Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan (LCZ696) Compared With Olmesartan in Elderly Asian Patients (≥65 Years) With Systolic Hypertension

Switching From ARBs to Sacubitril/Valsartan Safely Improves 24-Hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Patients With Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease

BACKGROUND

We investigated the effects of sacubitril/valsartan, a first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), on 24-hour blood pressure (BP) and safety for 12 weeks in Japanese patients with non-dialysis advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD).

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, single-arm exploratory study. Patients with non-dialysis CKD stage G4-5 (estimated glomerular filtration (eGFR) <30 mL/min/1.73 m2) who did not achieve their BP goals with angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) administration, were enrolled and switched to sacubitril/valsartan. Primary and key secondary endpoints were changes from baseline in the 24-hour systolic BP (SBP) measured via ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) over 12 weeks and the safety, especially incidence of serum creatinine (Cr) increase (≥ 30% increase from baseline) and hyperkalemia.

RESULTS

Thirty patients were enrolled, and 29 patients were switched to sacubitril/valsartan. Efficacy analysis was conducted on 26 patients. Baseline mean eGFR and office BP were 21.1 ± 5.0 mL/min/1.73m2 and 149.4 ± 23.7/80.7 ± 11.9 mmHg, respectively. Baseline 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime BP were 139.6 ± 17.7/77.0 ± 7.8 mmHg, 143.5 ± 18.5/79.6 ± 8.7 mmHg, and 131.0 ± 20.4/71.1 ± 8.8 mmHg, respectively. After 12 weeks, changes in 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime SBP from baseline were -7.1 ± 12.4 mmHg (P < 0.01), -7.7 ± 12.9 mmHg (P < 0.01), and -5.8 ± 15.8 mmHg (P = 0.07), respectively. No incidences of potassium values > 6.0 mmol/L or serum Cr ≥ 30% increase from baseline were reported after sacubitril/valsartan initiation.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching from ARB to sacubitril/valsartan can safely enhance 24-hour antihypertensive treatment in patients with non-dialysis CKD G4-5 who do not achieve BP goals with ARBs. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: Trial Number jRCT1031220149.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

Trial Number jRCT1031220149.

Cross talk on therapeutic strategies: natriuretic peptides and inhibiting neprilysin in hypertension management

Hypertension, a prevalent cardiovascular condition globally, remains a significant public health concern due to its association with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Despite the availability of various antihypertensive therapies, achieving optimal blood pressure control in patients remains a challenge. Valsartan/sacubitril (ARNi), marketed as Entresto by Novartis, combines valsartan, an angiotensin receptor blocker, with sacubitril, an inhibitor of neprilysin. Neprilysin is responsible for breaking down natriuretic peptides and other vasoactive substances. Inhibiting neprilysin prevents the degradation of natriuretic peptides, enhancing their beneficial effects on blood pressure regulation. Natriuretic Peptides, including atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP) and brain natriuretic peptides (BNP), play pivotal roles in regulating blood pressure and cardiovascular homeostasis by promoting vasodilation, natriuresis, and antagonizing the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. Therefore, this combo drug lessens sensitivity to natriuretic peptides and tackles the processes in hypertension that activate the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. This review provides an overview of how natriuretic peptides (NPs) contribute to blood pressure regulation for the treatment of hypertension through inhibiting neprilysin. It highlights the ARNi's dual action that works synergistically by blocking the harmful effects of angiotensin II on blood vessels while simultaneously increasing the levels of beneficial natriuretic peptides. Schematic representation of the mechanism of action of ARNi. Abbreviation: -Renin angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS), Natriuretic peptides (NP), Atrial Natriuretic peptide (ANP), Brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), C-type natriuretic peptide (CNP), Angiotensin II (Ang II), Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI).

Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor for Chronic Kidney Disease: Strategies for Renal Protection

BACKGROUND

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) and hypertension are significant global health challenges that often coexist and aggravate each other. Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors are important to the management of these conditions; however, their efficacy for advanced CKD remains uncertain.

SUMMARY

Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) have superior efficacy for heart failure (HF) management, as evidenced by landmark trials such as the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF, thus leading to its endorsement by various guidelines. Although direct evidence supporting the renal-protective effects of ARNI is lacking, post hoc analyses have suggested its potential to mitigate the decline of the estimated glomerular filtration rate and renal events, particularly in patients with HF with a relatively preserved ejection fraction. Mechanistically, ARNI augments the glomerular filtration rate by dilating glomerular arterioles, relaxing mesangial cells, and improving renal medullary blood flow, thereby mitigating interstitial fibrosis progression. ARNI also effectively addresses nondipper hypertension, particularly in salt-sensitive individuals, thereby reducing the cardiovascular risk.

KEY MESSAGES

Uncertainties regarding the efficacy and safety of ARNI for advanced renal failure (estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min) exist. Excessive hypotension associated with ARNI use may exacerbate the renal function decline, especially in older patients with comorbid HF with a reduced ejection fraction. Hence, vigilant blood pressure monitoring is essential to optimizing the renal benefits of ARNI and minimizing adverse effects. Evidence supporting the renal benefits of ARNI continues to evolve; therefore, ARNI could mitigate renal dysfunction in select patient populations. Further research should be performed to clarify the efficacy of ARNI for advanced renal failure and refine its therapeutic application for patients with concurrent HF and renal dysfunction.

Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/Allisartan for the Treatment of Primary Hypertension

Background

The prevalence of hypertension still increases with the very rapidly increasing longevity in some countries, such as China. The control rate remains low.

Objectives

This randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study assessed the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/allisartan, compared with olmesartan in Chinese patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension.

Methods

Eligible patients aged 18 to 75 years (n = 1,197) with mild-to-moderate hypertension were randomized to receive sacubitril/allisartan 240 mg (n = 399), sacubitril/allisartan 480 mg (n = 399), or olmesartan 20 mg (n = 399) once daily for 12 weeks. Patients who completed the 12-week treatment then received another 12-week extended treatment (n = 1,084) and 28-week prolonged treatment (n = 189). The primary end point was a reduction in clinic mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP) from baseline at 12 weeks.

Results

Sacubitril/allisartan 240 mg/d provided a greater reduction in msSBP than olmesartan at 12 weeks (between-group difference: -1.9 mm Hg [95% CI: -4.2 to 0.4 mm Hg]; P = 0.0007, for noninferiority). Sacubitril/allisartan 480 mg/d provided a significantly greater reduction in msSBP than olmesartan at 12 weeks (between-treatment difference: -5.0 mm Hg [95% CI: -7.3 to -2.8 mm Hg]; P < 0.001, for superiority). Greater reductions in 24-hour, and daytime and nighttime systolic and diastolic blood pressure were also observed with both doses of sacubitril/allisartan compared with olmesartan (P ≤ 0.001 for 480 mg/d). The blood pressure reductions tended to be dose-dependent for sacubitril/allisartan. Sacubitril/allisartan was well tolerated, and no cases of angioedema or death were reported.

Conclusions

Sacubitril/allisartan is effective for the treatment of hypertension and well tolerated in Chinese patients.

Unique characteristics of Asians with hypertension: what is known and what can be done?

