Angiotensin Receptor Blocker-Related Sprue-like Enteropathy: Review of Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System

BACKGROUND

Sprue-like enteropathy (SE) related to olmesartan use was first reported in 2012. In 2017, the manufacturer of Benicar paid $300 million for 2300 claims for olmesartan-related SE.

OBJECTIVE

A study in 2019 suggested that SE was related to olmesartan and with the possibility of angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) class effect. To further characterize this condition, our group examined reports of ARB-related SE to Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS).

METHODS

All reports of ARB-related SE from January 2017 to December 2021 were downloaded from the FAERS database. Gastrointestinal adverse events including SE were reviewed. Reporter categories included physicians, pharmacists, other health care professionals, consumers, and attorneys.

RESULTS

A total of 106 590 reports of ARB-related adverse effects were analyzed. Sprue-like enteropathy was identified in 4337 cases (4.1% of total reports). Of these, 4240 cases (98.0%) of ARB-related SE were reported in patients using products with olmesartan, and 97 cases of SE were reported for all other ARBs (eprosartan, losartan, telmisartan, irbesartan, valsartan, and candesartan). Reports of olmesartan-related SE increased rapidly in 2017, continued at a high rate in 2018 and 2019, and essentially stopped in 2020 and 2021.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Reports to FAERS for ARB-related SE are mostly related to olmesartan. There was a steep decline in reports of olmesartan-related SE following the lawsuit with potential of lawyer interference. There are reports of SE related to ARBs other than olmesartan, with increased physician awareness and the potential to discover a class effect with future studies.

Acute quadruple extremity compartment syndrome due to angio-oedema after polypharmacy overdose including olmesartan medoxomil, telmisartan and vildagliptin

This case report describes a rare manifestation of acute compartment syndrome (ACS) involving all four extremities, precipitated by angio-oedema in a middle-aged woman who consumed an overdose of multiple medications: nifedipine, azelnidipine, amlodipine besylate, olmesartan medoxomil, telmisartan, esaxerenone and vildagliptin. She presented with haemodynamic instability, necessitating intubation. Despite stabilising haemodynamic parameters within 24 hours, she manifested escalating extremity oedema. At 52 hours after ingestion, mottled skin was observed, along with necrotic alterations in the swollen hands and compartment pressures exceeding 30 mm Hg in all extremities. ACS was diagnosed, leading to fasciotomies. The aetiology is postulated to be drug-induced angio-oedema, possibly intensified by the concurrent overdose of olmesartan medoxomil, telmisartan and vildagliptin, each of which has a risk of angio-oedema even at standard dosages. This scenario is a very rare case caused by drug-induced angio-oedema, which underscores the importance of vigilant monitoring to detect ACS in patients with progressing limb oedema.

Severe Hypotension With Concomitant Sodium-Glucose Co-Transporter-2 Inhibitor and Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor Therapy in a Patient With Heart Failure Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Case Report

Background: Large cardiovascular outcomes trials in individuals with heart failure, with and without diabetes, have demonstrated a significant risk reduction in the composite outcome of cardiovascular death or hospitalizations for heart failure with SGLT2 inhibitor therapy. These positive outcomes have led to the recommendation that SGLT2 inhibitors serve as backbone therapy in patients with heart failure reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). To date, there has not been enough participants in clinical trials on concomitant SGLT2 inhibitor and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor therapy to evaluate the benefits and risks of combination therapy with these two agents outside of smaller subgroup analyses. Case Summary: This case describes a Black female with diabetes meeting her glycemic targets and concomitant stable NYHA FC II HFrEF on guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) with sacubitril/valsartan, spironolactone and metoprolol succinate who developed severe hypotension and dehydration requiring hospitalization after initiation of SGLT2 inhibitor therapy. Practice Implications: This case report raises the question of whether those with type 2 diabetes, and/or those on background angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor therapy, who are euvolemic or sensitive to diuretic therapy should be started on lower dose dapagliflozin and titrated to 10 mg daily based on response. It also raises awareness to the potential increased diuretic effect produced with concomitant use of sacubitril/valsartan and dapagliflozin. Caution and education to mitigate the risk for volume depletion should be provided to those patients who are euvolemic and initiated on a SGLT2 inhibitor, regardless of their background diuretic and GDMT. Conclusion: Future research should focus on the benefits and safety considerations and provide education on how to best initiate and adjust SGLT2 inhibitors in the setting of sacubitril/valsartan use in diverse heart failure patient populations.

Effects of the valsartan recall on heart failure patients: A nationwide analysis

BACKGROUND

Valsartan is commonly used for cardiac conditions. In 2018, the Food and Drug Administration recalled generic valsartan due to the detection of impurities. Our objective was to determine if heart failure patients receiving valsartan at the recall date had a greater likelihood of unfavorable outcomes than patients using comparable antihypertensives.

METHODS

We conducted a cohort study of Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Datamart (July 2017-January 2019). Heart failure patients with commercial or Medicare Advantage insurance who received valsartan were compared to persons who received non-recalled angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin converting enzyme-inhibitors (ACE-Is) for 1 year prior and including the recall date. Outcomes included a composite for all-cause hospitalization, emergency department (ED), and urgent care (UC) use and a measure of cardiac events which included hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction and hospitalizations/ED/UC visits for stroke/transient ischemic attack, heart failure or hypertension at 6-months post-recall. Cox proportional hazard models with propensity score weighting compared the risk of outcomes between groups.

RESULTS

Of the 87 130 adherent patients, 15% were valsartan users and 85% were users of non-recalled ARBs/ACE-Is. Valsartan use was not associated with an increased risk of all-cause hospitalization/ED/UC use six-months post-recall (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.96-1.03), compared with individuals taking non-recalled ARBs/ACE-Is. Similarly, cardiac events 6-months post-recall did not differ between individuals on valsartan and non-recalled ARBs/ACE-Is (HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.97-1.12).

CONCLUSIONS

The valsartan recall did not affect short-term outcomes of heart failure patients. However, the recall potentially disrupted the medication regimens of patients, possibly straining the healthcare system.

From statistical inference to machine learning: A paradigm shift in contemporary cardiovascular pharmacotherapy

AIMS

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) poses significant challenges for clinicians and researchers, owing to its multifaceted aetiology and complex treatment regimens. In light of this, artificial intelligence methods offer an innovative approach to identifying relationships within complex clinical datasets. Our study aims to explore the potential for machine learning algorithms to provide deeper insights into datasets of HFrEF patients.

METHODS

To this end, we analysed a cohort of 386 HFrEF patients who had been initiated on sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor treatment and had completed a minimum of a 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

In traditional frequentist statistical analyses, patients receiving the highest doses of beta-blockers (BBs) (chi-square test, P = .036) and those newly initiated on sacubitril-valsartan (chi-square test, P = .023) showed better outcomes. However, none of these pharmacological features stood out as independent predictors of improved outcomes in the Cox proportional hazards model. In contrast, when employing eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) algorithms in conjunction with the data using Shapley additive explanations (SHAP), we identified several models with significant predictive power. The XGBoost algorithm inherently accommodates non-linear distribution, multicollinearity and confounding. Within this framework, pharmacological categories like 'newly initiated treatment with sacubitril/valsartan' and 'BB dose escalation' emerged as strong predictors of long-term outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In this manuscript, we not only emphasize the strengths of this machine learning approach but also discuss its potential limitations and the risk of identifying statistically significant yet clinically irrelevant predictors.

