Cenobamate as an Early Adjunctive Treatment in Drug-Resistant Focal-Onset Seizures: An Observational Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Cenobamate (CNB) is a new antiseizure medication (ASM) to treat drug-resistant, focal-onset seizures. Data on its use in early therapy lines are not yet available, and clinicians frequently consider CNB to be a later ASM drug choice. We investigated the efficacy and safety of CNB as an early adjunctive treatment in drug-resistant, focal-onset seizures. METHODS: The study population were patients with drug-resistant, focal-onset seizures who were initiated with CNB after they did not respond to two or three lifetime ASMs, including all prior and concomitant ASMs. These patients were matched (1:2) by sex, age, and seizure frequency to controls who were initiated with any ASM other than CNB. All participants participated in the Mainz Epilepsy Registry. We evaluated the retention rate after 12 months of CNB and after each new adjunctive ASM in the control group. In addition, seizure freedom and the response rate (reduction of seizure frequency by ≥ 50% from baseline) after 12 months were estimated. RESULTS: We included 231 patients aged 44.4 ± 15.8 years. Of these, 33.3% (n = 77) were on CNB, 19.0% (n = 44) on valproate (VPA), 17.3% (n = 40) on lacosamide (LCS), 16.4% (n = 38) on levetiracetam (LEV), and 13.9% (n = 32) on topiramate (TPM). The highest retention rate after 12 months since the beginning of the early adjunctive therapy was observed on CNB (92.0%), compared with LCS (80.0%), LEV (73.3%), VPA (68.2%), or TPM (62.5%) (p < 0.05). Seizure freedom and response rate were also the best on CNB (19.5% and 71.4%, respectively) compared with other ASMs (8.3% and 52.5%, respectively; p < 0.05). No significant differences in adverse events between CNB and other ASMs were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides evidence that CNB is an effective ASM with a good safety profile in the early therapy lines of drug-resistant, focal-onset seizures. This data should support medical decision making in the management of patients with refractory epilepsy. CLINICAL TRIAL ID: NCT05267405.

Association between treatment with sacubitril/valsartan and the risk of Alzheimer's disease: a clinical update.

Since 2014, sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto®) is widely prescribed for heart failure. Despite neprilysin inhibition's benefits in heart failure, concerns about potential amyloid-beta (Aß) accumulation and Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk have persisted. This narrative review, a decade post-approval, evaluates the risk of amyloid pathology and neurocognitive disorders in long-term sacubitril/valsartan use. Clinical trials, real-world studies, and pharmacovigilance data do not indicate an increased risk of cognitive decline. In patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan blood-based amyloid biomarkers show perturbations, while neuroimaging biomarkers reveal no significant increase in amyloid load. Despite a theoretical risk of amyloid accumulation and AD under treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, current clinical data appears reassuring, and there is no signal indicating an increased risk of cognitive decline, but a perturbation of amyloid blood-based biomarkers, which implies great caution when interpreting biomarkers in this context.

Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Hemodialysis Patients with Chronic Heart Failure: A Retrospective Study at a Single Center.

BACKGROUND Heart failure and end-stage renal disease often coexist, and management of heart failure can be challenging in patients during hemodialysis. Sacubitril-valsartan (SV) is the first drug to receive regulatory approval for use in patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification II, III, or IV. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SV for use in chronic heart failure patients on maintenance hemodialysis (MHD). MATERIAL AND METHODS From September 2021 to October 2022, 28 patients on MHD with chronic heart failure at the hemodialysis center of Shaanxi Second Provincial People's Hospital were regularly followed. During the 12-week follow-up period, all patients were administered SV at doses of 100-400 mg per day. Biochemical indicators, echocardiographic parameters, life quality scores, and adverse events were evaluated. RESULTS We enrolled 28 patients. Compared with the baseline levels, NYHA class III in these patients treated with SV was significantly decreased from 60.71% to 32.14% (P<0.05), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was significantly improved from 44.29±8.92% to 53.32±7.88% (P<0.001), the Physical Component Summary (PCS) score was significantly improved from 40.0±6.41 to 56.20±9.86 (P<0.001), and the Mental Component Summary (MCS) score was significantly improved from 39.99±6.14 to 52.59±11.0 (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS We demonstrated that SV improved NYHA classification and LVEF values of patients on MHD with chronic heart failure and also improved their quality of life.

