Comparison of sacubitril/valsartan with olmesartan for hypertension: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: The efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan versus olmesartan remains controversial for the control of hypertension. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the influence of sacubitril/valsartan versus olmesartan on the control of hypertension. METHODS: We have searched PubMed, Embase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases through July 2023 for randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of sacubitril/valsartan versus olmesartan on the control of hypertension. This meta-analysis is performed using the random-effect model or fixed-effect model based on the heterogeneity. RESULTS: Seven randomized controlled trials and 3677 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with olmesartan treatment for hypertension, sacubitril/valsartan treatment was associated with substantially decreased systolic blood pressure (mean difference [MD] = -4.58; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -7.90 to -1.25; P = .007), diastolic blood pressure (MD = -1.70; 95% CI = -3.24 to -0.17; P = .03), and pulse pressure (MD = -2.31; 95% CI = -4.41 to -0.21; P = .03), as well as improved systolic blood pressure control (odds ratio [OR] = 1.65; 95% CI = 1.15 to 2.38; P = .006), but had no influence on diastolic blood pressure control (OR = 1.33; 95% CI = 0.93 to 1.88; P = .11) or adverse events (OR = 1.06; 95% CI = 0.90 to 1.24; P = .51). CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril/valsartan is better than olmesartan for the reduction of blood pressure for patients with hypertension.

Association Between Use of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors or Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor and the Risk of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease With Coexisting Diabetes and Heart Failure.

PURPOSE: This study was to investigate the association between the use of Sodium-glucose Cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI; ie, Sacubitril + valsartan, Product name ENTRESTO) and the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in patients with coexisting diabetes and heart failure. Specifically, the study compared outcomes between patients using SGLT2i or valsartan + sacubitril and those not using these medications. METHODS: This study utilized data from the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) from 2017 to 2018. The case group consisted of 8691 patients with coexisting diabetes and heart failure who did not use SGLT2i or Entresto, while the control group consisted of 8691 patients with coexisting diabetes and heart failure who used SGLT2i or Entresto. The primary outcome was ASCVD, including a composite of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for worsening heart failure. Secondary outcomes included all-cause death, cause of cardiovascular death, and recurrence of heart failure, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke (including ischemic stroke and hemorrhagic stroke) and new renal replacement therapy. RESULTS: The study found that the use of SGLT2 inhibitors or ARNI was associated with a lower risk of ASCVD in patients with coexisting diabetes and heart failure. CONCLUSION: The study suggests that the use of SGLT2 inhibitors, alone or in combination with Entresto, may be effective in reducing the risk of ASCVD and its associated adverse outcomes in patients with diabetes and heart failure. This finding has important implications for the management of these conditions.

Rationale and protocol of the LAQUA-HF trial: a factorial randomised controlled trial evaluating the effects of neurohormonal and diuretic agents on health-status reported outcomes in heart failure patients.

INTRODUCTION: The current guidelines strongly recommend early initiation of multiple classes of cardioprotective drugs for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction to improve prognosis and health status. However, evidence on the optimal sequencing of approved drugs is scarce, highlighting the importance of individualised treatment plans. Registry data indicate that only a portion of these patients can tolerate all four recommended classes, underscoring the need to establish the favoured sequence when using these drugs. Additionally, the choice between long-acting and short-acting loop diuretics in the present era remains uncertain. This is particularly relevant given the frequent use of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, both of which potentiate natriuretic effects. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint method, LAQUA-HF (Long-acting vs short-acting diuretics and neurohormonal Agents on patients' QUAlity-of-life in Heart Failure patients) will be a 2×2 factorial design, with a total of 240 patients randomised to sacubitril/valsartan versus dapagliflozin and torsemide versus furosemide in a 1:1 ratio. Most enrolment sites have participated in an ongoing observational registry for consecutive patients hospitalised for heart failure involved dedicated study coordinators, and used the same framework to enrol patients. The primary endpoint is the change in patients' health status over 6 months, defined by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire. Additionally, clinical benefit at 6 months defined as a hierarchical composite endpoint will be assessed by the win ratio as the secondary endpoint. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The medical ethics committee Keio University in Japan has approved this trial. All participants provide written informed consent prior to study entry. The results of this trial will be disseminated in one main paper and additional papers on secondary endpoints and subgroup analyses. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000045229.

