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.).

Efficacy and safety of Qingda granule versus valsartan capsule in Chinese grade 1 hypertensive patients with low-moderate risk: A randomized, double-blind, double dummy, non-inferiority, multi-center trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of Qingda granule (QDG) in managing blood pressure (BP) among grade 1 hypertensive patients with low-moderate risk remain uncertain. METHODS: In the randomized, double-blind, double dummy, non-inferiority and multicenter trial, 552 patients with grade 1 hypertension at low-moderate risk were assigned at a ratio of 1:1 to receive either QDG or valsartan for 4 weeks, followed up by a subsequent 4 weeks. RESULTS: Post-treatment, clinic systolic/diastolic BPs (SBP/DBP) were reduced by a mean change of 9.18/4.04 mm Hg in the QDG group and 9.85/5.05 mm Hg in the valsartan group (SBP P = 0.47, DBP P = 0.16). Similarly, 24-hour, daytime and nighttime BPs were proportional in both groups (P > 0.05) after 4 weeks treatment. After discontinuing medications for 4 weeks, the mean reduction of clinic SBP/DBP were 0.29/0.57 mm Hg in the QDG group compared to -1.59/-0.48 mm Hg in the valsartan group (SBP P = 0.04, DBP P = 0.04). Simultaneously, the 24-hour SBP/DBP were reduced by 0.9/0.31 mm Hg in the QDG group and -1.66/-1.08 mm Hg in the valsartan group (SBP P = 0.006, DBP P = 0.02). And similar results were observed regarding the outcomes of daytime and nighttime BPs. There was no difference in occurrence of adverse events between two groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: QDG proves to be efficacious for grade 1 hypertension at a low-to-medium risk, even after discontinuation of the medication for 4 weeks. These findings provide a promising option for managing grade 1 hypertension and suggest the potential for maintaining stable BP through intermittent administration of QDG. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR2000033890.

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 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.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Japanese Patients With Heart Failure According to Baseline Systolic Blood Pressure　- Results From a Subgroup Analysis of the PARALLEL-HF Study.

BACKGROUND: Lower systolic blood pressure (SBP) is known to be associated with poor prognosis in heart failure (HF). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan according to baseline SBP tertiles in Japanese patients from the PARALLEL-HF study.Methods and Results: In all, 223 patients were stratified into tertiles according to baseline SBP (≤114 mmHg: n=75; >114 and ≤130 mmHg: n=76; and >130 mmHg: n=72). Patients with lower SBP (≤114 mmHg) had the highest median N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentrations at baseline (P=0.0184). No significant difference was observed between sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril for the composite outcome of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization across SBP tertiles (P-interaction=0.2682). Although the P-interaction value was not significant (0.2106), a greater reduction in NT-proBNP with sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril was observed in patients with SBP >130 mmHg (P=0.0076). The incidence of hypotension-related events and reduction or discontinuation of treatment due to hypotension-related events was higher in the lower SBP subgroup, and these events were more frequent in the sacubitril/valsartan than enalapril group. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril was consistent across baseline SBP tertiles in Japanese patients from the PARALLEL-HF study. Hypotension-related events were more common in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan with lower SBP.

Sacubitril/Valsartan Can Reduce Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence After Catheter Ablation in Patients with Persistent Atrial Fibrillation.

