Comparing Cardiovascular Outcomes and Costs of Perindopril-, Enalapril- or Losartan-Based Antihypertensive Regimens in South Africa: Real-World Medical Claims Database Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Differences in class or molecule-specific effects between renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors have not been conclusively demonstrated. This study used South African data to assess clinical and cost outcomes of antihypertensive therapy with the three most common RAAS inhibitors: perindopril, losartan and enalapril. METHODS: Using a large, South African private health insurance claims database, we identified patients with a hypertension diagnosis in January 2015 receiving standard doses of perindopril, enalapril or losartan, alone or in combination with other agents. From claims over the subsequent 5 years, we calculated the risk-adjusted rate of the composite primary outcome of myocardial infarction, ischaemic heart disease, heart failure or stroke; rate of all-cause mortality; and costs per life per month (PLPM), with adjustments based on demographic characteristics, healthcare plan and comorbidity. RESULTS: Overall, 32,857 individuals received perindopril, 16,693 losartan and 13,939 enalapril. Perindopril-based regimens were associated with a significantly lower primary outcome rate (205 per 1000 patients over 5 years) versus losartan (221; P < 0.0001) or enalapril (223; P < 0.0001). The risk-adjusted all-cause mortality rate was lower with perindopril than enalapril (100 vs. 139 deaths per 1000 patients over 5 years; P = 0.007), but not losartan (100 vs. 94; P = 0.650). Mean (95% confidence interval) overall risk-adjusted cost PLPM was Rands (ZAR) 1342 (87-8973) for perindopril, ZAR 1466 (104-9365) for losartan (P = 0.0044) and ZAR 1540 (77-10,546) for enalapril (P = 0.0003). CONCLUSION: In South African individuals with private health insurance, a perindopril-based antihypertensive regimen provided better clinical and cost outcomes compared with other regimens.

Budget Impact Analysis of Utilization of Sacubitril/Valsartan for the Treatment of Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction in the Philippines.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to estimate the financial and economic impact of sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril for the treatment and prevention of hospitalization/rehospitalization because of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS: The budget impact analysis was guided by the Philippine Reference Case and ISPOR's Principles of Good Practice for Budget Impact Analysis. A government-funded healthcare payer perspective and a societal perspective were considered. Data collection was guided by the pathways of disease progression and care. Collection of costing data followed a bottom-up approach. The model was based on a Markov model used in a study in Thailand. RESULTS: Over the next 5 years, there will be 17 625 less hospitalizations (∼5.1% less than enalapril arm) and 7968 less cardiovascular-related deaths (∼7.0% less than enalapril arm). In 5 years, the total cost of treating patients with HFrEF with sacubitril/valsartan at current market coverage and annual growth conditions is ₱15.430 billion, which is ₱11.077 billion higher than fully treating with enalapril only. The total required additional investment with treatment of sacubitril/valsartan compared with the full enalapril arm are ₱407 million (at 30-day coverage), ₱800 million (at 60-day coverage), and ₱1.181 billion (at 90-day coverage). If hospitalizations costs alone are considered, only the 30-day coverage is cost-saving. If a societal perspective is considered, all options are cost-saving where at least ₱4.003 billion is saved by the economy. CONCLUSION: The initial investment required to treat patients with HFrEF with sacubitril/valsartan is high; nevertheless, the year-on-year cost deficit shrinks in favor of investing in sacubitril/valsartan treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of folic acid therapy for primary prevention of stroke in patients with hypertension.

