Comparison of sacubitril/valsartan with olmesartan for hypertension: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan versus olmesartan remains controversial for the control of hypertension. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the influence of sacubitril/valsartan versus olmesartan on the control of hypertension.

METHODS

We have searched PubMed, Embase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases through July 2023 for randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of sacubitril/valsartan versus olmesartan on the control of hypertension. This meta-analysis is performed using the random-effect model or fixed-effect model based on the heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Seven randomized controlled trials and 3677 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with olmesartan treatment for hypertension, sacubitril/valsartan treatment was associated with substantially decreased systolic blood pressure (mean difference [MD] = -4.58; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -7.90 to -1.25; P = .007), diastolic blood pressure (MD = -1.70; 95% CI = -3.24 to -0.17; P = .03), and pulse pressure (MD = -2.31; 95% CI = -4.41 to -0.21; P = .03), as well as improved systolic blood pressure control (odds ratio [OR] = 1.65; 95% CI = 1.15 to 2.38; P = .006), but had no influence on diastolic blood pressure control (OR = 1.33; 95% CI = 0.93 to 1.88; P = .11) or adverse events (OR = 1.06; 95% CI = 0.90 to 1.24; P = .51).

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril/valsartan is better than olmesartan for the reduction of blood pressure for patients with hypertension.

Efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in chronic Type B aortic dissection combined with mild hypertension

BACKGROUND

Optimal antihypertensive medication for chronic Type B aortic dissection remains undecided. This study compared the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan with valsartan to determine suitable antihypertensive drug combinations.

METHODS

In this single-center, open-label, randomized, controlled trial, patients with chronic Stanford type B aortic dissection and mild hypertension were randomized to receive sacubitril/valsartan 100/200 mg or valsartan 80/160 mg. The primary endpoint was the reduction in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP) at Week 8 in patients with sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan. Key secondary endpoints included changes in 1) mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (msDBP); 2) pulse pressure; and 3) mean ambulatory blood pressure for 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime. Safety assessments included adverse events and serious adverse events. This trial was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, identifier: ChiCTR2300073399.

RESULTS

A total of 315 patients completed the study. Sacubitril/valsartan provided a significantly greater reduction in msSBP than valsartan at Week 8 (between-treatment difference: -5.1 mm Hg [95% confidence interval (CI) -5.8 to -4.5], P < 0.001). Reductions in msSBP, msDBP, and pulse pressure as well as the mean ambulatory blood pressure for 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime, were significantly greater in sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan (all P < 0.001). No excessive episodes of adverse events occurred in the sacubitril/valsartan group.

CONCLUSION

Sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan reduced BP compared with baseline values. However, sacubitril/valsartan improved blood pressure control to a greater extent than valsartan. It may offer a new treatment option for patients with mild hypertension and chronic Type B aortic dissection.

Incidence of hyperkalemia in anuric hemodialysis patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan

INTRODUCTION

Sacubitril/valsartan is increasingly used in hemodialysis patients due to its cardioprotective benefits. However, its impact on serum potassium levels in anuric patients undergoing hemodialysis remains controversial.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective data from patients undergoing hemodialysis at two dialysis centers. A total of 71 out of 332 patients receiving hemodialysis treatment were enrolled. Mean serum potassium (mean value of 6-8 determinations), peak serum potassium (maximum K value observed during follow-up observations), and other biochemical parameters were recorded at baseline and during the follow-up period.

FINDINGS

After 6 months of follow-up, mean serum potassium increased from 4.84 ± 0.45 mmol/L at baseline to 5.07 ± 0.46 mmol/L at 3 months and 5.04 ± 0.46 mmol/L at 6 months (p < 0.001). Notably, no significant group differences were found in peak serum potassium concentrations between baseline and 6 months after sacubitril/valsartan therapy (5.69 ± 0.56 vs. 5.75 ± 0.41, p = 0.419). Prior to starting sacubitril/valsartan treatment, none of the patients had severe hyperkalemia; however, after 3 and 6 months of sacubitril/valsartan therapy, two (2.80%) and three (4.20%) patients experienced severe hyperkalemia, respectively; however, this difference was not statistically significant. Additionally, there was a significant reduction in blood pressure; however, serum sodium, bicarbonate, and Kt/V values did not change significantly during either period.

DISCUSSION

Sacubitril/valsartan therapy is associated with an increase in serum potassium levels in anuric hemodialysis patients. Nevertheless, the proportion of patients with severe hyperkalemia did not increase significantly. This suggests that the use of sacubitril/valsartan in anuric patients on hemodialysis is relatively safe.

Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan Across the Spectrum of Renal Impairment in Patients With Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

The Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) classification integrates both estimated glomerular filtration rate(eGFR) and urine-albumin-creatinine-ratio to stratify risk more comprehensively in patients with chronic kidney disease. There are limited data assessing whether this classification system is associated with prognosis and treatment response in heart failure populations.

METHODS

PARADIGM-HF was a global RCT evaluating sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril in patients with HFrEF. Patients were classified according to low, moderate, and high/very high KDIGO risk. Treatment responses were assessed according to baseline KDIGO risk. The primary outcome was a composite of CV death or HF hospitalization. A renal composite outcome was defined as sustained decline in eGFR by ≥40% or end stage kidney disease.

RESULTS

Among 1,910 (23% of total) participants with available data, 42%, 32%, and 26% were classified as low, moderate, and high/very high KDIGO risk, respectively. Patients in the highest KDIGO risk categories experienced the highest rates of the primary composite outcome (7.6[6.5-9.0], 9.4[7.9-11.2], 14.9[12.7-17.6] per 100py; P<0.001). Sacubitril/valsartan had a similar safety profile and similarly reduced the risk of both the primary outcome (PInteraction=0.31) and the renal composite outcome (PInteraction=0.50) across the spectrum of KDIGO risk.

CONCLUSION

One in 4 patients with HFrEF were classified as at least high KDIGO kidney risk; these individuals faced concordantly the highest risks of CV events. Sacubitril/valsartan exhibited consistent CV and kidney protective benefits as well as safety across the spectrum of baseline kidney risk. These data further support initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in HFrEF across a broad range of kidney risk.

Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients Hospitalized With Decompensated Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) has not been described.

OBJECTIVES

Data from randomized trials of sacubitril/valsartan in HF patients with EF ≤40% (PIONEER-HF [Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect of NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode] trial) and >40% (PARAGLIDE-HF [Prospective comparison of ARNI with ARB Given following stabiLization In DEcompensated HFpEF] trial) following recent worsening heart failure (WHF) were pooled to examine treatment effect across the EF spectrum.

METHODS

The PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF trials were double-blind, randomized trials of sacubitril/valsartan vs control therapy (enalapril or valsartan, respectively). All participants in the PIONEER-HF trial and 69.5% in the PARAGLIDE-HF trial were enrolled during hospitalization for HF after stabilization. The remainder in the PARAGLIDE-HF trial were enrolled ≤30 days after a WHF event. The primary endpoint of both trials was time-averaged proportional change in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) from baseline through weeks 4 and 8. Adjudicated clinical endpoints were analyzed through the end of follow-up, adjusting for trial.

RESULTS

The pooled analysis included 1,347 patients (881 from PIONEER-HF, 466 from PARAGLIDE-HF). Baseline characteristics included median age 66 years, 36% women, 31% Black, 34% de novo HF, and median EF 30%. The reduction in NT-proBNP was 24% greater with sacubitril/valsartan vs control therapy (n = 1,130; ratio of change = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.69-0.83; P < 0.0001). Cardiovascular death or hospitalization for HF was reduced by 30% with sacubitril/valsartan vs control therapy (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.54-0.91; P = 0.0077). This effect was consistent across the spectrum of EF ≤60%. Sacubitril/valsartan increased symptomatic hypotension (risk ratio: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.05-1.72).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients stabilized after WHF, sacubitril/valsartan led to a greater reduction in plasma NT-proBNP and improved clinical outcome compared with control therapy, in particular across the spectrum of EF ≤60%. (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect of NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode [PIONEER-HF]; NCT02554890; Changes in NT-proBNP, Safety, and Tolerability in HFpEF Patients With a WHF Event [HFpEF Decompensation] Who Have Been Stabilized and Initiated at the Time of or Within 30 Days Post-decompensation [PARAGLIDE-HF]; NCT03988634).

