Eligibility for sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure across the ejection fraction spectrum: real-world data from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCT) generalizability may be limited due to strict patient selection. OBJECTIVE: In a real-world heart failure (HF) population, we assessed eligibility for sacubitril/valsartan based on PARADIGM-HF (sacubitril/valsartan effective)/PARAGON-HF [sacubitril/valsartan effective in mildly reduced ejection fraction (EF)]. METHODS: Outpatients from the Swedish HF Registry (SwedeHF) were analysed. In SwedeHF, EF is recorded as <30, 30-39, 40-49 and ≥50%. In PARAGON-HF, sacubitril/valsartan was effective with EF ≤ 57% (i.e. median). We defined reduced EF/PARADIGM-HF as EF < 40%, mildly reduced EF/PARAGON-HF ≤ median as EF 40-49%, and normal EF/PARAGON-HF > median as EF ≥ 50%. We assessed 2 scenarios: (i) criteria likely to influence treatment decisions (pragmatic scenario); (ii) all criteria (literal scenario). RESULTS: Of 37 790 outpatients, 57% had EF < 40%, 24% EF 40-49% and 19% EF ≥ 50%. In the pragmatic scenario, 63% were eligible in EF < 50% (67% for EF < 40% and 52% for 40-49%) and 52% in EF ≥ 40% (52% for EF ≥ 50%). For the literal scenario, 32% were eligible in EF < 50% (38% of EF < 40%, 20% of EF 40-49%) and 22% in EF ≥ 40% (25% for EF ≥ 50%). Eligible vs. noneligible patients had more severe HF, more comorbidities and overall worse outcomes. CONCLUSION: In a real-world HF outpatient cohort, 81% of patients had EF < 50%, with 63% eligible for sacubitril/valsartan based on pragmatic criteria and 32% eligible based on literal trial criteria. Similar eligibility was observed for EF 40-49% and ≥50%, suggesting that our estimates for EF < 50% may be reproduced whether or not a higher cut-off for EF is considered.

Angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor-a breakthrough in chronic heart failure therapy: summary of subanalysis on PARADIGM-HF trial findings.

It is over 4 years since the Prospective Comparison of angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial was published in New England Journal of Medicine. The PARADIGM-HF trial was the one that contributed to the official approval to use ARNI simultaneously with cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) in patients who receive optimal medical treatment and still presented NYHA II-IV class symptoms according to the 2016 European Society of Cardiology Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. The aim of this article is to summarise current knowledge on the activity of ARNI in a selected group of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) based on a recent PARADIGM-HF subanalysis in the field of renal function in patients with and without chronic kidney disease, glycaemia control in patients with diabetes, ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death and health-related quality of life. This article includes also recently announced findings on the TRANSITION study which revealed that HFrEF therapy with ARNI might be safely initiated after an acute decompensated heart failure episode, including patients with heart failure de novo and ACEI/ARB naïve, both hospitalised or shortly after discharge, in contrary to the PARADIGM-HF trial, where patients had to be administered a stable dose of an ACEI/ARB equivalent to enalapril 10 mg a day for at least 4 weeks before the screening.

Impact of Patient and Model of Care Factors on Titration and Tolerability of Sacubitril/Valsartan: An Early Australian Real-World Experience.

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan was shown to be superior to enalapril in the Prospective Comparison of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor with an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) study. However, the study design raised uncertainty about the potential real-world tolerability amongst less well selected cohorts. We aimed to examine the real-world tolerability and factors associated with successful titration of sacubitril/valsartan. METHODS: We performed a retrospective single centre analysis in a tertiary referral centre of 235 consecutive patients prescribed sacubitril/valsartan between August 2016 and January 2018. RESULTS: At baseline, our patients were younger, had lower baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP), reduced ischaemic aetiology and a higher rate of mineralocorticoids receptor antagonist compared to PARADIGM-HF. At last assessment, 120 patients (51%) reached target dose (97/103 mg bi-daily [BD]), 67 patients (29%) were stable on a mid-range dose (≥49/51 mg BD), 22 patients (9%) tolerated the low dose (24/26 mg BD) and 26 patients (11%) discontinued, comparable to PARADIGM-HF. Adverse effects were similar to PARADIGM-HF and hypotension remained the primary reason of sub-maximal titration. Several baseline characteristics were associated with successful titration to target dose including; higher baseline body mass index, systolic blood pressure (SBP) and sodium, male gender and treatment coordinated by multidisciplinary heart failure (HF) clinic. CONCLUSION: Comparable results to PARADIGM-HF in attaining target dose of sacubitril/valsartan and tolerability profile can be achieved in a real-world setting. Several baseline characteristics involving patient factors, markers of disease severity and systems of care predict successful titration to the target dose 97/103 mg BD.