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 High-Fat Meal on the Pharmacokinetics and Safety of Valsartan/Amlodipine Fixed Dose Combination Tablets in Healthy Subjects.

Background: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of a high-fat meal on the pharmacokinetics and safety of 80/5 mg valsartan/amlodipine tablets in healthy subjects. Subjects and Methods: These results were derived from a bioequivalence trial where subjects were randomly assigned to take valsartan/amlodipine 80/5mg under fed conditions or after a high-fat meal contained 978.6 kilocalories (54.6% from fat). The blood samples were collected and plasma concentrations of valsartan/amlodipine were measured using high-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. The non-compartmental module of Phoenix WinNonlin Version 8.2 was used to calculate pharmacokinetic parameters. The BE module of WinNonLin was used to analyze the statistics of the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax), the area under the concentration-time curve from zero to the last quantifiable time point (AUC0-t), and the area under the concentration-time curve from zero to infinity(AUC0-∞) in plasma. 88 healthy subjects were enrolled and divided into in a fasted group and a fed group. Results: The Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-∞ of valsartan in plasma under fed conditions were 51%, 56%, and 57% lower, respectively, than those under fasted conditions, and the 90% confidence interval (90% CI) were outside the 80.00-125.00% range. All the pharmacokinetic parameters for amlodipine under fed conditions were similar to those observed under fasted conditions, and the 90% CIs were within the 80.00-125.00% range. The incidence of treatment emergent adverse events (TEAE) was similar between the fasted group and the fed group, while adverse drug reaction (ADR) was more frequent in the fasted group which may be related to the higher blood concentrations of valsartan, but all were mild. Conclusion: The result indicated that the high-fat meal had a significant effect on the pharmacokinetics of valsartan, but no effect on amlodipine. All treatments were safe and well tolerated in healthy subjects under fed and fasted conditions.

Effect of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor on physical activity in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, monitored by implantable electronic device home monitoring.

AIMS: Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) therapy is a cornerstone in the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), with significant improvement in mortality as well as morbidity and quality of life. However, maximal ARNI doses often result in hypotension. Recent studies with 'real world' experience suggest that lower doses of ARNI are as effective as higher doses.In order to evaluate the symptomatic effect of low-dose ARNI in HFrEF patients, we analyzed physical activity data obtained via home monitoring of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed physical activity data obtained from HFrEF patients with CIED-active home monitoring during the years 2021-2022. Patients with ARNI therapy were further divided into subgroups according to the administered dose. Low-dose ARNI included doses of up to 24/26 mg sacubitril/valsartan daily. Intermediate dose and high dose included doses of 72/78-120/130 mg/day, and 144/156-194/206 mg/day, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 122 patients had home monitoring-compatible CIEDs and HFrEF during the study period. Sixty-four of these patients were treated with ARNI. Administration of low-dose ARNI resulted in a 20% increase in daily activity when compared with patients without ARNI treatment ( P  = 0.038). Change in physical activity of patients in the intermediate-dose and high-dose groups was not significant. Younger patients, patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy, and patients without diabetes mellitus were more physically active. CONCLUSION: Low-dose ARNI had a beneficial effect on physical activity in HFrEF patients. MH via CIED provided real-life objective data for patients' follow-up.

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%.

Use of sacubitril/valsartan early after CABG.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) remains a major public health problem with a high mortality and morbidity worldwide. Currently, there is no optimal revascularisation strategy for patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy despite suggestions that coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) may be superior to medical therapy in improving survival. However, CABG may be associated with substantial risk in HF subjects. We therefore aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the early initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in haemodynamically stabilised patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) after early CABG. METHODS: This was an open-label study in which ~80 patients after CABG were randomised either to the early or late initiation of the sacubitril-valsartan. The study included patients >40 years with left ventricular ejection fraction <45% and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-IV at the early stage after CABG. Patients underwent intervention, the starting dose of sacubitril/valsartan (24/26 mg or 49/51 mg two times per day). The follow-up took place every 4 weeks except the first visit, which took place in 2 weeks after initiation. The primary endpoint assessed the key safety outcomes, the secondary endpoints were: the quality of life measured, the N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) changes and 6 min walk test (6MWT). RESULTS: In total, 83 patients were screened and 77 patients were enrolled. The majority of patients (84.4%) were in the NYHA class III at randomisation. The number of patients who discontinued the study was low in both groups (2.5%, 5.2%), and renal function, hyperkalaemia and symptomatic hypotension rarely seen in both groups did not differ significantly. The improvement in quality of life and distance at the 6MWT in both groups was significant (p<0.001). The NT-proBNP concentration decreased in both groups, the significant reduction was in the early group (p<0.001) versus the postdischarge group. CONCLUSIONS: The early initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in patients after CABG with HFrEF is safe and effective. Adverse events and permanent discontinuation were low. The NT-proBNP concentration reduced significantly with the early in-hospital initiation.

