Sacubitril/Valsartan in Advanced Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Rationale and Design of the LIFE Trial

The role and application of current pharmacological management in patients with advanced heart failure

In the last decades, several classifications and definitions have been proposed for advanced heart failure (ADVHF) patients, including clinical, functional, hemodynamic, imaging, and electrocardiographic features. Despite different inclusion criteria, ADVHF is characterized by some common items, such as drug intolerance, low arterial pressure, multiple organ dysfunction, chronic kidney disease, and diuretic use dependency. Additional features include fatigue, hypotension, hyponatremia, and unintentional weight loss associated with a specific laboratory profile reflecting systemic multiorgan dysfunction. Notably, studies evaluating guideline-directed medical therapy recently endorsed by guidelines in stable HF, including the 4 drug classes all together (i.e., betablocker, mineral corticoid antagonist, renin angiotensin inhibitors/neprilysin inhibitors, and sodium glucose transporter inhibitors), remain scarcely analyzed in ADVHF and New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class IV. Additionally, due to the common conditions associated with advanced stages, the balance between drug tolerance and potential benefits of the contemporary use of all agents is questioned. Therefore, less hard endpoints, such as exercise tolerance, quality of life (QoL) and self-competency, are not clearly demonstrated. Specific analyses evaluating outcome and rehospitalization of each drug provided conflicting results and are often limited to subjects with stable conditions and less advanced NYHA class. Current European Society of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ESC/AHA) Guidelines do not indicate the type of treatment, dosage, and administration modalities, and they do not suggest specific indications for ADVHF patients. Due to these concerns, there is an impelling need to understand what drugs may be used as the first line, what management leads to the better outcome, and what is the best treatment algorithm in this setting. In this paper, we summarize the most common pitfalls and limitations for the use of the traditional agents, and we propose a personalized approach aiming at preserve drug tolerance and maintaining adverse event protection and satisfactory QoL.

Irreversible myocardial injury attenuates the benefits of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure patients

BACKGROUND

Despite the established benefits of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) across various etiologies, there are controversies regarding the effects of ARNI in patients with irreversible myocardial injury. The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of irreversible myocardial injury on the benefits of ARNI treatment in patients with HFrEF, consisted of both ischemic and non-ischemic etiologies.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a retrospective single-center study including 409 consecutive patients with HFrEF treated with ARNI between March 2017 and May 2020. Irreversible myocardial injury was defined as nonviable myocardium without contractile reserve, which suggests a limited potential for recovery of left ventricular function and geometry. At baseline, irreversible myocardial injury was observed in 129 (31.5%) patients. Composite outcome was cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure, which occurred in 56 (43.4%) and 61 (21.8%) patients with and without irreversible myocardial injury, respectively. On multivariable analysis, irreversible injury presence, but not ischemic etiology, was an independent predictor of composite outcome (hazard ratio 2.16, 95% confidence interval 1.33-3.49). Mediation analysis revealed that the increased risk of the composite outcome due to irreversible myocardial injury was mediated by attenuated LV reverse remodeling (Z value = 2.02, P = 0.043).

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of irreversible myocardial injury was significantly associated with the response to ARNI treatment in patients with HFrEF, regardless of etiology.

New Challenges in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: Managing Worsening Events

Patients with an established diagnosis of heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are prone to experience episodes of worsening symptoms and signs despite continued therapy, termed "worsening heart failure" (WHF). Despite guideline-directed medical therapy, worsening of chronic heart failure accounts for almost 50% of all hospital admissions for HF, and patients experiencing WHF carry a substantially higher risk of death and hospitalization than patients with "stable" HF. New drugs are emerging as arrows in the quiver for clinicians to address the residual risk of HF hospitalization and cardiovascular deaths in patients with WHF. This question-and-answer-based review will discuss the emerging definition of WHF in light of the recent clinical consensus released by the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), the new therapeutic approaches to treat WHF and then move on to their timing and safety concerns (i.e., renal profile).

Effects of sacubitril-valsartan in the treatment of chronic heart failure patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing dialysis

BACKGROUND

The data on the effects of the angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril-valsartan (LCZ696) in chronic heart failure (CHF) patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring dialysis are lacking. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of LCZ696 in CHF patients with ESRD on dialysis.

HYPOTHESIS

LCZ696 treatment can reduce rehospitalization rate for HF, delay the occurrence of rehospitalization for HF, and prolong the survival time.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of CHF patients with ESRD on dialysis who were admitted to the Second Hospital of Tianjin Medical University from August 2019 to October 2021.

RESULTS

Sixty-five patients had primary outcome during the follow-up. The incidence of rehospitalization for HF in the control group was significantly higher than that in the LCZ696 group (73.47% vs. 43.28%, p = .001). There was no significant difference in mortality between the two groups (8.96% vs. 10.20%, p = 1.000). Our study included a time-to-event analysis through 1 year for the primary outcome-Kaplan-Meier curve showed that the LCZ696 group had significantly longer free-event survival time than the control group over 1-year follow-up (median survival time 139.0 days vs. 116.0 days, p = .037).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found that LCZ696 treatment was associated with a reduction in HF rehospitalization without significant effects on serum creatinine and serum potassium levels. LCZ696 is effective and safe in CHF patients with ESRD on dialysis.