"Real World" Eligibility for Sacubitril/Valsartan in Unselected Heart Failure Patients: Data from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry.

PURPOSE: PARADIGM-HF demonstrated the superiority of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF). How widely applicable sacubitril/valsartan treatment is in unselected patients with HF-REF is not known. We examined eligibility of patients with HF-REF for treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, according to the criteria used in PARADIGM-HF, in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry (SwedeHF). METHODS: Patients were considered potentially eligible if they were not hospitalized, had symptoms (NYHA class II-IV) and a reduced LVEF (≤ 40%), and were prescribed an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) at a dose equivalent to enalapril ≥ 10 mg daily. In these patients, we evaluated further eligibility according to the main additional PARADIGM-HF inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Of 12,866 outpatients in NYHA functional class II-IV with an LVEF ≤ 40%, 9577 were prescribed at least 10 mg of enalapril (or equivalent) daily. Complete additional data were available for 3099 of these patients (32.4%) and of them 75.5% were potentially eligible for treatment with sacubitril/valsartan. The most common reason for ineligibility was a low natriuretic peptide level (n = 462, 14.9%). Only a small proportion of patients were ineligible due to low eGFR or serum potassium level. Because only 78% of patients were taking ≥ 10 mg enalapril or equivalent daily, only 58.9% of all patients (75.5% of 78%) were eligible for sacubitril/valsartan. CONCLUSIONS: Between 34 and 76% of symptomatic patients with HF-REF in a 'real world' population are eligible for treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, depending on background ACEI/ARB dose. The most common reason for ineligibility is a low natriuretic peptide level.

Sacubitril/Valsartan (LCZ696) in Heart Failure.

It has been known since the 1990s that long-term morbidity and mortality is improved in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) by treatments that target the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS). It has also long been thought that enhancement of the activity of natriuretic peptides (NPs) could potentially benefit patients with HFrEF, but multiple attempts to realize this benefit had failed over the years - until 2014, when a large, phase III, randomized, controlled clinical trial (PARADIGM-HF) was completed comparing sacubitril/valsartan with enalapril, a well-established treatment for HFrEF. Sacubitril/valsartan (formerly known as LCZ696) is a first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) that simultaneously suppresses RAAS activation through blockade of angiotensin II type 1 receptors and enhances vasoactive peptides including NPs through inhibition of neprilysin, the enzyme responsible for their degradation. In PARADIGM-HF, patients with HFrEF treated with sacubitril/valsartan had 20% less risk for cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure (the primary endpoint), 20% less risk for cardiovascular death, 21% less risk for first hospitalization for heart failure, and 16% less risk for death from any cause, compared with enalapril (all p < 0.001). Concerning tolerability, the sacubitril/valsartan group had higher proportions of patients with hypotension and nonserious angioedema but lower proportions with renal impairment, hyperkalemia, and cough, compared with the enalapril group. The use of sacubitril/valsartan has been endorsed by the latest heart failure treatment guidelines in Europe and the USA. This chapter reviews the discoveries, scientific reasoning, and clinical evidence that led to the development of sacubitril/valsartan, the first novel therapy in a new drug class to improve survival in HFrEF in the last 15 years.

Critical Questions about PARADIGM-HF and the Future.