Sacubitril/Valsartan Alleviates Cardiac Remodeling and Dysfunction in L-NAME-Induced Hypertension and Hypertensive Heart Disease

There is ample evidence on the benefit of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) in heart failure, yet data regarding the potential protective action of ARNIs in hypertensive heart disease are sparse. The aim of this study was to show whether an ARNI exerts a protective effect in a model of Nω-nitro-L-arginine methyl ester (L-NAME)-induced hypertension with a hypertensive heart and to compare this potential benefit with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, captopril. Five groups of adult male Wistar rats were studied (14 per group) for four weeks: untreated controls; ARNI (68 mg/kg/day); L-NAME (40 mg/kg/day); L-NAME treated with ARNI; and L-NAME treated with captopril (100 mg/kg/day). L-NAME administration induced hypertension, accompanied by increased left ventricular (LV) weight and fibrotic rebuilding of the LV in terms of increased concentration and content of hydroxyproline in insoluble collagen and in total collagen and with a histological finding of fibrosis. These alterations were associated with a compromised systolic and diastolic LV function. Treatment with either an ARNI or captopril reduced systolic blood pressure (SBP), alleviated LV hypertrophy and fibrosis, and prevented the development of both systolic and diastolic LV dysfunction. Moreover, the serum levels of prolactin and prolactin receptor were reduced significantly by ARNI and slightly by captopril. In conclusion, in L-NAME-induced hypertension, the dual inhibition of neprilysin and AT1 receptors by ARNI reduced SBP and prevented the development of LV hypertrophy, fibrosis, and systolic and diastolic dysfunction. These data suggest that ARNI could provide protection against LV structural remodeling and functional disorders in hypertensive heart disease.

Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibition in Patients With STEMI vs NSTEMI

BACKGROUND

Patients who sustain an acute myocardial infarction (AMI), including ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), remain at high risk for heart failure (HF), coronary events, and death. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors have been shown to significantly decrease the risk for cardiovascular events in both STEMI and NSTEMI patients.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to determine whether angiotensin-receptor blockade and neprilysin inhibition with sacubitril/valsartan, compared with ramipril, has impact on reducing cardiovascular events according to the type of AMI.

METHODS

The PARADISE-MI (Prospective ARNI versus ACE inhibitor trial to DetermIne Superiority in reducing heart failure Events after Myocardial Infarction) trial enrolled patients with AMI complicated by left ventricular dysfunction and/or pulmonary congestion and at least 1 risk-enhancing factor. Patients were randomized to either sacubitril/valsartan or ramipril. The primary endpoint was death from cardiovascular causes or incident HF. In this prespecified analysis, we stratified patients according to AMI type.

RESULTS

Of 5,661 enrolled patients, 4,291 (75.8%) had STEMI. These patients were younger and had fewer comorbidities and cardiovascular risk factors than NSTEMI patients. After adjustment for potential confounders, the risk for the primary outcome was marginally higher in NSTEMI vs STEMI patients (adjusted HR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.00-1.41), with borderline statistical significance (P = 0.05). The primary composite outcome occurred at similar rates in patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan vs ramipril in STEMI (10% vs 12%; HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.73-1.04; P = 0.13) and NSTEMI patients (17% vs 17%; HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.75-1.25; P = 0.80; P interaction = 0.53).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with ramipril, sacubitril/valsartan did not significantly decrease the risk for cardiovascular death and HF in patients with AMI complicated by left ventricular dysfunction, irrespective of the type of AMI. (Prospective ARNI vs ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI; NCT02924727).

Comparative effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan versus angiotensin receptor blockers in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: A real-world study

DISCLAIMER

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.

PURPOSE

Sacubitril/valsartan (SAC/VAL) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are recommended therapy for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but little is known about their real-world comparative effectiveness among patients with HFpEF. The objective of this study was to determine the comparative effectiveness of SAC/VAL vs ARBs in preventing HF-related hospitalization or all-cause hospitalization among patients with HFpEF.

METHODS

We conducted a cohort study using IBM MarketScan commercial and Medicare supplemental databases to identify patients aged 18 years or older with a diagnosis of HFpEF and initiation of SAC/VAL (2015-2020) or ARB (2009-2014) therapy. The index date was the date of the first SAC/VAL or ARB prescription fill. After propensity score (PS) matching with a ratio of 1 up to 3, Cox proportional hazards regression was used with robust variance estimators to compare the risks of HF-related hospitalization and all-cause hospitalization between the 2 therapies. Several subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted to check the robustness of the main analysis.

RESULTS

After PS matching, 2,520 patients (846 receiving SAC/VAL and 1,674 receiving an ARB) were included in the final analyses. After controlling for covariates, there was no difference in the risk of HF-related hospitalization between SAC/VAL and ARB recipients (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99-1.77). There was also no difference in the risk of all-cause hospitalization between SAC/VAL and ARB recipients (aHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.91-1.24).

CONCLUSION

Among individuals with private or Medicare Advantage insurance plans, there was no significant difference in the risk of HF-related hospitalization or all-cause hospitalization between adults with HFpEF who received SAC/VAL and those who received ARB therapy.

Influence of Aging on Outcomes of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Hypertensive Patients with Heart Failure: A Multicenter Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of aging on the effectiveness and tolerance of sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) among hypertensive patients complicated with heart failure in a real-world setting.

METHODS

This multicenter, retrospective study included patients (≥18 years old) admitted with a diagnosis of hypertension and heart failure, starting sac/val therapy between January 2020 and December 2021 from 3 medical centers. Patients were grouped by the cutoff age of 65 years. Outcomes were collected 31-365 days after the initiation of sac/val and were compared in a matched cohort after 1: 1 propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

A total of 794 patients were finally analyzed. Blood pressure and cardiac functions improved significantly compared with values at baseline. There were 269 patients in each cohort (<65 years and ≥65 years) after PSM. After PSM, the incidence of hyperuricemia and hypotension in the elderly patients (≥65 years) was significantly higher than in those <65 years of age. Kaplan-Meier estimate suggested that the cumulative incidence of new or recurrent cardiovascular events increased significantly at the age of ≥65 years after the point of 3 months (log-rank P =.00087).

CONCLUSION

Sac/val benefited patients in both cohorts by improving blood pressure and cardiac function. Elderly patients (≥65 years) were susceptible to hypotension, low diastolic blood pressure, hyperuricemia, and underwent cardiac-related readmissions more frequently.

