Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Japanese Patients With Chronic Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction - Results From the PARALLEL-HF Study

Sacubitril/Valsartan vs ACE Inhibitors or ARBs: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

Sacubitril/valsartan (SAV) is crucial for managing heart failure (HF). Randomized clinical trials have shown SAV's superiority over angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in reducing N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels. However, results for cardiovascular (CV) mortality, HF rehospitalization, and all-cause mortality have been mixed.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine hard endpoints among the population with HF treated with SAV vs ACEI/ARBs and conduct a comprehensive risk-benefit analysis of the safety profile for SAV vs ACEI/ARB.

METHODS

We queried PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized clinical trials from inception to November 2023. We included studies that compared SAV to ACEI or ARBs and reported hard endpoints, including all-cause mortality, CV mortality, and HF rehospitalizations. Random effect model was used, and categorical values were analyzed using risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CI. The I2 test was used to assess between-study heterogeneity. Publication bias was assessed via funnel plots and the Egger test. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024497661).

RESULTS

The study included a total of 14 trials (n = 25,167). SAV reduced all-cause mortality in the population with an ejection fraction (EF) ≤40% (RR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.81-0.94; P = 0.0006), but not in those with EF >40% (RR: 0.97; 95% 0.85-1.11; P = 0.67). There was no difference in CV mortality across EF spectrums (RR: 0.9; 95% CI: 0.79-1.03; P = 0.13). HF readmission was lower in the SAV-treated group regardless of EF (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.79-0.91; P = 0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

The SAV-treated group, across all EF spectrum, was less likely to be rehospitalized than the ACEI/ARB-treated group. However, all-cause mortality reduction was only noted in the SAV group with EF <40%. No reduction in CV-related mortality was observed across the EF spectrum.

Incidence and risk factors of hypotension-related adverse events among Japanese patients with heart failure receiving sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril: Results from the PARALLEL-HF study

BACKGROUND

The PARALLEL-HF trial showed that treatment with sacubitril/valsartan resulted in more symptomatic hypotension versus enalapril in Japanese patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction, similar to PARADIGM-HF. Use of sacubitril/valsartan in these patients may be limited by concerns regarding hypotension.

METHODS

This post-hoc analysis characterized hypotension-related adverse events (AEs) and their effects on efficacy using data from PARALLEL-HF, in which patients received sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg twice daily or enalapril 10 mg twice daily.

RESULTS

Of 223 patients, 28.2 % experienced hypotension-related AEs and incidence was higher with sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril (hazard ratio, 2.2; 95 % CI, 1.3-3.8; p = 0.0027). However, reduction in mean systolic blood pressure from baseline to study end did not significantly differ (sacubitril/valsartan: -2.2 mmHg vs enalapril: -1.3 mmHg; p = 0.6895). Patients who experienced hypotension-related AEs had lower mean body mass index, higher median N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide at randomization, and more frequent history of stroke. Hypotension-related AEs leading to treatment discontinuation were not significantly different for sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril (3.4 % vs 6.9 %, p = 0.5957). Reduction in risk of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization was similar with sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril in patients with or without hypotension-related AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Incidence of hypotension-related AEs was higher in the sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril group but did not affect risk of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization, which was similar between treatment groups.

Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Amlodipine in Japanese Patients With Essential Hypertension: A Randomized, Multicenter, Open-Label, Noninferiority Study (PARASOL Study)

Sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, has demonstrated a superior blood pressure-lowering effect compared with renin-angiotensin system inhibitors in several clinical trials. However, there has been no available evidence on the comparison between sacubitril/valsartan and calcium channel blockers (CCBs), a well-established class of antihypertensive drugs. In this open-label, multicenter study, we aimed to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan versus amlodipine, one of the most widely used CCBs, after 8 weeks of treatment. A total of 359 Japanese patients with essential hypertension (office systolic blood pressure [SBP] ≥ 150 to < 180 mmHg), aged 18-79, were randomly assigned to receive either once-daily sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg or once-daily amlodipine 5 mg in a 1:1 allocation ratio. The primary endpoint was the noninferiority of sacubitril/valsartan compared with amlodipine in mean change in 24-h SBP from baseline to Week 8, followed by a significance test as a secondary endpoint analysis. The mean change in 24-h SBP in sacubitril/valsartan was noninferior to that in amlodipine (between-treatment difference -0.62 mmHg [95% confidential interval: -3.23 to 1.98; p = 0.003 for noninferiority; independent t-test with noninferiority margin 3.0 mmHg]), with no significant difference observed (p = 0.637). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events (AEs). These results suggested that the blood pressure-lowering effect of sacubitril/valsartan is comparable to that of amlodipine, with no marked differences in tolerability between the two groups. Sacubitril/valsartan, a potent antihypertensive drug comparable to amlodipine, is expected to improve blood pressure control in clinical practice.

The role of sacubitril/valsartan in abnormal renal function patients combined with heart failure: a meta-analysis and systematic analysis

AIMS

This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in abnormal renal function (eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73m2) patients combined with heart failure based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies.

METHODS

The Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant studies from inception to December 2023. Dichotomous variables were described as event counts with the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) values. Continuous variables were expressed as mean standard deviation (SD) with 95% CIs.

RESULTS

A total of 6 RCTs and 8 observational studies were included, involving 17335 eGFR below 60 ml/min/1.73m2 patients combined with heart failure. In terms of efficacy, we analyzed the incidence of cardiovascular events and found that sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization in chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages 3-5 patients with heart failure (OR: 0.65, 95%CI: 0.54-0.78). Moreover, sacubitril/valsartan prevented the serum creatinine elevation (OR: 0.81, 95%CI: 0.68-0.95), the eGFR decline (OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.73-0.95) and the development of end-stage renal disease in this population (OR:0.73, 95%CI:0.60-0.89). As for safety outcomes, we did not find that the rate of hyperkalemia (OR:1.31, 95%CI:0.79-2.17) and hypotension (OR:1.57, 95%CI:0.94-2.62) were increased in sacubitril/valsartan group among CKD stages 3-5 patients with heart failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis proves that sacubitril/valsartan has a favorable effect on cardiac function without obvious risk of adverse events in abnormal renal function patients combined with heart failure, indicating that sacubitril/valsartan has the potential to become perspective treatment for these patients.

In-hospital initiation of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibition in acute heart failure: the PREMIER trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The efficacy and safety of early sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) initiation after acute heart failure (AHF) has not been demonstrated outside North America. The present study aimed to evaluate the effect of in-hospital Sac/Val therapy initiation after an AHF episode on N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level in Japanese patients.