Effect of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor on physical activity in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, monitored by implantable electronic device home monitoring

AIMS

Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) therapy is a cornerstone in the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), with significant improvement in mortality as well as morbidity and quality of life. However, maximal ARNI doses often result in hypotension. Recent studies with 'real world' experience suggest that lower doses of ARNI are as effective as higher doses.In order to evaluate the symptomatic effect of low-dose ARNI in HFrEF patients, we analyzed physical activity data obtained via home monitoring of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed physical activity data obtained from HFrEF patients with CIED-active home monitoring during the years 2021-2022. Patients with ARNI therapy were further divided into subgroups according to the administered dose. Low-dose ARNI included doses of up to 24/26 mg sacubitril/valsartan daily. Intermediate dose and high dose included doses of 72/78-120/130 mg/day, and 144/156-194/206 mg/day, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 122 patients had home monitoring-compatible CIEDs and HFrEF during the study period. Sixty-four of these patients were treated with ARNI. Administration of low-dose ARNI resulted in a 20% increase in daily activity when compared with patients without ARNI treatment ( P  = 0.038). Change in physical activity of patients in the intermediate-dose and high-dose groups was not significant. Younger patients, patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy, and patients without diabetes mellitus were more physically active.

CONCLUSION

Low-dose ARNI had a beneficial effect on physical activity in HFrEF patients. MH via CIED provided real-life objective data for patients' follow-up.

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 real-world safety of sacubitril / valsartan among older adults (≥75): A pharmacovigilance study from the FDA data

BACKGROUND

Heart failure is a major cause of morbidity and mortality among older adults. Sacubitril-Valsartan (Sac/Val) has been shown to improve patients' outcomes; however, its safety profile among older adults has not been adequately examined. We therefore aimed to examine its safety profile among this population.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective pharmacovigilance study utilizing the FDA's database of safety reports (FAERS). We employed disproportionality analysis comparing Sac/Val to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). We aim to evaluate the reporting of pre-defined adverse events associated with Sac/Val (hypotension, acute kidney injury (AKI), hyperkalemia and angioedema) in two age groups: adults (< 75 years) and older adults (≥ 75). For each subgroup, we calculated reporting odds ratio (ROR) and compared them by calculating P for interaction.

RESULTS

The FAERS database encompassed 18,432 unique reports of Sac/Val. Of them, 12,630 (68.5%) subjects were adults (< 75 years), and 5802 (31.5%) were older adults (≥ 75 years), with a median age (IQR) of 68 (59-77). When compared to ARBs, Sac/Val was associated with higher reporting of hypotension, lower reporting of acute kidney injury (AKI) and hyperkalemia, and similar reporting of angioedema. Notably, we did not observe a significant interaction between the age subgroups and the risk estimates (AKI: Pinteraction = 0.72, hyperkalemia: Pinteraction = 0.94, hypotension: Pinteraction = 0.31, and angioedema: Pinteraction = 0.61).

CONCLUSIONS

In this postmarking study, none of the prespecified adverse events was reported more frequently in older adults. These findings provide reassurance for safety use of Sac/Val in older adults.

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

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

Application of eligibility criteria from DAPA-HF, EMPEROR-Reduced, and PARADIGM-HF trials to a population with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction at a specialized cardiology Clinic in Medellin, Colombia: A retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

The evidence supporting pharmacological heart failure treatment relies on randomized clinical trials with stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria.

OBJECTIVES

Assess the eligibility of outpatients with chronic heart failure for the trials DAPA-HF, EMPEROR-reduced, and PARADIGM-HF, while exploring potential differences among study populations.

METHODS

By reviewing medical records, we determined the eligibility rate for each study and evaluated the incidence of heart failure hospitalizations and all-cause mortality during this period.

RESULTS

A total of 446 patients were included in the cohort. Approximately 75% would be ineligible for the trials, mainly because of their comorbidities. Ineligible patients had a higher all-cause mortality, but a similar incidence of hospitalization.

CONCLUSION

Approximately 1 in 4 patients from a heart failure clinic in Medellin, Colombia would meet the eligibility criteria for the DAPA-HF, EMPEROR-reduced, and PARADIGM-HF trials. These findings highlight the need to complement randomized clinical trials with real-world data.

Efficacy and safety of Qingda granule versus valsartan capsule in Chinese grade 1 hypertensive patients with low-moderate risk: A randomized, double-blind, double dummy, non-inferiority, multi-center trial

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of Qingda granule (QDG) in managing blood pressure (BP) among grade 1 hypertensive patients with low-moderate risk remain uncertain.

METHODS

In the randomized, double-blind, double dummy, non-inferiority and multicenter trial, 552 patients with grade 1 hypertension at low-moderate risk were assigned at a ratio of 1:1 to receive either QDG or valsartan for 4 weeks, followed up by a subsequent 4 weeks.

RESULTS

Post-treatment, clinic systolic/diastolic BPs (SBP/DBP) were reduced by a mean change of 9.18/4.04 mm Hg in the QDG group and 9.85/5.05 mm Hg in the valsartan group (SBP P = 0.47, DBP P = 0.16). Similarly, 24-hour, daytime and nighttime BPs were proportional in both groups (P > 0.05) after 4 weeks treatment. After discontinuing medications for 4 weeks, the mean reduction of clinic SBP/DBP were 0.29/0.57 mm Hg in the QDG group compared to -1.59/-0.48 mm Hg in the valsartan group (SBP P = 0.04, DBP P = 0.04). Simultaneously, the 24-hour SBP/DBP were reduced by 0.9/0.31 mm Hg in the QDG group and -1.66/-1.08 mm Hg in the valsartan group (SBP P = 0.006, DBP P = 0.02). And similar results were observed regarding the outcomes of daytime and nighttime BPs. There was no difference in occurrence of adverse events between two groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

QDG proves to be efficacious for grade 1 hypertension at a low-to-medium risk, even after discontinuation of the medication for 4 weeks. These findings provide a promising option for managing grade 1 hypertension and suggest the potential for maintaining stable BP through intermittent administration of QDG.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR2000033890.

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

BACKGROUND

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

HYPOTHESIS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Effect of sacubitril valsartan on heart failure with mid-range or preserved ejection fraction in patients on maintenance hemodialysis: real-world experience in a single-center, prospective study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of sacubitril valsartan (SV) on heart failure (HF) hospitalization and cardiovascular mortality in patients on hemodialysis with HF with preserved ejection fraction (EF; HFpEF).

METHODS

This single-center, prospective study enrolled 155 stable hemodialysis patients with EF > 40% who were followed up for 12 months. Fifty-nine patients were treated with SV; the others were matched for EF (57.89 ± 9.35 vs. 58.00 ± 11.82, P = 0.9) at a ratio of 1:1 and included as controls. The target dosage of SV was 200 mg/day.

