsartan dosage at baseline was 101 ± 62 mg/day and 126 ± 59 mg/day at end. Mean hemoglobin increased from 12.2 ± 1.1 g/dl at baseline to 12.9 ± 1.0 g/dl (p = 0.001,). Prevalence of anemia was 64.7% (95%CI, 47.9-78.5%) at baseline and 38.4 (95%CI, 23.9-55.0%) after the follow-up (p = 0.016). Serum cystatin C levels decreased from 2.71 ± 1.0 to 2.48 ± 1.0 mg/l (p = 0.028). Serum K levels remained unchanged (baseline 4.94 ± 0.60, three months visit 4.94 ± 0.61 mmol/l, p = 0.998).

CONCLUSION

Sacubitril-valsartan improves anemia in CRS patients. An improvement in serum cystatin levels was observed. Few untoward effects were detected. These findings should be confirmed in wider clinical trials.

Angiotensin Receptor and Neprylisin Inhibitor: A new drug in pediatric cardiologist's armamentarium

Heart failure due to congenital heart disease and cardiomyopathies is a significant burden in the pediatric population. Pharmacological strategies for the management of pediatric heart failure are largely based on the extrapolation of adult data and Delphi process based on expert opinion. There are differences in the etiology, clinical course, and outcome of pediatric heart failure as compared to adult, thus the results of adult heart failure trials cannot be simply extrapolated to pediatric patients. There have been a lot of newer drugs for adults with heart failure, but there is a void for pediatric population with heart failure due to many reasons. Early results of multi-centric randomized control PANORAMA HF Trial and subsequent Food and Drug Administration approval for Angiotensin Receptor and Neprylisin Inhibitor (Sacubitril / Valsartan) for pediatric patients have tried to fill in this void and paved the way for a newer class of drugs for heart failure with proven benefits in pediatric patients.

The effects of sacubitril/valsartan and ramipril on the male fertility in hypertensive rats

OBJECTIVE:

Renin angiotensinogen system (RAS) inhibitors, ramipril and sacubitril/valsartan are frequently used in the treatment of cardiovascular diseases. Although they are known as contraindicated during pregnancy in hypertensive women, there is not any outcome of their safety in male fertility after exposure to ramipril or sacubitril/valsartan. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of ramipril and sacubitril/valsartan to highlight their safety in the male fertility in normotensive and hypertensive rats.

METHODS:

Adult male normotensive and dexamethasone-induced hypertensive rats were treated with sacubitril/valsartan, ramipril and saline for 18 days. Arterial blood pressures were verified using carotid artery cannulation. Male fertility parameters, including the testis weights, histopathologic scoring of the testis, sperm count, sperm motility, morphology, and serum testosterone levels, were analyzed in treated and nontreated normotensive/hypertensive rats.

RESULTS:

Sacubitril/valsartan or ramipril treatments did not reveal a significant difference in sperm production, testicular morphology, and radioimmunoassay of serum testosterone levels compared to the control group. However, sperm motility was significantly reduced in rats under RAS inhibition.

CONCLUSION:

This finding was likely mediated by the identification of Ang receptors in the tails of rat sperm given that Ang receptors may play a role in the modulation of sperm motility. Identification of RAS-related proteins involved in sperm motility may help to explain their roles in motility. Our data provide general safety evidence for the male fertilization ability after paternal sacubitril/valsartan and ramipril exposure.

Sacubitril-Valsartan Compared With Enalapril for the Treatment of Heart Failure: A Decision-Analytic Markov Model Simulation in China

Objectives

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a major health concern globally due to high mortality rates, frequent hospitalization and considerable medical expenditure. The prevalence of HFrEF is steadily rising in Asian countries, and populous, developing countries like China are facing a significant socio-economic burden as a result. Sacubitril-valsartan (Sac-Val) is currently a class I recommendation for treating HFrEF in major guidelines, although it has not been pharmaco-economically evaluated in China. To this end, we compared the cost-effectiveness of Sac-Val and enalapril based on the negotiated prices in order to fully assess the expected costs and benefits of the clinical use of Sac-Val in China.

Method

A Markov model was constructed to estimate long-term clinical and economic outcomes of Sac-Val versus enalapril for HFrEF patients in China over a 10-year horizon. Primary model outcomes were total costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

Results

Treatment with Sac-Val resulted in 4.67 QALYs at the cost of $4,684.25, while enalapril yielded 4.40 QALYs at the cost of $4,014.47. Compared to enalapril, Sac-Val was associated with a gain of 0.27 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $ 2,480.67 per QALY. Deterministic sensitivity analysis showed robust results. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that Sac-Val has a 99.99% probability of being cost-effective at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $10,276.

