-
1.
Meta-Analysis of Dedicated Heart Failure Trials Evaluating the Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan on Major Cardiac Rhythm Disorders.
Patoulias, D, Papadopoulos, C, Toumpourleka, M, Tranidou, A, Boulmpou, A, Doumas, M
The American journal of cardiology. 2021;:120-122
-
2.
Eligibility for sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure across the ejection fraction spectrum: real-world data from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry.
Savarese, G, Hage, C, Benson, L, Schrage, B, Thorvaldsen, T, Lundberg, A, Fudim, M, Linde, C, Dahlström, U, Rosano, GMC, et al
Journal of internal medicine. 2021;(3):369-384
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Randomized controlled trials (RCT) generalizability may be limited due to strict patient selection. OBJECTIVE In a real-world heart failure (HF) population, we assessed eligibility for sacubitril/valsartan based on PARADIGM-HF (sacubitril/valsartan effective)/PARAGON-HF [sacubitril/valsartan effective in mildly reduced ejection fraction (EF)]. METHODS Outpatients from the Swedish HF Registry (SwedeHF) were analysed. In SwedeHF, EF is recorded as <30, 30-39, 40-49 and ≥50%. In PARAGON-HF, sacubitril/valsartan was effective with EF ≤ 57% (i.e. median). We defined reduced EF/PARADIGM-HF as EF < 40%, mildly reduced EF/PARAGON-HF ≤ median as EF 40-49%, and normal EF/PARAGON-HF > median as EF ≥ 50%. We assessed 2 scenarios: (i) criteria likely to influence treatment decisions (pragmatic scenario); (ii) all criteria (literal scenario). RESULTS Of 37 790 outpatients, 57% had EF < 40%, 24% EF 40-49% and 19% EF ≥ 50%. In the pragmatic scenario, 63% were eligible in EF < 50% (67% for EF < 40% and 52% for 40-49%) and 52% in EF ≥ 40% (52% for EF ≥ 50%). For the literal scenario, 32% were eligible in EF < 50% (38% of EF < 40%, 20% of EF 40-49%) and 22% in EF ≥ 40% (25% for EF ≥ 50%). Eligible vs. noneligible patients had more severe HF, more comorbidities and overall worse outcomes. CONCLUSION In a real-world HF outpatient cohort, 81% of patients had EF < 50%, with 63% eligible for sacubitril/valsartan based on pragmatic criteria and 32% eligible based on literal trial criteria. Similar eligibility was observed for EF 40-49% and ≥50%, suggesting that our estimates for EF < 50% may be reproduced whether or not a higher cut-off for EF is considered.
-
3.
Association of Sacubitril/Valsartan with Metabolic Parameters in Patients with Reduced Ejection Fraction Heart Failure at a Multidisciplinary Clinic.
Ryu, R, Tran, H, Bahjri, K
Metabolic syndrome and related disorders. 2021;(2):115-118
Abstract
Background: Sacubitril/valsartan was approved for New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-IV heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in 2015, based on the results of the PARADIGM-HF trial, which showed a reduction in cardiovascular (CV) death and heart failure hospitalization, compared with enalapril. A subsequent subgroup analysis of the trial showed glycemic improvement for patients on sacubitril/valsartan compared with those on enalapril. Methods: This was a retrospective observational study at the Loma Linda University (LLU) International Heart Institute (IHI). The aim was to evaluate the association of sacubitril/valsartan with glycemic index and other metabolic parameters, including change in hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C), blood pressure (BP), ejection fraction (EF), body weight, and lipid profile from baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months. The rates of CV-related hospitalizations and total hospitalizations were also assessed. Results: The change in mean HbA1C from baseline was not significantly different at 1 year (P = 0.993). The mean EF was significantly higher and the mean diastolic BP was significantly lowered. Body weight and lipid parameters remained unchanged. Both the rates of CV-related hospitalizations and total hospitalizations were significantly lowered. For the prespecified subgroup analysis of diabetic HFrEF patients, the mean HbA1C was nonsignificant at 12 months (mean difference -0.48, P = 0.993). Conclusion: A non-significant reduction in HbA1C was associated in HFrEF patients with diabetes mellitus. Large randomized trials are needed to confirm our findings regarding the potential metabolic benefits of sacubitril/valsartan.