BACKGROUND: For hypertensive patients without a history of stroke or myocardial infarction (MI), the China Stroke Primary Prevention Trial (CSPPT) demonstrated that treatment with enalapril-folic acid reduced the risk of primary stroke compared with enalapril alone. Whether folic acid therapy is an affordable and beneficial treatment strategy for the primary prevention of stroke in hypertensive patients from the Chinese healthcare sector perspective has not been thoroughly explored. METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside the CSPPT, which randomized 20,702 hypertensive patients. A patient-level microsimulation model based on the 4.5-year period of in-trial data was used to estimate costs, life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for enalapril-folic acid vs. enalapril over a lifetime horizon from the payer perspective. RESULTS: During the in-trial follow-up period, patients receiving enalapril-folic acid gained an average of 0.016 QALYs related primarily to reductions in stroke, and the incremental cost was $706.03 (4553.92 RMB). Over a lifetime horizon, enalapril-folic acid treatment was projected to increase quality-adjusted life years by 0.06 QALYs or 0.03 life-year relative to enalapril alone at an incremental cost of $1633.84 (10,538.27 RMB), resulting in an ICER for enalapril-folic acid compared with enalapril alone of $26,066.13 (168,126.54 RMB) per QALY gained and $61,770.73 (398,421.21 RMB) per life-year gained, respectively. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that enalapril-folic acid compared with enalapril would be economically attractive in 74.5% of simulations at a threshold of $37,663 (242,9281 RMB) per QALY (3x current Chinese per capita GDP). Several high-risk subgroups had highly favorable ICERs < $12,554 (80,976 RMB) per QALY (1x GDP). CONCLUSIONS: For both in-trial and over a lifetime, it appears that enalapril-folic acid is a clinically and economically attractive medication compared with enalapril alone. Adding folic acid to enalapril may be a cost-effective strategy for the prevention of primary stroke in hypertensive patients from the Chinese health system perspective.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Sacubitril-Valsartan Compared with Enalapril Treatment in Patients with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure in Thailand.

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril-valsartan is effective in reducing the N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level of hospitalized patients with acute decompensated heart failure, with a high acquisition cost compared with enalapril treatment. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the cost utility of sacubitril-valsartan compared with enalapril for acute decompensated heart failure treatment. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to project the total costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of early initiation, and a 2-month delay of sacubitril-valsartan treatment and enalapril treatment in hospitalized patients with acute decompensated heart failure over a lifetime horizon from a Thai healthcare system perspective. Clinical inputs were mainly derived from the PIONEER-HF and PARADIGM-HF trials, together with Thai epidemiological data. Cost data were based on the Thai population. All costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually. A series of sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Compared with enalapril, sacubitril-valsartan incurred a higher total cost per year (THB 42,994 [US$1367.48] vs THB 19,787 [US$629.37]), and it gained more QALYs (4.969 vs 4.755). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was THB 108,508/QALY (US$3451.26/QALY). Early initiation of sacubitril-valsartan treatment was more cost effective than delayed treatment. Sensitivity analyses revealed that at a level of willingness to pay of THB 160,000/QALY (US$5089/QALY), sacubitril-valsartan was a cost-effective strategy of about 60%. CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril-valsartan is cost effective in patients with acute decompensated heart failure. However, the results are highly dependent on the long-term cardiovascular mortality, and they are applicable only to Thailand or countries with a similarly structured healthcare system. Long-term registries should be pursued to decrease the uncertainty around long-term mortality.

Sacubitril-valsartan versus enalapril for acute decompensated heart failure: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Comparison of Sacubitril-Valsartan versus Enalapril on Effect on NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilised from an Acute Heart Failure Episode (PIONEER-HF) trial demonstrated significant reductions in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide. Our study explored the cost-effectiveness of the use of sacubitril-valsartan versus enalapril in acute decompensated heart failure from the Australian healthcare perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was designed using data from the PIONEER-HF trial to model the clinical progress and costs of patients over a lifetime time horizon. The model consisted of three health states: 'alive and event-free', 'alive after non-fatal hospitalisation for acute decompensated heart failure' or 'dead'. Costs and utilities were estimated from published sources. The cost of sacubitril-valsartan (per the Australian pharmaceutical benefits schedule) was AU$7.08/day. Outcomes of interest were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year gained and cost per year of life saved. Cost and benefits were discounted at 5.0% per annum. RESULTS: Compared to enalapril, sacubitril-valsartan was estimated to cost an additional AU$7464 (discounted) per person, but lead to 0.127 years of life saved (discounted) and 0.096 quality-adjusted life years gained (discounted) over a lifetime analysis. These equated to incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of AU$58,629/year of life saved (US$41,795, EU€58,629, GBP£32,001) and AU$77,889/quality-adjusted life year gained (US$55,526, EU€49,202, GBP£42,504). We have assumed a threshold of AU$50,000/quality-adjusted life year gained to suggest cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: At its current acquisition price, sacubitril-valsartan in comparison to enalapril is not likely to be cost-effective in the management of acute decompensated heart failure in Australia. A price reduction of more than 25% would confer cost-effectiveness.

