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.).

Early Initiation of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients With Acute Heart Failure and Renal Dysfunction: An Analysis of the TRANSITION Study.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and renal dysfunction (RD) is challenging owing to the risk of further deterioration in renal function, especially after acute decompensated HF (ADHF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We assessed the effect of RD (estimated glomerular filtration rate of ≥30 to <60 mL/min/1.73 m2) on initiation, up-titration, and tolerability of sacubitril/valsartan in hemodynamically stabilized patients with HFrEF admitted for ADHF (RD, n = 476; non-RD, n = 483). At week 10, the target dose of sacubitril/valsartan (97/103 mg twice daily) was achieved by 42% patients in RD subgroup vs 54% in non-RD patients (P < .001). Sacubitril/valsartan was associated with greater estimated glomerular filtration rate improvements in RD subgroup than non-RD (change from baseline least squares mean 4.1 mL/min/1.73 m2, 95% confidence interval 2.2-6.1, P < .001). Cardiac biomarkers improved significantly in both subgroups; however, compared with the RD subgroup, the improvement was greater in those without RD (N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, -28.6% vs -44.8%, high-sensitivity troponin T -20.3% vs -33.9%) (P < .001). Patients in the RD subgroup compared with those without RD experienced higher rates of hyperkalemia (16.3% vs 6.5%, P < .001), investigator-reported cardiac failure (9.7% vs 5.6%, P = .029), and renal impairment (6.4% vs 2.1%, P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with HFrEF and concomitant RD hospitalized for ADHF tolerated early initiation of sacubitril/valsartan and showed significant improvements in estimated glomerular filtration rate and cardiac biomarkers. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02661217.

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.

Impact of Sacubitril/Valsartan Compared With Ramipril on Cardiac Structure and Function After Acute Myocardial Infarction: The PARADISE-MI Echocardiographic Substudy.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors attenuate left ventricular (LV) enlargement after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Preclinical data suggest similar benefits with combined angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibition, but human data are conflicting. The PARADISE-MI Echo Study (Prospective ARNI Versus ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After Myocardial Infarction) tested the effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with ramipril on LV function and adverse remodeling after high risk-AMI. METHODS: In a prespecified substudy, 544 PARADISE-MI participants were enrolled in the Echo Study to undergo protocol echocardiography at randomization and after 8 months. Patients were randomized within 0.5 to 7 days of presentation with their index AMI to receive a target dose of sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg or ramipril 5 mg twice daily. Echocardiographic measures were performed at a core laboratory by investigators blinded to treatment assignment. The effect of treatment on change in echo measures was assessed with ANCOVA with adjustment for baseline value and enrollment region. The primary end points were change in LV ejection fraction (LVEF) and left atrial volume (LAV), and prespecified secondary end points included changes in LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes. RESULTS: Mean age was 64±12 years; 26% were women; mean LVEF was 42±12%; and LAV was 49±17 mL. Of 544 enrolled patients, 457 (84%) had a follow-up echo at 8 months (228 taking sacubitril/valsartan, 229 taking ramipril). There was no significant difference in change in LVEF (P=0.79) or LAV (P =0.62) by treatment group. Patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan demonstrated less increase in LV end-diastolic volume (P=0.025) and greater decline in LV mass index (P=0.037), increase in tissue Doppler e'lat (P=0.005), decrease in E/e'lat (P=0.045), and decrease in tricuspid regurgitation peak velocity (P=0.024) than patients randomized to ramipril. These differences remained significant after adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics. Baseline LVEF, LV end-diastolic volume, LV end-systolic volume, LV mass index, LAV, and Doppler-based diastolic indices were associated with risk of cardiovascular death or incident heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan compared with ramipril after AMI did not result in changes in LVEF or LAV at 8 months. Patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan had less LV enlargement and greater improvement in filling pressure. Measures of LV size, systolic function, and diastolic properties were predictive of cardiovascular death and incident heart failure after AMI in this contemporary, well-treated cohort. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02924727.

Duration of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction and Outcomes With Sacubitril/Valsartan: Insights From the PARAGON-HF Trial.

