Sacubitril/valsartan and the risk of incident dementia in heart failure: a nationwide propensity-matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

Sacubitril acts to inhibit neprilysin and as neprilysin is involved in amyloid-beta degradation in the central nervous system, and there is concern that sacubitril/valsartan may increase the risk of dementia. We aimed to compare the risk of incident dementia associated with sacubitril/valsartan and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs).

METHODS

Patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction treated with either sacubitril/valsartan or ARB, identified from the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, were matched in a 1:2 ratio using propensity scores (6789 on sacubitril/valsartan and 13,578 on ARBs) and followed up for incident dementia.

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up of 2.5 years, 526 (2.6%) patients were newly diagnosed with dementia: Alzheimer dementia in 282, vascular dementia in 8, and other dementia in 236. There was no significant difference in the risk of overall dementia (hazard ratio [HR] 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-1.01), Alzheimer dementia (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.67-1.10), vascular dementia (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.23-4.11), and all other dementias (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.62-1.07) between sacubitril/valsartan users and ARB users. These results were consistent regardless of initial sacubitril/valsartan dose and subgroups including old age, previous mild cognitive impairment, previous stroke, and concomitant antiplatelet or anticoagulation. Sensitivity analysis with a 1-year lag period for dementia assessment confirmed the main analysis. Meanwhile, risk of incident stroke was lower in sacubitril/valsartan users compared to ARBs users.

CONCLUSIONS

In a nationwide propensity-matched cohort of patients with heart failure, sacubitril/valsartan was not associated with an increased risk of incident dementia compared to ARBs.

Sacubitril/valsartan improves all-cause mortality in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction and chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Impaired renal function is frequently observed in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The differential effect of sacubitril/valsartan and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blockers (ACEIs/ARBs) on the clinical and renal outcomes in patients with HFrEF and chronic kidney disease (CKD) remains unknown.

AIMS

This study aimed to explore the differential effect of sacubitril/valsartan and ACEI/ARB on the clinical and renal outcomes as well as renal function over a 12-month follow-up period in HFrEF patients with and without CKD.

METHODS

Patients with HfrEF (LVEF ≤35%) and NYHA class ≥II were enrolled from the Chang Gung Research Database between 2017 and 2020. Baseline characteristics were compared between patients prescribed sacubitril/valsartan and ACEI/ARB. After propensity score matching, the following clinical and renal outcomes were compared between the two groups in patients with and without CKD over a 12-month follow-up period: acute kidney injury (AKI), emergent dialysis/renal death, HF hospitalization, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

This study enrolled 3735 HFrEF patients with a mean left ventricular EF of 27.56 ± 5.86%, who had been prescribed sacubitril/valsartan (N = 1708) or ACEI/ARB (N = 2027). After propensity score matching, the clinical and renal outcomes did not differ between the sacubitril/valsartan and ACEI/ARB groups in patients without CKD. In patients with CKD, the ACEI/ARB group had a significantly higher incidence of all-cause mortality than the sacubitril/valsartan group (14.89% vs. 10.50%; hazard ratio 1.46; 95% confidence interval 1.06-2.00; p = 0.02), and the incidence of AKI, HF hospitalization, and CV mortality did not differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril/valsartan had a lower all-cause mortality compared to ACEI/ARB in symptomatic HFrEF patients with CKD. Further prospective randomized studies are warranted to confirm our findings.

Sacubitril/Valsartan-Related Hypotension in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved or Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

Hypotension is a potential adverse effect of sacubitril/valsartan, but there are limited data regarding the predictors and implications of treatment-related hypotension in heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction.

OBJECTIVES

We investigated predictors of treatment-associated hypotension, clinical outcomes after hypotension, and the relationship between left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and incidence of hypotension in the PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial.

METHODS

PARAGON-HF randomized patients with chronic HF (≥45%) to sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan. Following randomization, hypotension was defined as investigator-reported hypotension with a systolic blood pressure <100 mm Hg. Predictors of hypotension were assessed using multivariable Cox models. Associations between hypotension and clinical outcomes were evaluated in time-updated Cox models. The relationship among treatment, LVEF, and incident rates of hypotension and clinical outcomes was estimated using Poisson regression models.

RESULTS

Of 4,796 patients in PARAGON-HF, 637 (13%) experienced hypotension, more frequently in the sacubitril/valsartan arm (P < 0.001). Following documented hypotension, patients had higher risk of cardiovascular death and total HF hospitalizations (adjusted RR: 1.63; 95% CI: 1.27-2.09; P < 0.001) and all-cause death (adjusted HR: 1.62; 95% CI: 1.28-2.05; P < 0.001). LVEF modified the association between sacubitril/valsartan and risk of hypotension (Pinteraction = 0.019) such that patients with LVEF ≥60% experienced substantially higher treatment-related risks of hypotension.

CONCLUSIONS

In PARAGON-HF, a higher LVEF was associated with an increased risk of hypotension in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan. Because these subjects are also less likely to derive clinical benefit from sacubitril/valsartan, our data reinforce that the benefit/risk ratio favors the use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with LVEF below normal, but not at higher LVEF. (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711).

Severe Hypotension With Concomitant Sodium-Glucose Co-Transporter-2 Inhibitor and Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor Therapy in a Patient With Heart Failure Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Case Report

Background: Large cardiovascular outcomes trials in individuals with heart failure, with and without diabetes, have demonstrated a significant risk reduction in the composite outcome of cardiovascular death or hospitalizations for heart failure with SGLT2 inhibitor therapy. These positive outcomes have led to the recommendation that SGLT2 inhibitors serve as backbone therapy in patients with heart failure reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). To date, there has not been enough participants in clinical trials on concomitant SGLT2 inhibitor and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor therapy to evaluate the benefits and risks of combination therapy with these two agents outside of smaller subgroup analyses. Case Summary: This case describes a Black female with diabetes meeting her glycemic targets and concomitant stable NYHA FC II HFrEF on guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) with sacubitril/valsartan, spironolactone and metoprolol succinate who developed severe hypotension and dehydration requiring hospitalization after initiation of SGLT2 inhibitor therapy. Practice Implications: This case report raises the question of whether those with type 2 diabetes, and/or those on background angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor therapy, who are euvolemic or sensitive to diuretic therapy should be started on lower dose dapagliflozin and titrated to 10 mg daily based on response. It also raises awareness to the potential increased diuretic effect produced with concomitant use of sacubitril/valsartan and dapagliflozin. Caution and education to mitigate the risk for volume depletion should be provided to those patients who are euvolemic and initiated on a SGLT2 inhibitor, regardless of their background diuretic and GDMT. Conclusion: Future research should focus on the benefits and safety considerations and provide education on how to best initiate and adjust SGLT2 inhibitors in the setting of sacubitril/valsartan use in diverse heart failure patient populations.