PURPOSE: This study compared the effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan (SV) vs. valsartan (V) for treating persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) after radio-frequency catheter ablation (RFCA). METHODS: Patients with persistent AF who received RFCA were randomly assigned to the SV or V treatment group with the intervention lasting for 12 months. The primary outcome included any atrial arrhythmia episode lasting ≥ 30 s after a 3-month blanking period. The secondary outcome included any atrial arrhythmia episode lasting ≥ 24 h or requiring cardioversion after a 3-month blanking period. The H2FPEF score was used to assess the possibility of patients suffering from heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. RESULTS: A total of 143 patients with persistent AF who received RFCA were randomized for the study, with 5 patients failing to follow-up. Among them, 29 (42%) out of 69 patients receiving V and 15 (21.7%) out of 69 patients receiving SV reached the primary endpoint (P < 0.001). A total of 26 (37.7%) out of 69 patients receiving V and 7 (10.1%) out of 69 patients receiving SV reached the secondary endpoint (P < 0.001). A decrease in the H2FPEF score after a 1-year follow-up seemed to be related to the recurrence of AF (OR, 0.065; 95% CI: 0.018-0.238, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: SV can decrease AF recurrence after catheter ablation in patients with persistent AF at the 1-year follow-up. The mechanism for this process may be related to the reduction in the H2FPEF score in patients with preserved ejection fraction heart failure.

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.

Impact of Sex and Genetic Variation in Relevant Pharmacogenes on the Pharmacokinetics and Safety of Valsartan, Olmesartan and Hydrochlorothiazide.

Drug combination therapy is the most common pharmacological strategy for hypertension management. No pharmacogenetic biomarkers for guiding hypertension pharmacotherapy are available to date. The study population were 64 volunteers from seven bioequivalence trials investigating formulations with valsartan, olmesartan and/or hydrochlorothiazide. Every volunteer was genotyped for 10 genetic variants in different transporters' genes. Additionally, valsartan-treated volunteers were genotyped for 29 genetic variants in genes encoding for different metabolizing enzymes. Variability in pharmacokinetic parameters such as maximum concentration (Cmax) and time to reach it (tmax), the incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and blood pressure measurements were analyzed as a function of pharmacogenetic and demographic parameters. Individuals with the ABCB1 rs1045642 T/T genotype were associated with a higher valsartan tmax compared to those with T/G and G/G genotypes (p < 0.001, ß = 0.821, R2 = 0.459) and with a tendency toward a higher postural dizziness incidence (11.8% vs. 0%, p = 0.070). A higher hydrochlorothiazide dose/weight (DW)-corrected area under the curve (AUC∞/DW) was observed in SLC22A1 rs34059508 G/A volunteers compared to G/G volunteers (p = 0.050, ß = 1047.35, R2 = 0.051), and a tendency toward a higher postural dizziness incidence (50% vs. 1.6%, p = 0.063). Sex impacted valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide pharmacokinetics, showing a lower exposure in women, whereas no significant differences were found for olmesartan pharmacokinetics.

Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibition in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: The angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril-valsartan led to a reduced risk of hospitalization for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes among patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. The effect of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibition in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned 4822 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II to IV heart failure, ejection fraction of 45% or higher, elevated level of natriuretic peptides, and structural heart disease to receive sacubitril-valsartan (target dose, 97 mg of sacubitril with 103 mg of valsartan twice daily) or valsartan (target dose, 160 mg twice daily). The primary outcome was a composite of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. Primary outcome components, secondary outcomes (including NYHA class change, worsening renal function, and change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire [KCCQ] clinical summary score [scale, 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating fewer symptoms and physical limitations]), and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: There were 894 primary events in 526 patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 1009 primary events in 557 patients in the valsartan group (rate ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 1.01; P = 0.06). The incidence of death from cardiovascular causes was 8.5% in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 8.9% in the valsartan group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.16); there were 690 and 797 total hospitalizations for heart failure, respectively (rate ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.00). NYHA class improved in 15.0% of the patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 12.6% of those in the valsartan group (odds ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.86); renal function worsened in 1.4% and 2.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.77). The mean change in the KCCQ clinical summary score at 8 months was 1.0 point (95% CI, 0.0 to 2.1) higher in the sacubitril-valsartan group. Patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group had a higher incidence of hypotension and angioedema and a lower incidence of hyperkalemia. Among 12 prespecified subgroups, there was suggestion of heterogeneity with possible benefit with sacubitril-valsartan in patients with lower ejection fraction and in women. CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril-valsartan did not result in a significantly lower rate of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes among patients with heart failure and an ejection fraction of 45% or higher. (Funded by Novartis; PARAGON-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01920711.).

