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

Clinical characteristics and long-term outcomes of patients with heart failure with improved ejection fraction. First Polish experience from LECRA-HF registry

PURPOSE

Heart failure (HF) with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) is a new category of HF introduced in the newest European Society of Cardiology guidelines. However, clinical characteristics and long-term outcomes of HFimpEF patients remain insufficiently elucidated. We sought to characterize Polish HFimpEF patients and determine their long-term mortality.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Of 1186 patients enrolled in the single-center Lesser Poland Cracovian Heart Failure (LECRA-HF) registry between 2009 and 2019 and hospitalized due to HF decompensation, 340 (28.7%) were those with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Based on follow-up echocardiography, 61 (17.9%) of them were classified as HFimpEF and the remaining as HFnon-impEF.

RESULTS

HFimpEF patients were more frequently females (P ​< ​0.001), had higher baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, P ​< ​0.001), had less often a history of diabetes (P ​= ​0.024), severe chronic kidney disease (P ​= ​0.026) or prior myocardial infarction (P ​= ​0.008) than HFnon-impEF patients. By multivariable analysis the HFimpEF diagnosis was independently predicted by baseline NYHA I/II (odds ratio [OR] 2.347, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 1.020-5.405), non-ischemic etiology (OR 3.096, 95%CI 1.587-6.024), lack of diabetes mellitus (OR 2.016, 95%CI 1.059-3.846) and higher baseline LVEF (OR 1.084, 95%CI 1.042-1.126, per 1%). Within the median 49 (25-77) months all-cause mortality was lower in HFimpEF than in HFnon-impEF (10.8 vs 16.4%/year, P ​= ​0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that every sixth Polish patient with HFrEF has a chance to improve LVEF during follow-up and to become a HFimpEF patient. Baseline characteristics of HFimpEF patients are different from HFnon-impEF. Simultaneously, the HFimpEF diagnosis is associated with higher long-term survival.

The Evolving Role of Vericiguat in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure

Heart failure (HF) is a chronic and progressive clinical disorder characterized by an inability to pump sufficient blood to meet metabolic demands. It poses a substantial global healthcare burden, leading to high morbidity, mortality, and economic impact. Current treatments for HF include lifestyle modifications, guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMT), and device interventions, but the need for novel therapeutic approaches remains significant. The introduction of vericiguat, a soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator, has shown promise in improving outcomes for heart failure patients. Vericiguat addresses the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms of heart failure by augmenting the cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) pathway, leading to enhanced cardiac contractility and vasodilation. Clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of vericiguat, such as the Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction (VICTORIA) trial, have demonstrated promising results. It has been shown that vericiguat, when added to standard therapy, reduces the risk of HF hospitalization and cardiovascular death in patients with symptomatic chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The addition of vericiguat to the current armamentarium of HF treatments provides clinicians with a novel therapeutic option to further optimize patient outcomes. Its potential benefits extend beyond symptom management, aiming to reduce hospitalizations and mortality rates associated with HF. As with any new treatment, the appropriate patient selection, monitoring, and management of potential adverse effects are essential. Further research is warranted to determine the long-term benefits, optimal dosing strategies, and potential combination therapies involving vericiguat. Its ability to target the cGMP pathway provides a unique mechanism of action, offering potential benefits in improving clinical outcomes for HF patients. Continued investigation and clinical experience will further elucidate the role of vericiguat in the management of HF and its overall impact on reducing the healthcare burden associated with this debilitating condition.

Use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure: evidence from the real world

BACKGROUND

To characterize the use of sacubitril/valsartan in a group of patients with heart failure in Colombia.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Follow-up study of patients with heart failure who started sacubitril/valsartan and were affiliated with the Colombian health system between 2019 and 2021. Sociodemographic, clinical, and pharmacological variables and adherence and persistence of use were identified.

RESULTS

A total of 514 patients were identified, with a mean age of 65.7 years, 73.7% of whom started sacubitril/valsartan at low doses, and only 12.5% reached the maximum dose. Adherence was 78.2% and persistence was 56.8% at 1 year of follow-up. The increase in systolic blood pressure (odds ratio (OR): 1.01; 95% CI: 1.00-1.03) and the use of β-blockers (OR: 2.63; 95% CI: 1.42-4.85) were correlated with a greater persistence, while receiving furosemide (OR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.39-0.89) and not having received renin - angiotensin - aldosterone system inhibitors in the 3 months before starting sacubitril/valsartan (OR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.31-0.76) were associated with lower persistence.

