Search

Heart failure (HF) treatment has changed substantially over the last 30 years, leading to significant reductions in mortality and hospital admissions in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Currently, the optimization of guideline‐directed chronic HF therapy remains the mainstay to further improve quality of life, mortality, and HF hospitalizations for patients with HFrEF. The angiotensin receptor‐neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) has an important role in the treatment of patients with HFrEF. The PARADIGM‐HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) randomized controlled trial has established solid evidence for the treatment of HFrEF in various subgroups. Apart from HFrEF, several studies have been conducted using S/V in various indications: patients hospitalized with acute decompensated HF, HF with preserved ejection fraction, acute myocardial infarction with reduced ejection fraction, uncontrolled and resistant hypertension, and chronic kidney disease. Data from the German Institute for Drug Use Evaluation reveal that implementation of S/V has increased steadily over time and, by the end of 2021, an estimated 266 000 patients were treated with S/V in Germany. The estimated cumulative real‐world patient exposure is >5.5 million patient‐treatment years worldwide. The number of patients treated with S/V largely exceeds the number of patients treated in clinical trials, and the current indication for S/V is larger than the strict inclusion/exclusion criteria of the randomized trials. Especially elderly patients, women, and patients with more and more severe comorbidities are underrepresented in the clinical trials. We therefore aimed to summarize the importance of S/V in HF in terms of efficacy and safety in clinical trials and daily clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Nachrichten aus der Chemie is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Aims: ACTIVITY‐HF was a randomized, double‐blind, active‐controlled study, which assessed the short‐term effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with the active comparator enalapril on improving maximal exercise capacity in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods and results: A total of 201 ambulatory patients with HFrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40%, New York Heart Association class III) across 34 centres in Germany were randomized (1:1) to receive sacubitril/valsartan 97/103 mg bid (n = 103) or enalapril 10 mg bid (n = 98). The primary endpoint of the study was the change from baseline in peak oxygen consumption (VO2; adjusted to body weight) after 12 weeks, and the key secondary endpoint was change from baseline in peak VO2 after 6 weeks. The study population was predominantly male (81.1%) with a mean age of 66.9 years and a body mass index of 29.4 kg/m2. Change in peak VO2 from baseline to Week 12 was similar between sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril groups [least squares mean difference: 0.32 mL/min/kg; 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.21, 0.85; P = 0.2327]. Similarly, no significant differences were observed between the two treatment groups in minute ventilation to carbon dioxide production slope, exercise capacity at first ventilatory threshold or Borg scale at either Week 6 or Week 12. Change in heart rate at first ventilatory threshold was lower in the sacubitril/valsartan group compared with the enalapril group at Week 12 (mean −3.75 bpm; 95% CI −7.03, −0.48; P = 0.0248). The safety of sacubitril/valsartan was comparable to enalapril. Conclusion: In patients with HFrEF, short‐term treatment with sacubitril/valsartan for 12 weeks did not result in significant benefits on peak VO2 when compared with enalapril. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To analyse real-world treatment patterns of sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) using data from a pharmacy database in Germany.Methods and Results: A retrospective cohort study of 26 191 adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) in the IMS® longitudinal prescriptions database in Germany who were dispensed sac/val from January 2016 to June 2017 was conducted. The analysis included sac/val dose titration assessed in the 6 months from first sac/val prescription; prescriptions of concomitant cardiovascular medications in the 6 months pre- and post-index and compliance and persistence during 12 months post-index. Two-thirds of patients were prescribed the lowest sac/val dose of 50 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) at index and up-titration during the first 6 months was attempted in 41% of these patients. Ten percent of patients prescribed 200 mg b.i.d. at index had to be stably down-titrated; among patients prescribed 50 or 100 mg b.i.d. at index that were up-titrated, > 80% remained on the higher dose. Overall, the mean daily diuretic dose decreased by 25% after initiation of sac/val. High compliance and persistence rates were observed across sac/val doses, increasing with higher sac/val dose at index. Prior dose of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker had only minor impact on first sac/val dose, compliance and persistence.Conclusions: Most patients prescribed sac/val are not initiated on the recommended dose nor up-titrated as recommended by the EU Summary of Product Characteristics. Initiation of sac/val was associated with high persistence and compliance and a dose reduction of diuretics. Barriers to up-titration must be explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]