The role of sacubitril/valsartan in abnormal renal function patients combined with heart failure: a meta-analysis and systematic analysis.

AIMS: This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in abnormal renal function (eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73m2) patients combined with heart failure based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. METHODS: The Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant studies from inception to December 2023. Dichotomous variables were described as event counts with the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) values. Continuous variables were expressed as mean standard deviation (SD) with 95% CIs. RESULTS: A total of 6 RCTs and 8 observational studies were included, involving 17335 eGFR below 60 ml/min/1.73m2 patients combined with heart failure. In terms of efficacy, we analyzed the incidence of cardiovascular events and found that sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization in chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages 3-5 patients with heart failure (OR: 0.65, 95%CI: 0.54-0.78). Moreover, sacubitril/valsartan prevented the serum creatinine elevation (OR: 0.81, 95%CI: 0.68-0.95), the eGFR decline (OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.73-0.95) and the development of end-stage renal disease in this population (OR:0.73, 95%CI:0.60-0.89). As for safety outcomes, we did not find that the rate of hyperkalemia (OR:1.31, 95%CI:0.79-2.17) and hypotension (OR:1.57, 95%CI:0.94-2.62) were increased in sacubitril/valsartan group among CKD stages 3-5 patients with heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis proves that sacubitril/valsartan has a favorable effect on cardiac function without obvious risk of adverse events in abnormal renal function patients combined with heart failure, indicating that sacubitril/valsartan has the potential to become perspective treatment for these patients.

Sacubitril/valsartan has an underestimated impact on the right ventricle in patients with sleep-disordered breathing, especially central sleep apnoea syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan has been demonstrated to significantly improve left ventricular performance and remodelling in patients with heart failure. However, its effects on the right ventricle in patients with chronic heart failure and sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) have not been studied. AIM: To investigate the impact of sacubitril/valsartan treatment on right ventricular function in patients with SDB. METHODS: This was a subanalysis of an observational prospective multicentre study involving 101 patients. At inclusion, patients were evaluated by echocardiography and nocturnal ventilatory polygraphy, which allowed patients to be divided into three groups: "central-SDB"; "obstructive-SDB"; and "no-SDB". RESULTS: After 3 months of sacubitril/valsartan therapy, a positive impact on right ventricular function was observed. In the general population, tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion increased by +1.32±4.74mm (P=0.024) and systolic pulmonary artery pressure decreased by -3.1±10.91mmHg (P=0.048). The central-SDB group experienced the greatest echocardiographic improvement, with a significant increase in tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion of +2.1±4.9mm (P=0.045) and a significant reduction in systolic pulmonary artery pressure of -8.4±9.7mmHg (P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril/valsartan improved right ventricular function in patients with heart failure and SDB after only 3 months of treatment. The greatest improvement in right ventricular function was observed in the central-SDB group.

Chronic diarrhoea, weight loss and a positive anti-tissue transglutaminase antibody: A case report of olmesartan-induced enteropathy.

Olmesartan is an angiotensin II receptor blocker licensed for the treatment of hypertension. It can cause a sprue-like enteropathy (SLE), characterised by chronic diarrhoea, weight loss and villous atrophy. Transiently raised anti-tissue transglutaminase (ATTG) antibody has also been rarely reported in the literature.We describe the case of a woman in her mid-50s, who presented with a history of intermittent loose stools over 1 year, associated with significant weight loss. She had two marginally raised serum ATTG antibody tests during her work-up.After extensive investigations, she was diagnosed with olmesartan-induced enteropathy. On subsequent follow-up, her symptoms had resolved with cessation of her olmesartan therapy.This case adds to existing literature, highlighting the importance of considering olmesartan as a possible differential diagnosis for SLE. It also reports the presence of a raised ATTG antibody which is infrequently reported in this context.

Efficacy and safety of a four-drug, quarter-dose treatment for hypertension: the QUARTET USA randomized trial.