Myocardial recovery following left ventricular assist device implantation

Durable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have consistently shown improved mortality and morbidity in patients with end-stage heart failure. Select patients with LVADs may experience significant enough myocardial recovery after device implantation to allow for explantation or decommissioning. While earlier trials suggested a high incidence of recovery, real-world clinical data have demonstrated this to be a much rarer phenomenon. Whether or not patients experience recovery, practices such as speed optimization and usage of guideline-directed medical therapy can improve patient outcomes.

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.

Beyond Stage C: Considerations in the Management of Patients with Heart Failure Progression and Gaps in Evidence

Despite treatment with contemporary medical therapies for chronic heart failure (HF), there has been an increase in the prevalence of patients progressing to more advanced disease. Patients progressing to and living at the interface of severe Stage C and Stage D HF are underrepresented in clinical trials, and there is a lack of high-quality evidence to guide clinical decision making. For patients with a severe HF phenotype, the medical therapies used for patients with a less advanced stage of illness are often no longer tolerated nor provide adequate clinical stability. The limited data on these patients highlights the need to increase formal research characterizing this high-risk population. This review summarizes existing clinical trial data on and incorporates our considerations for approaches to the medical management of patients advanced "beyond Stage C" HF.

Effects of sacubitril/valsartan on cardiac reverse remodeling and cardiac resynchronization in patients with acute myocardial infarction

Introduction

In 2014, the PARADIGM-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) has shown that sacubitril/valsartan can reduce the risk of hospitalization and death from cardiovascular causes more effectively than enalapril (an ACEI) in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Similarly, the PARADIGM-HF trial (Comparison of Sacubitril-Valsartan vs. Enalapril on Effect on NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized from an Acute Heart Failure Episode) came to similar conclusions and extended the PARADIGM-HF trial results in 2019. Since then, numerous new studies have provided further insight in HFrEF, sacubitril/valsartan can reduce N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels, increase left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), reverse ventricular remodeling, and reduce other non-fatal manifestations of clinical deterioration as compared to ACEI/ARB. However, few trials have compared the effects of these drugs in patients shortly after AMI. Therefore, it is necessary to further explore the clinical efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan in patients with AMI.

Methods

We conducted an open-label, prospective, randomized controlled trial to determine the superiority in ameliorating ventricular remodeling and preventing of heart failure in patients with AMI after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), 148 patients were randomly assigned (85 to sacubitril/valsartan and 63 to valsartan).

Results

LAV, LVDV, and LVSV were all decreased in the sacubitril/valsartan group when compared with before treatment, but there was no difference between the sacubitril/valsartan group and the valsartan group. In addition, compared with before treatment in the sacubitril/valsartan group, the heart global work index (GWI) and the global work efficiency (GWE) increased, while the heart global wasted work (GWW) decreased. Patients in the sacubitril/valsartan group have similar MACE and adverse side effects to those in the valsartan group.

Conclusion

Sacubitril/valsartan has the same performance as valsartan in inhibiting ventricular remodeling and preventing heart failure after PCI in patients with AMI, and its clinical application is safe. It provides a clinical foundation for the application of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with AMI.

Levosimendan in outpatients with advanced heart failure: Single-center experience of 200 intermittent perfusions

INTRODUCTION

Patients with advanced heart failure (HF) have high morbidity and mortality, with only a small proportion being eligible for advanced therapies. Intermittent outpatient levosimendan infusion has been shown to provide symptomatic relief and reduce the rate of HF events. Our aim was to assess the safety and efficacy of outpatient levosimendan administration in an advanced HF population.

METHODS

This is a report of a single-center experience of consecutive advanced HF patients referred for intermittent intravenous outpatient administration of levosimendan, between January 2018 and March 2021. Baseline and follow-up evaluation included clinical assessment, laboratory tests, transthoracic echocardiography and cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Baseline and clinical follow-up data were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

RESULTS

A total of 24 patients (60.8 years, 83% male, mean left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] 24%), with a median of 1.5 HF hospitalizations in the previous six months, were referred for outpatient levosimendan pulses, the majority as a bridge to transplantation or due to clinical deterioration. At six-month follow-up there was a significant reduction in HF hospitalizations to 0.4±0.7 (p<0.001). NYHA class IV (52.2% to 12.5%, p=0.025) and NT-proBNP (8812.5 to 3807.4 pg/ml, p=0.038) were also significantly reduced. Exercise capacity was significantly improved, including peak oxygen uptake (p=0.043) and VE/VCO₂ slope (p=0.040). LVEF improved from 24.0% to 29.7% (p=0.008). No serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

Repeated levosimendan administration in advanced HF patients is a safe procedure and was associated with a reduction in HF hospitalizations, functional and LVEF improvement, and reduction in NT-proBNP levels during follow-up.

