Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan on Cognitive Function in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Prespecified Analysis of PARAGON-HF.

BACKGROUND: A hypothetical concern has been raised that sacubitril/valsartan might cause cognitive impairment because neprilysin is one of several enzymes degrading amyloid-ß peptides in the brain, some of which are neurotoxic and linked to Alzheimer-type dementia. To address this, we examined the effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan on cognitive function in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in a prespecified substudy of PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction). METHODS: In PARAGON-HF, serial assessment of cognitive function was conducted in a subset of patients with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE; score range, 0-30, with lower scores reflecting worse cognitive function). The prespecified primary analysis of this substudy was the change from baseline in MMSE score at 96 weeks. Other post hoc analyses included cognitive decline (fall in MMSE score of ≥3 points), cognitive impairment (MMSE score <24), or the occurrence of dementia-related adverse events. RESULTS: Among 2895 patients included in the MMSE substudy with baseline MMSE score measured, 1453 patients were assigned to sacubitril/valsartan and 1442 to valsartan. Their mean age was 73 years, and the median follow-up was 32 months. The mean±SD MMSE score at randomization was 27.4±3.0 in the sacubitril/valsartan group, with 10% having an MMSE score <24; the corresponding numbers were nearly identical in the valsartan group. The mean change from baseline to 96 weeks in the sacubitril/valsartan group was -0.05 (SE, 0.07); the corresponding change in the valsartan group was -0.04 (0.07). The mean between-treatment difference at week 96 was -0.01 (95% CI, -0.20 to 0.19; P=0.95). Analyses of a ≥3-point decline in MMSE, decrease to a score <24, dementia-related adverse events, and combinations of these showed no difference between sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan. No difference was found in the subgroup of patients tested for apolipoprotein E ε4 allele genotype. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in PARAGON-HF had relatively low baseline MMSE scores. Cognitive change, measured by MMSE, did not differ between treatment with sacubitril/valsartan and treatment with valsartan in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01920711.

Bioinformatics and experimental studies jointly reveal that Sacubitril Valsartan improves myocardial oxidative stress and inflammation by regulating the MAPK signaling pathway to treat chemotherapy related cardiotoxicity.

BACKGROUND: CRC is a common but serious complication or sequela of tumor treatment, and new coping strategies are urgently needed. SV is a classic clinical cardiovascular protective drug, which has been widely used in the treatment of heart failure, hypertension and other diseases. It has good therapeutic effect in other cardiovascular diseases such as diabetes cardiomyopathy, ischemic cardiomyopathy and vascular disease, but it has not been proved by research that SV can prevent and treat CRC. METHOD: In this study, DOX was used to induce a rat CRC model and evaluate the therapeutic effect of SV on it. Subsequently, R software was applied to analyze the control group, SV group, and DOX group in databases GSE207283 and GSE22369, and to screen for common differentially expressed genes. Use the DAVID website for enrichment analysis and visualization. Use STRING website to analyze and visualize protein interaction networks of key genes. Finally, experimental verification was conducted on key genes. RESULT: Our research results show that SV has a protective effect on DOX induced myocardial injury by alleviating Weight loss, increasing Ejection fraction, and reducing the level of biomarkers of myocardial injury. Meanwhile, SV can effectively alleviate the above abnormalities. Bioinformatics and KEGG pathway analysis showed significant enrichment of metabolic and MAPK signaling pathways, suggesting that they may be the main regulatory pathway for SV treatment of CRC. Subsequent studies have also confirmed that SV can inhibit DOX induced myocardial injury through the MAPK signaling pathway, and alleviate DOX induced oxidative stress and inflammatory states. CONCLUSION: Our research indicates that SV is a potential drug for treating CRC and preliminarily elucidates its molecular mechanism of regulating the MAPK pathway to improve oxidative stress and inflammation.

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.

Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor Suppresses Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Activation After Cardiac Surgery Using Cardiopulmonary Bypass.