Conclusion

From Chinese patients’ perspective, Sac-Val is a cost-effective treatment option for HFrEF in China compared to enalapril. Our findings can aid clinicians plan the Sac-Val regimen, as well as decision makers to discuss the value and position of novel angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) in future.

Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sacubitril-Valsartan in Heart Failure: Emerging Clinical Data

One of the defining features of heart failure (HF) is neurohormonal activation. The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system (RAAS) and sympathetic nervous system (SNS) cause vasoconstriction and fluid retention and, in response, the secretion of natriuretic peptides (NPs) from volume and pressure-overloaded myocardium promotes vasodilation and diuresis. Inhibition of the RAAS with either angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) has been the cornerstone of medical treatment for HF with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) but, until recently, it was unclear how the beneficial effects of NPs may be augmented in patients with HF. Neprilysin, a metalloproteinase widely distributed throughout the body, plays a role in degrading the gross excess of circulating NPs in patients with HF. Early studies of neprilysin inhibition suggested possible physiological benefits. In 2014, the PARADIGM-HF trial found that sacubitril-valsartan, a combination of the ARB valsartan, and the neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril, was superior to enalapril in patients with HFrEF, reducing the relative risk of cardiovascular (CV) death or first hospitalisation with HF by 20%. Almost half of the patients with HF symptoms have a “preserved” ejection fraction (HFpEF); however, the PARAGON-HF study found that sacubitril-valsartan in patients with LVEF ≥45% had no effect on CV death or first and recurrent hospitalisations with HF compared to valsartan. Guidelines across the world have changed to include sacubitril-valsartan for patients with HFrEF yet, nearly 6 years after PARADIGM-HF, there is still uncertainty as to when and in whom sacubitril-valsartan should be started. Furthermore, there may yet be subsets of patients with HFpEF who might benefit from treatment with sacubitril-valsartan. This review will describe the mechanisms behind the outcome benefit of sacubitril-valsartan in patients with HFrEF and to consider its future role in the management of patients with HF.

ARNI in cardiovascular disease: current evidence and future perspectives

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers are the mainstay of therapy for cardiovascular disease and heart failure (HF). The angiotensin receptor II blocker - neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), sacubitril-valsartan has an established role in treatment of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) based on the results of PARADIGM-HF trial. This trial has provided a strong evidence base for treatment of HFrEF in various subsets of patients. Several studies are done using ARNI in various indications such as HFrEF, HFrEF, patients hospitalized with acute decompensated HF, HF with preserved EF, AMI with LVEF <40%, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, pulmonary hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, so on and so forth. This review provides an update of current literature and future perspective on ARNI in various cardiovascular disorders.

Comparative Effectiveness of Sacubitril-Valsartan Versus ACE/ARB Therapy in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

OBJECTIVES

This paper aims to compare the effectiveness of sacubitril-valsartan and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) in systolic heart failure (HF).

BACKGROUND

Sacubitril-valsartan reduced risks of death and hospitalization for HF versus enalapril in ambulatory patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin II Receptor Blocker Neprilysin Inhibitor with Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in HF) trial. However, the comparative effectiveness of sacubitril-valsartan and ACE/ARB in patients treated in routine clinical practice is unclear.

METHODS

We identified patients with systolic HF in a U.S. administrative claims database treated with sacubitril-valsartan or ACE/ARB from July 1, 2015, to February 2, 2018. One-to-one propensity score matching was used to balance patients on 29 clinical variables. Cox models were used to compare outcomes between treatment groups.

RESULTS

A total of 7,893 matched pairs were included; mean (SD) follow-up was 6.3 (5.4) months. Sacubitril-valsartan was associated with lower risks of all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.81 to 0.91; p < 0.001), all-cause mortality (HR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.66 to 0.97; p = 0.027), and all-cause hospitalization (HR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.80 to 0.91; p < 0.001), but not HF hospitalization (HR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.96 to 1.19; p = 0.26). A lower risk of the primary outcome with sacubitril-valsartan was observed in white patients (HR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.76 to 0.90) but not black patients (21% of population, HR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.15; interaction p = 0.032). No statistically significant differences in treatment response by sex or age were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril-valsartan was associated with lower risks of death and hospitalization compared with ACE/ARB in a heterogeneous cohort of patients with systolic HF. However, our finding that outcomes with sacubitril-valsartan and ACE/ARBs were similar in black patients warrants further evaluation.