Early Initiation of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients With Acute Heart Failure and Renal Dysfunction: An Analysis of the TRANSITION Study

BACKGROUND

Treatment of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and renal dysfunction (RD) is challenging owing to the risk of further deterioration in renal function, especially after acute decompensated HF (ADHF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We assessed the effect of RD (estimated glomerular filtration rate of ≥30 to <60 mL/min/1.73 m2) on initiation, up-titration, and tolerability of sacubitril/valsartan in hemodynamically stabilized patients with HFrEF admitted for ADHF (RD, n = 476; non-RD, n = 483). At week 10, the target dose of sacubitril/valsartan (97/103 mg twice daily) was achieved by 42% patients in RD subgroup vs 54% in non-RD patients (P < .001). Sacubitril/valsartan was associated with greater estimated glomerular filtration rate improvements in RD subgroup than non-RD (change from baseline least squares mean 4.1 mL/min/1.73 m2, 95% confidence interval 2.2-6.1, P < .001). Cardiac biomarkers improved significantly in both subgroups; however, compared with the RD subgroup, the improvement was greater in those without RD (N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, -28.6% vs -44.8%, high-sensitivity troponin T -20.3% vs -33.9%) (P < .001). Patients in the RD subgroup compared with those without RD experienced higher rates of hyperkalemia (16.3% vs 6.5%, P < .001), investigator-reported cardiac failure (9.7% vs 5.6%, P = .029), and renal impairment (6.4% vs 2.1%, P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients with HFrEF and concomitant RD hospitalized for ADHF tolerated early initiation of sacubitril/valsartan and showed significant improvements in estimated glomerular filtration rate and cardiac biomarkers.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02661217.

The Safety and Efficacy of the Early Use of Sacubitril/Valsartan After Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is a significant global cause of mortality, necessitating the exploration of innovative treatments against the condition. Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) such as sacubitril/valsartan have demonstrated promise in managing acute heart failure (HF). However, despite favorable evidence from clinical trials for the use of sacubitril/valsartan in AMI, its overall efficacy remains a subject of debate. Hence, we conducted this review and meta-analysis, by adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines and aligned with European Society of Cardiology recommendations, to compare sacubitril/valsartan with traditional ACEI/ARB treatments for AMI. We employed Review Manager 5.4 for statistical analysis, the Risk of Bias Tool 2.0 was utilized for quality assessment, and publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this meta-analysis. Our findings revealed that participants treated with sacubitril experienced significantly improved outcomes in terms of HF (OR=0.79; 95% CI: 0.66-0.95; p=0.01; I2=23%), N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels (MD = -1.58; 95% CI: -1.78 to -1.37, p<0.00001; I2=97%), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (OR=0.84; 95% CI: 0.72-0.99; p=0.03; I2=44%). However, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (MD=3.68; 95% CI: 3.35-4.01, p<0.00001; I2=71%) showed greater improvement in the control group compared to the experimental group. Our meta-analysis suggests that sacubitril offers a favorable balance between safety and effectiveness. Sacubitril significantly improved outcomes in terms of HF, MACE, and NT-proBNP levels when compared to the control group. However, improvement in LVEF was notably higher in the control group over the sacubitril/valsartan group.

Efficacy of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor and Its Renal Outcome in Heart Failure Patients: A Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials

Heart failure (HF) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality and imposes a significant financial burden on healthcare systems globally. Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), a novel neuroendocrine inhibitor, is frequently used in treating HF. However, there is still limited understanding regarding how it compares to other neuroendocrine inhibitors, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). The purpose of this research is to present the most recent data regarding the efficacy and renal impact of ARNIs in the treatment of HF in comparison to ACE inhibitors and ARBs. Several large-scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have recently been conducted to evaluate the benefits of this drug in patients with different types of HF, regardless of their renal status. We searched multiple databases, including PubMed, PubMed Central (PMC), and Google Scholar, to find relevant RCTs. The efficacy outcome was a composite of the rate of death from cardiovascular causes, the frequency of HF hospitalizations (HFH), and alterations in N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels. The renal outcome was impairment of renal function. This systematic review analyzed large-scale RCTs involving 17,327 participants, with an average follow-up time of approximately 2.9 years. sacubitril/valsartan showed notable improvements compared to ACEis and ARBs in the following areas: reduction in NT-proBNP levels, prevention of further deterioration in renal function, and decreased hospitalizations for HF. Interestingly, there is no increased risk of mortality from cardiovascular causes with sacubitril or valsartan.

Impact of Treatment With Sacubitril/Valsartan on Erectile Dysfunction in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

Sacubitril/valsartan (S/V), an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, has been shown to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization and relieve symptoms in patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. The objective of this study was to assess the effects of S/V on erectile dysfunction in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). A prospective, open-label study was conducted with 59 male patients diagnosed with HFrEF and concomitant erectile dysfunction. Patients were treated with S/V for a duration of 1 month. The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) questionnaire was used to assess the severity of erectile dysfunction and sexual activities at baseline and follow-up visits. Other clinical parameters, including heart rate, were also monitored. After S/V treatment, a significant improvement was observed in sexual activities at the 1-month follow-up visit. The IIEF score showed a statistically significant increase, indicating a decrease in the severity of erectile dysfunction. However, it should be noted that the numerical increase in the IIEF score did not reach clinical significance. This study suggests that S/V treatment in patients with HFrEF may lead to improvements in sexual activities and a reduction in the severity of erectile dysfunction as measured by the IIEF score.

Effect of sacubitril/valsartan on sinus rhythm maintenance after catheter ablation in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation without reduced ejection fraction heart failure: a study protocol for a multi-center, open-label, randomized, controlled, superiority clinical trial

Introduction

A high recurrence rate of atrial fibrillation was monitored after catheter ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation. Sacubitril/valsartan can improve outcomes for patients with heart failure and ventricular tachycardia, but few studies examined whether it can reduce recurrence or improve cardiovascular outcomes in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation after catheter ablation. In this study, we will assess the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on sinus rhythm maintenance and incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation after catheter ablation through a randomized controlled trial (RCT).

Methods

This is a multi-center, randomized, controlled, open-label, superiority clinical trial involving 462 patients without reduced ejection fraction heart failure after catheter ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation. Patients will be randomized to (1) receive the standard treatment strategy plus sacubitril/valsartan titration, or (2) receive the standard treatment strategy without taking sacubitril/valsartan. The primary outcome will be sinus rhythm maintenance rate over 12 months, monitored by random electrocardiogram and 24-h Holter electrocardiogram.

Discussion

This study is designed to evaluate the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on sinus rhythm maintenance and incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation after catheter ablation. The results will evaluate sacubitril/valsartan as a novel treatment for improving prognosis and a complement to conventional drug therapy.

Trial Registration

Registered with Chinese Clinical Trials Registry on 27 August 2022, identifier: ChiCTR2200062995.

Sacubitril/valsartan attenuates atrial conduction disturbance and electrophysiological heterogeneity with ameliorating fibrosis in mice

Background

Sacubitril/valsartan (SacVal) has been shown to improve the prognosis of heart failure; however, whether SacVal reduces the occurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF) in heart failure has not yet been elucidated. In this study, we aimed to determine whether SacVal is effective in reducing the occurrence of AF in heart failure and identify the underlying mechanism of its electrophysiological effect in mice.

Methods

Adult male mice underwent transverse aortic constriction, followed by SacVal, valsartan, or vehicle treatment for two weeks. Electrophysiological study (EPS) and optical mapping were performed to assess the susceptibility to AF and the atrial conduction properties, and fibrosis was investigated using heart tissue and isolated cardiac fibroblasts (CFs).

Results

EPS analysis revealed that AF was significantly less inducible in SacVal-treated mice than in vehicle-treated mice. Optical mapping of the atrium showed that SacVal-treated and valsartan-treated mice restored the prolonged action potential duration (APD); however, only SacVal-treated mice showed the restoration of decreased conduction velocity (CV) compared to vehicle-treated mice. In addition, the electrophysiological distribution analysis demonstrated that heterogeneous electrophysiological properties were rate-dependent and increased heterogeneity was closely related to the susceptibility to AF. SacVal attenuated the increased heterogeneity of CV at short pacing cycle length in atria, whereas Val could not. Histological and molecular evaluation showed that SacVal exerted the anti-fibrotic effect on the atria. An in vitro study of CFs treated with natriuretic peptides and LBQ657, the metabolite and active form of sacubitril, revealed that C-type natriuretic peptide (CNP) combined with LBQ657 had an additional anti-fibrotic effect on CFs.