Cardiovascular (CV) diseases in general and heart failure (HF) in particular are major contributors to death and morbidity and are also recognized as important drivers of health care expenditure. The PARADIGM-HF trial was a pivotal trial designed to compare the long-term effects of LCZ696 with enalapril in patients with symptomatic HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This review article presents an in-depth view of the PARADIGM-HF trial and the implications of the results in the management of patients with HF and is based on peer reviewed manuscripts, editorials, perspectives and opinions written about the PARADIGM-HF trial. The article presents the key safety and efficacy results of the trial with specific emphasis on the clinical implications of these findings. The review highlights the highly statistically significant, 20% reduction in the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization, and a 16% reduction in the risk of death from any cause. It also provides an overview of the design, clinical findings, limitations and special areas of clinical interest. The review discusses the future of LCZ696 and additional trials that seek to answer questions in other sub-populations of patients with HF. The article reiterates what has been concluded by many experts in the field of HF- the introduction of LCZ696 into routine clinical care, while dependent on the regulatory approvals in various countries as well as acceptance by physicians, payers and patients, will change the treatment landscape for patients with HFrEF.

Prevalent and Incident Anemia in PARADIGM-HF and the Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan.

BACKGROUND: Anemia is common in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Renin-angiotensin system blockers lower hemoglobin and may induce anemia. OBJECTIVES: The authors investigated whether concomitant neprilysin inhibition might ameliorate this effect of renin-angiotensin system blockers in PARADIGM-HF (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure). METHODS: Anemia was defined as hemoglobin <120 g/L in women and <130 g/L in men at screening. The authors investigated the effect of randomized treatment on clinical outcomes according to anemia status, change in hemoglobin from baseline, and the incidence of anemia. RESULTS: Of 8,239 participants with a baseline hemoglobin measurement, 1,677 (20.4%) were anemic. Patients with anemia had a more severe heart failure profile, worse kidney function, greater neurohormonal derangement, and worse clinical outcomes. Sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, decreased the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization similarly in patients with (HR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.71-1.00) and without anemia (HR: 0.78 [95% CI: 0.71-0.87]; P value for interaction = 0.478). Between baseline and 12 months, hemoglobin decreased by 1.5 g/L (95% CI: 1.2-1.7 g/L) with sacubitril/valsartan compared with 2.3 g/L (95% CI: 2.0-2.6 g/L) with enalapril: mean difference 0.8 g/L (95% CI: 0.5-1.2 g/L; P < 0.001). Patients assigned to sacubitril/valsartan were less likely to develop anemia at 12 months (321 of 2,806 [11.4%]) compared with patients randomized to enalapril (440 of 2,824 [15.6%]) (OR: 0.70 [95% CI: 0.60-0.81]; P < 0.001). These findings were similar in PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction) (sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan). There was biomarker evidence of increased iron utilization with sacubitril/valsartan. CONCLUSIONS: Irrespective of anemia status, sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril, decreased mortality and hospitalization. Hemoglobin decreased less with sacubitril/valsartan and the incidence of new anemia was lower with sacubitril/valsartan. (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF] trial; NCT01035255).

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There are limited data on real clinical practice in heart failure patients in the Czech Republic. We analysed the clinical parameters from the Moravian Midlands Registry (MMR) and compared them to LCZ696 patients in the Paradigm-HF trial. The Moravian Midlands Registry is a retrospective patient database from two outpatient cardiology centres in the Czech Republic. The Paradigm-HF is a large-scale prospective randomized multicentre trial with more than 8000 individuals with stabilized chronic heart failure. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients from two outpatient cardiology centres in the Czech Republic from October 2016 to December 2019. RESULTS: Patients in the MMR were younger (60.5 ± 10.7 vs 63.8 ± 11.5 years, P<0.05), had a higher body mass index (30.3 ± 5.0 vs 28.1 ± 5.5, P<0.05) and higher serum creatinine level (101.9 ± 36.0 vs 99.9 ± 26.5 µmol/L, P<0.05). MMR patients had lower left ventricular ejection fraction (27.8 ± 6.9 vs 29.6 ± 6.1%, P<0.05). The serum N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, [2563.5 (377-3536) vs 1631 (885-3154), was non significantly higher P=0.07]. Pharmacotherapy use differed for mineralocorticoid antagonist (91.4% in MMR vs 54.2% in Paradigm-HF), and digoxin (13.5% vs 29.2%). Beta-blocker use was similar (96.2% vs 93.1%) as was angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors - (71.2% vs 78.0%) and angiotensin-receptor blockers - ARB (27.9% vs 22.2%). Dosages of the commonly used ACE inhibitors at the screening visit (Paradigm-HF) / before angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor administration (MMR) differed significantly only for ramipril (7.0 ± 3.1 mg vs 4.8 ± 2.9 mg, P<0.05), dosages of ARB were - losartan (67.1 ± 30.2 vs 39.6 ± 32.0 mg, P=0.09) and valsartan (181.5 ± 71.1 vs 130.9 ± 82.2 mg, P=0.07). There was a substantial difference in device-based therapy (ICD in 60.6%, CRT 25.9% in MMR vs 14.9% and 7.0% in Paradigm-HF). CONCLUSION: The differences between the groups for the majority of clinical parameters compared were minimal, except for younger age, higher body mass index and serum creatinine level and lower left ventricular ejection fraction and substantially lower dosage of administered ramipril prior to commencing sacubitril/valsartan therapy. There was a higher prevalence of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in the MMR group.

