-
1.
Effect of Treatment With Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients With Advanced Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Mann, DL, Givertz, MM, Vader, JM, Starling, RC, Shah, P, McNulty, SE, Anstrom, KJ, Margulies, KB, Kiernan, MS, Mahr, C, et al
JAMA cardiology. 2022;(1):17-25
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
IMPORTANCE The use of sacubitril/valsartan is not endorsed by practice guidelines for use in patients with New York Heart Association class IV heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction because of limited clinical experience in this population. OBJECTIVE To compare treatment with sacubitril/valsartan treatment with valsartan in patients with advanced heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction and recent New York Heart Association class IV symptoms. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted; a total of 335 patients with advanced heart failure were included. The trial began on March 2, 2017, and was stopped early on March 23, 2020, owing to COVID-19 risk. INTERVENTION Patients were randomized to receive sacubitril/valsartan (target dose, 200 mg twice daily) or valsartan (target dose, 160 mg twice daily) in addition to recommended therapy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The area under the curve (AUC) for the ratio of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) compared with baseline measured through 24 weeks of therapy. RESULTS Of the 335 patients included in the analysis, 245 were men (73%); mean (SD) age was 59.4 (13.5) years. Seventy-two eligible patients (18%) were not able to tolerate sacubitril/valsartan, 100 mg/d, during the short run-in period, and 49 patients (29%) discontinued sacubitril/valsartan during the 24 weeks of the trial. The median NT-proBNP AUC for the valsartan treatment arm (n = 168) was 1.19 (IQR, 0.91-1.64), whereas the AUC for the sacubitril/valsartan treatment arm (n = 167) was 1.08 (IQR, 0.75-1.60). The estimated ratio of change in the NT-proBNP AUC was 0.95 (95% CI 0.84-1.08; P = .45). Compared with valsartan, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan did not improve the clinical composite of number of days alive, out of hospital, and free from heart failure events. Aside from a statistically significant increase in non-life-threatening hyperkalemia in the sacubitril/valsartan arm (28 [17%] vs 15 [9%]; P = .04), there were no observed safety concerns. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The findings of this trial showed that, in patients with chronic advanced heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction, there was no statistically significant difference between sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan with respect to reducing NT-proBNP levels. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02816736.
-
2.
Association between ethnicity and degree of improvement in cardiac function following initiation of sacubitril/valsartan.
Holm, N, Bromage, DI, Cannata, A, DeCourcey, J, Bhatti, P, Huang, M, McDonagh, TA
Journal of cardiovascular medicine (Hagerstown, Md.). 2022;(1):37-41
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine the degree of short-term improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), haemodynamics, NT-proBNP and quality of life following initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in black patients when compared with white patients. METHODS This was a retrospective, observational, single-centre, hypothesis-generating study of patients with symptomatic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) treated with guideline recommended therapy, who were transitioned from an ACE inhibitor (ACE-I) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) to sacubitril/valsartan. RESULTS Our analysis included 83 patients (mean age 57 years) with echocardiography performed before and after transition from ACE-I/ARB to sacubitril/valsartan, after excluding patients with concomitant Cardiac resynchronization therapy implantation. Overall, sacubitril/valsartan was associated with LVEF improvement from 28.8% ± 0.7 to 32.0% ± 1.1% (P = 0.0002), but no reverse remodelling was observed. The association with LVEF improvement was only observed in white patients (n = 46, P = 0.0006), but not in black patients (n = 37, P = 0.1728), and appeared to be associated with reduced blood pressure (baseline vs. 2-week blood pressure 116.5 ± 13.9 vs. 109.4 ± 14.3 mmHg, respectively, in white patients, P = 0.0449). Fifteen patients (18.1%) became ineligible for primary prevention Implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation. CONCLUSION Sacubitril/valsartan was associated with improved LVEF, NT-proBNP concentrations and quality of life in patients with symptomatic HFrEF on guideline recommended therapy. However, in our cohort, improvement of LVEF and quality of life might be attenuated in black patients, which warrants further investigation.
-
3.