Conclusions

Our results demonstrated that SacVal can improve the conduction disturbance and heterogeneity through the attenuation of fibrosis in murine atria and reduce the susceptibility of AF in heart failure with pressure overload, which might be attributed to the enhanced function of CNP.

Case Series: Sacubitril/Valsartan Role for Chemotherapy-Induced Cardiotoxicity: An in-Depth Investigation in Saudi Arabia

Background

Chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity is a significant problem, ranking as the second most frequent cause of mortality in cancer patients. This adverse outcome encompasses many cardiovascular problems, such as heart failure. Sacubitril/valsartan has shown potential in the management of heart failure, however, its effectiveness in treating chemotherapy-induced heart failure has not been extensively explored. We performed a case series to investigate the safety and effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan in treating chemotherapy-induced cardiomyopathy in Saudi Arabia.

Methods

The case series was conducted at a single medical center in Makkah, Saudi Arabia. The data gathered included patient demographics, clinical features, laboratory results, echocardiographic findings, and medication information. The data underwent analysis using descriptive statistics.

Results

Out of the total of eight patients who were part of the investigation, a notable majority of six individuals exhibited substantial enhancements in their ejection fraction (EF) after receiving sacubitril/valsartan medication.

Conclusion

Our case series provides significant insights by revealing improvements in ejection fraction (EF) in six out of eight patients who had chemotherapy-induced cardiomyopathy after receiving sacubitril/valsartan treatment.

Bullous Pemphigoid Associated With the Use of Sacubitril/Valsartan: A Case Report and Literature Review

 Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is a complex autoimmune blistering disease with an increased incidence in the comorbid population, particularly among older adults. The occurrence of drug-induced BP is associated with an underlying genetic predisposition, triggering an enhanced immune response, the formation of autoantibodies, and alterations in antigenic properties within the basement membrane zone. With over 90 identified drugs capable of precipitating BP, we present the case of an 87-year-old woman with comorbidities who experienced a medication change from losartan to sacubitril/valsartan. Three months later, erythematous lesions appeared on her lower limbs, progressing to a generalized rash accompanied by itching. Over the following month, these lesions evolved into tense blisters with serous content and intense pain. Suspecting the medication switch to sacubitril/valsartan as the cause, the drug was discontinued, and immunomodulatory treatment was initiated, resulting in a notable improvement in the lesions.

Real-world analysis of integration of sacubitril/valsartan into clinical practice in Saudi Arabia

Despite the demonstrated advantages of angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitors in the management of heart failure, the pivotal Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibition versus Enalapril in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial, which explored this class of medications, did not include individuals from Saudi Arabia. Recognizing that different nations and ethnic groups may exhibit unique characteristics, this study aimed to compare the demographics and outcomes of patients in Saudi Arabia who received sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) with those enrolled in the PARADIGM-HF trial. In this retrospective, multicenter cohort study, we included all adult patients diagnosed with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) within a tertiary healthcare system in Saudi Arabia between January 2018 and December 2021 and were initiated on Sac/Val. The primary objective was to compare the patient characteristics of those initiating Sac/Val treatment with the participants in the PARADIGM-HF trial. The secondary endpoints included the initiation setting, dose initiation, and titration, as well as alterations in B-type natriuretic peptide and ejection fraction at the 6-month mark. Furthermore, we reported the hospitalization and mortality event rates at the 12-month time point. The study included 400 patients with HFrEF receiving Sac/Val. Compared with the PARADIGM-HF trial, the cohort had a younger mean age and a higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus. SAC/VAL was prescribed as the initial therapy for 34% of the patients, while the remaining participants were initially treated with either an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker before transitioning to Sac/Val. Approximately 75% of patients were initiated on 100 mg Sac/Val twice daily, and 90% initiated therapy in the inpatient setting. The mean ejection fraction significantly improved from 26.5 ± 8.4% to 30.5 ± 6.4% at 6 months (P < .001), while the median B-type natriuretic peptide level change was not significant (P = .39). Our study revealed notable disparities in the baseline characteristics of patients with HFrEF compared with those in the PARADIGM-HF trial. These findings offer valuable real-world insights into the prescription patterns and outcomes of Sac/Val in patients with HFrEF in Saudi Arabia, an aspect not previously represented in the PARADIGM-HF study.

ΔRDW Could Predict Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction After Sacubitril/Valsartan Treatment

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the association between red blood cell distribution width (RDW) changes and major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) occurrences during sacubitril/valsartan treatment in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

Methods

This study retrospectively analyzed the medical records of patients with HFrEF hospitalized from April 2018 to February 2021. The patients were divided into two groups according to the inclusion of sacubitril/valsartan in the personal drug treatment regimen, the traditional and the sacubitril/valsartan group. RDW values before and after sacubitril/valsartan treatment were recorded respectively as RDW1 and RDW2. ΔRDW was defined as the difference between RDW2 and RDW1. The patients in the sacubitril/valsartan group were divided into two subgroups according to ΔRDW >0 or ≤0. MACEs, such as readmission for HF, acute myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and malignant arrhythmia and death, were recorded during the 1-year follow-up period in each group.

Results

MACE development was lower in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan than those treated with conventional therapy (log-rank, P<0.001). The incidence of cardiac events during the follow-up period was greater in the group with ΔRDW >0 than in the group with ΔRDW ≤0 (Breslow, P<0.001). Increased RDW was associated with a higher likelihood of developing MACE than decreased RDW (odds ratio [OR] =2.055, 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.301-3.246), and the risk of developing MACE increased by 22.1% for each unit increase in RDW (OR=1.221, 95% CI:1.074-1.389).

Conclusion

Sacubitril/valsartan treatment is effective in reducing the risk of MACEs in HFrEF. Additionally, RDW changes are predictors of MACEs after sacubitril/valsartan treatment.

Identification and protection of early cardiotoxicity in acute myeloid leukemia patients undergoing transplantation

Cardiotoxicity of antitumor therapy results in declining survival rates. More specifically, cardiotoxicity is positively correlated with cumulative dose of anthracyclines and eventually develops from reversible to irreversible. In this context, early monitoring methods should be explored for the timely detection of cardiotoxicity and cardioprotective therapy should be performed in patients under consideration for potentially cardiotoxic therapy. This paper reports a 22-year-old male patient with acute myeloid leukemia who underwent whole-course cardiac monitoring after receiving antileukemia therapy. After the early detection of an asymptomatic decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), along with a significant decrease in global longitudinal strain (GLS), the patient was treated with sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val). Finally, the patient completed four courses of chemotherapy and subsequent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation as planned. The measurements of LVEF and GLS also recovered after 2 months treatment of Sac/Val. Therefore, the early identification and protection of patients with cardiotoxicity are of paramount importance and future prospective studies are expected to develop the management and treatment of cancer treatment-related cardiac dysfunction.

Marked Increase in Urinary C-peptide Levels after Treatment with Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Hypertension

Sacubitril/valsartan, a novel therapy in chronic heart failure (CHF), inhibits the breakdown of various peptides. However, whether or not sacubitril/valsartan administration affects urinary C-peptide levels is unclear. We herein report a 70-year-old man with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and hypertension coexisting with CHF and nephrotic syndrome. The patient's urinary C-peptide levels dramatically increased after sacubitril/valsartan administration and decreased after discontinuation of the drug. Furthermore, sacubitril/valsartan administration to five other patients with hypertension and T2DM markedly increased urinary C-peptide levels. Thus, the insulin secretory capacity of patients with T2DM receiving sacubitril/valsartan may be overestimated when their urinary C-peptide level is measured.