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.

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.

The effectiveness and safety of clazosentan in treating aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) is a severe event often complicated by cerebral vasospasm (CV). This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of clazosentan, an endothelin receptor antagonist, in reducing CV, delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI), and the need for rescue therapy in aSAH patients, while evaluating its impact on functional outcomes and mortality. METHODS: We conducted a literature search across multiple databases to identify relevant studies evaluating the effects of clazosentan in aSAH patients. Both cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The primary outcomes were vasospasm incidence, moderate to severe vasospasm, DCI, and the need for rescue therapy. Secondary outcomes included functional outcomes, mortality, and adverse events. The data were pooled as Risk ratios (R/R) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) using RevMan 5.4 software. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies, including 10 published and one unpublished, comprising 8,469 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Clazosentan significantly reduced the incidence of vasospasm (R/R = 0.49: 0.34-0.70), moderate to severe vasospasm (R/R = 0.53: 0.46-0.61), DCI (R/R = 0.70: 0.59-0.82), and the need for rescue therapy (R/R = 0.65: 0.52-0.83) compared to placebo. However, no significant improvement in functional outcomes or mortality rates was observed. Clazosentan was associated with increased rates of pulmonary adverse events (R/R = 1.89: 1.64-2.18), hypotension (R/R = 2.47: 1.79-3.42), and anemia (R/R = 1.49: 1.23-1.79) but no increased risk of hepatobiliary adverse events or cerebral hemorrhage. CONCLUSIONS: Clazosentan demonstrates efficacy in reducing vasospasm, moderate to severe vasospasm, DCI, and the need for rescue therapy in aSAH patients, but does not significantly improve functional outcomes or mortality rates. While associated with specific adverse events, clazosentan may be a valuable adjunctive therapy in the management of aSAH, particularly in a high-risk population for vasospasm.

Sacubitril/valsartan has an underestimated impact on the right ventricle in patients with sleep-disordered breathing, especially central sleep apnoea syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan has been demonstrated to significantly improve left ventricular performance and remodelling in patients with heart failure. However, its effects on the right ventricle in patients with chronic heart failure and sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) have not been studied. AIM: To investigate the impact of sacubitril/valsartan treatment on right ventricular function in patients with SDB. METHODS: This was a subanalysis of an observational prospective multicentre study involving 101 patients. At inclusion, patients were evaluated by echocardiography and nocturnal ventilatory polygraphy, which allowed patients to be divided into three groups: "central-SDB"; "obstructive-SDB"; and "no-SDB". RESULTS: After 3 months of sacubitril/valsartan therapy, a positive impact on right ventricular function was observed. In the general population, tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion increased by +1.32±4.74mm (P=0.024) and systolic pulmonary artery pressure decreased by -3.1±10.91mmHg (P=0.048). The central-SDB group experienced the greatest echocardiographic improvement, with a significant increase in tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion of +2.1±4.9mm (P=0.045) and a significant reduction in systolic pulmonary artery pressure of -8.4±9.7mmHg (P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril/valsartan improved right ventricular function in patients with heart failure and SDB after only 3 months of treatment. The greatest improvement in right ventricular function was observed in the central-SDB group.

Chronic diarrhoea, weight loss and a positive anti-tissue transglutaminase antibody: A case report of olmesartan-induced enteropathy.

Olmesartan is an angiotensin II receptor blocker licensed for the treatment of hypertension. It can cause a sprue-like enteropathy (SLE), characterised by chronic diarrhoea, weight loss and villous atrophy. Transiently raised anti-tissue transglutaminase (ATTG) antibody has also been rarely reported in the literature.We describe the case of a woman in her mid-50s, who presented with a history of intermittent loose stools over 1 year, associated with significant weight loss. She had two marginally raised serum ATTG antibody tests during her work-up.After extensive investigations, she was diagnosed with olmesartan-induced enteropathy. On subsequent follow-up, her symptoms had resolved with cessation of her olmesartan therapy.This case adds to existing literature, highlighting the importance of considering olmesartan as a possible differential diagnosis for SLE. It also reports the presence of a raised ATTG antibody which is infrequently reported in this context.

Acute quadruple extremity compartment syndrome due to angio-oedema after polypharmacy overdose including olmesartan medoxomil, telmisartan and vildagliptin.