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan, being both a neprilysin inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker, exhibits a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitory effect. However, no study has investigated the administration of sacubitril/valsartan in patients early after surgery using cardiopulmonary bypass.Methods and Results: This was a prospective observational study of 63 patients who underwent open heart surgery and were treated with sacubitril/valsartan. No serious adverse events occurred. Among the 63 patients, sacubitril/valsartan was discontinued in 13 due to hypotension (n=10), renal dysfunction (n=2), and dizziness (n=1). Atrial natriuretic peptide concentrations increased significantly from Day 3 of treatment (P=0.0142 vs. Postoperative Day 1) and remained high thereafter. In contrast, plasma renin activity was significantly suppressed from Day 3 onwards (P=0.00206 vs. Postoperative Day 1). A decrease in creatinine concentrations and an increase in the estimated glomerular filtration rate were observed on Day 3; this improvement in renal function was not observed in the historical control group, in which patients did not receive sacubitril/valsartan. New postoperative atrial fibrillation was less frequent in the study group compared with the historical control (12.7% vs. 38.0%; P=0.0034). CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril/valsartan administration was safe immediately after open heart surgery in patients without postoperative hypotension. It enhanced serum atrial natriuretic peptide concentrations and suppressed RAAS activation.

Sacubitril/valsartan compared to equivalent/sub-equivalent dose angiotensin receptor blocker or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a meta-analysis of randomized trials.

PURPOSE: The objective of this meta-analysis is to determine how sacubitril/valsartan (SV) compares to equivalent and sub-equivalent angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS: The databases of PubMed and EMBASE were used to identify those randomized controlled trials which compared SV to ARB/ACEI in patients with HFrEF. Only those trials that reported outcomes regarding total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and worsening heart failure were considered. Meta-analysis was performed separately in those patients receiving equivalent doses of ARB/ACEI and those receiving sub-equivalent doses. Equivalent doses were SV 97/103 = valsartan 160 mg twice daily = enalapril 20 mg twice daily = ramipril 5 mg twice daily. Meta-analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.4. RESULTS: Twelve randomized trials were identified involving 17,484 patients: 11,291 in the sub-equivalent group (8 trials) and 6193 in the equivalent group (4 trials). Meta-analyses showed there were no statistical differences regarding the outcomes of total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and worsening heart failure in the equivalent dosing group. However, SV reduced total mortality (risk ratio (RR) = 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.78-0.93, p < 0.001), cardiovascular mortality (RR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.73-0.90, p ≤ 0.001) and worsening heart failure (RR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.64-0.92, p = 0.005) in the sub-equivalent group. CONCLUSION: When compared to equivalent doses of ARB/ACEI, SV is not superior in reducing mortality and worsening heart failure. SV is superior when compared to sub-equivalent doses of ACEI.

Sacubitril/valsartan inhibits the proliferation of vascular smooth muscle cells through notch signaling and ERK1/2 pathway.

AIMS: To explore the role and mechanism of Notch signaling and ERK1/2 pathway in the inhibitory effect of sacubitril/valsartan on the proliferation of vascular smooth muscle cells (VSMCs). MAIN METHODS: Human aortic vascular smooth muscle cells (HA-VSMCs) were cultured in vitro. The proliferating VSMCs were divided into three groups as control group, Ang II group and Ang II + sacubitril/valsartan group. Cell proliferation and migration were detected by CCK8 and scratch test respectively. The mRNA and protein expression of PCNA, MMP-9, Notch1 and Jagged-1 were detected by qRT-PCR and Western blot respectively. The p-ERK1/2 expression was detected by Western blot. KEY FINDINGS: Compared with the control group, proliferation and migration of VSMCs and the expression of PCNA, MMP-9, Notch1, Jagged-1 and p-ERK1/2 was increased in Ang II group. Sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced the proliferation and migration. Additionally, pretreatment with sacubitril/valsartan reduced the PCNA, MMP-9, Notch1, Jagged-1 and p-ERK1/2 expression.

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

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

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

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

Anti-atrial Fibrillatory and Cardiorenal Protective Effects of the Combination of Valsartan and Cilnidipine in Dahl Salt-Sensitive Rats.

The current study aimed to investigate the anti-atrial fibrillatory (AF) effects of a combination of valsartan and a calcium channel blocker (cilnidipine or amlodipine) in Dahl salt-sensitive (Dahl S) rats. Seven-week-old male Dahl S rats were fed an 8% salt diet. Six weeks later, valsartan (60 mg/kg, Val group), cilnidipine + valsartan (10 + 60 mg/kg, CV group), amlodipine + valsartan (3 + 60 mg/kg, AV group), or vehicle was orally administered daily for 5 weeks. Echocardiography and atrial electrophysiological evaluations were performed on the last day of treatment. Blood pressure in each drug treatment group was lower than in the Vehicle group. The duration of AF induced by atrial burst stimulation was shorter in the Val group (3.2 ± 1.6 s) than in the Vehicle group (11.2 ± 6.0 s), which was further shortened in the CV and AV groups (1.1 ± 0.3 and 1.3 ± 0.3 s, respectively). Left ventricular ejection fraction and left ventricular fractional shortening were greater in the CV and AV groups than those in the Vehicle group. Urinary albumin excretion in the CV group was the lowest among the drug-treated groups. The results collectively suggest that the combination of a calcium channel blocker with valsartan could be useful in terms of its anti-AF action as well as for improving cardiac and renal functions.