The Relationship between Angiotensin–Neprilysin Treatment, Echocardiographic Parameters, and NT-proBNP Levels in HFpEF Patients with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure

Background

The valsartan-sacubitril therapy improved the outcomes of patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) of a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In ADHF patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), it is not yet clear whether the same treatment regimen may be safely used to treat ADHF.

Methods

For this study, HFpEF patients hospitalized due to ADHF were enrolled. Following hemodynamic stabilization, patients were randomized into two groups that were treated with enalapril or sacubitril-valsartan. In this trial, the primary efficacy outcomes were changes in echocardiographic parameters and NT-proBNP levels from baseline to 8 weeks treatment.

Results

ARNI treatment resulted in a significant decrease in NT-proBNP levels and an increase in LVEF in patients with HFpEF. However, HFpEF patients that underwent ARNI treatment achieved better outcomes than did patients that underwent ACEI treatment.

Conclusion

Sacubitril-valsartan treatment, which lowered NT-proBNP levels and improved cardiac function, was more effective in HFpEF patients with acute decompensated heart failure than enalapril.

Molecular Mechanism of Induction of Bone Growth by the C-Type Natriuretic Peptide

The skeletal development process in the body occurs through sequential cellular and molecular processes called endochondral ossification. Endochondral ossification occurs in the growth plate where chondrocytes differentiate from resting, proliferative, hypertrophic to calcified zones. Natriuretic peptides (NPTs) are peptide hormones with multiple functions, including regulation of blood pressure, water-mineral balance, and many metabolic processes. NPTs secreted from the heart activate different tissues and organs, working in a paracrine or autocrine manner. One of the natriuretic peptides, C-type natriuretic peptide-, induces bone growth through several mechanisms. This review will summarize the knowledge, including the newest discoveries, of the mechanism of CNP activation in bone growth.

The need for increased pragmatism in cardiovascular clinical trials

The majority of cardiovascular randomized controlled trials (RCTs) test interventions in selected patient populations under explicitly protocol-defined settings. Although these ‘explanatory’ trial designs optimize conditions to test the efficacy and safety of an intervention, they limit the generalizability of trial findings in broader clinical settings. The concept of ‘pragmatism’ in RCTs addresses this concern by providing counterbalance to the more idealized situation underpinning explanatory RCTs and optimizing effectiveness over efficacy. The central tenets of pragmatism in RCTs are to test interventions in routine clinical settings, with patients who are representative of broad clinical practice, and to reduce the burden on investigators and participants by minimizing the number of trial visits and the intensity of trial-based testing. Pragmatic evaluation of interventions is particularly important in cardiovascular diseases, where the risk of death among patients has remained fairly stable over the past few decades despite the development of new therapeutic interventions. Pragmatic RCTs can help to reveal the ‘real-world’ effectiveness of therapeutic interventions and elucidate barriers to their implementation. In this Review, we discuss the attributes of pragmatism in RCT design, conduct and interpretation as well as the general need for increased pragmatism in cardiovascular RCTs. We also summarize current challenges and potential solutions to the implementation of pragmatism in RCTs and highlight selected ongoing and completed cardiovascular RCTs with pragmatic trial designs.

In this Review, Khan and colleagues discuss the benefits and challenges of including pragmatism in the design, conduct and interpretation of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for cardiovascular disease and highlight selected ongoing and completed cardiovascular RCTs that incorporate a pragmatic design.

Most cardiovascular randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted to date have been ‘explanatory’, that is, designed to study the intervention in optimized conditions with selected patient populations and frequent protocolized assessments.

Although explanatory RCT designs increase validity, they limit the generalizability of trial findings, whereas a ‘pragmatic’ approach to RCTs yields findings more relevant to real-world practice.

In pragmatic RCTs, interventions are tested in patients who are broadly representative of the condition being studied, and the study is aligned with routine clinical care to reduce costs and organizational burden.

Although pragmatic RCTs tend to attenuate estimates of treatment effects, they do provide a more realistic understanding of population-level effectiveness and costs than explanatory trials.

Pragmatic trials can highlight barriers to the implementation of therapies and are better suited than explanatory RCTs to assessing the effects of implementation strategies and health-care policies at the population level.

Widespread implementation of pragmatic trials would require the development of technological infrastructure to collect and share data as well as regulatory guidelines amenable to findings derived from routinely collected data.