New approaches are needed to lower blood pressure (BP) given persistently low control rates. QUARTET USA sought to evaluate the effect of four-drug, quarter-dose BP lowering combination in patients with hypertension. QUARTET USA was a randomized (1:1), double-blinded trial conducted in federally qualified health centers among adults with hypertension. Participants received either a quadpill of candesartan 2 mg, amlodipine 1.25 mg, indapamide 0.625 mg, and bisoprolol 2.5 mg or candesartan 8 mg for 12 weeks. If BP was >130/>80 mm Hg at 6 weeks in either arm, then participants received open label add-on amlodipine 5 mg. The primary outcome was mean change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 12 weeks, controlling for baseline BP. Secondary outcomes included mean change in diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and safety included serious adverse events, relevant adverse drug effects, and electrolyte abnormalities. Among 62 participants randomized between August 2019-May 2022 (n = 32 intervention, n = 30 control), mean (SD) age was 52 (11.5) years, 45% were female, 73% identified as Hispanic, and 18% identified as Black. Baseline mean (SD) SBP was 138.1 (11.2) mmHg, and baseline mean (SD) DBP was 84.3 (10.5) mmHg. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant difference in SBP (-4.8 mm Hg [95% CI: -10.8, 1.3, p = 0.123] and a -4.9 mmHg (95% CI: -8.6, -1.3, p = 0.009) greater mean DBP change in the intervention arm compared with the control arm at 12 weeks. Adverse events did not differ significantly between arms. The quadpill had a similar SBP and greater DBP lowering effect compared with candesartan 8 mg. Trial registration number: NCT03640312.

Acute quadruple extremity compartment syndrome due to angio-oedema after polypharmacy overdose including olmesartan medoxomil, telmisartan and vildagliptin.

This case report describes a rare manifestation of acute compartment syndrome (ACS) involving all four extremities, precipitated by angio-oedema in a middle-aged woman who consumed an overdose of multiple medications: nifedipine, azelnidipine, amlodipine besylate, olmesartan medoxomil, telmisartan, esaxerenone and vildagliptin. She presented with haemodynamic instability, necessitating intubation. Despite stabilising haemodynamic parameters within 24 hours, she manifested escalating extremity oedema. At 52 hours after ingestion, mottled skin was observed, along with necrotic alterations in the swollen hands and compartment pressures exceeding 30 mm Hg in all extremities. ACS was diagnosed, leading to fasciotomies. The aetiology is postulated to be drug-induced angio-oedema, possibly intensified by the concurrent overdose of olmesartan medoxomil, telmisartan and vildagliptin, each of which has a risk of angio-oedema even at standard dosages. This scenario is a very rare case caused by drug-induced angio-oedema, which underscores the importance of vigilant monitoring to detect ACS in patients with progressing limb oedema.

CandeSpartan Study: Candesartan Spanish Response-prediction and Tolerability study in migraine.

INTRODUCTION: Effectiveness of candesartan in migraine prevention is supported by two randomized controlled trials. We aimed to assess the effectiveness, tolerability, and response predictors of candesartan in the preventive treatment of migraine. METHODS: Observational, multicenter, prospective cohort study. The 50%, 75% and 30% responder rates, between weeks 8-12 and 20-24, were compared with the baseline. Treatment emergent adverse effects were systematically evaluated. Response predictors were estimated by multivariate regression models. RESULTS: Eighty-six patients were included, 79.1% females, aged 39.5 (inter-quartile range [IQR] 26.3-50.3), with chronic migraine (43.0%), medication overuse headache (55.8%) and a median of two (inter-quartile range: 0.75-3) prior preventive treatments. At baseline patients had 14 (10-24) headache and 8 (5-11) migraine days per month. The 30%, 50% and 75% responder rates were 40%, 34.9% and 15.1% between weeks 8-12, and 48.8%, 36%, and 18.6% between weeks 20-24. Adverse effects were reported by 30 (34.9%) and 13 (15.1%) patients between weeks 0-12 and 12-24, leading to discontinuation in 15 (17.4%) patients. Chronic migraine, depression, headache days per month, medication overuse headache, and daily headache at baseline predicted the response between weeks 20-24. CONCLUSION: Candesartan effectiveness and tolerability in migraine prevention was in line with the clinical trials' efficacy.Trial registration: The study protocol is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04138316).

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).

Effects of the valsartan recall on heart failure patients: A nationwide analysis.