-
4.
Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan on circulating catecholamine levels during a 6-month follow-up in heart failure patients. Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes?
Chalikias, G, Kikas, P, Thomaidis, A, Rigopoulos, P, Pistola, A, Lantzouraki, A, Zisimopoulos, A, Tziakas, D
Acta cardiologica. 2021;(4):396-401
Abstract
We assessed the effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan on circulating catecholamine levels in patients with HF in an observational cohort study. We included 108 consecutive HF patients attending our HF Outpatients Clinic who were eligible to Sacubitril/Valsartan according to the PARADIGM-HF inclusion and exclusion criteria. We furthermore included 58 stable HF patients under optimal medical therapy as a control group. Norepinephrine and epinephrine were measured with immunoradiometric assays at baseline, at 3- and at 6-month time follow-up. Compared to baseline levels there was no change at three months in epinephrine (p = 0.177) or norepinephrine (p = 0.815) concentrations. At 6 months norepinephrine remained unchanged (p = 0.359). However, at 6 months we observed a significant increase in epinephrine levels compared to baseline [66 pg/mL (37-93) vs 38 pg/mL (18-74), p < 0.001]. In the control group no change was observed in epinephrine levels compared to baseline (p = 0.838). This study is the first to report on the effect of the new drug Sacubitril/Valsartan on circulating catecholamine levels in HF patients. Our data show a significant increase in epinephrine levels during a 6 month follow up in stable HF patients.
-
5.
The AWAKE-HF Study: Sacubitril/Valsartan Impact on Daily Physical Activity and Sleep in Heart Failure.
Khandwalla, RM, Grant, D, Birkeland, K, Heywood, JT, Fombu, E, Owens, RL, Steinhubl, SR, ,
American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions. 2021;(2):241-254
Abstract
BACKGROUND AWAKE-HF evaluated the effect of the initiation of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril on activity and sleep using actigraphy in patients who have heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS In this randomized, double-blind study, patients with HFrEF (n = 140) were randomly assigned to sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril for 8 weeks, followed by an 8-week open-label phase with sacubitril/valsartan. Primary endpoint was change from baseline in mean activity counts during the most active 30 min/day at week 8. The key secondary endpoint was change in mean nightly activity counts/minute from baseline to week 8. Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-23 (KCCQ-23) was an exploratory endpoint. RESULTS There were no detectable differences between groups in geometric mean ratio of activity counts during the most active 30 min/day at week 8 compared with baseline (0.9456 [sacubitril/valsartan:enalapril]; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.8863-1.0088; P = 0.0895) or in mean change from baseline in activity during sleep (difference: 2.038 counts/min; 95% CI - 0.062 to 4.138; P = 0.0570). Change from baseline to week 8 in KCCQ-23 was 2.89 for sacubitril/valsartan and 4.19 for enalapril, both nonsignificant. CONCLUSIONS In AWAKE-HF, no detectable differences in activity and sleep were observed when comparing sacubitril/valsartan with enalapril in patients with HFrEF using a wearable biosensor. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02970669.
-
6.
Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan versus Ramipril in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.
Rezq, A, Saad, M, El Nozahi, M
The American journal of cardiology. 2021;:7-13
Abstract
The role of sacubitril and/or valsartan in patient with heart failure (HF) is established. Whether sacubitril and/or valsartan plays a role in improving outcomes in patients after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is unknown. The current study aims to comparing the efficacy and safety of sacubitril and/or valsartan versus ramipril in post-STEMI patients. Patients presenting with STEMI were randomized to receive either sacubitril and/or valsartan or ramipril after primary percutaneous coronary intervention. The main efficacy endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 30 days and 6 months, defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and HF hospitalizations. Multiple secondary clinical safety and efficacy endpoints were examined. A total of 200 patients were randomized from January 2018 to March 2019, mean age 54.5±10.4, 87% men, 75% presented with anterior wall STEMI. Baseline clinical and echocardiographic characteristics were comparable between groups. The primary endpoint of MACE was similar with sacubitril/valsartan versus ramipril at 30 days (p = 0.18); however, at 6 months, sacubitril/valsartan was associated with significant reduction of MACE (p = 0.005), mainly driven by reduction in HF hospitalizations (18% vs 36%, OR 0.40, 95% 0.22 to 0.75; p = 0.004). At 6 months, LV ejection fraction was higher with sacubitril/valsartan (46.8±12.5% vs 42.09±13.8%; p = 0.012), with improved LV remodelling (LV end diastolic dimension 50.6±3.9 mm vs 53.2±2.7 mm, p = 0.047; and LV end systolic dimension 36.1±3.4 mm versus 39.9±6.3 mm, p = 0.001) compared with ramipril. No difference in other efficacy or safety clinical endpoints was observed. In conclusion, early initiation of sacubitril/valsartan may offer clinical benefit and improvement in myocardial remodelling in post-STEMI patients.