Advanced heart failure: guideline-directed medical therapy, diuretics, inotropes, and palliative care

Heart failure (HF) is a major cause of mortality, hospitalizations, and reduced quality of life and a major burden for the healthcare system. The number of patients that progress to an advanced stage of HF is growing. Only a limited proportion of these patients can undergo heart transplantation or mechanical circulatory support. The purpose of this review is to summarize medical management of patients with advanced HF. First, evidence-based oral treatment must be implemented although it is often not tolerated. New therapeutic options may soon become possible for these patients. The second goal is to lessen the symptomatic burden through both decongestion and haemodynamic improvement. Some new treatments acting on cardiac function may fulfil both these needs. Inotropic agents acting through an increase in intracellular calcium have often increased risk of death. However, in the recent Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac Outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC-HF) trial, omecamtiv mecarbil was safe and effective in the reduction of the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or HF event compared with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.99; P = 0.03) and its effects were larger in those patients with more severe left ventricular dysfunction. Patients with severe HF who received omecamtiv mecarbil experienced a significant treatment benefit, whereas patients without severe HF did not (P = 0.005 for interaction). Lastly, clinicians should take care of the end of life with an appropriate multidisciplinary approach. Medical treatment of advanced HF therefore remains a major challenge and a wide open area for further research.

Intermittent inotropic therapy with levosimendan vs. milrinone in advanced heart failure patients

AIMS

Routine, intermittent inotropic therapy (IIT) is still applied in advanced heart failure (HF) patients either as a bridge to definitive treatment or as a mean to improve quality of life (QOL), despite limited evidence to support its' use. Given recent reports of improved QOL and reduced HF hospitalization, with levosimendan compared with placebo in advanced HF patients, we aimed to assess the effects of switching a small group of milrinone-treated patients to levosimendan. This was performed as part of a protocol for changing our ambulatory HF clinic milrinone-based IIT to levosimendan.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Single-centre study of consecutive ambulatory advanced HF patients that received ≥4 cycles of once-weekly milrinone IIT at our HF outpatient clinic, who were switched to levosimendan IIT. All patients had left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%, elevated B-natriuretic peptide (BNP), and were in New York Heart Association Classes III-IV despite maximally tolerated guideline directed medical therapy. Patients were evaluated using BNP levels, echocardiography, cardio-pulmonary exercise test, and HF QOL questionnaire before and after 4 weeks of levosimendan IIT. The cohort included 11 patients, 10 (91%) were male and the mean age was 76 ± 12 years. After 4 weeks of levosimendan therapy, maximal O₂ consumption improved in 8/9 (89%) by a mean of 2.28 mL/kg [95% CI -0.22-3.38, P = 0.05]. BNP levels decreased in 9/11 (82%) levosimendan treated patients, from a median of 1015 ng/L [261-1035] to 719 ng/L [294-739], (P < 0.01). QOL as measure by the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire improved in 8/11 (82%) patients after levosimendan IIT, by a median of two points [95% CO -4.14-0.37, P = 0.09]. On echocardiography, peak systolic annular velocity (S') increased after levosimendan IIT by an average of 3 cm/s [95% CI 0.16-2.10, P = 0.03].

CONCLUSIONS

In this small-scale study of ambulatory advanced HF patients, we observed improvements in right ventricular systolic function, maximal O₂ consumption, and BNP after switching from milrinone to levosimendan based IIT.

In-hospital Initiation and Up-titration of Guideline-directed Medical Therapies for Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

Implementation of guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with heart failure is suboptimal. The use of guideline-directed medical therapy improves minimally after heart failure hospitalisation, despite this event clearly indicating increased risk of further hospitalisation and death. In-hospital initiation and titration of guideline-directed medical therapies is one potential strategy to fill these gaps in care, both in the acute vulnerable period after hospital discharge and in the long term. The purpose of this article is to review the knowledge gaps in best practices of in-hospital initiation and up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapies, the benefits and risks of in-hospital initiation and post-discharge focused titration of guideline-directed medical therapies, the recent literature evaluating these practices, and propose strategies to apply these principles to the care of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

Update on RFA Increasing Use of Cardiac and Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Traditional and Community Settings NIH-Funded Trials: ADDRESSING CLINICAL TRIAL CHALLENGES PRESENTED BY THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

We previously described the design of six NIH-funded clinical trials designed to increase uptake and reduce disparities in the use of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) based on age, gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. The onset of the COVID-19 global pandemic necessitated signifi cant revisions to the trials to ensure the safety of participants and research staff. This article described necessary modifi cations for assessments, interventions, and data collection to support a no-contact approach centered on the use of virtual/remote techniques that maintain both safety and the original intent and integrity of the trials. The general shift from site-based to home-based interventions and hybrid models of CR and PR will be increasingly important in a post-COVID world.

Cardiomyopathy Management and In-Hospital Outcomes in a Tertiary Care Center: Clinical Components and Venues of Advanced Care

Background

There are few reports on the prevalence of different types of cardiomyopathy, clinical presentation, severity, short-term outcomes, and implementation of advanced heart failure treatment. This study aimed to assess the prevalence, clinical background of different types of cardiomyopathy and to identify the candidate for advanced treatment in a tertiary care cardiac center with many advantages 

Method

A single-center retrospective cohort study included 1069 patients admitted to our center and diagnosed with cardiomyopathy during 2019 and 2020 