This case report describes a rare manifestation of acute compartment syndrome (ACS) involving all four extremities, precipitated by angio-oedema in a middle-aged woman who consumed an overdose of multiple medications: nifedipine, azelnidipine, amlodipine besylate, olmesartan medoxomil, telmisartan, esaxerenone and vildagliptin. She presented with haemodynamic instability, necessitating intubation. Despite stabilising haemodynamic parameters within 24 hours, she manifested escalating extremity oedema. At 52 hours after ingestion, mottled skin was observed, along with necrotic alterations in the swollen hands and compartment pressures exceeding 30 mm Hg in all extremities. ACS was diagnosed, leading to fasciotomies. The aetiology is postulated to be drug-induced angio-oedema, possibly intensified by the concurrent overdose of olmesartan medoxomil, telmisartan and vildagliptin, each of which has a risk of angio-oedema even at standard dosages. This scenario is a very rare case caused by drug-induced angio-oedema, which underscores the importance of vigilant monitoring to detect ACS in patients with progressing limb oedema.

CandeSpartan Study: Candesartan Spanish Response-prediction and Tolerability study in migraine.

INTRODUCTION: Effectiveness of candesartan in migraine prevention is supported by two randomized controlled trials. We aimed to assess the effectiveness, tolerability, and response predictors of candesartan in the preventive treatment of migraine. METHODS: Observational, multicenter, prospective cohort study. The 50%, 75% and 30% responder rates, between weeks 8-12 and 20-24, were compared with the baseline. Treatment emergent adverse effects were systematically evaluated. Response predictors were estimated by multivariate regression models. RESULTS: Eighty-six patients were included, 79.1% females, aged 39.5 (inter-quartile range [IQR] 26.3-50.3), with chronic migraine (43.0%), medication overuse headache (55.8%) and a median of two (inter-quartile range: 0.75-3) prior preventive treatments. At baseline patients had 14 (10-24) headache and 8 (5-11) migraine days per month. The 30%, 50% and 75% responder rates were 40%, 34.9% and 15.1% between weeks 8-12, and 48.8%, 36%, and 18.6% between weeks 20-24. Adverse effects were reported by 30 (34.9%) and 13 (15.1%) patients between weeks 0-12 and 12-24, leading to discontinuation in 15 (17.4%) patients. Chronic migraine, depression, headache days per month, medication overuse headache, and daily headache at baseline predicted the response between weeks 20-24. CONCLUSION: Candesartan effectiveness and tolerability in migraine prevention was in line with the clinical trials' efficacy.Trial registration: The study protocol is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04138316).

Incidence of hyperkalemia in anuric hemodialysis patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan.

INTRODUCTION: Sacubitril/valsartan is increasingly used in hemodialysis patients due to its cardioprotective benefits. However, its impact on serum potassium levels in anuric patients undergoing hemodialysis remains controversial. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective data from patients undergoing hemodialysis at two dialysis centers. A total of 71 out of 332 patients receiving hemodialysis treatment were enrolled. Mean serum potassium (mean value of 6-8 determinations), peak serum potassium (maximum K value observed during follow-up observations), and other biochemical parameters were recorded at baseline and during the follow-up period. FINDINGS: After 6 months of follow-up, mean serum potassium increased from 4.84 ± 0.45 mmol/L at baseline to 5.07 ± 0.46 mmol/L at 3 months and 5.04 ± 0.46 mmol/L at 6 months (p < 0.001). Notably, no significant group differences were found in peak serum potassium concentrations between baseline and 6 months after sacubitril/valsartan therapy (5.69 ± 0.56 vs. 5.75 ± 0.41, p = 0.419). Prior to starting sacubitril/valsartan treatment, none of the patients had severe hyperkalemia; however, after 3 and 6 months of sacubitril/valsartan therapy, two (2.80%) and three (4.20%) patients experienced severe hyperkalemia, respectively; however, this difference was not statistically significant. Additionally, there was a significant reduction in blood pressure; however, serum sodium, bicarbonate, and Kt/V values did not change significantly during either period. DISCUSSION: Sacubitril/valsartan therapy is associated with an increase in serum potassium levels in anuric hemodialysis patients. Nevertheless, the proportion of patients with severe hyperkalemia did not increase significantly. This suggests that the use of sacubitril/valsartan in anuric patients on hemodialysis is relatively safe.