-
7.
Global Differences in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: The PARAGON-HF Trial.
Tromp, J, Claggett, BL, Liu, J, Jackson, AM, Jhund, PS, Køber, L, Widimský, J, Boytsov, SA, Chopra, VK, Anand, IS, et al
Circulation. Heart failure. 2021;(4):e007901
Abstract
BACKGROUND Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a global public health problem with important regional differences. We investigated these differences in the PARAGON-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in HFpEF), the largest and most inclusive global HFpEF trial. METHODS We studied differences in clinical characteristics, outcomes, and treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan in 4796 patients with HFpEF from the PARAGON-HF trial, grouped according to geographic region. RESULTS Regional differences in patient characteristics and comorbidities were observed: patients from Western Europe were oldest (mean 75±7 years) with the highest prevalence of atrial fibrillation/flutter (36%); Central/Eastern European patients were youngest (mean 71±8 years) with the highest prevalence of coronary artery disease (50%); North American patients had the highest prevalence of obesity (65%) and diabetes (49%); Latin American patients were younger (73±9 years) and had a high prevalence of obesity (53%); and Asia-Pacific patients had a high prevalence of diabetes (44%), despite a low prevalence of obesity (26%). Rates of the primary composite end point of total hospitalizations for HF and death from cardiovascular causes were lower in patients from Central Europe (9 per 100 patient-years) and highest in patients from North America (28 per 100 patient-years), which was primarily driven by a greater number of total hospitalizations for HF. The effect of treatment with sacubitril-valsartan was not modified by region (interaction P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with HFpEF recruited worldwide in PARAGON-HF, there were important regional differences in clinical characteristics and outcomes, which may have implications for the design of future clinical trials. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01920711.
-
8.
Benefits and adverse effects of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with chronic heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Charuel, E, Menini, T, Bedhomme, S, Pereira, B, Piñol-Domenech, N, Bouchant, S, Boussageon, R, Bœuf-Gibot, S, Vaillant-Roussel, H
Pharmacology research & perspectives. 2021;(5):e00844
Abstract
This review aims to assess the benefits and adverse effects of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure, with a focus on important patient outcomes. A systematic review was conducted of double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing sacubitril/valsartan versus a reference drug, in heart failure patients with reduced (HFrEF) and preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction, published in French or English. Searches were undertaken of Medline, Cochrane Central, and Embase. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and adverse events. From 2 082 articles analyzed, 5 were included. For all-cause mortality, the absolute numbers for HFrEF (2 RCTs, 4627 patients) were 16% on sacubitril/valsartan and 18% on enalapril, with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.85 [CI = 0.78, 0.93], and 13% vs 14% in with HFpEF (2 RCTs, 5097 patients), with no statistical difference. Under the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, the evidence for HFrEF patients was of moderate quality. For HFrEF patients, an increased risk of symptomatic hypotension and angioedema (low quality of evidence) was shown. There was no statistical difference for the risk of hyperkalemia or worsening renal function. There was a protective RR (0.50 [0.34, 0.75]) for worsening renal function for patients with HFpEF, with a high quality of evidence despite similar absolute numbers (1.4% vs. 2.8%). To keep in mind for shared decision-making, sacubitril/valsartan reduces all-cause mortality in HFrEF patients but for HFpEF further data are needed. Take into consideration the small number of studies to date to assess the risks.
-
9.
Cardiac and Noncardiac Disease Burden and Treatment Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan: Insights From a Combined PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF Analysis.