Sacubitril/Valsartan (LCZ696): A Novel Treatment for Heart Failure and its Estimated Cost Effectiveness, Budget Impact, and Disease Burden Reduction in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure affects over 1 million people in Germany and contributes to morbidity, mortality, and high healthcare costs. A recent large randomized controlled trial compared the novel compound sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) with the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor enalapril and found a 16% reduction in mortality hazard. In Germany, sacubitril/valsartan was launched at the beginning of 2016. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to conduct a post hoc analysis of the cost effectiveness, budget impact, and disease burden reduction of sacubitril/valsartan compared with ACE inhibitors for patients with heart failure from the perspective of the German social health insurance (SHI), based on the results of this trial. METHODS: A Markov (cohort) state transition model was constructed to simulate treatment over a remaining lifetime. Based on the Markov model, a dynamic population model was developed that projects the incidence, prevalence, mortality, and healthcare costs of heart failure in the SHI population from 2017 to 2060. The population model follows prevalent and incident cohorts over time. Each year a new cohort is added, while the existing cohorts age by 1 year or die. To test for sensitivity of results, a Monte Carlo simulation was run. RESULTS: Based on the price negotiated between manufacturer and representatives of the SHI, the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of sacubitril/valsartan versus ACE inhibitors is €23,401 per life-year gained (in 2018 Euros). At a price of zero, the cost-effectiveness ratio is already €9594 per life-year gained due to high background costs of heart failure. Annual budget impact and reduction of disease burden reach a maximum at 4-8 years after launch (€221 million and 2.9%, respectively, in the base case). CONCLUSIONS: The ICER of sacubitril/valsartan is projected to be at or below the level of other accepted interventions for the treatment of asymptomatic to severe heart failure in Germany. Projected budget impact leads to an increase in SHI expenditures by < 0.04% per year.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Sacubitril-Valsartan Compared with Enalapril in Patients with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction in Thailand.

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril-valsartan is a new medication that has recently been recommended as a replacement for enalapril in the treatment of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the cost effectiveness of sacubitril-valsartan compared with enalapril. METHODS: An analytical decision model was developed to estimate the long-term costs and outcomes from a healthcare perspective. Clinical inputs were mostly derived from the PARADIGM-HF study. Enalapril-related costs, risk of non-cardiovascular death, and all-cause readmission rate were based on data from Thailand. The costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated and presented for the year 2017. A series of sensitivity analyses were also performed. RESULTS: For the base-case, the increased cost (144,146 vs. 16,048 Thai baht [THB]) of sacubitril-valsartan was associated with gains in both life-years (9.214 vs. 8.367 years) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (7.698 vs. 6.909) compared with enalapril, yielding an ICER of 162,276 THB/QALY ($US4857.11/QALY). This ICER is not considered to be cost effective at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) level of 160,000 THB/QALY. The risk of cardiovascular death and costs of both sacubitril-valsartan and hospitalization influenced the ICER. At a WTP of 160,000 THB/QALY, sacubitril-valsartan had a 48% probability of being a cost-effective treatment. CONCLUSIONS: At its current price in Thailand, sacubitril-valsartan may not represent good value for the nations's limited healthcare resources. The cost of sacubitril-valsartan needs to reduce by approximately 2% to yield an ICER below the threshold.