The real-world safety of sacubitril / valsartan among older adults (≥75): A pharmacovigilance study from the FDA data.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure is a major cause of morbidity and mortality among older adults. Sacubitril-Valsartan (Sac/Val) has been shown to improve patients' outcomes; however, its safety profile among older adults has not been adequately examined. We therefore aimed to examine its safety profile among this population. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective pharmacovigilance study utilizing the FDA's database of safety reports (FAERS). We employed disproportionality analysis comparing Sac/Val to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). We aim to evaluate the reporting of pre-defined adverse events associated with Sac/Val (hypotension, acute kidney injury (AKI), hyperkalemia and angioedema) in two age groups: adults (< 75 years) and older adults (≥ 75). For each subgroup, we calculated reporting odds ratio (ROR) and compared them by calculating P for interaction. RESULTS: The FAERS database encompassed 18,432 unique reports of Sac/Val. Of them, 12,630 (68.5%) subjects were adults (< 75 years), and 5802 (31.5%) were older adults (≥ 75 years), with a median age (IQR) of 68 (59-77). When compared to ARBs, Sac/Val was associated with higher reporting of hypotension, lower reporting of acute kidney injury (AKI) and hyperkalemia, and similar reporting of angioedema. Notably, we did not observe a significant interaction between the age subgroups and the risk estimates (AKI: Pinteraction = 0.72, hyperkalemia: Pinteraction = 0.94, hypotension: Pinteraction = 0.31, and angioedema: Pinteraction = 0.61). CONCLUSIONS: In this postmarking study, none of the prespecified adverse events was reported more frequently in older adults. These findings provide reassurance for safety use of Sac/Val in older adults.

Predicting Hospital Readmissions in Patients Receiving Novel-Dose Sacubitril/Valsartan Therapy: A Competing-Risk, Causal Mediation Analysis.

Backgrounds: Our study aimed to identify and predict patients with heart failure (HF) taking novel-dose Sacubitril/Valsartan (S/V) at risk for all-cause readmission, as well as investigate the possible role of left ventricular reverse remodeling (LVRR). Methods and results: There were 464 patients recruited from December 2017 to September 2021 in our hospital with a median follow-up of 660 days (range, 17-1494). Competing risk analysis with Gray's Test showed statistically significant differences in all-cause readmission (p-value< .001) across the three different dose groups. Models 1 and 2 were developed based on the results of univariable competing risk analysis, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator approach, backward stepwise regression, and multivariable competing risk analysis. The internal verification (data-splitting method) indicated that Model 1 had better discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility. The corresponding nomogram showed that patients aged 75 years and above, or taking the lowest-dose S/V (≤50 mg twice a day), or diagnosed with ventricular tachycardia, or valvular heart disease, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or diabetes mellitus were at the highest risk of all-cause readmission. In the causal mediation analysis, LVRR was considered as a critical mediator that negatively affected the difference of novel-dose S/V in readmission. Conclusions: A significant association was detected between novel-dose S/V and all-cause readmission in HF patients, in part negatively mediated by LVRR. The web-based nomogram could provide individual prediction of all-cause readmission in HF patients receiving novel-dose S/V. The effects of different novel-dose S/V are still needed to be explored further in the future.

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 in Heart Failure with Hypertension Patients: Real-World Experiences on Different Ages, Drug Doses, and Renal Functions.