Clinical Outcomes Related to Background Diuretic Use and New Diuretic Initiation in Patients With HFrEF.

BACKGROUND: Up to 20% of patients in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) trials are not taking diuretic agents at baseline, but little is known about them. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine outcomes in patients with HFrEF not taking diuretic medications and after diuretic medications are started. METHODS: Patient characteristics and outcomes were compared between patients taking or not taking diuretic drugs at baseline in the ATMOSPHERE (Aliskiren Trial of Minimizing Outcomes for Patients With Heart Failure) and PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure Trial) trials combined. Patients starting diuretic medications were also compared with those remaining off diuretic drugs during follow-up. Symptoms (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score [KCCQ-CSS]), hospitalization for worsening heart failure (HF), mortality, and kidney function (estimated glomerular filtration rate slope) were examined. RESULTS: At baseline, the 3,079 of 15,415 patients (20%) not taking diuretic medications had a less severe HF profile, less neurohumoral activation, and better kidney function. They were less likely to experience the primary outcome (hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death) than patients taking diuretic agents (adjusted HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.74-0.80; P < 0.001) and death of any cause. Commencement of a diuretic drug was associated with higher subsequent risk for death (adjusted HR: 2.05; 95% CI: 1.99-2.11; P < 0.001) and greater decreases in KCCQ-CSS and estimated glomerular filtration rate. The 5 strongest predictors of initiation of diuretic medications were higher N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, higher body mass index, older age, history of diabetes, and worse KCCQ-CSS. In PARADIGM-HF, fewer patients who were treated with sacubitril/valsartan commenced diuretic agents (OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.58-0.88; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HFrEF not taking diuretic medications and those who remained off them had better outcomes than patients treated with diuretic agents or who commenced them.

Sacubitril/Valsartan: A New Dawn has Begun! A Revisited Review.

Heart Failure (HF) is among the major causes of global morbidity as well as mortality. Increased prevalence, frequent and prolonged hospitalization, rehospitalization, long-term consumption of healthcare resources, absenteeism, and death upsurge the economic burden linked to HF. For decades, Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors (ACEIs), Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers (ARBs), Beta-Blockers (BBs), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), have remained the mainstay of the standard of care for HF management. Despite their proven efficacy and cost-effectiveness, HF remains a global pandemic and is still increasing in prevalence. Sacubitril/ Valsartan (SAC/VAL) is an Angiotensin Receptor/Neprilysin Inhibitor (ARNI) that proved out to be a game-changer drug in HF treatment. Recent data indicated that SAC/VAL is more efficient and can improve the overall quality of life of HF patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) with fewer side effects. It is now incorporated in the guidelines as an alternative to ACEIs or ARBs to lower morbidity in addition to mortality in HFrEF patients. This review article will discuss the current guidelines-approved indications and highlight the potential emerging indications, in addition to the currently ongoing clinical trials that will expand the use of SAC/VAL.

