Low- vs high-dose ARNI effects on clinical status, exercise performance and cardiac function in real-life HFrEF patients.

PURPOSE: Only a few studies are available on dose-related effects of sacubitril/valsartan (angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibition (ARNI)) in real-life patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We sought to investigate clinical and functional effects in real-life HFrEF patients receiving ARNI at a different cumulative dose. METHODS: This was an observational study in consecutive outpatients admitted for HFrEF from October 2017 to June 2019. The PARADIGM criteria were needed for enrolment. ARNI was uptitrated according to blood pressure, drug tolerability, renal function and kaliemia. At least 10-month follow-up was required in each patient. Clinical assessment, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) score, 6-min walk test and strain echocardiography were performed in each patient on a regular basis during the observational period. At the end of the study, patients were divided into two groups based on the median yearly dose of the ARNI medication. RESULTS: A total of 90 patients, 64 ± 11 years, 82% males, were enrolled. The cut-off dose was established in 75 mg BID, and the study population was divided into group A (≤ 75 mg), 52 patients (58%), and group B (> 75 mg), 38 patients (42%). The follow-up duration was 12 months (range 11-13). NYHA class, KCCQ score and 6MWT performance ameliorated in both groups, with a quicker time to benefit in group B. The proportion of patients walking > 350 m increased from 21 to 58% in group A (p < 0.001), and from 29 to 82% in group B (p < 0.001). A positive effect was also disclosed in the left ventricular remodelling, strain deformation and diastolic function. CONCLUSION: One-year ARNI treatment was effective in our real-life HFrEF patient population, leading to clinical and functional improvement in both study groups, slightly greater and with a shorter time to benefit in group B.

Impact of sacubitril/valsartan on implantable defibrillator eligibility in heart failure: a real-world experience.

OBJECTIVE: Current guidelines recommend an implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) in patients with symptomatic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF; left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] ≤35%) despite ≥3 months of optimal medical therapy. Recent observations demonstrated that sacubitril/valsartan induces beneficial reverse cardiac remodeling in eligible HFrEF patients. Given the pivotal role of LVEF in the selection of ICD candidates, we sought to assess the impact of sacubitril/valsartan on ICD eligibility and its predictors in HFrEF patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 48 chronic HFrEF patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan and previously implanted with an ICD in primary prevention. We assumed that ICD was no longer necessary if LVEF improved >35% (or >30% if asymptomatics) at follow-up. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 11 months, sacubitril/valsartan induced a significant drop in LV end-systolic volume (-16.7 ml/m2, p=0.023) and diameter (-6.8 mm, p=0.022), resulting in a significant increase in LVEF (+3.9%, p<0.001). As a consequence, 40% of previously implanted patients resulted no more eligible for ICD at follow-up. NYHA class improved in 50% of the population. A dose-dependent effect was noted, with higher doses associated to more reverse remodeling. Among patients deemed no more eligible for ICD, lower NYHA class (odds ratio (OR) 3.73 [95% CI 1.05; 13.24], p=0.041), better LVEF (OR 1.23 [95% CI 1.01; 1.48], p=0.032) and the treatment with the intermediate or high dose of sacubitril/valsartan (OR 5.60 [1.15; 27.1], p=0.032) were the most important predictors of status change. CONCLUSIONS: In symptomatic HFrEF patients, sacubitril/valsartan induced beneficial cardiac reverse remodeling and improved NYHA class. These effects resulted in a significant reduction of patients deemed eligible for ICD in primary prevention.

Therapeutic Effects of GGsTop® Gel in a Mouse Model of 5-Fluorouracil-induced Oral Mucositis With Reduced White Blood Cells.