RESULTS

Twenty-three (23/155; 14.84%) had HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF), while 132 (85.16%) had HFpEF. After SV treatment, the peak early diastolic transmitral flow velocity/peak early diastolic mitral annular tissue velocity(E/e') improved from 17.19 ± 8.74 to 12.80 ± 5.52 (P = 0.006), the left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic diameter decreased from 53.14 ± 7.67 mm to 51.56 ± 7.44 mm (P = 0.03), and the LV mass index decreased from 165.7 ± 44.6 g/m2 to 154.8 ± 24.0 g/m2 (P = 0.02). LVEF (P = 0.08) and LV global longitudinal strain (P = 0.7) did not change significantly. The composite outcome of first and recurrent HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death showed no difference between group. However, the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative Workgroup (ADQI) HF class improved in 39 and 15 patients and worsened in 1 and 11 patients in the SV and control groups, respectively (P < 0.001). Age, diabetes mellitus, and pulmonary arterial pressure were independent risk factors for HF hospitalization and cardiovascular mortality in patients with HFpEF.

CONCLUSIONS

SV improved LV hypertrophy, diastolic function, and the ADQI class for HF; however, it failed to reduce the composite endpoints of HF hospitalization and cardiovascular disease-related mortality over 12 months of follow-up in patients on maintenance hemodialysis with EF of > 40%.

Use of sacubitril/valsartan early after CABG

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) remains a major public health problem with a high mortality and morbidity worldwide. Currently, there is no optimal revascularisation strategy for patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy despite suggestions that coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) may be superior to medical therapy in improving survival. However, CABG may be associated with substantial risk in HF subjects. We therefore aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the early initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in haemodynamically stabilised patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) after early CABG.

METHODS

This was an open-label study in which ~80 patients after CABG were randomised either to the early or late initiation of the sacubitril-valsartan. The study included patients >40 years with left ventricular ejection fraction <45% and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-IV at the early stage after CABG. Patients underwent intervention, the starting dose of sacubitril/valsartan (24/26 mg or 49/51 mg two times per day). The follow-up took place every 4 weeks except the first visit, which took place in 2 weeks after initiation. The primary endpoint assessed the key safety outcomes, the secondary endpoints were: the quality of life measured, the N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) changes and 6 min walk test (6MWT).

RESULTS

In total, 83 patients were screened and 77 patients were enrolled. The majority of patients (84.4%) were in the NYHA class III at randomisation. The number of patients who discontinued the study was low in both groups (2.5%, 5.2%), and renal function, hyperkalaemia and symptomatic hypotension rarely seen in both groups did not differ significantly. The improvement in quality of life and distance at the 6MWT in both groups was significant (p<0.001). The NT-proBNP concentration decreased in both groups, the significant reduction was in the early group (p<0.001) versus the postdischarge group.

CONCLUSIONS

The early initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in patients after CABG with HFrEF is safe and effective. Adverse events and permanent discontinuation were low. The NT-proBNP concentration reduced significantly with the early in-hospital initiation.

Safety and efficacy of candesartan versus valsartan combined with amlodipine on peripheral and central blood pressure

INTRODUCTION

"Amlodipine/valsartan" or "amlodipine/candesartan" combinations represent two effective antihypertensive agents with complementary mechanisms of action. Nevertheless, a study has yet to be done to evaluate the effect of amlodipine/candesartan on central blood pressure and compare it with amlodipine/valsartan combination. To see how "amlodipine plus candesartan combination" reduces peripheral and central blood pressure compared to the most studied combination, "amlodipine plus valsartan".

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Eighty-six patients were randomized in an open-label, prospective study by 1:1 ratio to two groups. Group I (n=42) received the amlodipine and valsartan combination, and group II (n=44) received the amlodipine and candesartan combination. Peripheral and central blood pressure (CBP) was measured at baseline, at 6 and 12 weeks of follow-up.

DISCUSSION

Both treatment groups reduced peripheral systolic, diastolic, and mean blood pressure. There was no significant difference between and within both groups. The amlodipine/candesartan combination showed more reduction in peripheral systolic blood pressure (PSBP) after 12 weeks of treatment (p=<0.001). Both groups decreased CBP without significant differences between groups. The amlodipine/candesartan combination showed additional efficacy in decreasing CSBP after 12 weeks (p=<0.001). The two treatment groups did not exert significant efficacy in lowering heart rate (HR) and augmentation index% (AIx%).

CONCLUSION

To conclude, the amlodipine 10mg/candesartan 16mg combination was non-inferior to the amlodipine 10mg/valsartan 160mg combination in terms of reducing peripheral and CBP over time.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Risk stratification for worsening renal function and renal decline in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction after sacubitril/valsartan treatment

BACKGROUND

In the real-world setting, data regarding renal decline following sacubitril/valsartan treatment are lacking. This study aimed to develop a scoring system to predict renal outcome in sacubitril/valsartan-treated patients.

METHODS

Between 2017 and 2018, a total of 1505 heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) undergoing sacubitril/valsartan treatment were consecutively enrolled from 10 hospitals to serve as the derivation cohort. Another 1620 HFrEF patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan were included as the validation cohort. Worsening renal function (WRF) was defined as a serum creatinine increase of >0.3 mg/dL and/or >25 % at 8 months of sacubitril/valsartan treatment. The derivation cohort was used to identify independent predictive factors for WRF through multivariate analysis, which were then used to develop the risk score system.

RESULTS

Among the 3125 HFrEF patients, 689 (22.0 %) patients had WRF at 8 months following sacubitril/valsartan treatment. In the derivation cohort, six prognostic factors (age, functional class, history of peripheral arterial disease, diabetes mellitus, gout or hyperuricemia, and serum albumin level) were independently associated with WRF, and were combined into a risk predicting score. This score showed accurate discrimination in the derivation and validation cohorts (Harrell's concordance indexes 0.74 and 0.71, 95 % confidence intervals 0.71-0.78 and 0.69-0.74, respectively). Patients with a higher risk score experienced a more rapid decline in renal function, poorer clinical outcomes, and a higher rate of discontinuation of sacubitril/valsartan treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This study developed a score for WRF after sacubitril/valsartan treatment, which may assist clinicians with risk stratification and therapeutic decision-making.

Cenobamate in refractory epilepsy: Overview of treatment options and practical considerations

Management of drug resistant epilepsy (DRE) represents a challenge to the treating clinician. This manuscript addresses DRE and provides an overview of treatment options, medical, surgical, and dietary. It addresses treatment strategies in polytherapy, then focuses on the role cenobamate (CNB) may play in reducing the burden of DRE while providing practical advice for its introduction. CNB is a recently approved, third generation, anti-seizure medication (ASM), a tetrazole-derived carbamate, thought to have a dual mechanism of action, through its effect on sodium channels as well as on GABAA receptors at a non-benzodiazepine site. CNB, having a long half-life, is an effective add-on ASM in refractory focal epilepsy with a higher response rate and a higher seizure-freedom rate than is usually seen in regulatory clinical trials. Experience post-licensing, though still limited, supports the findings of clinical trials and is encouraging. Its spectrum of action in relation to generalized epilepsies and seizures remains to be established, and there are no data on its efficacy in monotherapy. At the time of writing, CNB has been prescribed for some 50 000 individuals with DRE and focal epilepsy. A larger number is needed to fully establish its safety profile. It should at all times be introduced slowly to minimize the risk of serious allergic drug reactions. It has clinically meaningful interactions which must be anticipated and managed to maximize tolerability and likelihood of successful treatment. Despite the above, it may well prove to be of major benefit in the treatment of many patients with drug resistant epilepsy.