Hypertension remains the leading modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease worldwide. Over the past 30 years, the prevalence of hypertension has been increasing in East and Southeast Asia to a greater extent as compared with other Western countries. Asians with hypertension have unique characteristics. This can be attributed to increased impact of obesity on Asians with hypertension, excessive salt intake and increased salt sensitivity, loss of diurnal rhythm in blood pressure and primary aldosteronism. The impact of hypertension on cardiovascular (particularly strokes) and chronic kidney disease is greater in Asians. These unique characteristics underpinned by the diverse socioeconomic backgrounds pose its own challenges in the diagnosis and management of hypertension in Asia.

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.

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.

Anti-hypertensive effect of a novel angiotensin II receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNi) -S086 in DSS rat model

Introduction

Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNi), comprised of an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) and a neprilysin inhibitor (NEPi), has established itself as a safe and effective intervention for hypertension. S086 is a novel ARNi cocrystal developed by Salubris for the treatment of heart failure and hypertension.

Methods

Dahl Salt Sensitive (DSS) hypertensive rat model and telemetry system were employed in this study to investigate the anti-hypertensive efficacy of S086 and compare it with the first ARNi-LCZ696.

Results and discussion

The study showed that oral administration of S086 dose-dependently lowered blood pressure (P < 0.001). The middle dosage of S086 (23 mg/kg) exhibited efficacy comparable to LCZ696 (68 mg/kg), while also demonstrating superiority at specific time points (P < 0.05). Notably, water consumption slightly decreased post-treatment compared to the vehicle group. Furthermore, there were significant increases in natriuresis and diuresis observed on the first day of treatment with 23 mg/kg and 68 mg/kg S086 (P < 0.001). However, over the course of treatment, the effects in all treatment groups gradually diminished. This study demonstrates the anti-hypertensive efficacy of S086 in DSS hypertensive rat model, offering promising avenues for the clinical development of S086 as a hypertension treatment.

Sacubitril-Valsartan (LCZ696) in the Treatment of Systemic Hypertension: An Updated Review of Neprilysin Inhibition Combined with Angiotensin II Receptor Blockade

Sacubitril-valsartan (LCZ696) has been demonstrated to be a highly effective treatment for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction since its Food and Drug Administration approval in 2015, and a growing body of evidence suggests its emergence as a hypertensive medication. It acts as an inhibitor of both neprilysin and the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, approaching the control of a multi-faceted pathology in multiple unique ways. Because 48% of US adults are affected by hypertension, with less than half of patients achieving controlled blood pressure, and the high correlation between uncontrolled hypertension and cardiovascular mortality, it is crucial to investigate new pharmacotherapies for managing this disease. This review discusses the current evidence of sacubitril-valsartan trials in hypertension management, with a focus on distinct populations and hypertension subsets. Asian populations are predisposed to salt-sensitive hypertension and have been shown to benefit from sacubitril-valsartan more than olmesartan, an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB). Systolic hypertension from stiff, aging arteries commonly affects individuals over the age of 65 years, and responds demonstrably better to sacubitril-valsartan than ARB monotherapy. Patients with treatment-resistant hypertension, especially those with heart failure, also show significantly improved blood pressure when treated with sacubitril-valsartan over ARBs. We conclude with a discussion of sacubitril-valsartan's potential role in managing noncardiac disease.

Network meta-analysis of sacubitril/valsartan for the treatment of essential hypertension

AIM

Sacubitril/valsartan has been demonstrated to reduce blood pressure in hypertensive patients, but the best dose remains unclear. We performed this network meta-analysis to determine the comparative efficacy and safety of three available doses of sacubitril/valsartan (i.e., 100, 200, and 400 mg).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched four databases for relevant studies published before January 2022. Mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures in the sitting position (msSBP and msDBP) and ambulatory condition (24-h maSBP and maDBP) and adverse events (AEs) were assessed. Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 5474 patients were included. Sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg once daily was slightly better than 400 mg once daily in lowering 24-h maDBP (MD, 1.31 mmHg; 95% CI 0.61-2.01 mmHg), slightly better than 100 mg once daily in lowering 24-h maSBP (MD, - 3.70 mmHg; 95% CI  - 6.22 to - 1.18 mmHg) and 24-h maDBP (MD, - 2.98; 95% CI - 5.11 to - 0.85), and slightly better than Valsartan 160 mg once daily in lowering 24-h maSBP (MD, - 3.23 mmHg; 95% CI, - 5.25 to - 1.21). 400 mg once daily of sacubitril/valsartan was better than 200 mg once daily in lowering msDBP (MD, - 9.38 mmHg; 95% CI - 17.79 to - 0.97 mmHg). Interestingly, 400 mg once daily of sacubitril/valsartan had fewer trial-specified AEs than 200 mg once daily (OR, 0.74; 95%CI 0.55-0.99). There was no statistical difference for the remaining comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

In hypertensive patients, 200 mg once daily of sacubitril/valsartan may exert a greater reduction in ambulatory blood pressure than 100 mg once daily and 200 mg once daily may not be inferior to 400 mg once daily. Moreover, it is not clear that sacubitril/valsartan lowers blood pressure more than an angiotensin receptor blocker. Further trials are required to determine the incremental value of sacubitril/valsartan as an anti-hypertensive agent.

Signaling pathways in vascular function and hypertension: molecular mechanisms and therapeutic interventions

Hypertension is a global public health issue and the leading cause of premature death in humans. Despite more than a century of research, hypertension remains difficult to cure due to its complex mechanisms involving multiple interactive factors and our limited understanding of it. Hypertension is a condition that is named after its clinical features. Vascular function is a factor that affects blood pressure directly, and it is a main strategy for clinically controlling BP to regulate constriction/relaxation function of blood vessels. Vascular elasticity, caliber, and reactivity are all characteristic indicators reflecting vascular function. Blood vessels are composed of three distinct layers, out of which the endothelial cells in intima and the smooth muscle cells in media are the main performers of vascular function. The alterations in signaling pathways in these cells are the key molecular mechanisms underlying vascular dysfunction and hypertension development. In this manuscript, we will comprehensively review the signaling pathways involved in vascular function regulation and hypertension progression, including calcium pathway, NO-NOsGC-cGMP pathway, various vascular remodeling pathways and some important upstream pathways such as renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, oxidative stress-related signaling pathway, immunity/inflammation pathway, etc. Meanwhile, we will also summarize the treatment methods of hypertension that targets vascular function regulation and discuss the possibility of these signaling pathways being applied to clinical work.

Different Doses of Scubitril/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.

Effect of sacubitril-valsartan on the incidence of atrial fibrillation: A meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Sacubitril/valsartan reduces all-cause mortality in heart failure (HF) patients compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). ACEIs/ARBs have been shown to decrease the incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF). We hypothesized sacubitril-valsartan decreases the incidence of AF compared to ACEis/ARBs.

METHODS

Clinicaltrials.gov was searched for trials by terms sacubitril/valsartan, entresto, sacubitril, valsartan. Randomized controlled human trials of sacubitril/valsartan reporting AF were included. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Data was pooled using a random effect model. Publication bias was evaluated by funnel plots.

