Search

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., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background and Objectives: Cenobamate (CNB) is a new antiseizure medication (ASM) to treat drug-resistant, focal-onset seizures. Data on its use in early therapy lines are not yet available, and clinicians frequently consider CNB to be a later ASM drug choice. We investigated the efficacy and safety of CNB as an early adjunctive treatment in drug-resistant, focal-onset seizures., Methods: The study population were patients with drug-resistant, focal-onset seizures who were initiated with CNB after they did not respond to two or three lifetime ASMs, including all prior and concomitant ASMs. These patients were matched (1:2) by sex, age, and seizure frequency to controls who were initiated with any ASM other than CNB. All participants participated in the Mainz Epilepsy Registry. We evaluated the retention rate after 12 months of CNB and after each new adjunctive ASM in the control group. In addition, seizure freedom and the response rate (reduction of seizure frequency by ≥ 50% from baseline) after 12 months were estimated., Results: We included 231 patients aged 44.4 ± 15.8 years. Of these, 33.3% (n = 77) were on CNB, 19.0% (n = 44) on valproate (VPA), 17.3% (n = 40) on lacosamide (LCS), 16.4% (n = 38) on levetiracetam (LEV), and 13.9% (n = 32) on topiramate (TPM). The highest retention rate after 12 months since the beginning of the early adjunctive therapy was observed on CNB (92.0%), compared with LCS (80.0%), LEV (73.3%), VPA (68.2%), or TPM (62.5%) (p < 0.05). Seizure freedom and response rate were also the best on CNB (19.5% and 71.4%, respectively) compared with other ASMs (8.3% and 52.5%, respectively; p < 0.05). No significant differences in adverse events between CNB and other ASMs were observed., Conclusions: Our study provides evidence that CNB is an effective ASM with a good safety profile in the early therapy lines of drug-resistant, focal-onset seizures. This data should support medical decision making in the management of patients with refractory epilepsy., Clinical Trial Id: NCT05267405., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