Olmesartan in the Treatment of hypertension: A Meta-analysis of RCTs

BACKGROUND

Sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) is a widely used drug for hypertension in Asia, popular for its efficacy and safety. However, there has been no comprehensive literature review comparing it with olmesartan. This meta-analysis compared the antihypertensive and adverse effects of sacubitril/valsartan and olmesartan.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The data were then analyzed and processed using Revman 5.4 and Stata SE14 software.

RESULTS

Six RCTs with 4,127 patients were identified, showing that LCZ696 had better blood pressure control than olmesartan; mean sitting systolic and diastolic blood pressure, sitting pulse pressure, 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure, and 24-hour ambulatory diastolic blood pressure were significantly decreased with LCZ696 compared with olmesartan. No significant difference between LCZ696 and olmesartan was observed in the occurrence of the majority of adverse events, with a decreased probability of headache in patients with sacubitril/valsartan compared with olmesartan. The subgroup analysis showed treatment with 400 mg/d LCZ696 was better than olmesartan in reducing serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril/valsartan was better than olmesartan in controlling blood pressure in patients with hypertension, with relatively higher safety.

[Sacubitril/valsartan in patients with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction and worsening heart failure: A review]

Heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction are associated with significant morbidity and mortality, as well as growing economic burden. This review describes recent studies on the use of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure patients with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction.

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.

A study of the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan plus dapagliflozin combination treatment in pulmonary arterial hypertension due to left heart disease

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan plus dapagliflozin in the treatment of patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) due to left heart disease and to explore new treatment regimen for PAH due to left heart disease.

METHODS

This study is a randomized controlled trial (RCT) study of 120 patients with PAH due to left heart disease admitted to the cardiovascular department of our hospital from Dec. 2019 to Dec. 2021. The patients were randomized 1:1 to the study group and control group. All patients were given baseline treatments targeting left heart disease and symptoms of PAH. In addition to the baseline treatments, patients in the control group were given sacubitril/valsartan tablets, while patients in the study group were given sacubitril/valsartan tablets plus dapagliflozin tablets. After 6 months of treatment, parameters including left heart function and exercise tolerance, Hemodynamics (left ventricular end systolic diameter [LVSED], left ventricular end diastolic diameter [LVEDD], left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF], 6 min walk distance (6MWD), mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) and pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP)), vascular endothelial function (plasma endothelin (ET) -1 and nitric oxide [NO]), heart failure markers (plasma N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP)], inflammatory factors (serum C reactive protein [CRP], interleukin (IL)-6, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α], and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were assessed in both groups.

RESULTS

Both groups had reduced LVESD and LVEDD, increased LVEF, and extended 6MWD after 6 months of treatment. The improvements in these parameters were significantly greater in the study group than in the control group (all P < 0.05). In addition, both the mPAP and PASP showed a decrease, and the mPAP and PASP in the study group were lower than those in the control group (p<0.05). Furthermore, both groups had decreased plasma ET-1 and NT-proBNP but increased plasma NO after 6 months of treatment. The improvements in these parameters were significantly greater in the study group than in the control group (all P < 0.05). Serum CRP, IL-6 and TNF-α levels were decreased in both groups after 6 months of treatment, and were significantly lower in the study group than in the control group (all P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the overall incidence of ADRs between the two groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Sacubitril/valsartan plus dapagliflozin in the treatment with PAH due to left heart disease can improve left heart function of patients by improving vascular endothelial functions and alleviating inflammation, which helps to reduce the PAH process. Therefore, this combination treatment is safe and effective in PAH due to left heart disease.

Long-term effects of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor therapy in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction: A retrospective cohort study

Heart failure is an increasing public health issue with substantial morbidity and mortality rates. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and long-term outcomes of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNi) in the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) 5 years after treatment initiation. This retrospective study analyzed a cohort of 75 patients diagnosed with HFrEF over a period of 5 years after the initiation of ARNi therapy. The initial clinical condition, laboratory and echocardiographic measurements including left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), New York Heart Association functional classes (NYHA-FC) and the prognostic nutritional index were compared to the corresponding values obtained after a 5-year period of ARNi therapy. In addition, the number of annual hospitalizations, mortality rates and any history of adverse effects during the follow-up period were recorded. The N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level, LVEF, and NYHA-FC values demonstrated significant improvement at the end of the 5-year follow-up period (all parameters, P < .001). Although the observed increase in the prognostic nutritional index was not statistically significant (P = .077), it is worth noting. A significant reduction in daily diuretic doses and hospitalizations due to heart failure was observed following the use of ARNi (all comparisons, P < .001). The prevalence of hypotension was around 16% (being symptomatic in 4%), making it the most frequently observed adverse event. The 5-year cardiovascular mortality rate was 17.3%. The use of ARNi in HFrEF patients was associated with a notable improvement in NYHA-FC, LVEF, and NT-proBNP levels in the long-term, while also leading to a better nutritional status and reduced need for diuretics and annual hospitalization. Additionally, ARNi usage has been associated with improved nutritional status, decreased reliance on diuretics, and reduced frequency of annual hospitalizations. These effects were associated with a lack of significant increase in adverse effects. These results may contribute to a better understanding of ARNi's long-term effects on patient outcomes.

Real-world Practical Experience of Angiotensin Receptor-neprilysin Inhibitor in Older Japanese Patients with Chronic Heart Failure

Introduction

Sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), is superior to enalapril for chronic heart failure (CHF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF). However, its efficacy and safety in older Japanese patients in clinical practice are poorly understood. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of ARNI compared with angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) in older patients with CHF in real-world clinical practice. In addition, nutritional status and body composition were investigated as essential indicators of efficacy.

Methods

This retrospective single-center observational study enrolled 55 consecutive older patients (aged ≥75 years) with CHF who received ARNI (n = 27) or ARB (n = 28) therapy between October 2020 and March 2021. Blood samples were collected before (baseline) and 4, 12, and 24 weeks after ARNI or ARB therapy initiation. Furthermore, echocardiography was performed before (baseline) and 24 weeks after ARNI or ARB therapy initiation. The efficacy endpoints were changes in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels, left ventricular EF, nutritional status, and body composition changes. The controlling nutritional status (CONUT) score and geriatric nutritional risk index were investigated as nutritional status indices. The safety endpoints were symptomatic hypotension, renal function exacerbation, and hyperkalemia in patients who continued ARNI or ARB therapy for >24 weeks without additional nonpharmacological treatment.

Results

There were no significant changes in NT-proBNP levels and estimated glomerular filtration rates; however, there was a significant CONUT score improvement in the ARNI group (least-squares mean difference, -1.0; 95% confidence interval, -1.4 to -0.3; p = 0.04). The initial ARNI dose could not be uptitrated in five patients (19%) due to hypotension.

Conclusions

ARNI exhibited significant improvement in the nutritional status in older patients with CHF compared with ARB. However, the ARNI dose should be adjusted according to the patient's blood pressure.

Economic Evaluations of Guideline-Directed Medical Therapies for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Decision-analytic models (DAMs) with varying structures and assumptions have been applied in economic evaluations (EEs) to assist decision making for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) therapeutics. This systematic review aimed to summarize and critically appraise the EEs of guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMTs) for HFrEF.

METHODS

A systematic search of English articles and gray literature, published from January 2010, was performed on databases including MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, NHSEED, health technology assessment, Cochrane Library, etc. The included studies were EEs with DAMs that compared the costs and outcomes of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid-receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. The study quality was evaluated using the Bias in Economic Evaluation (ECOBIAS) 2015 checklist and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 checklists.

RESULTS

A total of 59 EEs were included. Markov model, with a lifetime horizon and a monthly cycle length, was most commonly used in evaluating GDMTs for HFrEF. Most EEs conducted in the high-income countries demonstrated that novel GDMTs for HFrEF were cost-effective compared with the standard of care, with the standardized median incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $21 361/quality-adjusted life-year. The key factors influencing ICERs and study conclusions included model structures, input parameters, clinical heterogeneity, and country-specific willingness-to-pay threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

Novel GDMTs were cost-effective compared with the standard of care. Given the heterogeneity of the DAMs and ICERs, alongside variations in willingness-to-pay thresholds across countries, there is a need to conduct country-specific EEs, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, using model structures that are coherent with the local decision context.