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.

Renal events in patients receiving neprilysin inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: While it is well known that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) increase the risk of acute renal failure, the role of neprilysin inhibition (NEPi) is unclear and some physicians are reluctant to prescribe sacubitril/valsartan because of safety concerns. This meta-analysis aimed to examine the risk for renal events, progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) or progression to dialysis on combined NEPi and ACEi/ARBs compared with ACEi or ARBs. METHODS: We performed a systematic meta-analysis including 17 randomized controlled trials (study drug sacubitril/valsartan or omapatrilat), involving a total of 23 569 patients, after searching PubMed, Cochrane, ClinicalTrials.org and Embase for eligible studies. From the included trials, all renal endpoints, including long- and short-term outcomes and hyperkalemia, were extracted. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using the DerSimonian and Laird method. The study was registered at PROSPERO. RESULTS: Overall, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan or omapatrilat showed a slightly lower risk of any renal event [OR 0.82 (0.7-0.97)] compared with treatment with an ACEi or ARB alone. Also, there was a decreased risk of severe acute renal events [OR 0.8 (0.69-0.93)] and a decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate decline [mean difference -0.58 mL/min (-0.83 to -0.33 mL/min)]. There was no difference in chronic renal events [OR 0.92 (0.8-1.05)] or hyperkalemia [OR 1.02 (0.84-1.23)]. CONCLUSION: NEPi + ACEi/ARBs are safe in terms of renal adverse events. Longer trials focusing on CKD are needed to evaluate the effect of NEPi on decreasing progression of CKD.

Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) and manufacturing contamination: A retrospective National Register Study into suspected associated adverse drug reactions.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine if any suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) observed with the use of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) could be linked to either (a) their unique respective physicochemical and pharmacological profiles and (b) the recently disclosed suspected carcinogenic manufacturing contaminants found in certain sartan drug class batches. METHODS: The pharmacology profiles of ARBs were data-mined from the Chemical Database of bioactive molecules with drug-like properties, European Molecular Biology Laboratory (ChEMBL). Suspected ADR data (from 01/2016-10/2022, inclusive) and prescribing rates of ARBs over a 5-year prescribing window (from 09/2016 to 08/2021, inclusive) were obtained via analysis of the United Kingdom Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority (MHRA) Yellow Card drug analysis profile and Open prescribing databases, respectively. RESULTS: The overall suspected ADRs and fatalities per 100 000 prescriptions identified across the ARBs studied were found to be different between the sartan drug class members (chi-squared test, P < .05). There is a greater relative rate of reports for valsartan across all investigated organ classes of ADRs, than other ARBs, despite valsartan's more limited pharmacological profile and similar physicochemical properties to other sartans. The disparity in ADR reporting rates with valsartan vs other ARBs could be due to the dissimilarity in formulation excipients, patient factors and publicity surrounding batch contaminations, amongst others. Cancer-related ADRs and fatalities per 100 000 prescriptions identified across the ARBs studied are not statistically significant (chi-squared test, P > .05) based on the datasets used over the 5-year period. CONCLUSION: No connection between ARB pharmacology and their suspected ADRs could be found. No conclusion between sartan batch contaminations and increased suspected cancer-related ADRs was found.