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., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) is a severe event often complicated by cerebral vasospasm (CV). This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of clazosentan, an endothelin receptor antagonist, in reducing CV, delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI), and the need for rescue therapy in aSAH patients, while evaluating its impact on functional outcomes and mortality., Methods: We conducted a literature search across multiple databases to identify relevant studies evaluating the effects of clazosentan in aSAH patients. Both cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The primary outcomes were vasospasm incidence, moderate to severe vasospasm, DCI, and the need for rescue therapy. Secondary outcomes included functional outcomes, mortality, and adverse events. The data were pooled as Risk ratios (R/R) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) using RevMan 5.4 software., Results: A total of 11 studies, including 10 published and one unpublished, comprising 8,469 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Clazosentan significantly reduced the incidence of vasospasm (R/R = 0.49: 0.34-0.70), moderate to severe vasospasm (R/R = 0.53: 0.46-0.61), DCI (R/R = 0.70: 0.59-0.82), and the need for rescue therapy (R/R = 0.65: 0.52-0.83) compared to placebo. However, no significant improvement in functional outcomes or mortality rates was observed. Clazosentan was associated with increased rates of pulmonary adverse events (R/R = 1.89: 1.64-2.18), hypotension (R/R = 2.47: 1.79-3.42), and anemia (R/R = 1.49: 1.23-1.79) but no increased risk of hepatobiliary adverse events or cerebral hemorrhage., Conclusions: Clazosentan demonstrates efficacy in reducing vasospasm, moderate to severe vasospasm, DCI, and the need for rescue therapy in aSAH patients, but does not significantly improve functional outcomes or mortality rates. While associated with specific adverse events, clazosentan may be a valuable adjunctive therapy in the management of aSAH, particularly in a high-risk population for vasospasm., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The characteristics, tolerability, and outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) who are treated with sacubitril/valsartan remain unclear in Japan., Methods: We conducted a nationwide multicenter study to evaluate the features and outcomes of patients newly prescribed sacubitril/valsartan for the management of HF. We analyzed adverse events (AEs) related to sacubitril/valsartan at 3 months, which were defined as hypotension, worsening renal function, hyperkalemia, and angioedema. Additionally, the association between AEs and outcomes was examined., Results: Among 993 patients, the mean age was 70 years and 291 (29.3 %) were female, and 22.8 % had left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50 %. Of them, 20.8 % had systolic blood pressure (sBP) <100 mmHg, and 19.5 % had estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <30 ml/min/1.73 m 2 at baseline, which were the populations excluded from the eligibility in landmark trials. AEs related to sacubitril/valsartan were observed in 22.5 % of the patients at 3 months. Overall, 22.6 % of patients discontinued sacubitril/valsartan, and hypotension was the most common event leading to drug discontinuation. After adjustment, patients who had worse HF symptoms (New York Heart Association III or IV), sBP <100 mmHg, and eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m 2 were associated with a higher risk of AEs related to sacubitril/valsartan. Additionally, patients experiencing AEs had a higher risk of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization than those who did not., Conclusion: In Japan, sacubitril/valsartan was also prescribed to patients not eligible for landmark trials, and AEs were observed at a relatively high rate from soon after treatment initiation. Physicians should closely monitor patients for these events, especially in patients anticipated to have a higher risk of AEs., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest S.M. has received research grants and personal fees from Abott, Bayer Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Medtronic, Novartis, Ono Pharma, Orbus Neich, Otsuka Pharma, and the Uehara Memorial Foundation. J.J.V.M. received payments through Glasgow University from work on clinical trials, consulting, and other activities from: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cardurion, Cytokinetics, GSK, KBP Biosciences, and Novartis. Personal consultancy fees from: Alnylam Pharma, Bayer, BMS, George Clinical PTY Ltd., Ionis Pharma., Novartis, Regeneron Pharma., River 2 Renal Corporation. Personal lecture fees: Abbott, Alkem Metabolics, Astra Zeneca, Blue Ocean Scientific Solutions Ltd., Boehringer Ingelheim, Canadian Medical and Surgical Knowledge, Emcure Pharma. Ltd., Eris Lifesciences, European Academy of CME, Hikma Pharmaceuticals, Imagica health, Intas Pharma, J.B. Chemicals & Pharma. Ltd., Lupin Pharma, Medscape/Heart.Org, ProAdWise Communications, Radcliffe Cardiology, Sun Pharma., The Corpus, Translation Research Group, and Translational Medicine Academy. J.J.V.M is a director of Global Clinical Trial Partners Ltd. J.J.V.M. is supported by a British Heart Foundation Centre of Research Excellence Grant RE/18/6/34217 and the Vera Melrose Heart Failure Research Fund. N.K. receives honorarium from Novartis Pharma, Boehringer-Ingelheim Japan, Eli Lilly Japan K.K, and Otsuka Pharma, and is affiliated with a department endowed by AMI Inc., Fukuda Denshi, KYOCERA, InterReha, and Philips Japan. T.S. has received honoraria from Novartis Pharmaceuticals KK, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Otsuka Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd. A.K. has received honoraria from Novartis Pharma., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: A hypothetical concern has been raised that sacubitril/valsartan might cause cognitive impairment because neprilysin is one of several enzymes degrading amyloid-β peptides in the brain, some of which are neurotoxic and linked to Alzheimer-type dementia. To address this, we examined the effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan on cognitive function in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in a prespecified substudy of PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction)., Methods: In PARAGON-HF, serial assessment of cognitive function was conducted in a subset of patients with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE; score range, 0-30, with lower scores reflecting worse cognitive function). The prespecified primary analysis of this substudy was the change from baseline in MMSE score at 96 weeks. Other post hoc analyses included cognitive decline (fall in MMSE score of ≥3 points), cognitive impairment (MMSE score <24), or the occurrence of dementia-related adverse events., Results: Among 2895 patients included in the MMSE substudy with baseline MMSE score measured, 1453 patients were assigned to sacubitril/valsartan and 1442 to valsartan. Their mean age was 73 years, and the median follow-up was 32 months. The mean±SD MMSE score at randomization was 27.4±3.0 in the sacubitril/valsartan group, with 10% having an MMSE score <24; the corresponding numbers were nearly identical in the valsartan group. The mean change from baseline to 96 weeks in the sacubitril/valsartan group was -0.05 (SE, 0.07); the corresponding change in the valsartan group was -0.04 (0.07). The mean between-treatment difference at week 96 was -0.01 (95% CI, -0.20 to 0.19; P =0.95). Analyses of a ≥3-point decline in MMSE, decrease to a score <24, dementia-related adverse events, and combinations of these showed no difference between sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan. No difference was found in the subgroup of patients tested for apolipoprotein E ε4 allele genotype., Conclusions: Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in PARAGON-HF had relatively low baseline MMSE scores. Cognitive change, measured by MMSE, did not differ between treatment with sacubitril/valsartan and treatment with valsartan in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction., Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01920711., Competing Interests: Dr Jhund reports receiving grant support from Boehringer Ingelheim and fees for serving on an advisory board from Cytokinetics. Dr Anand reports receiving fees for serving on a steering committee from AstraZeneca, ARCA biopharma, Amgen, and LivaNova; fees for serving as chair of a data and safety monitoring board from Boston Scientific; fees for serving on an end-point committee from Boehringer Ingelheim; and fees for serving on an advisory board from Zensun. Dr Claggett received consulting fees from AOBiome, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corvia Medical, Gilead Sciences, and MyoKardia. Dr Desai received consulting fees from Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, DalCor Pharmaceuticals, and Regeneron; grant support, paid to Brigham and Women’s Hospital, consulting fees, and fees for serving on an advisory board from Alnylam Pharmaceuticals and AstraZeneca; consulting fees and fees for serving on a steering committee from Biofourmis; consulting fees and fees for serving on a data and safety monitoring committee from Boston Scientific; fees for serving on an advisory board from Corvidia; and fees for serving on an advisory board and consulting fees from Relypsa. Drs Chiang, Gong, and Lefkowitz are employed by Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Dr Lam received grant support and fees for serving on an advisory board from Boston Scientific and Roche Diagnostics; grant support, fees for serving on an advisory board, and fees for serving on steering committees from Bayer; grant support from Medtronics; grant support and fees for serving on a steering committee from Vifor Pharma; fees for serving on an advisory board and fees for serving on steering committees from AstraZeneca and Novartis; fees for serving on an advisory board from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Abbott Diagnostics; consulting fees from Merck and Stealth BioTherapeutics; fees for serving on a steering committee from Janssen Research and Development; lecture fees and consulting fees from Menarini; and fees for serving on a scientific committee from Corvia Medical and holding a pending patent (PCT/SG2016/050217) on a method regarding diagnosis and prognosis of chronic heart failure. Dr Maggioni received fees for serving on a study committee from Bayer and Fresenius. Dr Packer received consulting fees from AbbVie, Akcea Therapeutics, Actavis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardiorentis, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead Sciences, Johnson & Johnson, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Relypsa, Sanofi, Synthetic Biologics, and Theravance Biopharma. Dr Rouleau received consulting fees from AstraZeneca. Dr van Veldhuisen received fees for serving on a steering committee and travel support from ARCA Biopharma and Corvia Medical. Dr Zannad received fees for serving on a steering committee from Janssen, Bayer, Boston Scientific, CVRx, and Boehringer Ingelheim; consulting fees from Amgen, Vifor Pharma–Fresenius, Cardior, Cereno Pharmaceutical, Applied Therapeutics, and Merck; and consulting fees and fees for serving on a steering committee from AstraZeneca and serving as founder of cardiorenal and CVCT. Dr Zile received fees for serving on a steering committee from Abbott and Ironwood Pharma; consulting fees from Boston Scientific and MyoKardia; grant support and fees for serving on a steering committee from CVRx and Medtronic; fees for serving on an eligibility committee from EBR Systems and V-Wave; fees for serving on a clinical-events committee from Endotronics; and fees for serving on a data and safety monitoring board from Merck. Dr Solomon received grant support, paid to Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and consulting fees from Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, MyoKardia, Novartis, Theracos, Bayer, and Cytokinetics; grant support, paid to Brigham and Women’s Hospital, from Bellerophon Therapeutics, Celladon, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Lonestar Heart, Mesoblast, Sanofi Pasteur, and Eidos Therapeutics; consulting fees from Akros Pharma, Corvia Medical, Ironwood Pharma, Merck, Roche, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Quantum Genomics, AOBiome, Cardiac Dimensions, Tenaya Therapeutics, and Daiichi Sankyo; and fees for serving on a data and safety monitoring board from Janssen. Dr McMurray reports that his employer, Glasgow University, has been paid by Novartis for serving as an executive committee member and coprincipal investigator of ATMOSPHERE, PARADIGM-HF, and PARAGON-HF trials and executive/steering committee member of the PARADISE-MI and PERSPECTIVE trials (with sacubitril/valsartan) and for meetings/presentations related to these trials, aliskiren, and sacubitril-valsartan. Novartis has also paid for his travel and accommodation for some of these meetings. Glasgow University has also been paid by Novartis for advisory board; by Bayer for serving as a steering committee member of the PANACHE trial using neladenoson bialanate (BAY 1067197); by Cardiorentis for serving as a steering committee member and end-point committee chair for the TRUE-AHF trial and attending meetings related to this trial; by Cardiorentis for travel and accommodation to attend some of these meetings; by Amgen for serving as steering committee member for the ATOMIC-HF and COSMIC-HF trials and attending meetings related to this trial; by Amgen for travel and accommodation for some of these meetings; by Oxford University (which received a grant from Bayer, which manufactures acarbose) for serving as a steering committee member for the ACE trial (using acarbose) and attending meetings related to this trial; by Theracos for serving as principal investigator for the BEST trial and attending meetings related to this trial; by Theracos for travel and accommodation to attend some of these meetings; by Abbvie (which manufactures atrasentan) for serving as steering committee member for the SONAR trial (using atrasentan) and to attend meetings related to this trial; by Abbvie for his travel and accommodation to attend some of these meetings; by DalCor Pharmaceuticals for serving as steering committee member for the Dal-GenE trial and to attend meetings related to this trial; by Pfizer for serving on the data safety monitoring committee for the SPIRE trial and to attend meetings related to this trial; by Merck for serving on the data safety monitoring committee for the MK-3102 program, for the VICTORIA trial, and to attend meetings related to these trials; by AstraZeneca (which markets dapagliflozin) for serving as principal investigator of DAPA-HF and coprincipal investigator of DELIVER (trials using dapagliflozin on heart failure) and to attend meetings related trial; by AstraZeneca for his travel and accommodation to attend meetings; by GSK for serving as coprincipal investigator and steering committee member for the Harmony-Outcomes trial (albiglutide) and the trials ASCEND-D and ASCEND-ND, using daprodustat, respectively, and to attend meetings related to these trials; by GSK for his travel and accommodation to attend some of the meetings; by BMS for serving as a steering committee member for the STAND-UP clinical trial (using an HNO donor) on heart failure and to attend meetings related to this trial; and by Kings College Hospital (which has received a grant from KRUK and Vifor-Fresenius, which manufactures intravenous iron) for serving as steering committee member for the PIVOTAL trial (using intravenous iron) and for running the end-point adjudication committee for this trial, to attend meetings related to PIVOTAL, and for his travel and accommodation for to attend some of the meetings. All payments were made through consultancies with Glasgow University, and Dr McMurray has not received any personal payments in relation to the trials or drugs. The other authors report no conflicts. The study supporters had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

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., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

BACKGROUND Heart failure and end-stage renal disease often coexist, and management of heart failure can be challenging in patients during hemodialysis. Sacubitril-valsartan (SV) is the first drug to receive regulatory approval for use in patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification II, III, or IV. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SV for use in chronic heart failure patients on maintenance hemodialysis (MHD). MATERIAL AND METHODS From September 2021 to October 2022, 28 patients on MHD with chronic heart failure at the hemodialysis center of Shaanxi Second Provincial People's Hospital were regularly followed. During the 12-week follow-up period, all patients were administered SV at doses of 100-400 mg per day. Biochemical indicators, echocardiographic parameters, life quality scores, and adverse events were evaluated. RESULTS We enrolled 28 patients. Compared with the baseline levels, NYHA class III in these patients treated with SV was significantly decreased from 60.71% to 32.14% (P<0.05), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was significantly improved from 44.29±8.92% to 53.32±7.88% (P<0.001), the Physical Component Summary (PCS) score was significantly improved from 40.0±6.41 to 56.20±9.86 (P<0.001), and the Mental Component Summary (MCS) score was significantly improved from 39.99±6.14 to 52.59±11.0 (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS We demonstrated that SV improved NYHA classification and LVEF values of patients on MHD with chronic heart failure and also improved their quality of life.