BACKGROUND/AIM: In order to produce an animal model for oral mucositis induced by anticancer drugs, it is necessary to maintain an immunosuppressive state. We determined the optimal dose and frequency of 5-fluorouracil for a model mouse production. In addition, we used this model to investigate the effect of GGsTop® gelation on the therapeutic effect of oral mucositis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Changes in body weight and white blood cell count were measured to determine the optimal dosing schedule. The therapeutic effect of GGsTop® gel using chitosan was evaluated by observing changes in the ulcer area for three weeks and measuring collagen and glutathione concentrations in oral mucosal tissue. RESULTS: The optimal dose and frequency of 5-fluorouracil were found to be 50 mg/kg every four days. It was revealed that the therapeutic effect of GGsTop® was enhanced by gelation. CONCLUSION: GGsTop® gel is suggested to be a promising formulation for the treatment of oral mucositis.

Early treatment with combination of SS31 and entresto effectively preserved the heart function in doxorubicin-induced dilated cardiomyopathic rat.

BACKGROUND: This study tested the hypothesis that early administration of SS31 and entresto (En) was superior to either one alone on preserving the heart function in setting of dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) induced by doxorubicin (Dox) [accumulated dosage of 12.5 mg/kg/administered by intraperitoneal (IP) at 4 separated time points within 20 days] in rat. METHODS AND RESULTS: Adult-male SD rats (n = 40) were equally categorized into groups 1 (sham-control), 2 (DCM), 3 (DCM + SS31/0.7 mg/kg/day/IP, since day-14 after DCM induction to day-60), 4 [DCM + En (30 mg/kg/day/orally since day-14 after DCM induction to day-60)] and 5 (DCM + combined SS31-En), and animals were euthanized by day 60. By day 60, left-ventricular ejection-fraction (LVEF) was highest in group 1, lowest in group 2 and significantly higher in group 5 than in groups 3 and 4 (all p < 0.0001), but it showed no difference between groups 3/4. The microscopic study showed that the fibrosis area/cardiomyocyte size and DNA-damaged (γ-H2AX+)/inflammatory (CD14+//CD68+) markers, and flow analysis of inflammatory (Ly6G+/MPO+/CD11b/c+) and early/late apoptosis (AN-V+/PI-//AN-V+/PI+) cells exhibited an opposite pattern of LVEF among the five groups (all p < 0.0001). The protein expressions of inflammatory upstream (TLR2/TLR4/MyD88/Mal/ TRAF6/IKK-α/IKK-ß) and downstream (p-NF-κb/TNF-α/IL-1ß/MMP-9), oxidative-stress/mitochondrial-damaged (NOX-1/NOX-2/cytosolic cytochrome-C/cyclophilin-D/DRP1) and autophagic/apoptotic (ratio of LC3B-II/LC3B-I and mitochondrial-Bax/caspase3/9) signaling pathways also exhibited an opposite pattern of LVEF among the five groups (all p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Combined SS31-En therapy was superior to either one alone on protecting the heart structural and functional integrities against Dox-induced DCM damage.

Clinical evidence of initiating a very low dose of sacubitril/valsartan: a prospective observational analysis.

Sacubitril/valsartan is superior to enalapril in reducing the risks of cardiovascular death and preventing hospitalization in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, patients often do not receive sacubitril/valsartan because of concerns about hypotension. We examined the feasibility of initiating sacubitril/valsartan at a very low dose (VLD) in potentially intolerant patients with HFrEF and subsequent dose up-titration, treatment persistence and outcomes. We analyzed 206 patients with HFrEF grouped according to starting sacubitril/valsartan dose. The VLD group (n = 106) commenced 25 mg twice daily, and the standard-dose (SD) group (n = 100) started on ≥ 50 mg twice daily. Baseline systolic blood pressure was 103 ± 12 mmHg vs. 119 ± 14 mmHg in the SD group (P < 0.001). The maximal target dose achievement rate was higher in the SD group (27.0% vs 9.4%, p = 0.001) and the VLD group experienced more dose up-titrations and fewer down-titrations than the SD group. The VLD group had a decrease in N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) similar to the SD group and a similar increase in left ventricular ejection fraction. There were no significant differences in symptomatic hypotension, worsening renal function, hyperkalemia, cardiovascular mortality, and rehospitalization due to HF between the two groups during follow-up period. In patients considered by the treating physician likely to be intolerant of sacubitril/valsartan, initiation with 25 mg twice daily was generally possible and patients remained in therapy, with similar decreases in NT-proBNP and increases in left ventricular ejection fraction to those observed in patients receiving SD sacubitril/valsartan.