Early Initiation of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients With Acute Heart Failure and Renal Dysfunction: An Analysis of the TRANSITION Study

BACKGROUND

Treatment of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and renal dysfunction (RD) is challenging owing to the risk of further deterioration in renal function, especially after acute decompensated HF (ADHF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We assessed the effect of RD (estimated glomerular filtration rate of ≥30 to <60 mL/min/1.73 m2) on initiation, up-titration, and tolerability of sacubitril/valsartan in hemodynamically stabilized patients with HFrEF admitted for ADHF (RD, n = 476; non-RD, n = 483). At week 10, the target dose of sacubitril/valsartan (97/103 mg twice daily) was achieved by 42% patients in RD subgroup vs 54% in non-RD patients (P < .001). Sacubitril/valsartan was associated with greater estimated glomerular filtration rate improvements in RD subgroup than non-RD (change from baseline least squares mean 4.1 mL/min/1.73 m2, 95% confidence interval 2.2-6.1, P < .001). Cardiac biomarkers improved significantly in both subgroups; however, compared with the RD subgroup, the improvement was greater in those without RD (N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, -28.6% vs -44.8%, high-sensitivity troponin T -20.3% vs -33.9%) (P < .001). Patients in the RD subgroup compared with those without RD experienced higher rates of hyperkalemia (16.3% vs 6.5%, P < .001), investigator-reported cardiac failure (9.7% vs 5.6%, P = .029), and renal impairment (6.4% vs 2.1%, P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients with HFrEF and concomitant RD hospitalized for ADHF tolerated early initiation of sacubitril/valsartan and showed significant improvements in estimated glomerular filtration rate and cardiac biomarkers.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02661217.

The real-world safety of sacubitril / valsartan among older adults (≥75): A pharmacovigilance study from the FDA data

BACKGROUND

Heart failure is a major cause of morbidity and mortality among older adults. Sacubitril-Valsartan (Sac/Val) has been shown to improve patients' outcomes; however, its safety profile among older adults has not been adequately examined. We therefore aimed to examine its safety profile among this population.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective pharmacovigilance study utilizing the FDA's database of safety reports (FAERS). We employed disproportionality analysis comparing Sac/Val to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). We aim to evaluate the reporting of pre-defined adverse events associated with Sac/Val (hypotension, acute kidney injury (AKI), hyperkalemia and angioedema) in two age groups: adults (< 75 years) and older adults (≥ 75). For each subgroup, we calculated reporting odds ratio (ROR) and compared them by calculating P for interaction.

RESULTS

The FAERS database encompassed 18,432 unique reports of Sac/Val. Of them, 12,630 (68.5%) subjects were adults (< 75 years), and 5802 (31.5%) were older adults (≥ 75 years), with a median age (IQR) of 68 (59-77). When compared to ARBs, Sac/Val was associated with higher reporting of hypotension, lower reporting of acute kidney injury (AKI) and hyperkalemia, and similar reporting of angioedema. Notably, we did not observe a significant interaction between the age subgroups and the risk estimates (AKI: Pinteraction = 0.72, hyperkalemia: Pinteraction = 0.94, hypotension: Pinteraction = 0.31, and angioedema: Pinteraction = 0.61).

CONCLUSIONS

In this postmarking study, none of the prespecified adverse events was reported more frequently in older adults. These findings provide reassurance for safety use of Sac/Val in older adults.

Rationale and protocol of the LAQUA-HF trial: a factorial randomised controlled trial evaluating the effects of neurohormonal and diuretic agents on health-status reported outcomes in heart failure patients

INTRODUCTION

The current guidelines strongly recommend early initiation of multiple classes of cardioprotective drugs for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction to improve prognosis and health status. However, evidence on the optimal sequencing of approved drugs is scarce, highlighting the importance of individualised treatment plans. Registry data indicate that only a portion of these patients can tolerate all four recommended classes, underscoring the need to establish the favoured sequence when using these drugs. Additionally, the choice between long-acting and short-acting loop diuretics in the present era remains uncertain. This is particularly relevant given the frequent use of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, both of which potentiate natriuretic effects.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint method, LAQUA-HF (Long-acting vs short-acting diuretics and neurohormonal Agents on patients' QUAlity-of-life in Heart Failure patients) will be a 2×2 factorial design, with a total of 240 patients randomised to sacubitril/valsartan versus dapagliflozin and torsemide versus furosemide in a 1:1 ratio. Most enrolment sites have participated in an ongoing observational registry for consecutive patients hospitalised for heart failure involved dedicated study coordinators, and used the same framework to enrol patients. The primary endpoint is the change in patients' health status over 6 months, defined by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire. Additionally, clinical benefit at 6 months defined as a hierarchical composite endpoint will be assessed by the win ratio as the secondary endpoint.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The medical ethics committee Keio University in Japan has approved this trial. All participants provide written informed consent prior to study entry. The results of this trial will be disseminated in one main paper and additional papers on secondary endpoints and subgroup analyses.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000045229.

Sacubitril/valsartan compared to ramipril in high-risk post-myocardial infarction patients stratified according to use of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists: Insight from the PARADISE MI trial

AIM

It is unknown whether safety and clinical endpoints by use of sacubitril/valsartan (an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor [ARNI]) are affected by mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) in high-risk myocardial infarction (MI) patients. The aim of this study was to examine whether MRA modifies safety and clinical endpoints by use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with a MI and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and/or pulmonary congestion.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients (n = 5661) included in the PARADISE MI trial (Prospective ARNI vs. ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI) were stratified according to MRA. Primary outcomes in this substudy were worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death. Safety was defined as symptomatic hypotension, hyperkalaemia >5.5 mmol/L, or permanent drug discontinuation. A total of 2338 patients (41%) were treated with MRA. Safety of ARNI compared to ramipril was not altered significantly by ± MRA, and both groups had similar increase in symptomatic hypotension with ARNI. In patients taking MRA, the risk of hyperkalaemia or permanent drug discontinuation was not significantly altered by ARNI (p > 0.05 for all comparisons). The effect of ARNI compared with ramipril was similar in those who were and were not taking MRA (hazard ratio [HR]MRA 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-1.19 and HRMRA- 0.87, 95% CI 0.71-1.05, for the primary endpoint; p = 0.51 for interaction [Clinical Endpoint Committee adjudicated]); similar findings were observed if investigator-reported endpoints were evaluated (p = 0.61 for interaction).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of a MRA did not modify safety or clinical endpoints related to initiation of ARNI compared to ramipril in the post-MI setting in patients with LVSD and/or congestion.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure with Hypertension Patients: Real-World Experiences on Different Ages, Drug Doses, and Renal Functions

INTRODUCTION

Hypertension is a significant risk factor in heart failure for worldwide patients. More than half of hypertensive patients suffer from heart failure. Recently, sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) has been approved as an antihypertensive agent in China and Japan. Additionally, it is not approved for treating hypertension in Europe or the USA.

AIM

To accumulate more real-world experiences to investigate the effectiveness and optimize clinical medication of sac/val in hypertensive patients with heart failure.

METHODS

We retrospectively enrolled adult patients diagnosed with hypertension (HTN) and heart failure (HF) and newly treated with sac/val. The baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were retrospectively extracted from electronic medical records (EMR) in three centers. The efficacy and safety of sac/val were first analyzed in all enrolled patients. Stratified analyses were conducted in patients with different ages (≥ 65, < 65), maximum tolerated doses (≥ 200 mg/days, < 200 mg/days), and renal functions (e-GFR ≥ 60 ml/min/1.73 m2, < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2).

RESULTS

Overall, 794 patients diagnosed with both HF and HTN were included in our study. During follow-up, significant reductions were found in blood pressure (BP) (SBP 12.8 ± 21.2 mmHg, P < 0.001, DBP 7.1 ± 16.5 mmHg, P < 0.001), and cardiac biomarkers (cardiac troponin 1.78 ± 19.1 ng/mL, P < 0.001, NT-proBNP 1403 ± 6937 pg/mL, P < 0.001) from baseline. In stratification analyses, the lower dosage group earned a higher BP control rate (83.4% vs. 75.6%, P = 0.025) and an overall improvement rate of cardiac indicators (61.3% vs. 48.0%, P = 0.002). The younger patients' group had significantly less cumulative hazard of recurrent cerebral-cardiovascular events than the elder group (log-rank P value < 0.001). Patients with renal dysfunction were observed with more AE incidences.