Use of sacubitril/valsartan in Marfan syndrome-related cardiomyopathy: The first case report

RATIONALE

Marfan syndrome is a rare cause of heart failure due to primary or secondary cardiomyopathy. Recently, sacubitril/valsartan-an angiotensin receptor blocker-neprilysin inhibitor-has been added in clinical practice as a standard therapy for heart failure. To our knowledge, there are no data on sacubitril/valsartan's effects on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with Marfan syndrome.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 24-year-old man was admitted to our Internal Medicine Department due to dyspnea, ascites, and leg swelling. Arterial blood gas analysis revealed severe hypoxemia with respiratory and metabolic alkalosis. Hilar congestion was highlighted on chest x-ray.

DIAGNOSES

Recurrent acute decompensated heart failure with reduced ejection fraction despite optimal medical therapy in Marfan-related cardiomyopathy.

INTERVENTIONS AND OUTCOMES

Sacubitril/valsartan was added to optimal medical therapy after hemodynamic stabilization allowing progressive clinical, laboratoristic, and echocardiographic improvement. Patient maintained a free survival from heart failure and a good quality of life until 9-month follow-up.

LESSONS

Sacubitril/valsartan should be effective on pathophysiologic mechanisms and cardiovascular outcomes of Marfan syndrome-related cardiovascular complications.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Sacubitril/Valsartan for the Treatment of Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction in the United States

OBJECTIVE

Sacubitril/valsartan (SAC/VAL) has been shown to reduce mortality and hospitalization in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) compared with enalapril but at a substantially higher cost. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of SAC/VAL versus enalapril in patients with HFrEF over a 5-year time horizon from the U.S. payer perspective.

METHODS

A cohort-based Markov model was developed to compare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) between SAC/VAL and enalapril in patients with HFrEF over a 5-year time horizon. Markov states included New York Heart Association (NYHA) class (II-IV) and death. Treatment discontinuation, HF-related hospitalizations, and NYHA class progression were modeled as transition states based on data from the PARADIGM trial. Other probabilities, costs, and utilities were obtained from published literature and public databases.

RESULTS

In the base case analysis, SAC/VAL cost more than enalapril ($81,943 vs $67,287) and was more effective (2.647 QALYs vs 2.546 QALYs), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $143,891/QALY gained. At a willingness to pay (WTP) of $100,000/QALY, SAC/VAL was cost-effective up to a cost of $298/month. Results were most sensitive to SAC/VAL cost, SAC/VAL mortality benefit, and NYHA progression probability. SAC/VAL had a 10% and 52% probability of being cost-effective at WTP thresholds of $100,000/QALY and $150,000/QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

SAC/VAL is associated with clinical benefit and may be cost-effective compared with the current standard of care over realistic treatment durations from the payer perspective. Results of this analysis can inform discussions on the value and position of SAC/VAL in the current market.

Integrating New Pharmacologic Agents into Heart Failure Care: Role of Heart Failure Practice Guidelines in Meeting This Challenge

Heart failure is well recognized as a major public health concern not only due to severe and frequent adverse health outcomes but also related to the major financial burden this syndrome presents with advancing age in Western societies. Despite the dire need for more efficacious therapies and better application of existing advances, treatment gaps persist, and outcomes in heart failure remain poor, with continually high mortality and morbidity. Treatment guidelines provide one strategy for advancing quality of care in patients with heart failure. This approach, with well-known potential strengths and weaknesses, has both adherents and detractors. Heart failure treatment guidelines have been in sharp focus recently due to updates that address the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 2015 of two new pharmacologic therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: sacubitril-valsartan and ivabradine. Our commentary will revisit issues in guideline methodology and discuss these in the context of the updates addressing the FDA approval of new pharmacologic agents for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

The safety of sacubitril-valsartan for the treatment of chronic heart failure

INTRODUCTION

Sacubitril-valsartan is a combination drug that contains the neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril and angiotensin II receptor blocker valsartan. In 2015, the US Food and Drug Administration approved sacubitril-valsartan for treatment of heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction and New York Heart Association class II-IV symptoms following a large, Phase III clinical trial (PARADIGM-HF) that demonstrated a 20% reduction in the combined primary end-point of death from cardiovascular cause or hospitalization for heart failure compared to enalapril. Areas covered: This review discusses the clinical efficacy and safety of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril-valsartan in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Expert opinion: Based on the PARADIGM-HF trial, sacubitril-valsartan offers compelling reductions in meaningful clinical endpoints, independent of age or severity of disease. The rate of adverse events was comparable between the enalapril and sacubitril-valsartan groups, although the absolute rates are likely underestimated due to the entry criteria and run-in period. Future trials and post-market surveillance are critical to better understand the risk of angioedema in high risk populations, particularly African-Americans, as well as long-term theoretical risks including the potential for increased cerebral amyloid plaque deposition with possible development of neurocognitive disease. Current trials are underway to evaluate potential benefit in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.