Association between sacubitril/valsartan initiation and real-world health status trajectories over 18 months in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

Estimating the Time to Benefit for Therapies in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Case Study of Sacubitril-Valsartan Using Reconstructed Data from a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Foundational therapies in heart failure improve clinical outcomes in heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Underuse of these life-prolonging heart failure therapies, such as sacubitril-valsartan, is common in older adults and has been associated with worse clinical outcomes. Characterizing the early benefits seen with these therapies might help increase their uptake in older adults.

OBJECTIVE

We applied several methods to estimate the time to benefit of an HFrEF therapy, using sacubitril-valsartan as a case study.

METHODS

PARADIGM-HF was a randomized controlled study on sacubitril-valsartan versus enalapril in stable, ambulatory HFrEF patients (n = 8399). The primary endpoint, a composite of death from cardiovascular causes or a first hospitalization for heart failure, was significantly reduced (sacubitril-valsartan (21.8%) versus enalapril (26.5%), hazard ratio (HR) 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73-0.87). We extracted and tabulated the Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves of the primary endpoint. An individual patient dataset was then reconstructed. The following methods were applied to explore the time to benefit of sacubitril-valsartan versus enalapril: visual estimation of the point of divergence of the KM curves, statistical process control (SPC), unadjusted landmark analyses using Cox proportional hazards analysis with 30-day increments until significance was persistently achieved, and comparing the survival probabilities of the extracted life tables.

RESULTS

Six raters visually estimated the time to benefit at a median of 60 days (interquartile range 38-10 days). Using SPC we found an early benefit from 28 days on, using the longest predefined control period of 28 days. An absolute risk reduction of 1 and 2% was found after 59 and 250 days, respectively. The reconstructed dataset provided a similar HR of 0.8004 (95% CI 0.7331-0.8739). Landmark analyses persistently showed statistical significance from 390 days and later. Survival probabilities differed from 35 days onward.

CONCLUSION

Using multiple approaches, the earliest benefit of sacubitril-valsartan compared to enalapril in stable HFrEF was found at about 1 month after initiation.

Real-world use patterns of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (sacubitril/valsartan) among patients with heart failure within a large integrated health system

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan is a first-in-class angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) that is now preferred in guidelines over angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, it has not been broadly adopted in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To characterize ARNI use within a large diverse real-world population and assess for any racial disparities. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study within Kaiser Permanente Southern California. Adult patients with HFrEF who received ARNIs, ACEIs, or ARBs between January 1, 2014, and November 30, 2020, were identified. The prevalence of ARNI use among the cohort and patient characteristics by ARNIs vs ACEIs/ARBs use were described. Multivariable regression was performed to estimate odds ratios and 95% CIs of receiving ARNI by race and ethnicity. RESULTS: Among 12,250 patients with HFrEF receiving ACEIs, ARBs, or ARNIs, 556 (4.54%) patients received ARNIs. ARNI use among this cohort increased from 0.02% in 2015 to 7.48% in 2020. Patients receiving ARNIs were younger (aged 62 vs 69 years) and had a lower median ejection fraction (27% vs 32%) compared with patients receiving ACEIs/ARBs. They also had higher use of mineralocorticoid antagonists (24.1% vs 19.8%) and automatic implantable cardioverterdefibrillators (17.4% vs 13.3%). There were no significant differences in rate of ARNI use by race and ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: Within a large diverse integrated health system in Southern California, the rate of ARNI use has risen over time. Patients given ARNIs were younger with fewer comorbidities, while having worse ejection fraction. Racial minorities were no less likely to receive ARNIs compared with White patients. DISCLOSURES: Dr Huang had stock ownership in Gilead and Pfizer. Dr Liang received support for article processing and medical writing.

Characterization of heart failure patients with reverse left ventricular remodelling post-angiotensin receptor blockers/neprilysin inhibitors therapy

Aims

To assess the effect of angiotensin receptor blockers/neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) on left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF) and LV dimensions in a real‐life cohort of heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients, while analysing patient characteristics that may predict reverse LV remodelling.

