Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibition in Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: In patients with symptomatic heart failure, sacubitril-valsartan has been found to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death from cardiovascular causes more effectively than an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor. Trials comparing the effects of these drugs in patients with acute myocardial infarction have been lacking. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with myocardial infarction complicated by a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, pulmonary congestion, or both to receive either sacubitril-valsartan (97 mg of sacubitril and 103 mg of valsartan twice daily) or ramipril (5 mg twice daily) in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure (outpatient symptomatic heart failure or heart failure leading to hospitalization), whichever occurred first. RESULTS: A total of 5661 patients underwent randomization; 2830 were assigned to receive sacubitril-valsartan and 2831 to receive ramipril. Over a median of 22 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 338 patients (11.9%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 373 patients (13.2%) in the ramipril group (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 1.04; P = 0.17). Death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 308 patients (10.9%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 335 patients (11.8%) in the ramipril group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.07); death from cardiovascular causes in 168 (5.9%) and 191 (6.7%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.08); and death from any cause in 213 (7.5%) and 242 (8.5%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.05). Treatment was discontinued because of an adverse event in 357 patients (12.6%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 379 patients (13.4%) in the ramipril group. CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril-valsartan was not associated with a significantly lower incidence of death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure than ramipril among patients with acute myocardial infarction. (Funded by Novartis; PARADISE-MI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02924727.).

Association of Heart Failure Patients With and Without Sacubitril-Valsartan Use With Incident Cancer Risk.

ABSTRACT: This study was to evaluate the association between heart failure (HF) patients with and without sacubitril-valsartan use with incident cancer risk. This study consisted of 18,072 patients receiving sacubitril-valsartan and 18,072 control group participants. In the Fine and Gray model, which extends the standard Cox proportional hazards regression model, we estimated the relative risk of developing cancer between the sacubitril-valsartan cohort and the non-sacubitril-valsartan cohort by using subhazard ratios (SHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The incidence rates of cancer were 12.02 per 1000 person-years for the sacubitril-valsartan cohort and 23.31 per 1000 person-years for the non-sacubitril-valsartan cohort. Patients receiving sacubitril-valsartan had a significantly lower risk of developing cancer with an adjusted SHR of 0.60 (0.51, 0.71). Sacubitril-valsartan users were less to be associated with the development of cancer.

Effects of Sacubitril-Valsartan in Patients With Various Types of Heart Failure: A Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: We performed a meta-analysis investigating the efficacy and adverse effects of sacubitril-valsartan in various types of heart failure including more recent studies and a larger sample size. We conducted an electronic search through Cochrane, Web of Science, PubMed, and Embase. Included studies were randomized controlled trials analyzing the efficacy of sacubitril-valsartan compared with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) or angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) in patients with heart failure. Fourteen trials were included. Pooled estimates were analyzed using RevMan 5.4.1. The odds ratio (OR) of hospitalization from worsening heart failure that compared sacubitril-valsartan with control was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.51-0.97; P = 0.03) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) with a relative risk reduction (RRR) of 24.3% and absolute risk reduction (ARR) of 3.4%. In patients with heart failure with midrange (HFmEF) and preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction, the OR was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.71-0.90; P = 0.0001) with RRR of 14.5% and ARR of 3.3%. There was a significant reduction in cardiovascular deaths (OR = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70-0.89; P = <0.0001) and all-cause mortality (OR = 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75-0.94; P = 0.002) in patients with HFrEF, with no significant differences in patients with HFmEF and HFpEF. Hospitalization rate was significantly reduced in patients taking sacubitril-valsartan across all analyzed cohorts. Sacubitril-valsartan significantly reduced the risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death in patients with HFrEF but not in patients with HFmEF/HFpEF. These findings support sacubitril-valsartan use in reducing hospitalization of patients with HFmEF and HFpEF. More studies should be performed to further analyze the efficacy of sacubitril-valsartan in patients with HFmEF/HFpEF.

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.