INTRODUCTION: Hypertension is a significant risk factor in heart failure for worldwide patients. More than half of hypertensive patients suffer from heart failure. Recently, sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) has been approved as an antihypertensive agent in China and Japan. Additionally, it is not approved for treating hypertension in Europe or the USA. AIM: To accumulate more real-world experiences to investigate the effectiveness and optimize clinical medication of sac/val in hypertensive patients with heart failure. METHODS: We retrospectively enrolled adult patients diagnosed with hypertension (HTN) and heart failure (HF) and newly treated with sac/val. The baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were retrospectively extracted from electronic medical records (EMR) in three centers. The efficacy and safety of sac/val were first analyzed in all enrolled patients. Stratified analyses were conducted in patients with different ages (≥ 65, < 65), maximum tolerated doses (≥ 200 mg/days, < 200 mg/days), and renal functions (e-GFR ≥ 60 ml/min/1.73 m2, < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2). RESULTS: Overall, 794 patients diagnosed with both HF and HTN were included in our study. During follow-up, significant reductions were found in blood pressure (BP) (SBP 12.8 ± 21.2 mmHg, P < 0.001, DBP 7.1 ± 16.5 mmHg, P < 0.001), and cardiac biomarkers (cardiac troponin 1.78 ± 19.1 ng/mL, P < 0.001, NT-proBNP 1403 ± 6937 pg/mL, P < 0.001) from baseline. In stratification analyses, the lower dosage group earned a higher BP control rate (83.4% vs. 75.6%, P = 0.025) and an overall improvement rate of cardiac indicators (61.3% vs. 48.0%, P = 0.002). The younger patients' group had significantly less cumulative hazard of recurrent cerebral-cardiovascular events than the elder group (log-rank P value < 0.001). Patients with renal dysfunction were observed with more AE incidences. CONCLUSIONS: Sac/val could reduce BP and improve cardiac structural and functional parameters in hypertensive patients with HF, even with less than target doses. However, more attention should be paid to older patients and renal dysfunction patients when using sac/val because of additional risks in adverse events.

Consensus document on the use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure: Consejo Interamericano de Falla Cardiaca e Hipertensión Pulmonar (CIFACAH) of the Inter-American Society of Cardiology (IASC).

Heart failure (HF) is a significant event for public health. It has a prevalence between 1-2%, mortality rate between 7-17%, and hospitalization between 32-44%. This implies a risk to health and quality of life, but also great financial efforts for health systems. Sacubitril/valsartan is a medication recognized for its efficacy, and this consensus seeks to synthesize the available information regarding its use for the benefit of patients. This document consists of a description of the epidemiology of HF, pharmacology of the drug, clinical trials, use of the drug in cases with reduced ejection fraction, mildly reduced ejection fraction and preserved ejection fraction, available literature on HF guidelines, recommendations and conclusions.

La insuficiencia cardiaca (IC) es un evento significativo para la salud pública. Tiene una prevalencia entre el 1 y 2%, tasa de mortalidad entre el 7 y 17% y de hospitalización entre el 32 y 44%. Esto implica un riesgo a la salud y calidad de vida, pero también grandes esfuerzos financieros para los sistemas de salud. El sacubitrilo/valsartán es un medicamento reconocido por su eficacia, y este consenso busca sintetizar la información disponible respecto a su uso en búsqueda del beneficio de los pacientes. El presente documento se compone de una descripción de la epidemiología de la IC, farmacología del medicamento, estudios clínicos sobre este, uso del medicamento en casos con fracción de eyección reducida, fracción de eyección ligeramente reducida y fracción de eyección preservada, literatura disponible en guías de IC, recomendaciones y conclusiones.

