Search

Introduction and purpose Heart failure has become a civilization disease, affecting 1-2% of the world's population. It is a condition with various etiologies and phenotypes. The annual mortality rate due to heart failure is approximately 10%, with organ dysfunction caused by hypoperfusion and sudden cardiac death being the leading causes of death. The aim of this study is to present current knowledge of heart failure, focusing on its pathophysiology, and the mechanism of action and applications of sacubitril/valsartan. Material and methods The following review was based on articles from the PubMed and Google Scholar databases. Key search terms included pathophysiology of heart failure; natriuretic peptide pathways; treatment of heart failure; sacubitril/valsartan. Conclusions Heart failure is a syndrome marked by the activation of various neurohormonal systems such as the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS), the sympathetic nervous system (SNS) and natriuretic peptides (NP). Historically, the therapeutic approach has focused on reducing RAAS activity and SNS activity. In recent years, increasing attention has been given to potential benefits associated with the NP system. Following disappointing outcomes from studies involving neprilysin (NEP) inhibitors, administered alone or in conjunction with an ACE inhibitor and vasopeptidase inhibitors, there have been findings with the pharmacological class termed ARNI (angiotensin receptor and NEP inhibitors). Sacubitril/valsartan has proven to be an effective and safe treatment that reduces the need for hospitalization, enhances the quality of life and longevity of patients with chronic HFrEF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to evaluate the association between sacubitril/valsartan and dementia-related adverse events (AEs) in geographical subpopulations using subgroup disproportionality analysis. Cases from the FDA adverse event reporting system involving patients aged 60 or older with sacubitril/valsartan or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) were analyzed. The adjusted reporting odds ratios (RORs) for dementia-related AEs were calculated for each continent. A total of 61,518 AEs associated with sacubitril/valsartan or ARBs were identified. Among these, 1441 were dementia-related AEs. In Asia, Europe, and Africa, the reporting risk of dementia-related AEs associated with sacubitril/valsartan was lower compared to ARBs (adjusted ROR, 0.57 [95% CI 0.31–1.01]; adjusted ROR, 0.89 [95% CI 0.69–1.14]; adjusted ROR, 0.40 [95% CI 0.27–0.61], respectively). In Latin America and Oceania, the reporting risk of dementia-related AEs associated with sacubitril/valsartan was similar to that associated with ARBs (adjusted ROR, 1.04 [95% CI 0.75–1.44]; adjusted ROR, 1.02 [95% CI 0.31–3.37], respectively). On the contrary, in North America, the reporting risk associated with sacubitril/valsartan was higher compared to ARBs (adjusted ROR, 1.29 [95% CI 1.10–1.53]). Although the ROR value did not meet the criteria for signal detection, the significantly greater than 1 ROR observed in North America suggests that caution may be warranted regarding potential dementia-related adverse events associated with sacubitril/valsartan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Methods and results Conclusions Renin–angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) have been shown to lower haemoglobin levels, potentially related to reductions in erythropoietin levels and haematopoiesis. We examined whether sacubitril/valsartan might attenuate this effect of RASi alone on incident anaemia in patients with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF/HFpEF).PARAGON‐HF was a global, multicentre randomized clinical trial of sacubitril/valsartan versus the RASi valsartan in patients with HF and left ventricular ejection fraction ≥45%. We evaluated haemoglobin trajectory and risks of incident anaemia and new iron therapy initiation during follow‐up. Among 4795 participants, 1111 (23.2%) had anaemia at randomization and 5.6% were treated with iron at baseline. Over a median follow‐up of 2.9 years, patients with anaemia were at significantly higher risk for total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death, compared with those without anaemia (21.6 vs. 11.5 per 100 patient‐years; adjusted rate ratio 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12–1.54; p = 0.001). Sacubitril/valsartan slightly slowed the decline in haemoglobin levels by 0.1 g/dl (95% CI 0.0–0.2 g/dl; p = 0.005). Participants treated with sacubitril/valsartan were at significantly lower risk of developing anaemia (30.3% vs. 37.6%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.76; 95% CI 0.68–0.85; p < 0.001) and starting iron therapy (8.1% vs. 10.0%; HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.67–0.97; p = 0.026). Treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan on total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death were consistent among patients across the haemoglobin spectrum (pinteraction = 0.60).Among patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan resulted in modestly smaller declines in haemoglobin, lower rates of incident anaemia, and fewer new initiations of iron therapy compared with RASi.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01920711. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Sacubitril/valsartan is extensively used in heart failure; however, there are few long-term safety studies of it in a wide range of populations. The aim of this study was to evaluate sacubitril/valsartan-induced adverse events (AEs) through data mining of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). Methods: Reports in the FAERS from the third quarter of 2015 (FDA approval of sacubitril/valsartan) to the fourth quarter of 2023 were collected and analyzed. Disproportionality analyses, including the reporting odds ratio (ROR), the proportional reporting ratio (PRR), the Bayesian confidence propagation neural network (BCPNN), and empirical Bayesian geometric mean (EBGM) algorithms were adopted in data mining to quantify signals of sacubitril/valsartanassociated AEs. Results: A total of 12,001,275 reports of sacubitril/valsartan as the "primary suspected (PS)" and 99,651 AEs induced by sacubitril/valsartan were identified. More males than females reported AEs (59.95% vs. 33.31%), with the highest number of reports in the 60-70 years age group (8.11%), and most AEs occurred < 7 days (14.13%) and = 60 days (10.69%) after dosing. Sacubitril/valsartan-induced AE occurrence targeted 24 system organ classes (SOCs) and 294 preferred terms (PTs). Of these, 4 SOCs were strongly positive for all four algorithms, including cardiac disorders, vascular disorders, ear and labyrinth disorders, and respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders. Among all PTs, consistent with the specification, hypotension (n = 10,078) had the highest number of reports, and dizziness, cough, peripheral swelling, blood potassium increased, and renal impairment were also reported in high numbers. Notably, this study also discovered a high frequency of side effects such as death, dyspnea, weight change, feeling abnormal, hearing loss, memory impairment, throat clearing, and diabetes mellitus. Conclusion: This study identified potential new AE signals and gained a more general understanding of the safety of sacubitril/valsartan, promoting its rational adoption in the cardiovascular system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Cardiovascular‐kidney‐metabolic (CKM) multimorbidity is prevalent among individuals with heart failure (HF), but whether cardiac structure and function, clinical outcomes, and treatment response to sacubitril/valsartan vary in relation to CKM status is unknown. Methods and results: In this PARAGON‐HF post‐hoc analysis, we evaluated the impact of CKM multimorbidity (atherosclerotic cardiovascular [CV] disease, chronic kidney disease, and type 2 diabetes) on cardiac structure and function, clinical outcomes, and treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan. The primary outcome was a composite of total HF hospitalizations and CV death. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary outcome and a composite kidney outcome (sustained estimated glomerular filtration rate reduction of ≥50%, end‐stage kidney disease, or kidney‐related death). At baseline, 35.2% had one CKM condition, 33.3% had two, 15.9% had three, and only 15.6% had HF alone. CKM multimorbidity was associated with higher septal and posterior wall thickness, lower global longitudinal strain, higher E/e', and worse right ventricular function. Total HF hospitalizations or CV death increased with greater CKM multimorbidity, with the highest relative risk observed with three CKM conditions (rate ratio 3.06, 95% confidence interval 2.33–4.03), compared with HF alone. Treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan were consistent irrespective of the number of CKM conditions for the primary endpoint (pinteraction = 0.75), CV death (pinteraction = 0.82), total HF hospitalizations (pinteraction = 0.67), and the composite kidney endpoint (pinteraction = 0.99). Conclusions: Cardiovascular‐kidney‐metabolic multimorbidity was common in PARAGON‐HF and associated with adverse changes in cardiac structure and function and with a stepwise increase in risk of clinical outcomes. Treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan were consistent irrespective of CKM burden. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01920711. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND Optimal antihypertensive medication for chronic type B aortic dissection (AD) remains undecided. This study compared the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan with valsartan to determine suitable antihypertensive drug combinations. METHODS In this single-center, open-label, randomized, controlled trial, patients with chronic Stanford type B AD and mild hypertension were randomized to receive sacubitril/valsartan 100/200 mg or valsartan 80/160 mg. The primary endpoint was the reduction in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP) at week 8 in patients with sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan. Key secondary endpoints included changes in (i) mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (msDBP); (ii) pulse pressure (PP); and (iii) mean ambulatory blood pressure (BP) for 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime. Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs. This trial was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, identifier: ChiCTR2300073399. RESULTS A total of 315 patients completed the study. Sacubitril/valsartan provided a significantly greater reduction in msSBP than valsartan at week 8 (between‐treatment difference: −5.1 mm Hg [95% confidence interval −5.8 to −4.5], P  < 0.001). Reductions in msSBP, msDBP, and PP as well as the mean ambulatory BP for 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime, were significantly greater in sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan (all P  < 0.001). No excessive episodes of AEs occurred in the sacubitril/valsartan group. CONCLUSIONS Sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan reduced BP compared with baseline values. However, sacubitril/valsartan improved BP control to a greater extent than valsartan. It may offer a new treatment option for patients with mild hypertension and chronic type B AD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Sacubitril/valsartan is increasingly used in hemodialysis patients due to its cardioprotective benefits. However, its impact on serum potassium levels in anuric patients undergoing hemodialysis remains controversial. Methods: We conducted a retrospective data from patients undergoing hemodialysis at two dialysis centers. A total of 71 out of 332 patients receiving hemodialysis treatment were enrolled. Mean serum potassium (mean value of 6–8 determinations), peak serum potassium (maximum K value observed during follow‐up observations), and other biochemical parameters were recorded at baseline and during the follow‐up period. Findings: After 6 months of follow‐up, mean serum potassium increased from 4.84 ± 0.45 mmol/L at baseline to 5.07 ± 0.46 mmol/L at 3 months and 5.04 ± 0.46 mmol/L at 6 months (p < 0.001). Notably, no significant group differences were found in peak serum potassium concentrations between baseline and 6 months after sacubitril/valsartan therapy (5.69 ± 0.56 vs. 5.75 ± 0.41, p = 0.419). Prior to starting sacubitril/valsartan treatment, none of the patients had severe hyperkalemia; however, after 3 and 6 months of sacubitril/valsartan therapy, two (2.80%) and three (4.20%) patients experienced severe hyperkalemia, respectively; however, this difference was not statistically significant. Additionally, there was a significant reduction in blood pressure; however, serum sodium, bicarbonate, and Kt/V values did not change significantly during either period. Discussion: Sacubitril/valsartan therapy is associated with an increase in serum potassium levels in anuric hemodialysis patients. Nevertheless, the proportion of patients with severe hyperkalemia did not increase significantly. This suggests that the use of sacubitril/valsartan in anuric patients on hemodialysis is relatively safe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Intestinal ischemia reperfusion (IIR) is a critical emergency situation that needs immediate intervention. Small intestine is one of the most sensitive tissues to IR injury and it remains a highly morbid condition, with reported mortality rates ranging from 30% to 90%. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the suspected protective role of sacubitril/valsartan (SAC/VAL) on IIR injury. Methods: Thirty-two adult male Wistar rats were used in our model and divided into four groups: sham group, SAC/VAL treated group without IIR, IIR group, and SAC/VAL treated group with IIR. SAC/VAL in a dose of 30 mg/kg was administered orally just before induction of IIR. Key findings: SAC/VAL significantly ameliorated IIR-induced changes as it decreased malondialdehyde (MDA), tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα), angiotensin II (ANG II), interleukin 6 (IL 6), active caspase 3, and signal transducer- and activator-of transcription (STAT1). However, SAC/VAL administration significantly increased antioxidant parameters such as total antioxidant capacity (TAC), superoxide dismutase (SOD), and reduced glutathione (GSH). Moreover, alteration of the histological structure was observed in IIR group that was improved by SAC/VAL. Conclusions: SAC/VAL prevents IIR-induced damage via modulation of renin angiotensin aldosterone system, antioxidant, anti-apoptotic, anti-inflammatory properties, and regulation of IL6/STAT1 pathway. Graphical Abstract [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Since 2014, sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto®) is widely prescribed for heart failure. Despite neprilysin inhibition’s benefits in heart failure, concerns about potential amyloid-beta (Aβ) accumulation and Alzheimer’s disease (AD) risk have persisted. This narrative review, a decade post-approval, evaluates the risk of amyloid pathology and neurocognitive disorders in long-term sacubitril/valsartan use. Clinical trials, real-world studies, and pharmacovigilance data do not indicate an increased risk of cognitive decline. In patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan blood-based amyloid biomarkers show perturbations, while neuroimaging biomarkers reveal no significant increase in amyloid load. Despite a theoretical risk of amyloid accumulation and AD under treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, current clinical data appears reassuring, and there is no signal indicating an increased risk of cognitive decline, but a perturbation of amyloid blood-based biomarkers, which implies great caution when interpreting biomarkers in this context.

This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in abnormal renal function (eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73m2) patients combined with heart failure based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. The Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant studies from inception to December 2023. Dichotomous variables were described as event counts with the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) values. Continuous variables were expressed as mean standard deviation (SD) with 95% CIs. A total of 6 RCTs and 8 observational studies were included, involving 17335 eGFR below 60 ml/min/1.73m2 patients combined with heart failure. In terms of efficacy, we analyzed the incidence of cardiovascular events and found that sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization in chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages 3–5 patients with heart failure (OR: 0.65, 95%CI: 0.54–0.78). Moreover, sacubitril/valsartan prevented the serum creatinine elevation (OR: 0.81, 95%CI: 0.68–0.95), the eGFR decline (OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.73–0.95) and the development of end-stage renal disease in this population (OR:0.73, 95%CI:0.60–0.89). As for safety outcomes, we did not find that the rate of hyperkalemia (OR:1.31, 95%CI:0.79–2.17) and hypotension (OR:1.57, 95%CI:0.94–2.62) were increased in sacubitril/valsartan group among CKD stages 3–5 patients with heart failure. Our meta-analysis proves that sacubitril/valsartan has a favorable effect on cardiac function without obvious risk of adverse events in abnormal renal function patients combined with heart failure, indicating that sacubitril/valsartan has the potential to become perspective treatment for these patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) classification integrates both estimated glomerular filtration rate and urine-albumin-creatinine ratio to stratify risk more comprehensively in patients with chronic kidney disease. There are limited data assessing whether this classification system is associated with prognosis and treatment response in heart failure populations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relative treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan across the KDIGO risk categories in patients with HFrEF. PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) was a global randomized controlled trial evaluating sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Patients were classified according to low, moderate, and high/very high KDIGO risk. Treatment responses were assessed according to baseline KDIGO risk. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death or heart failure hospitalization. A renal composite outcome was defined as sustained decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate by ≥40% or end-stage kidney disease. Among 1,910 (23% of total) participants with available data, 42%, 32%, and 26% were classified as low, moderate, and high/very high KDIGO risk, respectively. Patients in the highest KDIGO risk categories experienced the highest rates of the primary composite outcome (7.6 per 100 person-years [95% CI: 6.5-9.0 per 100 person-years], 9.4 per 100 person-years [95% CI: 7.9-11.2 per 100 person-years], and 14.9 per 100 person-years [95% CI: 12.7-17.6 per 100 person-years]; P < 0.001). Sacubitril/valsartan had a similar safety profile and demonstrated consistent effects on the risk of both the primary outcome (P Interaction = 0.31) and the renal composite outcome (P Interaction = 0.50) across the spectrum of KDIGO risk. One in 4 patients with HFrEF were classified as at least high KDIGO kidney risk; these individuals faced concordantly the highest risks of CV events. Sacubitril/valsartan exhibited consistent CV and kidney protective benefits as well as safety across the spectrum of baseline kidney risk. These data further support initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in HFrEF across a broad range of kidney risk. (This Study Will Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Enalapril on Morbidity and Mortality of Patients With Chronic Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF]; NCT01035255) [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Sacubitril/valsartan treatment reduces mortality and hospitalizations in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction but has limited application in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on peak oxygen consumption (VO2) in patients with non‐obstructive HCM. Methods and results: This is a phase II, randomized, open‐label multicentre study that enrolled adult patients with symptomatic non‐obstructive HCM (New York Heart Association class I–III) who were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive sacubitril/valsartan (target dose 97/103 mg) or control for 16 weeks. The primary endpoint was a change in peak VO2. Secondary endpoints included echocardiographic measures of cardiac structure and function, natriuretic peptides and other cardiac biomarkers, and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure quality of life. Between May 2018 and October 2021, 354 patients were screened for