Left ventricular reverse remodeling following initiation of sacubitril/valsartan for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and low blood pressure.

Sacubitril/valsartan has become an important first-line drug for symptomatic heart failure (HF) patients, especially with left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF) < 50%. However, the impact of sacubitril/valsartan on cardiovascular outcomes, especially LV reverse remodeling for such patients with low blood pressure, remains uncertain. We retrospectively studied 164 HF patients with LVEF < 50% who were treated with sacubitril/valsartan from two institutions. Echocardiography was performed before and 9.5 ± 5.1 months after initiation of maximum tolerated dose of sacubitril/valsartan. The maximum tolerated dose of sacubitril/valsartan was lower for the low blood pressure group (≤ 100 mmHg in systole) than for the non-low blood pressure group (> 100 mmHg in systole) (165 ± 106 mg vs. 238 ± 124 mg, P = 0.017). As expected, significant LV reverse remodeling was observed in the non-low blood pressure group after initiation of sacubitril/valsartan. It was noteworthy that significant LV reverse remodeling was also observed in the low blood pressure group after initiation of sacubitril/valsartan (LV end-diastolic volume: 177.3 ± 66.0 mL vs. 137.7 ± 56.1 mL, P < 0.001, LV end-systolic volume: 131.6 ± 60.3 mL vs. 94.6 ± 55.7 mL, P < 0.001, LVEF: 26.8 ± 10.3% vs. 33.8 ± 13.6%, P = 0.015). Relative changes in LV volumes and LVEF after initiation of sacubitril/valsartan were similar for the two groups. In conclusion, significant LV reverse remodeling occurred after initiation of sacubitril/valsartan, even in HF patients with LVEF < 50% and systolic blood pressure ≤ 100 mmHg.

Efficacy of early administration of sacubitril/valsartan after coronary artery revascularization in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by moderate-to-severe mitral regurgitation: a randomized controlled trial.

Effects of angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) on ventricular remodeling in patients with heart failure, especially heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), are better than those of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI). Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by mitral regurgitation exacerbates ventricular remodeling and increases the risk of heart failure. There is limited evidence on the effects of early administration of ARNI in patients with AMI complicated by mitral regurgitation. The aim of this trial was to examine the effectiveness and the safety of early administration of sacubitril/valsartan after coronary artery revascularization in patients with AMI complicated by moderate-to-severe mitral regurgitation. This was a randomized, single-blind, parallel-group, controlled trial. From June 2021 to June 2022, we enrolled 142 consecutive patients with AMI complicated by moderate-to-severe mitral regurgitation and followed them for 12 months. The patients received standard treatment for AMI and were randomly assigned to receive ARNI or benazepril. The primary efficacy end points were the differences in mitral regurgitant jet area (MRJA), mitral regurgitant volume (MRV), concentration of n-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and left ventricular end-diastolic volume and end-systolic volume (LVEDV and LVESV) between groups and within groups at baseline, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Secondary end points included the rates of heart failure hospitalization, all-cause mortality, refractory angina, malignant arrhythmias, recurrent myocardial infarction, and stroke. Safety end points included the rates of hyperkalemia, renal dysfunction, hypotension, angioedema, and cough. The ARNI group had significantly lower NT-proBNP levels than the benazepril group at 1 month and later (P < 0.001). MRJA and MRV significantly improved in the ARNI group compared with the benazepril group at 12 months (MRJA: - 3.21 ± 2.18 cm2 vs. - 1.83 ± 2.81 cm2, P < 0.05; MRV: - 27.22 ± 15.22 mL vs. - 13.67 ± 21.02 mL, P < 0.001). The ARNI group also showed significant reductions in LVEDV and LVESV (P < 0.05) and improvement in LVEF (P < 0.05). Secondary end point analysis showed a significantly higher rate of heart failure hospitalization in the benazepril group compared with the ARNI group (HR = 2.03, 95% CI 1.12-3.68, P = 0.021). Safety end point analysis showed a higher rate of hypotension in the ARNI group (P < 0.05). Early use of sacubitril/valsartan after coronary artery revascularization in patients with AMI complicated by moderate-to-severe mitral regurgitation can significantly reduce mitral regurgitation, improve ventricular remodeling, and decrease heart failure hospitalization. Nevertheless, caution is needed to avoid hypotension. Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2100054255) registered on December 11, 2021.