CONCLUSIONS

The persistence of treatment 1 year after starting sacubitril/valsartan was not high, and a small proportion of patients reached the target dose of the drug. Nontitration of the drug dose was common.

Do Elderly Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction Benefit from Pharmacological Strategies for Prevention of Arrhythmic Events?

BACKGROUND

Heart failure is associated with aging. It is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in Western countries and constitutes the main cause of hospitalization among elderly patients. The pharmacological therapy of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has greatly improved during the last years. However, elderly patients less frequently receive recommended medical treatment.

SUMMARY

The quadruple therapy (sacubitril/valsartan, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors) is nowadays the cornerstone of medical treatment since it associates lower risk of heart failure hospitalizations and mortality (also of arrhythmic origin). Cardiac arrhythmias, including sudden cardiac death, are common in patients with HFrEF, entailing worse prognosis. Previous studies addressing the role of blocking the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and beta-adrenergic receptors in HFrEF have suggested different beneficial effects on arrhythmia mechanisms. Therefore, the lower mortality associated with the use of the four pillars of HFrEF therapy depends, in part, on lower sudden (mostly arrhythmic) cardiac death.

KEY MESSAGES

In this review, we highlight and assess the role of the four pharmacological groups that constitute the central axis of the medical treatment of patients with HFrEF in clinical prognosis and prevention of arrhythmic events, with special focus on the elderly patient, since evidence supports that most benefits provided are irrespective of age, but elderly patients receive less often guideline-recommended medical treatment.

Efficacy and safety of low-dose sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Controversy has persisted over the clinical benefits of low-dose sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure (HF).

HYPOTHESIS

Low-dose sacubitril/valsartan might also be effective and safe in HF patients.

METHODS

Electronic databases including PubMed, Ovid, and Cochrane Library were systematically retrieved from inception to August 5, 2021. Review manager 5.4 and Stata 15.1 were employed in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Key efficacy outcomes of interest included HF hospitalization, all-cause mortality, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), together with New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class. The safety outcome was systolic blood pressure (SBP). The grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation approach was conducted to evaluate the quality of evidence for each outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 1269 studies were screened and 9 real-world studies met the inclusion criteria were included in the meta-analysis, with 1697 participants. Compared with low-dose sacubitril/valsartan, high-dose sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced the risk of HF hospitalization (odds ratio [OR]: 0.4, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.27-0.61, p < .0001) and the risk of all-cause mortality (OR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.11-0.47, p < .0001). However, there were no appreciable differences in improvements of NYHA (OR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.15-2.35, p = .45), changes of LVEF (mean difference [MD]: 2.73%, 95% CI: -2.24% to 7.7%, p = .28), changes of NT-proBNP (MD: 43.09, 95% CI: -28.41 to 114.59, p = .24) and changes of SBP (MD: 3.01, 95% CI: -4.62 to 10.64, p = .44) between groups with low-dose and high-dose sacubitril/valsartan.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with high-dose sacubitril/valsartan, low-dose sacubitril/valsartan was associated with increased risks of HF hospitalization and all-cause mortality. However, no distinct between-group differences in improvements of NYHA, changes of LVEF, changes of NT-proBNP and changes of SBP were observed.

Effectiveness of sacubitril-varsartan versus angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure: a retrospective cohort study of the RICA registry

BACKGROUND

Sacubitril-valsartan has been shown to reduce hospitalizations and mortality in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction. The PIONEER-HF trial demonstrated that initiation of the drug during acute HF hospitalization reduced NT-proBNP levels and a post-hoc analysis of the trial found a reduction in HF hospitalizations and deaths. Real-life studies in the elderly population are scarce. The aim of our study was to assess the effectiveness of sacubitril-valsartan versus angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) in elderly patients who initiate this treatment during hospitalization for acute HF.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Spanish acute heart failure registry (RICA) comparing rehospitalizations and deaths at 3 months and 1 year among patients aged 70 years or older who had initiated treatment with sacubitril-valsartan during hospitalization for acute HF versus those treated with ACEI.

RESULTS

One hundred and ninety-nine patients hospitalized between October 2016 and November 2020 were included, with a median age of 82 years and high rate of comorbidity. Of these, 107 were treated with sacubitril-valsartan and 92 with ACEI. The adjusted OR for readmission for HF at 3 months was 0.906 (95% CI: 0.241-3.404) and for the combined variable readmission for HF or death at 3 months was 0.696 (95% CI: 0.224-2.167). The adjusted OR for HF readmission at one year was 0.696 (95% CI: 0.224 -2.167). and for the combined variable HF readmission or death at one year 0.724 (95% CI: 0.325-1.612).