METHODS

This was an investigator-initiated, multicentre, prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint pragmatic trial. After haemodynamic stabilization within 7 days after hospitalization, eligible inpatients were allocated to switch from angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker to Sac/Val (Sac/Val group) or to continue angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (control group). The primary efficacy endpoint was the 8-week proportional change in geometric means of NT-proBNP levels.

RESULTS

A total of 400 patients were equally randomized, and 376 (median age 75 years, 31.9% women, de novo heart failure rate 55.6%, and median left ventricular ejection fraction 37%) were analysed. The per cent changes in NT-proBNP level geometric means at Weeks 4/8 were -35%/-45% (Sac/Val group) and -18%/-32% (control group), and their group ratio (Sac/Val vs. control) was 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.68-0.94; P = .008) at Week 4 and 0.81 (95% confidence interval 0.68-0.95; P = .012) at Week 8, respectively. In the pre-specified subgroup analyses, the effects of Sac/Val were confined to patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction < 40% and were more evident in those in sinus rhythm and taking mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. No adverse safety signal was evident.

CONCLUSIONS

In-hospital Sac/Val therapy initiation in addition to contemporary recommended therapy triggered a greater NT-proBNP level reduction in Japanese patients hospitalized for AHF. These findings may expand the evidence on Sac/Val therapy in this clinical situation outside North America.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT05164653) and Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCTs021210046).

Influenza Vaccination and Cardiovascular Events in Japanese Patients With Heart Failure - Findings From the PARALLEL-HF Trial

Background

Influenza is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular events in patients with heart failure (HF). This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of influenza vaccination among Japanese patients with HF enrolled in the PARALLEL-HF (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEi to determine the noveL beneficiaL trEatment vaLue in Japanese Heart Failure patients) trial and the association between receiving influenza vaccination and cardiovascular events including death or HF hospitalization.

Methods and Results

In PARALLEL-HF, in which 223 patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) were randomized to the angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor (sacubitril/valsartan) or enalapril, 97 (43%) received influenza vaccination. Influenza vaccination tended to be associated, though statistically not significant, with a lower risk for all-cause death (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.32-1.39) and cardiopulmonary or influenza-related hospitalization or death (adjusted HR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.46-1.11) in propensity score-adjusted models.

Conclusions

The influenza vaccination rate in Japanese patients with HFrEF who were well managed on guideline-directed medical therapy was suboptimal despite recommendations from clinical practice guidelines. However, importantly, it could be associated with better clinical benefits.

Sacubitril/valsartan compared to equivalent/sub-equivalent dose angiotensin receptor blocker or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

PURPOSE

The objective of this meta-analysis is to determine how sacubitril/valsartan (SV) compares to equivalent and sub-equivalent angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

METHODS

The databases of PubMed and EMBASE were used to identify those randomized controlled trials which compared SV to ARB/ACEI in patients with HFrEF. Only those trials that reported outcomes regarding total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and worsening heart failure were considered. Meta-analysis was performed separately in those patients receiving equivalent doses of ARB/ACEI and those receiving sub-equivalent doses. Equivalent doses were SV 97/103 = valsartan 160 mg twice daily = enalapril 20 mg twice daily = ramipril 5 mg twice daily. Meta-analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.4.

RESULTS

Twelve randomized trials were identified involving 17,484 patients: 11,291 in the sub-equivalent group (8 trials) and 6193 in the equivalent group (4 trials). Meta-analyses showed there were no statistical differences regarding the outcomes of total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and worsening heart failure in the equivalent dosing group. However, SV reduced total mortality (risk ratio (RR) = 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.78-0.93, p < 0.001), cardiovascular mortality (RR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.73-0.90, p ≤ 0.001) and worsening heart failure (RR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.64-0.92, p = 0.005) in the sub-equivalent group.

CONCLUSION

When compared to equivalent doses of ARB/ACEI, SV is not superior in reducing mortality and worsening heart failure. SV is superior when compared to sub-equivalent doses of ACEI.

Is Sacubitril/Valsartan a Superior Agent in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction? A Review of Randomized Comparative Trials

Background: The PARADIGM HF trial showed sacubitril/valsartan (SV) to be superior to enalapril in patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Since its publication, several other randomized trials have compared SV to either an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) in HFrEF which showed conflicting results regarding mortality, hospitalizations, and quality of life scoring. Objective: To review randomized comparative trials of SV to either ACEI or ARB in patients with HFrEF. Methods: PubMed and Embase databases were used to identify randomized comparative trials. The text terms sacubitril, angiotensin neprilysin, and LCZ696 were used for both searches. Meta-analysis, retrospective, adhoc, and cohort studies were excluded. Results: 1476 and 3983 citations were reviewed on PubMed and Embase, respectively. Of these, 11 randomized comparative trials to either ACEI or ARB were included for analysis. The mortality/quality of life benefits of SV over enalapril in the PARADIGM HF were not corroborated in any of the other trials. The effect of hospitalizations for heart failure was inconsistent among trials. Exercise tolerance was not improved with SV versus enalapril. Conclusion: The results of the PARADIGM HF trial have largely not been confirmed in subsequent randomized comparative trials.

Identification and validation of lipid metabolism-related key genes as novel biomarkers in acute myocardial infarction and pan-cancer analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is associated with high morbidity and mortality, and is associated with abnormal lipid metabolism. We identified lipid metabolism related genes as biomarkers of AMI, and explored their mechanisms of action.

METHODS

Microarray datasets were downloaded from the GEO database and lipid metabolism related genes were obtained from Molecular Signatures Database. WGCNA was performed to identify key genes. We evaluated differential expression and performed ROC and ELISA analyses. We also explored the mechanism of AMI mediated by key genes using gene enrichment analysis. Finally, immune infiltration and pan-cancer analyses were performed for the identified key genes.

RESULTS

TRL2, S100A9, and HCK were identified as key genes related to lipid metabolism in AMI. Internal and external validation (including ELISA) showed that these were good biomarkers of AMI. In addition, the results of gene enrichment analysis showed that the key genes were enriched in inflammatory response, immune system process, and tumor-related pathways. Finally, the results of immune infiltration showed that key genes were concentrated in neutrophils and macrophages, and pan-cancer analysis showed that the key genes were highly expressed in most tumors and were associated with poor prognosis.

CONCLUSIONS

TLR2, S100A9, and HCK were identified as lipid metabolism related novel diagnostic biomarkers of AMI. In addition, AMI and tumors may be related through the inflammatory immune response.