OBJECTIVE: In this post hoc analysis of the PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HFpEF) trial, we evaluated clinical outcomes and responses to sacubitril/valsartan by duration of heart failure (HF) with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 45% at initial diagnosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: The primary outcome was a composite of total hospitalizations due to HF and cardiovascular deaths, analyzed by using a semiparametric proportional rates method, stratified by geographic region. Among 4784 (99.7%) randomized participants in the PARAGON-HF trial for whom baseline HF duration was captured, 1359 (28%) had durations of HF of < 6 months, 1295 (27%) of 6 months-2 years, and 2130 (45%) of > 2 years. Longer HF duration was associated with higher comorbidity burdens, worse health status and lower rates of prior hospitalization due to HF. Over a median follow-up of 35 months, longer HF duration was associated with a higher risk of first and recurrent primary events (per 100 patient-years): < 6 months, 12.0 (95% CI, 10.4-14.0); 6 months-2 years, 12.2 (10.6-14.2); > 2 years, 15.8 (14.2-17.5). Relative treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan were consistent, irrespective of baseline HF duration on the primary endpoint (Pinteraction = 0.112). Clinically meaningful (≥ 5 point) improvements in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Clinical Summary Scores were also similarly observed, irrespective of HF duration; (Pinteraction = 0.112). Adverse events were similar between treatment arms across HF duration categories. CONCLUSIONS: In PARAGON-HF, longer HF duration was independently predictive of adverse HF outcomes. Treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan were consistent, irrespective of baseline HF duration, suggesting that even ambulatory patients with longstanding HFpEF and predominantly mild symptoms stand to benefit from treatment optimization.

Risk of Acute Kidney Injury Among Older Adults With Heart Failure and With Reduced Ejection Fraction Treated With Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibitor vs Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitor in Routine Clinical Care.

BACKGROUND: The acute hemodynamic effects of sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), may result in early changes in kidney function, raising concerns about acute kidney injury (AKI), particularly in those who are naïve to renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASis). METHODS: We conducted a cohort study using U.S. Medicare fee-for-service claims data (2014-2017). Patients with HFrEF ≥ 65 years newly initiating ARNI or RASi, with no prior use of either drug class, were included. The primary outcome was hospitalization due to AKI as the primary discharge diagnosis, and the secondary outcome included AKI as a primary or secondary discharge diagnosis. AKI risks were described under an as-treated follow-up approach, with censoring on treatment discontinuation, switch, insurance disenrollment, death, or administrative censoring as well as an intent-to-treat approach. Propensity-score-based fine-stratification weighting was used to account for potential confounding by 81 pre-exposure characteristics. Cumulative incidence functions were used to report absolute risks, and Cox proportional hazards models were used to provide hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: We included 27,166 patients with a mean (SD) age of 73 (7.3) years, and 4155 (15.3%) were initiating ARNI. After propensity score weighting, the 180-day cumulative incidence was 2.7% (2.4%-3.1%) among RASi initiators and 2.7% (2.2%-3.5%) among ARNI initiators for the primary outcome, and it was 6.5% (6.0%-7.1%) and 6.1% (5.2%-7.1%), respectively, for the secondary outcome under as-treated follow-up. HR (95% CI) comparing ARNI with RASi were 0.91 (95% CI: 0.72-1.16) for the primary outcome and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.79-1.08) for the secondary outcome. Similar results were observed in the intent-to-treat analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Among a large cohort of U.S. Medicare beneficiaries with HFrEF, ARNI treatment was not associated with higher rates of AKI than RASi treatment. These results provide reassurance for providers considering ARNI initiation in older patients who are RASi-naïve.

The Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril-Valsartan for the Treatment of Heart Failure in Adults: A Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The current meta-analysis reviews the different randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of sacubitril-valsartan (SV) thoroughly and assesses its effectiveness and safety as a drug for heart failure. DATA SOURCES: Relevant articles for meta-analysis were searched from PubMed, MEDLINE, and Central databases using appropriate keywords. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Studies were included as per the predefined PICOS criteria. Demographic summary and event data change in heart conditions after drug intake and adverse effects of drugs under both the SV and control arms were determined. The risk of bias and comparative drug efficiency in terms of diagnostic odds ratio (OR) and risk ratio (RR) were determined using RevMan software. DATA SYNTHESIS: Ten RCTs with total 18 164 heart failure patients were included according to the inclusion criteria from the year 2015 to 2022. Included studies have patients of different age groups treated with either SV or control. For the change in number of patients with heart conditions after drug intake, we obtained the pooled OR of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.71-0.91) and pooled RR of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.88-0.96). The OR value less than 1 is indicative of high efficiency of SV in lowering the number of heart patients. All these values are statistically significant (P < 0.05) and suggested better recovery of patients with SV as compared with the control drugs with minimal risk and side effects. CONCLUSIONS: The present evidence shows that SV is effective in the treatment of heart failure, reducing hospitalization and cardiovascular mortality, and that the adverse effects are comparable or fewer than those associated with other drugs used for this indication.

Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan Compared With ACEI/ARB on Health-Related Quality of Life in Heart Failure Patients: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Data on the effects of sacubitril/valsartan compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEI/ARB) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are limited. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative effects between sacubitril/valsartan and ACEI/ARB on HRQoL, a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to March 2, 2022 for randomized controlled trials that compared the HRQoL scores, including Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ), or Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form Health Survey 12 or 36 (SF-12/36), between sacubitril/valsartan and ACEI/ARB. After screening, studies that met the inclusion criteria were eventually included and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 8 studies with 17 390 patients (8693 patients used sacubitril/valsartan, and 8697 patients used ACEI/ARB) were included in this study. Five of these studies used KCCQ, 1 used SF-12/36, 1 used MLHFQ, and 1 used both KCCQ and SF-12/36. The KCCQ overall summary score and its subscales were significantly higher in sacubitril/valsartan compared with ACEI/ARB in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction, but were similar in heart failure patients with preserved ejection fraction. Sacubitril/valsartan conferred similar HRQoL scores in MLHFQ and SF-12/36 to ACEI/ARB. The most frequently reported adverse event for sacubitril/valsartan is hypotension and the risk is higher than for ACEI/ARB. CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril/valsartan may have the potential to improve HRQoL in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction compared with ACEI/ARB. Hypotension is the most common adverse event with sacubitril/valsartan compared with ACEI/ARB. The results of this study may contribute to the rational use of sacubitril/valsartan.

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.

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.).