Devastating Worsening Renal Function Following the Initiation of Sacubitril/Valsartan: Falling Between Two Stools

Previously prescribed antihypertensive agents were switched to the maximum dose of sacubitril/valsartan, without any upward titration, in two elderly hypertensive patients with chronic kidney disease who were hospitalized for treatment of congestive heart failure, in the hope of its decongestive, antihypertensive, and potential renoprotective actions. However, they quickly fell into oliguria and finally required hemodialysis. Sacubitril/valsartan should be initiated with careful attention in elderly patients with advanced renal dysfunction.

[Effects of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with cancer therapy-related heart failure]

AIM

To evaluate the effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan (S/V) on the functional status, systolic and diastolic function of the left ventricle (LV), tolerability of therapy and to determine predictors of its effectiveness in patients with cancer therapy-related heart failure (СTRHF).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty patients 58 [46; 65.5] years of age with HF associated with anthracycline-containing cancer therapy were enrolled. Clinical examination, echocardiography, and assessment of potassium and creatinine levels were performed at baseline and after 6 months of S/V therapy.

RESULTS

NYHA functional class (FC) improvement was observed in 22 (64.7%) patients. Radiation therapy (RT) decreased (OR 0.091; 95% CI 0.01-0.83; p=0.03) while baseline low LV EF increased (OR 9.0; 95% CI 1.78-45.33; p=0.008) the odds of FC improvement. LV EF increased from 37.3 [30; 42.5] % to 45 [38; 48] % (p<0.0001) and exceeded 50% in 7 (20.6%) patients. The odds of LV EF recovery increased when S/V therapy was initiated ≤1 year after anthracycline therapy (OR 10.67; 95% CI 1.57-72.67; p=0.0016) and decreased in patients with the history of RT (OR 0.14; 95% CI 0.02-0.89; p=0.0037) and in patients over 58 years (OR 0.07; 95% CI 0.01-0.68; p=0.022). LV diastolic function improvement included E/e' descent from 13.6 [10; 18.3] to 8.9 [6.9; 13.7] (p=0.0005), and decrease in diastolic dysfunction grade in 18 (45%) patients (p=0.0001). No significant change in serum potassium (4.45 [4.2; 4.8] versus 4.5 [4.3; 4.8]; p=0.5) and creatinine (75.4 [67.6; 85.1] versus 75.5 [68.2; 98.3]; p=0.08) levels were observed.

CONCLUSION

S/V therapy is associated with improvement of EF, systolic and diastolic LV function, demonstrates a favorable tolerability profile in patients with СTRHF. Lack of RT and low baseline LV EF increased the odds of LV EF improvement; lack of RT, early (≤1 year) start of treatment after discontinuation of anthracycline therapy, and age <58 years increased the odds of LV EF recovery.

Sex Differences in Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes After Myocardial Infarction With Low Ejection Fraction: Insights From PARADISE-MI

Background Studies demonstrated sex differences in outcomes following acute myocardial infarction, with women more likely to develop heart failure (HF). Sacubitril/valsartan has been shown to reduce cardiovascular death and HF hospitalizations in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. Methods and Results A total of 5661 patients (1363 women [24%]) with acute myocardial infarction complicated by reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (≤40%), pulmonary congestion, or both and ≥1 of 8 risk-augmenting factors were randomized to receive sacubitril/valsartan or ramipril. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death or incident HF. Baseline characteristics, clinical outcomes, and safety events were compared according to sex, a prespecified subgroup. Female participants were older and had more comorbidities. After multivariable adjustment, women and men were at similar risks for cardiovascular death or all-cause death. Women were more likely to have first HF hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR], 1.34 [95% CI, 1.05-1.70]; P=0.02) and total HF hospitalizations (HR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.05-1.84]; P=0.02). Sex did not significantly modify the treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with ramipril on the primary outcome (P for interaction=0.11). Conclusions In contemporary patients who presented with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, pulmonary congestion, or both, following acute myocardial infarction, women had a higher incidence of HF during follow-up. Sex did not modify the treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan relative to ramipril. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02924727.

Sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan in regressing myocardial fibrosis in hypertension: a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint clinical trial protocol

Background

Diffuse interstitial myocardial fibrosis is a key common pathological manifestation in hypertensive heart disease (HHD) progressing to heart failure (HF). Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNi), now a front-line treatment for HF, confer benefits independent of blood pressure, signifying a multifactorial mode of action beyond hemodynamic regulation. We aim to test the hypothesis that compared with angiotensin II receptor blockade (ARB) alone, ARNi is more effective in regressing diffuse interstitial myocardial fibrosis in HHD.

Methods

Role of ARNi in Ventricular Remodeling in Hypertensive LVH (REVERSE-LVH) is a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint (PROBE) clinical trial. Adults with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) according to Asian sex- and age-specific thresholds on cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging are randomized to treatment with either sacubitril/valsartan (an ARNi) or valsartan (an ARB) in 1:1 ratio for a duration of 52 weeks, at the end of which a repeat CMR is performed to assess differential changes from baseline between the two groups. The primary endpoint is the change in CMR-derived diffuse interstitial fibrosis volume. Secondary endpoints include changes in CMR-derived left ventricular mass, volumes, and functional parameters. Serum samples are collected and stored to assess the effects of ARNi, compared with ARB, on circulating biomarkers of cardiac remodeling. The endpoints will be analyzed with reference to the corresponding baseline parameters to evaluate the therapeutic effect of sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan.

Discussion

REVERSE-LVH will examine the anti-fibrotic potential of sacubitril/valsartan and will offer mechanistic insights into the clinical benefits of sacubitril/valsartan in hypertension in relation to cardiac remodeling. Advancing the knowledge of the pathophysiology of HHD will consolidate effective risk stratification and personalized treatment through a multimodal manner integrating complementary CMR and biomarkers into the conventional care approach.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier, NCT03553810.

Sacubitril/valsartan-induced liver injury: A case report and literature review

RATIONALE

Sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) is the first drug approved for the treatment of symptomatic chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in adult patients. There have been no reports of hepatotoxicity secondary to sacubitril/valsartan administration. Here, we report the first case of severe liver injury caused by sacubitril/valsartan.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 90-year-old female patient taking sacubitril/valsartan was admitted due to chronic heart failure. Subsequently, the patient developed serious liver injury with increased hepatic transaminases.

DIAGNOSIS

Drug-induced liver injury, sacubitril/valsartan-related. No liver injury caused by other reasons was observed after thorough examination. After the withdrawal of sacubitril/valsartan, the liver function of the patient gradually returned to normal.

INTERVENTIONS

We chose general liver protection methods to improve her hepatic function, including magnesium isoglycyrrhizinate at 100 mg daily and polyene phosphatidylcholine capsules at 456 mg 3 times daily. We consulted with a hepatologist to discuss the best plan for her treatment. The last, we stopped sacubitril/valsartan.

OUTCOMES

After the withdrawal of sacubitril/valsartan, the liver function of the patient gradually returned to normal.

LESSONS

Sacubitril/valsartan-induced liver injury is very rare. Clinicians should pay particular attention to the possibility of hepatotoxicity during sacubitril/valsartan treatment.

Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan Compared With ACEI/ARB on Health-Related Quality of Life in Heart Failure Patients: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Data on the effects of sacubitril/valsartan compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEI/ARB) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the comparative effects between sacubitril/valsartan and ACEI/ARB on HRQoL, a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to March 2, 2022 for randomized controlled trials that compared the HRQoL scores, including Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ), or Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form Health Survey 12 or 36 (SF-12/36), between sacubitril/valsartan and ACEI/ARB. After screening, studies that met the inclusion criteria were eventually included and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 8 studies with 17 390 patients (8693 patients used sacubitril/valsartan, and 8697 patients used ACEI/ARB) were included in this study. Five of these studies used KCCQ, 1 used SF-12/36, 1 used MLHFQ, and 1 used both KCCQ and SF-12/36. The KCCQ overall summary score and its subscales were significantly higher in sacubitril/valsartan compared with ACEI/ARB in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction, but were similar in heart failure patients with preserved ejection fraction. Sacubitril/valsartan conferred similar HRQoL scores in MLHFQ and SF-12/36 to ACEI/ARB. The most frequently reported adverse event for sacubitril/valsartan is hypotension and the risk is higher than for ACEI/ARB.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril/valsartan may have the potential to improve HRQoL in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction compared with ACEI/ARB. Hypotension is the most common adverse event with sacubitril/valsartan compared with ACEI/ARB. The results of this study may contribute to the rational use of sacubitril/valsartan.

Prevalent and Incident Anemia in PARADIGM-HF and the Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan

BACKGROUND

Anemia is common in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Renin-angiotensin system blockers lower hemoglobin and may induce anemia.

OBJECTIVES

The authors investigated whether concomitant neprilysin inhibition might ameliorate this effect of renin-angiotensin system blockers in PARADIGM-HF (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure).

METHODS

Anemia was defined as hemoglobin <120 g/L in women and <130 g/L in men at screening. The authors investigated the effect of randomized treatment on clinical outcomes according to anemia status, change in hemoglobin from baseline, and the incidence of anemia.

RESULTS

Of 8,239 participants with a baseline hemoglobin measurement, 1,677 (20.4%) were anemic. Patients with anemia had a more severe heart failure profile, worse kidney function, greater neurohormonal derangement, and worse clinical outcomes. Sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, decreased the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization similarly in patients with (HR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.71-1.00) and without anemia (HR: 0.78 [95% CI: 0.71-0.87]; P value for interaction = 0.478). Between baseline and 12 months, hemoglobin decreased by 1.5 g/L (95% CI: 1.2-1.7 g/L) with sacubitril/valsartan compared with 2.3 g/L (95% CI: 2.0-2.6 g/L) with enalapril: mean difference 0.8 g/L (95% CI: 0.5-1.2 g/L; P < 0.001). Patients assigned to sacubitril/valsartan were less likely to develop anemia at 12 months (321 of 2,806 [11.4%]) compared with patients randomized to enalapril (440 of 2,824 [15.6%]) (OR: 0.70 [95% CI: 0.60-0.81]; P < 0.001). These findings were similar in PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction) (sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan). There was biomarker evidence of increased iron utilization with sacubitril/valsartan.

CONCLUSIONS

Irrespective of anemia status, sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril, decreased mortality and hospitalization. Hemoglobin decreased less with sacubitril/valsartan and the incidence of new anemia was lower with sacubitril/valsartan. (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF] trial; NCT01035255).

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.

Effect of sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan on ventricular remodeling and myocardial fibrosis in perimenopausal women with hypertension

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of sacubitril/valsartan on blood pressure (BP), ventricular structure, and myocardial fibrosis compared with valsartan in perimenopausal hypertensive women.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized, actively controlled, open-label study included 292 women with perimenopausal hypertension. They were randomly divided into two groups: sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg once daily and valsartan 160 mg once daily for 24 weeks. The relevant indicators of ambulatory BP, echocardiography, and myocardial fibrosis regulation were assessed at baseline and at 24 weeks.

RESULTS

The 24-h mean SBP after 24 weeks of treatment was 120.08 ± 10.47 mmHg in the sacubitril/valsartan group versus 121.00 ± 9.76 mmHg in the valsartan group ( P  = 0.457). After 24 weeks of treatment, there was no difference in central SBP between the sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan groups (117.17 ± 11.63 versus 116.38 ± 11.58, P  = 0.568). LVMI in the sacubitril/valsartan group was lower than that in the valsartan group at week 24 ( P  = 0.009). LVMI decreased by 7.23 g/m 2 from the baseline in the sacubitril/valsartan group and 3.70 g/m 2 in the valsartan group at 24 weeks ( P  = 0.000 versus 0.017). A statistically significant difference in LVMI between the two groups was observed at 24 weeks after adjusting for the baseline LVMI ( P  = 0.001). The levels of α-smooth muscle actin (α-SMA), connective tissue growth factor (CT-GF) and transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β) were reduced in the sacubitril/valsartan group compared with the baseline ( P  = 0.000, 0.005, and 0.000). LVMI between the two groups was statistically significant at 24 weeks after correcting for confounding factors 24-h mean SBP and 24-h mean DBP ( P  = 0.005). The LVMI, serum TGF-β, α-SMA, and CT-GF remained statistically significant between the two groups after further correcting the factors of age, BMI, and sex hormone levels ( P  < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Sacubitril/valsartan could reverse ventricular remodeling more effectively than valsartan. The different effects of these two therapies on ventricular remodeling in perimenopausal hypertensive women might be because of their different effects on the down-regulation of fibrosis-related factors.

Initial Experience of Vericiguat Treatment in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

Vericiguat, a novel oral soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator, decreased the incidence of cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalization in the cohort receiving triple therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. However, efficacy and optimal patient selection in real-world practice in the era of "quadruple therapy" remains unknown.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who received vericiguat between September 2021 and December 2022 were retrospectively evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 28 patients (median age 66 years, median left ventricular ejection fraction 33%) were included. Of them, 21 patients (75%) received quadruple therapy, and the dose of sacubitril/valsartan was 100 mg in the median. Three patients receiving dobutamine infusion discontinued vericiguat due to symptomatic hypotension. One patient with a high N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide of 4848 pg/mL at the baseline underwent unexpected heart failure hospitalization. Efficacy was evaluated in 21 patients who continued vericiguat for more than 4 months. The plasma B-type natriuretic peptide concentration tended to increase during the six-month pre-treatment period from 104 pg/mL to 179 pg/mL on median (p = 0.665) but remained unchanged after six-month vericiguat treatment to 170 pg/mL on median (p = 0.188).

CONCLUSIONS

Vericiguat therapy might be feasible and effective upon quadruple therapy for those with heart failure, although further investigation is warranted to validate our findings.

Pathophysiological Rationale and Clinical Evidence for Neurohormonal Modulation in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a heterogeneous syndrome resulting from the interaction between cardiac diseases, comorbidities and ageing. HFpEF is characterised by the activation of neurohormonal axes, namely of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and the sympathetic nervous system, although to a lesser extent compared with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. This provides a rationale for neurohormonal modulation as a therapeutic approach for HFpEF. Nonetheless, randomised clinical trials have failed to demonstrate a prognostic benefit from neurohormonal modulation therapies in HFpEF, with the sole exception of patients with left ventricular ejection fraction in the lower range of normality, for whom the American guidelines suggest that such therapies may be considered. In this review, the pathophysiological rationale for neurohormonal modulation in HFpEF is summarised and the clinical evidence on pharmacological and nonpharmacological approaches backing current recommendations discussed.