Left ventricular reverse remodeling following initiation of sacubitril/valsartan for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and low blood pressure

Sacubitril/valsartan has become an important first-line drug for symptomatic heart failure (HF) patients, especially with left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF) < 50%. However, the impact of sacubitril/valsartan on cardiovascular outcomes, especially LV reverse remodeling for such patients with low blood pressure, remains uncertain. We retrospectively studied 164 HF patients with LVEF < 50% who were treated with sacubitril/valsartan from two institutions. Echocardiography was performed before and 9.5 ± 5.1 months after initiation of maximum tolerated dose of sacubitril/valsartan. The maximum tolerated dose of sacubitril/valsartan was lower for the low blood pressure group (≤ 100 mmHg in systole) than for the non-low blood pressure group (> 100 mmHg in systole) (165 ± 106 mg vs. 238 ± 124 mg, P = 0.017). As expected, significant LV reverse remodeling was observed in the non-low blood pressure group after initiation of sacubitril/valsartan. It was noteworthy that significant LV reverse remodeling was also observed in the low blood pressure group after initiation of sacubitril/valsartan (LV end-diastolic volume: 177.3 ± 66.0 mL vs. 137.7 ± 56.1 mL, P < 0.001, LV end-systolic volume: 131.6 ± 60.3 mL vs. 94.6 ± 55.7 mL, P < 0.001, LVEF: 26.8 ± 10.3% vs. 33.8 ± 13.6%, P = 0.015). Relative changes in LV volumes and LVEF after initiation of sacubitril/valsartan were similar for the two groups. In conclusion, significant LV reverse remodeling occurred after initiation of sacubitril/valsartan, even in HF patients with LVEF < 50% and systolic blood pressure ≤ 100 mmHg.

A meta-analysis investigating the efficacy and adverse events linked to sacubitril-valsartan in various heart failure subtypes

BACKGROUND

Sacubitril-valsartan, an inhibitor of the angiotensin receptor neprilysin (ARNi), has been purported to exhibit superiority over angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in individuals diagnosed with heart failure.

HYPOTHESIS

This paper gives an updated meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of sacubitril-valsartan to that of standard treatment for different types of heart failure.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis comprised a total of nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs), incorporating data from a substantial sample size of 15 939 patients. The study observed a decrease in overall mortality and mortality related to cardiovascular causes among patients in the heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) category who were treated with sacubitril-valsartan. However, no statistically significant variation in this outcome was seen among patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and HFmrEF. Patients who were administered sacubitril-valsartan had a notably elevated likelihood of experiencing hypotension. Nevertheless, no significant disparities were observed in terms of other adverse events among the various treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Current meta-analysis provide support for use of sacubitril-valsartan in decreasing mortality in patients with HFrEF. However, more numbers of studies are required to draw a definite conclusion on other benefits associated with sacubitril-valsartan use over standard treatment of ACE inhibitors and ARBs.

The efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Sacubitril/valsartan, a new pharmacological class of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, is beneficial to heart failure through blocking the degradation of natriuretic peptides and inhibiting renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) activation which also relate to the pathophysiologic mechanisms of chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, its effects on CKD remain unclear. To assess the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan for patients with CKD, we performed this meta-analysis.

METHODS

The Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared sacubitril/valsartan with ACEI/ARBs in patients with CKD whose estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was below 60 mL/min/1.73 m2. We adopted the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing the risk of bias. The effect size was estimated using the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Six trials with a total of 6217 patients with CKD were included. In terms of cardiovascular events, sacubitril/valsartan attenuated the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization (OR: 0.68, 95% CI 0.61-0.76, P < 0.00001, I2 = 43%). With respect to renal function, sacubitril/valsartan prevented the incidence of serum creatinine (Scr) elevation among patients with CKD (OR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.67-0.95, P = 0.01, I2 = 0%). Subgroup analysis about eGFR demonstrated that with long follow-up, sacubitril/valsartan significantly decreased the number of patients with more than 50% reduction in eGFR compared with ACEI/ARBs (OR: 0.52, 95% CI 0.32-0.84, P = 0.008, I2 = 9%). In patients with CKD, the incidence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) was reduced with sacubitril/valsartan treatment, despite no statistically significant difference between the two groups (OR: 0.59, 95% CI 0.29-1.20, P = 0.14, I2 = 0%). As for the safety, we found that sacubitril/valsartan was associated with the occurrence of hypotension (OR: 1.71, 95% CI 1.15-2.56, P = 0.008, I2 = 51%). However, there was no trend towards increasing the risk of hyperkalemia in patients who received sacubitril/valsartan (OR: 1.09, 95% CI 0.75-1.60, P = 0.64, I2 = 64%).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis indicated that sacubitril/valsartan improved renal function and conferred effective cardiovascular benefits in patients with CKD, without serious safety issues being observed. Thus, sacubitril/valsartan may be a promising option for patients with CKD. Certainly, further large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these conclusions.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

[ https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2022-4-0045/ ], identifier [INPLASY202240045].

Long-Term Treatment With Sacubitril/Valsartan in Japanese Patients With Chronic Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction - Open-Label Extension of the PARALLEL-HF Study

BACKGROUND

The PARALLEL-HF study assessed the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril in Japanese patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This open-label extension (OLE) assessed long-term safety with sacubitril/valsartan.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This study enrolled 150 patients who received sacubitril/valsartan 50 or 100 mg, b.i.d., in addition to optimal background heart failure (HF) therapy. A dose level of sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg, b.i.d., was targeted by Week 8. At OLE baseline, higher concentrations of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and urine cGMP, and lower concentrations of N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), were observed in the sacubitril/valsartan core group (patients who received sacubitril/valsartan in both the core and extension study) than in the enalapril core group (patients who received enalapril in the core study and were then transitioned to sacubitril/valsartan). The mean exposure to study drug was 98.9%. There was no trend of worsening of HF at Month 12. No obvious changes in cardiac biomarkers were observed, whereas BNP and urine cGMP increased and NT-proBNP decreased in the enalapril core group, which was evident at Weeks 2-4 and sustained to Month 12.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term sacubitril/valsartan at doses up to 200 mg, b.i.d., has a positive risk-benefit profile; it was safe and well tolerated in Japanese patients with chronic HFrEF.

Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Japanese Patients With Heart Failure According to Baseline Systolic Blood Pressure - Results From a Subgroup Analysis of the PARALLEL-HF Study

BACKGROUND

Lower systolic blood pressure (SBP) is known to be associated with poor prognosis in heart failure (HF). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan according to baseline SBP tertiles in Japanese patients from the PARALLEL-HF study.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In all, 223 patients were stratified into tertiles according to baseline SBP (≤114 mmHg: n=75; >114 and ≤130 mmHg: n=76; and >130 mmHg: n=72). Patients with lower SBP (≤114 mmHg) had the highest median N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentrations at baseline (P=0.0184). No significant difference was observed between sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril for the composite outcome of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization across SBP tertiles (P-interaction=0.2682). Although the P-interaction value was not significant (0.2106), a greater reduction in NT-proBNP with sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril was observed in patients with SBP >130 mmHg (P=0.0076). The incidence of hypotension-related events and reduction or discontinuation of treatment due to hypotension-related events was higher in the lower SBP subgroup, and these events were more frequent in the sacubitril/valsartan than enalapril group.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril was consistent across baseline SBP tertiles in Japanese patients from the PARALLEL-HF study. Hypotension-related events were more common in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan with lower SBP.

Sacubitril/Valsartan in the Treatment of Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Focusing on the Impact on the Quality of Life: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

There exists a paucity of research data reported by analyses performed on randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that encompass quality of life (QOL) and the aftermath for patients suffering from heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have been done to evaluate the drug sacubitril/valsartan in the treatment of heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) with a clear focus on the effect it bestows on measures of physical exercise tolerance and quality of life. A thorough systematic search was done in databases including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, and PubMed from 1 January 2010 to 1 January 2023. The search only included published RCTs on adult patients aged 18 and above, with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Data analysis was performed by using the software RevMan 5.4 (Cochrane Collaboration, London, United Kingdom). The included studies' bias risk was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool. The quality of evidence for the primary outcome was done using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) framework. This systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs yielded 458 studies, of which eight randomized clinical trials were included and analyzed. The meta-analysis of the included trials shows that the I2 value is 61% (i.e., I2 > 50%), demonstrating a substantial heterogeneity within the studies. The left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) expressed in percentage was reported in the five studies, and thereby, a subgroup analysis that yielded a confidence interval (CI) of 95% had the standard mean difference of 0.02 (-0.02, 0.07). The trials had disparity between the reporting of effect on peak oxygen consumption (VO2), measured through cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) methods, six-minute walking test (6MWT), overall physical activity, and exercise capacity. Sacubitril/valsartan did not exponentially improve peak VO2 or 6MWT in these trials; however, the patient-reported data suggested that the quality of life was modestly influenced by the drug. A subgroup analysis was performed using the pooled effect value by the random effects model. The findings showed that the sacubitril/valsartan group significantly was better than the control group in improving HFrEF-associated health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials that evaluated the drug sacubitril/valsartan in treating heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and focused on its tangible effect on the measures of physical exercise tolerance and quality of life. It depicts that the statistical scrutiny due to the lack of significant data and parity across studies did not impart significant improvement of either LVEF, peak VO2, or 6MWT with the use of sacubitril/valsartan; however, the reported exercise tolerance, including daytime physical activity, had a modest impact with the said drug. The pooled values demonstrated that the sacubitril/valsartan group significantly outperformed the control group in improving HFrEF HRQoL.

Effects of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitors Versus Enalapril or Valsartan on Patients With Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Recent studies have focused on treating heart failure, primarily mitigating symptoms and reducing the risk of mortality and other cardiovascular complications. A promising new treatment approach involves using LCZ696, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) comprising sacubitril and valsartan. This treatment is superior to the conventional drugs enalapril or valsartan in patients diagnosed with heart failure. A systematic search was conducted on PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Elsevier's ScienceDirect databases to identify studies comparing sacubitril/valsartan with other drugs in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The analyses were conducted using the random-effects model. The study's primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, death from cardiovascular causes, first hospitalization for heart failure, congestive heart failure, and changes in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) clinical score. The pooled analysis showed that treatment with the sacubitril/valsartan combination was associated with a significantly decreased rate of first hospitalization for heart failure (RR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.79, 0.98, p: 0.03; I2: 57%) and significantly increased KCCQ clinical score (WMD: 2.20; 95% CI: 0.33, 4.06, p: 0.02; I2: 100%). However, the two groups had no significant difference in all-cause mortality (RR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.80, 1.01, p: 0.08; I2: 20%), death from cardiovascular causes (RR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.87, 1.05, p: 0.34; I2: 0%), or congestive heart failure (RR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.75, 1.25, p: 0.19; I2: 38%). The research findings suggest that sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) reduces hospitalizations due to heart failure and improves KCCQ clinical scores. This treatment also reduces the decline in renal function and side effects associated with enalapril or valsartan. Nonetheless, further high-quality randomized controlled trials with large sample sizes are needed to assess other impacts of this therapy on heart failure patients. Overall, the use of LCZ696 represents a promising new approach to the treatment of heart failure.

Changes in health-related quality of life and treatment effects in chronic heart failure: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) is associated with poor health status, and high morbi-mortality. However, it is not well established how health status changes correlate with treatment effects on clinical outcomes. Our aim was to study the association between treatment-induced changes in health-status, assessed by Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire 23 (KCCQ-23) and clinical outcomes in chronic HF.

METHODS

Systematic search of phase III-IV pharmacological RCTs in chronic HF that assessed KCCQ-23 changes and clinical outcomes throughout follow-up. We studied the association between treatment induced changes in KCCQ-23 and treatment effects on clinical outcomes (HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death, HF hospitalization, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death) using weighted random-effects meta-regression.

RESULTS

Sixteen trials were included, enrolling a total of 65,664 participants. Treatment induced KCCQ-23 changes were moderately correlated with treatment effects on the combined outcome of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular mortality (regression coefficient (RC) = -0.047, 95%CI: -0.085 to -0.009; R² = 49%), a correlation that was mainly driven by HF hospitalization (RC = -0.076, 95%CI: -0.124 to -0.029; R² = 56%). Correlations of treatment induced KCCQ-23 changes with cardiovascular death (RC = -0.029, 95%CI: -0.073 to 0.015; R² = 10%) and all-cause death (RC = -0.019, 95%CI: -0.057 to 0.019; R² = 0%) were weak and non-significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment-induced changes in KCCQ-23 were moderately correlated with treatment-effects on HF hospitalizations but were not correlated with the effects on cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. Treatment-induced changes in patient-centered outcomes (i.e., KCCQ-23) may reflect non-fatal symptomatic changes in the clinical course of HF leading to hospitalization.