CONCLUSIONS

Sac/val could reduce BP and improve cardiac structural and functional parameters in hypertensive patients with HF, even with less than target doses. However, more attention should be paid to older patients and renal dysfunction patients when using sac/val because of additional risks in adverse events.

Duration of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction and Outcomes With Sacubitril/Valsartan: Insights From the PARAGON-HF Trial

OBJECTIVE

In this post hoc analysis of the PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HFpEF) trial, we evaluated clinical outcomes and responses to sacubitril/valsartan by duration of heart failure (HF) with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 45% at initial diagnosis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The primary outcome was a composite of total hospitalizations due to HF and cardiovascular deaths, analyzed by using a semiparametric proportional rates method, stratified by geographic region. Among 4784 (99.7%) randomized participants in the PARAGON-HF trial for whom baseline HF duration was captured, 1359 (28%) had durations of HF of < 6 months, 1295 (27%) of 6 months-2 years, and 2130 (45%) of > 2 years. Longer HF duration was associated with higher comorbidity burdens, worse health status and lower rates of prior hospitalization due to HF. Over a median follow-up of 35 months, longer HF duration was associated with a higher risk of first and recurrent primary events (per 100 patient-years): < 6 months, 12.0 (95% CI, 10.4-14.0); 6 months-2 years, 12.2 (10.6-14.2); > 2 years, 15.8 (14.2-17.5). Relative treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan were consistent, irrespective of baseline HF duration on the primary endpoint (Pinteraction = 0.112). Clinically meaningful (≥ 5 point) improvements in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Clinical Summary Scores were also similarly observed, irrespective of HF duration; (Pinteraction = 0.112). Adverse events were similar between treatment arms across HF duration categories.

CONCLUSIONS

In PARAGON-HF, longer HF duration was independently predictive of adverse HF outcomes. Treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan were consistent, irrespective of baseline HF duration, suggesting that even ambulatory patients with longstanding HFpEF and predominantly mild symptoms stand to benefit from treatment optimization.

A Retrospective Cohort Evaluation of a Pharmacist-Led Approach for Transitioning Patients to an Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor

Background: Heart failure guidelines recommend replacing an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) with an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) to reduce morbidity and mortality in NYHA Class II-III patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Objective: This study aims to determine if a pharmacist-led outpatient ARNI replacement and titration program led to more patients achieving target doses of ARNI compared to usual care. Methods: A single health system, retrospective electronic medical record review identified 791 patients with active ARNI prescriptions and at least two outpatient cardiology visits with a pharmacist or usual care provider between January 2015 through September 2018. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients who achieved a target ARNI dose of 97/103 mg twice daily. The secondary outcomes were the median dose achieved, number of visits required to achieve target dose, hospitalizations, and all-cause death. Results: ARNI was initiated and continued by a pharmacist in 64 patients and 727 by usual care. More patients in the pharmacist group, 60.9% (n = 39), achieved target dose vs. 18.0% (n = 131) of patients managed by usual care (95% CI, 0.31-0.55, p < 0.0001). The pharmacist group also had higher median total daily dose of ARNI (200 mg (IQR = 300) vs 100 mg (IQR = 100), p < 0.0001) and more likely to achieve a higher total daily dose in fewer visits. Conclusions: An advanced practice provider pharmacist-led outpatient ARNI replacement and titration program was more effective in achieving target doses of ARNI in HFrEF patients as compared to usual care.

Sacubitril/valsartan-induced liver injury: A case report and literature review

RATIONALE

Sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) is the first drug approved for the treatment of symptomatic chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in adult patients. There have been no reports of hepatotoxicity secondary to sacubitril/valsartan administration. Here, we report the first case of severe liver injury caused by sacubitril/valsartan.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 90-year-old female patient taking sacubitril/valsartan was admitted due to chronic heart failure. Subsequently, the patient developed serious liver injury with increased hepatic transaminases.

DIAGNOSIS

Drug-induced liver injury, sacubitril/valsartan-related. No liver injury caused by other reasons was observed after thorough examination. After the withdrawal of sacubitril/valsartan, the liver function of the patient gradually returned to normal.

INTERVENTIONS

We chose general liver protection methods to improve her hepatic function, including magnesium isoglycyrrhizinate at 100 mg daily and polyene phosphatidylcholine capsules at 456 mg 3 times daily. We consulted with a hepatologist to discuss the best plan for her treatment. The last, we stopped sacubitril/valsartan.

OUTCOMES

After the withdrawal of sacubitril/valsartan, the liver function of the patient gradually returned to normal.

LESSONS

Sacubitril/valsartan-induced liver injury is very rare. Clinicians should pay particular attention to the possibility of hepatotoxicity during sacubitril/valsartan treatment.

Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan Compared With ACEI/ARB on Health-Related Quality of Life in Heart Failure Patients: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Data on the effects of sacubitril/valsartan compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEI/ARB) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the comparative effects between sacubitril/valsartan and ACEI/ARB on HRQoL, a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to March 2, 2022 for randomized controlled trials that compared the HRQoL scores, including Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ), or Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form Health Survey 12 or 36 (SF-12/36), between sacubitril/valsartan and ACEI/ARB. After screening, studies that met the inclusion criteria were eventually included and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 8 studies with 17 390 patients (8693 patients used sacubitril/valsartan, and 8697 patients used ACEI/ARB) were included in this study. Five of these studies used KCCQ, 1 used SF-12/36, 1 used MLHFQ, and 1 used both KCCQ and SF-12/36. The KCCQ overall summary score and its subscales were significantly higher in sacubitril/valsartan compared with ACEI/ARB in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction, but were similar in heart failure patients with preserved ejection fraction. Sacubitril/valsartan conferred similar HRQoL scores in MLHFQ and SF-12/36 to ACEI/ARB. The most frequently reported adverse event for sacubitril/valsartan is hypotension and the risk is higher than for ACEI/ARB.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril/valsartan may have the potential to improve HRQoL in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction compared with ACEI/ARB. Hypotension is the most common adverse event with sacubitril/valsartan compared with ACEI/ARB. The results of this study may contribute to the rational use of sacubitril/valsartan.

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.

Safety and tolerability of Sacubitril/Valsartan in heart failure patient with reduced ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin receptor blocker and a neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) has emerged as an innovative therapy for patients of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and tolerability of Sacubitril/Valsartan in patient with HFrEF in Pakistani population.

METHODS

This proof-of-concept, open label non-randomized clinical trial was conducted at a tertiary care cardiac center of Karachi, Pakistan. Patients with HFrEF were prescribed with Sacubitril/Valsartan and followed for 12 weeks for the assessment of safety and tolerability. Safety measures included incidence of hypotension, renal dysfunction, hyperkalemia, and angioedema.

RESULTS

Among the 120 HFrEF patients, majority were male (79.2%) with means age of 52.73 ± 12.23 years. At the end of 12 weeks, four (3.3%) patients died and eight (6.7%) dropped out of the study. In the remaining 108 patients, 80.6% (87) of the patients were tolerant to the prescribed dose. Functional class improved gradually with 75.0% (81) in class I and 24.1% (26) in class II, and only one (0.9%) patient in class III at the end of 12 weeks. Hyperkalemia remains the main safety concern with incidence rate of 21.3% (23) followed by hypotension in 19.4% (21), and renal dysfunction in 3.7% (4) of the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril/Valsartan therapy in HFrEF patients is safe and moderately tolerated among the Pakistani population. It can be used as first line of treatment for these patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05387967. Registered 24 May 2022-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05387967.