Risk of myocardial infarction, heart failure, and cerebrovascular disease with the use of valsartan, losartan, irbesartan, and telmisartan in patients

There is a lack of studies comparing the risk of cardio-cerebrovascular disease between angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) of different half-lives. We aimed to compare the risks of myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure (HF), and cerebrovascular disease with the use of valsartan, losartan, irbesartan, and telmisartan with different half-lives in a national claim-based retrospective cohort of patients aged ≥ 40 years with hypertension. To establish a cohort exposed to valsartan, losartan, irbesartan, or telmisartan, we performed propensity score (PS) matching and used an as-treated approach to evaluate exposure. The Cox regression model was employed to calculate hazard ratios, which were based on the incidence rate for each newly occurring event of MI, heart failure, or cerebrovascular disease. These hazard ratios were calculated to compare the risk of MI, heart failure, and cerebrovascular disease associated with valsartan, losartan, and irbesartan in comparison to telmisartan. A PS-matched cohort of 148,229 patients was established for each of valsartan, losartan, irbesartan, or telmisartan. The matched cohort analysis showed that the adjusted hazard ratio (aHRs, 95% confidence interval) for MI was higher for valsartan use (1.39, 1.33-1.45) and losartan use (1.10, 1.05-1.15) but lower for irbesartan use (0.90, 0.86-0.94) compared with the reference (telmisartan). The aHRs for HF were not different among these ARBs (angiotensin receptor blockers). The aHR for cerebrovascular disease was lower for valsartan use (0.85, 0.83-0.87) and losartan use (0.80, 0.78-0.82) but higher for irbesartan use (1.11, 1.09-1.13) compared with the reference. We found differences in the risk of MI and cerebrovascular disease with the use of different ARBs compared to telmisartan use. Valsartan, and losartan with a short half-life, which showed a higher risk of MI, had a lower risk of cerebrovascular disease. Conversely, irbesartan with a long half-life, which showed a lower risk of MI, had a higher risk of cerebrovascular disease.

Efficacy and Safety Comparative of Sacubitril/Valsartan vs. 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.

The efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients with hypotension

Despite previous studies showing that patients with low systolic blood pressure (sBP) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has a poor prognosis, it has few treatment options. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) in HFrEF patients with hypotension. We included 43 consecutive HFrEF patients with sBP < 100 mmHg despite guideline-directed medical therapy for at least 3 months and who received S/V between September 2020 and July 2021. Patients admitted for acute heart failure were excluded and 29 patients were evaluated for safety endpoints. Furthermore, patients who performed non-pharmacological therapy or died within 1 month were excluded, finally, 25 patients were evaluated for efficacy endpoints. The mean initial S/V dose was 53.0 ± 20.5 mg/day and the mean dosage was increased to 84.0 ± 34.5 mg/day in 1 month. Serum N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) values significantly decreased from 2200 [interquartile range (IQR): 1462-3666] pg/ml to 1409 (IQR: 964-2451) pg/ml. (p < 0.0001). No significant change in sBP occurred (pre-sBP: 93.2 ± 4.9 mmHg, post-sBP: 93.4 ± 9.6 mmHg, p = 0.91), and no patients discontinued the S/V due to symptomatic hypotension in 1 month after S/V initiation. S/V can be safely introduced in HFrEF patients with hypotension to reduce serum NT-proBNP values. Thus, S/V may be useful for the treatment of HFrEF patients with hypotension.

Real-World Effectiveness and Safety of a Single-Pill Combination of Olmesartan/Amlodipine/Hydrochlorothiazide in Korean Patients with Hypertension and Cardiovascular Risk Factors

INTRODUCTION

Patients with hypertension and additional cardiovascular risk factors pose a challenge by requiring more intensive blood pressure (BP) control. Single-pill combination (SPC) therapy can benefit these patients by improving medication adherence.

METHODS

This prospective, multicenter observational study assessed the real-world safety and effectiveness of an SPC containing olmesartan, amlodipine, and hydrochlorothiazide (O/A/H) in South Korean patients with hypertension and cardiovascular risk factors. BP control rates, defined as the percentage of patients achieving systolic BP (SBP) < 130 mmHg and diastolic BP (DBP) < 80 mmHg for intensive BP control, and < 140 mmHg and < 90 mmHg, respectively, for standard BP control, were investigated across various cardiovascular risk groups, along with changes in SBP and DBP from baseline to week 24.

RESULTS

The most prevalent cardiovascular risk factor was age (≥ 45 years in men, ≥ 55 years in women, 86.1%), followed by cardiovascular diseases (64.4%), dyslipidemia (53.7%), body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m2 (53.5%), and diabetes mellitus (DM) (46.3%). Switching to O/A/H showed significant BP reduction, with a mean change of - 17.8 mmHg/- 9.3 mmHg in SBP/DBP within 4 weeks. The intensive BP control rate was 41.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 39.5, 43.4), and the standard BP control rate was 73.3% (95% CI 71.5, 75.1), with better control rates in the risk age group (43.1% and 74.1%, respectively) and cardiovascular disease group (42.0% and 73.8%, respectively). The DM group had relatively lower control rates (37.5% for intensive control and 69.4% for standard control). Common adverse drug reactions included dizziness (2.91%), hypotension (1.51%), and headaches (0.70%).

CONCLUSION

The SPC therapy of O/A/H caused a rapid and sustained reduction in SBP/DBP in patients' hypertension and additional cardiovascular risk factors. The therapy was safe and well tolerated.

STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER

KCT0003401 ( https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/search/detailSearch.do/20795 ).

Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure with Hypertension Patients: Real-World Experiences on Different Ages, Drug Doses, and Renal Functions

INTRODUCTION

Hypertension is a significant risk factor in heart failure for worldwide patients. More than half of hypertensive patients suffer from heart failure. Recently, sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) has been approved as an antihypertensive agent in China and Japan. Additionally, it is not approved for treating hypertension in Europe or the USA.

AIM

To accumulate more real-world experiences to investigate the effectiveness and optimize clinical medication of sac/val in hypertensive patients with heart failure.

METHODS

We retrospectively enrolled adult patients diagnosed with hypertension (HTN) and heart failure (HF) and newly treated with sac/val. The baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were retrospectively extracted from electronic medical records (EMR) in three centers. The efficacy and safety of sac/val were first analyzed in all enrolled patients. Stratified analyses were conducted in patients with different ages (≥ 65, < 65), maximum tolerated doses (≥ 200 mg/days, < 200 mg/days), and renal functions (e-GFR ≥ 60 ml/min/1.73 m2, < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2).

