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).

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

INTRODUCTION: The current guidelines strongly recommend early initiation of multiple classes of cardioprotective drugs for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction to improve prognosis and health status. However, evidence on the optimal sequencing of approved drugs is scarce, highlighting the importance of individualised treatment plans. Registry data indicate that only a portion of these patients can tolerate all four recommended classes, underscoring the need to establish the favoured sequence when using these drugs. Additionally, the choice between long-acting and short-acting loop diuretics in the present era remains uncertain. This is particularly relevant given the frequent use of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, both of which potentiate natriuretic effects. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint method, LAQUA-HF (Long-acting vs short-acting diuretics and neurohormonal Agents on patients' QUAlity-of-life in Heart Failure patients) will be a 2×2 factorial design, with a total of 240 patients randomised to sacubitril/valsartan versus dapagliflozin and torsemide versus furosemide in a 1:1 ratio. Most enrolment sites have participated in an ongoing observational registry for consecutive patients hospitalised for heart failure involved dedicated study coordinators, and used the same framework to enrol patients. The primary endpoint is the change in patients' health status over 6 months, defined by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire. Additionally, clinical benefit at 6 months defined as a hierarchical composite endpoint will be assessed by the win ratio as the secondary endpoint. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The medical ethics committee Keio University in Japan has approved this trial. All participants provide written informed consent prior to study entry. The results of this trial will be disseminated in one main paper and additional papers on secondary endpoints and subgroup analyses. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000045229.

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].

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

BACKGROUND: Treatment of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and renal dysfunction (RD) is challenging owing to the risk of further deterioration in renal function, especially after acute decompensated HF (ADHF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We assessed the effect of RD (estimated glomerular filtration rate of ≥30 to <60 mL/min/1.73 m2) on initiation, up-titration, and tolerability of sacubitril/valsartan in hemodynamically stabilized patients with HFrEF admitted for ADHF (RD, n = 476; non-RD, n = 483). At week 10, the target dose of sacubitril/valsartan (97/103 mg twice daily) was achieved by 42% patients in RD subgroup vs 54% in non-RD patients (P < .001). Sacubitril/valsartan was associated with greater estimated glomerular filtration rate improvements in RD subgroup than non-RD (change from baseline least squares mean 4.1 mL/min/1.73 m2, 95% confidence interval 2.2-6.1, P < .001). Cardiac biomarkers improved significantly in both subgroups; however, compared with the RD subgroup, the improvement was greater in those without RD (N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, -28.6% vs -44.8%, high-sensitivity troponin T -20.3% vs -33.9%) (P < .001). Patients in the RD subgroup compared with those without RD experienced higher rates of hyperkalemia (16.3% vs 6.5%, P < .001), investigator-reported cardiac failure (9.7% vs 5.6%, P = .029), and renal impairment (6.4% vs 2.1%, P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with HFrEF and concomitant RD hospitalized for ADHF tolerated early initiation of sacubitril/valsartan and showed significant improvements in estimated glomerular filtration rate and cardiac biomarkers. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02661217.

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

BACKGROUND: Heart failure is a major cause of morbidity and mortality among older adults. Sacubitril-Valsartan (Sac/Val) has been shown to improve patients' outcomes; however, its safety profile among older adults has not been adequately examined. We therefore aimed to examine its safety profile among this population. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective pharmacovigilance study utilizing the FDA's database of safety reports (FAERS). We employed disproportionality analysis comparing Sac/Val to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). We aim to evaluate the reporting of pre-defined adverse events associated with Sac/Val (hypotension, acute kidney injury (AKI), hyperkalemia and angioedema) in two age groups: adults (< 75 years) and older adults (≥ 75). For each subgroup, we calculated reporting odds ratio (ROR) and compared them by calculating P for interaction. RESULTS: The FAERS database encompassed 18,432 unique reports of Sac/Val. Of them, 12,630 (68.5%) subjects were adults (< 75 years), and 5802 (31.5%) were older adults (≥ 75 years), with a median age (IQR) of 68 (59-77). When compared to ARBs, Sac/Val was associated with higher reporting of hypotension, lower reporting of acute kidney injury (AKI) and hyperkalemia, and similar reporting of angioedema. Notably, we did not observe a significant interaction between the age subgroups and the risk estimates (AKI: Pinteraction = 0.72, hyperkalemia: Pinteraction = 0.94, hypotension: Pinteraction = 0.31, and angioedema: Pinteraction = 0.61). CONCLUSIONS: In this postmarking study, none of the prespecified adverse events was reported more frequently in older adults. These findings provide reassurance for safety use of Sac/Val in older adults.