eligibility, 115 patients (mean age 58 years, 37% female) met the study inclusion criteria and were randomly assigned to sacubitril/valsartan (n = 79) or control (n = 36). At 16 weeks, there was no significant change in peak VO2 from baseline in the sacubitril/valsartan (15.3 [4.3] vs. 15.9 [4.3] ml/kg/min, p = 0.13) or control group (p = 0.47). No clinically significant changes were found in blood pressure, cardiac structure and function, plasma biomarkers, or quality of life. Conclusion: In patients with HCM, a 16‐week treatment with sacubitril/valsartan was well tolerated but had no effect on exercise capacity, cardiac structure, or function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The PARACOR‐19 randomized controlled trial (RCT) was designed to examine the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on markers of cardiac injury, inflammation, structure, and function among patients who have recovered from acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) infection. Methods and results: PARACOR‐19 was a single‐centre, double‐blind RCT of patients with cardiovascular risk factors and a history of COVID‐19 infection 4–16 weeks prior to enrolment. Patients were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan (titrated to the maximum dose of 97/103 mg twice daily) versus matching placebo. Co‐primary endpoints were change from baseline to 12 weeks in high‐sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs‐cTnT) and soluble ST2 (sST2). Exploratory endpoints included change from baseline to 12 weeks in additional circulating biomarkers. Overall, 42 patients were randomized between August 2021 and March 2023 (n = 20 sacubitril/valsartan, n = 22 placebo). Median (25th–75th) time from COVID‐19 diagnosis to enrolment was 67 (48–80) days. Median age was 67 (62–71) years, 48% were female, and 91% were White. Compared with placebo, sacubitril/valsartan did not have a significant effect on the co‐primary endpoints of change from baseline in hs‐TnT and sST2 (all p ≥ 0.29). In exploratory analyses, sacubitril/valsartan led to a 46% greater reduction in N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP) and 51% greater reduction in C‐terminal telopeptide of collagen type I (CITP). Permanent drug discontinuation occurred in four patients in the sacubitril/valsartan group and three patients in the placebo group. There were no deaths and one patient was hospitalized in each group. Conclusion: In this pilot RCT of patients who recovered from acute COVID‐19, sacubitril/valsartan did not lower hs‐cTnT or sST2 compared with placebo. Exploratory analyses suggested potential benefits of sacubitril/valsartan on cardiac wall stress and collagen turnover as measured by NT‐proBNP and CITP. Sacubitril/valsartan was well tolerated. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04883528. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Patients with heart failure (HF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have a particularly high prevalence of comorbidities, often necessitating treatment with many medications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between polypharmacy status and outcomes in PARAGON‐HF. Methods and results: In this post hoc analysis, baseline medication status was available in 4793 of 4796 patients included in the primary analysis of PARAGON‐HF. The effects of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with valsartan, were assessed according to the number of medications at baseline: 683 non‐polypharmacy (<5 medications); 2750 polypharmacy (5–9 medications), and 1360 hyper‐polypharmacy (≥10 medications). The primary outcome was total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular deaths. Patients with hyper‐polypharmacy were older, had more severe limitations due to HF (worse New York Heart Association class and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores), and had greater comorbidity. The non‐adjusted risk of the primary outcome was significantly higher in patients taking more medications, and similar trends were seen for HF hospitalization and cardiovascular and all‐cause death. The effect of sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan on the primary outcome from the lowest to highest polypharmacy category was (as a rate ratio): 1.19 (0.76–1.85), 0.94 (0.77–1.15), and 0.77 (0.61–0.96) (pinteraction = 0.16). Treatment‐related adverse events were more common in patients in the higher polypharmacy categories but not more common with sacubitril/valsartan, versus valsartan, in any polypharmacy category. Conclusions: Polypharmacy is very common in patients with HFpEF, and those with polypharmacy have worse clinical status and a higher rate of non‐fatal and fatal outcomes. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was not diminished in patients taking a larger number of medications at baseline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of aging on the effectiveness and tolerance of sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) among hypertensive patients complicated with heart failure in a real-world setting. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective study included patients (=18 years old) admitted with a diagnosis of hypertension and heart failure, starting sac/val therapy between January 2020 and December 2021 from 3 medical centers. Patients were grouped by the cutoff age of 65 years. Outcomes were collected 31-365 days after the initiation of sac/val and were compared in a matched cohort after 1: 1 propensity score matching (PSM). Results: A total of 794 patients were finally analyzed. Blood pressure and cardiac functions improved significantly compared with values at baseline. There were 269 patients in each cohort (<65 years and ≥65 years) after PSM. After PSM, the incidence of hyperuricemia and hypotension in the elderly patients (≥65 years) was significantly higher than in those <65 years of age. Kaplan-Meier estimate suggested that the cumulative incidence of new or recurrent cardiovascular events increased significantly at the age of ≥65 years after the point of 3 months (log-rank P = .00087). Conclusion: Sac/val benefited patients in both cohorts by improving blood pressure and cardiac function. Elderly patients (=65 years) were susceptible to hypotension, low diastolic blood pressure, hyperuricemia, and underwent cardiac-related readmissions more frequently. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: This study sought to assess the effect of treatment of sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) on improving cardiac function and reversing cardiac remodelling in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) complicated with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods and results: We enrolled 275 ACS patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction after PCI. The patients were divided into the routine and S/V groups according to the treatment drugs. The symptoms, N‐terminal pro‐brain natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP) concentrations, echocardiographic parameters [left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular mass index (LVMI), left ventricular end‐diastolic volume index (LVEDVI), and left ventricular end‐systolic volume index (LVESVI)], major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), and adverse reactions were recorded at baseline and 6 months after treatment when a clinical follow‐up was performed. The S/V group was further divided into prespecified subgroups including unstable angina (UA) group, non‐ST‐elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) group, and ST‐elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) group according to the type of ACS. We analysed the changes in LVEF, LVMI, LVEDVI, LVESVI, and NT‐proBNP in both groups and evaluated the correlation between the changes in the above variables (ΔLVEF, ΔLVMI, ΔLVEDVI, ΔLVESVI, and ΔNT‐proBNP). Cox regression model was used to assess the independent risk factors of MACE. Prespecified subgroup analyses were also conducted. Compared with baseline, LVEF increased significantly (P < 0.05), NT‐proBNP, LVMI, and LVESVI decreased significantly in both groups after 6 months (P < 0.05), and LVEDVI decreased significantly in the S/V group (P = 0.001). In the S/V group, ΔLVEF (t = −2.745, P = 0.006), ΔNT‐proBNP (P = 0.009), ΔLVEDVI (t = 4.203, P = 0.001), and ΔLVESVI (t = 3.907, P = 0.001) were significantly improved than those in the routine group. In the S/V group, ΔLVEF was negatively correlated with ΔNT‐proBNP (r = −0.244, P = 0.004), ΔLVMI (r = −0.190, P = 0.028), ΔLVEDVI (r = −0.173, P = 0.045), and ΔLVESVI (r = −0.261, P = 0.002). In Cox regression model analysis, ΔLVEF {hazard ratio [HR] = 0.87 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80–0.95], P = 0.003}, ΔLVEDVI [HR = 1.04 (95% CI 1.01–1.06), P = 0.013], and ΔLVESVI [HR = 1.04 (95% CI 1.01–1.08), P = 0.026] were independent risk factors for MACE. Subgroup analysis showed that ΔLVEF (t = 6.290, P = 0.001), ΔLVEDVI (t = 2.581, P = 0.011), and ΔNT‐proBNP (P = 0.019) in the NSTEMI group were significantly improved than those in the UA group, ΔLVEDVI in the NSTEMI group was significantly better than that in the STEMI group (t = −3.365, P = 0.001), and ΔLVEF in the STEMI group was significantly better than that in the UA group (t = −3.928, P = 0.001). There was a significant difference in the survival probability without MACE among the three groups in the analysis of the Kaplan–Meier curve (P = 0.042). The incidence of MACE in the UA group was significantly higher than that in the NSTEMI group (32.4% vs. 6.3%, P = 0.004). Conclusions: The cardiac function is improved and cardiac remodelling is reversed significantly after treatment of S/V in ACS patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction after PCI, and the improvement is more obvious than the routine group. There is a significant negative correlation between the change in LVEF and the changes in NT‐proBNP, LVMI, LVEDVI, and LVESVI. The increase of LVEF and the decrease of LVEDVI and LVESVI are protective factors to improve the prognosis. Patients with myocardial infarction and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction might benefit more from the initiation of S/V as first‐line heart failure treatment after PCI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

The efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) has not been described. Data from randomized trials of sacubitril/valsartan in HF patients with EF ≤40% (PIONEER-HF [Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect of NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode] trial) and >40% (PARAGLIDE-HF [Prospective comparison of ARNI with ARB Given following stabiLization In DEcompensated HFpEF] trial) following recent worsening heart failure (WHF) were pooled to examine treatment effect across the EF spectrum. The PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF trials were double-blind, randomized trials of sacubitril/valsartan vs control therapy (enalapril or valsartan, respectively). All participants in the PIONEER-HF trial and 69.5% in the PARAGLIDE-HF trial were enrolled during hospitalization for HF after stabilization. The remainder in the PARAGLIDE-HF trial were enrolled ≤30 days after a WHF event. The primary endpoint of both trials was time-averaged proportional change in N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) from baseline through weeks 4 and 8. Adjudicated clinical endpoints were analyzed through the end of follow-up, adjusting for trial. The pooled analysis included 1,347 patients (881 from PIONEER-HF, 466 from PARAGLIDE-HF). Baseline characteristics included median age 66 years, 36% women, 31% Black, 34% de novo HF, and median EF 30%. The reduction in NT-proBNP was 24% greater with sacubitril/valsartan vs control therapy (n = 1,130; ratio of change = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.69-0.83; P < 0.0001). Cardiovascular death or hospitalization for HF was reduced by 30% with sacubitril/valsartan vs control therapy (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.54-0.91; P = 0.0077). This effect was consistent across the spectrum of EF ≤60%. Sacubitril/valsartan increased symptomatic hypotension (risk ratio: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.05-1.72). In patients stabilized after WHF, sacubitril/valsartan led to a greater reduction in plasma NT-proBNP and improved clinical outcome compared with control therapy, in particular across the spectrum of EF ≤60%. (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect of NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode [PIONEER-HF]; NCT02554890 ; Changes in NT-proBNP, Safety, and Tolerability in HFpEF Patients With a WHF Event [HFpEF Decompensation] Who Have Been Stabilized and Initiated at the Time of or Within 30 Days Post-decompensation [PARAGLIDE-HF]; NCT03988634) [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Sacubitril/valsartan improves heart failure (HF) outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have shown inconsistent results. We conducted this meta-analysis to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared to valsartan within this specific patient population. Methods: We searched the MEDLINE database and ClinicalTrials.gov and identified four RCTs that could be included in our analysis, with 3375 patients in the sacubitril/valsartan group and 3362 in the valsartan group. Results: Our study shows that, in patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF, sacubitril/valsartan was superior to valsartan in some of the key HF outcomes, such as the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ CSS), with a small but significant mean difference of 1.13 (95% confidence interval or CI of 0.15 to 2.11, p-value 0.024), an improvement in the New York Heart Association (NYHA) class (odds ratio or OR of 1.32, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.58, p-value 0.002), and the composite outcome of hospitalizations for HF and cardiovascular death, with a relative risk (RR) of 0.86 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.99, p-value 0.04). However, there was no additional benefit with sacubitril/valsartan compared to valsartan for the outcomes of cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality. In terms of side effects, sacubitril/valsartan was associated with a higher risk of hypotension when compared to valsartan (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.19, p-value < 0.0001), but did not show an increased risk of hyperkalemia or worsening renal function. Conclusions: In individuals with HFmrEF or HFpEF, sacubitril/valsartan can result in improvements in the HF outcomes of the KCCQ CSS, the NYHA class, and the composite outcome of hospitalization for HF and cardiovascular death when compared to valsartan. While there was a higher risk of hypotension with sacubitril/valsartan compared to valsartan, there was no corresponding increase in the risk of hyperkalemia or worsening renal function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Non-responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-NR) have poor prognosis. Sacubitril/valsartan (SV) treatment improved the outcome of patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (HFrEF) in randomized trials with no data on the specific cohort of CRT-NRs. The aim of this study was to compare the echocardiographic and biomarker changes in CRT-NR patients treated with versus without SV, and in patients with HFrEF on SV therapy. Methods: CRT-NR patients initiated on SV (group I), CRT-NR patients on angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEi/ARB) (group II), and patients with HFrEF (without CRT) initiated on SV (group III) were identified in our heart failure (HF) registry. CRT-NR was defined as < 10% improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LV EF) 6 months after the implantation. Echocardiographic parameters and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels at baseline and at the end of follow-up were compared. Results: A total of 275 patients (group I, 70; group II, 70; and group III, 135) were included. After a follow-up of 7.54 ± 1.8 months (mean ± standard deviation [SD]), LV EF (%) increased in group I (25.2 ± 5.7 versus 29.4% ± 6.7; p < 0.001) and in group III (26.6 ± 6.4 versus 29.9 ± 6.7; p < 0.001). LV end-systolic diameters (mm) decreased in group I (56.6 ± 9.0 versus 54.3 ± 8.7; p = 0.004) and in group III (55.9 ± 9.9 versus 54.3 ± 11.2; p = 0.021). The levels of NT-proBNP (pg/mL) decreased in group I (2058.86 [1041.07–4502.51] versus 1121.55 [545–2541]; p < 0.001) and in group III (2223.35 [1233.03–4795.96] versus 1123.09 [500.38–2651.27]; p < 0.001). The extent of improvement was similar in groups I and III (p > 0.05). No significant changes were detected in group II. Conclusion: SV therapy induced similar improvements in echocardiographic parameters and in NT-proBNP levels in CRT-NR patients and in patients with HFrEF without resynchronization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and objective: Dyslipidemia is significantly more common in those with concurrent chronic kidney disease (CKD) and chronic heart failure (CHF). Sacubitril/valsartan has showcased its influence on both cardiac and renal functions, extending its influence to the modulation of lipid metabolism pathways. This study aimed to examine how sacubitril/valsartan affects lipid metabolism within the context of CKD and CHF. Methods: This study adopted a retrospective design, focusing on a single center and involving participants who were subjected to treatment with sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan. The investigation assessed the treatment duration, with a particular emphasis on recording blood lipid indicators, including triglyceride (TG), total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), apolipoprotein A (ApoA), and apolipoprotein B (ApoB). Furthermore, cardiac and renal functions, blood pressure, potassium levels, and other factors influencing the blood lipids were analyzed in both groups at identical time points. Results: After 16 weeks of observation, the sacubitril/valsartan group exhibited lower TG levels compared to the valsartan group. Noteworthy was the fact that individuals undergoing sacubitril/valsartan treatment experienced an average reduction of 0.84 mmol/L in TG levels, in stark contrast to the valsartan group, which registered a decline of 0.27 mmol/L (P < 0.001). The sacubitril/valsartan group exhibited elevated levels of HDL-C and ApoA in comparison to the valsartan group (PHDL-C = 0.023, PApoA = 0.030). While TC, LDL-C, and ApoB decreased compared to baseline, the differences between groups were not statistical significance. Regarding cardiac indicators, there was an observed enhancement in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) within the sacubitril/valsartan group when compared to the baseline, and it was noticeably higher than that of the valsartan group. Spearman correlation analysis and multiple linear regression analysis revealed that medication, body mass index(BMI), and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) had a direct influencing effect on TG levels. Conclusion: Sacubitril/valsartan demonstrated improvements in lipid metabolism and cardiac indicators in patients with CKD and CHF. Specifically, it presented promising benefits in reducing TG levels. In addition, both BMI and HbA1c emerged as influential factors contributing to alterations in TG levels, independent of the administration of sacubitril/valsartan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Tubulointerstitial fibrosis plays an important role in the progression of diabetic kidney disease (DKD). Sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) exerts a robust beneficial effect in DKD. However, the potential functional effect of Sac/Val on tubulointerstitial fibrosis in DKD is still largely unclear. Methods: Streptozotocin-induced diabetic mice were given Sac/Val or Val by intragastric administration once a day for 12 weeks. The renal function, the pathological changes of tubule injury and tubulointerstitial fibrosis, as well as mitochondrial morphology of renal tubules in mice, were evaluated. Genome-wide gene expression analysis was performed to identify the potential mechanisms. Meanwhile, human tubular epithelial cells (HK-2) were cultured in high glucose condition containing LBQ657/valsartan (LBQ/Val). Further, mitochondrial functions and Sirt1/PGC1α pathway of tubular epithelial cells were assessed by Western blot, Real-time-PCR, JC-1, MitoSOX or MitoTracker. Finally, the Sirt1 specific inhibitor, EX527, was used to explore the potential effects of Sirt1 signaling in vivo and in vitro. Results: We found that Sac/Val significantly ameliorated the decline of renal function and tubulointerstitial fibrosis in DKD mice. The enrichment analysis of gene expression indicated metabolism as an important modulator in DKD mice with Sac/Val administration, in which mitochondrial homeostasis plays a pivotal role. Then, the decreased expression of Tfam and Cox IV;, as well as changes of mitochondrial function and morphology, demonstrated the disruption of mitochondrial homeostasis under DKD conditions. Interestingly, Sac/Val administration was found to restore mitochondrial homeostasis in DKD mice and in vitro model of HK-2 cells. Further, we demonstrated that Sirt1/PGC1α, a crucial pathway in mitochondrial homeostasis, was activated by Sac/Val both in vivo and in vitro. Finally, the beneficial effects of Sac/Val on mitochondrial homeostasis and tubulointerstitial fibrosis was partially abolished in the presence of Sirt1 specific inhibitor. Conclusions: Taken together, we demonstrate that Sac/Val ameliorates tubulointerstitial fibrosis by restoring Sirt1/PGC1α pathway-mediated mitochondrial homeostasis in DKD, providing a theoretical basis for delaying the progression of DKD in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate the renoprotective effect of sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) against angiotensinconverting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB). Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a thorough search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library was performed up to May 18, 2023. Eligibility criteria included prospective, randomized, controlled trials comparing sac/Val and ACEI/ARB with regard to renal outcomes. Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken independently by two reviewers. Fixed or random effects models were used depending on the heterogeneity among studies. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the presence or absence of heart failure. Results: Eleven trials with varied patient populations and clinical settings were included. The metaanalysis revealed that Sac/Val exhibited a significantly reduced risk of renal function decline compared to ACEI/ARB (Risk Ratio (RR) = 0.86, 95 % Confidence Interval (CI) (0.78, 0.96), p = 0.016). Subgroup analysis showed that the renoprotective effect was significant in patients with heart failure (RR = 0.84, 95 % CI (0.75, 0.94), p = 0.011), but not in non-heart failure patients (RR = 1.04, 95 % CI (0.80, 1.37), p = 0.66). Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that Sac/Val confers substantial renoprotective effect compared with ACEI/ARB, particularly among heart failure patients. However, further research is required to elaborate on the full potential of Sac/Val as a nephroprotective agent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The current European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines provide clear indications for the treatment of acute and chronic heart failure (HF). Nevertheless, there is a constant need for real‐world evidence regarding the effectiveness, adherence, and persistence of drug therapy. We investigated the use of sacubitril/valsartan for the treatment of HF with reduced ejection fraction in real‐world clinical practice in Italy. Methods and results: An observational, retrospective, non‐interventional cohort study based on electronic medical records from nine specialized hospital HF centres in Italy was carried out on patients with prescription of sacubitril/valsartan. Overall, 948 patients had a prescription of sacubitril/valsartan, with 924 characterized over 6 months and followed up for 12 months. Pharmacoutilization data at 1 year of follow‐up were available for 225 patients {mean age 69.7 years [standard deviation (SD) = 10.8], 81.8% male}. Of those, 398 (45.2%) reached the target dose of sacubitril/valsartan of 97/103 mg in a mean time of 6.9 (SD = 6.2) weeks. Blood pressure and hypotension in 61 patients (65%) and worsening of chronic kidney disease in 10 patients (10.6%) were the main reasons for not reaching the target dose. Approximatively 50% of patients had a change in sacubitril/valsartan dose during follow‐up, and 158 (70.2%) were persistent with the treatment during the last 3 months of follow‐up. A sensitivity analysis (persistence during the last 4 months of follow‐up) showed persistence for 162 patients (72.0%). Adherence data, available for 387 patients, showed full adherence for 205 (53%). Discontinuation (102/717 patients, 14.2%) was mainly due to hypotension and occurred after a mean time of 34.3 (SD = 28.7) weeks. During follow‐up, out of 606 patients with available data, 434 patients (71.6%) had an HF add‐on drug or drugs concomitant with sacubitril/valsartan. HF‐related hospitalization during follow‐up was numerically higher in non‐persistent (16/67 patients, 23.9%) vs. patients persistent to sacubitril/valsartan (30/158, 19%) (P = 0.405). Conclusions: Real‐world data on the use of sacubitril/valsartan in clinical practice in Italy show a rapid titration to the target dose, high therapeutic adherence enabling a good level of therapeutic management in line with ESC guidelines for patients with reduced ejection fraction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the efficacy of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) combined with either sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril in the treatment of chronic heart failure (CHF). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 138 patients with CHF admitted to Dazhou Central Hospital between June 2020 and June 2022 to extract clinical data. We divided the data into two treatment groups for the analysis: 71 patients received LBBP combined with sacubitril/valsartan treatment (sacubitril/valsartan group), and 67 received LBBP combined with enalapril treatment (enalapril group). The levels of cardiac and cardiopulmonary function indicators, levels of myocardial injury markers, and the scores of the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) before and after the treatment were compared between the two groups. Results: After six months of treatment, patients in the sacubitril/valsartan group had lower myocardial injury markers, higher cardiopulmonary function indicators, and lower MLHFQ scores (P<0.05). Conclusions: In CHF patients, the combination of LBBP with sacubitril/valsartan had a better therapeutic effect compared to LBBP with enalapril, with more effective improvement of the cardiopulmonary function, reduction of myocardial injury, and improvement in quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the evolution of sacubitril-valsartan research and analyze the publications quantitatively and qualitatively. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used the bibliometric method and a combination of CiteSpace_6.1.6 and VOSviewer_1.6.18 to identify top authors, countries, institutions, co-cited articles, co-cited journals, keywords, and trends. This study prioritized key aspects in the existing global research on Entresto (Sacubitril/Valsartan) to assess our depth of knowledge in this field and identify potential insights. The objective was to generate a reference for the utilization of the "angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor" (ARNI). RESULTS: From 2008 to 2022, citations of sacubitril-valsartan showed an upward trend. VOSviewer keyword analysis of 3,408 publications identified 624 keywords and divided them into seven different clusters. The clustered network was constructed based on 1,191 references cited by 3,408 publications that met the terms, where the clustered network of sacubitril-valsartan was presented. These publications can be regarded as fundamental to Entresto's research. Analysis of co-cited reference clusters showed that other than Entresto's novel application in other diseases, the new combination with other medication or mechanical assistance therapies against heart failure was Entresto's latest focus. Analysis of citation bursts showed that the rank of the top 25 keywords, according to the chronological sequence, marked Entresto's research entering a new era of exploring the extended application in other diseases and novel combinations with other diverse therapies. CONCLUSIONS: We found that emerging new mechanisms in sacubitril-valsartan therapy intended for more targets in the pathogenesis of specific diseases will be the focus of further studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: It is unknown whether safety and clinical endpoints by use of sacubitril/valsartan (an angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor [ARNI]) are affected by mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) in high‐risk myocardial infarction (MI) patients. The aim of this study was to examine whether MRA modifies safety and clinical endpoints by use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with a MI and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and/or pulmonary congestion. Methods and results: Patients (n = 5661) included in the PARADISE MI trial (Prospective ARNI vs. ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI) were stratified according to MRA. Primary outcomes in this substudy were worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death. Safety was defined as symptomatic hypotension, hyperkalaemia >5.5 mmol/L, or permanent drug discontinuation. A total of 2338 patients (41%) were treated with MRA. Safety of ARNI compared to ramipril was not altered significantly by ± MRA, and both groups had similar increase in symptomatic hypotension with ARNI. In patients taking MRA, the risk of hyperkalaemia or permanent drug discontinuation was not significantly altered by ARNI (p > 0.05 for all comparisons). The effect of ARNI compared with ramipril was similar in those who were and were not taking MRA (hazard ratio [HR]MRA 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77–1.19 and HRMRA– 0.87, 95% CI 0.71–1.05, for the primary endpoint; p = 0.51 for interaction [Clinical Endpoint Committee adjudicated]); similar findings were observed if investigator‐reported endpoints were evaluated (p = 0.61 for interaction). Conclusions: Use of a MRA did not modify safety or clinical endpoints related to initiation of ARNI compared to ramipril in the post‐MI setting in patients with LVSD and/or congestion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in abnormal renal function (eGFR < 60ml/min/1.73m2 ) patients combined with heart failure based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Methods: The Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant studies from inception to December 2023. Dichotomous variables were described as event counts with the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) values. Continuous variables were expressed as mean standard deviation (SD) with 95% CIs. Results: A total of 6 RCTs and 8 observational studies were included, involving 17335 eGFR below 60ml/min/1.73m² patients combined with heart failure. In terms of efficacy, we analyzed the incidence of cardiovascular events and found that sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization in chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages 3–5 patients with heart failure (OR: 0.65, 95%CI: 0.54–0.78). Moreover, sacubitril/valsartan prevented the serum creatinine elevation (OR: 0.81, 95%CI: 0.68–0.95), the eGFR decline (OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.73–0.95) and the development of end-stage renal disease in this population (OR:0.73, 95%CI:0.60– 0.89). As for safety outcomes, we did not find that the rate of hyperkalemia (OR:1.31, 95%CI:0.79– 2.17) and hypotension (OR:1.57, 95%CI:0.94–2.62) were increased in sacubitril/valsartan group among CKD stages 3–5 patients with heart failure. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis proves that sacubitril/valsartan has a favorable effect on cardiac function without obvious risk of adverse events in abnormal renal function patients combined with heart failure, indicating that sacubitril/valsartan has the potential to become perspective treatment for these patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity is a significant problem, ranking as the second most frequent cause of mortality in cancer patients. This adverse outcome encompasses many cardiovascular problems, such as heart failure. Sacubitril/valsartan has shown potential in the management of heart failure, however, its effectiveness in treating chemotherapy-induced heart failure has not been extensively explored. We performed a case series to investigate the safety and effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan in treating chemotherapy-induced cardiomyopathy in Saudi Arabia.Methods: The case series was conducted at a single medical center in Makkah, Saudi Arabia. The data gathered included patient demographics, clinical features, laboratory results, echocardiographic findings, and medication information. The data underwent analysis using descriptive statistics.Results: Out of the total of eight patients who were part of the investigation, a notable majority of six individuals exhibited substantial enhancements in their ejection fraction (EF) after receiving sacubitril/valsartan medication.Conclusion: Our case series provides significant insights by revealing improvements in ejection fraction (EF) in six out of eight patients who had chemotherapy-induced cardiomyopathy after receiving sacubitril/valsartan treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 2 different therapies of cardiomyopathy (CM) after COVID -19. The focus of the study is fixed dose combination (FDC) of sacubitril/valsartan and standard therapy in Kazakhstan. This is written from the point of view of the health insurance institution. Information for the age, gender, CM therapy, number of hospitalizations, COVID-19 infection, and past cardiovascular surgeries of 237 patients with incidents of CM which required a hospitalization after a COVID-19 infection was collected. Selected patients were divided into two groups: the cost of FDC and standard therapy and the annual cost of their therapy was calculated. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated by dividing the cost of medication therapy by the number of hospitalizations between the two compared groups. Robustness of the results was tested with deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The study was performed in City cardiology centre of Almaty in Kazakhstan during 2020-2022. Results show that FDC is more costly but more effective, leading to fewer hospitalizations. ICER accounts for €-2,743.08 per hospitalization saved in the group on FDC vs standard of therapy. Sacubitril/valsartan is cost-effective in ambulatory conditions in comparison with standard therapy of cardiomyopathy after COVID-19 leading to savings due to the decrease in the number of hospitalizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to evaluate the association between red blood cell distribution width (RDW) changes and major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) occurrences during sacubitril/valsartan treatment in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed the medical records of patients with HFrEF hospitalized from April 2018 to February 2021. The patients were divided into two groups according to the inclusion of sacubitril/valsartan in the personal drug treatment regimen, the traditional and the sacubitril/valsartan group. RDW values before and after sacubitril/valsartan treatment were recorded respectively as RDW1 and RDW2. ΔRDW was defined as the difference between RDW2 and RDW1. The patients in the sacubitril/valsartan group were divided into two subgroups according to ΔRDW > 0 or ≤ 0. MACEs, such as readmission for HF, acute myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and malignant arrhythmia and death, were recorded during the 1-year follow-up period in each group.Results: MACE development was lower in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan than those treated with conventional therapy (log-rank, P< 0.001). The incidence of cardiac events during the follow-up period was greater in the group with ΔRDW > 0 than in the group with ΔRDW ≤ 0 (Breslow, P< 0.001). Increased RDW was associated with a higher likelihood of developing MACE than decreased RDW (odds ratio [OR] =2.055, 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.301– 3.246), and the risk of developing MACE increased by 22.1% for each unit increase in RDW (OR=1.221, 95% CI:1.074– 1.389).Conclusion: Sacubitril/valsartan treatment is effective in reducing the risk of MACEs in HFrEF. Additionally, RDW changes are predictors of MACEs after sacubitril/valsartan treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to assess whether angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) decreases ventricular arrhythmic burden compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor antagonist (ACE-I/ARB) treatment in chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients. Further, we assessed if ARNI influenced the percentage of biventricular pacing. A systematic review of studies (both RCTs and observational studies) including HFrEF patients and those receiving ARNI after ACE-I/ARB treatment was conducted using Medline and Embase up to February 2023. Initial search found 617 articles. After duplicate removal and text check, 1 RCT and 3 non-RCTs with a total of 8837 patients were included in the final analysis. ARNI was associated with a significative reduction of ventricular arrhythmias both in RCT (RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.63–0.96); p = 0.02) and observational studies (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.53–0.72; p < 0.001). Furthermore, in non-RCTs, ARNI also reduced sustained (RR 0.36 (95% CI 0.2–0.63); p < 0.001), non-sustained VT (RR 0.67 (95% CI 0.57–0.80; p = 0.007), ICD shock (RR 0.24 (95% CI 0.12–0.48; p < 0.001), and increased biventricular pacing (2.96% (95% CI 2.25–3.67), p < 0.001). In patients with chronic HFrEF, switching from ACE-I/ARB to ARNI treatment was associated with a consistent reduction of ventricular arrhythmic burden. This association could be related to a direct pharmacological effect of ARNI on cardiac remodeling. Trial registration: CRD42021257977. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Decision-analytic models (DAMs) with varying structures and assumptions have been applied in economic evaluations (EEs) to assist decision making for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) therapeutics. This systematic review aimed to summarize and critically appraise the EEs of guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMTs) for HFrEF. A systematic search of English articles and gray literature, published from January 2010, was performed on databases including MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, NHSEED, health technology assessment, Cochrane Library, etc. The included studies were EEs with DAMs that compared the costs and outcomes of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid-receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. The study quality was evaluated using the Bias in Economic Evaluation (ECOBIAS) 2015 checklist and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 checklists. A total of 59 EEs were included. Markov model, with a lifetime horizon and a monthly cycle length, was most commonly used in evaluating GDMTs for HFrEF. Most EEs conducted in the high-income countries demonstrated that novel GDMTs for HFrEF were cost-effective compared with the standard of care, with the standardized median incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $21 361/quality-adjusted life-year. The key factors influencing ICERs and study conclusions included model structures, input parameters, clinical heterogeneity, and country-specific willingness-to-pay threshold. Novel GDMTs were cost-effective compared with the standard of care. Given the heterogeneity of the DAMs and ICERs, alongside variations in willingness-to-pay thresholds across countries, there is a need to conduct country-specific EEs, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, using model structures that are coherent with the local decision context. • Consistent with previous review, Markov model was most commonly used in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of guideline-directed medical therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection population. • This study revealed that novel guideline-directed medical therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection (including sacubitril-valsartan, dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, and eplerenone) were cost-effective, particularly in high-income countries. • Given the heterogeneity of decision-analytic models and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, alongside variations in willingness-to-pay thresholds across countries, there is a need to conduct country-specific economic evaluations, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, using model structures that are coherent with the local decision context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death and morbidity in patients with end-stage renal disease. Sacubitril/valsartan (SAC/VAL) can reduce the risk of cardiovascular mortality among patients with heart failure (HF). The present study set out to evaluate the efficacy of SAC/VAL in the treatment of patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) undergoing peritoneal dialysis (PD) (HFpEF&PD). Methods: A total of 160 patients with HFpEF&PD were enrolled and randomly divided into the control group (N = 80) and SAC/VAL