RESULTS

A total of 11 trials including 11,458 patients on sacubitril/valsartan and 10,128 patients on ACEI/ARBs were identified. A total of 284 AF events were reported in the sacubitril/valsartan group compared to 256 AF events in ACEIs/ARBs. Patients on sacubitril/valsartan were as likely as patients on ACEIs/ARBs to develop AF (pooled odds ratio [OR] = 1.091, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.917-1.298, p = .324). Six atrial flutter (AFl) events were reported in six trials; 48 out of 9165 patients in the sacubitril/valsartan group developed AFl compared to 46 out of 8759 in ACEi/ARBs group. There was no difference in AFl risk between the two groups (pooled OR = 1.028, 95% CI = 0.681-1.553, p = .894). Finally, sacubitril/valsartan did not reduce the risk of atrial arrhythmias (AF + AFl) compared to ACEi/ARBs (pooled OR = 1.081, 95% CI = 0.922-1.269, p = .337).

CONCLUSION

Although sacubitril/valsartan reduces mortality compared to ACEIs/ARBs in HF patients, they do not reduce AF risk compared to these drugs.

Effectiveness and safety evaluation of sacubitril/valsartan in blood pressure control and clinical outcomes for elderly patients with heart failure and hypertension: A prospective cohort study

AIM

This study was conducted to investigate the safety and effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) for elderly patients with hypertension and heart failure in the real-world setting.

METHODS

Patients with established hypertension complicated with structural or functional impairment of ventricular fillings [New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II-IV)] were enrolled. The effectiveness of sac/val in terms of BP reduction and improvement in frailty and echocardiographic evaluation of cardiac function were examined from baseline to 6-month administration.

RESULTS

Overall, 241 patients were treated with sac/val and 227 with renin angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitor (RAASi) for hypertension control. There were significant difference in the degree of systolic blood pressure reduction between two groups. Echocardiography showed that sac/val significantly improved left ventricular ejection fraction [4.0% (95% CI: 2.0-7.5) vs -1.0 (95% CI: -4.0-2.0), P = 0.001] during the follow-up visits. Significant improvements in NYHA function class and FRAIL scores post sac/val were observed after 3 and 6 month treatment. The rate of primary cardiovascular composite outcome was higher in patients in the RAASi group (26.9%; 95% CI: 19.6-34.0) than in the sac/val group (22.0%; 95% CI: 16.7-27.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Sac/val may be useful not only for reducing BP, but also for improving the structural and functional parameters of echocardiography, eventually resulting in a significant improvement of the overall symptomatic status, a significant reduction in NYHA class, and functional improvement.

Sacubitril-valsartan for the treatment of hypertension in China: A cost-utility analysis based on meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Sacubitril-valsartan was recommended for heart failure (HF) and proven cost-effective in HF. Recently, sacubitril-valsartan has been recommended to treat hypertension by the Chinese expert consensus. The cost utility of sacubitril-valsartan for hypertension remains uninvestigated.

Methods

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed to investigate the real efficacy of sacubitril-valsartan on blood pressure, compared with angiotensin receptor blockers or placebo. A lifetime Markov model was developed to compare the cost utility of sacubitril-valsartan vs. valsartan. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR), representing the ratio of incremental costs to the incremental utility. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was three times of per capita gross domestic product (GDP) in China in 2021. Sacubitril-valsartan was considered cost-effective if the ICUR obtained was lower than the WTP threshold, otherwise, sacubitril-valsartanis was not cost-effective.

Results

A total of 10 RCTs of 5,781 patients were included in the meta-analysis. For comparison of sacubitril-valsartan 400 mg/day vs. valsartan 320 mg/day, a reduction in blood pressure (BP) of -5.97 (-6.38, -5.56) (p < 0.01) was observed. Cost-utility analysis showed that for a 60-year-old patient with hypertension, if sacubitril-valsartan was prescribed as the antihypertensive agent, he had a life expectancy of 11.91 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with costs of 65,066 CNY, and if valsartan was prescribed as the antihypertensive agent, the life expectancy would be 11.82 QALY with costs of 54,769 CNY; thus, an ICUR of 108,622 CNY/QALY was obtained, lower than the WTP threshold.

Conclusion

Compared with valsartan, sacubitril-valsartan is more effective in reducing blood pressure and may result in more quality-adjusted life-year, although with higher costs. Sacubitril-valsartan is cost-effective for hypertension in the current China setting under the willingness-to-pay threshold of 3 times of per capita GDP.

New and developing pharmacotherapies for hypertension

INTRODUCTION

Despite the significant contribution of hypertension to the global burden of disease, disease control remains poor worldwide. Considering this unmet clinical need, several new antihypertensive drugs with novel mechanisms of action are under development.

AREAS COVERED

The present review summarizes the recent advances in the development of emerging pharmacological agents for the management of hypertension. The latest technological innovations in the design of optimized formulations of available antihypertensive drugs and the potential role of the modification of intestinal microbiota to improve blood pressure (BP) control are also covered.

EXPERT OPINION

Significant efforts have been made to develop new antihypertensive agents with novel actions that target the main mechanisms involved in resistant hypertension. Sacubitril/valsartan may emerge as a potential first-line drug due to its superiority over renin angiotensin system inhibitors, and SGLT2 inhibitors can reduce BP in difficult-to-control hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes. In addition, firibastat and aprocitentan may expand the therapeutic options for resistant hypertension by novel mechanism of actions. Since gut dysbiosis not only leads to hypertension but also causes direct target organ damage, prebiotics and probiotics could represent a potential strategy to prevent or reduce the development of hypertension and to contribute to BP control.

Application of Angiotensin Receptor–Neprilysin Inhibitor in Chronic Kidney Disease Patients: Chinese Expert Consensus

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a global public health problem, and cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death in patients with CKD. The incidence and prevalence of cardiovascular events during the early stages of CKD increases significantly with a decline in renal function. More than 50% of dialysis patients die from cardiovascular disease, including coronary heart disease, heart failure, arrhythmia, and sudden cardiac death. Therefore, developing effective methods to control risk factors and improve prognosis is the primary focus during the diagnosis and treatment of CKD. For example, the SPRINT study demonstrated that CKD drugs are effective in reducing cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events by controlling blood pressure. Uncontrolled blood pressure not only increases the risk of these events but also accelerates the progression of CKD. A co-crystal complex of sacubitril, which is a neprilysin inhibitor, and valsartan, which is an angiotensin receptor blockade, has the potential to be widely used against CKD. Sacubitril inhibits neprilysin, which further reduces the degradation of natriuretic peptides and enhances the beneficial effects of the natriuretic peptide system. In contrast, valsartan alone can block the angiotensin II-1 (AT1) receptor and therefore inhibit the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system. These two components can act synergistically to relax blood vessels, prevent and reverse cardiovascular remodeling, and promote natriuresis. Recent studies have repeatedly confirmed that the first and so far the only angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan can reduce blood pressure more effectively than renin–angiotensin system inhibitors and improve the prognosis of heart failure in patients with CKD. Here, we propose clinical recommendations based on an expert consensus to guide ARNI-based therapeutics and reduce the occurrence of cardiovascular events in patients with CKD.

Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan on Reducing the Risk of Arrhythmia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background and Objective

Relevant data of PARADIGM-HF reveals sacubitril/valsartan (SV) therapy led to a greater reduction in the risks of arrhythmia, and sudden cardiac death than angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI)/angiotensin receptor inhibitor (ARB) therapy in HFrEF, however, inconsistent results were reported in subsequent studies. Here, we conduct a meta-analysis of related randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the protective effect of SV on reducing the risk of arrhythmias.