Association of Antihypertensives That Stimulate vs Inhibit Types 2 and 4 Angiotensin II Receptors With Cognitive Impairment.
Marcum, ZA, Cohen, JB, Zhang, C, Derington, CG, Greene, TH, Ghazi, L, Herrick, JS, King, JB, Cheung, AK, Bryan, N, et al
JAMA network open. 2022;(1):e2145319
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Use of antihypertensive medications that stimulate type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors, compared with those that do not stimulate these receptors, has been associated with a lower risk of dementia. However, this association with cognitive outcomes in hypertension trials, with blood pressure levels in the range of current guidelines, has not been evaluated. OBJECTIVE To examine the association between use of exclusively antihypertensive medication regimens that stimulate vs inhibit type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors on mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cohort study is a secondary analysis (April 2011 to July 2018) of participants in the randomized Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), which recruited individuals 50 years or older with hypertension and increased cardiovascular risk but without a history of diabetes, stroke, or dementia. Data analysis was conducted from March 16 to July 6, 2021. EXPOSURES Prevalent use of angiotensin II receptor type 2 and 4-stimulating or -inhibiting antihypertensive medication regimens at the 6-month study visit. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was a composite of adjudicated amnestic MCI or probable dementia. RESULTS Of the 8685 SPRINT participants who were prevalent users of antihypertensive medication regimens at the 6-month study visit (mean [SD] age, 67.7 [11.2] years; 5586 [64.3%] male; and 935 [10.8%] Hispanic, 2605 [30.0%] non-Hispanic Black, 4983 [57.4%] non-Hispanic White, and 162 [1.9%] who responded as other race or ethnicity), 2644 (30.4%) were users of exclusively stimulating, 1536 (17.7%) inhibiting, and 4505 (51.9%) mixed antihypertensive medication regimens. During a median of 4.8 years of follow-up (95% CI, 4.7-4.8 years), there were 45 vs 59 cases per 1000 person-years of amnestic MCI or probable dementia among prevalent users of regimens that contained exclusively stimulating vs inhibiting antihypertensive medications (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.66-0.87). When comparing stimulating-only vs inhibiting-only users, amnestic MCI occurred at rates of 40 vs 54 cases per 1000 person-years (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.87) and probable dementia at rates of 8 vs 10 cases per 1000 person-years (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.57-1.14). Negative control outcome analyses suggested the presence of residual confounding. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this secondary analysis of SPRINT, prevalent users of regimens that contain exclusively antihypertensive medications that stimulate vs inhibit type 2 and 4 angiotensin II receptors had lower rates of incident cognitive impairment. Residual confounding cannot be ruled out. If these results are replicated in randomized clinical trials, certain antihypertensive medications could be prioritized to prevent cognitive decline.
-
4.
The Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure Patients: A Review.
Zhang, R, Sun, X, Li, Y, He, W, Zhu, H, Liu, B, Zhang, A
Journal of cardiovascular pharmacology and therapeutics. 2022;:10742484211058681
Abstract
Heart failure (HF) is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, has been approved for the treatment of HF. At present, there have been few systematic and detailed reviews discussing the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in HF. In this review, we first introduced the pharmacological mechanisms of sacubitril/valsartan, including the reduction in the degradation of natriuretic peptides in the natriuretic peptide system and inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system. Then, we summarized the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan in HF patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) including the reduction in risks of mortality and hospitalization, reversal of cardiac remodeling, regulation of biomarkers of HF, improvement of the quality of life, antiarrhythmia, improving renal dysfunction and regulation of metabolism. Finally, we discussed the safety and tolerability of sacubitril/valsartan in the treatment of HFrEF or HFpEF. Compared with ACEIs/ARBs or placebo, sacubitril/valsartan showed good safety and tolerability, although the risk of hypotension might be high. In conclusion, the overwhelming majority of studies show that sacubitril/valsartan is effective and safe in the treatment of HFrEF patients but that it has little benefit in HFpEF patients. Sacubitril/valsartan will probably be a promising anti-HF drug in the near future.
-
5.
Clinical evidence of initiating a very low dose of sacubitril/valsartan: a prospective observational analysis.