RESULTS

Overall, 794 patients diagnosed with both HF and HTN were included in our study. During follow-up, significant reductions were found in blood pressure (BP) (SBP 12.8 ± 21.2 mmHg, P < 0.001, DBP 7.1 ± 16.5 mmHg, P < 0.001), and cardiac biomarkers (cardiac troponin 1.78 ± 19.1 ng/mL, P < 0.001, NT-proBNP 1403 ± 6937 pg/mL, P < 0.001) from baseline. In stratification analyses, the lower dosage group earned a higher BP control rate (83.4% vs. 75.6%, P = 0.025) and an overall improvement rate of cardiac indicators (61.3% vs. 48.0%, P = 0.002). The younger patients' group had significantly less cumulative hazard of recurrent cerebral-cardiovascular events than the elder group (log-rank P value < 0.001). Patients with renal dysfunction were observed with more AE incidences.

CONCLUSIONS

Sac/val could reduce BP and improve cardiac structural and functional parameters in hypertensive patients with HF, even with less than target doses. However, more attention should be paid to older patients and renal dysfunction patients when using sac/val because of additional risks in adverse events.

Clinical and Hemodynamic Improvement in Pulmonary Hypertension After Switching to Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

ABSTRACT

Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and pulmonary hypertension have poor survival, and established medical therapies for both conditions are not available. In this retrospective study of 69 patients with HFpEF and either isolated postcapillary pulmonary hypertension (IpcPH, n = 53) or combined postcapillary and precapillary pulmonary hypertension (CpcPH, n = 16), we investigated the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on pulmonary hypertension measured using right heart catheterization at baseline (ie, presacubitril/valsartan) and 99 (94-123) days after switching to sacubitril/valsartan. After switching to sacubitril/valsartan, right heart catheterization showed significantly lower pulmonary artery pressures (systolic/diastolic/mean) in both patient groups compared with presacubitril/valsartan [IpcPH: 44 (38-52)/15 (12-19)/28 (22-33) mm Hg vs. 47 (40-55)/18 (15-23)/31 (26-35) mm Hg, P < 0.01; CpcPH: 54 (43-57)/18 (12-23)/34 (30-36) mm Hg vs. 61 (50-79)/24 (19-30)/40 (31-53) mm Hg, P < 0.05]. The median sacubitril/valsartan dose at follow-up was 24/26 (24/26-49/51) mg twice daily in both patients with IpcPH and CpcPH. Clinically, the New York Heart Association functional class improved by at least 1 class in 32 of 69 patients ( P < 0.01). In conclusion, sacubitril/valsartan therapy improves pulmonary hypertension in patients with HFpEF and either IpcPH or CpcPH. Further prospective randomized trials are needed for confirmation of our results.

Duration of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction and Outcomes With Sacubitril/Valsartan: Insights From the PARAGON-HF Trial

OBJECTIVE

In this post hoc analysis of the PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HFpEF) trial, we evaluated clinical outcomes and responses to sacubitril/valsartan by duration of heart failure (HF) with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 45% at initial diagnosis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The primary outcome was a composite of total hospitalizations due to HF and cardiovascular deaths, analyzed by using a semiparametric proportional rates method, stratified by geographic region. Among 4784 (99.7%) randomized participants in the PARAGON-HF trial for whom baseline HF duration was captured, 1359 (28%) had durations of HF of < 6 months, 1295 (27%) of 6 months-2 years, and 2130 (45%) of > 2 years. Longer HF duration was associated with higher comorbidity burdens, worse health status and lower rates of prior hospitalization due to HF. Over a median follow-up of 35 months, longer HF duration was associated with a higher risk of first and recurrent primary events (per 100 patient-years): < 6 months, 12.0 (95% CI, 10.4-14.0); 6 months-2 years, 12.2 (10.6-14.2); > 2 years, 15.8 (14.2-17.5). Relative treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan were consistent, irrespective of baseline HF duration on the primary endpoint (Pinteraction = 0.112). Clinically meaningful (≥ 5 point) improvements in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Clinical Summary Scores were also similarly observed, irrespective of HF duration; (Pinteraction = 0.112). Adverse events were similar between treatment arms across HF duration categories.

CONCLUSIONS

In PARAGON-HF, longer HF duration was independently predictive of adverse HF outcomes. Treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan were consistent, irrespective of baseline HF duration, suggesting that even ambulatory patients with longstanding HFpEF and predominantly mild symptoms stand to benefit from treatment optimization.

Impact of Sex and Genetic Variation in Relevant Pharmacogenes on the Pharmacokinetics and Safety of Valsartan, Olmesartan and Hydrochlorothiazide

Drug combination therapy is the most common pharmacological strategy for hypertension management. No pharmacogenetic biomarkers for guiding hypertension pharmacotherapy are available to date. The study population were 64 volunteers from seven bioequivalence trials investigating formulations with valsartan, olmesartan and/or hydrochlorothiazide. Every volunteer was genotyped for 10 genetic variants in different transporters' genes. Additionally, valsartan-treated volunteers were genotyped for 29 genetic variants in genes encoding for different metabolizing enzymes. Variability in pharmacokinetic parameters such as maximum concentration (Cmax) and time to reach it (tmax), the incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and blood pressure measurements were analyzed as a function of pharmacogenetic and demographic parameters. Individuals with the ABCB1 rs1045642 T/T genotype were associated with a higher valsartan tmax compared to those with T/G and G/G genotypes (p < 0.001, β = 0.821, R2 = 0.459) and with a tendency toward a higher postural dizziness incidence (11.8% vs. 0%, p = 0.070). A higher hydrochlorothiazide dose/weight (DW)-corrected area under the curve (AUC∞/DW) was observed in SLC22A1 rs34059508 G/A volunteers compared to G/G volunteers (p = 0.050, β = 1047.35, R2 = 0.051), and a tendency toward a higher postural dizziness incidence (50% vs. 1.6%, p = 0.063). Sex impacted valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide pharmacokinetics, showing a lower exposure in women, whereas no significant differences were found for olmesartan pharmacokinetics.

Safety and cardiovascular effectiveness of olmesartan in combination therapy for advanced hypertension: an electronic health record-based cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Compared with placebo, olmesartan has been linked to numerical imbalances in cardiovascular mortality. There is a paucity of contemporary real-world evidence on this agent for different study populations. This study investigated the clinical outcomes of olmesartan and other antihypertensives in patients with advanced hypertension.

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective study used data from the Korea University Medical Center database, built from electronic health records. Patients prescribed at least two antihypertensive medications as a combined therapy were followed-up for 3 years. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and hospitalization for heart failure. Adjusted outcomes were compared using propensity score (PS) matching.

