Efficacy and safety of sacubitril-valsartan in heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

A Synopsis of the Evidence for the Science and Clinical Management of Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic (CKM) Syndrome: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

A growing appreciation of the pathophysiological interrelatedness of metabolic risk factors such as obesity and diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease has led to the conceptualization of cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome. The confluence of metabolic risk factors and chronic kidney disease within cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome is strongly linked to risk for adverse cardiovascular and kidney outcomes. In addition, there are unique management considerations for individuals with established cardiovascular disease and coexisting metabolic risk factors, chronic kidney disease, or both. An extensive body of literature supports our scientific understanding of, and approach to, prevention and management for individuals with cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome. However, there are critical gaps in knowledge related to cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome in terms of mechanisms of disease development, heterogeneity within clinical phenotypes, interplay between social determinants of health and biological risk factors, and accurate assessments of disease incidence in the context of competing risks. There are also key limitations in the data supporting the clinical care for cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome, particularly in terms of early-life prevention, screening for risk factors, interdisciplinary care models, optimal strategies for supporting lifestyle modification and weight loss, targeting of emerging cardioprotective and kidney-protective therapies, management of patients with both cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease, and the impact of systematically assessing and addressing social determinants of health. This scientific statement uses a crosswalk of major guidelines, in addition to a review of the scientific literature, to summarize the evidence and fundamental gaps related to the science, screening, prevention, and management of cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome.

Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic Health: A Presidential Advisory From the American Heart Association

Cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic health reflects the interplay among metabolic risk factors, chronic kidney disease, and the cardiovascular system and has profound impacts on morbidity and mortality. There are multisystem consequences of poor cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic health, with the most significant clinical impact being the high associated incidence of cardiovascular disease events and cardiovascular mortality. There is a high prevalence of poor cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic health in the population, with a disproportionate burden seen among those with adverse social determinants of health. However, there is also a growing number of therapeutic options that favorably affect metabolic risk factors, kidney function, or both that also have cardioprotective effects. To improve cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic health and related outcomes in the population, there is a critical need for (1) more clarity on the definition of cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome; (2) an approach to cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic staging that promotes prevention across the life course; (3) prediction algorithms that include the exposures and outcomes most relevant to cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic health; and (4) strategies for the prevention and management of cardiovascular disease in relation to cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic health that reflect harmonization across major subspecialty guidelines and emerging scientific evidence. It is also critical to incorporate considerations of social determinants of health into care models for cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome and to reduce care fragmentation by facilitating approaches for patient-centered interdisciplinary care. This presidential advisory provides guidance on the definition, staging, prediction paradigms, and holistic approaches to care for patients with cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome and details a multicomponent vision for effectively and equitably enhancing cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic health in the population.

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.

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 after switching from azilsartan in hemodialysis patients with hypertension

This study assessed the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in 23 hemodialysis patients with hypertension (mean age 70 years; male 69.6%) after switching from azilsartan, an angiotensin receptor blocker. Both at baseline and 3 months after the start of sacubitril/valsartan treatment, home blood pressure (BP), BP values during hemodialysis, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level were measured. The mean dosage of azilsartan was 30 ± 10 mg/day at baseline and that of sacubitril/valsartan after 3 months of treatment was 204 ± 64 mg/day. After 3 months, significant reductions in mean morning home BP (155 ± 17/80 ± 12 to 147 ± 16/76 ± 11 mmHg), mean nighttime home systolic BP (153 ± 19 to 144 ± 16 mmHg), and median (IQRs) NT-proBNP level [8124 (2620-13 394) to 6271 (1570-9591) pg/mL] were observed (all P < .05), whereas BP values during hemodialysis did not change significantly. In hemodialysis patients, except for hypotension, sacubitril/valsartan was generally well tolerated, effectively controlled out-of-office BP, and improved NT-proBNP.

Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: Real-World Experience from Italy (the REAL.IT Study)

Sacubitril/valsartan reduces heart failure (HF)-related hospitalizations and cardiovascular mortality in PARADIGM-HF and has become a foundational treatment for HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, data of its routine real-world use are limited, and evidence from Italian settings is lacking. The REAL.IT study aimed to characterize the demographics, pharmacotherapy, clinical characteristics and outcomes of sacubitril/valsartan-treated Italian patients with HFrEF. Electronic medical records of patients initiating sacubitril/valsartan from October 2016 to June 2019 at nine specialized hospital outpatient HF centers across Italy were reviewed. Overall, 924 adults (mean age 64.5 years, 84.6% male) were included. At baseline, 38.7% had an ischemic HF etiology, 45.9% hypertension, 23.2% atrial fibrillation, 25.4% diabetes mellitus, 26.1% an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and 31.9% coronary artery bypass grafting. There were no clear patterns of patient selection over time. During follow-up, NYHA class improved in 37.5% of patients after a mean of 5.3 ± 3.8 months; 36.1% and 16.7% of patients were in NYHA class III during characterization and after one year of follow-up, respectively. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improved ≥5% in 56.3% of patients at one year; 39.7% had ≥30% reduction of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide; 2.2% had hyperkalemia during characterization and 2.6% during follow-up; and 3.8% had hypotension during characterization and 12% during follow-up. A total of 50 (5.8%) of patients had device implantation (ICD/CRT) during follow-up. HF-related hospitalization was recorded in 19.6% of patients during follow-up; 3.8% of patients died, approximately 1.3% from cardiovascular causes. Our real-world data confirm the favorable effectiveness and tolerability of sacubitril/valsartan observed in pivotal randomized controlled trials.

Network Meta-Analysis Comparing Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitors, Angiotensin Receptor Blockers, and Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

The superiority of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) over angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE-I) and angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) has not been reassessed after the publication of recent trials that did not find clinical benefits. Therefore, we performed an updated network meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of ARNI, ACE-I, ARB, and placebo in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. We included randomized clinical trials that compared ARNI, ARB, ACE-I, and placebo in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. We extracted prespecified efficacy end points and produced network estimates, p scores, and surface under the cumulative ranking curve scores using frequentist and Bayesian network meta-analysis approaches. A total of 28 randomized controlled trials including 47,407 patients were included. ARNI was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68 to 0.96), cardiac death (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.99), and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97) but higher risk of hypotension (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.10) than ARB. ARNI was associated with lower risk of MACE (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.97), but higher risk of hypotension (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.24) compared with ACE-I. P scores and surface under the cumulative ranking curve scores demonstrated superiority of ARNI over ARB and ACE-I in all-cause mortality, cardiac death, MACE, and hospitalization for heart failure. In conclusion, ARNI was associated with improved clinical outcomes, except for higher risk of hypotension, compared with ARB and ACE-I.

Effects of sacubitril-valsartan on heart failure patients with mid-range ejection fractions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim: The effect of sacubitril-valsartan (ARNI) in heart failure (HF) patients with mid-range ejection fractions (HFmrEF) remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the effects of ARNI in HFmrEF patients. Methods: From inception to 15 February 2022, articles were searched via PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Whip, and Wanfang databases. Left ventricular functions, indicators related to HF, quality of life score, 6-Minute Walk Test, total effective rate, mortality, readmission rate, and adverse events were the outcomes. Relative risk (RR), weighted mean difference (WMD), and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to evaluate the outcomes. The heterogeneity test was conducted for each indicator and measured by I2 statistics. Subgroup analysis was performed regarding the type of study and duration of treatment. Results: Sixteen studies involving 1,937 patients were included in this study. Our results showed ARNI was likely to improve left ventricular function by increasing the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (WMD: 2.36, 95%CI: 1.09-3.62), stroke volume (WMD: 16.800, 95%CI: 11.385-22.215), and left ventricular short-axis shortening rate (WMD: 2.05, 95%CI: 0.25-3.86), decreasing left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (WMD: -2.48, 95%CI: -3.83 to -1.13), left atrial diameter (WMD: -2.23, 95%CI: -2.83 to -1.63), C-reactive protein level (WMD: -1.40, 95%CI: -2.62 to -0.18), and N-terminal-pro B-type natriuretic peptide level (WMD: -494.92, 95%CI: -641.34 to -348.50). ARNI has a higher total effective rate (RR: 1.15, 95%CI: 1.08-1.21), Kansas City cardiomyopathy questionnaire (WMD: 4.13, 95%CI: 3.46-4.81), and 6-Minute Walk Test (WMD: 51.35, 95%CI: 26.99-75.71) compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB). In addition, ARNI decreased the readmission rate (RR: 0.54, 95%CI: 0.43-0.68) (all p < 0.05). Nevertheless, there were no significant differences in the adverse outcomes. Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests ARNI may be an effective strategy with which to improve the left ventricular function, and quality of life, and reduce the readmission rate in HFmrEF patients. However, long-term clinical studies with large samples are still needed to further explore the efficacy and safety of ARNI compared with ACEI or ARB in the HFmrEF population.