Newer Drugs to Reduce High Blood Pressure and Mitigate Hypertensive Target Organ Damage.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review aims to investigate the blood pressure (BP)-lowering effects of emerging drugs developed to treat diabetic kidney disease and heart failure (HF). We summarize the potential pathophysiological mechanisms responsible for mitigating hypertensive target organ damage and evaluating the available clinical data on these newer drugs. RECENT FINDINGS: Nonsteroidal dihydropyridine-based mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), dual angiotensin II receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (valsartan with sacubitril), sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), and soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators are new classes of chemical agents that have distinct mechanisms of action and have been shown to be effective for the treatment of cardiovascular (CV) disease (CVD), HF, and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D). These drugs can be used either alone or in combination with other antihypertensive and CV drugs. Among these, SGLT2i and valsartan with sacubitril offer new avenues to reduce CVD mortality. SGLT2i have a mild-to-moderate effect on BP lowering with a favorable effect on CV and renal hemodynamics and have been shown to produce a significant reduction in the incidence of major adverse CVD events (as monotherapy or add-on therapy) compared with controls (placebo or non-SGLT2i treatment). Most of the participants in these studies had hypertension (HTN) at baseline and were receiving antihypertensive therapy, including renin-angiotensin system blockers. The combination of valsartan with sacubitril also lowers BP in the short term and has demonstrated a striking reduction in CVD mortality and morbidity in HF patients with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. If widely adopted, these novel therapeutic agents hold significant promise for reducing the public health burden posed by HTN and CVD. Based on the results of several clinical trials and considering the high prevalence of HTN and T2D, these new classes of agents have emerged as powerful therapeutic tools in managing and lowering the BP of patients with diabetic kidney disease and HF.

Cancer Risk of Angiotensin II Receptor Blocker Valsartan: A Population-based Study.

ABSTRACT: Nitrosamine contamination of generic valsartan was found in 2018. This study aimed to investigate whether long-term use of valsartan increases cancer risk. Patients prescribed valsartan or amlodipine (control group) from 1 January 1, 2003, to June 30, 2010, were identified using the Clinical Data Analysis and Reporting System of the Hong Kong Hospital Authority, a territory-wide database in Hong Kong. Patients previously diagnosed with cancer, prescribed both medications, taking the medication, or followed up for <1 year were excluded. Cancer incidence, adjusted for age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index, was the primary outcome and was estimated using Poisson regression in R version 3.6.1. Among 5023 valsartan users and 3692 amlodipine users, 887 and 740 were diagnosed with cancers during median follow-up periods of 10.97 and 12.12 years, respectively. The adjusted incidence of cancer in valsartan and amlodipine users was 165.29 (95% confidence interval 154.76-175.53) and 180.12 (167.35-193.67) per 10,000 person-years, respectively. The cancer incidence rate ratio of valsartan relative to amlodipine was 0.94 (0.88-1.01). Adjusted incidence rate ratios of valsartan relative to amlodipine were significant for breast cancer (0.63, 0.46-0.86) only. Our findings do not suggest an increase in incidence of cancer with long-term valsartan use. The duration of follow-up of more than 10 years of the study provides the reassurance that an increase in cancer risk is unlikely. Further studies are needed to elucidate the long-term effect of valsartan use on the risk of specific types of cancer.

Add-on Therapy With Sacubitril/Valsartan and Clinical Outcomes in CRT-D Nonresponder Patients.

ABSTRACT: No data on the add-on sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) therapy among cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT-D) nonresponder patients are currently available in literature. We conducted a prospective observational study including 190 CRT-D nonresponder patients with symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction despite the optimal medical therapy from at least 1 year. The primary endpoint was the rate of additional responders (left ventricular end-systolic volume reduction >15%) at 12 months from the introduction of S/V therapy. At the end of the 12 months follow-up, 37 patients (19.5%) were deemed as "additional responders" to the combination use of CRT + S/V therapy. The only clinical predictor of additional response was a lower left ventricular ejection fraction [OR 0.881 (0.815-0.953), P = 0.002] at baseline. At 12 months follow-up, there were significant improvements in heart failure (HF) symptoms and functional status [New York Heart Association 2 (2-3) vs. 1 (1-2), P < 0.001; physical activity duration/day: 10 (8-12) vs. 13 (10-18) hours, P < 0.001]. Compared with the 12 months preceding S/V introduction, there were significant reductions in the rate of HF rehospitalization (35.5% vs. 19.5%, P < 0.001), in atrial tachycardia/atrial fibrillation burden [6.0 (5.0-8.0) % vs. 0 (0-2.0) %, P < 0.001] and in the proportions of patients experiencing ventricular arrhythmias (21.6% vs. 6.3%; P < 0.001). Our results indicate that S/V add-on therapy in CRT-D nonresponder patients is associated with 19.5% of additional responders, a reduction in HF symptoms and rehospitalizations, AF burden, and ventricular arrhythmias.