BACKGROUND: Valsartan is commonly used for cardiac conditions. In 2018, the Food and Drug Administration recalled generic valsartan due to the detection of impurities. Our objective was to determine if heart failure patients receiving valsartan at the recall date had a greater likelihood of unfavorable outcomes than patients using comparable antihypertensives. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study of Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Datamart (July 2017-January 2019). Heart failure patients with commercial or Medicare Advantage insurance who received valsartan were compared to persons who received non-recalled angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin converting enzyme-inhibitors (ACE-Is) for 1 year prior and including the recall date. Outcomes included a composite for all-cause hospitalization, emergency department (ED), and urgent care (UC) use and a measure of cardiac events which included hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction and hospitalizations/ED/UC visits for stroke/transient ischemic attack, heart failure or hypertension at 6-months post-recall. Cox proportional hazard models with propensity score weighting compared the risk of outcomes between groups. RESULTS: Of the 87 130 adherent patients, 15% were valsartan users and 85% were users of non-recalled ARBs/ACE-Is. Valsartan use was not associated with an increased risk of all-cause hospitalization/ED/UC use six-months post-recall (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.96-1.03), compared with individuals taking non-recalled ARBs/ACE-Is. Similarly, cardiac events 6-months post-recall did not differ between individuals on valsartan and non-recalled ARBs/ACE-Is (HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.97-1.12). CONCLUSIONS: The valsartan recall did not affect short-term outcomes of heart failure patients. However, the recall potentially disrupted the medication regimens of patients, possibly straining the healthcare system.

Safety and efficacy of candesartan versus valsartan combined with amlodipine on peripheral and central blood pressure.

INTRODUCTION: "Amlodipine/valsartan" or "amlodipine/candesartan" combinations represent two effective antihypertensive agents with complementary mechanisms of action. Nevertheless, a study has yet to be done to evaluate the effect of amlodipine/candesartan on central blood pressure and compare it with amlodipine/valsartan combination. To see how "amlodipine plus candesartan combination" reduces peripheral and central blood pressure compared to the most studied combination, "amlodipine plus valsartan". MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eighty-six patients were randomized in an open-label, prospective study by 1:1 ratio to two groups. Group I (n=42) received the amlodipine and valsartan combination, and group II (n=44) received the amlodipine and candesartan combination. Peripheral and central blood pressure (CBP) was measured at baseline, at 6 and 12 weeks of follow-up. DISCUSSION: Both treatment groups reduced peripheral systolic, diastolic, and mean blood pressure. There was no significant difference between and within both groups. The amlodipine/candesartan combination showed more reduction in peripheral systolic blood pressure (PSBP) after 12 weeks of treatment (p=<0.001). Both groups decreased CBP without significant differences between groups. The amlodipine/candesartan combination showed additional efficacy in decreasing CSBP after 12 weeks (p=<0.001). The two treatment groups did not exert significant efficacy in lowering heart rate (HR) and augmentation index% (AIx%). CONCLUSION: To conclude, the amlodipine 10mg/candesartan 16mg combination was non-inferior to the amlodipine 10mg/valsartan 160mg combination in terms of reducing peripheral and CBP over time.

The Use and Impact of Cilostazol on Patients Undergoing Endovascular Peripheral Interventions.

BACKGROUND: Cilostazol is used for the treatment of intermittent claudication. The impact of cilostazol on the outcomes of peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs) remains controversial. This study assesses the use and impact of cilostazol on patients undergoing PVI for peripheral arterial disease (PAD). METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database files for PVI were reviewed. Patients with PAD who underwent PVI for chronic limb threatening-ischemia or claudication were included and divided based on the use of cilostazol preoperatively. After propensity matching for patient demographics and comorbidities, the short-term and long-term outcomes of the 2 groups (preoperative cilostazol use versus no preoperative cilostazol use) were compared. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to determine outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 245,309 patients underwent PVI procedures and 6.6% (N = 16,366) were on cilostazol prior to intervention. Patients that received cilostazol were more likely to be male (62% vs 60%; P < 0.001), White (77% vs. 75%; P < 0.001), and smokers (83% vs. 77%; P < 0.001). They were less likely to have diabetes mellitus (50% vs. 56%; P < 0.001) and congestive heart failure (14% vs. 23%; P < 0.001). Patient on cilostazol were more likely to be treated for claudication (63% vs. 40%, P < 0.001), undergo prior lower extremity revascularization (55% vs. 51%, P < 0.001) and less likely to have undergone prior minor and major amputation (10% vs. 19%; P < 0.001) compared with patients who did not receive cilostazol. After 3:1 propensity matching, there were 50,265 patients included in the analysis with no differences in baseline characteristics. Patients on cilostazol were less likely to develop renal complications and more likely to be discharged home. Patients on cilostazol had significantly lower rates of long-term mortality (11.5% vs. 13.4%, P < 0.001 and major amputation (4.0% vs. 4.7%, P = 0.022). However, there were no significant differences in rates of reintervention, major adverse limb events, or patency after PVI. Amputation-free survival rates were significantly higher for patients on cilostazol, after 4 years of follow up (89% vs. 87%, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Cilostazol is underutilized in the VQI database and seems to be associated with improved amputation-free survival. Cilostazol therapy should be considered in all patients with PAD who can tolerate it prior to PVI.