Efficacy and safety of a four-drug, quarter-dose treatment for hypertension: the QUARTET USA randomized trial.

New approaches are needed to lower blood pressure (BP) given persistently low control rates. QUARTET USA sought to evaluate the effect of four-drug, quarter-dose BP lowering combination in patients with hypertension. QUARTET USA was a randomized (1:1), double-blinded trial conducted in federally qualified health centers among adults with hypertension. Participants received either a quadpill of candesartan 2 mg, amlodipine 1.25 mg, indapamide 0.625 mg, and bisoprolol 2.5 mg or candesartan 8 mg for 12 weeks. If BP was >130/>80 mm Hg at 6 weeks in either arm, then participants received open label add-on amlodipine 5 mg. The primary outcome was mean change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 12 weeks, controlling for baseline BP. Secondary outcomes included mean change in diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and safety included serious adverse events, relevant adverse drug effects, and electrolyte abnormalities. Among 62 participants randomized between August 2019-May 2022 (n = 32 intervention, n = 30 control), mean (SD) age was 52 (11.5) years, 45% were female, 73% identified as Hispanic, and 18% identified as Black. Baseline mean (SD) SBP was 138.1 (11.2) mmHg, and baseline mean (SD) DBP was 84.3 (10.5) mmHg. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant difference in SBP (-4.8 mm Hg [95% CI: -10.8, 1.3, p = 0.123] and a -4.9 mmHg (95% CI: -8.6, -1.3, p = 0.009) greater mean DBP change in the intervention arm compared with the control arm at 12 weeks. Adverse events did not differ significantly between arms. The quadpill had a similar SBP and greater DBP lowering effect compared with candesartan 8 mg. Trial registration number: NCT03640312.

Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Chronic Type B Aortic Dissection Combined With Mild Hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Optimal antihypertensive medication for chronic type B aortic dissection (AD) remains undecided. This study compared the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan with valsartan to determine suitable antihypertensive drug combinations. METHODS: In this single-center, open-label, randomized, controlled trial, patients with chronic Stanford type B AD and mild hypertension were randomized to receive sacubitril/valsartan 100/200 mg or valsartan 80/160 mg. The primary endpoint was the reduction in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP) at week 8 in patients with sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan. Key secondary endpoints included changes in (i) mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (msDBP); (ii) pulse pressure (PP); and (iii) mean ambulatory blood pressure (BP) for 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime. Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs. This trial was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, identifier: ChiCTR2300073399. RESULTS: A total of 315 patients completed the study. Sacubitril/valsartan provided a significantly greater reduction in msSBP than valsartan at week 8 (between-treatment difference: -5.1 mm Hg [95% confidence interval -5.8 to -4.5], P < 0.001). Reductions in msSBP, msDBP, and PP as well as the mean ambulatory BP for 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime, were significantly greater in sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan (all P < 0.001). No excessive episodes of AEs occurred in the sacubitril/valsartan group. CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan reduced BP compared with baseline values. However, sacubitril/valsartan improved BP control to a greater extent than valsartan. It may offer a new treatment option for patients with mild hypertension and chronic type B AD.

Sacubitril/Valsartan-Related Hypotension in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved or Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Hypotension is a potential adverse effect of sacubitril/valsartan, but there are limited data regarding the predictors and implications of treatment-related hypotension in heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction. OBJECTIVES: We investigated predictors of treatment-associated hypotension, clinical outcomes after hypotension, and the relationship between left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and incidence of hypotension in the PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial. METHODS: PARAGON-HF randomized patients with chronic HF (≥45%) to sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan. Following randomization, hypotension was defined as investigator-reported hypotension with a systolic blood pressure <100 mm Hg. Predictors of hypotension were assessed using multivariable Cox models. Associations between hypotension and clinical outcomes were evaluated in time-updated Cox models. The relationship among treatment, LVEF, and incident rates of hypotension and clinical outcomes was estimated using Poisson regression models. RESULTS: Of 4,796 patients in PARAGON-HF, 637 (13%) experienced hypotension, more frequently in the sacubitril/valsartan arm (P < 0.001). Following documented hypotension, patients had higher risk of cardiovascular death and total HF hospitalizations (adjusted RR: 1.63; 95% CI: 1.27-2.09; P < 0.001) and all-cause death (adjusted HR: 1.62; 95% CI: 1.28-2.05; P < 0.001). LVEF modified the association between sacubitril/valsartan and risk of hypotension (Pinteraction = 0.019) such that patients with LVEF ≥60% experienced substantially higher treatment-related risks of hypotension. CONCLUSIONS: In PARAGON-HF, a higher LVEF was associated with an increased risk of hypotension in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan. Because these subjects are also less likely to derive clinical benefit from sacubitril/valsartan, our data reinforce that the benefit/risk ratio favors the use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with LVEF below normal, but not at higher LVEF. (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711).