The cardiovascular effects of SGLT2 inhibitors, RAS inhibitors, and ARN inhibitors in heart failure

AIMS

No studies have comprehensively compared the efficacy of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors, and angiotensin receptor neprilysin (ARN) inhibitors based on different type of heart failure, including heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The aim of this network meta-analysis was to evaluate the relative efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitor (SGLT2i), RAS inhibitor (RASi) and ARN inhibitor (ARNI) in different types of heart failure.

METHODS

A systemic literature search was performed from inception to 19 November 2022 for randomized control trials assessing the risk of cardiovascular (CV) death or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) of these drugs in HF. A network meta-analysis was performed. Risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were synthesized.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies were selected with a total of 61 489 patients. In patients with HFrEF, ARNI led to a reduced risk of a composite outcome of CV death or HHF when compared with placebo (RR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.77-0.89). Similar trends were observed when focusing on the outcome of CV death or HHF alone. In patients with HFpEF, SGLT2i showed the beneficial effects on the CV death or HHF events when compared with placebo and RASi (RR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.74-0.92; RR = 1.16, 95% CI 1.02-1.31). For CV death, all these three drugs could not show beneficial effects in HFpEF. For the incidence of HHF in HFpEF, both SGLT2i and ARNI demonstrated the beneficial effects but SGLT2i was superior to ARNI. There were no differences in the events of discontinuation under these drugs when compared with placebo or each other in either HFrEF or HFpEF patients. SGLT2i showed the least renal injury among these interventions in HFrEF and there were no differences in the incidence of renal injury of these interventions in HFpEF.

CONCLUSIONS

Among these drugs, ARNI showed the greatest ability to lower the incidence of CV death or HHF and SGLT2i exerted the least renal injury in patients with HFrEF. In patients with HFpEF, SGLT2i was associated with a reduction in the risk of CV death or HHF. There were no differences in the incidence of renal injury of these interventions in HFpEF. The intolerance of these drugs were comparable in both HFrEF and HFpEF.

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.

Safety and tolerability of Sacubitril/Valsartan in heart failure patient with reduced ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin receptor blocker and a neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) has emerged as an innovative therapy for patients of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and tolerability of Sacubitril/Valsartan in patient with HFrEF in Pakistani population.

METHODS

This proof-of-concept, open label non-randomized clinical trial was conducted at a tertiary care cardiac center of Karachi, Pakistan. Patients with HFrEF were prescribed with Sacubitril/Valsartan and followed for 12 weeks for the assessment of safety and tolerability. Safety measures included incidence of hypotension, renal dysfunction, hyperkalemia, and angioedema.

RESULTS

Among the 120 HFrEF patients, majority were male (79.2%) with means age of 52.73 ± 12.23 years. At the end of 12 weeks, four (3.3%) patients died and eight (6.7%) dropped out of the study. In the remaining 108 patients, 80.6% (87) of the patients were tolerant to the prescribed dose. Functional class improved gradually with 75.0% (81) in class I and 24.1% (26) in class II, and only one (0.9%) patient in class III at the end of 12 weeks. Hyperkalemia remains the main safety concern with incidence rate of 21.3% (23) followed by hypotension in 19.4% (21), and renal dysfunction in 3.7% (4) of the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril/Valsartan therapy in HFrEF patients is safe and moderately tolerated among the Pakistani population. It can be used as first line of treatment for these patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05387967. Registered 24 May 2022-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05387967.

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

BACKGROUND

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

HYPOTHESIS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitors in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Meta-Analysis

The present meta-analysis was conducted to compare the safety and efficacy of angiontensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) with angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This meta-analysis was conducted and reported in accordance with the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. Two authors carried out a scientific literature search on online databases, including EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library. The following keywords or corresponding Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) were used for the search of relevant articles: "heart failure with reduced ejection fraction," "angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor," "Angiotensin receptor blockers," and "clinical outcomes." Outcomes assessed in the present meta-analysis included changes in ejection fraction (EF) from baseline in percentage. Other outcomes assessed in the present meta-analysis included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and hospitalization due to heart failure. Adverse events assessed in the present meta-analysis included hypokalemia, acute kidney injury, and hypotension. Total 10 studies were included. This meta-analysis showed that treatment with ARNI was associated with a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death compared to control groups. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of change of EF from baseline or hospitalization related to heart failure. However, the risk of hypotension was significantly higher in patients receiving ARNI. The study findings support the use of ARNI as first-line therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Further studies are required to determine the optimal use of ARNI in heart failure management and to investigate the mechanisms underlying the increased risk of hypotension.

Renal Safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

ABSTRACT

As a first-line therapy, sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) plays a significant role in the treatment of heart failure. However, its effect on renal function is still uncertain. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Clinical Trials for randomized controlled trials to evaluate the effect of S/V on renal function in patients. The results are reported as the mean difference, relative ratio, and 95% confidence intervals. A total of 13 randomized controlled trials were included (19,367 patients). Among them, 11 studies focused on patients with heart failure, 1 on patients with acute myocardial infarction, and 1 on patients with chronic kidney disease. We found that fewer worsening renal function events, elevated creatine level events, and severe hyperkalemia events (blood potassium >6.0 mmol/L) occurred in the S/V group than those in the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor (RASi) group. The estimated glomerular filtration rate decreased in both the S/V group and the RASi group, but the change was more obvious in the RASi group. There was no significant difference in hyperkalemia events (blood potassium >5.5 mmol/L) between the 2 groups. Subgroup analysis showed that with the extension of follow-up time (>6 months), worsening renal function events occurred less frequently in the S/V group than in the RASi group. Existing evidence has shown that S/V is superior to RASi in general renal safety. Perhaps with the prolongation of treatment time, the advantages of S/V are more obvious.

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.

Effect of sacubitril/valsartan and ACEI/ARB on glycaemia and the development of diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Sacubitril/valsartan and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI)/angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) therapies were reported to affect glycaemic control and the development of diabetes mellitus (DM), but the findings are inconsistent. We examined the evidence for the effects of sacubitril/valsartan and ACEI/ARB in DM by conducting a meta-analysis.

METHODS

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library), Embase, PubMed, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for data from randomised clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan and ACEI/ARB in patients, as of May 25, 2022. Patients were grouped by their disease background at baseline. The main outcomes were the number of new-onset DM and hypoglycaemia, elevated glycaemia, inadequate DM control, diabetes treatment, and diabetic complications, from baseline to the end of the trials. The risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (ROB 2). The quality of the evidence was evaluated according to the Recommendations for Assessment, Development, and Evaluation guidelines. The meta-analysis of the incidence of various outcomes was conducted using fixed or random effects models. The results are expressed as binary risk, 95% confidence interval (CI), and relative risk (RR). The Mantel-Haenszel method and Z test were used to determine the overall results and determine the significance of the RR.