Efficacy and safety of Qingda granule versus valsartan capsule in Chinese grade 1 hypertensive patients with low-moderate risk: A randomized, double-blind, double dummy, non-inferiority, multi-center trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of Qingda granule (QDG) in managing blood pressure (BP) among grade 1 hypertensive patients with low-moderate risk remain uncertain. METHODS: In the randomized, double-blind, double dummy, non-inferiority and multicenter trial, 552 patients with grade 1 hypertension at low-moderate risk were assigned at a ratio of 1:1 to receive either QDG or valsartan for 4 weeks, followed up by a subsequent 4 weeks. RESULTS: Post-treatment, clinic systolic/diastolic BPs (SBP/DBP) were reduced by a mean change of 9.18/4.04 mm Hg in the QDG group and 9.85/5.05 mm Hg in the valsartan group (SBP P = 0.47, DBP P = 0.16). Similarly, 24-hour, daytime and nighttime BPs were proportional in both groups (P > 0.05) after 4 weeks treatment. After discontinuing medications for 4 weeks, the mean reduction of clinic SBP/DBP were 0.29/0.57 mm Hg in the QDG group compared to -1.59/-0.48 mm Hg in the valsartan group (SBP P = 0.04, DBP P = 0.04). Simultaneously, the 24-hour SBP/DBP were reduced by 0.9/0.31 mm Hg in the QDG group and -1.66/-1.08 mm Hg in the valsartan group (SBP P = 0.006, DBP P = 0.02). And similar results were observed regarding the outcomes of daytime and nighttime BPs. There was no difference in occurrence of adverse events between two groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: QDG proves to be efficacious for grade 1 hypertension at a low-to-medium risk, even after discontinuation of the medication for 4 weeks. These findings provide a promising option for managing grade 1 hypertension and suggest the potential for maintaining stable BP through intermittent administration of QDG. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR2000033890.

Effect of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor on physical activity in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, monitored by implantable electronic device home monitoring.

AIMS: Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) therapy is a cornerstone in the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), with significant improvement in mortality as well as morbidity and quality of life. However, maximal ARNI doses often result in hypotension. Recent studies with 'real world' experience suggest that lower doses of ARNI are as effective as higher doses.In order to evaluate the symptomatic effect of low-dose ARNI in HFrEF patients, we analyzed physical activity data obtained via home monitoring of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed physical activity data obtained from HFrEF patients with CIED-active home monitoring during the years 2021-2022. Patients with ARNI therapy were further divided into subgroups according to the administered dose. Low-dose ARNI included doses of up to 24/26 mg sacubitril/valsartan daily. Intermediate dose and high dose included doses of 72/78-120/130 mg/day, and 144/156-194/206 mg/day, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 122 patients had home monitoring-compatible CIEDs and HFrEF during the study period. Sixty-four of these patients were treated with ARNI. Administration of low-dose ARNI resulted in a 20% increase in daily activity when compared with patients without ARNI treatment ( P  = 0.038). Change in physical activity of patients in the intermediate-dose and high-dose groups was not significant. Younger patients, patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy, and patients without diabetes mellitus were more physically active. CONCLUSION: Low-dose ARNI had a beneficial effect on physical activity in HFrEF patients. MH via CIED provided real-life objective data for patients' follow-up.