Short term effect of sacubitril/valsartan on comprehensive geriatric assessment in chronic heart failure: a real life analysis

Sacubitril/Valsartan (Sac-Val) has improved clinical prognosis in patients affected by heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Comorbidities have a crucial impact on clinical presentation and prognosis in HF patients. Cognitive impairment (CoI) and Depression are a very common comorbidity in patients with HF and is widely recognized as a specific determinant of chronic disability, and HF patients with poor physical functional performance in Short physical performance battery (SPPB) showed a worse prognosis. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the potential effects of Sac-Val on functional, humoral, and cognitive aspects, evaluated by performing comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA), in a cohort of elderly HFrEF. We studied 61 patients (51 men and 10 women, mean age 76.4 ± 5.1 years) suffering from HFrEF. After 6 months follow-up, we observed a significant improvement in humoral and functional parameters of CGA, renal function, NTpro-BNP levels and echocardiographic parameters. In the whole population, multivariate analysis shows that changes of Cardiac Index, NT-proBNP and Respiratory rate contributed for 26.0%, 9.7% and 4.8% to GDS variability, respectively, and the whole model accounted for a 41.1% of GDS variation; moreover changes of Global longitudinal strain, estimated glomerular filtration rate, Cardiac Index and BMI contributed for 23.9%, 11.7%, 5.4% and 4.0% to SPPB variability, respectively, and the whole model accounted for a 45% of SPPB variation. This represents the first real-world study carried out in an elderly population suffering from chronic HFrEF with numerous comorbidities, in which treatment with Sac-Val for 6 months induced important improvements in clinical, humoral, hemodynamic, and functional outcomes, without adverse effects on cognitive performance.

Impact of Sacubitril/Valsartan Compared With Ramipril on Cardiac Structure and Function After Acute Myocardial Infarction: The PARADISE-MI Echocardiographic Substudy

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors attenuate left ventricular (LV) enlargement after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Preclinical data suggest similar benefits with combined angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibition, but human data are conflicting. The PARADISE-MI Echo Study (Prospective ARNI Versus ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After Myocardial Infarction) tested the effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with ramipril on LV function and adverse remodeling after high risk-AMI.

METHODS

In a prespecified substudy, 544 PARADISE-MI participants were enrolled in the Echo Study to undergo protocol echocardiography at randomization and after 8 months. Patients were randomized within 0.5 to 7 days of presentation with their index AMI to receive a target dose of sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg or ramipril 5 mg twice daily. Echocardiographic measures were performed at a core laboratory by investigators blinded to treatment assignment. The effect of treatment on change in echo measures was assessed with ANCOVA with adjustment for baseline value and enrollment region. The primary end points were change in LV ejection fraction (LVEF) and left atrial volume (LAV), and prespecified secondary end points included changes in LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes.

RESULTS

Mean age was 64±12 years; 26% were women; mean LVEF was 42±12%; and LAV was 49±17 mL. Of 544 enrolled patients, 457 (84%) had a follow-up echo at 8 months (228 taking sacubitril/valsartan, 229 taking ramipril). There was no significant difference in change in LVEF (P=0.79) or LAV (P =0.62) by treatment group. Patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan demonstrated less increase in LV end-diastolic volume (P=0.025) and greater decline in LV mass index (P=0.037), increase in tissue Doppler e'lat (P=0.005), decrease in E/e'lat (P=0.045), and decrease in tricuspid regurgitation peak velocity (P=0.024) than patients randomized to ramipril. These differences remained significant after adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics. Baseline LVEF, LV end-diastolic volume, LV end-systolic volume, LV mass index, LAV, and Doppler-based diastolic indices were associated with risk of cardiovascular death or incident heart failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan compared with ramipril after AMI did not result in changes in LVEF or LAV at 8 months. Patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan had less LV enlargement and greater improvement in filling pressure. Measures of LV size, systolic function, and diastolic properties were predictive of cardiovascular death and incident heart failure after AMI in this contemporary, well-treated cohort.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT02924727.

Haemodynamic Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan Initiation in Outpatients with Chronic Heart Failure

Background

Sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) improves outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Data about the immediate, short-, and intermediate-term hemodynamic effects of S/V are limited.

Methods

In this prospective observational study, 37 outpatients with chronic HFrEF were treated with S/V according to current guideline recommendations. Next to clinical, laboratory and echocardiographic parameters, haemodynamic variables were assessed non-invasively by use of inert gas rebreathing and bioimpedance cardiography at baseline and at 2-week, 3-month and 6-month follow-up. The course of variables throughout the study and the relationship between variables were analysed using fractional polynomials.

Results

S/V treatment resulted in short- and intermediate-term improvements in NYHA functional class (2.3 ± 0.6 at baseline vs. 1.9 ± 0.5 at 6-month follow-up, p = 0.14), 6-min walk test (453 ± 110 vs. 528 ± 98 m, p = 0.02), ejection fraction (31 ± 9 vs. 36 ± 12%, p = 0.13), pulmonary artery pressure (39 ± 10 vs. 31 ± 10 mmHg, p = 0.02), and NT-proBNP values (1702 (782–2897 vs. 1004 (599–1627) ng/L, p = 0.03). In addition, S/V caused immediate decreases in systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI) and systolic blood pressure (SBP), which were associated with a simultaneous drop in stroke volume (SV) and cardiac index (CI). However, while SVRI and SBP remained at low levels during further treatment, SV and CI restored rapidly and increased to slightly higher levels thereafter.

Conclusion

The vasodilative effects of S/V result in immediate reductions in SVRI, SBP, SV and CI. However, S/V induces reverse cardiac remodelling, which is apparent shortly after treatment initiation and leads to improvements of clinical, functional, echocardiographic, laboratory and haemodynamic variables.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40256-022-00549-2.

Effects of sacubitril/valsartan on glycemia in patients with diabetes and heart failure: the PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF trials

BACKGROUND

Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan lowered HbA1c and reduced new insulin therapy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and diabetes in the PARADIGM-HF trial. We sought to assess the glycemic effects of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and diabetes, and across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in heart failure and diabetes.

METHODS

We compared the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, relative to valsartan, on HbA1c, new insulin therapy and hypoglycemia in the randomized controlled trial PARAGON-HF, and performed pooled analyses of PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF.

RESULTS

Among 2395 patients with HFpEF and diabetes in PARAGON-HF, sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan reduced HbA1c (baseline-adjusted between-group difference in HbA1c change at 48 weeks: - 0.24%, 95% CI - 0.33 to - 0.16%, P < 0.001). Numerically, new insulin treatment was initiated less often in the sacubitril/valsartan group than in the valsartan group, but the difference was not statistically significant (12.8% vs. 16.1%; HR: 0.80, 95% CI 0.62-1.02, P = 0.07). Hypoglycemia adverse event reports were low, but more frequent in those receiving sacubitril/valsartan than in the valsartan group (4.2% vs. 2.6%; HR: 1.64, 95% CI 1.05-2.56, P = 0.030). In a pooled analysis of PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF, the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on change in HbA1c was not significantly modified by LVEF (Pinteraction = 0.56). Across the spectrum of LVEF, sacubitril/valsartan reduced new insulin therapy (HR: 0.75, 95% CI 0.63-0.89, P = 0.001), compared with enalapril or valsartan.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril/valsartan reduced HbA1c and new insulin therapy in patients with heart failure and diabetes across the spectrum of LVEF but may be associated with a slightly higher risk for hypoglycemia. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01920711.

Efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in an outpatient setting: A single-center real-world retrospective study in HFrEF patients with focus on possible predictors of clinical outcome

BACKGROUND

Currently, data on sacubitril/valsartan therapy from the real-world settings are scarce and the predictors of a good clinical responsiveness to this drug are unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To assess efficacy and safety profile of sacubitril/valsartan and to identify predictors for a better clinical outcome.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Clinical, laboratory and echocardiographic data of 95 chronic heart failure (CHF) patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) were retrospectively analyzed. A good efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan was defined as the fulfilment of at least 2 of the following criteria: improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) or functional status, and reduction of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels or hospitalization rates.

RESULTS

Under sacubitril/valsartan, major improvements were observed in LVEF, the New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, NT-proBNP levels, and hospitalization rates. Patients with a good efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan were characterized by initially worse LVEF (median (interquartile range (IQR)): 29.0% (23.0-33.0%) compared to 32.0% (28.5-38.0%) with more frequent nonischemic etiology (65.4% compared to 41.9%) and hospitalizations for CHF/month (0.016 (0.004-0.057) compared to 0.000 (0.000-0.012)), lower cholesterol (42.3% compared to 65.1%), higher C-reactive protein (CRP) levels at baseline (0.5 mg/L (0.5-1.0 mg/L) compared to 0.5 mg/L (0.5-0.5 mg/L)), and a shorter timespan between CHF diagnosis and the start of sacubitril/valsartan treatment (66.0 (11.0-127.0) compared to 111 (73.0-211.0) months) (p < 0.05 each). In a multivariate Cox analysis, only the last 2 parameters were shown to be independent predictors of good clinical responsiveness to sacubitril/valsartan (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.263, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = [1.048; 1.521]; HR = 0.992, 95% CI = [0.987; 0.997], p < 0.05, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril/valsartan improved LVEF, NYHA class, NT-proBNP levels, and hospitalization rates, mostly without relevant side effects. The independent predictors of a good clinical efficacy were higher CRP levels at baseline and a shorter delay between CHF diagnosis and the initialization of sacubitril/valsartan therapy.

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.

Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan vs Standard Medical Therapies on Plasma NT-proBNP Concentration and Submaximal Exercise Capacity in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction: The PARALLAX Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

There is limited evidence on the benefits of sacubitril/valsartan vs broader renin angiotensin system inhibitor background therapy on surrogate outcome markers, 6-minute walk distance, and quality of life in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF >40%).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels, 6-minute walk distance, and quality of life vs background medication-based individualized comparators in patients with chronic heart failure and LVEF of more than 40%.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A 24-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel group clinical trial (August 2017-October 2019). Of 4632 patients screened at 396 centers in 32 countries, 2572 patients with heart failure, LVEF of more than 40%, elevated NT-proBNP levels, structural heart disease, and reduced quality of life were enrolled (last follow-up, October 28, 2019).

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized 1:1 either to sacubitril/valsartan (n = 1286) or to background medication-based individualized comparator (n = 1286), ie, enalapril, valsartan, or placebo stratified by prior use of a renin angiotensin system inhibitor.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary end points were change from baseline in plasma NT-proBNP level at week 12 and in the 6-minute walk distance at week 24. Secondary end points were change from baseline in quality of life measures and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class at 24 weeks.

RESULTS

Among 2572 randomized patients (mean age, 72.6 years [SD, 8.5 years]; 1301 women [50.7%]), 2240 (87.1%) completed the trial. At baseline, the median NT-proBNP levels were 786 pg/mL in the sacubitril/valsartan group and 760 pg/mL in the comparator group. After 12 weeks, patients in the sacubitril/valsartan group (adjusted geometric mean ratio to baseline, 0.82 pg/mL) had a significantly greater reduction in NT-proBNP levels than did those in the comparator group (adjusted geometric mean ratio to baseline, 0.98 pg/mL) with an adjusted geometric mean ratio of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80 to 0.88; P < .001). At week 24, there was no significant between-group difference in median change from baseline in the 6-minute walk distance with an increase of 9.7 m vs 12.2 m (adjusted mean difference, -2.5 m; 95% CI, -8.5 to 3.5; P = .42). There was no significant between-group difference in the mean change in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (12.3 vs 11.8; mean difference, 0.52; 95% CI, -0.93 to 1.97) or improvement in NYHA class (23.6% vs 24.0% of patients; adjusted odds ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.18). The most frequent adverse events in the sacubitril/valsartan group vs the comparator group were hypotension (14.1% vs 5.5%), albuminuria (12.3% vs 7.6%), and hyperkalemia (11.6% vs 10.9%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with heart failure and left ventricular ejection factor of higher than 40%, sacubitril/valsartan treatment compared with standard renin angiotensin system inhibitor treatment or placebo resulted in a significantly greater decrease in plasma N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide levels at 12 weeks but did not significantly improve 6-minute walk distance at 24 weeks. Further research is warranted to evaluate potential clinical benefits of sacubitril/valsartan in these patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03066804.

Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibition in Acute Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

In patients with symptomatic heart failure, sacubitril-valsartan has been found to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death from cardiovascular causes more effectively than an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor. Trials comparing the effects of these drugs in patients with acute myocardial infarction have been lacking.

METHODS

We randomly assigned patients with myocardial infarction complicated by a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, pulmonary congestion, or both to receive either sacubitril-valsartan (97 mg of sacubitril and 103 mg of valsartan twice daily) or ramipril (5 mg twice daily) in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure (outpatient symptomatic heart failure or heart failure leading to hospitalization), whichever occurred first.

RESULTS

A total of 5661 patients underwent randomization; 2830 were assigned to receive sacubitril-valsartan and 2831 to receive ramipril. Over a median of 22 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 338 patients (11.9%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 373 patients (13.2%) in the ramipril group (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 1.04; P = 0.17). Death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 308 patients (10.9%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 335 patients (11.8%) in the ramipril group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.07); death from cardiovascular causes in 168 (5.9%) and 191 (6.7%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.08); and death from any cause in 213 (7.5%) and 242 (8.5%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.05). Treatment was discontinued because of an adverse event in 357 patients (12.6%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 379 patients (13.4%) in the ramipril group.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril-valsartan was not associated with a significantly lower incidence of death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure than ramipril among patients with acute myocardial infarction. (Funded by Novartis; PARADISE-MI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02924727.).

Safety and Efficacy of the Combination of Sacubitril/Valsartan and SGLT2i in HFrEF Patients (SECSI Registry)

ABSTRACT

Recent studies have proven benefit of SGLT2i drugs in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but their safety when combined with angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) has not been established. The Safety and Efficacy of the Combination of Sacubitril/Valsartan and SGLT2i in HFrEF Patients registry was conducted to address this issue. SECSI registry is a consecutive, observational, retrospective, multicentre study conducted in 3 Heart Failure Units in Spain. It included 144 HFrEF patients who were treated with ARNI and iSGLT2. Data were collected at baseline, month 2, and month 6. The primary endpoint was the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), after the initiation of ARNI and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i). Secondary endpoints included potassium levels and functional class (New York Heart Association class). There were 3 prespecified subgroup analyses: Elderly patients (≥70 years), patients with chronic kidney disease (KDIGO classification G3), and the sequence of drug initiation. Mean age was 69.9 ± 10.1 years, and 110 (76.4%) were men. Left ventricular ejection fraction was 32 ± 7.8%, and most patients were symptomatic [123 (87.2%) New York Heart Association II/III/IV]. eGFR decreased at month 2 and this trend was maintained at month 6 [eGFR baseline 68.5 ± 17.3, month 2 62 ± 19.7 and month 6 64.7 ± 8.6 mL/min/1.73 m2 (P < 0.01 for both)]. In prespecified analysis, elder patients and those who simultaneously initiate both treatments showed the steeper decrease in eGFR. To conclude, co-administration of SGLT2i and ARNI in routine care in HFrEF patients produced a slight decrease in eGFR at 6 months of follow-up. This decrease was especially significant in elder patients and those who initiate both drugs simultaneously.