A Retrospective Analysis of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure and Chronic Kidney Disease

Background: Sacubitril/valsartan has demonstrated benefit for patients with heart failure (HF); however, patients with advanced stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD) as defined by the National Kidney Foundation have historically been underrepresented in landmark HF trials. Objective: The goal of this study is to examine the safety and efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HF and concomitant CKD stages III to V. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective, observational study included adult patients with HF and CKD stages III to V prescribed sacubitril/valsartan during hospital admission or upon discharge from January 2017 through March 2022. The primary outcome was the comparison of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) from baseline to 90 days. Key secondary outcomes included the comparison of the ejection fraction (EF) at 180 days, the rate of all-cause- and HF-related readmissions within 30 days, and adverse events. Results: Fifty patients were included in the analysis, with most patients (56%) having CKD stage IIIa. There was no difference in eGFR between baseline and 90 days (45.3 (11.2) mL/min/1.73 m² vs 45.5 (18.6) mL/min/1.73 m²; P = 0.91). EF improved between baseline and 180 days (median 22.5% [17.5-27.5] vs 30.0% [22.5-42.5]; P < 0.001). Three patients (6%) were rehospitalized within 30 days for HF-related causes. There were 6 episodes (12%) of hyperkalemia greater than 5.0 milliequivalents per liter (mEq/L), and 2 episodes (4%) greater than 5.5 mEq/L. Conclusion: There was no significant difference in eGFR from baseline to 90 days in patients with HF and CKD prescribed sacubitril/valsartan during hospitalization, though there was an observed increase in EF.

Rationale, Design and Baseline Characteristics of the PARAGLIDE-HF Trial: Sacubitril/Valsartan vs Valsartan in HFmrEF and HFpEF With a Worsening Heart Failure Event

BACKGROUND

The PARAGON-HF trial studied the effect of sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) compared with valsartan (Val) on clinical outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) or mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF). Further data are needed regarding the use of Sac/Val in these groups with EF and with recent worsening heart failure (WHF) events and in key populations not broadly represented in the PARAGON-HF trial, including those with de novo HF, the severely obese and Black patients.

METHODS

The PARAGLIDE-HF trial is a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial of Sac/Val vs Val that enrolled patients at 100 sites. Medically stable patients ≥ 18 years old with EF > 40%, amino terminal-pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels ≥ 500 pg/mL and within 30 days of a WHF event were eligible for participation. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to Sac/Val vs Val. The primary efficacy endpoint is time-averaged proportional change in NT-proBNP from baseline through Weeks 4 and 8. Secondary endpoints include clinical outcomes during follow-up and additional biomarker assessments. Safety endpoints include symptomatic hypotension, worsening renal function and hyperkalemia.

RESULTS

The trial enrolled 467 participants from June 2019 through October 2022 (52% women, 22% Black, age 70 ± 12 years, median (IQR) BMI 33 (27-40) kg/m2). The median (IQR) EF was 55% (50%-60%), 23% with HFmrEF (LVEF 41%-49%), 24% with EF > 60% and 33% with de novo HFpEF. Median screening NT-proBNP was 2009 (1291-3813) pg/mL, and 69% were enrolled in the hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

The PARAGLIDE-HF trial enrolled a broad and diverse range of patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction and will inform clinical practice by providing evidence about the safety, tolerability and efficacy of Sac/Val vs Val in those with a recent WHF event.

Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan on Exercise Capacity in Patients with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction and the Role of Percentage of Delayed Enhancement Measured by Cardiac Magnetic Resonance in Predicting Therapeutic Response: A Multicentre Study

Background: This study aims to evaluate the cardiopulmonary effects of sacubitril/valsartan therapy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), investigating a possible correlation with the degree of myocardial fibrosis, as assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance. Methods: A total of 134 outpatients with HFrEF were enrolled. Results: After a mean follow-up of 13.3 ± 6.6 months, an improvement in ejection fraction and a reduction in E/A ratio, inferior vena cava size and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels were observed. At follow-up, we observed an increase in VO₂ peak of 16% (p<0.0001) and in O₂ pulse of 13% (p=0.0002) as well as an improvement in ventilatory response associated with a 7% reduction in the VE/VCO₂ slope (p=0.0001). An 8% increase in the ΔVO₂/Δ work ratio and an 18% increase in exercise tolerance were also observed. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the main predictors of events during follow-up were VE/VCO₂ slope >34 (OR 3.98; 95% CI [1.59-10.54]; p=0.0028); ventilatory oscillatory pattern (OR 4.65; 95% CI [1.55-16.13]; p=0.0052); and haemoglobin level (OR 0.35; 95% CI [0.21-0.55]; p<0.0001). In patients who had cardiac magnetic resonance, when delayed enhancement >4.6% was detected, a lower response after sacubitril/valsartan therapy was observed as expressed by improvement in ΔVO₂ peak, O₂ pulse, LVEF and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide. No significant differences were observed in ΔVO₂/Δ work and VE/VCO₂ slope. Conclusion:Sacubitril/valsartan improves cardiopulmonary functional capacity in HFrEF patients. The presence of myocardial fibrosis on cardiac magnetic resonance is a predictor of response to therapy.

The emerging role of sacubitril/valsartan in pulmonary hypertension with heart failure

Pulmonary hypertension due to left heart disease (PH-LHD) represents approximately 65%-80% of all patients with PH. The progression, prognosis, and mortality of individuals with left heart failure (LHF) are significantly influenced by PH and right ventricular (RV) dysfunction. Consequently, cardiologists should devote ample attention to the interplay between HF and PH. Patients with PH and HF may not receive optimal benefits from the therapeutic effects of prostaglandins, endothelin receptor antagonists, or phosphodiesterase inhibitors, which are specific drugs for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Sacubitril/valsartan, the angiotensin receptor II blocker-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), was recommended as the first-line therapy for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) by the 2021 European Society of Cardiology Guidelines. Although ARNI is effective in treating left ventricular (LV) enlargement and lower ejection fraction, its efficacy in treating individuals with PH and HF remains underexplored. Considering its vasodilatory effect at the pre-capillary level and a natriuretic drainage role at the post-capillary level, ARNI is believed to have a broad range of potential applications in treating PH-LHD. This review discusses the fundamental pathophysiological connections between PH and HF, emphasizing the latest research and potential benefits of ARNI in PH with various types of LHF and RV dysfunction.

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.

Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibition in Patients With Mildly Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction and Worsening Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

U.S. guidelines recommend consideration of sacubitril/valsartan in chronic heart failure (HF) and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (EF). Whether initiation is safe and effective in EF >40% after a worsening heart failure (WHF) event is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

PARAGLIDE-HF (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ARB Given following stabiLization In DEcompensated HFpEF) assessed sacubitril-valsartan vs valsartan in EF >40% following a recent WHF event.

METHODS

PARAGLIDE-HF is a double-blind, randomized controlled trial of sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan in patients with EF >40% enrolled within 30 days of a WHF event. The primary endpoint was time-averaged proportional change in amino terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) from baseline through Weeks 4 and 8. A secondary hierarchical outcome (win ratio) consisted of: 1) cardiovascular death; 2) HF hospitalizations; 3) urgent HF visits; and 4) change in NT-proBNP.

RESULTS

In 466 patients (233 sacubitril/valsartan; 233 valsartan), time-averaged reduction in the NT-proBNP was greater with sacubitril/valsartan (ratio of change: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.73-0.999; P = 0.049). The hierarchical outcome favored sacubitril/valsartan but was not significant (unmatched win ratio: 1.19; 95% CI: 0.93-1.52; P = 0.16). Sacubitril/valsartan reduced worsening renal function (OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.40-0.93) but increased symptomatic hypotension (OR: 1.73; 95% CI: 1.09-2.76). There was evidence of a larger treatment effect in the subgroup with EF ≤60% for NT-proBNP change (0.78; 95% CI: 0.61-0.98) and the hierarchical outcome (win ratio: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.09-1.95).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with EF >40% stabilized after WHF, sacubitril/valsartan led to greater reduction in plasma NT-proBNP levels and was associated with clinical benefit compared with valsartan alone, despite more symptomatic hypotension. (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ARB Given following stabiLization In DEcompensated HFpEF; NCT03988634).