Haemodynamic Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan Initiation in Outpatients with Chronic Heart Failure

Background

Sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) improves outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Data about the immediate, short-, and intermediate-term hemodynamic effects of S/V are limited.

Methods

In this prospective observational study, 37 outpatients with chronic HFrEF were treated with S/V according to current guideline recommendations. Next to clinical, laboratory and echocardiographic parameters, haemodynamic variables were assessed non-invasively by use of inert gas rebreathing and bioimpedance cardiography at baseline and at 2-week, 3-month and 6-month follow-up. The course of variables throughout the study and the relationship between variables were analysed using fractional polynomials.

Results

S/V treatment resulted in short- and intermediate-term improvements in NYHA functional class (2.3 ± 0.6 at baseline vs. 1.9 ± 0.5 at 6-month follow-up, p = 0.14), 6-min walk test (453 ± 110 vs. 528 ± 98 m, p = 0.02), ejection fraction (31 ± 9 vs. 36 ± 12%, p = 0.13), pulmonary artery pressure (39 ± 10 vs. 31 ± 10 mmHg, p = 0.02), and NT-proBNP values (1702 (782–2897 vs. 1004 (599–1627) ng/L, p = 0.03). In addition, S/V caused immediate decreases in systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI) and systolic blood pressure (SBP), which were associated with a simultaneous drop in stroke volume (SV) and cardiac index (CI). However, while SVRI and SBP remained at low levels during further treatment, SV and CI restored rapidly and increased to slightly higher levels thereafter.

Conclusion

The vasodilative effects of S/V result in immediate reductions in SVRI, SBP, SV and CI. However, S/V induces reverse cardiac remodelling, which is apparent shortly after treatment initiation and leads to improvements of clinical, functional, echocardiographic, laboratory and haemodynamic variables.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40256-022-00549-2.

The Impact of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitors on Arrhythmias in Patients with Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) use has become increasingly popular. Current guidelines recommend using ARNI therapy for heart failure with reduced (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). As therapies become more widely available, heart failure-associated burdens such as ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death (SCD) will become increasingly prevalent. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the impact of ARNI therapy on HFrEF and HFpEF pertaining to arrhythmogenesis and SCD. We performed a search of MEDLINE (PubMed), the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov for relevant studies. The odds ratios (ORs) of SCD, ventricular tachycardia (VT), ventricular fibrillation (VF), atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF), supraventricular tachycardia (SVT), and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks were calculated. A total of 10 studies, including 6 randomized controlled trials and 4 observational studies, were included in the analysis. A total of 18,548 patients from all studies were included, with 9,328 patients in the ARNI arm and 9,220 patients in the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI)/angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) arm, with a median follow-up time of 15 months. There was a significant reduction in the composite outcomes of SCD and ventricular arrhythmias in patients treated with ARNIs compared to those treated with ACEIs/ARBs (OR, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.93; P = .01; I² = 17%; P = .29). ARNI therapy was also associated with a significant reduction in ICD shocks. There was no significant reduction in the VT, VF, AF, or SVT incidence rate in the ARNI group compared to the ACEI/ARB group. In conclusion, the use of ARNIs confers a reduction in composite outcomes of SCD and ventricular arrhythmias among patients with heart failure. These outcomes were mainly driven by SCD reduction in patients treated with ARNIs.

Efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan on heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Aims

The efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are controversial. Hence, the primary objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan treatment for patients with HFpEF.

Methods and results

We used the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases to search for randomized controlled trials of sacubitril–valsartan in patients with HFpEF. Three studies, involving a total of 7,663 patients, were eligible for inclusion. Sacubitril–valsartan reduced the risk of hospitalization for heart failure (HF) [odds ratio (OR): 0.78; 95% CI: 0.70–0.88; p &lt; 0.0001] and the incidence of worsening renal function [risk ratio (RR): 0.79, p = 0.002] among patients with HFpEF in the three trials, but there was no significant reduction in all-cause mortality (0.99, 95% CI: 0.84–1.15; p = 0.86) or cardiovascular mortality (0.95, 95% CI: 0.78–1.15; p = 0.16). Moreover, sacubitril/valsartan was associated with an increased risk of symptomatic hypotension (RR: 1.44; p &lt; 0.00001) and angioedema (RR: 2.66; p &lt; 0.04); there was no difference for decreasing the incidence of hyperkalemia (RR: 0.89; p = 0.11).

Conclusion

Compared with valsartan or individualized medical therapy (IMT), sacubitril/valsartan significantly decreased the risk of hospitalization for HF and reduced the incidence of renal dysfunction.

Management of Heart Failure in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is increasingly prevalent in patients with heart failure (HF) and HF is one of the leading causes of hospitalisation, morbidity and mortality in patients with impaired renal function. Currently, there is strong evidence to support the symptomatic and prognostic benefits of β-blockers, renin–angiotensin–aldosterone inhibitors (RAASis), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) in patients with HF and CKD stages 1–3. However, ARNIs, RAASis and MRAs are often suboptimally prescribed for patients with CKD owing to concerns about hyperkalaemia and worsening renal function. There is growing evidence for the use of sodium–glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors and IV iron therapy in the management of HF in patients with CKD. However, few studies have included patients with CKD stages 4–5 and patients receiving dialysis, limiting the assessment of the safety and efficacy of these therapies in advanced CKD. Interdisciplinary input from HF and renal specialists is required to provide integrated care for the growing number of patients with HF and CKD.

Efficacy and Dosage Pattern of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Chinese Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction Patients

This study aims to investigate the dosage pattern, efficacy, and safety of sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) in Chinese heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients regarding real-world settings. Patients from 27 centers with a confirmed diagnosis of HFrEF and initiated Sac/Val treatment were enrolled. The primary objective was to evaluate the dosage pattern and change of heart failure status. In a final cohort of 983 patients, outpatient Sac/Val treatment demonstrated a similar beneficial effect in NT-proBNP and cardiac function. After initiating the treatment, overall and sub-population showed similar safety and efficacy. Patients who received a higher dose of Sac/Val (> 200 mg/d) demonstrated better improvement in LV function and reduction of NT-proBNP regardless of adjustment. Among Chinese HFrEF patients, Sac/Val showed a comparable reduction in NT-proBNP and improvement in cardiac function. Data further support guideline recommendations of Sac/Val in Chinese population. Optimal up-titration might provide further benefits. Further long-term and prognostic studies are needed.

Role of CCR2-Positive Macrophages in Pathological Ventricular Remodelling

Even with recent advances in care, heart failure remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality, which urgently needs new treatments. One of the major antecedents of heart failure is pathological ventricular remodelling, the abnormal change in the size, shape, function or composition of the cardiac ventricles in response to load or injury. Accumulating immune cell subpopulations contribute to the change in cardiac cellular composition that occurs during ventricular remodelling, and these immune cells can facilitate heart failure development. Among cardiac immune cell subpopulations, macrophages that are recognized by their transcriptional or cell-surface expression of the chemokine receptor C-C chemokine receptor type 2 (CCR2), have emerged as playing an especially important role in adverse remodelling. Here, we assimilate the literature that has been generated over the past two decades describing the pathological roles that CCR2⁺ macrophages play in ventricular remodelling. The goal is to facilitate research and innovation efforts in heart failure therapeutics by drawing attention to the importance of studying the manner by which CCR2⁺ macrophages mediate their deleterious effects.