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.

Safety and efficacy of candesartan versus valsartan combined with amlodipine on peripheral and central blood pressure.

INTRODUCTION: "Amlodipine/valsartan" or "amlodipine/candesartan" combinations represent two effective antihypertensive agents with complementary mechanisms of action. Nevertheless, a study has yet to be done to evaluate the effect of amlodipine/candesartan on central blood pressure and compare it with amlodipine/valsartan combination. To see how "amlodipine plus candesartan combination" reduces peripheral and central blood pressure compared to the most studied combination, "amlodipine plus valsartan". MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eighty-six patients were randomized in an open-label, prospective study by 1:1 ratio to two groups. Group I (n=42) received the amlodipine and valsartan combination, and group II (n=44) received the amlodipine and candesartan combination. Peripheral and central blood pressure (CBP) was measured at baseline, at 6 and 12 weeks of follow-up. DISCUSSION: Both treatment groups reduced peripheral systolic, diastolic, and mean blood pressure. There was no significant difference between and within both groups. The amlodipine/candesartan combination showed more reduction in peripheral systolic blood pressure (PSBP) after 12 weeks of treatment (p=<0.001). Both groups decreased CBP without significant differences between groups. The amlodipine/candesartan combination showed additional efficacy in decreasing CSBP after 12 weeks (p=<0.001). The two treatment groups did not exert significant efficacy in lowering heart rate (HR) and augmentation index% (AIx%). CONCLUSION: To conclude, the amlodipine 10mg/candesartan 16mg combination was non-inferior to the amlodipine 10mg/valsartan 160mg combination in terms of reducing peripheral and CBP over time.

The Use and Impact of Cilostazol on Patients Undergoing Endovascular Peripheral Interventions.

BACKGROUND: Cilostazol is used for the treatment of intermittent claudication. The impact of cilostazol on the outcomes of peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs) remains controversial. This study assesses the use and impact of cilostazol on patients undergoing PVI for peripheral arterial disease (PAD). METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database files for PVI were reviewed. Patients with PAD who underwent PVI for chronic limb threatening-ischemia or claudication were included and divided based on the use of cilostazol preoperatively. After propensity matching for patient demographics and comorbidities, the short-term and long-term outcomes of the 2 groups (preoperative cilostazol use versus no preoperative cilostazol use) were compared. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to determine outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 245,309 patients underwent PVI procedures and 6.6% (N = 16,366) were on cilostazol prior to intervention. Patients that received cilostazol were more likely to be male (62% vs 60%; P < 0.001), White (77% vs. 75%; P < 0.001), and smokers (83% vs. 77%; P < 0.001). They were less likely to have diabetes mellitus (50% vs. 56%; P < 0.001) and congestive heart failure (14% vs. 23%; P < 0.001). Patient on cilostazol were more likely to be treated for claudication (63% vs. 40%, P < 0.001), undergo prior lower extremity revascularization (55% vs. 51%, P < 0.001) and less likely to have undergone prior minor and major amputation (10% vs. 19%; P < 0.001) compared with patients who did not receive cilostazol. After 3:1 propensity matching, there were 50,265 patients included in the analysis with no differences in baseline characteristics. Patients on cilostazol were less likely to develop renal complications and more likely to be discharged home. Patients on cilostazol had significantly lower rates of long-term mortality (11.5% vs. 13.4%, P < 0.001 and major amputation (4.0% vs. 4.7%, P = 0.022). However, there were no significant differences in rates of reintervention, major adverse limb events, or patency after PVI. Amputation-free survival rates were significantly higher for patients on cilostazol, after 4 years of follow up (89% vs. 87%, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Cilostazol is underutilized in the VQI database and seems to be associated with improved amputation-free survival. Cilostazol therapy should be considered in all patients with PAD who can tolerate it prior to PVI.