Methods and Results

RCTs focused on the difference in therapeutic outcomes between SV and ACEI/ARB were searched from PUBMED, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Library. The results were extracted from each individual study, expressed as binary risk, 95% confidence interval (CI) and relative risk (RR). Sixteen RCTs including 22, 563 patients met the study criteria. Compared with ACEI/ARB therapy, SV therapy did significantly reduce in the risks of severe arrhythmias among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73–0.95, p = 0.006), ventricular tachycardia (VT) among patients with HFrEF (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51–0.92, p = 0.01), cardiac arrest among patients with heart failure (HF) (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.37–0.73, p = 0.0002), cardiac arrest among patients with HFrEF (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.32–0.76, p = 0.001), cardiac arrest or ventricular fibrillation (VF) among patients with HF (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.48–0.83, p = 0.001), and cardiac arrest or VF among patients with HFrEF (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.47–0.89, p = 0.008), but reduced the risks of arrhythmias (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.74–1.01, p = 0.07), atrial arrhythmias (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.83–1.16, p = 0.85), and atrial fibrillation (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82–1.17, p = 0.82) among all patients with no significant between-group difference. The merged result was robust after sensitivity analysis, and there was no publication bias.

Conclusion

Our meta-analysis provides evidence that, compared with ACEI/ARB, SV can additionally reduce the risks of most arrhythmias, just the significant differences are revealed in reducing the risks of VT, severe arrhythmias, and cardiac arrest in patients with HFrEF. Besides, the positive effect of SV on VF according to statistical result of combining VF with cardiac arrest in patients with HFrEF is credibility.

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

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Hypertension (HP) is associated with heart failure (HF). Sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) has been approved for primary HP by China Food and Drug Administration (CFDA) in June 2021. The present study aimed to provide evidence on the effectiveness and safety of sac/val in Chinese patients complicated with HP and HF.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted on adult patients diagnosed with HP and HF and treated with sac/val between July 2020 and December 2020. The potential risk factors for the discontinuation events caused by sac/val-related adverse events (AEs) were explored. The data, including blood pressure (BP), cardiac indicators, corresponding values on echocardiographic parameters, unplanned visits, and AEs throughout 3-12 months, were collected.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of 446 eligible patients were included in this study. The discontinuation events of sac/val were mainly attributed to its AEs (hypotension, hyperkalemia, and deterioration in kidney function). Univariate analysis revealed that history of chronic kidney disease, atrial fibrillation, higher values of serum creatinine, serum uric acid, serum N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide, and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate were potential risk factors for discontinuation. Patients who maintained sac/val therapy throughout 3-12 months showed significantly improved values of clinical BP, cardiac indicators, and echocardiographic parameters compared to those at baseline (p < 0.0001).

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Sac/val was effective on BP and improved cardiac function in patients complicated with HP and HF. The physicians should focus on patients with renal dysfunction to take timely precautions to improve tolerability for sac/val.

Efficacy of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Hypertension

BACKGROUND

Sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) has progressed to be one of the most promising medication since its approval for chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Recent data have suggested a superior blood pressure control with LCZ696.

STUDY QUESTION

What is the antihypertensive efficacy and safety profile of sacubitril/valsartan?

DATA SOURCES

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of LCZ696 against a placebo or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB). RCTs were identified from a comprehensive search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and clinicaltrials.gov.

STUDY DESIGN

We used a change in systolic and diastolic blood pressures, both sitting as well as ambulatory, to calculate relevant effect sizes with their standard errors from the available change in mean and SD data. In addition, we also collected categorical data for the reported adverse effects from these trials. We performed a series of pairwise meta-analyses between LCZ696 versus an active comparator or a placebo.

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs with a total of 6028 participants had the relevant data available. Our meta-analysis showed that LCZ696 is an effective and a safe treatment for hypertension. It outperformed ARBs in every category, and the results are consistent across the different dosages of LCZ696. Compared with ARBs, 200 mg of LCZ696 reduced systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) by 4.62 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, 3.33-5.90, P < 0.001) and 2.13 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, 1.69-2.57, P < 0.001), respectively. Similarly, 400 mg of LCZ696 reduced systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure by 5.50 mm Hg (2.94-8.07, P < 0.001) and 2.51 mm Hg (1.80-3.21, P < 0.001), respectively, in comparison with ARBs. The adverse effects with LCZ696 were not significantly higher compared with ARBs or placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril/valsartan is more effective for the management of hypertensive patients, compared with an ARB. Long-term prospective studies are required to identify whether this result translates into morbidity and mortality benefits.

Efficacy of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor in Asian patients with refractory hypertension

Sacubitril/valsartan, simultaneously inhibits neprilysin and angiotensin II receptor, showed an effect in reducing blood pressure (BP). The authors aimed to study whether it can be used as an antihypertensive agent in patients with refractory hypertension who have already been treated. A total of 66 Chinese patients with refractory hypertension were enrolled. Patients received sacubitril/valsartan  200 instead of angiotensin II receptor blocker or angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor while other agents continued. If BP was uncontrolled after 4 weeks, sacubitril/valsartan was increased to 400 mg. The BP reduction was evaluated by office BP and ambulatory BP monitoring after 8‐week treatment. The baseline office BP and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were 150.0/95.0 mmHg and 113.3 mmHg. BP and MAP reduced to 130.6/83.2 mmHg and 99.0 mmHg at week 8. Office BP and MAP reductions were 19.4/11.8 mmHg and 14.3 mmHg at endpoint (all p < .001). The 24‐h, daytime and nighttime ambulatory BP were 146.2/89.1, 148.1/90.3, and 137.5/83.7 mmHg, respectively at baseline, and BP reduced to 129.6/79.8, 130.6/81.1, and 121.7/75.8 mmHg, respectively at week 8. The 24‐h, daytime and nighttime ambulatory BP reductions were 16.6/9.3, 17.5/9.2, and 15.8/7.9 mmHg, respectively at endpoint (all p < .001). Sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced office and ambulatory BP in refractory hypertension patients. Our study provided new evidence for sacubitril/valsartan in refractory hypertension.

Efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan versus olmesartan in Japanese patients with essential hypertension: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter study

This phase III study assessed the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared with those of olmesartan in Japanese patients with essential hypertension. Patients (n = 1161, aged ≥20 years) with mild to moderate hypertension (mean sitting systolic blood pressure [msSBP] ≥150 to <180 mmHg) were randomized to receive sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg (n = 387), sacubitril/valsartan 400 mg (n = 385), or olmesartan 20 mg (n = 389) once daily for 8 weeks. The primary assessment was a reduction in msSBP from baseline with sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg vs. olmesartan 20 mg at Week 8. Secondary assessments included msSBP reduction with sacubitril/valsartan 400 mg vs. olmesartan at Week 8 and reductions in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (msDBP), mean sitting pulse pressure (msPP), and overall blood pressure (BP) control rate for all treatment groups at Week 8. Sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg provided a significantly greater reduction in msSBP from baseline than olmesartan at Week 8 (between-treatment difference: −5.01 mmHg [95% confidence interval: −6.95 to −3.06 mmHg, P < 0.001 for noninferiority and superiority]). Greater reductions in msSBP with sacubitril/valsartan 400 mg vs. olmesartan, as well as in msDBP and msPP with both doses of sacubitril/valsartan vs. olmesartan (P < 0.05 for all), were also observed. Patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan achieved an overall higher BP control rate. The safety and tolerability profiles of sacubitril/valsartan were generally comparable to those of olmesartan. The adverse event rate with sacubitril/valsartan was not dose-dependent. Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan was effective and provided superior BP reduction, with a higher proportion of patients achieving target BP goals than treatment with olmesartan in Japanese patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension.

Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan is effective and provided superior blood pressure (BP) reductions with a higher proportion of patients achieving target BP goals versus olmesartan in Japanese patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension.

Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor in patients with heart failure and chronic kidney disease

Despite significant advances in the management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), there remains an enormous health problem with high morbidity and mortality over the last few decades. The neprilysin inhibitor enhances the activity of natriuretic peptides, producing vasodilation, natriuresis, and diuresis. Angiotensin receptor blockers inhibit the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. Sacubitril/valsartan, a first-in-class angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), has been shown to improve cardiovascular outcomes in HFrEF and delay the progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in patients with HFrEF. The PARADIGM-HF study showed a reduction in diuretic need in the ARNI group. While the use of diuretics is effective in volume control in patients with HFrEF, their use has the potential to adversely affect renal function. Therefore, ARNI therapy could benefit patients with heart failure and CKD by reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality and possibly retarding the progression of CKD, although more clinical evidence is required in patients with severe CKD and end-stage renal disease.

Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors: Comprehensive review and implications in hypertension treatment

Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) are a new class of cardiovascular agents characterized by their dual action on the major regulators of the cardiovascular system, including the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) and the natriuretic peptide (NP) system. The apparent clinical benefit of one ARNI, sacubitril/valsartan, as shown in clinical trials, has positioned the drug class as a first-line therapy in patients with heart failure, particularly with reduced ejection fraction. Accumulating evidence also suggests that sacubitril/valsartan is superior to conventional RAS blockers in lowering blood pressure in patients with hypertension. To decide whether to apply an ARNI to treat hypertension clinically, it is important to understand the potential properties of the drug in modulating multiple factors inside and outside the cardiovascular system beyond its effect on reducing peripheral blood pressure. In this context, ARNIs are distinct from preexisting antihypertensive medications in terms of the multiple actions of NPs in various organs and the pharmacological potential of neprilysin inhibitors to modulate multiple cardiac and noncardiac peptides. In particular, analysis of the clinical trials of sacubitril/valsartan implies that ARNIs can provide additional clinical benefits independent of their original purpose, including alleviation of glycemic control and renal impairment in patients with heart failure. Understanding the potential mechanisms of action of ARNIs will help interpret the relevance of their additional benefits beyond lowering blood pressure in hypertension. This review summarizes the comprehensive clinical evidence and relevance of ARNIs by specifically focusing on the potential properties of this new drug class in treating patients with hypertension.

The Antihypertensive Effects and Safety of LCZ696 in Patients with Hypertension: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: The management of hypertension remains suboptimal throughout the world. Methods: We performed a random-effects model meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to determine the effectiveness and safety of sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) for the treatment of high arterial pressure. Relevant published articles from PubMed, Cochrane base, and Medline were examined, and the last search date was December 2020. Only published randomized controlled trials and double-blind studies were selected for further analysis. The mean reductions in systolic blood pressure (msSBP) and diastolic blood pressure (msDBP) in the sitting position, as well as the mean reductions in ambulatory systolic blood pressure (maSBP) and ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (maDBP), were assumed as efficacy endpoints. Adverse events (AEs) were considered as safety outcomes. Results: Ten studies with a total of 5931patients were included for analysis. Compared with placebo, LCZ696 had a significant reduction in msSBP (weight mean difference (WMD) = −6.52 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI): −8.57 to −4.47; p < 0.001), msDBP (WMD = −3.32 mmHg, 95% CI: −4.57 to −2.07; p < 0.001), maSBP (WMD = −7.08 mmHg, 95% CI: −10.48 to −3.68; p < 0.001), maDBP (WMD = −3.57 mmHg, 95% CI: −5.71 to −1.44, p < 0.001). In subgroup analysis, only 200 mg and 400 mg LCZ696 showed a significant BP reduction. There was no difference in the AE rate between the LCZ696 and placebo groups (WMD = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.83 to 1.27, p = 0.54). Egger’s test revealed a potential publication bias for msSBP (p = 0.025), but no publication bias for other outcomes. Conclusion: LCZ696 may reduce blood pressure more efficaciously than traditional therapy in hypertensive patients without increasing adverse effects.

Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 for Short-term Management of Essential Hypertension Compared With ARBs: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

ABSTRACT

Whether LCZ696 (neprilysin inhibitor + valsartan) has greater advantages of blood pressure (BP) lowering than angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers (ARBs) is unclear. To provide more detailed information about the benefits of LCZ696, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LCZ696 for short-term management of hypertension compared with ARBs. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov, using relevant keywords. We used a random or fixed effects model to calculate the weighted mean difference (WMD) of changes in BP and the risk ratio (RR) for BP control rates and adverse events (AEs). In this meta-analysis, 9 studies were incorporated. Compared with ARBs, LCZ696 revealed a significant reduction in mean sitting systolic BP [msSBP; WMD -4.79 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval (CI): -5.46 to -4.11 mm Hg], mean sitting diastolic BP (msDBP; WMD -2.12 mm Hg; 95% CI: -2.53 to -1.71 mm Hg), mean sitting pulse pressure (msPP; WMD -2.79 mm Hg; 95% CI: -3.52 to -2.07 mm Hg), and mean ambulatory pulse pressure (maPP; WMD -2.96 mm Hg; 95% CI: -3.35 to -2.57 mm Hg). LCZ696 had a higher BP control rate than ARBs (OR = 1.55; 95% CI: 1.39 to 1.73). There was no significant difference between LCZ696 and ARBs in the incidence of AEs (RR = 1.10; 95% CI: 0.96 to 1.25) and discontinuations because of AEs (RR = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.54 to 1.32). Overall, in short-term treatment, LCZ696 has greater advantages of antihypertensive efficacy and the safety is not inferior to ARBs. Further long-term studies are required to rule out the potential risks of beta amyloid accumulation and the potential for Alzheimer's disease.

Adverse events of sacubitril/valsartan: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

ABSTRACT

This review aimed to summarize the adverse events (AEs) reported during the use of sacubitril/valsartan versus ACEI/ARB. Studies containing safety outcomes or AEs during the use of sacubitril/valsartan versus ACEI/ARB were retrieved from the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane library databases and clinical trials. From the selected studies, the pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) of dichotomous outcomes were assessed by a random or fixed effects model in our meta-analysis. Fourteen studies involving 20261 patients were included in this review. No significant differences were found in total AEs between the sacubitril/valsartan and ACEI/ARB groups. Compared with ACEI/ARB, sacubitril/valsartan decreased the risk of death, discontinuation due to AEs and renal dysfunction, while it increased the risk of hypotension. Specifically, sacubitril/valsartan decreased the risk of death compared with ACEI/ARB, while it increased the risk of hypotension for patients with heart failure (HF) and decreased the risk of discontinuation due to AEs in Caucasians. It also increased the risk of dizziness in Asians and decreased the risk of hyperkalemia and renal dysfunction, while it increased the risk of hypotension when the study duration ≥48 weeks. The available evidence showed that sacubitril/valsartan was associated with fewer side effects than ACEI/ARB, except for hypotension. Study duration, race, and patients with primary diseases affected the AEs of sacubitril/valsartan.

