-
1.
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.
-
2.
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.
-
3.
Challenges of Cardio-Kidney Composite Outcomes in Large-Scale Clinical Trials.
Patel, RB, Ter Maaten, JM, Ferreira, JP, McCausland, FR, Shah, SJ, Rossignol, P, Solomon, SD, Vaduganathan, M, Packer, M, Thompson, A, et al
Circulation. 2021;(9):949-958
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Patients with chronic cardiovascular or metabolic diseases, including diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and heart failure, often have comorbid kidney disease. Long-term outcomes are worse in the setting of both cardiac and kidney disease compared with either disease in isolation. In addition, the clinical presentations of certain acute cardiovascular events (such as heart failure) and worsening kidney function overlap and may be challenging to distinguish. Recently, certain novel treatments have demonstrated beneficial effects on both cardiac and kidney outcomes. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors have exhibited concordant risk reduction and clinically important benefits in chronic kidney disease with and without diabetes, diabetes and established cardiovascular disease or multiple atherosclerotic vascular disease risk factors, and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction with and without diabetes. Primary trial results have revealed that sacubitril-valsartan therapy improves cardiovascular outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and post hoc analyses suggest favorable kidney effects. A concordant pattern of kidney benefit with sacubitril-valsartan has also been observed in chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Given the complex interplay between cardiac and kidney disease and the possibility that treatments may show concordant cardio-kidney benefits, there has been recent interest in formally acknowledging, defining, and using composite cardio-kidney outcomes in future cardiovascular trials. This review describes potential challenges in use of such outcomes that should be considered and addressed before their incorporation into such trials.
-
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.
User of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor and/or angiotensin II receptor blocker might be associated with vascular calcification in predialysis chronic kidney disease patients: a retrospective single-center observational study : ACEI/ARB and vascular calcification.
Takaori, K, Iwatani, H, Yamato, M, Ito, T
BMC nephrology. 2021;(1):7
Abstract
BACKGROUND Vascular calcification is a prominent feature in chronic kidney disease (CKD) and diabetes mellitus. A recent report suggests that angiotensin II is protective to vascular calcification. Therefore, we investigated the relationship between vascular calcification and use of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) and/or angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) from a cross-sectional view. METHODS A total of 121 predialysis CKD patients (age 71 ± 12 y; male 72; estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 20.2 (11.8 - 40.3) mL/min/1.73 m2) who underwent thoracoabdominal plain computed tomography scan were included in this study. The total vascular calcification volume (Calc) was calculated with a three-dimensional imaging software and standardized by body surface area (BSA). The relevance between log [Calc/BSA] and ACEI/ARB use was investigated by multivariate linear regression analyses with or without a time-duration factor of ACEI/ARB use. RESULTS The Calc/BSA was 5.62 (2.01 - 12.7) mL/m2 in 121 patients. In multivariate analyses adjusted with age, sex, ACEI/ARB and log [eGFR], ACEI/ARB use is significantly and positively associated with log [Calc/BSA] (β = 0.2781, p = 0.0007). Even after the adjustment by age, sex, log [eGFR], phosphate, diabetes mellitus, systolic blood pressure, warfarin, hypertension, dyslipidemia, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, diuretics and ACEI/ARB, ACEI/ARB use is significantly and positively associated with log [Calc/BSA] (β = 0.1677, p = 0.0487). When 90 patients whose time-duration of ACEI/ARB use was clear in medical records were studied, a multivariate analysis adjusted with age, sex, log [eGFR], and ACEI/ARB duration factors showed that the longer use of ACEI/ARB more than 2 years was significantly, independently and positively associated with log [Calc/BSA] (β = 0.2864, p = 0.0060). CONCLUSIONS ACEI/ARB user was associated with vascular calcification in predialysis patients with low eGFR. Prospective studies with larger numbers of patients or more in vitro studies are needed to confirm whether this phenomenon is due to the use of ACEI/ARB itself, the underlying disease condition or the prescription bias.
-
10.
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.