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., (© 2024 International Society for Hemodialysis.)

Aims: This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in abnormal renal function (eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73m 2 ) 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 60 ml/min/1.73m 2 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.

Background: Cilostazol is used for the treatment of intermittent claudication. The impact of cilostazol on the outcomes of peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs) remains controversial. This study assesses the use and impact of cilostazol on patients undergoing PVI for peripheral arterial disease (PAD)., Methods: The Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database files for PVI were reviewed. Patients with PAD who underwent PVI for chronic limb threatening-ischemia or claudication were included and divided based on the use of cilostazol preoperatively. After propensity matching for patient demographics and comorbidities, the short-term and long-term outcomes of the 2 groups (preoperative cilostazol use versus no preoperative cilostazol use) were compared. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to determine outcomes., Results: A total of 245,309 patients underwent PVI procedures and 6.6% (N = 16,366) were on cilostazol prior to intervention. Patients that received cilostazol were more likely to be male (62% vs 60%; P < 0.001), White (77% vs. 75%; P < 0.001), and smokers (83% vs. 77%; P < 0.001). They were less likely to have diabetes mellitus (50% vs. 56%; P < 0.001) and congestive heart failure (14% vs. 23%; P < 0.001). Patient on cilostazol were more likely to be treated for claudication (63% vs. 40%, P < 0.001), undergo prior lower extremity revascularization (55% vs. 51%, P < 0.001) and less likely to have undergone prior minor and major amputation (10% vs. 19%; P < 0.001) compared with patients who did not receive cilostazol. After 3:1 propensity matching, there were 50,265 patients included in the analysis with no differences in baseline characteristics. Patients on cilostazol were less likely to develop renal complications and more likely to be discharged home. Patients on cilostazol had significantly lower rates of long-term mortality (11.5% vs. 13.4%, P < 0.001 and major amputation (4.0% vs. 4.7%, P = 0.022). However, there were no significant differences in rates of reintervention, major adverse limb events, or patency after PVI. Amputation-free survival rates were significantly higher for patients on cilostazol, after 4 years of follow up (89% vs. 87%, P = 0.03)., Conclusions: Cilostazol is underutilized in the VQI database and seems to be associated with improved amputation-free survival. Cilostazol therapy should be considered in all patients with PAD who can tolerate it prior to PVI., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Sacubitril/valsartan has been demonstrated to significantly improve left ventricular performance and remodelling in patients with heart failure. However, its effects on the right ventricle in patients with chronic heart failure and sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) have not been studied., Aim: To investigate the impact of sacubitril/valsartan treatment on right ventricular function in patients with SDB., Methods: This was a subanalysis of an observational prospective multicentre study involving 101 patients. At inclusion, patients were evaluated by echocardiography and nocturnal ventilatory polygraphy, which allowed patients to be divided into three groups: "central-SDB"; "obstructive-SDB"; and "no-SDB"., Results: After 3 months of sacubitril/valsartan therapy, a positive impact on right ventricular function was observed. In the general population, tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion increased by +1.32±4.74mm (P=0.024) and systolic pulmonary artery pressure decreased by -3.1±10.91mmHg (P=0.048). The central-SDB group experienced the greatest echocardiographic improvement, with a significant increase in tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion of +2.1±4.9mm (P=0.045) and a significant reduction in systolic pulmonary artery pressure of -8.4±9.7mmHg (P=0.001)., Conclusions: Sacubitril/valsartan improved right ventricular function in patients with heart failure and SDB after only 3 months of treatment. The greatest improvement in right ventricular function was observed in the central-SDB group., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Sacubitril acts to inhibit neprilysin and as neprilysin is involved in amyloid-beta degradation in the central nervous system, and there is concern that sacubitril/valsartan may increase the risk of dementia. We aimed to compare the risk of incident dementia associated with sacubitril/valsartan and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs)., Methods: Patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction treated with either sacubitril/valsartan or ARB, identified from the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, were matched in a 1:2 ratio using propensity scores (6789 on sacubitril/valsartan and 13,578 on ARBs) and followed up for incident dementia., Results: During a mean follow-up of 2.5 years, 526 (2.6%) patients were newly diagnosed with dementia: Alzheimer dementia in 282, vascular dementia in 8, and other dementia in 236. There was no significant difference in the risk of overall dementia (hazard ratio [HR] 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-1.01), Alzheimer dementia (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.67-1.10), vascular dementia (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.23-4.11), and all other dementias (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.62-1.07) between sacubitril/valsartan users and ARB users. These results were consistent regardless of initial sacubitril/valsartan dose and subgroups including old age, previous mild cognitive impairment, previous stroke, and concomitant antiplatelet or anticoagulation. Sensitivity analysis with a 1-year lag period for dementia assessment confirmed the main analysis. Meanwhile, risk of incident stroke was lower in sacubitril/valsartan users compared to ARBs users., Conclusions: In a nationwide propensity-matched cohort of patients with heart failure, sacubitril/valsartan was not associated with an increased risk of incident dementia compared to ARBs., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany.)