group (N = 80). The cardiac function efficacy, HF scoring efficacy, echocardiographic parameters, serological indicators, and 6-minute walking test were compared before and after treatment. Results: After 6 months of treatment, the total number of patients who responded to treatment in the SAC/VAL group was higher than that of the control group in terms of cardiac function and HF scoring efficacy. After treatment, levels of early diastolic/late diastolic filling velocity and left ventricular ejection fraction were increased in both groups, while the levels of left atrial diameter, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, left ventricular end-systolic diameter, inter-ventricular septal diameter, and left ventricular posterior wall diameter were decreased; the NT-proBNP levels were diminished in both groups, while hemoglobin levels and the 6-minute walk distance were increased; the systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and 24-h ultrafiltration volume were lowered in all patients. The changes in these indexes in the SAC/VAL group were more obvious than those in the controls. Conclusion: SAC/VAL can significantly improve cardiac function in patients with HFpEF&PD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim To observe the changes in indexes of ventricular remodeling and adverse drug reactions in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) before and after treatment, and evaluate the efficacy and safety of different doses of sarcubatrix/valsartan in the treatment of heart failure patients after AMI. Methods 174 patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and subnormal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50% from March 2018 to March 2022 were randomly allocated to receive maximal tolerated dose of sacubitril/valsartan (titrated up to maximal tolerated dose or 200 mg, Bid, n =80) or low dose sacubitril/valsartan (50 mg, Bid, n =94) treatment, they also received conventional treatment. The changes in echocardiographic parameters, serum N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide(NT-proBNP) and adverse drug reactions (symptomatic hypotension, hyperkalemia, kidney function decline and angioedema, et al) from baseline to 12 months after discharge were assessed. Results After treatment, there was statistically significant difference in left atrial diameter (LAD) of maximum tolerated dose group and low dose group compared with baseline (P<0. 05), however, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P>0. 05). The left ventricular end diastolic diameter (LVEDD) were significantly decreased in two groups compared with baseline (P<0. 05), but there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P>0. 05). The left ventricular ejection fraction(LVEF) were significantly increased in both groups compared with baseline (P<0. 05), but there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P >0. 05). The decrease of serum NT-proBNP levels was higher in maximum tolerated dose group than that in low dose group (P<0. 05). The incidence of drug-related adverse reactions was higher in the maximum tolerated group (17. 5% vs 2. 1%, P<0. 05). Conclusion Compared with low dose sacubitril/valsartan group, the maximum tolerated dose group did not show significant advantages in improving cardiac remodeling and LVEF. Although it may be possible to reduce cardiovascular events by further reducing NT-proBNP levels, strict titration of the maximum tolerable dose was closely related to frequent adverse drug reactions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Serial assessment of natriuretic peptides is widely utilized in heart failure clinics. Uncertainty exists regarding the value of multiple natriuretic peptide measurements and how they might be best interpreted. Methods and results: Six hundred thirty‐two patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (<40%) and complete biomarker data were enrolled to receive sacubitril/valsartan. Patients underwent periodic study visits during 1‐year follow‐ups. Echocardiographic data and cardiac biomarkers, including N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP) were collected during study visits. Patients were categorized into three groups based on tertiles of baseline NT‐proBNP levels. The area under the curve (AUC) of NT‐proBNP measurements across study visits was calculated. Compared with patients with higher AUC (and thus higher concentrations over a longer period of time), those with lower AUC were younger, had a lower prevalence of chronic kidney disease, prior coronary artery bypass graft, atrial fibrillation, and higher body‐mass index. A significant interaction existed between baseline NT‐proBNP and subsequent AUC for predicting LVEF change across visits (P‐value < 0.001): among those with lower baseline NT‐proBNP, similar improvements in left ventricular (LV) volumes LV ejection fraction, and LV mass index were observed across subsequent AUC (P‐value > 0.1). However, among those with higher baseline NT‐proBNP, those with lower subsequent AUC had a greater improvement in cardiac remodelling indices (P‐value < 0.05). Conclusions: Serial NT‐proBNP monitoring (integrating the totality of measurements as an AUC) during treatment with sacubitril/valsartan informs unique information regarding the future changes in cardiac remodelling indices, especially among those with higher NT‐proBNP levels at baseline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: In recent years, survival in patients with breast cancer has increased. Despite the improvement in outcomes of those patients, the risk of treatment‐related cardiotoxicity remains high, and its presence has been associated with a higher risk of treatment termination and thus lower therapeutic efficacy. Prior trials demonstrated that a preventive initiation of heart failure drugs, including the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone inhibitors, might reduce the risk of treatment‐related cardiotoxicity. However, to date, no study investigated the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan, a novel antineurohormonal drug shown to be superior to the previous therapies, in the prevention of cardiotoxicity in patients with early‐stage breast cancer, which is the aim of the trial. Methods and results: MAINSTREAM is a randomized, placebo‐controlled, double‐blind, multicentre, clinical trial. After the run‐in period, a total of 480 patients with early breast cancer undergoing treatment with anthracyclines and/or anti‐human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 drugs will be randomized to the highest tolerated dose of sacubitril/valsartan, being preferably 97/103 mg twice daily or placebo in 1:1 ratio. The patients will be monitored, including routine transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and laboratory biomarker monitoring, for 24 months. The primary endpoint of the trial will be the occurrence of a decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction by ≥5% in TTE within 24 months. The key secondary endpoints will be the composite endpoint of death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure, as well as other imaging, laboratory, and clinical outcomes, including the occurrence of the cancer therapy‐related cardiac dysfunction resulting in the necessity to initiate treatment. The first patients are expected to be recruited in the coming months, and the estimated completion of the study and publication of the results are expected in December 2027, pending recruitment. Conclusions: The MAINSTREAM trial will determine the efficacy and safety of treatment with sacubitril/valsartan as a prevention of cardiotoxicity in patients with early breast cancer (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT05465031). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: A novel tool for the evaluation of left ventricular (LV) systo‐diastolic function through echo‐derived haemodynamic forces (HDFs) has been recently proposed. The present study aimed to assess the predictive value of HDFs on (i) 6 month treatment response to sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients and (ii) cardiovascular events. Methods and results: Eighty‐nine consecutive HFrEF patients [70% males, 65 ± 9 years, LV ejection fraction (LVEF) 27 ± 7%] initiating sacubitril/valsartan underwent clinical, laboratory, ultrasound and cardiopulmonary exercise testing evaluations. Patients experiencing no adverse events and showing ≥50% reduction in plasma N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide and/or ≥10% LVEF increase over 6 months were considered responders. Patients were followed up for the composite endpoint of HF‐related hospitalisation, atrial fibrillation and cardiovascular death. Forty‐five (51%) patients were responders. Among baseline variables, only HDF‐derived whole cardiac cycle LV strength (wLVS) was higher in responders (4.4 ± 1.3 vs. 3.6 ± 1.2; p = 0.01). wLVS was also the only independent predictor of sacubitril/valsartan response at multivariable logistic regression analysis [odds ratio 1.36; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10–1.67], with good accuracy at receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis [optimal cutpoint: ≥3.7%; area under the curve (AUC) = 0.736]. During a 33 month (23–41) median follow‐up, a wLVS increase after 6 months (ΔwLVS) showed a high discrimination ability at time‐dependent ROC analysis (optimal cut‐off: ≥0.5%; AUC = 0.811), stratified prognosis (log‐rank p < 0.0001) and remained an independent predictor for the composite endpoint (hazard ratio 0.76; 95% CI 0.61–0.95; p < 0.01), after adjusting for clinical and instrumental variables. Conclusions: HDF analysis predicts sacubitril/valsartan response and might optimise decision‐making in HFrEF patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Sacubitril/valsartan is a new cardiovascular agent characterized by its dual inhibition on the reninangiotensin system (RAS) and the neprilysin. As neprilysin also involved itself in the degradation of amyloid‐β, there is an ongoing concern about the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on cognition, especially in case of long‐term administration. Methods: The FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) was mined between 2015Q3 and 2022Q4 to analyze the association between sacubitril/valsartan and adverse events (AEs) involving dementia. Standardized Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) Queries (SMQs) with "broad" and "narrow" preferred terms (PTs) relevant to dementia was applied to systematically search demented AE reports. The Empirical Bayes Geometric Mean (EBGM) from Multi‐Item Gamma Poisson Shrinker (MGPS) and proportional reporting ratio with Chi‐square (PRR, χ2) were used to calculate the disproportionality. Results: We filtered the query for indication and identified 80,316 reports with heart failure indication in FAERS during the analytical period. Among all the reports, sacubitril/valsartan was listed as primary suspected or secondary suspected drug in 29,269 cases. No significantly elevated reporting rates of narrow dementia were evident with sacubitril/valsartan. The EBGM05 for narrow dementia‐related AEs associated with sacubitril/valsartan was 0.88 and the PRR (χ2) was 1.22 (2.40). Similarly, broad demented complications were not over‐reported in the heart failure patients administrated with sacubitril/valsartan (EBGM05 1.11; PRR 1.31, χ2 109.36). Conclusion: The number of dementia‐related cases reported to FAERS generate no safety signal attributable to sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure for now. Further follow‐ups are still warranted to address this question. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims The PARAGLIDE-HF trial demonstrated reductions in natriuretic peptides with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in patients with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction who had a recent worsening HF event, but was not adequately powered to examine clinical outcomes. PARAGON-HF included a subset of PARAGLIDE-HF-like patients who were recently hospitalized for HF. Participant-level data from PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF were pooled to better estimate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in reducing cardiovascular and renal events in HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. Methods and results Both PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF were multicentre, double-blind, randomized, active-controlled trials of sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan in patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF >40% in PARAGLIDE-HF and ≥45% in PARAGON-HF). In the pre-specified primary analysis, we pooled participants in PARAGLIDE-HF (all of whom were enrolled during or within 30 days of a worsening HF event) with a 'PARAGLIDE-like' subset of PARAGON-HF (those hospitalized for HF within 30 days). We also pooled the entire PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF populations for a broader context. The primary endpoint for this analysis was the composite of total worsening HF events (including first and recurrent HF hospitalizations and urgent visits) and cardiovascular death. The secondary endpoint was the pre-specified renal composite endpoint for both studies (≥50% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate from baseline, end-stage renal disease, or renal death). Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced total worsening HF events and cardiovascular death in both the primary pooled analysis of participants with recent worsening HF [ n = 1088; rate ratio (RR) 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61–0.99; P = 0.042] and in the pooled analysis of all participants (n = 5262; RR 0.86; 95% CI: 0.75–0.98; P = 0.027). In the pooled analysis of all participants, first nominal statistical significance was reached by Day 9 after randomization, and treatment benefits were larger in those with LVEF ≤60% (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.66–0.91) compared with those with LVEF >60% (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.86–1.40; P interaction = 0.021). Sacubitril/valsartan was also associated with lower rates of the renal composite endpoint in the primary pooled analysis [hazard ratio (HR) 0.67; 95% CI 0.43–1.05; P = 0.080] and the pooled analysis of all participants (HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.44–0.83; P = 0.002). Conclusion In pooled analyses of PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF, sacubitril/valsartan reduced cardiovascular and renal events among patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. These data provide support for use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction, particularly among those with an LVEF below normal, regardless of care setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Adrenomedullin is a vasodilatory peptide with a role in microcirculatory and endothelial homeostasis. Adrenomedullin is a substrate for neprilysin and may therefore play a role in beneficial effects of sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) treatment. Methods and results: Mid‐regional pro‐adrenomedullin (MR‐proADM) was measured in 156 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) treated with Sac/Val and 264 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) randomized to treatment with Sac/Val or valsartan. Echocardiography and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire results were collected at baseline and after 6 and 12 months in the HFrEF cohort. Median (Q1–Q3) baseline MR‐proADM concentrations were 0.80 (0.59–0.99) nmol/L in HFrEF and 0.88 (0.68–1.20) nmol/L in HFpEF. After 12 weeks of treatment with Sac/Val, MR‐proADM increased by median 49% in HFrEF and 60% in HFpEF, while there were no significant changes in valsartan‐treated patients (median 2%). Greater increases in MR‐proADM were associated with higher Sac/Val doses. Changes in MR‐proADM correlated weakly with changes in N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide, cardiac troponin T and urinary cyclic guanosine monophosphate. Increases in MR‐proADM were associated with decreases in blood pressure, but not significantly associated with changes in echocardiographic parameters or health status. Conclusions: MR‐proAD concentrations rise substantially following treatment with Sac/Val, in contrast to no change from valsartan. Change in MR‐proADM from neprilysin inhibition did not correlate with improvements in cardiac structure and function or health status. More data are needed regarding the role of adrenomedullin and its related peptides in the treatment of heart failure. Clinical Trial Registration: PROVE‐HF ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02887183, PARAMOUNT ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00887588. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background There is little information on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of sacubitril/valsartan (SV) in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis (PD) complicated with hypertension or heart failure (HF). This study was designed to evaluate the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of SV in PD patients with complications of hypertension or HF. Methods This was an open-label and cross-sectional study investigating PD patients diagnosed with hypertension or New York Heart Association Class II–IV HF. The concentrations of valsartan, sacubitril and sacubitrilat (LBQ657) were measured by ultra-performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry in plasma, urine and peritoneal dialysate samples. Pharmacodynamics were evaluated by comparing changes in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP), mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (msDBP), mean sitting heart rate, N-terminal-pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Results Forty patients with PD were enrolled including 27 (67.5%) patients with hypertension, 4 (10%) patients with HF and 9 (22.5%) patients with both hypertension and HF. This study included three treatment cohorts: 50 mg twice daily (BID), 100 mg once daily and 100 mg BID. The plasma maximum drug concentrations in the 100 mg BID group were 1995 ± 1499 ng/mL for valsartan, 171 ± 148 ng/mL for sacubitril and 13 686 ± 7418 ng/mL for LBQ657. The 24-h recovery rate of LBQ657 was 3.77% in urine and 2.23% in peritoneal dialysate. After taking SV, msSBP and msDBP decreased by 19.25 ± 10.32 mmHg and 10.10 ± 8.00 mmHg from baseline, respectively. NT-proBNP decreased by 1436.50 (0.00–18 198.00) from baseline, while LVEF increased by 5.00 (–0.25 to 9.25) from baseline after SV treatment. Conclusions PD and residual renal function contributed only to a minor degree to the elimination of LBQ657. Additionally, a dose of 100 mg BID SV is safe and effective in patients with PD with complications of hypertension or HF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

U.S. guidelines recommend consideration of sacubitril/valsartan in chronic heart failure (HF) and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (EF). Whether initiation is safe and effective in EF >40% after a worsening heart failure (WHF) event is unknown. PARAGLIDE-HF (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ARB Given following stabiLization In DEcompensated HFpEF) assessed sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan in EF >40% following a recent WHF event. PARAGLIDE-HF is a double-blind, randomized controlled trial of sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan in patients with EF >40% enrolled within 30 days of a WHF event. The primary endpoint was time-averaged proportional change in amino terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) from baseline through Weeks 4 and 8. A secondary hierarchical outcome (win ratio) consisted of: 1) cardiovascular death; 2) HF hospitalizations; 3) urgent HF visits; and 4) change in NT-proBNP. In 466 patients (233 sacubitril/valsartan; 233 valsartan), time-averaged reduction in the NT-proBNP was greater with sacubitril/valsartan (ratio of change: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.73-0.999; P = 0.049). The hierarchical outcome favored sacubitril/valsartan but was not significant (unmatched win ratio: 1.19; 95% CI: 0.93-1.52; P = 0.16). Sacubitril/valsartan reduced worsening renal function (OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.40-0.93) but increased symptomatic hypotension (OR: 1.73; 95% CI: 1.09-2.76). There was evidence of a larger treatment effect in the subgroup with EF ≤60% for NT-proBNP change (0.78; 95% CI: 0.61-0.98) and the hierarchical outcome (win ratio: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.09-1.95). Among patients with EF >40% stabilized after WHF, sacubitril/valsartan led to greater reduction in plasma NT-proBNP levels and was associated with clinical benefit compared with valsartan alone, despite more symptomatic hypotension. (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ARB Given following stabiLization In DEcompensated HFpEF; NCT03988634) [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]