Sacubitril/Valsartan in Daily Clinical Practice: Data From a Prospective Registry.

Sacubitril/valsartan (SV) is a new therapy in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Our aim was to determine the efficacy and safety of this drug daily clinical practice. We performed a multicenter registry in 10 hospitals. All patients who started SV from October 2016 to March 2017 on an outpatient basis were included. A total of 427 patients started treatment with SV. Mean follow-up was 7.0 ± 0.1 months. Forty-nine patients (11.5%) discontinued SV, and 12 (2.8%) died. SV discontinuation was associated with higher cardiovascular (hazard ratio 13.22, 95% confidence interval, 6.71-15.73, P < 0.001) and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 13.51, 95% confidence interval 3.22-56.13, P < 0.001). Symptomatic hypotension occurred in 71 patients (16.6%). Baseline N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels, functional class, and left ventricular ejection fraction improved at the end of follow-up in patients who continued with SV (all P values ≤0.001). This improvement was not significant in patients with SV discontinuation. SV has a good tolerability in patients from daily clinical practice. SV withdrawal in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction was independently associated with increased all-cause mortality. Patients who continued with SV presented an improvement in functional class left ventricular ejection fraction and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels.

Sex Influence on the Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan.

BACKGROUND: Women are underrepresented in sacubitril/valsartan (SV) clinical trials. The aim of this study was to assess sex-specific differences in efficacy, tolerability, and safety of SV in real-world heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients. METHODS: A prospective registry in 10 centers including all patients who started SV during the last 6 months was analyzed in this study. RESULTS: A total of 427 patients were included, 126 (29.5%) were women. There were no substantial differences in HFrEF treatment before SV initiation, although fewer women than men carried an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (57 [45.2%] vs. 173 [58.1%], p = 0.02). SV starting dose was 24/26 mg b.i.d. in 206 patients (48.2%), 49/51 mg b.i.d. in 184 (43.1%), and 97/103 mg b.i.d. in 34 (8.2%), without relevant differences associated to sex. There were no losses during a mean follow-up of 7.0 ± 0.1 months. The proportion of patients who discontinued the drug (16 [12.7%] women vs. 33 [11.0%] men, p = 0.66) or presented SV-related adverse effects (31 [24.6%] women vs. 79 [26.5%] men, p = 0.72) was also similar in both sexes. However, female sex was an independent predictor of functional class improvement in the multivariate analysis (odds ratio 2.33, 95% confidence interval: 1.24-4.38, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: SV in women with HFrEF has a similar tolerability as in men. Females seem to have a more frequent functional class improvement than males.

Clinical Profile of a Nonselected Population Treated With Sacubitril/Valsartan Is Different From PARADIGM-HF Trial.

Our aim is to describe the characteristics of the patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan (SV) in daily clinical practice. This is a prospective registry in 10 hospitals including all patients who started SV in everyday clinical practice. From October 2016 to March 2017, 427 patients started treatment with SV. The mean age was 68.1 ± 12.4 years, and 30.5% were women (22.0% in PARADIGM-HF, P < 0.001). Comparing our cohort with patients included in PARADIGM-HF, baseline treatment was different, with a lower ratio of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers (2.7 vs. 3.5, P < 0.001), and a higher proportion of patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator (53.8% vs. 15%, P < 0.001), and cardiac resynchronization therapy (25.8% vs. 5%, P < 0.001). Treatment with mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists was more frequent (76.7% vs. 60.0%, P < 0.001), and the use of beta-blockers was similar (94.6% vs. 93.0%, P = 0.43). We observed more patients in functional class III-IV (30.4 vs. 24.8, P = 0.015), higher levels of Nt pro-BNP [3421 (904-4161) vs. 1631 (885-3154) pg/mL] and worse renal function (creatinine level 1.3 ± 0.7 vs. 1.1 ± 0.3 mg/dL, P < 0.001). In real life, patients receiving SV have a higher risk profile than in the pivotal trial, poorer functional class, higher levels of natriuretic peptides, and worse renal function.

The development of chronic diuretic resistance can be predicted during a heart-failure hospitalization. Results from the REDIHF registry.