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

BACKGROUND: Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan lowered HbA1c and reduced new insulin therapy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and diabetes in the PARADIGM-HF trial. We sought to assess the glycemic effects of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and diabetes, and across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in heart failure and diabetes. METHODS: We compared the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, relative to valsartan, on HbA1c, new insulin therapy and hypoglycemia in the randomized controlled trial PARAGON-HF, and performed pooled analyses of PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF. RESULTS: Among 2395 patients with HFpEF and diabetes in PARAGON-HF, sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan reduced HbA1c (baseline-adjusted between-group difference in HbA1c change at 48 weeks: - 0.24%, 95% CI - 0.33 to - 0.16%, P < 0.001). Numerically, new insulin treatment was initiated less often in the sacubitril/valsartan group than in the valsartan group, but the difference was not statistically significant (12.8% vs. 16.1%; HR: 0.80, 95% CI 0.62-1.02, P = 0.07). Hypoglycemia adverse event reports were low, but more frequent in those receiving sacubitril/valsartan than in the valsartan group (4.2% vs. 2.6%; HR: 1.64, 95% CI 1.05-2.56, P = 0.030). In a pooled analysis of PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF, the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on change in HbA1c was not significantly modified by LVEF (Pinteraction = 0.56). Across the spectrum of LVEF, sacubitril/valsartan reduced new insulin therapy (HR: 0.75, 95% CI 0.63-0.89, P = 0.001), compared with enalapril or valsartan. CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril/valsartan reduced HbA1c and new insulin therapy in patients with heart failure and diabetes across the spectrum of LVEF but may be associated with a slightly higher risk for hypoglycemia. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01920711.

Are Post Hoc Analyses on Subgroups Sufficient to Support New Treatment Algorithms of Heart Failure? The Case of SGLT2 Inhibitors Associated with Sacubitril/Valsartan.

The use of sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has been strongly supported by the results of recent randomized clinical trials. Upon this evidence, international recommendations and consensus documents propose the inclusion of SGLT2i among the first-line classes for HFrEF management. Subsequent analyses of treatment subgroups have been performed to investigate the effects of SGLT2i in patients treated with first-line classes including sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val), showing a consistent reduction of cardiovascular outcomes with a good safety profile of SGLT2i in combination with the other classes. Accordingly, SGLT2i are recommended also in combination with Sac/Val. This association, however, may require caution before being translated into guideline-directed medical therapy in clinical practice, since the proportion of patients receiving Sac/Val and SGLT2i in the available studies was poorly represented. In order to support an effective and safe sequencing or a simultaneous initiation of these 2 drug classes, pragmatic and real-world clinical studies would be helpful.

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

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

Effectiveness and safety of sacubitril/valsartan for patients with hypertension and heart failure in the real-world setting: A retrospective study in China.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Hypertension (HP) is associated with heart failure (HF). Sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) has been approved for primary HP by China Food and Drug Administration (CFDA) in June 2021. The present study aimed to provide evidence on the effectiveness and safety of sac/val in Chinese patients complicated with HP and HF. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted on adult patients diagnosed with HP and HF and treated with sac/val between July 2020 and December 2020. The potential risk factors for the discontinuation events caused by sac/val-related adverse events (AEs) were explored. The data, including blood pressure (BP), cardiac indicators, corresponding values on echocardiographic parameters, unplanned visits, and AEs throughout 3-12 months, were collected. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: A total of 446 eligible patients were included in this study. The discontinuation events of sac/val were mainly attributed to its AEs (hypotension, hyperkalemia, and deterioration in kidney function). Univariate analysis revealed that history of chronic kidney disease, atrial fibrillation, higher values of serum creatinine, serum uric acid, serum N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide, and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate were potential risk factors for discontinuation. Patients who maintained sac/val therapy throughout 3-12 months showed significantly improved values of clinical BP, cardiac indicators, and echocardiographic parameters compared to those at baseline (p < 0.0001). WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: Sac/val was effective on BP and improved cardiac function in patients complicated with HP and HF. The physicians should focus on patients with renal dysfunction to take timely precautions to improve tolerability for sac/val.