Effect on the Quality of Life of Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced/Preserved Ejection Fraction Using Sacubitril/Valsartan. / Efeito na Qualidade de Vida de Pacientes com Insuficiência Cardíaca e Fração de Ejeção Reduzida/Preservada em Uso de Sacubitril/Valsartan.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) management has markedly improved, but a clinically meaningful improvement in functional capacity and quality of life is perhaps more important for patients than living longer. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to review the improvement in quality of life with sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HF and reduced/preserved ejection fraction (EF) from prospective clinical trials. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies published from inception to July 2021. A total of 6 clinical trials and 16854 patients with HF were included. The primary outcome was the change from baseline in KCCQ clinical summary score. The secondary outcomes were scores in other domains of KCCQ, the occurrence of serious adverse events (AEs), and overall mortality. P-values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Treatment of sacubitril/valsartan showed significantly higher KCCQ-CSS compared to the control (WMD=0.975, 95% CI: 0.885, 1.064, p<0.001; I2=94.8%, pheterogeneity<0.001). A significant decrease in the mortality rate was observed in the sacubitril/valsartan group compared to the control group (RR=0.895, 95%CI:0.831, 0.965, p=0.004; I2=43.6%, pheterogeneity=0.150). Nevertheless, no significant reduction in the occurrence of serious AEs was found among HF patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan compared to the control group (RR=0.950, 95%CI: 0.879, 1.027, p<0.001; I2=68.1%, pheterogeneity=0.024). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated that sacubitril/valsartan might significantly improve the HRQL compared to other treatments according to the results in KCCQ-CSS and some subdomains in the KCCQ index during the follow-up in patients with HF.

FUNDAMENTO: O manejo da insuficiência cardíaca (IC) tem melhorado acentuadamente, mas uma melhora clinicamente significativa na capacidade funcional e na qualidade de vida talvez seja mais importante para os pacientes do que viver mais. OBJETIVO: Este estudo teve como objetivo revisar a melhora na qualidade de vida com sacubitril/valsartan em pacientes com IC e fração de ejeção (FE) reduzida/preservada a partir de ensaios clínicos prospectivos. MÉTODOS: PubMed, Embase e Cochrane Library foram pesquisados em busca de ensaios clínicos randomizados (ECRs) e estudos de coorte prospectivos publicados desde o início até julho de 2021. Um total de 6 ensaios clínicos e 16.854 pacientes com IC foram incluídos. O desfecho primário foi a alteração da linha de base na pontuação do resumo clínico do KCCQ. Os desfechos secundários foram pontuações em outros domínios do KCCQ, ocorrência de eventos adversos graves (EAs) e mortalidade geral. Valores de p < 0,05 foram considerados estatisticamente significativos. RESULTADOS: O tratamento de sacubitril/valsartan mostrou KCCQ-CSS significativamente maior em comparação com o controle (DMP=0,975, IC 95%:0,885, 1,064, p<0,001; I2=94,8%, pheterogeneidade<0,001). Uma diminuição significativa na taxa de mortalidade foi observada no grupo sacubitril/valsartan em comparação com o grupo controle (RR=0,895, IC 95%: 0,831, 0,965, p=0,004; I2=43,6%, pheterogeneidade=0,150). No entanto, nenhuma redução significativa na ocorrência de EAs graves foi encontrada entre pacientes com IC tratados com sacubitril/valsartan em comparação com o grupo controle (RR=0,950, IC 95%: 0,879, 1,027, p<0,001; I2=68,1%, pheterogeneidade= 0,024). CONCLUSÕES: Nosso estudo demonstrou que o sacubitril/valsartan pode melhorar significativamente a QVRS em comparação com outros tratamentos de acordo com os resultados do KCCQ-CSS e alguns subdomínios do índice KCCQ durante o acompanhamento em pacientes com IC.

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.

Efficacy and Safety Comparative of Sacubitril/Valsartan vs. Olmesartan in the Treatment of hypertension: A Meta-analysis of RCTs.

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) is a widely used drug for hypertension in Asia, popular for its efficacy and safety. However, there has been no comprehensive literature review comparing it with olmesartan. This meta-analysis compared the antihypertensive and adverse effects of sacubitril/valsartan and olmesartan. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The data were then analyzed and processed using Revman 5.4 and Stata SE14 software. RESULTS: Six RCTs with 4,127 patients were identified, showing that LCZ696 had better blood pressure control than olmesartan; mean sitting systolic and diastolic blood pressure, sitting pulse pressure, 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure, and 24-hour ambulatory diastolic blood pressure were significantly decreased with LCZ696 compared with olmesartan. No significant difference between LCZ696 and olmesartan was observed in the occurrence of the majority of adverse events, with a decreased probability of headache in patients with sacubitril/valsartan compared with olmesartan. The subgroup analysis showed treatment with 400 mg/d LCZ696 was better than olmesartan in reducing serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril/valsartan was better than olmesartan in controlling blood pressure in patients with hypertension, with relatively higher safety.