INTRODUCTION: Diuretic resistance (DR) is a common condition during a heart failure (HF) hospitalization, and is related to worse prognosis. Although the risk factors for DR during a HF hospitalization are widely described, we do not know whether the risk of chronic DR could be predicted during admission. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, prospective observational study between July 2017 and July 2019. All patients admitted for acute HF with intravenous diuretic treatment and at least one criterion of congestion on admission were invited to participate. Patients on renal replacement therapy, under intravenous diuretic treatment for >72 hours before screening and those who were unable to sign the informed consent were excluded. We monitored decongestion (physical exam, hemoconcentration, NTproBNP change and lung ultrasound) and DR (diuresis and weight loss per unit of 40mg furosemide and fractional excretion of sodium) on the fifth day of admission. Chronic DR was evaluate two months after hospitalization and was defined as persistent signs of congestion despite ≥80 mg furosemide per day. We compared variables from the hospitalization between patients with and without chronic DR. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to find predictors of chronic DR. RESULTS: A total of 105 patients were included in the study. Mean age was 74.5±12.0 years, 64.8% were male and mean LVEF was 46±17%. In the two months follow-up, five patients have died and one patient has had a heart transplant. Of the 99 remaining patients, 21 patients (21.2%) had chronic DR. The dose of furosemide before admission and the decrease in NT-proBNP ≤30% during admission were predictors of chronic DR in the multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: We can predict during a HF hospitalization which patients will develop chronic DR. The dose of furosemide before admission and the change in NT-proBNP are independent predictors of chronic DR.

Sacubitril/Valsartan is useful and safe in elderly people with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. Data from a real-word cohort.

BACKGROUND: HF elderly patients are underrepresented in Sacubitril/Valsartan HF trials, and the effect of S/V in real-life patients with advanced age is unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use and safety of S/V in a real-word cohort of elderly patients. METHODS: We performed a prospective registry of patients who started S/V in clinical practice. We compared baseline characteristics, adverse events during follow-up and causes of S/V withdrawal according to age. RESULTS: A total of 427 patients started treatment with S/V: 222 (52.0%)<70 years old, 140 (32.8%) between 70 and 79 and 65 (15.2%)≥80. During a mean follow-up of 7.0±0.1months S/V was well tolerated, with no age-related differences in adverse events (26.8%, 25.9%, 23.1% respectively; p=0.83). Symptomatic hypotension tended to be more frequent in the elderly (19.8%, 25.6%, 33.3% respectively; p=0.17). The withdrawal of S/V was more frequent in younger patients (14.4%, 10.0%, 4.6% respectively; p=0.05) and related to poor prognosis (HR 13.51, 95% CI 3.22-56.13, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril/Valsartan is useful and safe in elderly people with HF-rEF in real-life clinical practice, and withdrawal is associated to poor prognosis. The doses achieved are lower in elderly people.

Safety of sacubitril/valsartan initiated during hospitalization: data from a non-selected cohort.