Results

Out of 1069 cardiomyopathy patients admitted and diagnosed at our center between 2019 and 2020, 62% had ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM), 36% had dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), and 2% had hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HOCM). ICM patients were older, showed a higher prevalence of both male gender and pilgrims, and they had more frequent cardiovascular risk factors compared to dilated cardiomyopathy group of patients. However, DCM patients with more severe heart failure symptoms (NYHA class III/IV), much worse LVEF, were subsequently considered deemed for aggressive diuretic therapy, and further advanced therapy (Sacubitril-Valsartan and device therapy) compared to ICM patients. ICM patients showed poor in-hospital outcomes compared to DCM group of patients (0.05 and <0.001) for an indication for mechanical ventilation and in-hospital mortality, respectively). Increased age, presence of renal dysfunction and lower LVEF were found the independent predictors of in-hospital mortality among our studied patients 

Conclusion

There are discrepancies between DCM and ICM patients. Although DCM patients were younger at age and had fewer cardiovascular risk factors, they presented with severe symptoms and dysfunction, hence more eligible candidates for advanced heart failure treatment, and finally showed a lower mortality rate. Increased age, presence of renal dysfunction and lower LVEF were found the independent predictors of in-hospital mortality. 

Effect of Treatment With Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients With Advanced Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

The use of sacubitril/valsartan is not endorsed by practice guidelines for use in patients with New York Heart Association class IV heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction because of limited clinical experience in this population.

Objective

To compare treatment with sacubitril/valsartan treatment with valsartan in patients with advanced heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction and recent New York Heart Association class IV symptoms.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted; a total of 335 patients with advanced heart failure were included. The trial began on March 2, 2017, and was stopped early on March 23, 2020, owing to COVID-19 risk.

Intervention

Patients were randomized to receive sacubitril/valsartan (target dose, 200 mg twice daily) or valsartan (target dose, 160 mg twice daily) in addition to recommended therapy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The area under the curve (AUC) for the ratio of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) compared with baseline measured through 24 weeks of therapy.

Results

Of the 335 patients included in the analysis, 245 were men (73%); mean (SD) age was 59.4 (13.5) years. Seventy-two eligible patients (18%) were not able to tolerate sacubitril/valsartan, 100 mg/d, during the short run-in period, and 49 patients (29%) discontinued sacubitril/valsartan during the 24 weeks of the trial. The median NT-proBNP AUC for the valsartan treatment arm (n = 168) was 1.19 (IQR, 0.91-1.64), whereas the AUC for the sacubitril/valsartan treatment arm (n = 167) was 1.08 (IQR, 0.75-1.60). The estimated ratio of change in the NT-proBNP AUC was 0.95 (95% CI 0.84-1.08; P = .45). Compared with valsartan, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan did not improve the clinical composite of number of days alive, out of hospital, and free from heart failure events. Aside from a statistically significant increase in non-life-threatening hyperkalemia in the sacubitril/valsartan arm (28 [17%] vs 15 [9%]; P = .04), there were no observed safety concerns.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this trial showed that, in patients with chronic advanced heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction, there was no statistically significant difference between sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan with respect to reducing NT-proBNP levels.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02816736.

Assessment of Omecamtiv Mecarbil for the Treatment of Patients With Severe Heart Failure: A Post Hoc Analysis of Data From the GALACTIC-HF Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction is a progressive clinical syndrome, and many patients' condition worsen over time despite treatment. Patients with more severe disease are often intolerant of available medical therapies.

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of omecamtiv mecarbil for the treatment of patients with severe heart failure (HF) enrolled in the Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac Outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC-HF) randomized clinical trial.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The GALACTIC-HF study was a global double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 randomized clinical trial that was conducted at multiple centers between January 2017 and August 2020. A total of 8232 patients with symptomatic HF (defined as New York Heart Association symptom class II-IV) and left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less were randomized to receive omecamtiv mecarbil or placebo and followed up for a median of 21.8 months (range, 15.4-28.6 months). The current post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of omecamtiv mecarbil therapy among patients classified as having severe HF compared with patients without severe HF. Severe HF was defined as the presence of all of the following criteria: New York Heart Association symptom class III to IV, left ventricular ejection fraction of 30% or less, and hospitalization for HF within the previous 6 months.

Interventions

Participants were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive either omecamtiv mecarbil or placebo.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was time to first HF event or cardiovascular (CV) death. Secondary end points included time to CV death and safety and tolerability.

Results

Among 8232 patients enrolled in the GALACTIC-HF clinical trial, 2258 patients (27.4%; mean [SD] age, 64.5 [11.6] years; 1781 men [78.9%]) met the specified criteria for severe HF. Of those, 1106 patients were randomized to the omecamtiv mecarbil group and 1152 to the placebo group. Patients with severe HF who received omecamtiv mecarbil experienced a significant treatment benefit for the primary end point (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.90), whereas patients without severe HF had no significant treatment benefit (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.91-1.08; P = .005 for interaction). For CV death, the results were similar (HR for patients with vs without severe HF: 0.88 [95% CI, 0.75-1.03] vs 1.10 [95% CI, 0.97-1.25]; P = .03 for interaction). Omecamtiv mecarbil therapy was well tolerated in patients with severe HF, with no significant changes in blood pressure, kidney function, or potassium level compared with placebo.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this post hoc analysis of data from the GALACTIC-HF clinical trial, omecamtiv mecarbil therapy may have provided a clinically meaningful reduction in the composite end point of time to first HF event or CV death among patients with severe HF. These data support a potential role of omecamtiv mecarbil therapy among patients for whom current treatment options are limited.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02929329.