Characteristics of Heart Failure Patients With or Without Hypotension When Transitioning From Nitroprusside to Sacubitril-Valsartan

BACKGROUND

Sacubitril-valsartan is an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor indicated for the treatment of patients with symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Little is known about outcomes of HFrEF patients transitioned from sodium nitroprusside (SNP) to sacubitril-valsartan during an admission for acute decompensated heart failure. We sought to describe characteristics of patients initiated on sacubitril-valsartan while receiving SNP and, in particular, those patients who did and did not experience hypotension requiring interruption or discontinuation of sacubitril-valsartan.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective case series of adult patients (>18 years) with HFrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%) admitted to the University of Michigan cardiac intensive care unit between July 2018 to September 2020 who received sacubitril-valsartan while on SNP.

RESULTS

A total of 15 patients with acute decompensated heart failure were initiated on sacubitril-valsartan while on SNP. The mean age was 57 ± 15.9 years. Seven (46.7%) patients experienced hypotension. The patients in the cohort who experienced hypotension were numerically older (60 ± 17 vs. 55 ± 15.5), and the majority were white (86%). Patients with hypotension had a numerically lower left ventricular ejection fraction (13 ± 4.2 vs. 18 ± 8.2) and higher serum creatinine (1.4 ± 0.54 vs. 0.88 ± 0.25). Seven (100%) patients received a diuretic on the day of sacubitril-valsartan initiation in those who experienced hypotension compared with 2 (25%) in those who did not experience hypotension.

CONCLUSIONS

In almost half of patients admitted to the cardiac intensive care unit with acutely decompensated HFrEF, significant hypotension was seen when initiating sacubitril-valsartan while on SNP. Future studies should evaluate appropriate patients for this transition and delineate appropriate titration parameters.

Sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril on exercise capacity in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study

Sacubitril/valsartan reduces mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) when compared with enalapril. However, it is unknown the effect of both treatments on exercise capacity. We compared sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril in patients with HFrEF based on peak oxygen consumption (VO₂) and 6-minute walk test (6-MWT).

METHODS

We included 52 participants with HFrEF with a left ventricular ejection fraction <40% to receive either sacubitril/valsartan (target dose of 400 mg daily) or enalapril (target dose of 40 mg daily). Peak VO₂ was measured by using cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Six-minute walk test was also performed.

RESULTS

At 12 weeks, the sacubitril/valsartan (mean dose 382.6 ± 57.6 mg daily) group had increased peak VO₂ of 13.1% (19.35 ± 0.99 to 21.89 ± 1.04 mL/kg/min) and enalapril (mean dose 34.4 ± 9.2 mg daily) 5.6% (18.58 ± 1.19 to 19.62 ± 1.25 mL/kg/min). However, no difference was found between groups (P = .332 interaction). At 24 weeks, peak VO₂ increased 13.5% (19.35 ± 0.99 to 21.96 ± 0.98 mL/kg/min) and 12.0% (18.58 ± 1.19 to 20.82 ± 1.18 mL/kg/min) in sacubitril/valsartan (mean dose 400 ± 0 mg daily) and enalapril (mean dose 32.7 ± 11.0 mg daily), respectively. However, no differences were found between groups (P= .332 interaction). At 12 weeks, 6-MWT increased in both groups (sacubitril/valsartan: 459 ± 18 to 488 ± 17 meters [6.3%] and enalapril: 443 ± 22 to 477 ± 21 meters [7.7%]). At 24 weeks, sacubitril/valsartan increased 18.3% from baseline (543 ± 26 meters) and enalapril decreased slightly to 6.8% (473 ± 31 meters), but no differences existed between groups (P= .257 interaction).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan did not substantially improve peak VO₂ or 6-MWT after 12 or 24 weeks in participants with HFrEF. (NEPRIExTol-HF Trial, ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03190304).

Use of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor in Patients on Maintenance Hemodialysis with Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction, Real-World Experience From a Single Center

INTRODUCTION

Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) has been recommended by major guidelines as the leading therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). But little is known about its safety and effectiveness among maintenance hemodialysis patients with HFrEF in real-word practice.

METHODS

An observational study was conducted among maintenance hemodialysis patients who received ARNI at our dialysis center. Enrollment commenced on June 1, 2018; and follow-up was completed on May 31, 2019.

RESULTS

A total of 110 patients included in the study (age: 54.2 ± 14.8 y, 59% males). After 12 months of treatment, the average ARNI daily dose increased from 135 mg to 308 mg. The mean NT-pro- BNP concentration at baseline was 14455 pg/mL and 6435 pg/ mL after 12 months of treatment (P < .001). The left ventricular ejection fraction improved (35.1 vs. 49.8%, P < .001) over the 12 months, while left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, left ventricular mass index, left ventricular end-systolic diameter, and left atrial diameter also changed significantly (167.8 vs. 154.9 g/m, P < .001; 52.2 vs. 51.5 mm, P < .05; 35.9 vs. 36.9 mm, P < .001; 42.2 vs. 40.3 mm, P < .001). Furthermore, we found the quality of life and the NYHA symptom severity class improved significantly (P < .001). Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated that higher dose of ARNI and less vintage of HD were associated with best survival.

CONCLUSION

In our study, ARNI appeared to be safe, relieved heart failure symptoms, and improved the scores of KCCQ physical and social activities in hemodialysis patients in real-world practice.

Five Years of Sacubitril/Valsartan-a Safety Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials and Real-World Pharmacovigilance

PURPOSE

In PARADIGM-HF, sacubitril/valsartan showed a significant reduction in mortality and hospitalization for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Despite proven efficacy, sacubitril/valsartan has moderate uptake in clinical practice. This study explores the safety profile of sacubitril/valsartan by comparing adverse events in RCT and real-world use.

METHODS

We studied hypotension, renal dysfunction, hyperkalemia, and angioedema associated with sacubitril/valsartan in RCTs and pharmacovigilance databases. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed with six RCTs investigating sacubitril/valsartan vs. control/comparators in heart failure patients. WHO's VigiBase, FAERS, and EMA's EudraVigilance were mined to obtain spontaneously reported real-world adverse events. Disproportionality analysis was performed with the FDA's OpenVigil 2.0.

RESULTS

Six RCTs enrolled 15,538 patients with heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fractions. There was no statistical difference for the composite of hypotension, renal dysfunction, hyperkalemia, and angioedema between sacubitril/valsartan and its comparators viz. ACEi or ARBs (OR 1.23, CI 0.98-1.56; p = 0.08). A total of 103,038 adverse events were registered in the spontaneous reporting systems. Hypotension was the most reported adverse event. Proportions of composite adverse events were 20% in VigiBase, 17% in FAERS, and 39% with EudraVigilance. Disproportionality analysis showed a lower risk of adverse events with sacubitril/valsartan than other guideline-directed heart failure medications used in clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

With increased uptake of sacubitril/valsartan, risks of hypotension, renal dysfunction, hyperkalemia, and angioedema appear low and acceptable in RCTs and global clinical practice.

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

ABSTRACT

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

Clinical relevance of transient worsening renal function after initiation of sacubitril/valsartan

BACKGROUND

The worsening of renal function after the start of valsartan therapy is relatively common in clinical practice. However, few data are available on the incidence of worsening renal function after the beginning of therapy with sacubitril/valsartan.