AIMS: Sacubitril/valsartan is safe when initiated during hospitalization in a clinical trial setting. Its safety in real-life population is not stablished. We compared the initiation of sacubitril/valsartan during hospitalization in a non-selected population, in the PIONEER-HF trial, and in non-selected outpatients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Multicentre registry included 527 patients: 100 were started on sacubitril/valsartan during hospitalization (19.0%) and 427 as outpatients (81.0%). Compared with those in the pivotal trial, inpatients in our cohort were older (71 ± 12 vs. 61 ± 14 years; P < 0.001); had more frequently Functional Class II (41 [41.0%] vs. 100 [22.7%]; P < 0.001), higher levels of N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide (4044 [1630-8680] vs. 2013 [1002-4132] pg/mL; P < 0.001), better glomerular filtration rate (63.5 [51.0-80.0] vs. 58.4 [47.5-71.5] mL/min; P = 0.01), and higher systolic blood pressure (121 [110-136] vs. 118 [110-133] mmHg; P = 0.03); and received angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers more frequently (92 [92.0%] vs. 208 [52.7%]; P < 0.001). Compared with non-selected outpatients, inpatients were older (71 ± 12 vs. 68 ± 12 years, P = 0.02), had more frequent Functional Class III-IV (58 [58.0%] vs. 129 [30.3%], P < 0.001), had higher levels of N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide (4044 [1630-8680] vs. 2182 [1134-4172]; P < 0.001), and were receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers target dose less frequently (55 [55.0%] vs. 335 [78.5%]; P < 0.001). They also started sacubitril/valsartan with a low dose (50 mg/12 h) more frequently (80 [80.0%] vs. 209 [48.8%], P < 0.001). The initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in outpatients was an independent predictor of high-dose use (OR 3.1; 95% confidence interval 1.7-5.6, P < 0.001). The follow-up time in both cohorts, including all patients enrolled, was similar (7.0 ± 0.1 vs. 7.2 ± 2.6 months, P = 0.72). All-cause admissions during follow-up were more frequent in inpatients (30 [30.0%] vs. 68 outpatients [15.9%], P = 0.001), with no relevant differences in all-cause mortality. There was no significant difference in sacubitril/valsartan withdrawal rate (17 inpatients [17.0%] vs. 49 outpatients [11.5%], P = 0.13). The incidence of adverse effects was also similar: hypotension (16 inpatients [16.0%] vs. 71 outpatients [16.7%], P = 0.88), worsening renal function (7 inpatients [7.0%] vs. 29 outpatients [6.8%], P = 0.94), and hyperkalaemia (1 inpatient [1.0%] vs. 21 outpatients [4.9%], P = 0.09). We did not register any case of angioedema. CONCLUSIONS: It is safe to initiate sacubitril/valsartan during hospitalization in daily clinical practice. Inpatients have a higher risk profile and receive low starting doses more frequently than outpatients.

European validation of Real-Time PCR method for detection of Salmonella spp. in pork meat.

The classical microbiological method for detection of Salmonella spp. requires more than five days for final confirmation, and consequently there is a need for an alternative methodology for detection of this pathogen particularly in those food categories with a short shelf-life. This study presents an international (at European level) ISO 16140-based validation study of a non-proprietary Real-Time PCR-based method that can generate final results the day following sample analysis. It is based on an ISO compatible enrichment coupled to an easy and inexpensive DNA extraction and a consolidated Real-Time PCR assay. Thirteen laboratories from seven European Countries participated to this trial, and pork meat was selected as food model. The limit of detection observed was down to 10 CFU per 25 g of sample, showing excellent concordance and accordance values between samples and laboratories (100%). In addition, excellent values were obtained for relative accuracy, specificity and sensitivity (100%) when the results obtained for the Real-Time PCR-based methods were compared to those of the ISO 6579:2002 standard method. The results of this international trial demonstrate that the evaluated Real-Time PCR-based method represents an excellent alternative to the ISO standard. In fact, it shows an equal and solid performance as well as it reduces dramatically the extent of the analytical process, and can be easily implemented routinely by the Competent Authorities and Food Industry laboratories.

European validation of a real-time PCR-based method for detection of Listeria monocytogenes in soft cheese.

The classical microbiological method for detection of Listeria monocytogenes requires around 7 days for final confirmation, and due to perishable nature of RTE food products, there is a clear need for an alternative methodology for detection of this pathogen. This study presents an international (at European level) ISO 16140-based validation trial of a non-proprietary real-time PCR-based methodology that can generate final results in the following day of the analysis. This methodology is based on an ISO compatible enrichment coupled to a bacterial DNA extraction and a consolidated real-time PCR assay. Twelve laboratories from six European countries participated in this trial, and soft cheese was selected as food model since it can represent a difficult matrix for the bacterial DNA extraction and real-time PCR amplification. The limit of detection observed was down to 10 CFU per 25 of sample, showing excellent concordance and accordance values between samples and laboratories (>75%). In addition, excellent values were obtained for relative accuracy, specificity and sensitivity (82.75%, 96.70% and 97.62%, respectively) when the results obtained for the real-time PCR-based methods were compared to those of the ISO 11290-1 standard method. An interesting observation was that the L. monocytogenes detection by the real-time PCR method was less affected in the presence of Listeria innocua in the contaminated samples, proving therefore to be more reliable than the reference method. The results of this international trial demonstrate that the evaluated real-time PCR-based method represents an excellent alterative to the ISO standard since it shows a higher performance as well as reduce the extent of the analytical process, and can be easily implemented routinely by the competent authorities and food industry laboratories.