Effect of sacubitril/valsartan on lipid metabolism in patients with chronic kidney disease combined with chronic heart failure: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Dyslipidemia is significantly more common in those with concurrent chronic kidney disease (CKD) and chronic heart failure (CHF). Sacubitril/valsartan has showcased its influence on both cardiac and renal functions, extending its influence to the modulation of lipid metabolism pathways. This study aimed to examine how sacubitril/valsartan affects lipid metabolism within the context of CKD and CHF. METHODS: This study adopted a retrospective design, focusing on a single center and involving participants who were subjected to treatment with sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan. The investigation assessed the treatment duration, with a particular emphasis on recording blood lipid indicators, including triglyceride (TG), total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), apolipoprotein A (ApoA), and apolipoprotein B (ApoB). Furthermore, cardiac and renal functions, blood pressure, potassium levels, and other factors influencing the blood lipids were analyzed in both groups at identical time points. RESULTS: After 16 weeks of observation, the sacubitril/valsartan group exhibited lower TG levels compared to the valsartan group. Noteworthy was the fact that individuals undergoing sacubitril/valsartan treatment experienced an average reduction of 0.84 mmol/L in TG levels, in stark contrast to the valsartan group, which registered a decline of 0.27 mmol/L (P < 0.001). The sacubitril/valsartan group exhibited elevated levels of HDL-C and ApoA in comparison to the valsartan group (PHDL-C = 0.023, PApoA = 0.030). While TC, LDL-C, and ApoB decreased compared to baseline, the differences between groups were not statistical significance. Regarding cardiac indicators, there was an observed enhancement in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) within the sacubitril/valsartan group when compared to the baseline, and it was noticeably higher than that of the valsartan group. Spearman correlation analysis and multiple linear regression analysis revealed that medication, body mass index(BMI), and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) had a direct influencing effect on TG levels. CONCLUSION: Sacubitril/valsartan demonstrated improvements in lipid metabolism and cardiac indicators in patients with CKD and CHF. Specifically, it presented promising benefits in reducing TG levels. In addition, both BMI and HbA1c emerged as influential factors contributing to alterations in TG levels, independent of the administration of sacubitril/valsartan.

Treatment with Sacubitril/Valsartan Effectively Manages Hypertension and Ameliorates Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in Hemodialysis Patients.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to investigate the role of sacubitril/valsartan in managing hypertension and cardiac remodeling in patients undergoing hemodialysis. METHODS: Hemodialysis patients with stable blood pressure control were enrolled in the study. Sacubitril/valsartan was prescribed to replace previously used angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker or other antihypertensive drugs. During a 6-month follow-up period, pre-dialysis blood pressure, routine biochemical markers, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide levels were measured. Volume status was assessed using bioelectrical impedance analysis. Endothelial damage was evaluated by measuring asymmetric dimethylarginine expression, while echocardiography and life quality assessed by Short Form-12 Health Survey were conducted at baseline and after treatment. RESULTS: The median daily dose of sacubitril/valsartan in 32 participants was 200 mg, and no obvious adverse reactions were reported. The defined daily dose of other antihypertensive drugs (baseline 2.00 ± 1.18, end point 1.46 ± 1.30, t = 3.216, p = 0.003) reduced significantly. After treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, left ventricular ejection fraction significantly increased from 64.81 ± 8.16% to 67.55 ± 5.85% (t = -4.022, p ≤ 0.001) and the thickness of posterior wall of the left ventricle reduced from 1.05 ± 0.14 cm to 1.00 ± 0.11 cm (t = 2.063, p = 0.048). The interventricular septal thickness (baseline 1.08 ± 0.16 cm, endpoint 1.02 ± 0.12 cm, t = 2.260, p = 0.031) remarkably reduced by the end of follow-up. The tricuspid regurgitation pressure gradient decreased from 28.47 ± 8.26 mm Hg at baseline to 23.79 ± 6.61 mm Hg (t = 2.531, p = 0.020) after treatment. CONCLUSION: Sacubitril/valsartan effectively manages hypertension in hemodialysis patients and may also independently improve left ventricular hypertrophy and systolic function, regardless of changes in the blood pressure or the volume load.