Colchicine may become a new cornerstone therapy for coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

Colchicine is an ancient anti-inflammatory drug. In recent years, an increasing number of studies have shown that colchicine improves the prognosis of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), while other studies have reported the opposite. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of colchicine in treating CAD.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to 20 October 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing colchicine and placebo in patients with CAD. The primary outcomes were the primary composite outcomes of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke, or ischemia-driven coronary revascularization after colchicine administration. The secondary outcomes were cardiovascular death, death from any cause, noncardiac death, MI, ischemic stroke, coronary revascularization, gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, and the different effects of colchicine in acute and chronic CAD. We assessed the pooled odds ratio (OR) of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality for CAD in fixed-effects models, the pooled risk ratio (RR) of the primary composite outcomes, MI, ischemic stroke, and ischemia-driven coronary revascularization in fixed-effects models and the pooled RR of GI symptoms in random-effects models. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias in the included RCTs.

FINDINGS

Eleven of the 894 identified studies (n = 12,899 patients) were included (6501 subjects in the colchicine group; 6389 subjects in the control group). The colchicine group had significantly lower pooled RRs of the primary composite outcomes (0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64-0.84, P < 0.0001), MI (0.77, 95% CI 0.64-0.92, P = 0.004), ischemic stroke (0.47, 95% CI 0.30-0.76, P = 0.002), and ischemia-driven coronary revascularization (0.77, 95% CI 0.66-0.89, P = 0.0007), while the pooled RR of adverse GI events (2.15 95% CI 1.40-3.31, P = 0.0005) was significantly higher. Colchicine had a lower pooled RR of ischemic stroke (0.28, 95% CI 0.12-0.65, P = 0.003) for patients with acute compared with chronic CAD.

IMPLICATIONS

Colchicine treatment significantly decreased the risk of primary cardiovascular composite outcomes, MI, ischemic stroke, and ischemia-driven coronary revascularization in CAD patients but increased adverse GI events. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and non-cardiovascular death between the colchicine and control groups. Colchicine performs better in acute CAD patients with ischemic stroke than chronic CAD patients. Colchicine might be a new treatment for patients with CAD.

Efficacy and safety of sacubitril-valsartan in patients with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials: A PRISMA-compliant article

BACKGROUND

To investigate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril-valsartan in patients with heart failure, relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were analyzed.

METHODS

We used Cochrane Library, PubMed web of science, CNKI, VIP, Medline, ISI Web of Science, CBMdisc, and Wanfang database to conduct a systematic literature research. A fixed-effects model was used to evaluate the standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals. We conducted sensitivity analysis and analyzed publication bias to comprehensively estimate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril-valsartan in patients with heart failure.

RESULTS

Among 132 retrieved studies, 5 relevant RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. The result showed that left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was improved after sacubitril-valsartan in patients with heart failure, with an SMD (95% CI of 1.1 [1.01, 1.19] and P < .00001 fixed-effects model). Combined outcome indicators showed that, combined outcome indicators showed that, compared with control group, the left ventricular volume index (LAVI) (WMD = -2.18, 95% CI [-3.63, -0.74], P = .003), the E/e' (WMD = -1.01, 95% CI [-1.89, -0.12], P = .03), the cardiovascular death (RR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.83, 0.96], P = .003], and the rehospitalization rate of heart failure (RR = 0.83, 95% CI [0.78, 0.88], P < .01) decreased more significantly, but it had no effect on renal function (WMD = 0.74, 95% CI [0.54, 1.01], P = .06).

CONCLUSIONS

The present meta-analysis suggested that sacubitril-valsartan may improve the cardiac function of heart failure. Given the limited number of included studies, additional large sample-size RCTs are required to determine the long-term effect of cardiac function of sacubitril-valsartan in patients with heart failure.