Synchronized determination of sacubitril and valsartan with some co-administered drugs in human plasma via UPLC-MS/MS method using solid-phase extraction.

An accurate and sensitive UPLC-MS/MS method was developed and validated for the simultaneous estimation of the newly developed combination of sacubitril and valsartan and the co-administered drugs nebivolol, chlorthalidone and esomeprazole in human plasma. Solid-phase extraction was conducted for the purification and extraction of the drugs from human plasma. Chromatographic separation was carried out on an Agilent SB-C18 (1.8 µm, 2.1 × 50 mm) column using losartan as internal standard. Isocratic elution was applied using acetonitrile-0.1% formic acid in water (85: 15, v/v) as mobile phase. Detection was carried out using a triple-quadrupole tandem mass spectrometer using multiple reaction monitoring, at positive mode at m/z 412.23 → 266.19 for sacubitril, m/z 436.29 → 235.19 for valsartan, m/z 405.8 → 150.98 for nebivolol, m/z 346.09 → 198 for esomeprazole and a selected combination of two fragments m/z 423.19 → 207.14 and 423.19 → 192.2 for losartan (internal standard), and in negative ionization mode at m/z 337.02 → 190.12 for chlorthalidone. The method was linear over the concentration ranges 30-2,000 ng/ml for sacubitril, 70-2,000 ng/ml for valsartan, esomeprazole and chlorthalidone and 70-5,000 pg/ml for nebivolol. The developed method is sensitive and selective and could be applied for dose adjustment, bioavailability and drug-drug interaction studies.

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).

Effect of Neprilysin Inhibition on Left Ventricular Remodeling in Patients With Asymptomatic Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction Late After Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction after myocardial infarction are at a high risk of developing heart failure. The addition of neprilysin inhibition to renin angiotensin system inhibition may result in greater attenuation of adverse LV remodeling as a result of increased levels of substrates for neprilysin with vasodilatory, antihypertrophic, antifibrotic, and sympatholytic effects. METHODS: We performed a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-comparator trial comparing sacubitril/valsartan 97/103 mg twice daily with valsartan 160 mg twice daily in patients ≥3 months after myocardial infarction with a LV ejection fraction ≤40% who were taking a renin angiotensin system inhibitor (equivalent dose of ramipril ≥2.5 mg twice daily) and a ß-blocker unless contraindicated or intolerant. Patients in New York Heart Association class ≥II or with signs and symptoms of heart failure were excluded. The primary outcome was change from baseline to 52 weeks in LV end-systolic volume index measured using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Secondary outcomes included other magnetic resonance imaging measurements of LV remodeling, change in NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I, and a patient global assessment of change questionnaire. RESULTS: From July 2018 to June 2019, we randomized 93 patients with the following characteristics: mean age, 60.7±10.4 years; median time from myocardial infarction, 3.6 years (interquartile range, 1.2-7.2); mean LV ejection fraction, 36.8%±7.1%; and median NT-proBNP, 230 pg/mL (interquartile range, 124-404). Sacubitril/valsartan, compared with valsartan, did not significantly reduce LV end-systolic volume index; adjusted between-group difference, -1.9 mL/m2 (95% CI, -4.9 to 1.0); P=0.19. There were no significant between-group differences in NT-proBNP, high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I, LV end-diastolic volume index, left atrial volume index, LV ejection fraction, LV mass index, or patient global assessment of change. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with asymptomatic LV systolic dysfunction late after myocardial infarction, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan did not have a significant reverse remodeling effect compared with valsartan. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03552575.