RESULTS

Among 24 806 patients, 4050 (16.3%) were olmesartan users between January 2017 and December 2018. The average patient age was 64 years, 45% were women, and 41% had diabetes. Olmesartan users were younger and less likely to have diabetes mellitus or chronic kidney disease. In PS-matched cohort, the 3-year cumulative incidences of the primary outcome were similar between the two groups ( P  = 0.91). The cumulative incidence of MI at 3 years was 1.4% in olmesartan users (4.8 per 1000 person-years) and 1.5% in active comparators (5.2 per 1000 person-years; P  = 0.74). Olmesartan also showed similar safety profiles, including acute kidney injury and newly started dialysis.

CONCLUSIONS

In real-world practice, olmesartan use in combination therapy resulted in similar cardiovascular outcomes when compared with those of active comparators, and our findings did not show any conclusive evidence that olmesartan is harmful in patients with hypertension.

Sacubitril/valsartan effects on arrhythmias and left ventricular remodelling in heart failure: An observational study

AIMS

Conflicting results have been reported in the literature on the potential antiarrhythmic effect of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The objectives of this study were: 1- to evaluate the long term effects of sacubitril/valsartan on arrhythmic burden in HFrEF patients; 2- to evaluate the correlation between the reduction of premature ventricular complexes during f-up and reverse remodelling.

METHODS

We identified 255 consecutive HFrEF patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan between March 2017 and May 2020 and followed by the Heart Failure and Cardiac Transplant Unit of IRCCS San Matteo Hospital in Pavia (Italy). Within this subgroup, 153 patients underwent 24 h-Holter-ECG or implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) interrogation at baseline, at 12 months (t1) and at 24 months (t2) and transthoracic echocardiography at baseline and after 12 months after the beginning of sacubitril/valsartan. Cardiac-related hospitalizations were analyzed in the 12 months preceding and during 24 months following the drug starting date.

RESULTS

Global burden of 24-h premature ventricular complexes (PVC) was significantly reduced at 12 months (t1) and at 24 months (t2) as compared to the same period before treatment (1043 [304-3360] vs 768 [82-2784] at t1 vs 114 [9-333] at t2, P = 0.000). In the subgroup of patients implanted with biventricular ICD (n = 30), the percentage of biventricular pacing increased significantly (96% [94-99] vs 98% [96-99] at t1 vs 98%[97-100] at t2; P = 0.027). The burden of non-sustained ventricular tachycardia and sustained ventricular tachycardia did not change from baseline to t1 and t2, but a reduction of patients with at least one ICD appropriate shock was reported. The correlations between reduction in 24 h PVC and reduction in LV-ESVi or improvement in LVEF were not statistically significant (respectively R = 0.144, P = 0.197 and R = -0.190, P = 0.074). Heart failure related hospitalizations decreased during follow up (11.1% in the year before treatment vs 4.6% at t1 and 4.6% at t2; P = 0.040).

CONCLUSION

Sacubitril/valsartan reduced the number of premature ventricular complexes and increased the percentage of biventricular pacing in a cohort of HFrEF patients already on optimal medical therapy. PVC reduction did not correlate with reverse left ventricular remodelling. Whether sacubitril/valsartan has any direct antiarrhythmic effects is an issue to be better explored in future studies.

[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.

Angiotensin Receptor-neprilysin Inhibitor Versus Renin-angiotensin System Inhibitor for Dementia Risk in Patients With Heart Failure

ABSTRACT

The authors report the impact of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) versus renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASI) on the management and outcomes in dementia among heart failure (HF) patients as obtained from the real-life nationwide registry. In this study, HF patients between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2019 were divided into 2 groups, including subjects receiving RASI and ARNI. The incidence rate of dementia was calculated with the unit of 1000 person-years. Cox proportional hazard model was applied for the examination of the hazard ratio, and also presented with 95% confidence interval. Between 2017 and 2019, RASI and ARNI cohorts contain 18,154 subjects. After adjusting with age, sex, comorbidities, and medications, ARNI cohort had a lower risk of dementia (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.83; 95% confidence interval = 0.72, 0.95) than RASI cohort. The authors concluded that use of ARNI was associated with a lower risk of new-onset dementia in patients with HF.

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.

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.

Efficacy and safety of sacubitril/allisartan for the treatment of primary hypertension: a phase 2 randomized, double-blind study

This randomized, double-blind phase 2 study assessed the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/allisartan, an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, compared with placebo in Chinese patients with mild to moderate hypertension. Eligible patients aged 18-75 years (n = 235) with mild to moderate hypertension were randomized to receive sacubitril/allisartan 120 mg (n = 52), sacubitril/allisartan 240 mg (n = 52), sacubitril/allisartan 480 mg (n = 52), placebo (n = 26) or olmesartan 20 mg (n = 53) once daily for 8 weeks. The primary end point was a reduction in clinic systolic blood pressure from baseline with different doses of sacubitril/allisartan versus placebo at 8 weeks. Secondary efficacy variables included clinic diastolic blood pressure and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure for the comparison between sacubitril/allisartan and placebo at 8 weeks. Safety assessments included all adverse events and serious adverse events. Sacubitril/allisartan 480 mg/day provided a significantly greater reduction in clinic systolic blood pressure than placebo at 8 weeks (between-treatment difference: -9.1 mmHg [95% confidence interval -1.6 to -16.6 mmHg], P = 0.02). There were also significant reductions in 24-h, daytime and nighttime systolic and diastolic blood pressure for sacubitril/allisartan 480 mg/day compared with placebo (P ≤ 0.03). Similarly, a greater reduction in daytime systolic blood pressure was observed for sacubitril/allisartan 240 mg/day compared with placebo (between-treatment difference: -7.3 mmHg [95% confidence interval -0.5 to -14.0 mmHg], P = 0.04). Sacubitril/allisartan was well tolerated, and no cases of angioedema were reported. Sacubitril/allisartan is effective for the treatment of hypertension in Chinese patients and is well tolerated.

Comparison of Cilostazol versus Clopidogrel in Addition to Aspirin in Patients with Ischemic Stroke who Underwent Intracranial or Extracranial Artery Stent Implantation

AIMS

The role of cilostazol after intracranial or extracranial artery stent implantation is still unclear. Therefore, we designed this trial to explore the efficacy and safety of cilostazol in this particular population.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, patients were divided into the cilostazol or clopidogrel group by the antiplatelet therapy received after artery stent implantation. The primary efficacy endpoint was ischemic stroke. Bleeding events and other antiplatelet drug-related adverse reactions (ADRs) were also recorded. Neurological function prognosis was evaluated by the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) after discharge.

RESULTS

A total of 156 patients were enrolled; 56 underwent intracranial artery stenting, 95 underwent extracranial artery stenting, and 5 underwent intracranial combined with extracranial artery stenting. Any stroke and bleeding events in the hospital of the two groups were comparable (P=0.38, P=0.34, respectively). The incidence of stroke recurrence tended to be lower in the cilostazol group, although not significant (cilostazol vs. clopidogrel, 1.35% vs. 4.88%, P=0.25). There was a significant difference of any bleeding events between the two groups (cilostazol vs. clopidogrel, 5.41% vs. 20.73%, P=0.02). During follow-up, we did not observe an apparent increase of ADRs in the cilostazol group (cilostazol vs. clopidogrel, palpitation 4.05% vs. 2.44%, P=0.58; gastrointestinal discomfort events 8.11% vs. 12.20%, P=0.80). There were no differences between the two groups of neurological function prognosis (P=0.29).