New approaches are needed to lower blood pressure (BP) given persistently low control rates. QUARTET USA sought to evaluate the effect of four-drug, quarter-dose BP lowering combination in patients with hypertension. QUARTET USA was a randomized (1:1), double-blinded trial conducted in federally qualified health centers among adults with hypertension. Participants received either a quadpill of candesartan 2 mg, amlodipine 1.25 mg, indapamide 0.625 mg, and bisoprolol 2.5 mg or candesartan 8 mg for 12 weeks. If BP was >130/>80 mm Hg at 6 weeks in either arm, then participants received open label add-on amlodipine 5 mg. The primary outcome was mean change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 12 weeks, controlling for baseline BP. Secondary outcomes included mean change in diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and safety included serious adverse events, relevant adverse drug effects, and electrolyte abnormalities. Among 62 participants randomized between August 2019-May 2022 (n = 32 intervention, n = 30 control), mean (SD) age was 52 (11.5) years, 45% were female, 73% identified as Hispanic, and 18% identified as Black. Baseline mean (SD) SBP was 138.1 (11.2) mmHg, and baseline mean (SD) DBP was 84.3 (10.5) mmHg. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant difference in SBP (-4.8 mm Hg [95% CI: -10.8, 1.3, p = 0.123] and a -4.9 mmHg (95% CI: -8.6, -1.3, p = 0.009) greater mean DBP change in the intervention arm compared with the control arm at 12 weeks. Adverse events did not differ significantly between arms. The quadpill had a similar SBP and greater DBP lowering effect compared with candesartan 8 mg. Trial registration number: NCT03640312., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Impaired renal function is frequently observed in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The differential effect of sacubitril/valsartan and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blockers (ACEIs/ARBs) on the clinical and renal outcomes in patients with HFrEF and chronic kidney disease (CKD) remains unknown., Aims: This study aimed to explore the differential effect of sacubitril/valsartan and ACEI/ARB on the clinical and renal outcomes as well as renal function over a 12-month follow-up period in HFrEF patients with and without CKD., Methods: Patients with HfrEF (LVEF ≤35%) and NYHA class ≥II were enrolled from the Chang Gung Research Database between 2017 and 2020. Baseline characteristics were compared between patients prescribed sacubitril/valsartan and ACEI/ARB. After propensity score matching, the following clinical and renal outcomes were compared between the two groups in patients with and without CKD over a 12-month follow-up period: acute kidney injury (AKI), emergent dialysis/renal death, HF hospitalization, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality., Results: This study enrolled 3735 HFrEF patients with a mean left ventricular EF of 27.56 ± 5.86%, who had been prescribed sacubitril/valsartan (N = 1708) or ACEI/ARB (N = 2027). After propensity score matching, the clinical and renal outcomes did not differ between the sacubitril/valsartan and ACEI/ARB groups in patients without CKD. In patients with CKD, the ACEI/ARB group had a significantly higher incidence of all-cause mortality than the sacubitril/valsartan group (14.89% vs. 10.50%; hazard ratio 1.46; 95% confidence interval 1.06-2.00; p = 0.02), and the incidence of AKI, HF hospitalization, and CV mortality did not differ between the two groups., Conclusions: Sacubitril/valsartan had a lower all-cause mortality compared to ACEI/ARB in symptomatic HFrEF patients with CKD. Further prospective randomized studies are warranted to confirm our findings., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Hypotension is a potential adverse effect of sacubitril/valsartan, but there are limited data regarding the predictors and implications of treatment-related hypotension in heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction., Objectives: We investigated predictors of treatment-associated hypotension, clinical outcomes after hypotension, and the relationship between left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and incidence of hypotension in the PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial., Methods: PARAGON-HF randomized patients with chronic HF (≥45%) to sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan. Following randomization, hypotension was defined as investigator-reported hypotension with a systolic blood pressure <100 mm Hg. Predictors of hypotension were assessed using multivariable Cox models. Associations between hypotension and clinical outcomes were evaluated in time-updated Cox models. The relationship among treatment, LVEF, and incident rates of hypotension and clinical outcomes was estimated using Poisson regression models., Results: Of 4,796 patients in PARAGON-HF, 637 (13%) experienced hypotension, more frequently in the sacubitril/valsartan arm (P < 0.001). Following documented hypotension, patients had higher risk of cardiovascular death and total HF hospitalizations (adjusted RR: 1.63; 95% CI: 1.27-2.09; P < 0.001) and all-cause death (adjusted HR: 1.62; 95% CI: 1.28-2.05; P < 0.001). LVEF modified the association between sacubitril/valsartan and risk of hypotension (P interaction  = 0.019) such that patients with LVEF ≥60% experienced substantially higher treatment-related risks of hypotension., Conclusions: In PARAGON-HF, a higher LVEF was associated with an increased risk of hypotension in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan. Because these subjects are also less likely to derive clinical benefit from sacubitril/valsartan, our data reinforce that the benefit/risk ratio favors the use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with LVEF below normal, but not at higher LVEF. (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The PARAGON-HF trial was sponsored by Novartis. Dr Vaduganathan has received research grant support, served on advisory boards, or had speaker engagements with American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Baxter Healthcare, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cytokinetics, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Relypsa, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, and Tricog Health; and participates on clinical trial committees for studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, Galmed, Novartis, Bayer AG, Occlutech, and Impulse Dynamics. Dr Claggett has received consulting fees from Alnylam, Cardurion, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Intellia, and Rocket. Dr Lu has received research funding from the Gottfried und Julia Bangerter-Rhyner Foundation, the SICPA Foundation, and the Société Académique Vaudoise. Dr Pfeffer has received research grant support (via institution) from Lexicon and Novartis; has served as a consultant for Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly Alliance, DalCor, Lexicon, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute CONNECTs (Master Protocol Committee), Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi; and has equity in DalCor. Dr Packer has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Akcea, Actavis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardiorentis, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead, Johnson and Johnson, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Relypsa, Sanofi, Synthetic Biologics, and Theravance. Dr Vardeny has served as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cardior, and Moderna; and has received research institutional support from Bayer and Cardurion. Dr Rouleau has received grants and consulting fees from Novartis; and has received consulting fees from Abbott, AstraZeneca, MyoKardia, and Sanofi. Dr Lefkowitz is an employee of Novartis. Dr Mentz has received research support and honoraria from Abbott, American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, Fast BioMedical, Gilead, Innolife, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Relypsa, Respicardia, Roche, Sanofi, Vifor, Windtree Therapeutics, and Zoll. Dr Jhund's employer, the University of Glasgow, has been remunerated by AstraZeneca for working on the DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials; has received personal fees from Novartis and Cytokinetics; and has received grants from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Desai has received personal fees from Abbott, Biofourmis, Boston Scientific, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Regeneron, and Relypsa; and has received grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Alnylam, and Novartis outside of the submitted work. Dr McMurray has received payments through Glasgow University from work on clinical trials, consulting, and other activities from Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardurion, Cytokinetics, Dal-Cor, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, KBP Biosciences, Novartis, Pfizer, and Theracos; and has received personal lecture fees from the Corpus, Abbott, Hikma, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Medscape/Heart.org, Radcliffe Cardiology, Servier Director, and Global Clinical Trial Partners (GCTP). Dr Solomon has received research grants from Actelion, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celladon, Cytokinetics, Eidos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, Lilly, Mesoblast, MyoKardia, National Institutes of Health/NHLBI, NeuroTronik, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Respicardia, Sanofi Pasteur, Theracos, and US2.AI; and has served as a consultant for Abbott, Action, Akros, Alnylam, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardior, Cardurion, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Daiichi-Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck, Myokardia, Novartis, Roche, Theracos, Quantum Genomics, Cardurion, Janssen, Cardiac Dimensions, Tenaya, Sanofi-Pasteur, Dinaqor, Tremeau, CellPro-Thera, Moderna, American Regent, and Sarepta. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Olmesartan is an angiotensin II receptor blocker licensed for the treatment of hypertension. It can cause a sprue-like enteropathy (SLE), characterised by chronic diarrhoea, weight loss and villous atrophy. Transiently raised anti-tissue transglutaminase (ATTG) antibody has also been rarely reported in the literature.We describe the case of a woman in her mid-50s, who presented with a history of intermittent loose stools over 1 year, associated with significant weight loss. She had two marginally raised serum ATTG antibody tests during her work-up.After extensive investigations, she was diagnosed with olmesartan-induced enteropathy. On subsequent follow-up, her symptoms had resolved with cessation of her olmesartan therapy.This case adds to existing literature, highlighting the importance of considering olmesartan as a possible differential diagnosis for SLE. It also reports the presence of a raised ATTG antibody which is infrequently reported in this context., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© BMJ Publishing Group Limited 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Sprue-like enteropathy (SE) related to olmesartan use was first reported in 2012. In 2017, the manufacturer of Benicar paid $300 million for 2300 claims for olmesartan-related SE., Objective: A study in 2019 suggested that SE was related to olmesartan and with the possibility of angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) class effect. To further characterize this condition, our group examined reports of ARB-related SE to Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS)., Methods: All reports of ARB-related SE from January 2017 to December 2021 were downloaded from the FAERS database. Gastrointestinal adverse events including SE were reviewed. Reporter categories included physicians, pharmacists, other health care professionals, consumers, and attorneys., Results: A total of 106 590 reports of ARB-related adverse effects were analyzed. Sprue-like enteropathy was identified in 4337 cases (4.1% of total reports). Of these, 4240 cases (98.0%) of ARB-related SE were reported in patients using products with olmesartan, and 97 cases of SE were reported for all other ARBs (eprosartan, losartan, telmisartan, irbesartan, valsartan, and candesartan). Reports of olmesartan-related SE increased rapidly in 2017, continued at a high rate in 2018 and 2019, and essentially stopped in 2020 and 2021., Conclusions and Relevance: Reports to FAERS for ARB-related SE are mostly related to olmesartan. There was a steep decline in reports of olmesartan-related SE following the lawsuit with potential of lawyer interference. There are reports of SE related to ARBs other than olmesartan, with increased physician awareness and the potential to discover a class effect with future studies., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Dr Eli D. Ehrenpreis serves as the Chief Executive Officer of E2Bio Life Sciences, a company that is developing Bocaliner, a medical device to improve the treatment of oral mucositis. Dr Ehrenpreis serves as a consultant for Level Ex, a company that develops medical related simulation games. He is the Chief Executive Officer and major stockholder of E2Bio Life Sciences, a company that develops new devices for oral diseases. Dr Ehrenpreis is also the Chief Executive Officer of GI pharmaceuticals, a company devoted to the development of new treatments of gastrointestinal diseases. Dr Ehrenpreis has no additional competing interests to disclose. Dr Ryan Meader and Dr Hardeep Ahdi have no competing interests to disclose. Sam Papasotirious has no competing interests to disclose. Hoang Dang has no competing interests to disclose.