Electrocardiographic predictors of response to sacubitril/valsartan therapy in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan (SV) is currently recommended as a first-line therapy in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) due to its significant clinical and prognostic benefit; however, not all patients respond to therapy and predictors of clinical response to SV remain under-studied. AIMS: To identify electrocardiographic (ECG) predictors of response to SV therapy in HFrEF patients. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a hospital heart failure registry was undertaken. Consecutive HFrEF patients (New York Heart Association class II-III) on maximal-dose SV were studied. Response to SV was defined as ≥10% relative improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 3-months post-maximal-dose therapy. Pre-therapy ECGs were retrospectively analyzed for axes and standard wave and interval durations. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for associations between predictors and therapeutic response. Backward stepwise regression was employed to develop a parsimonious model. RESULTS: P-wave duration (PWD) 100-120 ms, PWD >120 ms, and QTc >460 ms were associated with response to SV on univariate analysis: OR 18.00 (4.45-122.90), 5.00 (1.47-20.42), and 3.10 (1.18-9.22), respectively. The preferred model that included the former two predictors in combination with pre-therapy creatinine, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist use, and LVEF was highly selective (area under the ROC curve = 0.868). CONCLUSIONS: Prolongation of both PWD and QTc interval on baseline ECG in HFrEF patients is predictive of therapeutic response to maximal-dose SV therapy and may indicate early cardiac remodeling that is highly amenable to reversal.

Determination of valsartan and pitavastatin using synchronous spectrofluorimetry and augmented least squares chemometric models: A comparative study with greenness and blueness assessment.

Hypertension and hyperlipidemia are two common conditions that require effective management to reduce the risk of cardiovascular diseases. Among the medications commonly used for the treatment of these conditions, valsartan and pitavastatin have shown significant efficacy in lowering blood pressure and cholesterol levels, respectively. In this study, synchronous spectrofluorimetry coupled to chemometric analysis tools, specifically concentration residual augmented classical least squares (CRACLS) and spectral residual augmented classical least squares (SRACLS), was employed for the determination of valsartan and pitavastatin simultaneously. The developed models exhibited excellent predictive performance with relative root mean square error of prediction (RRMSEP) of 2.253 and 2.1381 for valsartan and pitavastatin, respectively. Hence, these models were successfully applied to the analysis of synthetic samples and commercial formulations as well as plasma samples with high accuracy and precision. Besides, the greenness and blueness profiles of the determined samples were also evaluated to assess their environmental impact and analytical practicability. The results demonstrated excellent greenness and blueness scores with AGREE score of 0.7 and BAGI score of 75 posing the proposed method as reliable and sensitive approach for the determination of valsartan and pitavastatin with potential applications in pharmaceutical quality control, bioanalytical studies, and therapeutic drug monitoring.

Comparison of the Efficacy of Propranolol Versus Valsartan in the Prevention of Migraine: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a prevalent episodic headache that affects approximately 14%-15% of the global population. Since valsartan is an antihypertensive drug, it is hypothesized that taking valsartan can prevent migraine attacks in patients with the condition. This study aimed to determine the efficacy of propranolol versus valsartan in preventing migraine attacks. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This randomized controlled trial was conducted on 56 patients with migraine from a neurology clinic. Patients were divided into two equal groups of 28 individuals, after providing informed consent. The patients then received either propranolol or valsartan treatment. The intensity and frequency of migraines were compared before and after treatment in both study groups. RESULTS: The patients' mean age was 32.78 years old (±6.9 SD), and 64% of the patients were female. After a 1-month treatment period, the results showed that valsartan patients experienced significantly fewer severe migraine attacks compared to propranolol patients. CONCLUSION: According to the results of the present study, valsartan may be at least as effective as propranolol and perhaps more effective on some measures.

Sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction: a pre-specified participant-level pooled analysis of PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF.