Phase 1 study of tazemetostat in Japanese patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: Tazemetostat is a selective and orally available inhibitor of enhancer of zeste homolog 2 (EZH2), a histone methyltransferase and epigenetic regulator of cellular differentiation programs. We carried out a phase I study of tazemetostat in Japanese patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin-type lymphoma (B-NHL) to evaluate its tolerability, safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary antitumor activity. METHODS: Tazemetostat was given orally at a single dose of 800 mg on the first day and 800 mg twice daily (BID: total 1600 mg/d) on following days in a 28-day/cycle manner. Tazemetostat dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was evaluated up to the end of the first treatment cycle. Archival tumor tissues were analyzed for hotspot EZH2 mutations. RESULTS: As of 15 January 2018, seven patients (four follicular lymphoma [FL] and three diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [DLBCL]) were enrolled. The median age was 73 (range, 59-85) years, and the median number of prior chemotherapy regimens was three (range, one to five). No DLT was observed (one patient was not evaluable due to early disease progression). The common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were thrombocytopenia and dysgeusia (three patients each; 42.9%). No treatment-related serious AEs were observed. The objective response rate was 57% (4/7 patients), including responses in three of four patients with FL and one of three patients with DLBCL. An EZH2 mutation was detected in one patient with FL responding to treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Tazemetostat at 800 mg BID showed an acceptable safety profile and promising antitumor activity in Japanese patients with relapsed or refractory B-NHL.

Phase II study of tazemetostat for relapsed or refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma with EZH2 mutation in Japan.

Tazemetostat is a selective, reversible, small-molecule inhibitor of the histone methyltransferase enzyme, enhancer of zest homolog 2 (EZH2). In this multicenter, open-label, phase II study, we assessed the efficacy and safety of tazemetostat in Japanese patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma harboring the EZH2 mutation. Tazemetostat (800 mg twice daily) was given orally (28-day cycle) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Among the 20 eligible patients, 17 were enrolled in cohort 1 (follicular lymphoma [FL]), and three were enrolled in cohort 2 (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma). At data cut-off, the objective response rate in cohort 1 was 76.5%, including six patients (35.3%) with complete response and seven patients (41.2%) with partial response (PR). All three patients in cohort 2 achieved PR. In cohort 1, median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached at the median follow-up of 12.9 months. The estimated PFS rate at 12 and 15 months was 94.1% and 73.2%, respectively. The most common grade 3 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) was lymphopenia (n = 2). Grade 4 TEAEs included hypertriglyceridemia and pneumonia aspiration (n = 1 each), which were not related to tazemetostat. Treatment-emergent adverse events leading to study drug discontinuation were reported in four of the 20 patients, indicating that the safety profile of tazemetostat was acceptable and manageable. Tazemetostat 800 mg twice daily showed encouraging efficacy in patients with R/R EZH2 mutation-positive FL with a manageable safety profile in the overall population. Thus, tazemetostat could be a potential treatment for R/R EZH2 mutation-positive FL.

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

Sacubitril/valsartan reduces mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) when compared with enalapril. However, it is unknown the effect of both treatments on exercise capacity. We compared sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril in patients with HFrEF based on peak oxygen consumption (VO2) and 6-minute walk test (6-MWT). METHODS: We included 52 participants with HFrEF with a left ventricular ejection fraction <40% to receive either sacubitril/valsartan (target dose of 400 mg daily) or enalapril (target dose of 40 mg daily). Peak VO2 was measured by using cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Six-minute walk test was also performed. RESULTS: At 12 weeks, the sacubitril/valsartan (mean dose 382.6 ± 57.6 mg daily) group had increased peak VO2 of 13.1% (19.35 ± 0.99 to 21.89 ± 1.04 mL/kg/min) and enalapril (mean dose 34.4 ± 9.2 mg daily) 5.6% (18.58 ± 1.19 to 19.62 ± 1.25 mL/kg/min). However, no difference was found between groups (P = .332 interaction). At 24 weeks, peak VO2 increased 13.5% (19.35 ± 0.99 to 21.96 ± 0.98 mL/kg/min) and 12.0% (18.58 ± 1.19 to 20.82 ± 1.18 mL/kg/min) in sacubitril/valsartan (mean dose 400 ± 0 mg daily) and enalapril (mean dose 32.7 ± 11.0 mg daily), respectively. However, no differences were found between groups (P= .332 interaction). At 12 weeks, 6-MWT increased in both groups (sacubitril/valsartan: 459 ± 18 to 488 ± 17 meters [6.3%] and enalapril: 443 ± 22 to 477 ± 21 meters [7.7%]). At 24 weeks, sacubitril/valsartan increased 18.3% from baseline (543 ± 26 meters) and enalapril decreased slightly to 6.8% (473 ± 31 meters), but no differences existed between groups (P= .257 interaction). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan did not substantially improve peak VO2 or 6-MWT after 12 or 24 weeks in participants with HFrEF. (NEPRIExTol-HF Trial, ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03190304).