Objective: To systematically evaluate the effect of sacubitril/valsartan (SV) on the prognosis of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and to provide evidence for expanding the clinical application of SV., Methods: PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to October 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SV in patients with AMI. The article was screened and evaluated by the Cochrane 5.1.0 bias risk assessment tool. RevMan5.3 was used for meta-analysis of the outcome indicators., Results: Ten RCTs involving 7230 patients were included. The results showed that SV increased left ventricular eject fraction ( MD  = 2.86, 95% CI [1.81-3.90], P  < 0.00001) and reduced readmission rate ( RR  = 0.46, 95% CI [0.32-0.68], P  < 0.0001), decreased N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide ( MD = -477.46, 95% CI [-914.96 to -39.96], P  = 0.03), and reduced major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) ( RR  = 0.48, 95% CI [0.27-0.85], P  = 0.01). There was no significant difference in the rate of adverse reaction (AR) between the trial group and the control group ( RR  = 0.88, 95% CI [0.60-1.30], P  = 0.52)., Conclusion: SV can effectively improve the prognosis of AMI, prevent complications, and there is no significant difference in safety compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

This case report describes a rare manifestation of acute compartment syndrome (ACS) involving all four extremities, precipitated by angio-oedema in a middle-aged woman who consumed an overdose of multiple medications: nifedipine, azelnidipine, amlodipine besylate, olmesartan medoxomil, telmisartan, esaxerenone and vildagliptin. She presented with haemodynamic instability, necessitating intubation. Despite stabilising haemodynamic parameters within 24 hours, she manifested escalating extremity oedema. At 52 hours after ingestion, mottled skin was observed, along with necrotic alterations in the swollen hands and compartment pressures exceeding 30 mm Hg in all extremities. ACS was diagnosed, leading to fasciotomies. The aetiology is postulated to be drug-induced angio-oedema, possibly intensified by the concurrent overdose of olmesartan medoxomil, telmisartan and vildagliptin, each of which has a risk of angio-oedema even at standard dosages. This scenario is a very rare case caused by drug-induced angio-oedema, which underscores the importance of vigilant monitoring to detect ACS in patients with progressing limb oedema., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© BMJ Publishing Group Limited 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Effectiveness of candesartan in migraine prevention is supported by two randomized controlled trials. We aimed to assess the effectiveness, tolerability, and response predictors of candesartan in the preventive treatment of migraine., Methods: Observational, multicenter, prospective cohort study. The 50%, 75% and 30% responder rates, between weeks 8-12 and 20-24, were compared with the baseline. Treatment emergent adverse effects were systematically evaluated. Response predictors were estimated by multivariate regression models., Results: Eighty-six patients were included, 79.1% females, aged 39.5 (inter-quartile range [IQR] 26.3-50.3), with chronic migraine (43.0%), medication overuse headache (55.8%) and a median of two (inter-quartile range: 0.75-3) prior preventive treatments. At baseline patients had 14 (10-24) headache and 8 (5-11) migraine days per month. The 30%, 50% and 75% responder rates were 40%, 34.9% and 15.1% between weeks 8-12, and 48.8%, 36%, and 18.6% between weeks 20-24. Adverse effects were reported by 30 (34.9%) and 13 (15.1%) patients between weeks 0-12 and 12-24, leading to discontinuation in 15 (17.4%) patients. Chronic migraine, depression, headache days per month, medication overuse headache, and daily headache at baseline predicted the response between weeks 20-24., Conclusion: Candesartan effectiveness and tolerability in migraine prevention was in line with the clinical trials' efficacy. Trial registration: The study protocol is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04138316)., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: DGA received honoraria for lectures/presentations from Abbvie/Allergan, Eli Lilly, Teva, Lundbeck, and Novartis. DGA Participated in clinical trials as the principal investigator for Pfizer, BioHaven and Lundbeck. DGA is junior editor of The Journal of Headache and Pain and Neurological Sciences. DGA received honoraria from the World Health Organization as subject matter expert.ABGV received honoraria for lectures/presentations from Novartis, Lilly, Teva, Exeltis, Chiesi, Abbvie, Pfizer and Lundbeck.ÁLGP received honoraria for lectures/presentations from Abbvie/Allergan, Eli Lilly, Teva, Lundbeck, and Novartis. ALGP Participated in clinical trials as the principal investigator for Eli Lilly, Teva, Abbvie, Novartis, Amgen and Lundeck.The rest of the authors report no conflicts of interest.

Background: Valsartan is commonly used for cardiac conditions. In 2018, the Food and Drug Administration recalled generic valsartan due to the detection of impurities. Our objective was to determine if heart failure patients receiving valsartan at the recall date had a greater likelihood of unfavorable outcomes than patients using comparable antihypertensives., Methods: We conducted a cohort study of Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Datamart (July 2017-January 2019). Heart failure patients with commercial or Medicare Advantage insurance who received valsartan were compared to persons who received non-recalled angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin converting enzyme-inhibitors (ACE-Is) for 1 year prior and including the recall date. Outcomes included a composite for all-cause hospitalization, emergency department (ED), and urgent care (UC) use and a measure of cardiac events which included hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction and hospitalizations/ED/UC visits for stroke/transient ischemic attack, heart failure or hypertension at 6-months post-recall. Cox proportional hazard models with propensity score weighting compared the risk of outcomes between groups., Results: Of the 87 130 adherent patients, 15% were valsartan users and 85% were users of non-recalled ARBs/ACE-Is. Valsartan use was not associated with an increased risk of all-cause hospitalization/ED/UC use six-months post-recall (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.96-1.03), compared with individuals taking non-recalled ARBs/ACE-Is. Similarly, cardiac events 6-months post-recall did not differ between individuals on valsartan and non-recalled ARBs/ACE-Is (HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.97-1.12)., Conclusions: The valsartan recall did not affect short-term outcomes of heart failure patients. However, the recall potentially disrupted the medication regimens of patients, possibly straining the healthcare system., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Large cardiovascular outcomes trials in individuals with heart failure, with and without diabetes, have demonstrated a significant risk reduction in the composite outcome of cardiovascular death or hospitalizations for heart failure with SGLT2 inhibitor therapy. These positive outcomes have led to the recommendation that SGLT2 inhibitors serve as backbone therapy in patients with heart failure reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). To date, there has not been enough participants in clinical trials on concomitant SGLT2 inhibitor and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor therapy to evaluate the benefits and risks of combination therapy with these two agents outside of smaller subgroup analyses. Case Summary: This case describes a Black female with diabetes meeting her glycemic targets and concomitant stable NYHA FC II HFrEF on guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) with sacubitril/valsartan, spironolactone and metoprolol succinate who developed severe hypotension and dehydration requiring hospitalization after initiation of SGLT2 inhibitor therapy. Practice Implications: This case report raises the question of whether those with type 2 diabetes, and/or those on background angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor therapy, who are euvolemic or sensitive to diuretic therapy should be started on lower dose dapagliflozin and titrated to 10 mg daily based on response. It also raises awareness to the potential increased diuretic effect produced with concomitant use of sacubitril/valsartan and dapagliflozin. Caution and education to mitigate the risk for volume depletion should be provided to those patients who are euvolemic and initiated on a SGLT2 inhibitor, regardless of their background diuretic and GDMT. Conclusion: Future research should focus on the benefits and safety considerations and provide education on how to best initiate and adjust SGLT2 inhibitors in the setting of sacubitril/valsartan use in diverse heart failure patient populations., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Dr. Christine Schumacher is on the Speakers Bureau for Abbott and participated on an Advisory Board for Dexcom.