CONCLUSION

Treatment with sacubitril-valsartan initiated early in hospitalization for HF in elderly patients with high comorbidity was associated with a trend towards a reduction in readmissions and death due to HF compared to treatment with ACEI, which did not reach statistical significance either at 3 months or 1 year of follow-up.

The Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure Patients: A Review

Heart failure (HF) is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, has been approved for the treatment of HF. At present, there have been few systematic and detailed reviews discussing the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in HF. In this review, we first introduced the pharmacological mechanisms of sacubitril/valsartan, including the reduction in the degradation of natriuretic peptides in the natriuretic peptide system and inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system. Then, we summarized the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan in HF patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) including the reduction in risks of mortality and hospitalization, reversal of cardiac remodeling, regulation of biomarkers of HF, improvement of the quality of life, antiarrhythmia, improving renal dysfunction and regulation of metabolism. Finally, we discussed the safety and tolerability of sacubitril/valsartan in the treatment of HFrEF or HFpEF. Compared with ACEIs/ARBs or placebo, sacubitril/valsartan showed good safety and tolerability, although the risk of hypotension might be high. In conclusion, the overwhelming majority of studies show that sacubitril/valsartan is effective and safe in the treatment of HFrEF patients but that it has little benefit in HFpEF patients. Sacubitril/valsartan will probably be a promising anti-HF drug in the near future.

Sacubitril/valsartan in real-life European patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

We systematically reviewed the European real-world evidence (RWE) about sacubitril-valsartan for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Twenty-one articles, including 16 952 subjects, were identified until 31 October 2020. Taking as reference the PARADIGM-HF cohort, few baseline characteristics were presented in >80% of these studies, most often with high heterogeneity. In random-effects model meta-analysis, age was higher (mean difference +3.84, 95% CI 1.92-5.76), ischaemic aetiology (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64-0.91), hypertension (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.37-0.82), and diabetes (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64-0.92) were less common, and the use of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists was more frequent (OR 3.54, 95% CI 2.27-5.53) in real-life than in PARADIGM-HF. Other clinical and medical features were presented in 19-76% of the selected publications and suggested more severe heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Sacubitril-valsartan was titrated to 97/103 mg b.i.d. in 35% (95% CI 23-47) and discontinued in 12.8% (95% CI 7.4-18.3) patients. When reported, the incidence of hyperkalaemia (six studies, no. 1076), all-cause mortality (five studies, no. 684), and any hospitalization (three studies, no. 390) was 12 (95% CI 5-19)/100 person-year, 8 (95% CI 4-12)/100 person-year, and 24 (95% CI 5-42)/100 person-year, respectively. Knowledge contribution, a metric measuring the proportion of RWE provided by each article based on the number of reported variables and the sample size, was 58.8% and 13.6% for the two biggest investigations (12 082 and 2037 patients), and <5% for all others (most with <100 subjects).

CONCLUSIONS

Limited-quality RWE indicates that there are important differences between European patients prescribed sacubitril-valsartan and the PARADIGM-HF population, including the frequency of target dose achievement.

Sacubitril-valsartan initiation in chronic heart failure patients impacts sleep apnea: the ENTRESTO-SAS study

Aims

Optimizing medical cardiac treatment for sleep apnoea (SA) in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is an expert Grade C recommendation based on six studies encompassing a total of 67 patients only. Whether sacubitril–valsartan (SV), a cornerstone of HFrEF medical treatment, impacts SA is unknown and requires evaluation.

Methods and results

The ENTRESTO‐SAS trial is a six‐centre, prospective, open‐label real‐life cohort study (NCT02916160). Ambulatory patients eligible for SV (i.e. HFrEF adults who remain symptomatic despite optimal treatment) were evaluated before and after 3 months of SV (including nocturnal ventilatory polygraphy); 118 patients were final analysed [median age was 66 (IQ_25–75: 56–73) years, 81.4% male, 36.5% New York Heart Association III–IV, N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide level of 1564 (701–3376) ng/L, left ventricular ejection fraction of 30 (25–34)%, 60.7% ischaemic HFrEF, 97.5% initially treated with angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers, 83.9% with beta‐blockers, 64.4% with mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and 74.6% with diuretics]. Three groups were defined according to initial central/obstructive apnoea–hypopnoea indices (AHIs): G1 (n = 49, AHI_central ≥ 5/h and AHI_obstructive < 15/h); G2 (n = 27, AHI_obstructive ≥ 15/h); and G3 (n = 42, AHI_central < 5/h and AHI_obstructive < 15/h). At 3 months, the AHI (main predefined outcome) decreased significantly by −7.10/h (IQ_25–75: −16.10 to 0.40; P < 0.001) in G1 + G2 without positive airway pressure treatment (45 patients, median initial AHI of 24.20 (IQ_25–75: 16.40–43.50)/h). Of these, 24.4% presented an AHI decrease ≥50% and 37.78% had a final AHI < 15/h (tendency for improvement from an initial value of 20%: P = 0.0574). For G1 patients (n = 37), AHI significantly decreased from a median of 22.90 (16.00–43.50)/h to 19.20 (12.70–31.10)/h (P = 0.002). For G2 patients (n = 8), AHI decreased from a median of 30.10 (26.40–47.60)/h to 22.75 (14.60–36.90)/h (statistically non‐significant, P = 0.059).