RESULTS

This study included 31 RCTs and 86,809 subjects. Compared with placebo, sacubitril/valsartan treatment significantly reduced the risk of new-onset DM among all patients (RR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.64-0.95), patients with heart failure (HF) (RR = 0.24, 95% CI: 0.12-0.48), HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (RR = 0.24, 95% CI: 0.12-0.50), and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (RR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.34-0.85). In contrast, sacubitril/valsartan treatment significantly increased the risk of hypoglycaemia among all patients (RR = 1.91, 95% CI: 1.05-3.47), patients with not all-DM (defined as part of the study population having DM at baseline) (RR = 5.71, 95% CI: 2.02-16.21), and patients with HFpEF (RR = 7.06, 95% CI: 2.10-23.76). Compared with ACEI/ARB, sacubitril/valsartan treatment significantly increased the risk of hypoglycaemia among patients with HF (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.12-3.06, p = 0.02) and HFpEF (RR 3.59, 95% CI 1.51-8.55, p = 0.004). Compared with placebo, ACEI/ARB treatment did significantly reduce the risk of new-onset DM among all patients (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.77-0.93, p = 0.0007) and patients with not all-HF (defined as part of the study population having HF at baseline) (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.82-0.93, p<0.0001) and HFpEF (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.44-0.83, p = 0.002), diabetes complications among patients with non-HF (/not all-DM) (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.76-0.99, p = 0.04), and subsequent diabetes treatment among patients with new-onset DM (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.58-0.84, p = 0.0002) and significantly increased the risk of hypoglycaemia among patients with not all-DM (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.172-3.61, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our study, especially in reducing glycaemia and new-onset DM, revealed that sacubitril/valsartan had a positive effect on the control of glycaemia and the development of DM. ACEI/ARB also had a beneficial effect but the effect was weaker than that of sacubitril/valsartan. The above effects varied across diseases but the evidence was strongest in patients with HF.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42022336311.

Renal events in patients receiving neprilysin inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

While it is well known that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) increase the risk of acute renal failure, the role of neprilysin inhibition (NEPi) is unclear and some physicians are reluctant to prescribe sacubitril/valsartan because of safety concerns. This meta-analysis aimed to examine the risk for renal events, progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) or progression to dialysis on combined NEPi and ACEi/ARBs compared with ACEi or ARBs.

METHODS

We performed a systematic meta-analysis including 17 randomized controlled trials (study drug sacubitril/valsartan or omapatrilat), involving a total of 23 569 patients, after searching PubMed, Cochrane, ClinicalTrials.org and Embase for eligible studies. From the included trials, all renal endpoints, including long- and short-term outcomes and hyperkalemia, were extracted. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using the DerSimonian and Laird method. The study was registered at PROSPERO.

RESULTS

Overall, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan or omapatrilat showed a slightly lower risk of any renal event [OR 0.82 (0.7-0.97)] compared with treatment with an ACEi or ARB alone. Also, there was a decreased risk of severe acute renal events [OR 0.8 (0.69-0.93)] and a decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate decline [mean difference -0.58 mL/min (-0.83 to -0.33 mL/min)]. There was no difference in chronic renal events [OR 0.92 (0.8-1.05)] or hyperkalemia [OR 1.02 (0.84-1.23)].

CONCLUSION

NEPi + ACEi/ARBs are safe in terms of renal adverse events. Longer trials focusing on CKD are needed to evaluate the effect of NEPi on decreasing progression of CKD.

Efficacy and safety profile of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors in the management of heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Several guidelines have recommended the use of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) as replacement for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in the management of heart failure. Till date, there are no reviews done that comprehensively cover different aspects of efficacy and safety parameters. Hence, we have performed a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis on role of ARNIs for the management of heart failure patients. Searches were done in Embase, Scopus, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, PubMed Central, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect and Clinicaltrials.gov until June 2022. Risk of bias assessment was done with Cochrane's risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis was carried out using random-effects model. Pooled standardized mean difference (SMD)/mean difference (MD) and/or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was reported. In total, we analysed 34 studies, with almost all of them had a high risk of bias. Pooled RR was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.82-0.95) for all-cause mortality, 0.84 (95% CI: 0.77-0.92) for cardiovascular mortality and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.70-0.87) for hospitalization. Pooled MD was 3.74 (95% CI: 1.93-5.55) for left ventricular ejection fraction, -2.16 (95% CI: -3.58 to -0.74) for left atrial volume index, -3.80 (95% CI: -6.60 to -1.00) for left ventricular end-diastolic dimension and -1.16 (95% CI: -1.98 to -0.35) for E/E' ratio. Regarding adverse events, pooled RR was 1.55 (95% CI: 1.31-1.85) for symptomatic hypotension, 0.93 (95% CI: 0.78-1.11) for worsening renal function, 1.09 (95% CI: 0.94-1.26) for hyperkalaemia and 1.29 (95% CI: 0.67-2.50) for angioedema. ARNIs had beneficial efficacy and safety profile on the management of heart failure especially patients with reduced ejection fraction.

Recent advances in the pharmacological therapy of chronic heart failure: Evidence and guidelines

Heart failure (HF) is a clinical syndrome with symptoms and or signs caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality and associated with elevated natriuretic peptide levels and/or objective evidence of pulmonary or systemic congestion. It is classified according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF): HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) with an LVEF of ≤40%, HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF) with an LVEF of 41 to 49%, HF with preserved EF (HFpEF) with an LVEF of ≥50%, and HF with improved EF (HFimpEF) with a baseline LVEF of ≤40%, a ≥ 10% increase from baseline LVEF, and a second measurement of LVEF of >40%. Despite the remarkable progress in the management of HF over the past decades, its prognosis is still poor with higher rates of mortality and hospitalization due to worsening HF. Therefore, the development of novel strategies including pharmacologic therapy is needed to further improve its prognosis. Recent large-scale clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of newer pharmacological agents including angiotensin II receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), sacubitril/valsartan, type 2 sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT2) inhibitors, dapagliflozin, empagliflozin and sotagliflozin, and soluble guanylyl cyclase (sGC) stimulator, vericiguat, and cardiac myosin activator, omecamtiv mecarbil. This review focuses the recent advances in the pharmacological agents for treatment of chronic heart failure, including their mechanisms of action, the evidence based on the clinical trials, and the guideline recommendations for their use.