Randomized, controlled trial to assess the safety and efficacy of odanacatib in the treatment of men with osteoporosis.

Odanacatib (ODN) was investigated as an osteoporosis treatment in 292 men. Compared with placebo, odanacatib improved bone mineral density and led to sustained bone resorption decreases while producing relatively little bone formation reduction that leveled off with time. However, increased risk of stroke in another study stopped further odanacatib development. INTRODUCTION: ODN, a selective oral cathepsin K inhibitor, was in development for osteoporosis treatment. This phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, 24-month study investigated ODN safety and efficacy in men with osteoporosis. METHODS: Men with idiopathic osteoporosis or osteoporosis due to hypogonadism and a lumbar spine or hip (total hip [TH], femoral neck [FN], or trochanter) bone mineral density (BMD) T-score of ≤ - 2.5 to ≥ - 4.0 without prior vertebral fracture or ≤ - 1.5 to ≥ - 4.0 with one prior vertebral fracture were randomized (1:1) to once-weekly ODN 50 mg or placebo. All received 5600 IU vitamin D3 weekly and calcium supplementation as needed (≥ 1200 mg daily). The primary efficacy outcome was changed from baseline in lumbar spine BMD versus placebo. RESULTS: Overall, 292 men, mean age 68.8 years, were randomly assigned to ODN or placebo. Versus placebo, ODN increased BMD from baseline at the lumbar spine, TH, FN, and trochanter by 5.6%, 2.0%, 1.7%, and 2.1%, respectively (all p < 0.01), and decreased uNTx/Cr (68%, p < 0.001), sCTx (77%, p < 0.001), sP1NP (16%, p = 0.001), and sBSAP (8%, p = 0.019). The between-group bone formation marker decrease peaked at 3 months, then returned toward baseline. The safety profile, including cardiovascular events, was similar between groups. CONCLUSION: Though a promising osteoporosis therapy for men, ODN development was discontinued due to increased risk of stroke in the LOFT phase 3 trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01120600 (registered May 11, 2010).

Assessment of various efficacy outcomes using ERIVANCE-like criteria in patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma receiving sonidegib: results from a preplanned sensitivity analysis.

BACKGROUND: The BOLT study for sonidegib, a Hedgehog pathway inhibitor (HHI) approved for patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma (laBCC) not amenable to curative surgery or radiotherapy, used modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) for laBCC tumor evaluation. The ERIVANCE study for vismodegib, another HHI, used a composite RECIST endpoint of ≥30% reduction in externally visible tumor or radiographic dimension, or complete ulceration resolution. This preplanned sensitivity BOLT analysis evaluated efficacy outcomes using ERIVANCE-like criteria in patients with laBCC who received sonidegib 200 mg once daily. METHODS: This phase 2, double-blind study randomized patients 1:2 to sonidegib 200:800 mg daily, respectively. Key endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD). laBCC tumors were assessed by both mRECIST and ERIVANCE-like criteria. Per mRECIST, an overall response of CR was based on negative histology; photographic assessment of CR, PR (scar/fibrosis only), SD (scar/fibrosis only), or not available (NA); and a magnetic resonance imaging response of CR or NA. An overall response of CR was primarily based on negative histology using ERIVANCE-like criteria. RESULTS: Per mRECIST criteria, ORR (95% confidence interval [CI]) by central and investigator review for patients with laBCC (n = 66) was 56.1% (43.3-68.3%) and 71.2% (58.7-81.7%), respectively. CR per central review was achieved in 3 (4.5%) patients and PR, SD, and PD occurred in 34 (51.5%), 23 (34.8%), and 1 (1.5%) patient, respectively. Median (95% CI) DOR was 26.1 months (not estimable [NE]). Using ERIVANCE-like criteria, efficacy outcomes per central and investigator review were higher, with an ORR (95% CI) of 60.6% (47.8-72.4%) and 74.2% (62.0-84.2%), respectively. CR per central review was reached in 14 (21.2%) patients and PR, SD, and PD occurred in 26 (39.4%), 20 (30.3%), and 1 (1.5%) patient, respectively. DOR was unchanged with a median (95% CI) of 26.1 months (NE). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, applying ERIVANCE-like criteria to patients with laBCC receiving sonidegib 200 mg daily yielded higher response rates vs mRECIST criteria. TRIAL REGISTRATION: BOLT registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT01327053 ) on March 30, 2011.