A study of the sequential treatment of acute heart failure with sacubitril/valsartan by recombinant human brain natriuretic peptide: A randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: This study aimed to investigate the effects of the basic treatment for heart failure and sequential treatment with rh-brain natriuretic peptide (rhBNP) alone or the combination of rhBNP and sacubitril/valsartan. Cardiac structure, pulmonary artery pressure, inflammation and oxidative stress in patients with acute heart failure were evaluated.Three hundred patients with acute heart failure were included. According to the random number table method, the patients were divided into 3 groups of 100 patients per group: the standard treatment group (treated with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, ß receptor blocker, and corticosteroid antagonist), rhBNP group (basic treatment combined with rhBNP) and sequential treatment group (basic treatment for heart failure combined with rhBNP followed by sacubitril/valsartan). The changes in NT-probrain natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels, cardiac troponin T (cTnT) levels, cardiac structure, pulmonary artery pressure, and the levels inflammatory factors and oxidative stress factors were compared among the 3 groups at 1, 4, 12, and 36 weeks after treatment.The sequential treatment group displayed superior outcomes than the standard treatment group and the rhBNP group in terms of left atrium diameter, left ventricular end diastolic volume, left ventricular ejection fraction, pulmonary artery pressure, NT-proBNP levels, and cTnT levels, which respond to damage to the heart structure and myocardium. This result may be related to the decreased levels of inflammatory factors and the correction of oxidative stress imbalance.Sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduce the serum levels of inflammatory factors in patients with acute heart failure while decreasing the levels of oxidizing factors and increasing the levels of antioxidant factors. These changes may be one of the explanations for the better cardiac structure and better pulmonary artery pressure observed in the sequential treatment group.

Inhibition of neprilysin with sacubitril without RAS blockage aggravates renal disease in Dahl SS rats.

Salt-sensitive (SS) hypertension is accompanied with severe cardiorenal complications. In this condition, elevated blood pressure (BP) resulting from salt retention is associated with counterintuitively lower levels of atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP). In plasma, ANP is degraded by the neprilysin; therefore, pharmacological inhibition of this metalloprotease (i.e., with sacubitril) can be employed to increase ANP level. We have shown earlier that sacubitril in combination with valsartan (75 µg/day each) had beneficial effects on renal function in Dahl SS rats. The goal of this study was to evaluate the effects of a higher dose of sacubitril on renal damage in this model. To induce hypertension, male Dahl SS rats were fed a 4% NaCl diet (HS) for 21 days, and were administered sacubitril (125 µg/day) or vehicle via s.c. osmotic pumps. At the end of the HS challenge, both groups exhibited similar outcomes for GFR, heart weight, plasma electrolytes, BUN, and creatinine. Sacubitril exacerbated kidney hypertrophy, but did not affect levels of renal fibrosis. We also observed aggravated glomerular lesions and increased formation of protein casts in the sacubitril-treated animals compared to controls. Thus, in Dahl SS rats, administration of sacubitril without renin-angiotensin-system blockage had adverse effects on renal disease progression, particularly in regards to glomerular damage and protein cast formation. We can speculate that while ANP levels are increased because of neprilysin inhibition, there are off-target effects of sacubitril, which are detrimental to renal function in the SS hypertensive state.

Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Insights From PARADIGM-HF.

Background Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common comorbidity in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, associated with undertreatment and worse outcomes. New treatments for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction may be particularly important in patients with concomitant COPD. Methods and Results We examined outcomes in 8399 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, according to COPD status, in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Blocker-Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial. Cox regression models were used to compare COPD versus non-COPD subgroups and the effects of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril. Patients with COPD (n=1080, 12.9%) were older than patients without COPD (mean 67 versus 63 years; P<0.001), with similar left ventricular ejection fraction (29.9% versus 29.4%), but higher NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide; median, 1741 pg/mL versus 1591 pg/mL; P=0.01), worse functional class (New York Heart Association III/IV 37% versus 23%; P<0.001) and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Clinical Summary Score (73 versus 81; P<0.001), and more congestion and comorbidity. Medical therapy was similar in patients with and without COPD except for beta-blockade (87% versus 94%; P<0.001) and diuretics (85% versus 80%; P<0.001). After multivariable adjustment, COPD was associated with higher risks of heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR], 1.32; 95% CI, 1.13-1.54), and the composite of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.05-1.34), but not cardiovascular death (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.94-1.30), or all-cause mortality (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.99-1.31). COPD was also associated with higher risk of all cardiovascular hospitalization (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.05-1.31) and noncardiovascular hospitalization (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.29-1.64). The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril was consistent in patients with and without COPD for all end points. Conclusions In PARADIGM-HF, COPD was associated with lower use of beta-blockers and worse health status and was an independent predictor of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular hospitalization. Sacubitril/valsartan was beneficial in this high-risk subgroup. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01035255.