Use of sacubitril/valsartan early after CABG.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) remains a major public health problem with a high mortality and morbidity worldwide. Currently, there is no optimal revascularisation strategy for patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy despite suggestions that coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) may be superior to medical therapy in improving survival. However, CABG may be associated with substantial risk in HF subjects. We therefore aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the early initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in haemodynamically stabilised patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) after early CABG. METHODS: This was an open-label study in which ~80 patients after CABG were randomised either to the early or late initiation of the sacubitril-valsartan. The study included patients >40 years with left ventricular ejection fraction <45% and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-IV at the early stage after CABG. Patients underwent intervention, the starting dose of sacubitril/valsartan (24/26 mg or 49/51 mg two times per day). The follow-up took place every 4 weeks except the first visit, which took place in 2 weeks after initiation. The primary endpoint assessed the key safety outcomes, the secondary endpoints were: the quality of life measured, the N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) changes and 6 min walk test (6MWT). RESULTS: In total, 83 patients were screened and 77 patients were enrolled. The majority of patients (84.4%) were in the NYHA class III at randomisation. The number of patients who discontinued the study was low in both groups (2.5%, 5.2%), and renal function, hyperkalaemia and symptomatic hypotension rarely seen in both groups did not differ significantly. The improvement in quality of life and distance at the 6MWT in both groups was significant (p<0.001). The NT-proBNP concentration decreased in both groups, the significant reduction was in the early group (p<0.001) versus the postdischarge group. CONCLUSIONS: The early initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in patients after CABG with HFrEF is safe and effective. Adverse events and permanent discontinuation were low. The NT-proBNP concentration reduced significantly with the early in-hospital initiation.

Effect of sacubitril valsartan on heart failure with mid-range or preserved ejection fraction in patients on maintenance hemodialysis: real-world experience in a single-center, prospective study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of sacubitril valsartan (SV) on heart failure (HF) hospitalization and cardiovascular mortality in patients on hemodialysis with HF with preserved ejection fraction (EF; HFpEF). METHODS: This single-center, prospective study enrolled 155 stable hemodialysis patients with EF > 40% who were followed up for 12 months. Fifty-nine patients were treated with SV; the others were matched for EF (57.89 ± 9.35 vs. 58.00 ± 11.82, P = 0.9) at a ratio of 1:1 and included as controls. The target dosage of SV was 200 mg/day. RESULTS: Twenty-three (23/155; 14.84%) had HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF), while 132 (85.16%) had HFpEF. After SV treatment, the peak early diastolic transmitral flow velocity/peak early diastolic mitral annular tissue velocity(E/e') improved from 17.19 ± 8.74 to 12.80 ± 5.52 (P = 0.006), the left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic diameter decreased from 53.14 ± 7.67 mm to 51.56 ± 7.44 mm (P = 0.03), and the LV mass index decreased from 165.7 ± 44.6 g/m2 to 154.8 ± 24.0 g/m2 (P = 0.02). LVEF (P = 0.08) and LV global longitudinal strain (P = 0.7) did not change significantly. The composite outcome of first and recurrent HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death showed no difference between group. However, the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative Workgroup (ADQI) HF class improved in 39 and 15 patients and worsened in 1 and 11 patients in the SV and control groups, respectively (P < 0.001). Age, diabetes mellitus, and pulmonary arterial pressure were independent risk factors for HF hospitalization and cardiovascular mortality in patients with HFpEF. CONCLUSIONS: SV improved LV hypertrophy, diastolic function, and the ADQI class for HF; however, it failed to reduce the composite endpoints of HF hospitalization and cardiovascular disease-related mortality over 12 months of follow-up in patients on maintenance hemodialysis with EF of > 40%.

Angiotensin Receptor Blocker-Related Sprue-like Enteropathy: Review of Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System.