Sacubitril/valsartan effects on arrhythmias and left ventricular remodelling in heart failure: An observational study.

AIMS: Conflicting results have been reported in the literature on the potential antiarrhythmic effect of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The objectives of this study were: 1- to evaluate the long term effects of sacubitril/valsartan on arrhythmic burden in HFrEF patients; 2- to evaluate the correlation between the reduction of premature ventricular complexes during f-up and reverse remodelling. METHODS: We identified 255 consecutive HFrEF patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan between March 2017 and May 2020 and followed by the Heart Failure and Cardiac Transplant Unit of IRCCS San Matteo Hospital in Pavia (Italy). Within this subgroup, 153 patients underwent 24 h-Holter-ECG or implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) interrogation at baseline, at 12 months (t1) and at 24 months (t2) and transthoracic echocardiography at baseline and after 12 months after the beginning of sacubitril/valsartan. Cardiac-related hospitalizations were analyzed in the 12 months preceding and during 24 months following the drug starting date. RESULTS: Global burden of 24-h premature ventricular complexes (PVC) was significantly reduced at 12 months (t1) and at 24 months (t2) as compared to the same period before treatment (1043 [304-3360] vs 768 [82-2784] at t1 vs 114 [9-333] at t2, P = 0.000). In the subgroup of patients implanted with biventricular ICD (n = 30), the percentage of biventricular pacing increased significantly (96% [94-99] vs 98% [96-99] at t1 vs 98%[97-100] at t2; P = 0.027). The burden of non-sustained ventricular tachycardia and sustained ventricular tachycardia did not change from baseline to t1 and t2, but a reduction of patients with at least one ICD appropriate shock was reported. The correlations between reduction in 24 h PVC and reduction in LV-ESVi or improvement in LVEF were not statistically significant (respectively R = 0.144, P = 0.197 and R = -0.190, P = 0.074). Heart failure related hospitalizations decreased during follow up (11.1% in the year before treatment vs 4.6% at t1 and 4.6% at t2; P = 0.040). CONCLUSION: Sacubitril/valsartan reduced the number of premature ventricular complexes and increased the percentage of biventricular pacing in a cohort of HFrEF patients already on optimal medical therapy. PVC reduction did not correlate with reverse left ventricular remodelling. Whether sacubitril/valsartan has any direct antiarrhythmic effects is an issue to be better explored in future studies.

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.

Different Doses of Sacubitril/Valsartan Compared with Olmesartan in Patients with Essential Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Since sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) has neprilysin inhibition and angiotensin receptor-blocking properties, it is anticipated to have strong antihypertensive effects. However, there is not enough evidence to compare the safety and efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan to those of olmesartan in patients with hypertension. AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan versus olmesartan in patients with hypertension. METHODS: This study follows the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for relevant clinical trials. We extracted outcome endpoints regarding mean ambulatory systolic/diastolic blood pressure (maSBP/maDBP), mean sitting systolic/diastolic blood pressure (msSBP/msDBP), mean ambulatory/mean sitting pulse pressure (maPP/msPP), the proportion of patients achieving blood pressure control (< 140/90 mmHg), and adverse events. We used Review Manager Software for the conduction of the analysis of this study. The effect estimates of the studies were pooled as Mean difference or risk ratio and 95% confidence interval. We also conducted a subgroup analysis based on the dose of sacubitril/valsartan. RESULTS: A total of six clinical trials were included. The studies showed an overall low risk of bias. The pooled effect estimate revealed that sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduces maSBP, maDBP, maPP, msSBP, and msDBP measurements compared with olmesartan (p < 0.001). A significantly higher portion of patients achieved blood pressure control in the sacubitril/valsartan group (p < 0.001). The test of subgroup difference showed that 400 mg dose is significantly more effective than 200 mg dose in reducing maSBP. Regarding the safety profile, olmesartan was associated with more side effects due to drug discontinuation and more serious side effects. CONCLUSION: Sacubitril/valsartan or LCZ696 is more effective and safer than olmesartan for controlling blood pressure in patients with hypertension.

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.