Renal protective effect of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure.

Sacubitril/valsartan is a combined neprilysin inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker designed for treatment of heart failure (HF). Nonetheless, its renal protective effect remained an issue of debate. This retrospective cohort study investigated the renal protective effect of sacubitril/valsartan in HF patients. HF patients on sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan for > 30 days were matched for gender, age, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) to be enrolled into analysis. The follow-up period was 18 months. The outcomes included end eGFR, renal function decline defined as 20% reduction of eGFR, mortality, and HF-related hospitalization. Each group had 137 patients after matching. The mean age was 72.7 years and 65.7% were male. Mean eGFR was 70.9 mL/min/1.73 m2 and LVEF was 54.0% at baseline. Overall, the eGFR of sacubitril/valsartan groups was significantly higher than valsartan group at the end (P < 0.01). Subgroup analysis showed that the difference in eGFR was significant in subgroups with LVEF ≥ 40% or eGFR ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Multivariate Cox regression model showed that sacubitril/valsartan group had significantly reduced risk for renal function decline (hazard ratio: 0.5, 95% confidence interval: 0.3-0.9). Kaplan-Meier curve showed no difference in the risk for cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality or HF-related hospitalization. We showed renal protective effect of neprilysin inhibition in HF patients and specified that subgroups with LVEF ≥ 40% or eGFR ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 were sensitive to this effect, suggesting an optimal subgroup of this treatment.

Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients with High Arrhythmic Risk and an ICD: A Longitudinal Study.

PURPOSE: Patients affected by heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) receive clinical and functional beneficial effects from treatment with sacubitril/valsartan. However previous studies have shown that patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) could obtain even greater benefit, but only make up a only a small proportion of patients. In the current study we evaluated the effect of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with an ICD. METHODS: Thirty-five outpatients with HFrEF (aged 60 ± 11 years, 28 were males), on optimal medical therapy were studied. All patients received an ICD at least 6 months before enrollment or were non-responders to ICD plus resynchronization (CRT-D). An open-label sacubitril/valsartan treatment was established at the maximum tolerated dose. Clinical assessment, 6-min walk test (6MWT) and echocardiography, were performed during follow-up at 90, 180, and 360 days. Quality of life score and perceived fatigue on exercise were assessed. RESULTS: Clinical conditions dramatically improved in most patients, especially within the first 6 months of therapy (76 % were in NYHA-I and 24 % in NYHA-II at the end of study vs 71 % NYHA-II and 29 % NYHA III at enrollment, p < 0.001). Quality of life and exercise performance significantly improved according to N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) serum levels lowering. Walking distance at 6MWT increased from 274 ± 97 to 389 ± 53 m and walking speed from 0.74 ± 0.27 to 1.07 ± 0.15 m/s (p < 0.001), while oxygen saturation did not differ significantly (from 90 ± 1 % to 91 ± 2 %). More gradual was left ventricular reverse remodeling. Ejection fraction improved mildly (+ 5 points %, p < 0.001). Global longitudinal strain and diastolic function were also assessed over time. CONCLUSION: Sacubitril/valsartan therapy for HFrEF may lead to significant clinical and functional improvements even in patients with ICD at greater arrhythmic risk. Clinical improvement is obtained within the first 6 months of treatment while reverse remodeling needs more time.

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.