ADDition of DAPAgliflozin, Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitor to Angiotensin Receptor Blocker-Neprilysin Inhibitors Non-Responders in Patient with Refractory Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction (ADD DAPA trial)

Objectives

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin, a SGLT2i along with ARNI in refractory HFrEF irrespective of their diabetic status.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of 104 symptomatic patients of HFrEF despite of optimal medical management with ARNI between January–June 2020. Despite the optimal GDMT, dapagliflozin, SGLT2i was added inpatients withrefractory heart failure. At 6-months follow-up, the primary outcome was change in left ventricular ejection fraction, and secondary outcomes included changes in NYHA functional class, vital parameters, renal function, potassium levels, and NT-pro BNP levels.

Results

The primary outcomeat 6-months follow-up was a mean change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) +9.00 ± 0.62 (p < 0.001). The secondary outcome was a significant improvement (69%) in median NYHA functional class by 2.3 (95% Confidence interval 2.245–2.355) with 92.6% of patients were in NYHA class I and 7.4% were in NYHA class II.Diabetic subgroup reached the HbA1C goal of <7%. None of them had either symptomatic hypotension, hypoglycaemia, dyselectrolaemia, and decline in renal function. The drug was well received by most of the patients.

Conclusions

Dapagliflozin, an SGLT2i, should be used in symptomatic, refractory HFrEF patients despite the use of ARNI. The combination of ARNI and SGLT2i is well tolerated, but large, randomized trials are needed to prove this hypothesis.

•

The PARADIGM-HF trial established the therapeutic value of valsartan/sacubitril, an angiotensin receptor blocker and neprilysin inhibitor.

•

Despite GDMT of HFrEF, many patients continue to have symptoms that are resistant to pharmaceutical and device therapy.

•

Current unmet needs in the treatment of refractory HFrEF can be met by focussing on the potential function of SGLTi2.

Treatment of Advanced Heart Failure-Focus on Transplantation and Durable Mechanical Circulatory Support: What Does the Future Hold?

Heart transplantation (HTx) is the treatment of choice in patients with late-stage advanced heart failure (Advanced HF). Survival rates 1, 5, and 10 years after transplantation are 87%, 77%, and 57%, respectively, and the average life expectancy is 9.16 years. However, because of the donor organ shortage, waiting times often exceed life expectancy, resulting in a waiting list mortality of around 20%. This review aims to provide an overview of current standard, recent advances, and future developments in the treatment of Advanced HF with a focus on long-term mechanical circulatory support and HTx.

ANMCO POSITION PAPER: Use of sacubitril/valsartan in hospitalized patients with acute heart failure

Sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) has been shown to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization and improve symptoms in chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction compared with enalapril. After 7 years since the publication of the results of PARADIGM-HF, further insight has been gained with potential new indications. Two prospective randomized multicentre studies (PIONEER-HF and TRANSITION) in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (AHF) have shown an improved clinical outcome and biomarker profile as compared with enalapril, and good tolerability, safety, and feasibility of initiating in-hospital administration of S/V. Furthermore, some studies have highlighted the favourable effects of S/V in attenuating adverse myocardial remodelling, supporting an early benefit after treatment. Observational data from non-randomized studies in AHF report that in-hospital and pre-discharge prescription of evidence-based drugs associated with better survival still remain suboptimal. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic has also negatively impacted on outpatient activities. Therefore, hospitalization, a real crossroad in the history of heart failure, must become a management and therapeutic opportunity for our patients. The objective of this ANMCO position paper is to encourage and facilitate early S/V administration in stabilized patients during hospitalization after an AHF episode, with the aim of improving care efficiency and clinical outcome.

Clinical and echocardiographic characteristics after six months of sacubitril/valsartan in Chagas heart disease - A case series

Chagas cardiomyopathy is the most prevalent non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy in Latin America, with high morbidity and mortality even today. Treatment of these patients is based on the use of medications for heart failure. This study evaluated a case series of patients with Chagas heart disease who used sacubitril/valsartan at a referral hospital for this disease in Brazil. After 6 months, there was a symptomatic improvement in these individuals assessed by the New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, with a 44.3% reduction in the absolute number of patients classified as III-IV in the period (P = 0.035), but without changes in the parameters on the echocardiogram for reverse ventricular remodelling. There was a high mortality rate and number of hospitalizations. These results emphasize the importance of studying the use of sacubitril/valsartan in Chagas heart disease to better describe its effectiveness considering the particularities of these individuals.