A Meta-Analysis on the Effect and Safety of LCZ696 in the Treatment of Hypertension

OBJECTIVES

To systematically evaluate the differences in effect and safety of LCZ696 and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in the treatment of hypertension.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Ovid, collected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about the effect and safety of LCZ696 and ARBs in hypertensive patients, extracted relevant data and evaluated the quality of the included literature according to the RCT quality evaluation standard recommended by Cochrane Reviewer's Handbook, using RevMan 5.3, and performed meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs studies were included, with a total of 4313 patients. Compared with ARBs, LCZ696 can better reduce systolic blood pressure (msSBP) (WMD -4.29 mmHg; 95% CI: -5.37 to -3.21; P < 0.001), diastolic blood pressure (msDBP) (WMD -1.87 mmHg; 95% CI:-2.38 to -1.36; P < 0.01), ambulatory systolic blood pressure (maSBP) (WMD -3.37 mmHg; 95% CI:-4.26 to -2.47; P < 0.01), and ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (maDBP) (WMD -1.47 mmHg; 95% CI: -1.97 to -0.97; P < 0.01). In terms of safety, LCZ696 is basically the same as ARBs, but LCZ696 is more likely to cause cough than ARBs (OR = 2.38; 95% CI: 1.27 to 4.47; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

LCZ696 can significantly reduce the blood pressure level of patients with hypertension, but it is necessary to pay attention to whether the patient will experience coughing after taking the drug.

Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor as a novel antihypertensive drug: Evidence from Asia and around the globe

Hypertension is a worldwide epidemic that continues to grow, with a subset of patients responding poorly to current treatment available. This is especially relevant in Asia, which constitutes 61% of the global population. Hypertension in Asia is a unique entity that is often salt-sensitive, nocturnal, and systolic predominant. Sacubitril/valsartan is a first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor that was first used in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Sacubitril inhibits neprilysin, a metallopeptidase that degrades natriuretic peptides (NPs). NPs exert sympatholytic, diuretic, natriuretic, vasodilatory, and insulin-sensitizing effects mostly via cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP)-mediated pathways. As an antihypertensive agent, sacubitril/valsartan has outperformed angiotensin II receptor type 1 blockers (ARBs), with additional reductions of office systolic blood pressures ranging between 5 and 7 mmHg, in multiple studies in Asia and around the globe. The drug was well tolerated even in the elderly or those with chronic kidney disease. Its mechanisms of actions are particularly attractive for treatment of hypertension in Asia. Sacubitril/valsartan offers a novel, dual class, single-molecule property that may be considered as first-line antihypertensive therapy. Further investigations are needed to validate its safety for long-term use and to explore other potentials such as in the management of insulin resistance and obesity, which often coexist with hypertension in Asia.

Safety and tolerability of sacubitril-valsartan: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction: Sacubitril-valsartan is a recently approved drug. However, there are few data regarding safety issues. We aimed to summarize the available evidence regarding sacubitril-valsartan's safety and tolerability.Methods: We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling patients receiving sacubitril-valsartan for any condition, compared with standard therapy or placebo. Database search was performed in October 2019. Outcomes were adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), discontinuation due to AEs, and five AEs of special interest. Data were reported using risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI).Results: We included 20 RCTs (22510 participants). When compared with active controls, there were no differences in SAEs (RR=0.93, 95%CI 0.86-1.01) and AEs (RR=1.00, 95%CI 0.97-1.03). However, sacubitril-valsartan resulted in an 8% risk reduction in discontinuation due to AEs (95%CI 0.85-0.99) and an increased risk of hypotension (RR=1.45, 95%CI 1.27-1.67). The risk of angioedema was higher with follow-ups greater than 12 months (RR=2.36, 95%CI 1.29-4.33). There were no further significant differences in the remaining AEs' risk.Conclusions: Sacubitril-valsartan was at least as safe and tolerable as active control, with a similar need of administration cautiousness, except for a higher risk of hypotension. However, one should consider the study's limitations.

Effect of sacubitril/valsartan on renal function: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

A worsening renal function is prevalent among patients with cardiovascular disease, especially heart failure (HF). Sacubitril/valsartan appears to prevent worsening of renal function and progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) as compared with renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors alone in HF patients. It is unclear whether these advantages are present in HF patients only, or can be extended to other categories of patients, in which this drug was studied. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the consistency of effect size regarding renal outcome across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared sacubitril/valsartan with RAS inhibitors in patients with or without HF. We searched Medline (PubMed), Scopus, and Thomson Reuters Web of Science databases until June 2020. We took into account RCTs that compared sacubitril/valsartan with a RAS inhibitor and reported data regarding renal function. We used random-effects models to obtain summary odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We extracted hazard ratios for renal outcomes, glomerular filtration rate slopes or rates of renal adverse events. Sensitivity analyses were performed by moderator analysis and random-effects meta-regression. The search revealed 10 RCTs (published between 2012 and 2019) on 16 456 subjects. Sacubitril/valsartan resulted in a lower risk of renal dysfunction as compared with RAS inhibitors alone [k = 10; pooled OR = 0.70 (95% CI 0.57-0.85); P < 0.001], with a moderate inconsistency between studies [Q(9) = 15.18; P = 0.086; I2  = 40.73%]. A stronger association was found in studies including older patients (k = 10; β = -0.047730; P = 0.020) or HF patients with preserved ejection fraction [pooled OR = 0.53 (0.41-0.68) vs. 0.76 (0.57-1.01) for studies on HF patients with reduced ejection fraction; P for comparison = 0.065]. The effect size did not change with different comparators (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors vs. angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers, P = 0.279). No significant association was found when the analysis was restricted to studies on non-HF patients [k = 3; pooled OR = 0.86 (0.61-1.22); P = 0.403] and studies with high risk of bias [k = 3; pooled OR = 0.34 (0.08-1.44); P = 0.143]. Our findings support the role of sacubitril/valsartan on preservation of renal function, especially in older patients and HF patients with preserved ejection fraction. However, evidence is currently limited to HF patients, while the renal outcome of sacubitril/valsartan therapy outside the HF setting needs to be further investigated.

Effects of LCZ696 (Sacubitril/Valsartan) on Blood Pressure in Patients with Hypertension: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

LCZ696 (sacubitril/valsartan), a first-in-class angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, can significantly reduce blood pressure in patients with heart failure. We performed this meta-analysis to determine the antihypertensive effect of LCZ696 in patients with hypertension.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials were searched in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov. Twelve studies with a total of 6,064 participants were included.

RESULTS

Compared with angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), LCZ696 100 mg caused a significant reduction in systolic blood pressure (SBP) (mean difference [MD] -1.58 mm Hg, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.09 to -1.07, p < 0.05) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (MD -0.66 mm Hg, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.33, p < 0.05). LCZ696 200 mg caused a significant reduction in SBP (MD -4.94 mm Hg, 95% CI -6.54 to -3.35, p < 0.05), DBP (MD -2.24 mm Hg, 95% CI -2.74 to -1.75, p < 0.05), 24-h ambulatory SBP (24 h ASBP; MD -3.69 mm Hg, 95% CI -4.80 to -2.58, p < 0.05), and 24-h ADBP (MD -1.71 mm Hg, 95% CI -2.13 to -1.28, p < 0.05). LCZ696 400 mg caused a significant reduction in SBP (MD -6.25 mm Hg, 95% CI -7.90 to -4.61, p < 0.05), DBP (MD -2.30 mm Hg, 95% CI -2.80 to -1.80, p < 0.05), 24-h ASBP (MD -4.31 mm Hg, 95% CI -6.56 to -2.07, p < 0.05), and 24 h ADBP (MD -1.69 mm Hg, 95% CI -2.59 to -0.79, p < 0.05). Compared with LCZ696 200 mg, LCZ696 400 mg caused a significant reduction in SBP (MD 1.71 mm Hg, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.27, p < 0.05), DBP (MD 0.90 mm Hg, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.16, p < 0.05), 24-h ASBP (MD 1.50 mm Hg, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.17, p < 0.05), and 24-h ADBP (MD 0.76 mm Hg, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.06, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The blood pressure-lowering effect of LCZ696 is dose-related. This meta-analysis confirms the antihypertensive effects of LCZ696.