Kim, H, Oh, J, Lee, S, Ha, J, Yoon, M, Chun, KH, Lee, CJ, Park, S, Lee, SH, Kang, SM
Scientific reports. 2021;(1):16335
Abstract
Sacubitril/valsartan is superior to enalapril in reducing the risks of cardiovascular death and preventing hospitalization in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, patients often do not receive sacubitril/valsartan because of concerns about hypotension. We examined the feasibility of initiating sacubitril/valsartan at a very low dose (VLD) in potentially intolerant patients with HFrEF and subsequent dose up-titration, treatment persistence and outcomes. We analyzed 206 patients with HFrEF grouped according to starting sacubitril/valsartan dose. The VLD group (n = 106) commenced 25 mg twice daily, and the standard-dose (SD) group (n = 100) started on ≥ 50 mg twice daily. Baseline systolic blood pressure was 103 ± 12 mmHg vs. 119 ± 14 mmHg in the SD group (P < 0.001). The maximal target dose achievement rate was higher in the SD group (27.0% vs 9.4%, p = 0.001) and the VLD group experienced more dose up-titrations and fewer down-titrations than the SD group. The VLD group had a decrease in N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) similar to the SD group and a similar increase in left ventricular ejection fraction. There were no significant differences in symptomatic hypotension, worsening renal function, hyperkalemia, cardiovascular mortality, and rehospitalization due to HF between the two groups during follow-up period. In patients considered by the treating physician likely to be intolerant of sacubitril/valsartan, initiation with 25 mg twice daily was generally possible and patients remained in therapy, with similar decreases in NT-proBNP and increases in left ventricular ejection fraction to those observed in patients receiving SD sacubitril/valsartan.
-
6.
Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan in High-Risk Patients in the PIONEER-HF Trial.
Berg, DD, Samsky, MD, Velazquez, EJ, Duffy, CI, Gurmu, Y, Braunwald, E, Morrow, DA, DeVore, AD
Circulation. Heart failure. 2021;(2):e007034
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND In patients stabilized during hospitalization for acute decompensated heart failure (HF), initiation of sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril decreased the risk of cardiovascular death or rehospitalization for HF without increasing the risk of adverse events. It is unknown whether potentially high-risk subpopulations have a similar risk-benefit profile. METHODS PIONEER-HF (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect on NT-proBNP [N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide] in Patients Stabilized From an Acute HF Episode) was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial of in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan (n=440) versus enalapril (n=441) in patients stabilized during hospitalization for acute decompensated HF. The composite of cardiovascular death or rehospitalization for HF was adjudicated. Safety outcomes included worsening renal function, symptomatic hypotension, and hyperkalemia. We evaluated heterogeneity in the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on these efficacy and safety outcomes in selected subgroups of clinical concern: patients with baseline systolic blood pressure ≤118 mm Hg (median; n=448), baseline NT-proBNP >2701 pg/mL (median; n=395), estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/minute per 1.73 m2 (n=455), ≥1 additional hospitalization for HF within the prior year (n=343), admission to the ICU during the index hospitalization (n=96), inotrope use during the index hospitalization (n=68), and severe congestion (n=219). RESULTS The relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death or rehospitalization for HF with sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril was consistent across all high-risk subgroups (P interaction=non-significant [NS] for each). The risks of worsening renal function, symptomatic hypotension, and hyperkalemia with sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril were also consistent in each high- versus low-risk subgroup (P interaction=NS for each). CONCLUSIONS In high-risk subpopulations admitted for acute decompensated HF, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan after initial stabilization conferred a consistent reduction in cardiovascular death or rehospitalization for HF and was well tolerated.
-
7.