Conclusions

In this real‐life population, SV treatment for 3 months in SA patients is associated with a significant decrease in AHI. These results support the current guidelines that recommend first an optimization of the HFrEF treatment in patients with HFrEF and central SA. A potential positive airway pressure sparing effect merits further investigation.

Inpatient Initiation of Sacubitril/Valsartan

OBJECTIVE

Discuss the literature and describe strategies to overcome barriers of inpatient initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

DATA SOURCES

A PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar literature search (January 2014 to June 2020) limited to English language articles was conducted with the following terms: sacubitril/valsartan, initiation, inpatient, hospitalized, B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), diuretic, cost, and cost-effectiveness.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Included articles described inpatient initiation of sacubitril/valsartan or described its impact on BNP, NT-proBNP, diuretic dosing, or cost of care.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 20 studies were identified based on included search terms.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril/valsartan should be considered for hemodynamically stable patients with HFrEF (New York Heart Association class II or III), potassium <5.2 mmol/L, without a history of angioedema, and after a 36-hour washout from angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or aliskiren, if applicable. An appropriate dose can be determined based on the patient's previous ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker dose and/or blood pressure along with patient-specific factors. To overcome barriers of use, the following are recommended: NT-proBNP or BNP with establishment of a new baseline 1 month after initiation may be used for prognosis or diagnosis; careful monitoring of diuretic requirements; utilization of multiple strategies to overcome cost barriers; and use of interdisciplinary care.

A Systematic Review on the Use of Sacubitril/Valsartan Initiated Prior to Discharge in Hospitalized Patients With Heart Failure

OBJECTIVE

Systematically review the evidence of sacubitril/valsartan initiated in the hospital setting prior to discharge in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (HF).

DATA SOURCES

A literature search using keywords related to sacubitril/valsartan, HF, and inpatient use was performed using MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Google Scholar from inception through May 8, 2020.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Eligible studies included patients initiated on sacubitril/valsartan while inpatient and reported efficacy and safety outcomes.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 10 articles were included for study review, of which 9 were full text and 1 was a conference poster. Key outcomes of interest were related to tolerability, N-terminal proB-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), functional capacity, target dose attainment, or rehospitalization rates. NT-proBNP levels were improved in 4 trials, and the results of functional capacity were mixed based on 2 studies. Rehospitalization rates were reported as secondary outcomes, and only 1 large study showed numerical and statistical improvement. The most frequent dose initiated prior to discharge was sacubitril/valsartan 24/26 mg twice daily. Hypotension was the most commonly reported adverse drug reaction and was commonly cited as a reason for not tolerating inpatient initiation with sacubitril/valsartan therapy.

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

Inpatient initiation of sacubitril/valsartan may improve surrogate and clinical outcomes after hemodynamic stabilization. Clinicians should consider patient-specific factors to ensure that benefits outweigh the risks and monitor for hypotension when initiated prior to hospital discharge.

CONCLUSION

Initiating inpatient treatment with sacubitril/valsartan after hemodynamic stabilization is reasonable based on available evidence.

Current evidence of sacubitril/valsartan in the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

Heart failure (HF) is one of the most common reasons for hospital admission in western countries. The measurement of the left ventricular ejection fraction is essential for the classification of HF and deciding on HF treatment. The treatment of HF has been improved in both diagnostic and therapeutic fields over the past two decades. The angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor decreased the cardiovascular mortality in patients with chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction. Sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) improves the imbalance between the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone and natriuretic peptide systems. We present the clinical efficacy, real-world experience, safety and tolerability, the relevance of etiology of cardiomyopathy, and gender differences and regulatory affairs of LCZ696 in the treatment of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction.

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.