Scientific hypothesis and rational pharmacological for the use of sacubitril/valsartan in cardiac damage caused by COVID-19.

On March 11, 2020 the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the state of global pandemic caused by the new SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). To date, no antivirals directed against SARS-CoV-2 or effective vaccines to combat the viral infection are available. Severe acute respiratory syndrome caused by SARS-CoV-2 is treated empirically with antivirals, anti-inflammatory, anticoagulants. The approval of an effective vaccine still takes time. In this state, it may be useful to find new therapeutic solutions from drugs already on the market. Recent hypotheses suggest that the use of AT-1 receptor antagonists (ARB) in combination with neprilisin inhibitors (NEPi) could indirectly provide clinical benefits to patients with SARS-CoV-2 and cardiac involvement. In this article we investigate and describe a possible innovative pharmacological approach for the treatment of the most severe stages of COVID-19 infection.

Evaluation of Drug Dissolution Rate in Co-amorphous and Co-crystal Binary Drug Delivery Systems by Thermodynamic and Kinetic Methods.

In order to better explain and predict the dissolution characteristics of binary drug delivery systems (BDDSs), the dissolution behaviors of co-crystal (CC) and co-amorphous (CA) systems of sacubitril (SCB) and valsartan (VST) were evaluated in vitro and in vivo by thermodynamic and kinetic methods. The CCs of SCB and VST were prepared into a CA state through rotary evaporation. Solid-state properties were systematically evaluated. Herein, based on the results from previous studies of single-phase systems, we used thermodynamic methods to evaluate the increase in drug dissolution rate after BDDSs change from the crystalline to the amorphous state. After comparing the predicted and measured dissolution rate enhancement of the CC and CA systems, this paper attempts to explain the dissolution rate characteristics of the BDDSs. We then evaluated the bioavailability of two BDDSs in beagle dogs to confirm that there was no discrepancy in vivo with the results obtained in vitro. The results exhibited that there is strong intermolecular interaction between SCB and VST and good physical stability for the CA system. Compared with the CC, the bioavailability of SCB and VST in the CA system increased by 313.9% and 130.5%, respectively. The predicted dissolution rate ratio between CC and CA systems and their actual intrinsic dissolution rates differed by only a factor of 2.5, demonstrating the good correlation between the predicted and measured values. In the future, this method could be expanded to a variety of new samples and exciting drug prospects.

Determinants of maximal dose titration of sacubitril/valsartan in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Little information is available about the tolerability of uptitration to the maximal dose of sacubitril/valsartan and the predictors and clinical correlates of achieving such a dose. METHODS: All consecutive heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who received sacubitril/valsartan for a class-IB indication in a tertiary heart failure clinic were retrospectively analysed. Predictors of maximal uptitration including associated changes in clinical parameters were assessed in patients with at least 1 follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 401 HFrEF-patients received sacubitril/valsartan. Uptitration was possible in 41% and up to 32% of patients tolerated the maximal dose of sacubitril/valsartan. Younger age (HR = 0.862; CI = 0.751-0.989), higher systolic-blood-pressure (HR = 1.077; CI = 1.014-1.137), lower serum creatinine (HR = 0.064; CI = 0.005-0.822), and higher previous dose of renin-angiotensin-system-inhibitors (RASi [HR = 1.065; CI = 1.016-1.115]) independently predicted a higher odds of tolerating a maximal dose of sacubitril/valsartan. Patients who were seen more frequently in a structured heart failure clinic were also more likely to receive a maximal dose (p = .038). Patient assigned to the maximal dose, were more often able to reduce their loop diuretic dose (p = .001) and more often had an increase in serum creatinine (p = .011), without a higher risk for hyperkalemia (p = .524). An improvement in New York Heart Association class and the rate of heart failure hospitalisations was observed in all patients, independent of the sacubitril/valsartan dose. CONCLUSION: Uptitration to the maximal dose of sacubitril/valsartan is possible in up to 32% of real-world HFrEF-patients in our cohort, which relates to both patient characteristics' as well as heart failure care-related factors.