Aims: Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) therapy is a cornerstone in the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), with significant improvement in mortality as well as morbidity and quality of life. However, maximal ARNI doses often result in hypotension. Recent studies with 'real world' experience suggest that lower doses of ARNI are as effective as higher doses.In order to evaluate the symptomatic effect of low-dose ARNI in HFrEF patients, we analyzed physical activity data obtained via home monitoring of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs)., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed physical activity data obtained from HFrEF patients with CIED-active home monitoring during the years 2021-2022. Patients with ARNI therapy were further divided into subgroups according to the administered dose. Low-dose ARNI included doses of up to 24/26 mg sacubitril/valsartan daily. Intermediate dose and high dose included doses of 72/78-120/130 mg/day, and 144/156-194/206 mg/day, respectively., Results: A total of 122 patients had home monitoring-compatible CIEDs and HFrEF during the study period. Sixty-four of these patients were treated with ARNI. Administration of low-dose ARNI resulted in a 20% increase in daily activity when compared with patients without ARNI treatment ( P  = 0.038). Change in physical activity of patients in the intermediate-dose and high-dose groups was not significant. Younger patients, patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy, and patients without diabetes mellitus were more physically active., Conclusion: Low-dose ARNI had a beneficial effect on physical activity in HFrEF patients. MH via CIED provided real-life objective data for patients' follow-up., (Copyright © 2024 Italian Federation of Cardiology - I.F.C. All rights reserved.)

Background: Treatment of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and renal dysfunction (RD) is challenging owing to the risk of further deterioration in renal function, especially after acute decompensated HF (ADHF)., Methods and Results: We assessed the effect of RD (estimated glomerular filtration rate of ≥30 to <60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ) on initiation, up-titration, and tolerability of sacubitril/valsartan in hemodynamically stabilized patients with HFrEF admitted for ADHF (RD, n = 476; non-RD, n = 483). At week 10, the target dose of sacubitril/valsartan (97/103 mg twice daily) was achieved by 42% patients in RD subgroup vs 54% in non-RD patients (P < .001). Sacubitril/valsartan was associated with greater estimated glomerular filtration rate improvements in RD subgroup than non-RD (change from baseline least squares mean 4.1 mL/min/1.73 m 2 , 95% confidence interval 2.2-6.1, P < .001). Cardiac biomarkers improved significantly in both subgroups; however, compared with the RD subgroup, the improvement was greater in those without RD (N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, -28.6% vs -44.8%, high-sensitivity troponin T -20.3% vs -33.9%) (P < .001). Patients in the RD subgroup compared with those without RD experienced higher rates of hyperkalemia (16.3% vs 6.5%, P < .001), investigator-reported cardiac failure (9.7% vs 5.6%, P = .029), and renal impairment (6.4% vs 2.1%, P = .002)., Conclusions: Most patients with HFrEF and concomitant RD hospitalized for ADHF tolerated early initiation of sacubitril/valsartan and showed significant improvements in estimated glomerular filtration rate and cardiac biomarkers., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02661217., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest E. Straburzynska-Migaj received consultancy fees and/or honoraria from Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Abbott, Servier, AstraZeneca, and Bausch Health. M. Senni received consultancy fees and/or speaker's honoraria from Novartis, Bayer, Abbott, Merck, AstraZeneca, Vifor Pharma, and Boehringer Ingelheim. R. Wachter is a member of advisory boards and/or received speaker's honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, CVRx, Medtronic, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Servier, and research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, European Union, and Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. C. Fonseca received consultancy fees, grants and speaker's honoraria from Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, and Vifor Pharma. K. K. Witte was the UK Principal Investigator on the TRANSITION study. He has received research support in the form of a PhD fellowship program to the University of Leeds from Medtronic UK, the MRC, and Heart Research UK, and holds fellowship grants from the NIHR and the British Heart Foundation. He has received consultancy and/or speaker fees from Medtronic, Abbott, Microport, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Novartis, and Astra Zeneca. C. Mueller has received research grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Swiss Heart Foundation, the KTI, the European Union, the University Basel, the University Hospital Basel, Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Beckman Coulter, BRAHMS, Idorsia, Novartis, Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, Quidel, Roche, Siemens, Singulex, and Sphingotec, as well as speaker/consulting honoraria from Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Idorsia, Osler, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Siemens, and Singulex, all outside the current work and all paid to the institution. E. Lonn received research support from Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Sanofi, and Roche, and consultancy fees and/or speaker's honoraria from Novartis, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Sanofi. D. Butylin, A. Noe, H. Schwende and D. Lawrence are employees of Novartis. B. Suryawanshi is an employee of IQVIA, India. D. Pascual-Figal declares research grants from Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Medtronic, and Pfizer; and consultancy or educational honoraria from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Servier, Pfizer, Vifor Pharma, Rovi, and Abbott., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) poses significant challenges for clinicians and researchers, owing to its multifaceted aetiology and complex treatment regimens. In light of this, artificial intelligence methods offer an innovative approach to identifying relationships within complex clinical datasets. Our study aims to explore the potential for machine learning algorithms to provide deeper insights into datasets of HFrEF patients., Methods: To this end, we analysed a cohort of 386 HFrEF patients who had been initiated on sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor treatment and had completed a minimum of a 6-month follow-up., Results: In traditional frequentist statistical analyses, patients receiving the highest doses of beta-blockers (BBs) (chi-square test, P = .036) and those newly initiated on sacubitril-valsartan (chi-square test, P = .023) showed better outcomes. However, none of these pharmacological features stood out as independent predictors of improved outcomes in the Cox proportional hazards model. In contrast, when employing eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) algorithms in conjunction with the data using Shapley additive explanations (SHAP), we identified several models with significant predictive power. The XGBoost algorithm inherently accommodates non-linear distribution, multicollinearity and confounding. Within this framework, pharmacological categories like 'newly initiated treatment with sacubitril/valsartan' and 'BB dose escalation' emerged as strong predictors of long-term outcomes., Conclusions: In this manuscript, we not only emphasize the strengths of this machine learning approach but also discuss its potential limitations and the risk of identifying statistically significant yet clinically irrelevant predictors., (© 2023 British Pharmacological Society.)

Background: Heart failure is a major cause of morbidity and mortality among older adults. Sacubitril-Valsartan (Sac/Val) has been shown to improve patients' outcomes; however, its safety profile among older adults has not been adequately examined. We therefore aimed to examine its safety profile among this population., Methods: We conducted a retrospective pharmacovigilance study utilizing the FDA's database of safety reports (FAERS). We employed disproportionality analysis comparing Sac/Val to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). We aim to evaluate the reporting of pre-defined adverse events associated with Sac/Val (hypotension, acute kidney injury (AKI), hyperkalemia and angioedema) in two age groups: adults (< 75 years) and older adults (≥ 75). For each subgroup, we calculated reporting odds ratio (ROR) and compared them by calculating P for interaction., Results: The FAERS database encompassed 18,432 unique reports of Sac/Val. Of them, 12,630 (68.5%) subjects were adults (< 75 years), and 5802 (31.5%) were older adults (≥ 75 years), with a median age (IQR) of 68 (59-77). When compared to ARBs, Sac/Val was associated with higher reporting of hypotension, lower reporting of acute kidney injury (AKI) and hyperkalemia, and similar reporting of angioedema. Notably, we did not observe a significant interaction between the age subgroups and the risk estimates (AKI: P interaction  = 0.72, hyperkalemia: P interaction  = 0.94, hypotension: P interaction  = 0.31, and angioedema: P interaction  = 0.61)., Conclusions: In this postmarking study, none of the prespecified adverse events was reported more frequently in older adults. These findings provide reassurance for safety use of Sac/Val in older adults., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The evidence supporting pharmacological heart failure treatment relies on randomized clinical trials with stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria., Objectives: Assess the eligibility of outpatients with chronic heart failure for the trials DAPA-HF, EMPEROR-reduced, and PARADIGM-HF, while exploring potential differences among study populations., Methods: By reviewing medical records, we determined the eligibility rate for each study and evaluated the incidence of heart failure hospitalizations and all-cause mortality during this period., Results: A total of 446 patients were included in the cohort. Approximately 75% would be ineligible for the trials, mainly because of their comorbidities. Ineligible patients had a higher all-cause mortality, but a similar incidence of hospitalization., Conclusion: Approximately 1 in 4 patients from a heart failure clinic in Medellin, Colombia would meet the eligibility criteria for the DAPA-HF, EMPEROR-reduced, and PARADIGM-HF trials. These findings highlight the need to complement randomized clinical trials with real-world data., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Clara Saldarriaga M.D.: Principal investigator for Novartis, Bayer and Merck clinical trials. Speaker for Novo Nordisk, Bayer, Merck, Astrazeneca, Boehringer ingelheim, Servier, Novartis., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