BACKGROUND: Sprue-like enteropathy (SE) related to olmesartan use was first reported in 2012. In 2017, the manufacturer of Benicar paid $300 million for 2300 claims for olmesartan-related SE. OBJECTIVE: A study in 2019 suggested that SE was related to olmesartan and with the possibility of angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) class effect. To further characterize this condition, our group examined reports of ARB-related SE to Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). METHODS: All reports of ARB-related SE from January 2017 to December 2021 were downloaded from the FAERS database. Gastrointestinal adverse events including SE were reviewed. Reporter categories included physicians, pharmacists, other health care professionals, consumers, and attorneys. RESULTS: A total of 106 590 reports of ARB-related adverse effects were analyzed. Sprue-like enteropathy was identified in 4337 cases (4.1% of total reports). Of these, 4240 cases (98.0%) of ARB-related SE were reported in patients using products with olmesartan, and 97 cases of SE were reported for all other ARBs (eprosartan, losartan, telmisartan, irbesartan, valsartan, and candesartan). Reports of olmesartan-related SE increased rapidly in 2017, continued at a high rate in 2018 and 2019, and essentially stopped in 2020 and 2021. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Reports to FAERS for ARB-related SE are mostly related to olmesartan. There was a steep decline in reports of olmesartan-related SE following the lawsuit with potential of lawyer interference. There are reports of SE related to ARBs other than olmesartan, with increased physician awareness and the potential to discover a class effect with future studies.

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 efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan, a new pharmacological class of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, is beneficial to heart failure through blocking the degradation of natriuretic peptides and inhibiting renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) activation which also relate to the pathophysiologic mechanisms of chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, its effects on CKD remain unclear. To assess the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan for patients with CKD, we performed this meta-analysis. METHODS: The Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared sacubitril/valsartan with ACEI/ARBs in patients with CKD whose estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was below 60 mL/min/1.73 m2. We adopted the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing the risk of bias. The effect size was estimated using the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Six trials with a total of 6217 patients with CKD were included. In terms of cardiovascular events, sacubitril/valsartan attenuated the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization (OR: 0.68, 95% CI 0.61-0.76, P < 0.00001, I2 = 43%). With respect to renal function, sacubitril/valsartan prevented the incidence of serum creatinine (Scr) elevation among patients with CKD (OR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.67-0.95, P = 0.01, I2 = 0%). Subgroup analysis about eGFR demonstrated that with long follow-up, sacubitril/valsartan significantly decreased the number of patients with more than 50% reduction in eGFR compared with ACEI/ARBs (OR: 0.52, 95% CI 0.32-0.84, P = 0.008, I2 = 9%). In patients with CKD, the incidence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) was reduced with sacubitril/valsartan treatment, despite no statistically significant difference between the two groups (OR: 0.59, 95% CI 0.29-1.20, P = 0.14, I2 = 0%). As for the safety, we found that sacubitril/valsartan was associated with the occurrence of hypotension (OR: 1.71, 95% CI 1.15-2.56, P = 0.008, I2 = 51%). However, there was no trend towards increasing the risk of hyperkalemia in patients who received sacubitril/valsartan (OR: 1.09, 95% CI 0.75-1.60, P = 0.64, I2 = 64%). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis indicated that sacubitril/valsartan improved renal function and conferred effective cardiovascular benefits in patients with CKD, without serious safety issues being observed. Thus, sacubitril/valsartan may be a promising option for patients with CKD. Certainly, further large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these conclusions. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: [ https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2022-4-0045/ ], identifier [INPLASY202240045].

Application of eligibility criteria from DAPA-HF, EMPEROR-Reduced, and PARADIGM-HF trials to a population with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction at a specialized cardiology Clinic in Medellin, Colombia: A retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: The evidence supporting pharmacological heart failure treatment relies on randomized clinical trials with stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria. OBJECTIVES: Assess the eligibility of outpatients with chronic heart failure for the trials DAPA-HF, EMPEROR-reduced, and PARADIGM-HF, while exploring potential differences among study populations. METHODS: By reviewing medical records, we determined the eligibility rate for each study and evaluated the incidence of heart failure hospitalizations and all-cause mortality during this period. RESULTS: A total of 446 patients were included in the cohort. Approximately 75% would be ineligible for the trials, mainly because of their comorbidities. Ineligible patients had a higher all-cause mortality, but a similar incidence of hospitalization. CONCLUSION: Approximately 1 in 4 patients from a heart failure clinic in Medellin, Colombia would meet the eligibility criteria for the DAPA-HF, EMPEROR-reduced, and PARADIGM-HF trials. These findings highlight the need to complement randomized clinical trials with real-world data.