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

Trajectory of health-related quality of life during and after hospitalisation due to worsening of heart failure

PURPOSE

This study aimed to examine the trajectory in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) during and after hospitalisation for worsening of heart failure (HF) in Malaysia.

METHODS

200 patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) admitted into two hospitals in Malaysia due to worsening of HF were surveyed using the EQ-5D-5 L questionnaire. The primary outcomes were utility values at admission, discharge and 1-month post-discharge (1MPD). Secondary outcomes included the visual analogue scores (VAS) and the proportion of patients reporting each EQ-5D-5 L dimension levels. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation, and generalised linear mixed models were fitted.

RESULTS

At admission, the unadjusted mean utility values and VAS scores for HFrEF patients in Malaysia were as low as 0.150 ± 0.393 and 38.2 ± 20.8, respectively. After a median hospital stay of 4 days, there was a significant improvement in utility values and VAS scores by 0.510 (95% CI: 0.455-0.564) and 28.8 (95% CI: 25.5-32.1), respectively. The utility value and VAS score at 1-month post-discharge were not significantly different from discharge. The proportion of HFrEF patients reporting problems and severe problems in mobility, self-care, usual activities, and anxiety/depression, pain/discomfort reduced at varying degree from admission to discharge and 1MPD.

CONCLUSION

HF is a progressive condition with substantial variation in HRQoL during the disease trajectory. During hospitalisation due to worsening of HF, HFrEF population has unfavourable HRQoL. Rapid and significant HRQoL improvement was observed at discharge, which sustained over one month. The study findings can inform future cost-effectiveness analyses and policies.

Detection of muscular system adverse reaction signals in sacubitril/valsartan treatment combined with statins

Objective

To detect muscular system adverse reaction signals of sacubitril/valsartan treatment combined with statins (atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, simvastatin) to provide a reference for clinical administration.

Methods

Multiplicative and additive models were used to mine the FDA's spontaneous reports database to detect signals of drug-drug interactions between sacubitril/valsartan and statins. SAS 9.4 software was used to conduct statistical tests for suspicious signals to determine whether the signals were statistically significant.

Results

A total of 8,883,870 adverse reaction reports were analyzed. The combinations "sacubitril/valsartan - simvastatin - musculoskeletal muscle pain" had statistically significant correlation signals in both models (P < 0.05). The combination "sacubitril/valsartan - atorvastatin - myopathy" and "sacubitril/valsartan-simvastatin - myopathy" had statistically significant correlation signal in the multiplicative model (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Compared with a single drug, coadministration of sacubitril/valsartan with atorvastatin may increase safety risks to myopathy, with simvastatin may increase safety risks to the musculoskeletal pain and myopathy, which should be closely monitored in clinical practice.

Clinical practice guidelines for diagnostic and treatment of the chronic heart failure

Chronic heart failure continues to be one of the main causes of impairment in the functioning and quality of life of people who suffer from it, as well as one of the main causes of mortality in our country and around the world. Mexico has a high prevalence of risk factors for developing heart failure, such as high blood pressure, diabetes, and obesity, which makes it essential to have an evidence-based document that provides recommendations to health professionals involved in the diagnosis and treatment of these patients. This document establishes the clinical practice guide (CPG) prepared at the initiative of the Mexican Society of Cardiology (SMC) in collaboration with the Iberic American Agency for the Development and Evaluation of Health Technologies, with the purpose of establishing recommendations based on the best available evidence and agreed upon by an interdisciplinary group of experts. This document complies with international quality standards, such as those described by the US Institute of Medicine (IOM), the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE), the Intercollegiate Network for Scottish Guideline Development (SIGN) and the Guidelines International Network (G-I-N). The Guideline Development Group was integrated in a multi-collaborative and interdisciplinary manner with the support of methodologists with experience in systematic literature reviews and the development of CPG. A modified Delphi panel methodology was developed and conducted to achieve an adequate level of consensus in each of the recommendations contained in this CPG. We hope that this document contributes to better clinical decision making and becomes a reference point for clinicians who manage patients with chronic heart failure in all their clinical stages and in this way, we improve the quality of clinical care, improve their quality of life and reducing its complications.

Comparison of the efficacy of combining left bundle branch pacing with either sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril in the treatment of chronic heart failure: A retrospective observational analysis

Objective

To assess the efficacy of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) combined with either sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril in the treatment of chronic heart failure (CHF).

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the records of 138 patients with CHF admitted to Dazhou Central Hospital between June 2020 and June 2022 to extract clinical data. We divided the data into two treatment groups for the analysis: 71 patients received LBBP combined with sacubitril/valsartan treatment (sacubitril/valsartan group), and 67 received LBBP combined with enalapril treatment (enalapril group). The levels of cardiac and cardiopulmonary function indicators, levels of myocardial injury markers, and the scores of the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) before and after the treatment were compared between the two groups.

Results

After six months of treatment, patients in the sacubitril/valsartan group had lower myocardial injury markers, higher cardiopulmonary function indicators, and lower MLHFQ scores (P<0.05).

Conclusions

In CHF patients, the combination of LBBP with sacubitril/valsartan had a better therapeutic effect compared to LBBP with enalapril, with more effective improvement of the cardiopulmonary function, reduction of myocardial injury, and improvement in quality of life.

Sacubitril/Valsartan vs. Standard Medical Therapy on Exercise Capacity in HFrEF Patients

Sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) reduces mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) compared to enalapril. However, its effects on functional capacity remain uncertain; consequently, we sought to compare Sac/Val vs. standard medical therapy, in terms of effects on prognostically significant CPET parameters, in HFrEF patients during a long follow-up period. We conducted a single-center, observational study in an HF clinic; specifically, we retrospectively identified that 12 patients switched to Sac/Val and 13 patients that managed with standard, optimal medical therapy (control group). At each visit, baseline, and follow-up (median time: 16 months; IQ range: 11.5-22), we collected demographic information, medical history, vital signs, cardiopulmonary exercise testing, standard laboratory data, pharmacological treatment information, and echocardiographic parameters. The study's primary end-point was the change from baseline in peak VO2 (adjusted to body weight). We did not observe significant differences between the two study groups at baseline. Similarly, we did not observe any significant differences during the follow-up in mean values of peak VO2 corrected for body weight: Sac/Val baseline: 12.2 ± 4.6 and FU: 12.7 ± 3.3 vs. control group: 13.1 ± 4.2 and 13.0 ± 4.2 mL/kg/min; p = 0.49. No significant treatment differences were observed for changes in VE/VCO2 slope: Sac/Val baseline: 35.4 ± 7.4 and FU: 37.2 ± 13.1 vs. control group: 34.6 ± 9.1 and 34.0 ± 7.3; p = 0.49. In conclusion, after a median follow-up period of 16 months, there was no significant benefit of Sac/Val on peak VO2 and other measures of CPET compared with standard optimal therapy in patients with HFrEF.