Rohde, LE, Claggett, BL, Wolsk, E, Packer, M, Zile, M, Swedberg, K, Rouleau, J, Pfeffer, MA, Desai, AS, Lund, LH, et al
Circulation. Heart failure. 2021;(3):e008052
Abstract
BACKGROUND The net clinical benefit of cardiac disease-modifying drugs might be influenced by the interaction of different domains of disease burden. We assessed the relative contribution of cardiac, comorbid, and demographic factors in heart failure (HF) and how their interplay might influence HF prognosis and efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction. METHODS We combined data from 2 global trials that evaluated the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan compared with a renin-angiotensin antagonist in symptomatic HF patients (PARADIGM-HF [Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With an Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure; n=8399] and PARAGON-HF [Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptors Blockers Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction; n=4796]). We decomposed the previously validated Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure risk score into cardiac (left ventricular ejection fraction, New York Heart Association class, blood pressure, time since HF diagnosis, HF medications), noncardiac comorbid (body mass index, creatinine, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, smoking), and demographic (age, gender) categories. Based on these domains, an index representing the balance of cardiac to noncardiac comorbid burden was created (cardiac-comorbid index). Clinical outcomes were time to first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular deaths and all-cause mortality. RESULTS Higher scores of the cardiac domain were observed in PARADIGM-HF (10 [7-13] versus 5 [3-6], P<0.001) and higher scores of the demographic domain in PARAGON-HF (10 [8-13] versus 5 [2-9], P<0.001). In PARADIGM-HF, the contribution of the cardiac domain to clinical outcomes was greater than the noncardiac domain (P<0.001), while in PARAGON-HF the attributable risk of the comorbid and demographic categories predominated. Individual scores from each sub-domain were linearly associated with the risk of clinical outcomes (P<0.001). Beneficial effects of sacubitril/valsartan were observed in patients with preponderance of cardiac over noncardiac comorbid burden (cardiac-comorbid index >5 points), suggesting a significant treatment effect modification (interaction P<0.05 for both outcomes). CONCLUSIONS Domains of disease burden are clinically relevant features that influence the prognosis and treatment of patients with HF. The therapeutic benefits of sacubitril/valsartan vary according to the balance of components of disease burden, across different ranges of left ventricular ejection fraction.
-
10.
Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: Real-world experience from Turkey (ARNi-TR).
Ekici, B, Yaman, M, Küçük, M, Dereli, S, Yenerçağ, M, Yiğit, Z, Baş, MM, Karavelioğlu, Y, Çakmak, HA, Kıvrak, T, et al
Turk Kardiyoloji Dernegi arsivi : Turk Kardiyoloji Derneginin yayin organidir. 2021;(5):357-367
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Heart failure (HF) is a growing public health problem with high morbidity and mortality. Recently, angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNi) has emerged as a promising treatment for HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Here, we shared our experience with the use of ARNi in HFrEF from multiple centers in Turkey. METHODS The ARNi-TR is a multicenter, noninterventional, retrospective, observational study. Overall, 779 patients with HF from 22 centers in Turkey who were prescribed sacubitril/valsartan were examined. Initial clinical status, biochemical and echocardiographic parameters, and New York Heart Association functional class (NYHA-FC) values were compared with follow-up values after 1 year of ARNi use. In addition, the effect of ARNi on number of annual hospitalizations was investigated, and the patients were divided into 2 groups, depending on whether ARNi was initiated at hospitalization or under outpatient clinic control. RESULTS N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), left-ventricle ejection fraction (LV-EF), and NYHA-FC values improved significantly in both groups (all parameters, p<0.001) within 1-year follow-up. In both groups, a decrease in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) values was observed in ARNi use (p<0.001), and a decrease in daily diuretic doses and hospitalizations owing to HF were observed after ARNi use (all comparisons, p<0.001). Hypotension (16.9%) was the most common side effect in patients using ARN. CONCLUSION The ARNi-TR study offers comprehensive real-life data for patients using ARNi in Turkey. The use of ARNi has shown significant improvements in FC, NT-proBNP, HbA1c levels, and LV-EF. Likewise, reductions in the number of annual hospitalizations and daily furosemide doses for HF were seen in this study.