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

AIM: It is unknown whether safety and clinical endpoints by use of sacubitril/valsartan (an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor [ARNI]) are affected by mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) in high-risk myocardial infarction (MI) patients. The aim of this study was to examine whether MRA modifies safety and clinical endpoints by use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with a MI and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and/or pulmonary congestion. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients (n = 5661) included in the PARADISE MI trial (Prospective ARNI vs. ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI) were stratified according to MRA. Primary outcomes in this substudy were worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death. Safety was defined as symptomatic hypotension, hyperkalaemia >5.5 mmol/L, or permanent drug discontinuation. A total of 2338 patients (41%) were treated with MRA. Safety of ARNI compared to ramipril was not altered significantly by ± MRA, and both groups had similar increase in symptomatic hypotension with ARNI. In patients taking MRA, the risk of hyperkalaemia or permanent drug discontinuation was not significantly altered by ARNI (p > 0.05 for all comparisons). The effect of ARNI compared with ramipril was similar in those who were and were not taking MRA (hazard ratio [HR]MRA 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-1.19 and HRMRA- 0.87, 95% CI 0.71-1.05, for the primary endpoint; p = 0.51 for interaction [Clinical Endpoint Committee adjudicated]); similar findings were observed if investigator-reported endpoints were evaluated (p = 0.61 for interaction). CONCLUSIONS: Use of a MRA did not modify safety or clinical endpoints related to initiation of ARNI compared to ramipril in the post-MI setting in patients with LVSD and/or congestion.

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

INTRODUCTION: Hypertension is a significant risk factor in heart failure for worldwide patients. More than half of hypertensive patients suffer from heart failure. Recently, sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) has been approved as an antihypertensive agent in China and Japan. Additionally, it is not approved for treating hypertension in Europe or the USA. AIM: To accumulate more real-world experiences to investigate the effectiveness and optimize clinical medication of sac/val in hypertensive patients with heart failure. METHODS: We retrospectively enrolled adult patients diagnosed with hypertension (HTN) and heart failure (HF) and newly treated with sac/val. The baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were retrospectively extracted from electronic medical records (EMR) in three centers. The efficacy and safety of sac/val were first analyzed in all enrolled patients. Stratified analyses were conducted in patients with different ages (≥ 65, < 65), maximum tolerated doses (≥ 200 mg/days, < 200 mg/days), and renal functions (e-GFR ≥ 60 ml/min/1.73 m2, < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2). RESULTS: Overall, 794 patients diagnosed with both HF and HTN were included in our study. During follow-up, significant reductions were found in blood pressure (BP) (SBP 12.8 ± 21.2 mmHg, P < 0.001, DBP 7.1 ± 16.5 mmHg, P < 0.001), and cardiac biomarkers (cardiac troponin 1.78 ± 19.1 ng/mL, P < 0.001, NT-proBNP 1403 ± 6937 pg/mL, P < 0.001) from baseline. In stratification analyses, the lower dosage group earned a higher BP control rate (83.4% vs. 75.6%, P = 0.025) and an overall improvement rate of cardiac indicators (61.3% vs. 48.0%, P = 0.002). The younger patients' group had significantly less cumulative hazard of recurrent cerebral-cardiovascular events than the elder group (log-rank P value < 0.001). Patients with renal dysfunction were observed with more AE incidences. CONCLUSIONS: Sac/val could reduce BP and improve cardiac structural and functional parameters in hypertensive patients with HF, even with less than target doses. However, more attention should be paid to older patients and renal dysfunction patients when using sac/val because of additional risks in adverse events.

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

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) is a widely used drug for hypertension in Asia, popular for its efficacy and safety. However, there has been no comprehensive literature review comparing it with olmesartan. This meta-analysis compared the antihypertensive and adverse effects of sacubitril/valsartan and olmesartan. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The data were then analyzed and processed using Revman 5.4 and Stata SE14 software. RESULTS: Six RCTs with 4,127 patients were identified, showing that LCZ696 had better blood pressure control than olmesartan; mean sitting systolic and diastolic blood pressure, sitting pulse pressure, 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure, and 24-hour ambulatory diastolic blood pressure were significantly decreased with LCZ696 compared with olmesartan. No significant difference between LCZ696 and olmesartan was observed in the occurrence of the majority of adverse events, with a decreased probability of headache in patients with sacubitril/valsartan compared with olmesartan. The subgroup analysis showed treatment with 400 mg/d LCZ696 was better than olmesartan in reducing serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril/valsartan was better than olmesartan in controlling blood pressure in patients with hypertension, with relatively higher safety.