CONCLUSIONS

Cilostazol-based dual antiplatelet therapy could be recommended as an effective and safe therapy regimen among patients undergoing intracranial or extracranial artery stent implantation.

Association of Heart Failure Patients With and Without Sacubitril-Valsartan Use With Incident Cancer Risk

ABSTRACT

This study was to evaluate the association between heart failure (HF) patients with and without sacubitril-valsartan use with incident cancer risk. This study consisted of 18,072 patients receiving sacubitril-valsartan and 18,072 control group participants. In the Fine and Gray model, which extends the standard Cox proportional hazards regression model, we estimated the relative risk of developing cancer between the sacubitril-valsartan cohort and the non-sacubitril-valsartan cohort by using subhazard ratios (SHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The incidence rates of cancer were 12.02 per 1000 person-years for the sacubitril-valsartan cohort and 23.31 per 1000 person-years for the non-sacubitril-valsartan cohort. Patients receiving sacubitril-valsartan had a significantly lower risk of developing cancer with an adjusted SHR of 0.60 (0.51, 0.71). Sacubitril-valsartan users were less to be associated with the development of cancer.

Sex Differences in the Effectiveness of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors, Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers, and Sacubitril-Valsartan for the Treatment of Heart Failure

Background PARAGON-HF (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction) suggested a potential benefit of sacubitril-valsartan in women with preserved ejection fraction. Among patients with heart failure previously treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), we studied whether effectiveness of treatment with sacubitril-valsartan compared with ACEI/ARB monotherapy differed between men and women for both preserved and reduced ejection fraction. Methods and Results Data were derived from the Truven Health MarketScan Databases between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2018. We included patients with a primary diagnosis of heart failure on treatment with ACEIs, ARBs, or sacubitril-valsartan on the basis of the first prescription after diagnosis. A total of 7181 patients treated with sacubitril-valsartan, 25 408 patients using an ACEI, and 16 177 patients treated with ARBs were included. A total of 790 readmissions or deaths occurred among 7181 patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 11 901 events in 41 585 patients treated with an ACEI/ARB. Adjusted for covariates, the hazard ratio (HR) for treatment with sacubitril-valsartan compared with an ACEI or ARB was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.68-0.80). The protective effect of sacubitril-valsartan was evident for men and women (women: HR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.66-0.86]; P<0.01; men: HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.64-0.79]; P<0.01; P interaction 0.03). A protective effect for both sexes was seen only among those with systolic dysfunction. Conclusions Treatment with sacubitril-valsartan is more effective at reducing death and admission to the hospital for heart failure compared with ACEIs/ARBs similarly among men and women with systolic dysfunction; sex differences in the effectiveness of sacubitril-valsartan in diastolic dysfunction requires further investigation.

Clinical Response and Safety of Angiotensin Receptor and Neprilysin Inhibitor Combination in Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease and Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

Though the combination of an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) and a neprilysin inhibitor (ARNi) has been shown to be useful in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), its use has mostly been restricted to chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) &gt;30 mL/minute/1.73 m2 . We studied the role of ARNi in advanced CKD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with HFrEF and advanced CKD with an eGFR of &lt;30 mL/ minute/1.73 m2 were given ARNi (sacubitril with valsartan) and prospectively studied for changes in hospitalization rate for HF, clinical symptoms, levels of N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), eGFR, and potassium.

RESULTS

Of 34 patients who received ARNi, five were excluded due to hyperkalemia and three due to a decrease in eGFR &gt;30% occurring within 1 month. The remaining 26 patients included 17 with diabetes mellitus (DM) and 23 with underlying coronary artery disease. A total of eight patients had stage 4 and 18 stage 5 CKDs, amongst which eight required hemodialysis. Following ARNi, there was a significant decrease in the need for hospitalization for breathlessness (2.04 ± 1.03-0.23 ± 0.51; p &lt; 0,05), New York Heart Association (NYHA) and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) scores (3.77 ± 0.43-2.19 ± 0.56 and 28.58 ± 9.04-64.81 ± 14.3, respectively, p &lt; 0.001) and NT-pro-BNP levels (24761 ± 12157.51-20149.92 ± 13555.269, p &lt; 0.05) without significant change in eGFR after 6 months. There were no significant differences in the need for hospitalization, changes in NT proBNP levels and eGFR between stages 4 and 5.

CONCLUSION

Neprilysin inhibitor (ARNi) is effective and can be used with care even in patients with CKD stages 4 and 5 having HFrEF with monitoring of eGFR and potassium.

The Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan on Left Ventricular Myocardial Deformation in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (PARAMOUNT trial)

BACKGROUND

Global longitudinal strain (GLS) and global circumferential strain (GCS) have been shown to be impaired in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. We sought to assess whether treating patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction with sacubitril/valsartan would significantly improve GLS and GCS compared with valsartan alone.

METHODS AND RESULTS

PARAMOUNT (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB on Management of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction Trial) was a phase II, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind multicenter trial in 301 patients with New York Heart Association functional class II-III heart failure, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 45%, and an N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide of ≥400 pg/mL. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to sacubitril/valsartan titrated to 200 mg twice daily or valsartan titrated to 160 mg twice daily for 36 weeks. We assessed changes in the GLS and the GCS from baseline to 36 weeks, adjusting for baseline value, in patients with sufficient imaging quality for 2-dimensitonal speckle tracking analysis at both timepoints (n = 60 sacubitril/valsartan, n = 75 valsartan only). GCS was significantly improved at 36 weeks in the sacubitril/valsartan group when compared with the valsartan group (Δ4.42%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-8.17, P = .021), with no significant difference observed in GLS (Δ0.25%, 95% CI, -1.19 to 1.70, P = .73). Patients with a history of hospitalization for heart failure had a differentially greater improvement in GCS when treated with sacubitril/valsartan.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, sacubitril/valsartan improved GCS but not GLS when compared with valsartan during a 36-week period. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00887588.

The initial timing and dosage pattern of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

In real-world clinical practice, the initiation and up-titration of sacubitril/valsartan remain challenging due to symptomatic hypotension in patients with acute myocardial infarction(AMI). The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of different initial timing and dosage of sacubitril/valsartan in AMI patients.

METHODS

This prospective and observational cohort study enrolled AMI patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention(PCI), and were categorized according to the initial timing and average daily doses of sacubitril/valsartan prescription. The primary endpoint was defined as a composite of cardiovascular death, recurrent AMI, coronary revascularization, heart failure(HF) hospitalization and ischaemic stroke. Secondary outcomes included the new-onset HF, and the composite endpoints in AMI patients complicated with HF at baseline.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 915 AMI patients. After a median follow-up of 38 months, early use or high dosage of sacubitril/valsartan was associated with an improvement in primary endpoint as well as the incidence of new-onset HF. Early use of sacubitril/valsartan also ameliorated the primary endpoint in AMI patients with left ventricular ejection fraction(LVEF) ≤50% as well as LVEF>50%. Besides, early use of sacubitril/valsartan improved the clinical outcomes in AMI patients complicated with HF at baseline. The low dose was well tolerated and may be associated with similar outcomes compared with high dose under some circumstances(LVEF>50% or HF at baseline).