Effect of sacubitril/valsartan and ACEI/ARB on glycaemia and the development of diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI)/angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) therapies were reported to affect glycaemic control and the development of diabetes mellitus (DM), but the findings are inconsistent. We examined the evidence for the effects of sacubitril/valsartan and ACEI/ARB in DM by conducting a meta-analysis. METHODS: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library), Embase, PubMed, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for data from randomised clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan and ACEI/ARB in patients, as of May 25, 2022. Patients were grouped by their disease background at baseline. The main outcomes were the number of new-onset DM and hypoglycaemia, elevated glycaemia, inadequate DM control, diabetes treatment, and diabetic complications, from baseline to the end of the trials. The risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (ROB 2). The quality of the evidence was evaluated according to the Recommendations for Assessment, Development, and Evaluation guidelines. The meta-analysis of the incidence of various outcomes was conducted using fixed or random effects models. The results are expressed as binary risk, 95% confidence interval (CI), and relative risk (RR). The Mantel-Haenszel method and Z test were used to determine the overall results and determine the significance of the RR. RESULTS: This study included 31 RCTs and 86,809 subjects. Compared with placebo, sacubitril/valsartan treatment significantly reduced the risk of new-onset DM among all patients (RR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.64-0.95), patients with heart failure (HF) (RR = 0.24, 95% CI: 0.12-0.48), HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (RR = 0.24, 95% CI: 0.12-0.50), and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (RR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.34-0.85). In contrast, sacubitril/valsartan treatment significantly increased the risk of hypoglycaemia among all patients (RR = 1.91, 95% CI: 1.05-3.47), patients with not all-DM (defined as part of the study population having DM at baseline) (RR = 5.71, 95% CI: 2.02-16.21), and patients with HFpEF (RR = 7.06, 95% CI: 2.10-23.76). Compared with ACEI/ARB, sacubitril/valsartan treatment significantly increased the risk of hypoglycaemia among patients with HF (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.12-3.06, p = 0.02) and HFpEF (RR 3.59, 95% CI 1.51-8.55, p = 0.004). Compared with placebo, ACEI/ARB treatment did significantly reduce the risk of new-onset DM among all patients (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.77-0.93, p = 0.0007) and patients with not all-HF (defined as part of the study population having HF at baseline) (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.82-0.93, p<0.0001) and HFpEF (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.44-0.83, p = 0.002), diabetes complications among patients with non-HF (/not all-DM) (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.76-0.99, p = 0.04), and subsequent diabetes treatment among patients with new-onset DM (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.58-0.84, p = 0.0002) and significantly increased the risk of hypoglycaemia among patients with not all-DM (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.172-3.61, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study, especially in reducing glycaemia and new-onset DM, revealed that sacubitril/valsartan had a positive effect on the control of glycaemia and the development of DM. ACEI/ARB also had a beneficial effect but the effect was weaker than that of sacubitril/valsartan. The above effects varied across diseases but the evidence was strongest in patients with HF. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42022336311.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Effectiveness and safety of sacubitril/valsartan for patients with hypertension and heart failure in the real-world setting: A retrospective study in China.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Hypertension (HP) is associated with heart failure (HF). Sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) has been approved for primary HP by China Food and Drug Administration (CFDA) in June 2021. The present study aimed to provide evidence on the effectiveness and safety of sac/val in Chinese patients complicated with HP and HF. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted on adult patients diagnosed with HP and HF and treated with sac/val between July 2020 and December 2020. The potential risk factors for the discontinuation events caused by sac/val-related adverse events (AEs) were explored. The data, including blood pressure (BP), cardiac indicators, corresponding values on echocardiographic parameters, unplanned visits, and AEs throughout 3-12 months, were collected. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: A total of 446 eligible patients were included in this study. The discontinuation events of sac/val were mainly attributed to its AEs (hypotension, hyperkalemia, and deterioration in kidney function). Univariate analysis revealed that history of chronic kidney disease, atrial fibrillation, higher values of serum creatinine, serum uric acid, serum N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide, and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate were potential risk factors for discontinuation. Patients who maintained sac/val therapy throughout 3-12 months showed significantly improved values of clinical BP, cardiac indicators, and echocardiographic parameters compared to those at baseline (p < 0.0001). WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: Sac/val was effective on BP and improved cardiac function in patients complicated with HP and HF. The physicians should focus on patients with renal dysfunction to take timely precautions to improve tolerability for sac/val.

Effects of Sacubitril-Valsartan Versus Valsartan in Women Compared With Men With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction: Insights From PARAGON-HF.

BACKGROUND: Unlike heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, there is no approved treatment for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, the predominant phenotype in women. Therefore, there is a greater heart failure therapeutic deficit in women compared with men. METHODS: In a prespecified subgroup analysis, we examined outcomes according to sex in the PARAGON-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction), which compared sacubitril-valsartan and valsartan in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. The primary outcome was a composite of first and recurrent hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. We also report secondary efficacy and safety outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 2479 women (51.7%) and 2317 men (48.3%) were randomized. Women were older and had more obesity, less coronary disease, and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate and NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) levels than men. For the primary outcome, the rate ratio for sacubitril-valsartan versus valsartan was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.59-0.90) in women and 1.03 (95% CI, 0.84-1.25) in men (P interaction = 0.017). The benefit from sacubitril-valsartan was attributable to reduction in heart failure hospitalization. The improvement in New York Heart Association class and renal function with sacubitril-valsartan was similar in women and men, whereas the improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score was less in women than in men. The difference in adverse events between sacubitril-valsartan and valsartan was similar in women and men. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with valsartan, sacubitril-valsartan seemed to reduce the risk of heart failure hospitalization more in women than in men. Whereas the possible sex-related modification of the effect of treatment has several potential explanations, the present study does not provide a definite mechanistic basis for this finding. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01920711.

Sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril on exercise capacity in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study.

Sacubitril/valsartan reduces mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) when compared with enalapril. However, it is unknown the effect of both treatments on exercise capacity. We compared sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril in patients with HFrEF based on peak oxygen consumption (VO2) and 6-minute walk test (6-MWT). METHODS: We included 52 participants with HFrEF with a left ventricular ejection fraction <40% to receive either sacubitril/valsartan (target dose of 400 mg daily) or enalapril (target dose of 40 mg daily). Peak VO2 was measured by using cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Six-minute walk test was also performed. RESULTS: At 12 weeks, the sacubitril/valsartan (mean dose 382.6 ± 57.6 mg daily) group had increased peak VO2 of 13.1% (19.35 ± 0.99 to 21.89 ± 1.04 mL/kg/min) and enalapril (mean dose 34.4 ± 9.2 mg daily) 5.6% (18.58 ± 1.19 to 19.62 ± 1.25 mL/kg/min). However, no difference was found between groups (P = .332 interaction). At 24 weeks, peak VO2 increased 13.5% (19.35 ± 0.99 to 21.96 ± 0.98 mL/kg/min) and 12.0% (18.58 ± 1.19 to 20.82 ± 1.18 mL/kg/min) in sacubitril/valsartan (mean dose 400 ± 0 mg daily) and enalapril (mean dose 32.7 ± 11.0 mg daily), respectively. However, no differences were found between groups (P= .332 interaction). At 12 weeks, 6-MWT increased in both groups (sacubitril/valsartan: 459 ± 18 to 488 ± 17 meters [6.3%] and enalapril: 443 ± 22 to 477 ± 21 meters [7.7%]). At 24 weeks, sacubitril/valsartan increased 18.3% from baseline (543 ± 26 meters) and enalapril decreased slightly to 6.8% (473 ± 31 meters), but no differences existed between groups (P= .257 interaction). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan did not substantially improve peak VO2 or 6-MWT after 12 or 24 weeks in participants with HFrEF. (NEPRIExTol-HF Trial, ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03190304).

Characteristics of Heart Failure Patients With or Without Hypotension When Transitioning From Nitroprusside to Sacubitril-Valsartan.

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril-valsartan is an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor indicated for the treatment of patients with symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Little is known about outcomes of HFrEF patients transitioned from sodium nitroprusside (SNP) to sacubitril-valsartan during an admission for acute decompensated heart failure. We sought to describe characteristics of patients initiated on sacubitril-valsartan while receiving SNP and, in particular, those patients who did and did not experience hypotension requiring interruption or discontinuation of sacubitril-valsartan. METHODS: We performed a retrospective case series of adult patients (>18 years) with HFrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%) admitted to the University of Michigan cardiac intensive care unit between July 2018 to September 2020 who received sacubitril-valsartan while on SNP. RESULTS: A total of 15 patients with acute decompensated heart failure were initiated on sacubitril-valsartan while on SNP. The mean age was 57 ± 15.9 years. Seven (46.7%) patients experienced hypotension. The patients in the cohort who experienced hypotension were numerically older (60 ± 17 vs. 55 ± 15.5), and the majority were white (86%). Patients with hypotension had a numerically lower left ventricular ejection fraction (13 ± 4.2 vs. 18 ± 8.2) and higher serum creatinine (1.4 ± 0.54 vs. 0.88 ± 0.25). Seven (100%) patients received a diuretic on the day of sacubitril-valsartan initiation in those who experienced hypotension compared with 2 (25%) in those who did not experience hypotension. CONCLUSIONS: In almost half of patients admitted to the cardiac intensive care unit with acutely decompensated HFrEF, significant hypotension was seen when initiating sacubitril-valsartan while on SNP. Future studies should evaluate appropriate patients for this transition and delineate appropriate titration parameters.