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

RATIONALE: Sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) is the first drug approved for the treatment of symptomatic chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in adult patients. There have been no reports of hepatotoxicity secondary to sacubitril/valsartan administration. Here, we report the first case of severe liver injury caused by sacubitril/valsartan. PATIENT CONCERNS: A 90-year-old female patient taking sacubitril/valsartan was admitted due to chronic heart failure. Subsequently, the patient developed serious liver injury with increased hepatic transaminases. DIAGNOSIS: Drug-induced liver injury, sacubitril/valsartan-related. No liver injury caused by other reasons was observed after thorough examination. After the withdrawal of sacubitril/valsartan, the liver function of the patient gradually returned to normal. INTERVENTIONS: We chose general liver protection methods to improve her hepatic function, including magnesium isoglycyrrhizinate at 100 mg daily and polyene phosphatidylcholine capsules at 456 mg 3 times daily. We consulted with a hepatologist to discuss the best plan for her treatment. The last, we stopped sacubitril/valsartan. OUTCOMES: After the withdrawal of sacubitril/valsartan, the liver function of the patient gradually returned to normal. LESSONS: Sacubitril/valsartan-induced liver injury is very rare. Clinicians should pay particular attention to the possibility of hepatotoxicity during sacubitril/valsartan treatment.

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

BACKGROUND: The data on the effects of the angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril-valsartan (LCZ696) in chronic heart failure (CHF) patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring dialysis are lacking. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of LCZ696 in CHF patients with ESRD on dialysis. HYPOTHESIS: LCZ696 treatment can reduce rehospitalization rate for HF, delay the occurrence of rehospitalization for HF, and prolong the survival time. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of CHF patients with ESRD on dialysis who were admitted to the Second Hospital of Tianjin Medical University from August 2019 to October 2021. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients had primary outcome during the follow-up. The incidence of rehospitalization for HF in the control group was significantly higher than that in the LCZ696 group (73.47% vs. 43.28%, p = .001). There was no significant difference in mortality between the two groups (8.96% vs. 10.20%, p = 1.000). Our study included a time-to-event analysis through 1 year for the primary outcome-Kaplan-Meier curve showed that the LCZ696 group had significantly longer free-event survival time than the control group over 1-year follow-up (median survival time 139.0 days vs. 116.0 days, p = .037). CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that LCZ696 treatment was associated with a reduction in HF rehospitalization without significant effects on serum creatinine and serum potassium levels. LCZ696 is effective and safe in CHF patients with ESRD on dialysis.

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

OBJECTIVE: In this post hoc analysis of the PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HFpEF) trial, we evaluated clinical outcomes and responses to sacubitril/valsartan by duration of heart failure (HF) with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 45% at initial diagnosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: The primary outcome was a composite of total hospitalizations due to HF and cardiovascular deaths, analyzed by using a semiparametric proportional rates method, stratified by geographic region. Among 4784 (99.7%) randomized participants in the PARAGON-HF trial for whom baseline HF duration was captured, 1359 (28%) had durations of HF of < 6 months, 1295 (27%) of 6 months-2 years, and 2130 (45%) of > 2 years. Longer HF duration was associated with higher comorbidity burdens, worse health status and lower rates of prior hospitalization due to HF. Over a median follow-up of 35 months, longer HF duration was associated with a higher risk of first and recurrent primary events (per 100 patient-years): < 6 months, 12.0 (95% CI, 10.4-14.0); 6 months-2 years, 12.2 (10.6-14.2); > 2 years, 15.8 (14.2-17.5). Relative treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan were consistent, irrespective of baseline HF duration on the primary endpoint (Pinteraction = 0.112). Clinically meaningful (≥ 5 point) improvements in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Clinical Summary Scores were also similarly observed, irrespective of HF duration; (Pinteraction = 0.112). Adverse events were similar between treatment arms across HF duration categories. CONCLUSIONS: In PARAGON-HF, longer HF duration was independently predictive of adverse HF outcomes. Treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan were consistent, irrespective of baseline HF duration, suggesting that even ambulatory patients with longstanding HFpEF and predominantly mild symptoms stand to benefit from treatment optimization.