Drug utilization among hypertensive patients in the outpatient department of medicine in a tertiary care hospital: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is one of the leading risk factors for cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and renal disease. Its increasing prevalence and treatment costs influence the prescribing pattern among physicians. Drug utilization studies provide insights into the current prescribing practices and help us facilitate the rational use of drugs. We carried out the present study to assess the pattern of drug utilization in hypertensive patients. METHOD: Adults seeking treatment for hypertension were recruited. Prescriptions were studied for demographic and drug-use details. The World Health Organization indices for drug utilization were evaluated. The percentage of prescriptions adhering to the recent guidelines was determined. RESULTS: Enalapril was the most commonly prescribed drug. Monotherapy was used in 71.8% of the cases. However, 42% of the cases were newly diagnosed. The ratio of prescribed daily dose and defined daily dose showed underutilization of enalapril and atenolol and overutilization of amlodipine. About 87.5% of the prescriptions adhered to Eighth Joint National Committee guidelines. Most of the medications were available at the hospital pharmacy store and were prescribed by their generic names. Total 65.3% of the concomitant medications were not listed in the World Health Organization essential list of medicines. The average number of drugs prescribed was six. A median cost of 14.6 and 94.5 rupees was spent, respectively, on anti-hypertensive and concomitant medications per encounter. CONCLUSION: The adherence to the guideline was good. Polypharmacy can be reduced by avoiding the prescription of unnecessary medications and promoting the use of fixed-dose combinations.

Cost Effectiveness of the Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor Sacubitril/Valsartan for Patients with Chronic Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction in the Netherlands: A Country Adaptation Analysis Under the Former and Current Dutch Pharmacoeconomic Guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the adaptation of a global health economic model to determine whether treatment with the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 is cost effective compared with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril in adult patients with chronic heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction in the Netherlands; and to explore the effect of performing the cost-effectiveness analyses according to the new pharmacoeconomic Dutch guidelines (updated during the submission process of LCZ696), which require a value-of-information analysis and the inclusion of indirect medical costs of life-years gained. METHODS: We adapted a UK model to reflect the societal perspective in the Netherlands by including travel expenses, productivity loss, informal care costs, and indirect medical costs during the life-years gained and performed a preliminary value-of-information analysis. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio obtained was €17,600 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. This was robust to changes in most structural assumptions and across different subgroups of patients. Probability sensitivity analysis results showed that the probability that LCZ696 is cost-effective at a €50,000 per QALY threshold is 99.8%, with a population expected value of perfect information of €297,128. On including indirect medical costs of life-years gained, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €26,491 per QALY gained, and LCZ696 was 99.46% cost effective at €50,000 per QALY, with a population expected value of perfect information of €2,849,647. CONCLUSIONS: LCZ696 is cost effective compared with enalapril under the former and current Dutch guidelines. However, the (monetary) consequences of making a wrong decision were considerably different in both scenarios.

Cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan in chronic heart-failure patients with reduced ejection fraction.

AIMS: We aimed to assess the cost effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) for the treatment of individuals with chronic heart failure and reduced-ejection fraction (HFrEF) from the perspective of the Swiss health care system. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness analysis was implemented as a lifelong regression-based cohort model. We compared sacubitril/valsartan with enalapril in chronic heart failure patients with HFrEF and New York-Heart Association Functional Classification II-IV symptoms. Regression models based on the randomised clinical phase III PARADIGM-HF trials were used to predict events (all-cause mortality, hospitalisations, adverse events and quality of life) for each treatment strategy modelled over the lifetime horizon, with adjustments for patient characteristics. Unit costs were obtained from Swiss public sources for the year 2014, and costs and effects were discounted by 3%. The main outcome of interest was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) and scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were performed. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, the sacubitril/valsartan strategy showed a decrease in the number of hospitalisations (6.0% per year absolute reduction) and lifetime hospital costs by 8.0% (discounted) when compared with enalapril. Sacubitril/valsartan was predicted to improve overall and quality-adjusted survival by 0.50 years and 0.42 QALYs, respectively. Additional net-total costs were CHF 10 926. This led to an ICER of CHF 25 684. In PSA, the probability of sacubitril/valsartan being cost-effective at thresholds of CHF 50 000 was 99.0%. CONCLUSION: The treatment of HFrEF patients with sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril is cost effective, if a willingness-to-pay threshold of CHF 50 000 per QALY gained ratio is assumed.