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., (© 2023. Springer Nature Japan KK, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: The efficacy and safety of Qingda granule (QDG) in managing blood pressure (BP) among grade 1 hypertensive patients with low-moderate risk remain uncertain., Methods: In the randomized, double-blind, double dummy, non-inferiority and multicenter trial, 552 patients with grade 1 hypertension at low-moderate risk were assigned at a ratio of 1:1 to receive either QDG or valsartan for 4 weeks, followed up by a subsequent 4 weeks., Results: Post-treatment, clinic systolic/diastolic BPs (SBP/DBP) were reduced by a mean change of 9.18/4.04 mm Hg in the QDG group and 9.85/5.05 mm Hg in the valsartan group (SBP P = 0.47, DBP P = 0.16). Similarly, 24-hour, daytime and nighttime BPs were proportional in both groups (P > 0.05) after 4 weeks treatment. After discontinuing medications for 4 weeks, the mean reduction of clinic SBP/DBP were 0.29/0.57 mm Hg in the QDG group compared to -1.59/-0.48 mm Hg in the valsartan group (SBP P = 0.04, DBP P = 0.04). Simultaneously, the 24-hour SBP/DBP were reduced by 0.9/0.31 mm Hg in the QDG group and -1.66/-1.08 mm Hg in the valsartan group (SBP P = 0.006, DBP P = 0.02). And similar results were observed regarding the outcomes of daytime and nighttime BPs. There was no difference in occurrence of adverse events between two groups (P > 0.05)., Conclusion: QDG proves to be efficacious for grade 1 hypertension at a low-to-medium risk, even after discontinuation of the medication for 4 weeks. These findings provide a promising option for managing grade 1 hypertension and suggest the potential for maintaining stable BP through intermittent administration of QDG., Trial Registration: ChiCTR2000033890., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that the study was conducted in the absence of any business or financial relationships that could be construed as potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Sacubitril-valsartan, an inhibitor of the angiotensin receptor neprilysin (ARNi), has been purported to exhibit superiority over angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in individuals diagnosed with heart failure., Hypothesis: This paper gives an updated meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of sacubitril-valsartan to that of standard treatment for different types of heart failure., Results: The meta-analysis comprised a total of nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs), incorporating data from a substantial sample size of 15 939 patients. The study observed a decrease in overall mortality and mortality related to cardiovascular causes among patients in the heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) category who were treated with sacubitril-valsartan. However, no statistically significant variation in this outcome was seen among patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and HFmrEF. Patients who were administered sacubitril-valsartan had a notably elevated likelihood of experiencing hypotension. Nevertheless, no significant disparities were observed in terms of other adverse events among the various treatment groups., Conclusion: Current meta-analysis provide support for use of sacubitril-valsartan in decreasing mortality in patients with HFrEF. However, more numbers of studies are required to draw a definite conclusion on other benefits associated with sacubitril-valsartan use over standard treatment of ACE inhibitors and ARBs., (© 2023 The Authors. Clinical Cardiology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of sacubitril valsartan (SV) on heart failure (HF) hospitalization and cardiovascular mortality in patients on hemodialysis with HF with preserved ejection fraction (EF; HFpEF)., Methods: This single-center, prospective study enrolled 155 stable hemodialysis patients with EF > 40% who were followed up for 12 months. Fifty-nine patients were treated with SV; the others were matched for EF (57.89 ± 9.35 vs. 58.00 ± 11.82, P = 0.9) at a ratio of 1:1 and included as controls. The target dosage of SV was 200 mg/day., Results: Twenty-three (23/155; 14.84%) had HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF), while 132 (85.16%) had HFpEF. After SV treatment, the peak early diastolic transmitral flow velocity/peak early diastolic mitral annular tissue velocity(E/e') improved from 17.19 ± 8.74 to 12.80 ± 5.52 (P = 0.006), the left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic diameter decreased from 53.14 ± 7.67 mm to 51.56 ± 7.44 mm (P = 0.03), and the LV mass index decreased from 165.7 ± 44.6 g/m 2 to 154.8 ± 24.0 g/m 2 (P = 0.02). LVEF (P = 0.08) and LV global longitudinal strain (P = 0.7) did not change significantly. The composite outcome of first and recurrent HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death showed no difference between group. However, the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative Workgroup (ADQI) HF class improved in 39 and 15 patients and worsened in 1 and 11 patients in the SV and control groups, respectively (P < 0.001). Age, diabetes mellitus, and pulmonary arterial pressure were independent risk factors for HF hospitalization and cardiovascular mortality in patients with HFpEF., Conclusions: SV improved LV hypertrophy, diastolic function, and the ADQI class for HF; however, it failed to reduce the composite endpoints of HF hospitalization and cardiovascular disease-related mortality over 12 months of follow-up in patients on maintenance hemodialysis with EF of > 40%., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Heart failure (HF) remains a major public health problem with a high mortality and morbidity worldwide. Currently, there is no optimal revascularisation strategy for patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy despite suggestions that coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) may be superior to medical therapy in improving survival. However, CABG may be associated with substantial risk in HF subjects. We therefore aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the early initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in haemodynamically stabilised patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) after early CABG., Methods: This was an open-label study in which ~80 patients after CABG were randomised either to the early or late initiation of the sacubitril-valsartan. The study included patients >40 years with left ventricular ejection fraction <45% and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-IV at the early stage after CABG. Patients underwent intervention, the starting dose of sacubitril/valsartan (24/26 mg or 49/51 mg two times per day). The follow-up took place every 4 weeks except the first visit, which took place in 2 weeks after initiation. The primary endpoint assessed the key safety outcomes, the secondary endpoints were: the quality of life measured, the N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) changes and 6 min walk test (6MWT)., Results: In total, 83 patients were screened and 77 patients were enrolled. The majority of patients (84.4%) were in the NYHA class III at randomisation. The number of patients who discontinued the study was low in both groups (2.5%, 5.2%), and renal function, hyperkalaemia and symptomatic hypotension rarely seen in both groups did not differ significantly. The improvement in quality of life and distance at the 6MWT in both groups was significant (p<0.001). The NT-proBNP concentration decreased in both groups, the significant reduction was in the early group (p<0.001) versus the postdischarge group., Conclusions: The early initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in patients after CABG with HFrEF is safe and effective. Adverse events and permanent discontinuation were low. The NT-proBNP concentration reduced significantly with the early in-hospital initiation., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AR received a speaker honorarium from AstraZeneca, Novartis and Roche., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: "Amlodipine/valsartan" or "amlodipine/candesartan" combinations represent two effective antihypertensive agents with complementary mechanisms of action. Nevertheless, a study has yet to be done to evaluate the effect of amlodipine/candesartan on central blood pressure and compare it with amlodipine/valsartan combination. To see how "amlodipine plus candesartan combination" reduces peripheral and central blood pressure compared to the most studied combination, "amlodipine plus valsartan"., Material and Methods: Eighty-six patients were randomized in an open-label, prospective study by 1:1 ratio to two groups. Group I (n=42) received the amlodipine and valsartan combination, and group II (n=44) received the amlodipine and candesartan combination. Peripheral and central blood pressure (CBP) was measured at baseline, at 6 and 12 weeks of follow-up., Discussion: Both treatment groups reduced peripheral systolic, diastolic, and mean blood pressure. There was no significant difference between and within both groups. The amlodipine/candesartan combination showed more reduction in peripheral systolic blood pressure (PSBP) after 12 weeks of treatment (p=<0.001). Both groups decreased CBP without significant differences between groups. The amlodipine/candesartan combination showed additional efficacy in decreasing CSBP after 12 weeks (p=<0.001). The two treatment groups did not exert significant efficacy in lowering heart rate (HR) and augmentation index% (AIx%)., Conclusion: To conclude, the amlodipine 10mg/candesartan 16mg combination was non-inferior to the amlodipine 10mg/valsartan 160mg combination in terms of reducing peripheral and CBP over time., (Copyright © 2024 SEH-LELHA. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Background: Sacubitril/valsartan, a new pharmacological class of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, is beneficial to heart failure through blocking the degradation of natriuretic peptides and inhibiting renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) activation which also relate to the pathophysiologic mechanisms of chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, its effects on CKD remain unclear. To assess the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan for patients with CKD, we performed this meta-analysis., Methods: The Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared sacubitril/valsartan with ACEI/ARBs in patients with CKD whose estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was below 60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 . We adopted the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing the risk of bias. The effect size was estimated using the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI)., Results: Six trials with a total of 6217 patients with CKD were included. In terms of cardiovascular events, sacubitril/valsartan attenuated the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization (OR: 0.68, 95% CI 0.61-0.76, P < 0.00001, I 2  = 43%). With respect to renal function, sacubitril/valsartan prevented the incidence of serum creatinine (Scr) elevation among patients with CKD (OR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.67-0.95, P = 0.01, I 2  = 0%). Subgroup analysis about eGFR demonstrated that with long follow-up, sacubitril/valsartan significantly decreased the number of patients with more than 50% reduction in eGFR compared with ACEI/ARBs (OR: 0.52, 95% CI 0.32-0.84, P = 0.008, I 2  = 9%). In patients with CKD, the incidence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) was reduced with sacubitril/valsartan treatment, despite no statistically significant difference between the two groups (OR: 0.59, 95% CI 0.29-1.20, P = 0.14, I 2  = 0%). As for the safety, we found that sacubitril/valsartan was associated with the occurrence of hypotension (OR: 1.71, 95% CI 1.15-2.56, P = 0.008, I 2  = 51%). However, there was no trend towards increasing the risk of hyperkalemia in patients who received sacubitril/valsartan (OR: 1.09, 95% CI 0.75-1.60, P = 0.64, I 2  = 64%)., Conclusion: This meta-analysis indicated that sacubitril/valsartan improved renal function and conferred effective cardiovascular benefits in patients with CKD, without serious safety issues being observed. Thus, sacubitril/valsartan may be a promising option for patients with CKD. Certainly, further large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these conclusions., Systematic Review Registration: [ https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2022-4-0045/ ], identifier [INPLASY202240045]., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.)