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.

Effect of sacubitril/valsartan on the occurrence of cardiac arrhythmias and the risk of sudden cardiac death in heart failure: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Sacubitril/valsartan therapy reduced the risks of death and of hospitalization for heart failure (HF). HF and cardiac arrhythmias have shared physiological mechanisems. Therefore, sacubitril/valsartan may exhibit anti-arrhythmic properties in HF. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on the occurrence of cardiac arrhythmias and the risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in HF.

Methods

This meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. We searched PubMed and Embase (from inception up to 6 February 2022) to identify randomized control trials (RCTs) on the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on the occurrence of cardiac arrhythmias and the risk of SCD in HF. Primary outcomes were the occurrence of atrial arrhythmias, ventricular arrhythmias, and SCD. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using a random-effects model for meta-analysis.

Results

We included 9 RCTs (published between 2012 and 2021) with 18,500 patients (9,244 sacubitril/valsartan vs. 9,256 active control). Enalapril and valsartan were used as active control in six and two studies, respectively. Follow-up ranged from 2 to 35 months. The cumulative occurrence of events was 76, 13, and 48 per 1,000 patient-years for atrial arrhythmias, ventricular arrhythmias and SCD, respectively. There was no significant association between sacubitril/valsartan therapy and the occurrence of atrial arrhythmias (RR 1.06; 95% CI: 0.97–1.17; P = 0.19) and ventricular arrhythmias (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.68–1.10; P = 0.24). However, sacubitril/valsartan therapy significantly reduced the risk of SCD (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.70–0.90; P = 0.03) compared with control.

Conclusion

No association between sacubitril/valsartan therapy and the occurrence of atrial and ventricular arrhythmias was found, but sacubitril/valsartan therapy significantly reduced the risk of SCD.

Molecular mechanisms of sacubitril/valsartan in cardiac remodeling

Cardiovascular diseases have become a major clinical burden globally. Heart failure is one of the diseases that commonly emanates from progressive uncontrolled hypertension. This gives rise to the need for a new treatment for the disease. Sacubitril/valsartan is a new drug combination that has been approved for patients with heart failure. This review aims to detail the mechanism of action for sacubitril/valsartan in cardiac remodeling, a cellular and molecular process that occurs during the development of heart failure. Accumulating evidence has unveiled the cardioprotective effects of sacubitril/valsartan on cellular and molecular modulation in cardiac remodeling, with recent large-scale randomized clinical trials confirming its supremacy over other traditional heart failure treatments. However, its molecular mechanism of action in cardiac remodeling remains obscure. Therefore, comprehending the molecular mechanism of action of sacubitril/valsartan could help future research to study the drug's potential therapy to reduce the severity of heart failure.

Effects of sacubitril/valsartan on life quality in chronic heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Aims

Sacubitril/valsartan has been demonstrated to have cardiovascular benefits in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis of its effects on life quality in patients with CHF, in comparison with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ACEI/ARB).

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception through March 2022 for all relevant randomized controlled trials assessing the impact of sacubitril/valsartan and ACEI/ARB on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with CHF. Two reviewers independently conducted study selection, data extraction, and assessment of bias and quality of evidence. Review Manager 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis.

Results

We included 10 clinical studies involving 10,426 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and 7,689 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Meta-analysis results showed that, in terms of the primary outcome, the sacubitril/valsartan group was superior than the ACEI/ARB group in improving HRQoL of HFrEF, and the difference was statistically significant (SMD 1.26; 95% CI: 0.14, 2.37; p = 0.03), while there was no significant difference between the two groups in HFpEF (SMD 0.37; 95% CI: −0.35, 1.09; p = 0.32). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan on the secondary outcome of the minimal important improvement rate of HRQoL in HFrEF was consistent with the primary outcome, while the effect in HFpEF was not clear. The descriptive analysis of individual studies indicated no significant difference in the improvement of 6-min walk distance between the two groups.

Conclusion

Sacubitril/valsartan is beneficial to improve HRQoL outcome in patients with HFrEF with high quality of evidence. Compared with ACEI/ARB, sacubitril/valsartan was more effective. While in patients with HFpEF, this improvement was similar between the two groups.

Utility of PREDICT-HF score in high-risk Asian heart failure patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan

Objective

The aim of this study was to investigate the application of sacubitril/valsartan in clinical practice and the utility of PREDICT-HF score for outcome prediction in Asian heart failure patients with difference risk profiles.

Methods

The TAROT-HF study was a multicenter, single-arm, observational study. Totally 1,187 outpatients with HFrEF treated with sacubitril/valsartan were enrolled and categorized by: (1) high-risk group with ≥1 of the following three risk factors: old age (≥80 years), low baseline systolic blood pressure (<100 mmHg), and renal impairment (eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m²), and (2) standard-risk group, those who did not have any risk factors. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the PREDICT-HF risk model.

Results

A total of 305 (25.7%) patients matched the criteria for the high-risk group. The event rates of cardiovascular death or first unplanned heart failure hospitalization (HFH) among the overall population, high-risk, and standard-risk groups were 13.7, 24.9, and 10.8 events per 100 patient-years, respectively. The C statistics for the PREDICT-HF model in the overall cohort and high-risk group for cardiovascular death or first unplanned HFH at 2 years were 0.73 (95% CI 0.70–0.76) and 0.71 (95% CI 0.65–0.76), respectively. The permanent discontinuation rate among the high-risk patients was significantly higher than that among the standard-risk patients (8.3 vs. 2.5 per 100 patient-years, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Real-world outcomes of the TAROT-HF study demonstrated that the PREDICT-HF model performed well in Asian HFrEF patients. Three easily detected clinical profiles of age, renal function, and systolic BP could help to identify patients at risk before initiating sacubitril/valsartan.

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.

The Efficacy and Safety of the Combined Therapy of Sodium-Glucose Co-Transporter-2 Inhibitors and Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Meta-Analysis of the EMPEROR-Reduced and DAPA-HF Sub-Analysis

Background

Both sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) were recommended to treat heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, no trial was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of the combined therapy of SGLT-2 inhibitors and ARNI in patients with HFrEF.

Methods

We performed a meta-analysis of the prespecified subgroups from DAPA-HF and EMPEROR-Reduced trials. The primary endpoint was the composite risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure. The risk of cardiovascular death, all-cause death, a composite of serious adverse renal outcomes, and volume depletion were also estimated.