Exploring the Food and Drug Administration's review and approval of Entresto (sacubitril/valsartan).

Federal regulatory agencies such as the United States Food and Drug Administration review pharmacological evidence to ensure the safety and efficacy of new and repurposed pharmaceuticals prior to market approval. The discussions, disagreements and procedural decisions contained within such reviews offer unique insight into a pharmaceutical's strengths, weaknesses and opportunities, yet are often overlooked as a significant source of pharmacological information for research and development. To highlight the value of such resources, we present a case study on Entresto, a first-in-class angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and explore the regulatory rationale underlying its market approval. Using information extracted from Entresto's online approval package at Drugs@FDA, we explore some of the procedural complexities underlying market approval of new pharmaceuticals, discuss the broad pharmacological implications contained within regulatory agency grey literature, and highlight opportunities for future therapeutic development.

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

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

Sacubitril/valsartan: A practical guide.

Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors are a cornerstone in the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Sacubitril/valsartan modulates the neurohormonal axis by inhibiting both angiotensin receptors and neprilysin, and improves neurohormonal balance more than blocking the RAAS alone. The PARADIGM-HF trial validated this new treatment option for patients with HFrEF. Sacubitril/valsartan was also more effective than enalapril in slowing disease progression by decreasing the risk of worsening heart failure requiring hospitalization or emergency admission and the need for intensified therapy, heart failure devices or cardiac transplantation. More than 70% of patients included in PARADIGM-HF were in NYHA class II, and overall, the results indicate that sacubitril/valsartan should be started in the earliest symptomatic stages of the disease. As PARADIGM-HF has excellent robustness for a cardiovascular trial, sacubitril/valsartan has been included as a new treatment option with a strong level of recommendation in the main international guidelines. This expert task force proposes a practical guide to the use of this new drug that has been endorsed by the Working Group on Heart Failure of the Portuguese Society of Cardiology.

Neurohormonal modulation: The new paradigm of pharmacological treatment of heart failure.

The current paradigm of medical therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is triple neurohormonal blockade with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI), a beta-blocker (BB) and a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA). However, three-year mortality remains over 30%. Stimulation of counter-regulatory systems in addition to neurohormonal blockade constitutes a new paradigm, termed neurohormonal modulation. Sacubitril/valsartan is the first element of this new strategy. PARADIGM-HF was the largest randomized clinical trial conducted in HFrEF. It included 8442 patients and compared the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular mortality and hospitalization due to HF, which occurred in 914 (21.8%) patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan and in 1117 (26.5%) patients receiving enalapril (HR 0.8, 95% CI 0.73-0.87, p=0.0000002; NNT 21). Sacubitril/valsartan reduced both primary endpoint components, as well as sudden cardiac death, death due to worsening HF, and death from all causes. Patients on sacubitril/valsartan reported less frequent deterioration of HF and of quality of life, and discontinued study medication less frequently because of an adverse event. PARADIGM-HF demonstrated the superiority of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril, with a 20% greater impact on cardiovascular mortality compared to ACEIs. Accordingly, in 2016, the European (ESC) and American (ACC/AHA/HFSA) cardiology societies simultaneously issued a class I recommendation for the replacement of ACEIs by sacubitril/valsartan in patients resembling PARADIGM-HF trial participants.

Sacubitril/Valsartan: From Clinical Trials to Real-world Experience.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Compared to enalapril, use of angiotensin-receptor blocker and neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan to treat patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is associated with substantial reductions in both cardiovascular mortality and heart failure progression. The purpose of this review is to discuss the real-world experience of sacubitril/valsartan. RECENT FINDINGS: In the years following the publication of the landmark PARADIGM-HF trial in 2014 and its subsequent FDA approval, a growing evidence base supports the safety and efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan in a broad spectrum of patients with HFrEF. Updated clinical practice guidelines have embraced the use of sacubitril/valsartan in preference to ACE inhibitors or ARBs in selected patients. In this review, we highlight the clinical trials that led to these key updates to clinical guidelines, offer practical strategies for patient selection and utilization in clinical practice, and identify important areas of uncertainty that require future research.