Different Doses of Sacubitril/Valsartan Compared with Olmesartan in Patients with Essential Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Since sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) has neprilysin inhibition and angiotensin receptor-blocking properties, it is anticipated to have strong antihypertensive effects. However, there is not enough evidence to compare the safety and efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan to those of olmesartan in patients with hypertension. AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan versus olmesartan in patients with hypertension. METHODS: This study follows the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for relevant clinical trials. We extracted outcome endpoints regarding mean ambulatory systolic/diastolic blood pressure (maSBP/maDBP), mean sitting systolic/diastolic blood pressure (msSBP/msDBP), mean ambulatory/mean sitting pulse pressure (maPP/msPP), the proportion of patients achieving blood pressure control (< 140/90 mmHg), and adverse events. We used Review Manager Software for the conduction of the analysis of this study. The effect estimates of the studies were pooled as Mean difference or risk ratio and 95% confidence interval. We also conducted a subgroup analysis based on the dose of sacubitril/valsartan. RESULTS: A total of six clinical trials were included. The studies showed an overall low risk of bias. The pooled effect estimate revealed that sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduces maSBP, maDBP, maPP, msSBP, and msDBP measurements compared with olmesartan (p < 0.001). A significantly higher portion of patients achieved blood pressure control in the sacubitril/valsartan group (p < 0.001). The test of subgroup difference showed that 400 mg dose is significantly more effective than 200 mg dose in reducing maSBP. Regarding the safety profile, olmesartan was associated with more side effects due to drug discontinuation and more serious side effects. CONCLUSION: Sacubitril/valsartan or LCZ696 is more effective and safer than olmesartan for controlling blood pressure in patients with hypertension.

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

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin receptor blocker and a neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) has emerged as an innovative therapy for patients of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and tolerability of Sacubitril/Valsartan in patient with HFrEF in Pakistani population. METHODS: This proof-of-concept, open label non-randomized clinical trial was conducted at a tertiary care cardiac center of Karachi, Pakistan. Patients with HFrEF were prescribed with Sacubitril/Valsartan and followed for 12 weeks for the assessment of safety and tolerability. Safety measures included incidence of hypotension, renal dysfunction, hyperkalemia, and angioedema. RESULTS: Among the 120 HFrEF patients, majority were male (79.2%) with means age of 52.73 ± 12.23 years. At the end of 12 weeks, four (3.3%) patients died and eight (6.7%) dropped out of the study. In the remaining 108 patients, 80.6% (87) of the patients were tolerant to the prescribed dose. Functional class improved gradually with 75.0% (81) in class I and 24.1% (26) in class II, and only one (0.9%) patient in class III at the end of 12 weeks. Hyperkalemia remains the main safety concern with incidence rate of 21.3% (23) followed by hypotension in 19.4% (21), and renal dysfunction in 3.7% (4) of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril/Valsartan therapy in HFrEF patients is safe and moderately tolerated among the Pakistani population. It can be used as first line of treatment for these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05387967. Registered 24 May 2022-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05387967.

Urinary cGMP (Cyclic Guanosine Monophosphate)/BNP (B-Type Natriuretic Peptide) Ratio, Sacubitril/Valsartan, and Outcomes in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: An Analysis of the PARADIGM-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: The ratio of ucGMP (urinary cyclic guanosine monophosphate) to BNP (B-type natriuretic peptide) is thought to reflect the responsiveness of tissues to natriuretic peptides. METHODS: We examined the relationship between ucGMP/BNP ratio and clinical outcomes, the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, on the ucGMP/BNP ratio, and the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan on clinical outcomes according to baseline ucGMP/BNP ratio in PARADIGM-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure). ucGMP/BNP ratio was available at baseline (N=2031), 1 month (N=1959), and 8 months after randomization (N=1746). The primary outcome was a composite of heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death. RESULTS: Compared with the lowest tertile of baseline ucGMP/BNP ratio, patients in the higher tertiles had a lower risk of the primary outcome (tertile 1, reference; tertile 2, hazard ratio 0.57 [95% CI, 0.45-0.71]; tertile 3, hazard ratio, 0.54 [0.43-0.67]). Compared with baseline, the ucGMP/BNP ratio at 1 month and 8 months after randomization was higher with sacubitril/valsartan than with enalapril: ratio of geometric mean ratios at 1 month, 1.38 (95% CI, 1.27-1.51) and 8 months, 1.32 (95% CI, 1.20-1.45), and this difference was consistent across tertiles of ucGMP/BNP ratio at baseline (Pinteraction=0.19 and 0.91, respectively). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, was consistent across tertiles of ucGMP/BNP ratio at baseline for all outcomes (Pinteraction ≥0.31). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, higher ucGMP/BNP ratio was associated with better outcomes. Sacubitril/valsartan increased the ucGMP/BNP ratio, compared with enalapril, and the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on clinical outcomes was not modified by baseline ucGMP/BNP ratio. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique Identifier: NCT01035255.