Five Years of Sacubitril/Valsartan-a Safety Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials and Real-World Pharmacovigilance

PURPOSE

In PARADIGM-HF, sacubitril/valsartan showed a significant reduction in mortality and hospitalization for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Despite proven efficacy, sacubitril/valsartan has moderate uptake in clinical practice. This study explores the safety profile of sacubitril/valsartan by comparing adverse events in RCT and real-world use.

METHODS

We studied hypotension, renal dysfunction, hyperkalemia, and angioedema associated with sacubitril/valsartan in RCTs and pharmacovigilance databases. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed with six RCTs investigating sacubitril/valsartan vs. control/comparators in heart failure patients. WHO's VigiBase, FAERS, and EMA's EudraVigilance were mined to obtain spontaneously reported real-world adverse events. Disproportionality analysis was performed with the FDA's OpenVigil 2.0.

RESULTS

Six RCTs enrolled 15,538 patients with heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fractions. There was no statistical difference for the composite of hypotension, renal dysfunction, hyperkalemia, and angioedema between sacubitril/valsartan and its comparators viz. ACEi or ARBs (OR 1.23, CI 0.98-1.56; p = 0.08). A total of 103,038 adverse events were registered in the spontaneous reporting systems. Hypotension was the most reported adverse event. Proportions of composite adverse events were 20% in VigiBase, 17% in FAERS, and 39% with EudraVigilance. Disproportionality analysis showed a lower risk of adverse events with sacubitril/valsartan than other guideline-directed heart failure medications used in clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

With increased uptake of sacubitril/valsartan, risks of hypotension, renal dysfunction, hyperkalemia, and angioedema appear low and acceptable in RCTs and global clinical practice.

Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibition in patients with acute decompensated heart failure: an expert consensus position paper

The short-term mortality and rehospitalization rates after admission for acute heart failure (AHF) remain high, despite the high level of adherence to contemporary practice guidelines. Observational data from non-randomized studies in AHF strongly support the in-hospital administration of oral evidence-based modifying chronic heart failure (HF) medications (i.e., b-blockers, ACE inhibitors, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists) to reduce morbidity and mortality. Interestingly, a well-designed prospective randomized multicenter study (PIONEER-HF) showed an improved clinical outcome and stress/injury biomarker profile after in-hospital administration of sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) as compared to enalapril, in hemodynamically stable patients with AHF. However, sac/val implementation during hospitalization remains suboptimal due to the lack of an integrated individualized plan or well-defined appropriateness criteria for transition to oral therapies, an absence of specific guidelines regarding dose selection and the up-titration process, and uncertainty regarding patient eligibility.

In the present expert consensus position paper, clinical practical recommendations are proposed, together with an action plan algorithm, to encourage and facilitate sac/val administration during hospitalization after an AHF episode with the aim of improving efficiencies of care and resource utilization.

LCZ696 Attenuated Doxorubicin-Induced Chronic Cardiomyopathy Through the TLR2-MyD88 Complex Formation

Background and Purpose

The profibrotic and proinflammatory effects induced by doxorubicin (DOX) are key processes in the development of serious heart damage. Lack of effective drugs and the unclear mechanisms of its side effects limit the clinical treatment of DOX-induced cardiac injury. This study aimed to explore the protective role of LCZ696 and the potential mechanism of Toll-like receptor 2 (TLR2) in doxorubicin-induced cardiac failure.

Experimental Approach

DOX (5 mg/kg/week, three times) was used to establish a chronic cardiomyopathy mouse model. Heart function tests, pathology examinations and molecular biology analyses were used to explore the effects of LCZ696 and TLR2 deficiency in vivo and in vitro. Computational docking was applied to predict the key residues for protein-ligand interaction.

Key Results

The EF% declined, and the LVIDd, pro-fibrosis marker levels and NF-κB related inflammatory response increased in the chronic cardiomyopathy group induced by DOX. LCZ696 treatment and TLR2 deficiency reversed these heart damage in vivo. In H9C2 cells, pre-treatment with LCZ696 and TLR2 knockdown suppressed the DOX-induced high expression of profibrotic and proinflammatory markers. Moreover, DOX notably increased the TLR2-MyD88 interaction in vivo and in vitro, which was inhibited by LCZ696. Finally, we demonstrated the direct interaction between DOX and TLR2 via hydrogen bonds on Pro-681 and Glu-727 and Pro-681 and Ser-704 may be the key residues by which LCZ696 affects the interaction between DOX and TLR2.

Conclusion and Implications

LCZ696 prevents DOX-induced cardiac dilation failure, fibrosis and inflammation by reducing the formation of TLR2-MyD88 complexes. LZC696 may be a potential effective drug to treat DOX-induced heart failure.

Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor in inotrope dependent heart failure patients: A case series

Patients with advanced heart failure (HF) symptoms constitute stage D heart failure with high mortality and less response to conventional guideline directed medical therapies. These patients are subjected to receive non-medical therapies including heart transplant or mechanical circulatory support for increasing survival. Considering the low availability and serious complications of these strategies,effective medical therapies for this group of patients would be pivotal for decreasing mortality and morbidity of them. Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) is a class of drugs approved for ambulatory heart failure patients. ARNI use like other groups of heart failure drugs has not been fully evaluated in end-stage heart failure patients. Herein, we describe four inotrope-dependent heart failure patients. Initiation of ARNI in these patients, lead to discontinuation of inotrope and reducing the need for inotrope in the follow-up period.