CONCLUSIONS

Early use or high dosage of sacubitril/valsartan medication is associated with an improvement in clinical outcome. The low dose of sacubitril/valsartan is well tolerated and may be an acceptable alternative strategy.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

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

Effects of switching from sacubitril/valsartan to valsartan alone on plasma levels of natriuretic peptides and myocardial remodeling in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

We examined the effect of switching from angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) to angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) on plasma levels of natriuretic peptides and myocardial remodeling.

METHODS

This is a prospective study that included 11 patients with heart failure (HF) treated with ARNI. The patients were divided into two groups: 5 patients who continued treatment with sacubitril/valsartan 194/206 mg/day (ARNI-continue group) and 6 patients who were switched to valsartan 160 mg/day (ARB-switch group). The primary endpoint was percent change (%Change) in plasma A-, B-, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (ANP, BNP, and NT-proBNP) levels from the baseline to week 24. The secondary endpoint was the change in echocardiographic parameters related to myocardial remodeling from the baseline to week 24.

RESULTS

ANP levels in the ARB-switch group significantly decreased (from 1155.7 ± 592.6 pg/mL to 231.6 ± 233.8 pg/mL, p = 0.035), whereas those in the ARNI-continue group were not significant (p = 0.180). The %Change of decrease in ANP levels was significantly greater in the ARB-switch group than the ARNI-continue group (- 76.9% vs. -9.1%, p = 0.009). BNP levels were not significantly different between the baseline and week 24 in both groups. NT-proBNP levels in the ARB-switch group increased from 1185.3 ± 835.6 pg/mL to 1515.2 ± 1213.5 pg/mL, although the changes were not statistically significant (p = 0.345). The %Change of increase in NT-proBNP levels was significantly greater in the ARB-switch group than the ARNI-continue group (57.9% vs. 17.3%, p = 0.016). In the ARB-switch group, there was a significant increase in left ventricular (LV) end-systolic volume (from 41.3 ± 24.1 mL/m2 to 71.4 ± 8.8 mL/m2, p = 0.043) and LV peak-systolic wall stress (from 187.0 ± 42.7 × 103 dynes/cm2 to 279.7 ± 34.1 × 103 dynes/cm2, p = 0.012) from the baseline to week 24 and a trend toward a decrease in LV ejection fraction (p = 0.080). In the ARNI-continue group, no differences in echocardiographic parameters were observed from the baseline to week 24.

CONCLUSION

Switching from ARNI to ARB may worsen HF due to returning to myocardial remodeling induced by a sustained decline in ANP levels.

Long-Term Prognosis of Patients with Heart Failure: Follow-Up Results of Journey HF-TR Study Population

BACKGROUND

Despite advances in therapeutic management of patients with heart failure, there is still an increasing morbidity and mortality all over the world. In this study, we aimed to present the 3-year follow-up outcomes of patients included in the Journey HF-TR study in 2016 that has evaluated the clinical characteristics and management of patients with acute heart failure admitted to the hospital and present a national registry data.

METHODS

The study was designed retrospectively between November 2016 and December 2019. Patient data included in the previously published Journey HF-TR study were used. Among 1606 patients, 1484 patients were included due to dropout of 122 patients due to inhospital death and due to exclusion of 173 due to incomplete data. The study included 1311 patients. Age, gender, concomitant chronic conditions, precipitating factors, New York Heart Association, and left ventricular ejection fraction factors were adjusted in the Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

During the 3-year follow-up period, the ratio of hospitalization and mortality was 70.5% and 52.1%, respectively. Common causes of mortality were acute decompensation of heart failure and acute coronary syndrome. Angiotensin receptor blockers, betablockers, statin, and sacubitril/valsartan were found to reduce mortality. Hospitalization due to acute decompensated heart failure, acute coronary syndrome, lung diseases, oncological diseases, and cerebrovascular diseases was associated with the increased risk of mortality. Implantation of cardiac devices also reduced the mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite advances in therapeutic management of patients with heart failure, our study demonstrated that the long-term mortality still is high. Much more efforts are needed to improve the inhospital and long-term survival of patients with chronic heart failure.

Sacubitril/valsartan reduces cardiac decompensation in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The impact of sacubitril-valsartan on heart failure (HF) patients with preserved ejection fractions (HFpEF) is uncertain. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to explore the clinical advantages and safety of sacubitril-valsartan in patients with HFpEF.

METHODS

PubMed and Web of Science were searched without any restrictions from inception to 8 May 2022 to identify valuable articles. The studies that met the inclusion criteria were analyzed.

RESULTS

Four trials, with a total of 7008 patients were included. Compared with valsartan, sacubitril-valsartan significantly reduced the rate of HF decompensation and of the combined end point of HF decompensation and all-cause mortality. All-cause mortality, New York Heart Association class improvement and rate of hyperkalemia were not significantly different between the two groups. Regarding safety, sacubitril-valsartan was more likely to increase the risk of hypotension.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggests that sacubitril-valsartan may be an effective strategy to reduce HF decompensation events in patients with HFpEF.Systematic Review registration: CRD42022336077.

Short term effect of sacubitril/valsartan on comprehensive geriatric assessment in chronic heart failure: a real life analysis

Sacubitril/Valsartan (Sac-Val) has improved clinical prognosis in patients affected by heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Comorbidities have a crucial impact on clinical presentation and prognosis in HF patients. Cognitive impairment (CoI) and Depression are a very common comorbidity in patients with HF and is widely recognized as a specific determinant of chronic disability, and HF patients with poor physical functional performance in Short physical performance battery (SPPB) showed a worse prognosis. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the potential effects of Sac-Val on functional, humoral, and cognitive aspects, evaluated by performing comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA), in a cohort of elderly HFrEF. We studied 61 patients (51 men and 10 women, mean age 76.4 ± 5.1 years) suffering from HFrEF. After 6 months follow-up, we observed a significant improvement in humoral and functional parameters of CGA, renal function, NTpro-BNP levels and echocardiographic parameters. In the whole population, multivariate analysis shows that changes of Cardiac Index, NT-proBNP and Respiratory rate contributed for 26.0%, 9.7% and 4.8% to GDS variability, respectively, and the whole model accounted for a 41.1% of GDS variation; moreover changes of Global longitudinal strain, estimated glomerular filtration rate, Cardiac Index and BMI contributed for 23.9%, 11.7%, 5.4% and 4.0% to SPPB variability, respectively, and the whole model accounted for a 45% of SPPB variation. This represents the first real-world study carried out in an elderly population suffering from chronic HFrEF with numerous comorbidities, in which treatment with Sac-Val for 6 months induced important improvements in clinical, humoral, hemodynamic, and functional outcomes, without adverse effects on cognitive performance.