Eligibility of sacubitril-valsartan in a real-world heart failure population: a community-based single-centre study.

AIMS: This study aims to investigate the eligibility of the Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor (ARNI) with ACE inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) study to a real-world heart failure population. METHODS AND RESULTS: Medical records of all heart failure patients living within the catchment area of Umeå University Hospital were reviewed. This district consists of around 150 000 people. Out of 2029 patients with a diagnosis of heart failure, 1924 (95%) had at least one echocardiography performed, and 401 patients had an ejection fraction of ≤35% at their latest examination. The major PARADIGM-HF criteria were applied, and 95 patients fulfilled all enrolment criteria and thus were eligible for sacubitril-valsartan. This corresponds to 5% of the overall heart failure population and 24% of the population with ejection fraction ≤ 35%. The eligible patients were significantly older (73.2 ± 10.3 vs. 63.8 ± 11.5 years), had higher blood pressure (128 ± 17 vs. 122 ± 15 mmHg), had higher heart rate (77 ± 17 vs. 72 ± 12 b.p.m.), and had more atrial fibrillation (51.6% vs. 36.2%) than did the PARADIGM-HF population. CONCLUSIONS: Only 24% of our real-world heart failure and reduced ejection fraction population was eligible for sacubitril-valsartan, and the real-world heart failure and reduced ejection fraction patients were significantly older than the PARADIGM-HF population. The lack of data on a majority of the patients that we see in clinical practice is a real problem, and we are limited to extrapolation of results on a slightly different population. This is difficult to address, but perhaps registry-based randomized clinical trials will help to solve this issue.

Sacubitril/valsartan in cardiovascular disease: evidence to date and place in therapy.

Cardiovascular (CV) disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the developing and the developed world. Mortality from CV disease had plateaued in the recent years raising concerning alarms about the sustained efficacy of available preventive and treatment options. Heart failure (HF) is among the major contributors to the CV-related health care burden, a persisting concern despite the use of clinically proven guideline-directed therapies. A requirement for more efficient medical therapies coupled with recent advances in bio-innovation led to the creation of sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), which demonstrated substantial CV benefit when compared with the standard of care, enalapril, in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction. Further investigations of this novel combination ARNI at the tissue level shed light into the anti-remodeling and cardioprotective effects of sacubitril/valsartan, while clinical studies in the phenotypes of HF with preserved ejection fraction, hypertension and subsets, coronary outcomes, postmyocardial infarction, and renal disease suggested that this combination could be beneficial across a wide spectrum of CV disease. Sacubitril/valsartan is a much-needed therapeutic advance in the avenue of CV disease.

Early insights into the characteristics and evolution of clinical parameters in a cohort of patients prescribed sacubitril/valsartan in Germany.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to provide early insights into sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) prescription patterns and the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients prescribed sac/val in primary care and cardiology settings in Germany. METHODS: The study used electronic medical records from the German IMS® Disease Analyzer database. Patients with ≥1 prescription for sac/val during 1 January-31 December 2016 (n = 1643) were identified and followed up for ≤12 months from first prescription. Patients with ≥1 heart failure (HF) diagnosis during the study period, ≥1 additional HF diagnosis in the full history of the database, and ≥1 prescription for an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker and a ß-blocker during the study period, without a prescription for sac/val (n = 25,264), were included as a reference cohort. Changes in clinical parameters in the 12 months before and after sac/val initiation were investigated and compared with those from the PARADIGM-HF study. RESULTS: The characteristics of patients prescribed sac/val more closely resembled those of patients enrolled in PARADIGM-HF (e.g. younger age, higher proportion of men than women, lower systolic blood pressure) than patients in the reference cohort. Most patients were initiated on the lowest dose of sac/val irrespective of clinical setting. Significant decreases (p < 0.001) in NT-proBNP and glycated haemoglobin levels were observed following sac/val initiation. CONCLUSIONS: Patients prescribed sac/val had similar baseline demographics and clinical characteristics to those from PARADIGM-HF, and most patients were initiated on the lowest dose. Changes in clinical parameters before and after initiation mirrored findings from the PARADIGM-HF study.