Safety and feasibility of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor in real-world patients with acute decompensated heart failure.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the safety and feasibility of in-hospital sacubitril/valsartan initiation after clinical stabilization in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) and reduced ejection fraction (EF). METHODS: This retrospective, multicenter observational study included patients admitted for ADHF in 2 Italian centers between February 2017 and January 2022. Feasibility was evaluated by assessing the proportion of patients discharged on sacubitril/valsartan. Key safety endpoints were the incidences of adverse events during hospitalization and during follow-up planned at 1 month, 3-6 months and 12-18 months after discharge. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-two patients were included. Median age was 71 (60-78) years, 78% male, 63% New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class III at admission with a median left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) of 25% (20-30). During hospitalization, 94 (77%) patients were treated with intravenous diuretics, 39 (32%) with inotrope/vasopressor, 51 (42%) with continuous positive airway pressure ventilation and 7 (6%) were assisted with an intra-aortic balloon pump. Median time from hospitalization to sacubitril/valsartan initiation was 4 (2-7) days. Sacubitril/valsartan was started at a dosage of 12/13 mg in 52 (43%) patients, 24/26 mg in 61 (50%) patients and 49/51 mg in 8 (7%) patients. Overall, 111 (91%) patients were discharged on sacubitril/valsartan. At 12-18-month follow-up, the vast majority of patients were still on sacubitril/valsartan therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan treatment in real-world ADHF patients may be a safe and feasible treatment option.

Efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan after switching from azilsartan in hemodialysis patients with hypertension.

This study assessed the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in 23 hemodialysis patients with hypertension (mean age 70 years; male 69.6%) after switching from azilsartan, an angiotensin receptor blocker. Both at baseline and 3 months after the start of sacubitril/valsartan treatment, home blood pressure (BP), BP values during hemodialysis, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level were measured. The mean dosage of azilsartan was 30 ± 10 mg/day at baseline and that of sacubitril/valsartan after 3 months of treatment was 204 ± 64 mg/day. After 3 months, significant reductions in mean morning home BP (155 ± 17/80 ± 12 to 147 ± 16/76 ± 11 mmHg), mean nighttime home systolic BP (153 ± 19 to 144 ± 16 mmHg), and median (IQRs) NT-proBNP level [8124 (2620-13 394) to 6271 (1570-9591) pg/mL] were observed (all P < .05), whereas BP values during hemodialysis did not change significantly. In hemodialysis patients, except for hypotension, sacubitril/valsartan was generally well tolerated, effectively controlled out-of-office BP, and improved NT-proBNP.

Baseline Characteristics of Pediatric Patients With Heart Failure Due to Systemic Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction in the PANORAMA-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan has been approved for the management of heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction in adults. PANORAMA-HF trial (Prospective Trial to Assess the Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Neprilysin Inhibitor LCZ696 Versus Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor for the Medical Treatment of Pediatric HF) investigated its effects on clinical outcomes in pediatric patients with HF. METHODS: PANORAMA-HF is a multicenter, Phase II/III study using an adaptive, seamless, 2-part design. The study aimed to evaluate the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of single doses of sacubitril/valsartan (Part 1), and the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril administered twice daily for 52 weeks (Part 2) in pediatric patients with HF due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction with biventricular heart physiology. An innovative trial design using a novel global rank assessment of severity was employed. For analysis, eligible patients were stratified into 3 age groups (Group 1, 6 to <18 years; Group 2a, 2 to <6 years; and Group 3a, 1 month to <2 years) and functional classification (New York Heart Association/Ross class I/II and III/IV). RESULTS: We report the key demographic, baseline, and clinical characteristics of 375 pediatric patients randomized to receive the study medication. The mean age for patients in Groups 1, 2a, and 3a was 12.2, 3.2, and 1.3 years, respectively. About 70% of patients had a prior HF hospitalization, 85% had New York Heart Association/Ross class I/II HF, and ≈8% were angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker naïve. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to other pediatric HF studies, PANORAMA-HF recruited a relatively homogeneous pediatric HF population across 3 age groups, enabling a more robust evaluation of pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics and efficacy/safety of sacubitril/valsartan. Most patients had mildly symptomatic HF at baseline. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02678312.