Effects of Low-Dose Sacubitril/Valsartan on Different Stages of Cardiac Hypertrophy in Salt-Loaded Hypertensive Rats

BACKGROUND

Sacubitril/valsartan was shown to attenuate the development of cardiac hypertrophy with enhanced blood pressure reduction compared with valsartan alone in animal models. We investigated whether a low-dose sacubitril/valsartan has blood pressure-independent effects on cardiac hypertrophy and pulmonary edema using a rat model of hypertension and obesity.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In plan 1, male SHR/NDmcr-cp rats fed normal or phase-increased high salt were treated with vehicle, 6-mg/kg sacubitril/valsartan or 3-mg/kg valsartan, for 6 months. In plan 2, after high-salt loading for 6 months, drugs were administered for 4 months. Antihypertensive effects of the 2 drugs were similar during all study periods. In plan 1 with normal salt, there were no differences between treatments in the left ventricle weight/body weight (BW), or lung weight/BW as an index of cardiac hypertrophy or pulmonary edema, respectively. These indexes were smaller in high-salt-fed rats with sacubitril/valsartan than vehicle. In plan 2, both indexes did not differ between vehicle and sacubitril/valsartan. Ventricle weight/BW was lower in valsartan than sacubitril/valsartan. In plan 2, gene markers of cardiac dysfunction were upregulated by sacubitril/valsartan compared with the other groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose sacubitril/valsartan may have different effects depending on the stage of cardiac hypertrophy in rats.

An evaluation of the fixed-dose combination sacubitril/valsartan for the treatment of arterial hypertension

INTRODUCTION

Essential hypertension is a significant risk factor for cardiovascular disease, renal disease, and mortality with increasing prevalence. Despite the availability of various antihypertensive agents, hypertension is still poorly controlled. Therefore, new chemical compounds with antihypertensive efficacy need to be developed. The dual angiotensin II receptor-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 is a single molecule synthesized by co-crystallization of valsartan and the neprilysin inhibitor prodrug sacubitril (1:1 molar ratio).

AREAS COVERED

This review includes an overview of hypertension and the current pharmacotherapy. The authors summarize the LCZ696 drug chemistry, pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, metabolism, randomized control trials (RCTs), and safety concerns. Databases searched included PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

EXPERT OPINION

LCZ696 is effective in hypertension treatment. Short-term RCTs have shown that the highest doses of LCZ696 (200 and 400 mg [q.d.]) were more effective at lowering office and ambulatory blood pressure than angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) alone while having a similar tolerability profile. The effects of LCZ696 on hypertensive organ damage are only sparsely investigated and so far no studies have established the impact of LCZ696 on cardiovascular event rates. Future studies should focus on the comparison of LCZ696 and combination therapies already in use such as ARB and calcium channel blockers.

Expert panel consensus recommendations for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in Asia: The HOPE Asia Network

Hypertension is an important public health issue because of its association with a number of significant diseases and adverse outcomes. However, there are important ethnic differences in the pathogenesis and cardio-/cerebrovascular consequences of hypertension. Given the large populations and rapidly aging demographic in Asian regions, optimal strategies to diagnose and manage hypertension are of high importance. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is an important out-of-office blood pressure (BP) measurement tool that should play a central role in hypertension detection and management. The use of ABPM is particularly important in Asia due to the specific features of hypertension in Asian patients, including a high prevalence of masked hypertension, disrupted BP variability with marked morning BP surge, and nocturnal hypertension. This HOPE Asia Network document summarizes region-specific literature on the relationship between ABPM parameters and cardiovascular risk and target organ damage, providing a rationale for consensus-based recommendations on the use of ABPM in Asia. The aim of these recommendations is to guide and improve clinical practice to facilitate optimal BP monitoring with the goal of optimizing patient management and expediting the efficient allocation of treatment and health care resources. This should contribute to the HOPE Asia Network mission of improving the management of hypertension and organ protection toward achieving "zero" cardiovascular events in Asia.

Effect and safety of LCZ696 in the treatment of hypertension: A meta-analysis of 9 RCT studies

BACKGROUND

LCZ696 has been introduced in patients with hypertension in several trials. Here, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect and safety of LCZ696 in hypertensive patients.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched to identify the available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effect and safety of LCZ696 in hypertension patients. The last search date was October 31, 2018.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs with 6765 subjects were finally included, in which 8 trials compared the effect and safety between LCZ696 and angiotensin receptor antagonists (ARBs). Evidences showed LCZ696, compared with ARBs, achieved a better blood pressure control rate (OR 1.24, 95% CI: 1.14-1.35), specifically, LCZ696 were better at reducing systolic blood pressure [WMD -4.11 mmHg, 95% CI: (-5.13, -3.08) mmHg], diastolic blood pressure [WMD -1.79 mmHg, 95% CI: (-2.22, -1.37) mmHg], mean 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure [WMD -3.24 mmHg, 95% CI: (-4.48, -1.99) mmHg] and mean 24-hour ambulatory diastolic blood pressure [WMD -1.25 mmHg, 95% CI: (-1.81, -0.69) mmHg]. There was no difference in the events of adverse events (risk ratio [RR] 1.01, 95% CI: 0.39-1.09), serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI: 0.52-1.22) and discontinuation of treatment for any adverse events (RR 0.79, 95% CI: 0.56-1.11) between LCZ696 group and ARB/placebo group, except LCZ696 reduced the rate of headaches (RR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.48-0.99) while increased cough (RR 2.12, 95% CI: 1.11-4.04; P = .02; I = 25%).

CONCLUSION

Our finding provides evidence that LCZ 696 was more effective than ARB on blood pressure control and was safe enough in patients with hypertension.

Antihypertensive effect of sacubitril/valsartan: a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan used as an antihypertensive agent has not yet been completely assessed. Thus, to investigate them in elderly hypertensive patients, a meta-analysis has been performed.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The meta-analysis incorporated only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which sacubitril/valsartan was compared with a reference drug. The mean reductions in systolic blood pressure (msSBP) and diastolic blood pressure (msDBP) in the sitting position as well as the mean reductions in ambulatory systolic blood pressure (maSBP) and ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (maDBP), were assumed as efficacy endpoints. Adverse events were taken as safety outcomes.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Five RCTs were included for a total of 1513 patients for analysis. In all studies, the comparator drug was an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) - valsartan in two cases and olmesartan in the remaining three cases. Compared with ARBs, there was a significant reduction in msSBP (weight mean difference [WMD] -5.41 mmHg, 95% CI: -7.0 to -3.8; P<0.01), msDBP (WMD=-1.22 mmHg, 95% CI: -2.15 to -0.3; P<0.01), maSBP (WMD=-4.58 mmHg, 95% CI: -5.62 to -3.54; P<0.01) and maDBP (WMD=-2.17 mmHg, 95% CI: - 2.78 to -1.56; P<0.01) in elderly hypertensive patients at 12 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril/valsartan may reduce arterial pressure more efficaciously than ARBs in elderly hypertensive patients.