AIMS: The PARAGLIDE-HF trial demonstrated reductions in natriuretic peptides with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in patients with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction who had a recent worsening HF event, but was not adequately powered to examine clinical outcomes. PARAGON-HF included a subset of PARAGLIDE-HF-like patients who were recently hospitalized for HF. Participant-level data from PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF were pooled to better estimate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in reducing cardiovascular and renal events in HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. METHODS AND RESULTS: Both PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF were multicentre, double-blind, randomized, active-controlled trials of sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan in patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF >40% in PARAGLIDE-HF and ≥45% in PARAGON-HF). In the pre-specified primary analysis, we pooled participants in PARAGLIDE-HF (all of whom were enrolled during or within 30 days of a worsening HF event) with a 'PARAGLIDE-like' subset of PARAGON-HF (those hospitalized for HF within 30 days). We also pooled the entire PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF populations for a broader context. The primary endpoint for this analysis was the composite of total worsening HF events (including first and recurrent HF hospitalizations and urgent visits) and cardiovascular death. The secondary endpoint was the pre-specified renal composite endpoint for both studies (≥50% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate from baseline, end-stage renal disease, or renal death). Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced total worsening HF events and cardiovascular death in both the primary pooled analysis of participants with recent worsening HF [n = 1088; rate ratio (RR) 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.99; P = 0.042] and in the pooled analysis of all participants (n = 5262; RR 0.86; 95% CI: 0.75-0.98; P = 0.027). In the pooled analysis of all participants, first nominal statistical significance was reached by Day 9 after randomization, and treatment benefits were larger in those with LVEF ≤60% (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.66-0.91) compared with those with LVEF >60% (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.86-1.40; Pinteraction = 0.021). Sacubitril/valsartan was also associated with lower rates of the renal composite endpoint in the primary pooled analysis [hazard ratio (HR) 0.67; 95% CI 0.43-1.05; P = 0.080] and the pooled analysis of all participants (HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.44-0.83; P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: In pooled analyses of PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF, sacubitril/valsartan reduced cardiovascular and renal events among patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. These data provide support for use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction, particularly among those with an LVEF below normal, regardless of care setting.

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

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

Is Sacubitril/Valsartan a Superior Agent in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction? A Review of Randomized Comparative Trials.

Background: The PARADIGM HF trial showed sacubitril/valsartan (SV) to be superior to enalapril in patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Since its publication, several other randomized trials have compared SV to either an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) in HFrEF which showed conflicting results regarding mortality, hospitalizations, and quality of life scoring. Objective: To review randomized comparative trials of SV to either ACEI or ARB in patients with HFrEF. Methods: PubMed and Embase databases were used to identify randomized comparative trials. The text terms sacubitril, angiotensin neprilysin, and LCZ696 were used for both searches. Meta-analysis, retrospective, adhoc, and cohort studies were excluded. Results: 1476 and 3983 citations were reviewed on PubMed and Embase, respectively. Of these, 11 randomized comparative trials to either ACEI or ARB were included for analysis. The mortality/quality of life benefits of SV over enalapril in the PARADIGM HF were not corroborated in any of the other trials. The effect of hospitalizations for heart failure was inconsistent among trials. Exercise tolerance was not improved with SV versus enalapril. Conclusion: The results of the PARADIGM HF trial have largely not been confirmed in subsequent randomized comparative trials.

Impact of Sacubitril/ Valsartan on quality of life and ejection fraction of heart failure patients with and without chronic kidney disease.

Objective: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients are at high risk of heart failure (HF) and both share similar risk factors, including diabetes and elevated blood Pressure (B.P). Aim of this study was to determine the impact of sacubitril/valsartan on the quality of life (QOL) and ejection fraction (EF) of patients with HF with and without CKD. Methods: Single center (Doctors Hospital Lahore), observational study with longitudinal follow up, on 104 HF patients from July 2019 to July 2020. HF was diagnosed on both clinical and echo parameters. New York Heart Association Class II-IV, EF less than or equal to 40% HF with reduced EF and stage three CKD patients were included. Sacubitril/Valsartan was prescribed at a starting daily dose of 50mg and then up titrated to 400mg. Patients were followed up with clinical evaluation, QOL assessment, echocardiography and biochemical profile at one, four, eight and 12 months. Results: Gender, age, and diabetes mellitus between CKD and non-CKD patients were noted to be statistically different, defined as p<0.05. CKD patients' QOL increased from 45.15 to 57.57 from baseline to 12 months (p-value<0.01). Non-CKD patients' QOL increased from 48.07 to 56.25. In CKD patients, EF increased from 27.87% to 29.29% from baseline to 12 months (p-value 0.03) whereas in non-CKD patients EF improved from 29.42% to 31.43%. Conclusion: Sacubitril/ valsartan improves QOL in patients of HF with reduced EF both with and without CKD. Clinical improvement was independent of Left Ventricular EF as measured by QOL. Thus, QOL is a useful tool to assess the drug's beneficial effect.