Efficacy and safety of dual vs single renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockade in chronic kidney disease: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Zhao, M, Qu, H, Wang, R, Yu, Y, Chang, M, Ma, S, Zhang, H, Wang, Y, Zhang, Y
Medicine. 2021;(35):e26544
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND To lower albuminuria and to achieve blood pressure (BP) goals, dual renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors are sometimes used in clinical practice for the treatment of CKD. However, the efficacy and safety of dual RAAS blockade therapy remains controversial. METHODS PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched, and random effects model was used to calculate the effect sizes of eligible studies. Potential sources of heterogeneity were detected by meta-regression and subgroup analysis. RESULTS The present meta-analysis of 72 randomized controlled trials with 10,296 patients demonstrated that dual RAAS blockade therapy was superior to monotherapy in reducing the urine albumin excretion, urine protein excretion, and BP. These beneficial effects were related to the decrease of glomerular filtration rate, the increase of serum potassium level, and higher rates of hyperkalemia and hypotension. Meanwhile, these effects did not lead to improvements in short-term or long-term outcomes, including doubling of serum creatinine, acute kidney injury, end-stage renal disease, mortality, and hospitalization. Compared with the single therapy, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) in combination with angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) was a better dual therapy than ACEI or ARB in combination with renin inhibitor or aldosterone receptor antagonist in decreasing urine albumin excretion, urine protein excretion and BP, and the combination was not associated with a lower glomerular filtration rate. CONCLUSION Compared with the single therapy, ACEI in combination with ARB was a better dual therapy than ACEI or ARB in combination with renin inhibitor or aldosterone receptor antagonist. Although ACEI in combination with ARB was associated with higher incidences of hyperkalemia and hypotension, careful individualized management and potassium binders may further expand its application (PROSPERO number CRD42020179398).
-
8.
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.
-
9.
Arterial hypertension.
Brouwers, S, Sudano, I, Kokubo, Y, Sulaica, EM
Lancet (London, England). 2021;(10296):249-261
Abstract
Arterial hypertension is the most important contributor to the global burden of disease; however, disease control remains poor. Although the diagnosis of hypertension is still based on office blood pressure, confirmation with out-of-office blood pressure measurements (ie, ambulatory or home monitoring) is strongly recommended. The definition of hypertension differs throughout various guidelines, but the indications for antihypertensive therapy are relatively similar. Lifestyle adaptation is absolutely key in non-pharmacological treatment. Pharmacologically, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, calcium channel blockers, and diuretics are the first-line agents, with advice for the use of single-pill combination therapy by most guidelines. As a fourth-line agent, spironolactone should be considered. The rapidly evolving field of device-based therapy, especially renal denervation, will further broaden therapeutic options. Despite being a largely controllable condition, the actual rates of awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension are disappointingly low. Further improvements throughout the process of patient screening, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up need to be urgently addressed.
-
10.
Angiotensin Receptor Blocker and Calcium Channel Blocker Preventing Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence in Patients with Hypertension and Atrial Fibrillation: A Meta-analysis.
Ma, H, Jiang, H, Feng, J, Gan, Y
Cardiovascular therapeutics. 2021;:6628469
Abstract
BACKGROUND Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common serious cardiac rhythm disturbances and is responsible for substantial morbidity and mortality in general population. Hypertension is the most prevalent and potentially modifiable risk factor for AF. This study is aimed at evaluating the effect of angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) or calcium channel blocker (CCB) on AF recurrence among patients with hypertension and AF. METHODS The PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane Collaboration of Controlled Clinical Trials registry databases were searched from their inception to September 2020. RESULTS A total of 7 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling 1495 patients were included in our study. This finding showed that ARB had a statistically significant superiority in preventing AF recurrence (OR: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.30-0.72, P = 0.0006) and persistent AF (OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.24-0.71, P = 0.001) compared to CCB. Subgroup analysis showed that there was a significant difference in telmisartan subgroup (OR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.23-1.29, P = 0.17) and nontelmisartan subgroup (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.23-0.77, P = 0.005). Subgroup analysis indicated that nifedipine subgroup did not show a statistically significant difference on AF recurrence between ARB and CCB (OR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.46-1.68, P = 0.69), but amlodipine subgroup showed that ARB had a significant superiority in prevention of AF recurrence (OR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.27-0.56, P < 0.0001) compared with CCB. CONCLUSIONS This study suggests that ARB is superior to CCB for preventing the AF recurrence and persistent AF among patients with hypertension and AF.