Efficacy of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) has progressed to be one of the most promising medication since its approval for chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Recent data have suggested a superior blood pressure control with LCZ696. STUDY QUESTION: What is the antihypertensive efficacy and safety profile of sacubitril/valsartan? DATA SOURCES: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of LCZ696 against a placebo or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB). RCTs were identified from a comprehensive search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and clinicaltrials.gov. STUDY DESIGN: We used a change in systolic and diastolic blood pressures, both sitting as well as ambulatory, to calculate relevant effect sizes with their standard errors from the available change in mean and SD data. In addition, we also collected categorical data for the reported adverse effects from these trials. We performed a series of pairwise meta-analyses between LCZ696 versus an active comparator or a placebo. RESULTS: Eleven RCTs with a total of 6028 participants had the relevant data available. Our meta-analysis showed that LCZ696 is an effective and a safe treatment for hypertension. It outperformed ARBs in every category, and the results are consistent across the different dosages of LCZ696. Compared with ARBs, 200 mg of LCZ696 reduced systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) by 4.62 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, 3.33-5.90, P < 0.001) and 2.13 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, 1.69-2.57, P < 0.001), respectively. Similarly, 400 mg of LCZ696 reduced systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure by 5.50 mm Hg (2.94-8.07, P < 0.001) and 2.51 mm Hg (1.80-3.21, P < 0.001), respectively, in comparison with ARBs. The adverse effects with LCZ696 were not significantly higher compared with ARBs or placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril/valsartan is more effective for the management of hypertensive patients, compared with an ARB. Long-term prospective studies are required to identify whether this result translates into morbidity and mortality benefits.

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.

Five Years of Sacubitril/Valsartan-a Safety Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials and Real-World Pharmacovigilance.

PURPOSE: In PARADIGM-HF, sacubitril/valsartan showed a significant reduction in mortality and hospitalization for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Despite proven efficacy, sacubitril/valsartan has moderate uptake in clinical practice. This study explores the safety profile of sacubitril/valsartan by comparing adverse events in RCT and real-world use. METHODS: We studied hypotension, renal dysfunction, hyperkalemia, and angioedema associated with sacubitril/valsartan in RCTs and pharmacovigilance databases. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed with six RCTs investigating sacubitril/valsartan vs. control/comparators in heart failure patients. WHO's VigiBase, FAERS, and EMA's EudraVigilance were mined to obtain spontaneously reported real-world adverse events. Disproportionality analysis was performed with the FDA's OpenVigil 2.0. RESULTS: Six RCTs enrolled 15,538 patients with heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fractions. There was no statistical difference for the composite of hypotension, renal dysfunction, hyperkalemia, and angioedema between sacubitril/valsartan and its comparators viz. ACEi or ARBs (OR 1.23, CI 0.98-1.56; p = 0.08). A total of 103,038 adverse events were registered in the spontaneous reporting systems. Hypotension was the most reported adverse event. Proportions of composite adverse events were 20% in VigiBase, 17% in FAERS, and 39% with EudraVigilance. Disproportionality analysis showed a lower risk of adverse events with sacubitril/valsartan than other guideline-directed heart failure medications used in clinical practice. CONCLUSION: With increased uptake of sacubitril/valsartan, risks of hypotension, renal dysfunction, hyperkalemia, and angioedema appear low and acceptable in RCTs and global clinical practice.

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.