A series of N-of-1 trials to assess the therapeutic interchangeability of two enalapril formulations in the treatment of hypertension in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in Ethiopia. Treatment usually involves lifelong medication use. Enalapril is a common drug for the treatment of hypertension in Ethiopia. However, the drug is expensive and, therefore, there is limited capacity for people to afford the treatment. Locally produced Enalapril is a cost-effective solution to treat the disease. However, as local medicines regulation does not include bioequivalence tests on locally produced drugs, physicians and patients need assurance about the effectiveness and safety of local generics. Evidence on therapeutic equivalence is needed on these untested local drugs. METHODS: This is a hospital-based, randomized, partially blinded, three-cycle crossover trial in single patients, comparing a locally produced version of enalapril with enalapril imported from Europe. Patients involved in this trial are not blinded, as there is no local facility to produce relatively small numbers of placebos or encapsulated drugs. To ensure blinding of study investigators and data analysts, study medications are prepared by an independent pharmacy unit using opaque medication packaging. The importance of maintaining blinding is also part of patient pre-trial education. Each N-of-1 trial will consist of three successive 14-day treatment pairs, each pair comprising 7 days of 5-20 mg local and 7 days of 5-20 mg imported enalapril taken once daily in the morning. The primary outcome will be the average difference in systolic blood pressure as measured by home blood pressure measurements. DISCUSSION: The number of locally produced products, such as enalapril, being approved without proof of bioequivalence is dramatically increasing. By bridging the information gap on bioequivalence, the trial will give rigorous evidence on therapeutic equivalence of locally produced enalapril in the treatment of hypertension. If there is no difference, the hypothesized result, then patients can take the local medicine with confidence. This trial will also will determine whether aggregated N-of-1 studies are feasible to evaluate untested generic drugs in resource-limited countries where bioequivalence testing centers are unavailable. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ID: ACTRN12616001088437p . Registered on 12 August 2016.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Sacubitril/Valsartan vs Enalapril in Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction.

IMPORTANCE: The angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan was associated with a reduction in cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and hospitalizations compared with enalapril. Sacubitril/valsartan has been approved for use in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction in the United States and cost has been suggested as 1 factor that will influence the use of this agent. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril in the United States. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Data from US adults (mean [SD] age, 63.8 [11.5] years) with HF with reduced ejection fraction and characteristics similar to those in the PARADIGM-HF trial were used as inputs for a 2-state Markov model simulated HF. Risks of all-cause mortality and hospitalization from HF or other reasons were estimated with a 30-year time horizon. Quality of life was based on trial EQ-5D scores. Hospital costs combined Medicare and private insurance reimbursement rates; medication costs included the wholesale acquisition cost for sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril. A discount rate of 3% was used. Sensitivity analyses were performed on key inputs including: hospital costs, mortality benefit, hazard ratio for hospitalization reduction, drug costs, and quality-of-life estimates. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Hospitalizations, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental costs per QALY gained. RESULTS: The 2-state Markov model of US adult patients (mean age, 63.8 years) calculated that there would be 220 fewer hospital admissions per 1000 patients with HF treated with sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril over 30 years. The incremental costs and QALYs gained with sacubitril/valsartan treatment were estimated at $35 512 and 0.78, respectively, compared with enalapril, equating to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $45 017 per QALY for the base-case. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated ICERs ranging from $35 357 to $75 301 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: For eligible patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction, the Markov model calculated that sacubitril/valsartan would increase life expectancy at an ICER consistent with other high-value accepted cardiovascular interventions. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated sacubitril/valsartan would remain cost-effective vs enalapril.