METHODS

We retrospectively enrolled 202 outpatients with HFrEF that started therapy with sacubitril/valsartan to evaluate the prevalence of worsening renal function and its clinical significance.

RESULTS

At 1 month, a worsening renal function (defined as a > 20% decrease in eGFR occurring after 1 month of ARNi therapy) was found in 68 patients (33%), however after a mean follow-up of 650 ± 80 days, Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no significant in terms of HF-related deaths, HF-related hospitalizations, and the need for renal replacement therapy (25.2 vs. 23.6%; p = .812). In addition, the renal function recovered in patients with early WRF at 3 months (62 + 9.3 ml/min/1.73 m² vs. 63 ± 13.8 ml/min/1.73 m²; p < .05), with an improvement in estimated glomerular filtration rate at 1 year compared with baseline value (62 ± 9.3 ml/min/1.73 m² vs. 69 ± 8.6 ml/min/1.73 m²; p < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

WRF occurs in nearly 30% of HFrEF patients without impacting clinical outcomes; HF specialists should be aware of these changes to avoid unnecessary discontinuation of sacubitril/valsartan therapy.

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.

Sacubitril/valsartan-treated patients with exacerbated acute heart failure: approaches to care in the emergency department and on the ward

OBJECTIVES

To describe the pattern of care usually given to patients with acute heart failure (AHF) who are taking sacubitril/valsartan (SV) and to explore the effects of care characteristics on clinical outcomes.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Exploratory study of AHF cases in patients taking SV who were included in the register for the Epidemiology of Acute Heart Failure in Emergency Departments during the sixth period of data collection (EAHFE-6). We extracted baseline and episode variables and information related to SV treatment. We also analyzed associations between the discontinuation of SV therapy and adverse events within 180 days (all-cause mortality) and after discharge (emergency revisits, admission for AHF, death from any cause, or a composite event).

RESULTS

. Fifty patients on SV were included. The median time on SV therapy was 81 days (interquartile range, 43-284 days). SV was discontinued in 19 cases (38%; 5 in the emergency department and 14 on the ward). Sixteen records specified the reason for discontinuing SV: renal insufficiency, 4 cases; arterial hypotension, 3; weakness/dizziness, 3; and exacerbated AHF, 3. SV discontinuation was associated with older age, absence of treatment with a betablocker, and hyperkalemia. The EAHFE-6 cases did not reveal significant differences related to SV discontinuation with respect to the rates of adverse events within 180 days or on discharge after the index event.

CONCLUSION

Long-term SV therapy is discontinued in over a third of patients who present with exacerbated AHF even though no association with clinical outcomes could be identified.

Systolic Blood Pressure in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction Treated With Sacubitril/Valsartan

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend targeting systolic blood pressure (SBP) <130 mm Hg in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) with limited data.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to determine the optimal achieved SBP and whether the treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan on outcomes are related to BP lowering, particularly among women who derive greater benefit from sacubitril/valsartan.

METHODS

Using 4,795 trial participants, this study related baseline and time-updated mean achieved SBP quartiles (<120, 120 to 129, 130 to 139, ≥140 mm Hg) to the primary outcome (cardiovascular death and total heart failure hospitalization), its components, myocardial infarction or stroke, and a renal composite outcome. At the 16-week visit, the study assessed the relationship between SBP change and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score (KCCQ-OSS) and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). The study analyzed whether the BP-lowering effects of sacubitril/valsartan accounted for its treatment effects.

RESULTS

Average age was 73 ± 8 years, and 52% of participants were women. After multivariable adjustment, baseline and mean achieved SBP of 120 to 129 mm Hg demonstrated the lowest risk for all outcomes. Sacubitril/valsartan reduced SBP by 5.2 mm Hg (95% confidence interval: 4.4 to 6.0) compared with valsartan at 4 weeks, which was not modified by baseline SBP. However, sacubitril/valsartan reduced SBP more in women (6.3 mm Hg) than men (4.0 mm Hg) (interaction p = 0.005). Change in SBP was directly associated with change in NT-proBNP (p < 0.001) but not KCCQ-OSS (p = 0.40). The association between sacubitril/valsartan and the primary outcome was not modified by baseline SBP (interaction p = 0.50) and was similar when adjusting for time-updated SBP, regardless of sex.

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline and mean achieved SBP of 120 to 129 mm Hg identified the lowest risk patients with HFpEF. Baseline SBP did not modify the treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan, and the BP-lowering effects of sacubitril/valsartan did not account for its effects on outcomes, regardless of sex. (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711).

Sacubitril/Valsartan is useful and safe in elderly people with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. Data from a real-word cohort

BACKGROUND

HF elderly patients are underrepresented in Sacubitril/Valsartan HF trials, and the effect of S/V in real-life patients with advanced age is unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use and safety of S/V in a real-word cohort of elderly patients.

METHODS

We performed a prospective registry of patients who started S/V in clinical practice. We compared baseline characteristics, adverse events during follow-up and causes of S/V withdrawal according to age.

RESULTS

A total of 427 patients started treatment with S/V: 222 (52.0%)<70 years old, 140 (32.8%) between 70 and 79 and 65 (15.2%)≥80. During a mean follow-up of 7.0±0.1months S/V was well tolerated, with no age-related differences in adverse events (26.8%, 25.9%, 23.1% respectively; p=0.83). Symptomatic hypotension tended to be more frequent in the elderly (19.8%, 25.6%, 33.3% respectively; p=0.17). The withdrawal of S/V was more frequent in younger patients (14.4%, 10.0%, 4.6% respectively; p=0.05) and related to poor prognosis (HR 13.51, 95% CI 3.22-56.13, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril/Valsartan is useful and safe in elderly people with HF-rEF in real-life clinical practice, and withdrawal is associated to poor prognosis. The doses achieved are lower in elderly people.

In-silico simulated prototype-patients using TPMS technology to study a potential adverse effect of sacubitril and valsartan

Unveiling the mechanism of action of a drug is key to understand the benefits and adverse reactions of a medication in an organism. However, in complex diseases such as heart diseases there is not a unique mechanism of action but a wide range of different responses depending on the patient. Exploring this collection of mechanisms is one of the clues for a future personalized medicine. The Therapeutic Performance Mapping System (TPMS) is a Systems Biology approach that generates multiple models of the mechanism of action of a drug. Each molecular mechanism generated could be associated to particular individuals, here defined as prototype-patients, hence the generation of models using TPMS technology may be used for detecting adverse effects to specific patients. TPMS operates by (1) modelling the responses in humans with an accurate description of a protein network and (2) applying a Multilayer Perceptron-like and sampling strategy to find all plausible solutions. In the present study, TPMS is applied to explore the diversity of mechanisms of action of the drug combination sacubitril/valsartan. We use TPMS to generate a wide range of models explaining the relationship between sacubitril/valsartan and heart failure (the indication), as well as evaluating their association with macular degeneration (a potential adverse effect). Among the models generated, we identify a set of mechanisms of action associated to a better response in terms of heart failure treatment, which could also be associated to macular degeneration development. Finally, a set of 30 potential biomarkers are proposed to identify mechanisms (or prototype-patients) more prone of suffering macular degeneration when presenting good heart failure response. All prototype-patients models generated are completely theoretical and therefore they do not necessarily involve clinical effects in real patients. Data and accession to software are available at http://sbi.upf.edu/data/tpms/

Renal effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a real life 1-year follow-up study