Methods and results

The ARNI‐treated HFrEF patients followed at a single tertiary medical centre HF‐outpatient clinic were included in the study. Clinical and echocardiographic parameters were evaluated prior to ARNI initiation, and while on ARNI therapy, assessing patient characteristics associated with reverse LV remodelling. The cohort included 91 patients (mean age 60.5 years, 90% male) and 47 (52%) patients exhibited ARNI responsiveness, defined as an increase in LVEF during therapy. Overall, LVEF increased by 19% post‐ARNI (23.8 to 28.4%, P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis revealed several parameters associated with significant LVEF improvement, including baseline LVEF <30%, non‐ischaemic HF aetiology, lack of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), better initial functional class and ARNI initiation within 3 years from HF diagnosis (P ≤ 0.001 for all). Significant reduction in LV dimensions was noted in patients with lower initial LVEF, non‐ischaemic HF and no CRT. Further combined subgrouping of the study population demonstrated that patients with both LVEF <30% and a non‐ischaemic HF gained most benefit from ARNI with an average of 51% improvement in LVEF (19.9 to 30%, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

The ARNI treatment response is not uniform among HFrEF patient subgroups. More pronounce reverse LV remodelling is associated with early ARNI treatment initiation in the course of HFrEF, and in those with LVEF <30%, non‐ischaemic HF and no CRT.

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.

Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor (ARNI) and Cardiac Arrhythmias

The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) plays a major role in cardiovascular health and disease. Short-term RAAS activation controls water and salt retention and causes vasoconstriction, which are beneficial for maintaining cardiac output in low blood pressure and early stage heart failure. However, prolonged RAAS activation is detrimental, leading to structural remodeling and cardiac dysfunction. Natriuretic peptides (NPs) are activated to counterbalance the effect of RAAS and sympathetic nervous system by facilitating water and salt excretion and causing vasodilation. Neprilysin is a major NP-degrading enzyme that degrades multiple vaso-modulatory substances. Although the inhibition of neprilysin alone is not sufficient to counterbalance RAAS activation in cardiovascular diseases (e.g., hypertension and heart failure), a combination of angiotensin receptor blocker and neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) was highly effective in several clinical trials and may modulate the risk of atrial and ventricular arrhythmias. This review summarizes the possible link between ARNI and cardiac arrhythmias and discusses potential underlying mechanisms, providing novel insights about the therapeutic role and safety profile of ARNI in the cardiovascular system.

Association between sacubitril/valsartan initiation and real-world health status trajectories over 18 months in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

Aims

Improving the health status (symptoms, function, and quality of life) of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a primary treatment goal. Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) improve short‐term health status in clinical practice, but the sustainability of these improvements is unknown.

Methods and results

In CHAMP‐HF, a multicentre observational study of outpatients with HFrEF, patients initiated on ARNI were propensity score matched 1:2 to patients not using ARNI with Cox regression modelling time to ARNI initiation, adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical variables, medical history, medications, and baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) scores. Repeated measures models for the overall KCCQ score and each domain compared the health status trajectories of patients initiated on ARNI vs. not. Among 3930 participants, 746 (19.0%) began ARNI, of whom 576 were matched to 1152 non‐ARNI patients. Prior to matching, participants initiated on ARNI were younger, non‐Hispanic, had lower EFs, more commonly had a history of ventricular arrhythmia, were less likely to be taking an ACEI/ARB, and more likely to be treated with beta‐blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. There were no differences after matching. In the matched cohort, participants initiated on ARNI experienced improved health status by 3 months that persisted through 12 months [KCCQ Overall Summary Score (OSS) = 73.4 vs. 70.8; P < 0.001], with the largest benefit observed in the KCCQ Quality of Life domain (68.7 vs. 64.7; P < 0.001). Similar health status benefits were noted through 18 months (KCCQ‐OSS = 73.9 vs. 71.3; P < 0.001). A responder analysis showed that 12 patients would need to be initiated on ARNI for one to experience at least a large improvement (≥10 points) in health status benefit at 12 months.

Conclusions

In outpatient practice, ARNI therapy was associated with improved health status by 3 months and continued to 18 months after initiating therapy.