Evaluation of Sacubitril/Valsartan Initiation in Outpatient Heart Failure Patients.

ABSTRACT: Despite sacubitril/valsartan being on the market since 2015, clinicians are still determining the best way to initiate therapy to optimize outcomes and minimize potential for side effects. The purpose of this study is to investigate real-world outpatient experience of prescribing sacubitril/valsartan therapy based on appropriate patient selection, dosing conversion, and tolerability. This retrospective cohort study evaluated patients' prescribed sacubitril/valsartan therapy in cardiology clinics associated with an academic institution between February 1, 2016, and August 30, 2018. Patients were excluded if they were less than 18 years of age, enrolled in a clinical trial involving sacubitril/valsartan, or had insufficient data. The primary outcome was to determine how many heart failure patients initiated on sacubitril/valsartan were performed so appropriately based on guideline and package insert recommendations. Select secondary outcomes included rates of adverse events and need for adjustment of concomitant heart failure medications. A total of 250 patients were included in this study. For the primary outcome, 125 patients (50%) were appropriately initiated on sacubitril/valsartan. Those who were inappropriately initiated on the medication experienced more symptoms of hypotension (16% in the appropriate start group vs. 28% in the inappropriate start group; P = 0.022) and required more dose decreases of sacubitril/valsartan (6% in the appropriate start group vs. 13% in the inappropriate start group; P = 0.049). In outpatient clinical practice, almost half of patients initiated on sacubitril/valsartan were performed so outside of guideline recommendations, which was associated with an increased risk of hypotension and dose reductions.

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

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril-valsartan is an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor indicated for the treatment of patients with symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Little is known about outcomes of HFrEF patients transitioned from sodium nitroprusside (SNP) to sacubitril-valsartan during an admission for acute decompensated heart failure. We sought to describe characteristics of patients initiated on sacubitril-valsartan while receiving SNP and, in particular, those patients who did and did not experience hypotension requiring interruption or discontinuation of sacubitril-valsartan. METHODS: We performed a retrospective case series of adult patients (>18 years) with HFrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%) admitted to the University of Michigan cardiac intensive care unit between July 2018 to September 2020 who received sacubitril-valsartan while on SNP. RESULTS: A total of 15 patients with acute decompensated heart failure were initiated on sacubitril-valsartan while on SNP. The mean age was 57 ± 15.9 years. Seven (46.7%) patients experienced hypotension. The patients in the cohort who experienced hypotension were numerically older (60 ± 17 vs. 55 ± 15.5), and the majority were white (86%). Patients with hypotension had a numerically lower left ventricular ejection fraction (13 ± 4.2 vs. 18 ± 8.2) and higher serum creatinine (1.4 ± 0.54 vs. 0.88 ± 0.25). Seven (100%) patients received a diuretic on the day of sacubitril-valsartan initiation in those who experienced hypotension compared with 2 (25%) in those who did not experience hypotension. CONCLUSIONS: In almost half of patients admitted to the cardiac intensive care unit with acutely decompensated HFrEF, significant hypotension was seen when initiating sacubitril-valsartan while on SNP. Future studies should evaluate appropriate patients for this transition and delineate appropriate titration parameters.