Cost-Effectiveness of Sacubitril-Valsartan Combination Therapy Compared With Enalapril for the Treatment of Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness and cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained of sacubitril-valsartan relative to enalapril for treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). BACKGROUND: Compared with enalapril, combination angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibition (ARNI), as is found in sacubitril-valsartan, reduces cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalization rates in patients with HFrEF. METHODS: Using a Markov model, costs, effects, and cost-effectiveness were estimated for sacubitril-valsartan and enalapril therapies for the treatment of HFrEF. Patients were 60 years of age at model entry and were modeled over a lifetime (40 years) from a third-party payer perspective. Clinical probabilities were derived predominantly from PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure). All costs and effects were discounted at a 3% rate annually and are presented in 2015 U.S. dollars. RESULTS: In the base case, sacubitril-valsartan, compared with enalapril, was more costly ($60,391 vs. $21,758) and more effective (6.49 vs. 5.74 QALYs) over a lifetime. The cost-effectiveness of sacubitril-valsartan was highly dependent on duration of treatment, ranging from $249,411 per QALY at 3 years to $50,959 per QALY gained over a lifetime. CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril-valsartan may be a cost-effective treatment option depending on the willingness-to-pay threshold. Future investigations should incorporate real-world evidence with sacubitril-valsartan to further inform decision making.

Combined Angiotensin Receptor Antagonism and Neprilysin Inhibition.

Heart failure affects ≈5.7 million people in the United States alone. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, ß-blockers, and aldosterone antagonists have improved mortality in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, but mortality remains high. In July 2015, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the first of a new class of drugs for the treatment of heart failure: Valsartan/sacubitril (formerly known as LCZ696 and currently marketed by Novartis as Entresto) combines the angiotensin receptor blocker valsartan and the neprilysin inhibitor prodrug sacubitril in a 1:1 ratio in a sodium supramolecular complex. Sacubitril is converted by esterases to LBQ657, which inhibits neprilysin, the enzyme responsible for the degradation of the natriuretic peptides and many other vasoactive peptides. Thus, this combined angiotensin receptor antagonist and neprilysin inhibitor addresses 2 of the pathophysiological mechanisms of heart failure: activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and decreased sensitivity to natriuretic peptides. In the Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial, valsartan/sacubitril significantly reduced mortality and hospitalization for heart failure, as well as blood pressure, compared with enalapril in patients with heart failure, reduced ejection fraction, and an elevated circulating level of brain natriuretic peptide or N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide. Ongoing clinical trials are evaluating the role of valsartan/sacubitril in the treatment of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and hypertension. We review here the mechanisms of action of valsartan/sacubitril, the pharmacological properties of the drug, and its efficacy and safety in the treatment of heart failure and hypertension.

ACEI and ARB combination therapy in patients with macroalbuminuric diabetic nephropathy and low socioeconomic level: a double-blind randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: The combination of an ACE inhibitor (ACEI) and an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) has been proposed for the treatment of diabetic nephropathy (DN), but doubts remain about its efficacy and safety. We compared the effects of combination therapy and ACEI monotherapy on proteinuria and on three urinary inflammatory cytokines (MCP-1, TGF-beta and VEGF). DESIGN AND PATIENTS: 56 patients with macroalbuminuric DN received 40 mg/d enalapril for 4 months, followed by add-on 100 mg/day losartan or placebo for another 4 months. The primary and secondary endpoints were reduction of proteinuria and cytokine levels, respectively. RESULTS: Proteinuria did not fall in either group. Repeated measures ANOVA revealed no difference between groups. A high side effect rate was observed (28.5%). Finally, unadjusted logistic regression showed no difference between groups, but after adjustments the risk of worsening proteinuria was higher in the combination therapy group (p = 0.04). The same pattern was observed for urinary MCP- 1. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that 1) in advanced DN with severe proteinuria and poor metabolic control, angiotensin II blockade may be less effective than in other groups of CKD patients. 2) In such patients, combination therapy may not afford superior renoprotection compared to enalapril. 3) Urinary MCP-1 is a promising biomarker for the response to ACEI and/or ARB treatment and for the risk of associated unwanted effects.

[Assessment of the results of 24-hour arterial pressure monitoring in patients with arterial hypertension treated with fixed combinations of co-renitec and gyzaar with and without acupuncture reflexotherapy].

This study has demonstrated that the treatment of patients with grade II-III arterial hypertension using fixed combinations of corinetec and gyzaar supplemented by acupuncture reflexotherapy resulted in a significantly more pronounced decrease of daily monitored arterial pressure than in patients who received the drug therapy without acupuncture.