Results

The risk of the composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure was reduced in combined therapy of SGLT-2 inhibitors and ARNI, compared with ARNI monotherapy (RR.68, 95% CI.53 to.85, P = 0.001). When compared with SGLT-2 inhibitors monotherapy, the events of cardiovascular death (RR.64, 95% CI.46 to 0.87, P = 0.005) and all-cause death (RR.72, 95% CI.55 to.94, P = 0.01) were significantly less in combined therapy, accompanied by elevated incidence of volume depletion (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.96, P = 0.0003).

Conclusion

Combined therapy has additional benefits over monotherapy in patients with HFrEF, however, it is accompanied by a possibly higher risk of volume depletion.

Clinical Usefulness of the Serial Examination of Three-Dimensional Global Longitudinal Strain After the Onset of ST-Elevation Acute Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

Two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) speckle tracking echocardiography (STE) after ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI) can predict the prognosis. This study investigated the clinical significance of a serial 3D-STE can predict the prognosis after onset of STEMI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This study enrolled 272 patients (mean age, 65 years) with first-time STEMI treated with reperfusion therapy. At 24 h after admission, standard 2D echocardiography and 3D full-volume imaging were performed, and 2D-STE and 3D-STE were calculated. Within 1 year, 19 patients who experienced major adverse cardiac events (MACE; cardiac death, heart failure requiring hospitalization) were excluded. Among the 253 patients, 248 were examined with follow-up echocardiography. The patients were followed up for a median of 108 months (interquartile range: 96-129 months). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of a MACE; 45 patients experienced MACEs. Receiver operating characteristic curves and Cox hazard multivariate analysis showed that the 2D-global longitudinal strain (GLS) and 3D-GLS at 1-year indices were significant predictors of MACE. The Kaplan-Meier curve demonstrated that a 3D-GLS of >-13.1 was an independent predictor for MACE (log-rank χ2=165.5, P<0.0001). The deterioration of 3D-GLS at 1 year was a significant prognosticator (log-rank χ2=36.7, P<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The deterioration of 3D-GLS measured by STE at 1 year after the onset of STEMI is the strongest predictor of long-term prognosis.

The year in cardiovascular medicine 2021: heart failure and cardiomyopathies

In the year 2021, the universal definition and classification of heart failure (HF) was published that defines HF as a clinical syndrome with symptoms and/or signs caused by a cardiac abnormality and corroborated by elevated natriuretic peptide levels or objective evidence of cardiogenic congestion. This definition and the classification of HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), mildly reduced, and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is consistent with the 2021 ESC Guidelines on HF. Among several other new recommendations, these guidelines give a Class I indication for the use of the sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in HFrEF patients. As the first evidence-based treatment for HFpEF, in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial, empagliflozin reduced the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalizations. Several reports in 2021 have provided novel and detailed analyses of device and medical therapy in HF, especially regarding sacubitril/valsartan, SGLT2 inhibitors, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, ferric carboxymaltose, soluble guanylate cyclase activators, and cardiac myosin activators. In patients hospitalized with COVID-19, acute HF and myocardial injury is quite frequent, whereas myocarditis and long-term damage to the heart are rather uncommon.

Effect of Angiotensin-Neprilysin Versus Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibition on Renal Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Aims: We aim to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis examining randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in patients on renal outcomes, in comparison with the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitor (RAASi).

Methods: Eligible studies were retrieved on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane until September 2021. The primary outcome was the incidence of renal impairment, which was defined as the composite of increases in serum creatinine by >0.3 mg/dl and/or a reduction in eGFR ≥25%, development of ESRD, or renal death. We pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) or the mean difference with 95% CIs for the variables.

Results: Our search yielded 10 randomized controlled trials with a total of 18,362 patients. Compared with RAASi treatment, patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan had lower incidence of composite renal impairment (10 studies, 18,362 patients, RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.72–0.96, p = 0.01; I² = 22%), ESRD development (3 studies, 13,609 patients, RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.30–0.96, p = 0.03; I² = 0%), drug discontinuation due to renal events (4 studies, 9,995 patients, RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.40–0.83, p = 0.003; I² = 47%), severe hyperkalemia (6 studies, 16,653 patients, RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.68–0.93, p = 0.01; I² = 25%) and a slower eGFR decline (4 studies, 13,608 patients, WMD 0.56; 95% CI 0.36–0.76, p < 0.00001; I² = 65%). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that sacubitril/valsartan was associated with a lower incidence of renal impairment in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but not in those with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The superior renal function preservation of sacubitril/valsartan treatment was not associated with different baseline eGFR levels and follow-up duration. There was a smaller increase in the change in the urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) (3 studies, 9,114 patients, SMD 0.06; 95% CI 0.02–0.10, p = 0.003; I² = 14%) with sacubitril/valsartan treatment. However, patients with heart failure appeared to have increased microalbuminuria, not patients without HF (p = 0.80 for interaction).

Conclusion: Sacubitril/valsartan was associated with a lower incidence of composite renal impairment especially in patients with HFpEF, but higher microalbuminuria in patients with heart failure (both HFrEF and HFpEF) compared with RAASi. The lower incidence of severe hyperkalemia and drug discontinuation due to renal events in patients with sacubitril/valsartan treatment demonstrated its superior safety compared with RAASi.

Initial Real-World Practical Experience of Sacubitril/Valsartan Treatment in Japanese Patients With Chronic Heart Failure

Background: Sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, has demonstrated survival benefit and reduces heart failure hospitalization compared with enalapril in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. However, its efficacy in real-world practice in Japan remains unknown.

Methods and Results: We initiated sacubitril/valsartan treatment for 37 patients (median age 68 years; median left ventricular ejection fraction 37%) between August and November 2020. Within 3 months, sacubitril/valsartan was discontinued in 3 patients due to symptomatic hypotension or worsening heart failure. Two patients were hospitalized due to worsening heart failure, with one of these patients undergoing percutaneous mitral valve repair. Three patients received scheduled non-pharmacological treatment: 1 received cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), 1 received CRT and underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation, and 1 underwent left ventricular assist device implantation. Of the 30 patients who continued sacubitril/valsartan for 3–6 months without additional non-pharmacological therapy, there was a tendency for a decrease in N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide concentrations (baseline vs. after 3–6 months ARNI treatment; median 733 vs. 596 pg/mL; P=0.097) and an increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (median 37% vs. 39%; P=0097).

Conclusions: Sacubitril/valsartan therapy with a lower initial dose was safe and may be effective in Japanese heart failure patients in a real-world setting. Further evaluation of optimal patient selection and clinical management using sacubitril/valsartan is warranted.