Adverse Events of Sacubitril/Valsartan: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT: This review aimed to summarize the adverse events (AEs) reported during the use of sacubitril/valsartan versus angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI)/angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB). Studies containing safety outcomes or AEs during the use of sacubitril/valsartan versus ACEI/ARB were retrieved from the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases and clinical trials. From the selected studies, the pooled risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals of dichotomous outcomes were assessed by a random or fixed effects model in our meta-analysis. Fourteen studies involving 20,261 patients were included in this review. No significant differences were found in total AEs between the sacubitril/valsartan and ACEI/ARB groups. Compared with ACEI/ARB, sacubitril/valsartan decreased the risk of death, discontinuation due to AEs, and renal dysfunction, whereas it increased the risk of hypotension. Specifically, sacubitril/valsartan decreased the risk of death compared with ACEI/ARB, whereas it increased the risk of hypotension for patients with heart failure and decreased the risk of discontinuation due to AEs in White patients. It also increased the risk of dizziness in Asians and decreased the risk of hyperkalemia and renal dysfunction, whereas it increased the risk of hypotension when the study duration was ≥48 weeks. The available evidence showed that sacubitril/valsartan was associated with fewer side effects than ACEI/ARB, except for hypotension. Study duration, race, and patients with primary diseases affected the AEs of sacubitril/valsartan.

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

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

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

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

Relative Efficacy of Sacubitril-Valsartan, Vericiguat, and SGLT2 Inhibitors in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: a Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan, vericiguat, and the sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) dapagliflozin and empagliflozin proved effective in phase 3 trials on heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS: We compared the treatment arms (sacubitril/valsartan, vericiguat, and SGLT2i) with the respective control arms (standard-of-care [SOC]) through a network meta-analysis of the phase 3 trials (PARADIGM-HF, VICTORIA, DAPA-HF, EMPEROR-Reduced), a phase 2 trial on vericiguat and the HFrEF subgroup of DECLARE-TIMI 58. RESULTS: There was a trend towards decreased risk of cardiovascular (CV) death or HF hospitalization with SGLT2i than sacubitril/valsartan (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.05) and vericiguat (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.94). A non-significant effect of SGLT2i on CV mortality compared to sacubitril/valsartan (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.24) and vericiguat (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.22) was found. SGLT2i demonstrated the greatest effect on HF hospitalization (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.77) over the SOC, as well as a significant benefit over vericiguat (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.89), but not over sacubitril/valsartan (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.02). SGLT2i were ranked as the most effective therapy, followed by sacubitril/valsartan and vericiguat. CONCLUSIONS: Based on an indirect comparison, SGLT2i therapy is not associated with a significantly lower risk of CV death or HF hospitalization or CV death alone compared to sacubitril/valsartan or vericiguat. The risk of HF hospitalization does not differ significantly between patients on SGLT2i or sacubitril/valsartan, while dapagliflozin is superior to vericiguat. REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO ID 186351.

Tazemetostat for advanced epithelioid sarcoma: current status and future perspectives.

Epithelioid sarcoma (ES) is an aggressive ultra-rare soft-tissue sarcoma marked by SMARCB1/INI1 deficiency. SMARCB1/INI1 deficiency leads to elevated expression of EZH2, a component of polycomb repressive complex 2, which mediates gene silencing by catalyzing H3K27me3. Tazemetostat is an oral, SAM-competitive inhibitor of EZH2, whose blockade prevents the methylation of histone H3K27, thus decreasing the growth of EZH2 mutated or over-expressing cancer cells. Tazemetostat has been approved for the treatment of patients aged 16 years and older with metastatic or advanced ES not eligible for complete resection, based on the positive results of a single-arm Phase II basket study. Tazemetostat though represents a new treatment option for ES patients, although clinical/molecular predictors of response are still to be identified. The combination of tazemetostat with other drugs like doxorubicin and immunotherapeutic agents is currently under investigation in ES patients.