ARNi: A Novel Approach to Counteract Cardiovascular Diseases

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) still represent the greatest burden on healthcare systems worldwide. Despite the enormous efforts over the last twenty years to limit the spread of cardiovascular risk factors, their prevalence is growing and control is still suboptimal. Therefore, the availability of new therapeutic tools that may interfere with different pathophysiological pathways to slow the establishment of clinical CVDs is important. Previously, the inhibition of neurohormonal systems, namely the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS) and the sympathetic nervous system, has proven to be useful in the treatment of many CVDs. Attempts have recently been made to target an additional hormonal system, that of the natriuretic peptides (NPs), which, when dysregulated, can also play a role in the development CVDs. Indeed, a new class of drug, the angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors (ARNi), has the ability to counteract the effects of angiotensin II as well as to increase the activity of NPs. ARNi have already been proven to be effective in the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. New evidence has suggested that, in the next years, the field of ARNi application will widen to include other CVDs, such as heart failure, with preserved ejection fraction and hypertension.

Anti-Hypertensive Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

For elderly patients suffering from arterial hypertension, a complete assessment of the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan used as an anti-hypertensive agent is not available yet. Therefore, we decided to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to explore some endpoints concerning anti-hypertensive efficacy as well as safety of sacubitril/valsartan in elderly hypertensive patients.

Methods

PubMed and Scopus have been extensively investigated with the help of some key words until June 15, 2018. The meta-analysis incorporated exclusively RCTs in which the anti-hypertensive efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan were compared with those of a reference drug (comparator) that could be an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi), an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), a calcium channel blocker (CCB) or a beta-blocker. Continuous ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was required as an inclusion criterion in the studies to be included in the meta-analysis. The mean reductions in systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure in the sitting position (msSBP and msDBP, respectively), as well as the mean reductions in ambulatory systolic blood pressure (maSBP) and ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (maDBP), were assumed as efficacy endpoints. Adverse events (AEs) were taken as safety outcomes.

Results

Five RCTs were included with a total of 1,513 patients for analysis. In all studies, the comparator drug was an ARB (valsartan in two cases and olmesartan in the remaining three cases). Compared with ARBs, after 12 weeks there was a significant reduction in msSBP (weight mean difference (WMD) = - 5.41 mm Hg, 95% confidence interval (CI): -7.0 to -3.8; P < 0.01), msDBP (WMD = -1.22 mm Hg, 95% CI : -2.15 to -0.3; P < 0.01), maSBP (WMD = -4.58 mm Hg, 95% CI: -5.62 to -3.54; P < 0.01) and maDBP (WMD = -2.17 mm Hg, 95% CI: - 2.78 to -1.56; P < 0.01) in elderly hypertensive patients at 12 weeks.

Conclusions

Sacubitril/valsartan may reduce arterial pressure more efficaciously than ARBs in elderly hypertensive patients. These results have to be confirmed by further RCTs with a good methodological quality, possibly with a greater sample size.

Neprilysin Inhibitors: Filling a Gap in Heart Failure Management, Albeit Amidst Controversy and at a Significant Cost

Dual angiotensin and neprilysin inhibition using the combination drug sacubitril-valsartan has ushered in a new era in the treatment of heart failure (HF). The randomized controlled PARADIGM-HF trial, which randomized 8399 patients with HF to enalapril or sacubitril-valsartan, showed a 20% reduction in mortality and HF hospitalization with the new drug. This has been heralded as a step toward filling a crucial gap in HF management by providing strong evidence that combined inhibition of the angiotensin receptor and neprilysin is superior to inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system alone in stable patients with chronic HF as it negates the deleterious effects of angiotensin while concomitantly augmenting the beneficial effects of the endogenous natriuretic peptide system. This new therapy is costly, and other confirmatory studies have been lacking for over 2 years since its approval by major regulatory authorities. As such, controversy and heated discussions have amassed, as has detailed information from a plethora of secondary analyses of this pivotal trial about the pros and cons of this promising new therapeutic strategy in HF management. The aim of this review was to provide a critical assessment of all these aspects.

Potential Uses of Sacubitril/Valsartan: Need for Data on Efficacy and Safety

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers have been the cornerstone for the treatment of heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction for decades. According to recent and promising studies, sacubitril/valsartan (SV) might be efficient in alternative indications in the area of HF with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, chronic kidney disease, and so on. This review briefly summarizes these promising therapeutic options regarding SV and the potential limits and pitfalls for its use in routine practice (due to cognitive uncertainties).

Efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared with olmesartan in Asian patients with essential hypertension: A randomized, double-blind, 8-week study

This study assessed the efficacy and safety of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan vs olmesartan in Asian patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Patients (N = 1438; mean age, 57.7 years) with mild-to-moderate hypertension were randomized to receive once daily administration of sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg (n = 479), sacubitril/valsartan 400 mg (n = 473), or olmesartan 20 mg (n = 486) for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was reduction in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP) from baseline with sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg vs olmesartan 20 mg at Week 8. Secondary endpoints included msSBP reduction with sacubitril/valsartan 400 mg, and reductions in clinic and ambulatory BP and pulse pressure (PP) vs olmesartan. In addition, changes in msBP from baseline in the Chinese subpopulation, elderly (≥65 years), and in patients with isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) were assessed. Sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg provided a significantly greater reduction in msSBP than olmesartan 20 mg at Week 8 (between-treatment difference: -2.33 mm Hg [95% confidence interval (CI) -4.00 to -0.66 mm Hg], P < 0.05 for non-inferiority and superiority). Greater reductions in msSBP were also observed with sacubitril/valsartan 400 mg vs olmesartan 20 mg (-3.52 [-5.19 to -1.84 mm Hg], P < 0.001 for superiority). Similarly, greater reductions in msBP were observed in the Chinese subpopulation, in elderly patients, and those with ISH. In addition, both doses of sacubitril/valsartan provided significantly greater reductions from baseline in nighttime mean ambulatory BP vs olmesartan. Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan 200 or 400 mg once daily is effective and provided superior BP reduction than olmesartan 20 mg in Asian patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension and is generally safe and well tolerated.

Sacubitril/valsartan: evaluation of safety and efficacy as an antihypertensive treatment

Hypertension (HTN) is a common disease state associated with extensive morbidity and mortality worldwide. It is often difficult for patients with HTN to achieve and maintain a goal blood pressure (BP), despite there being many effective treatment options available. Sacubitril/valsartan is a first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) that has garnered approval by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency as a first-line treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. During clinical trials for heart failure as well as in independent trials for HTN, sacubitril/valsartan has demonstrated safety and efficacy when it comes to BP lowering, making it a promising antihypertensive agent. Most trials of sacubitril/valsartan were 8 to 12 weeks in length and demonstrated a clinically relevant BP lowering that was frequently more significant than its comparators. While more data are needed to confirm its role as an antihypertensive agent, the data available are promising and it is anticipated that sacubitril/valsartan will gain an indication of HTN.