Benefits and adverse effects of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with chronic heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

This review aims to assess the benefits and adverse effects of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure, with a focus on important patient outcomes. A systematic review was conducted of double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing sacubitril/valsartan versus a reference drug, in heart failure patients with reduced (HFrEF) and preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction, published in French or English. Searches were undertaken of Medline, Cochrane Central, and Embase. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and adverse events. From 2 082 articles analyzed, 5 were included. For all-cause mortality, the absolute numbers for HFrEF (2 RCTs, 4627 patients) were 16% on sacubitril/valsartan and 18% on enalapril, with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.85 [CI = 0.78, 0.93], and 13% vs 14% in with HFpEF (2 RCTs, 5097 patients), with no statistical difference. Under the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, the evidence for HFrEF patients was of moderate quality. For HFrEF patients, an increased risk of symptomatic hypotension and angioedema (low quality of evidence) was shown. There was no statistical difference for the risk of hyperkalemia or worsening renal function. There was a protective RR (0.50 [0.34, 0.75]) for worsening renal function for patients with HFpEF, with a high quality of evidence despite similar absolute numbers (1.4% vs. 2.8%). To keep in mind for shared decision-making, sacubitril/valsartan reduces all-cause mortality in HFrEF patients but for HFpEF further data are needed. Take into consideration the small number of studies to date to assess the risks.

The effects of sacubitril/valsartan on heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, Sacubitril/Valsartan has been reported to have superior results. However, the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are still in dispute.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to evaluate the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on the treatment of HFpEF patients.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov were used to search for randomised controlled trials of sacubitril/valsartan in HFpEF patients from inception to 7 December 2020.

RESULTS

Four studies, with a total of 7739 participants, met the inclusion criteria. The present meta-analysis results showed that compared with the control group, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the hospitalisation rate of HF in HFpEF patients [Risk Ratio(RR): 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.79-0.93; p = 0.0002). Regarding all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and the improvement in NYHA class, sacubitril/valsartan did not show apparent advantages. Although sacubitril/valsartan was linked to increasing the risk of symptomatic hypotension (RR: 1.44; 95% CI: 1.25-1.66; p﹤0.00001), there was no evidence supporting the incidence of renal function worsening and hyperkalemia.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that compared with valsartan or individualised medical therapy (IMT), there were not different between the two groups except for the hospitalisation rate which was favoured by Sacubitril/Valsartan treatment group for HFpEF patients.

Neprilysin inhibition does not alter dynamic of proenkephalin-A 119-159 and pro-substance P in heart failure

AIMS

As NEP degrades many substrates, the specific therapeutic mechanism of NEP inhibition with angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNi) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is not entirely evident. The aim of this study was to investigate the response of two substrates of NEP-the tachykinin and enkephalin systems-to the initiation of ARNi therapy in HFrEF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between 2016 and 2018, 141 consecutive patients with stable HFrEF [74 with initiation of ARNi and 67 controls on continuous angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) therapy] were prospectively enrolled. Plasma proenkephalin-A 119-159 (PENK) and pro-substance P (pro-SP) were serially determined. Proenkephalin-A 119-159 and pro-SP correlated strongly with each other (r_s  = 0.67, P < 0.001) and kidney function (r_s  = -0.66, P < 0.001 and r_s  = -0.54, P < 0.001) and modestly with NT-proBNP (r_s  = 0.32, P < 0.001 and r_s  = 0.24, P = 0.006, respectively). Concentrations of circulating PENK were slightly elevated after 1 and 2 year follow-up compared with baseline (BL) [BL median: 67.4 pmol/L (IQR: 57.3-89.8), 1 year: 83.5 pmol/L (IQR: 62.4-111.6), 2 years: 92.3 pmol/L (IQR: 63.1-101.9); BL vs. 1 year: P = 0.017 and BL vs. 2 years: P = 0.019] in the overall analysis, but lost significance at 2 year follow-up when assessed in paired subanalysis (P = 0.116). Plasma pro-SP levels remained comparable during the entire follow-up [BL median: 78.3 pmol/L (IQR: 67.9-90.6), 1 year: 75.9 pmol/L (IQR: 58.6-96.3), 2 years: 79.7 pmol/L (IQR: 59.9-105.3); P = ns for both timepoints]. Biomarker patterns of ARNi patients were independent from baseline therapy, that is, ACEi or ARB (P > 0.05 between groups).