Real-life data confirming the favourable renal outcome in patients with heart failure (HF) treated with Sacubitril/Valsartan, previously found in several trials (RCTs), are still scant. We evaluated the renal effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan in a real-life sample of HF patients. Observational analysis of 54 consecutive outpatients affected by HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and clinical indication for Sacubitril/Valsartan. Patients were evaluated at baseline (T0) and after six (T6) and twelve (T12) months after initiating Sacubitril/Valsartan and compared with a group of 30 historical controls. Mean age: 65.5 ± 11.7 years. Older patients: 29 (53.7%). Mean baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR): 59.4 ± 19.2 ml/min/1.73 m². Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), defined by an eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m², were 29 (53.7%). Sacubitril/Valsartan was less titrated in both older patients and patients with CKD. There were no changes in diuretics during follow-up. Systolic blood pressure (BP) decreased during follow-up (p = 0.014), while left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) slighly increased (p < 0.001). Renal function improved after 12 months compared to historical controls (p for interaction < 0.001) and a greater benefit was found in subjects aged < 65 years (p for interaction = 0.002) and patients with CKD (p for interaction = 0.009). A statistically (p = 0.009), but not clinically significant increase in serum potassium was also found, regardless of age and CKD. This is the first study focused on the renal effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan in HFrEF patients followed for 12 months in a real-life clinical context. The improved eGFR, despite lower BP, represents an important confirmation outside the peculiar world of RCTs.

Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibition in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

The angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril-valsartan led to a reduced risk of hospitalization for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes among patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. The effect of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibition in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is unclear.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 4822 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II to IV heart failure, ejection fraction of 45% or higher, elevated level of natriuretic peptides, and structural heart disease to receive sacubitril-valsartan (target dose, 97 mg of sacubitril with 103 mg of valsartan twice daily) or valsartan (target dose, 160 mg twice daily). The primary outcome was a composite of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. Primary outcome components, secondary outcomes (including NYHA class change, worsening renal function, and change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire [KCCQ] clinical summary score [scale, 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating fewer symptoms and physical limitations]), and safety were also assessed.

RESULTS

There were 894 primary events in 526 patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 1009 primary events in 557 patients in the valsartan group (rate ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 1.01; P = 0.06). The incidence of death from cardiovascular causes was 8.5% in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 8.9% in the valsartan group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.16); there were 690 and 797 total hospitalizations for heart failure, respectively (rate ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.00). NYHA class improved in 15.0% of the patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 12.6% of those in the valsartan group (odds ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.86); renal function worsened in 1.4% and 2.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.77). The mean change in the KCCQ clinical summary score at 8 months was 1.0 point (95% CI, 0.0 to 2.1) higher in the sacubitril-valsartan group. Patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group had a higher incidence of hypotension and angioedema and a lower incidence of hyperkalemia. Among 12 prespecified subgroups, there was suggestion of heterogeneity with possible benefit with sacubitril-valsartan in patients with lower ejection fraction and in women.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril-valsartan did not result in a significantly lower rate of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes among patients with heart failure and an ejection fraction of 45% or higher. (Funded by Novartis; PARAGON-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01920711.).

Echocardiographic evaluation of the effects of sacubitril-valsartan on vascular properties in heart failure patients

Increased vascular stiffness is known to be an independent predictor of mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The effects of sacubitril-valsartan on vascular structure and function have not been systematically studied in this patient population. We hypothesized that aortic distensibility (AD) and fractional area change (AFAC), as assessed by 2D transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), would improve over time in HFrEF patients on sacubitril-valsartan therapy, due to the vasodilatory properties of the medication. We prospectively studied 30 patients with HFrEF (25 < EF < 40%) on optimal guideline-directed medical therapy who were subsequently started on sacubitril-valsartan. Patients underwent serial 2D TTE imaging at baseline, 3 and 6 months following therapy initiation. Ascending aortic diameters were measured 3 cm above the aortic valve in the parasternal long-axis view and used to calculate AD and AFAC, two markers of vascular compliance. For reference, we also measured AD and AFAC in 30 healthy, age and gender-matched controls at a single time point. Normal controls had significantly higher values of AD and AFAC than HFrEF patients at baseline (AD: 4.0 ± 1.1 vs. 2.2 ± 0.9 cm²dyne^-110^-3, p < 0.0001 and AFAC: 18.8 ± 3.7% vs. 10.3 ± 4.3%, p < 0.0001). In HFrEF patients on sacubitril-valsartan, both indices of aortic compliance progressively improved towards normal from baseline to 6 months: AD from 2.2 ± 0.9 to 3.6 ± 1.5 cm²dyne^-110^-3 (p < 0.0001) and AFAC from 10.3 ± 4.3 to 13.7 ± 4.1% (p < 0.0001). In conclusion, AD and AFAC are decreased in patients with HFrEF and gradually improve with sacubitril-valsartan treatment. The echocardiographic markers used in this study may become a useful tool to assess the effectiveness of sacubitril-valsartan therapy in HFrEF patients.

Safety and Tolerability of Initiating Maximum-Dose Sacubitril-Valsartan in Patients on Target Dose Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitors

AIM

Sacubitril-valsartan has proven beneficial in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Guidelines recommend initiating half-dose sacubitril-valsartan before up-titration even to patients already on target dose angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB). To reduce the number of titration steps needed in order to simplify for the patient as well as the clinic, we aimed to investigate the safety and tolerability of switching patients on target dose ACE inhibitors or ARBs directly to maximum-dose sacubitril-valsartan.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study was conducted between April 2016 and November 2017. A total of 66 patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction already on guideline-recommended target dose ACE inhibitors or ARBs (equivalent to enalapril 10 mg twice daily) were switched to maximum-dose sacubitril-valsartan (200 mg twice daily). The patients were followed for twelve months.

RESULTS

Patients had a mean age of 72 ± 10 years, mean systolic blood pressure of 121 ± 17 mmHg, and 92% were male. At 12-month follow-up, nine patients (14%) had discontinued sacubitril-valsartan, four patients (6%) had a dose reduction, and 17 patients (26%) had developed symptomatic hypotension. No angioedema occurred within the 12-month follow-up and there were no hospitalizations or emergency room visits within the first 14 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching directly from target dose ACE inhibitors or ARBs to maximum-dose sacubitril-valsartan was safe and generally well tolerated.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Antihypertensive effect of sacubitril/valsartan: a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan used as an antihypertensive agent has not yet been completely assessed. Thus, to investigate them in elderly hypertensive patients, a meta-analysis has been performed.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The meta-analysis incorporated only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which sacubitril/valsartan was compared with a reference drug. The mean reductions in systolic blood pressure (msSBP) and diastolic blood pressure (msDBP) in the sitting position as well as the mean reductions in ambulatory systolic blood pressure (maSBP) and ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (maDBP), were assumed as efficacy endpoints. Adverse events were taken as safety outcomes.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Five RCTs were included for a total of 1513 patients for analysis. In all studies, the comparator drug was an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) - valsartan in two cases and olmesartan in the remaining three cases. Compared with ARBs, there was a significant reduction in msSBP (weight mean difference [WMD] -5.41 mmHg, 95% CI: -7.0 to -3.8; P<0.01), msDBP (WMD=-1.22 mmHg, 95% CI: -2.15 to -0.3; P<0.01), maSBP (WMD=-4.58 mmHg, 95% CI: -5.62 to -3.54; P<0.01) and maDBP (WMD=-2.17 mmHg, 95% CI: - 2.78 to -1.56; P<0.01) in elderly hypertensive patients at 12 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril/valsartan may reduce arterial pressure more efficaciously than ARBs in elderly hypertensive patients.