Acute Hemodynamic Effects of Sacubitril-Valsartan In Heart Failure Patients Receiving Intravenous Vasodilator and Inotropic Therapy

BACKGROUND

Prior study has demonstrated that transitioning patients in acutely decompensated heart failure with a low cardiac output directly from intravenous (i.v.) vasoactive (ie, vasodilators or inotropes) drugs to sacubitril-valsartan (S/V) can be done safely with tolerance to the 1-month follow-up. Here, we further characterize the hemodynamic impact of S/V after patients have been optimized on vasoactive therapy.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In a single-center, retrospective analysis, 25 patients with cardiac index of less than 2.2 L/min/m² were admitted to the cardiac intensive care unit and newly initiated on angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor therapy with the guidance of invasive hemodynamic monitoring. Hemodynamic data were gathered and compared upon cardiac intensive care unit admission, after optimization with i.v. vasoactive therapy, and after S/V initiation and weaning off i.v.

THERAPY

All patients who tolerated S/V (n = 20) were weaned off vasoactive medications before transfer out of cardiac intensive care unit. Patients maintained their significant improvement in cardiac index and reduction in SVR/PVR on transition from i.v. inotropic and vasodilator therapy to oral S/V. There was an increase in pulmonary artery pulsatility index with S/V therapy compared with the i.v. vasoactive phase of care.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients in the cardiac intensive care unit can be successfully bridged from vasoactive i.v. therapy to oral S/V with sustained improvement in cardiac index garnered from vasoactive agents. We also observed improvement in the pulmonary artery pulsatility index and maintenance of left and right ventricular unloading with S/V. These encouraging findings merit further prospective study.

Sacubitril/Valsartan Reduces Fibrosis and Alleviates High-Salt Diet-Induced HFpEF in Rats

Previous studies have confirmed the clinical efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, the role of Sac/Val in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains unclear. Sac/Val is a combination therapeutic medicine comprising sacubitril and valsartan that acts as a first angiotensin receptor blocker and neprilysin inhibitor (angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI)). Here, we investigated the role of Sac/Val in high-salt diet-induced HFpEF coupled with vascular injury as well as the underlying mechanism. Rats were fed with high-salt feed, followed by intragastric administration of Sac/Val (68 mg/kg; i.g.). The results of functional tests revealed that a high-salt diet caused pathological injuries in the heart and vascular endothelium, which were significantly reversed by treatment with Sac/Val. Moreover, Sac/Val significantly decreased the levels of fibrotic factors, including type I collagen and type Ⅲ collagen, thus, reducing the ratio of MMP2/TIMP2 while increasing Smad7 levels. Further investigation suggested that Sac/Val probably reversed the effects of high-salt diet-induced HFpEF by inhibiting the activation of the TGF-β1/Smad3 signaling pathway. Thus, treatment with Sac/Val effectively alleviated the symptoms of high-salt diet-induced HFpEF, probably by inhibiting fibrosis via the TGF-β1/Smad3 signaling pathway, supporting the therapeutic potential of Sac/Val for the treatment of HFpEF.

Novel doses of sacubitril/valsartan in patients unable to tolerate traditional therapy: Effects on N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide levels

BACKGROUND

Widespread use of angiotensin receptor blocker and neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) remains low, and many patients are unable to tolerate the medication due to hypotension at the currently recommended starting dose.

HYPOTHESIS

The aim of this study is to assess if lower than standard doses of ARNI, sacubitril/valsartan (S/V), significantly reduces NT-proBNP and leads to any change in diuretic dose, serum potassium, or creatinine.

METHODS

In a retrospective study of 278 patients who were started on a low dose S/V at a single medical center, 45 patients were selected for the study cohort. Patients were subcategorized to Group 1 (n = 10): very low dose S/V (half a tab of 24/26 mg BID), Group 2 (n = 10): very low dose titrated to low dose S/V, and Group 3 (n = 25): low dose S/V (24/26 mg BID). NT-proBNP, diuretic dose, serum potassium, and creatinine were compared before and after initiation of S/V.

RESULTS

Among all groups, there was a significant reduction in NT-proBNP level (Group 1: p < .01, Group 2: p < .01, and Group 3: p < .001). In addition, there was a significant reduction in diuretic dose across all groups combined (furosemide 53 mg/day vs. 73 mg/day; p = .03), with 17.8% (8/45) patients being able to discontinue their diuretic completely. There was no significant change in potassium or creatinine.

CONCLUSIONS

Lower than standard dose of S/V significantly reduces NT-proBNP and diuretic requirement without change in potassium or creatinine, which provides hope that patients who cannot tolerate standard doses of S/V due to hypotension may be able to receive the benefits of S/V therapy.