CONCLUSIONS

Although enkephalins and SP are known substrates of NEP, NEP inhibition by ARNi does not clearly affect the circulating precursors PENK and pro-SP in HFrEF.

Personalising heart failure management in CKD patients

CKD in heart failure patients is common, present in 49%, associated with higher mortality [Hazard ratio, 2.34 (95% CI2.20-2.50, P < 0.001) and multiple hospital admissions. The management of heart failure in CKD can be challenging due to drug induced electrolyte and creatinine changes; resistance to diuretics and infections related to device therapy. Evidence for improvement in mortality and heart failure hospitalisations exists in HFrEF stage 3 CKD patients from randomised controlled trials of ACE-inhibitor and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist therapy; but not in dialysis patients where higher doses can cause hyperkalaemia. Evidence on improvement of cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalisations has emerged with angiotensin blocker-neprilysin inhibitor, ivabradine and more recently with sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitors in HFrEF patients with CKD stages 1,2, and 3. However these studies have excluded CKD 4,5 patients. Evidence for betablocker therapy exists in CKD stages 1,2 and 3 and separately in haemodialysis patients. Cardiac resynchronisation therapy reduces heart failure hospitalisations and mortality in patients with CKD 1,2,3 but not in CKD stages 4,5 or dialysis patients. Internal cardioverter and defibrillator therapy in HFrEF patients have been shown to be beneficial in CKD 3 patients, not in dialysis patients where it is associated with high rates of infection. For HFpEF patients with CKD therapy is symptomatic as there is no proven therapy for improvement in survival or hospitalisations. Heart failure patients with end-stage-kidney disease with fluid overload may benefit from peritoneal dialysis. A multidisciplinary, personalised approach has been associated with better care and improved patient satisfaction.

Efficacy and safety of sacubitril-valsartan in heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Aims

Sacubitril‐valsartan has been shown to have superior effects over angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers in patients with heart failure (HF) and hypertension. The efficacy and safety of sacubitril‐valsartan in patients with HF are controversial. We performed a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess and compare the effect and adverse events of sacubitril‐valsartan, valsartan, and enalapril in patients with HF.

Methods and results

We conducted a systematic search using PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Randomized controlled trials involving the use of sacubitril‐valsartan in patients with HF were included. We assessed the pooled odds ratio (OR) of all‐cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization for HF in fixed‐effects models and the pooled risk ratio (RR) of symptomatic hypotension, worsening renal function, and hyperkalaemia in fixed‐effects models. Of the 315 identified records, six studies involving 14 959 patients were eligible for inclusion. Sacubitril‐valsartan reduced the endpoints of all‐cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in three trials with pooled ORs of 0.83 (P = 0.0006) and 0.78 (P < 0.0001), respectively. Regarding the composite outcome of hospitalization for HF in five trials, the pooled OR was 0.79 (P < 0.00001). Compared with enalapril or valsartan, sacubitril‐valsartan was associated with a high risk of symptomatic hypotension (RR 1.47, P < 0.00001), low risk of worsening renal function (RR 0.81, P = 0.005), and low rate of serious hyperkalaemia (≥6.0 mmol/L) (RR 0.76, P = 0.0007) in all six trials.

Conclusions

Compared with angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, sacubitril‐valsartan significantly decreased the risk of death from all causes or cardiovascular causes in HFrEF and hospitalization for HF in both patients with HFrEF and HF with preserved ejection fraction. Sacubitril‐valsartan reduced the risk of renal dysfunction and serious hyperkalaemia but was associated with more symptomatic hypotension.