Background: Lower systolic blood pressure (SBP) is known to be associated with poor prognosis in heart failure (HF). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan according to baseline SBP tertiles in Japanese patients from the PARALLEL-HF study., Methods and results: In all, 223 patients were stratified into tertiles according to baseline SBP (≤114 mmHg: n=75; >114 and ≤130 mmHg: n=76; and >130 mmHg: n=72). Patients with lower SBP (≤114 mmHg) had the highest median N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentrations at baseline (P=0.0184). No significant difference was observed between sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril for the composite outcome of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization across SBP tertiles (P-interaction=0.2682). Although the P-interaction value was not significant (0.2106), a greater reduction in NT-proBNP with sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril was observed in patients with SBP >130 mmHg (P=0.0076). The incidence of hypotension-related events and reduction or discontinuation of treatment due to hypotension-related events was higher in the lower SBP subgroup, and these events were more frequent in the sacubitril/valsartan than enalapril group., Conclusions: The efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril was consistent across baseline SBP tertiles in Japanese patients from the PARALLEL-HF study. Hypotension-related events were more common in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan with lower SBP.

Background: The PARALLEL-HF study assessed the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril in Japanese patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This open-label extension (OLE) assessed long-term safety with sacubitril/valsartan., Methods and results: This study enrolled 150 patients who received sacubitril/valsartan 50 or 100 mg, b.i.d., in addition to optimal background heart failure (HF) therapy. A dose level of sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg, b.i.d., was targeted by Week 8. At OLE baseline, higher concentrations of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and urine cGMP, and lower concentrations of N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), were observed in the sacubitril/valsartan core group (patients who received sacubitril/valsartan in both the core and extension study) than in the enalapril core group (patients who received enalapril in the core study and were then transitioned to sacubitril/valsartan). The mean exposure to study drug was 98.9%. There was no trend of worsening of HF at Month 12. No obvious changes in cardiac biomarkers were observed, whereas BNP and urine cGMP increased and NT-proBNP decreased in the enalapril core group, which was evident at Weeks 2-4 and sustained to Month 12., Conclusions: Long-term sacubitril/valsartan at doses up to 200 mg, b.i.d., has a positive risk-benefit profile; it was safe and well tolerated in Japanese patients with chronic HFrEF.

Background: In the real-world setting, data regarding renal decline following sacubitril/valsartan treatment are lacking. This study aimed to develop a scoring system to predict renal outcome in sacubitril/valsartan-treated patients., Methods: Between 2017 and 2018, a total of 1505 heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) undergoing sacubitril/valsartan treatment were consecutively enrolled from 10 hospitals to serve as the derivation cohort. Another 1620 HFrEF patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan were included as the validation cohort. Worsening renal function (WRF) was defined as a serum creatinine increase of >0.3 mg/dL and/or >25 % at 8 months of sacubitril/valsartan treatment. The derivation cohort was used to identify independent predictive factors for WRF through multivariate analysis, which were then used to develop the risk score system., Results: Among the 3125 HFrEF patients, 689 (22.0 %) patients had WRF at 8 months following sacubitril/valsartan treatment. In the derivation cohort, six prognostic factors (age, functional class, history of peripheral arterial disease, diabetes mellitus, gout or hyperuricemia, and serum albumin level) were independently associated with WRF, and were combined into a risk predicting score. This score showed accurate discrimination in the derivation and validation cohorts (Harrell's concordance indexes 0.74 and 0.71, 95 % confidence intervals 0.71-0.78 and 0.69-0.74, respectively). Patients with a higher risk score experienced a more rapid decline in renal function, poorer clinical outcomes, and a higher rate of discontinuation of sacubitril/valsartan treatment., Conclusions: This study developed a score for WRF after sacubitril/valsartan treatment, which may assist clinicians with risk stratification and therapeutic decision-making., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Data on angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril-valsartan (SV) in patients undergoing maintenance dialysis is scarce. Our study aimed to investigate the effect of SV on patients undergoing dialysis., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the data of end-stage kidney disease (ESRD) patients undergoing either peritoneal dialysis (PD) or hemodialysis (HD) in our center. A total of 51 patients receiving SV treatment were enrolled in the SV group. Another 51 age and sex-matched patients on dialysis without SV treatment were selected as the control group. All the patients were regularly followed up in the dialysis clinic. Their clinical, biochemical, and echocardiographic parameters were all recorded at baseline and during follow-up. The effect and safety of SV were further analyzed., Results: A total of 102 ESRD patients on dialysis (51 patients in the SV group and 51 patients in the control group) were finally enrolled. The median follow-up time was 349 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 217-535 days). The level of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) (median [IQR] before and after SV treatment: 596.35 pg/ml [190.6-1714.85] vs. 188.7 pg/ml [83.34-600.35], p  < 0.001) or N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) (median [IQR]: 6316.00 pg/ml [4552.00-28598.00] vs. 5074.00 pg/ml [2229.00-9851.00], p  = 0.022) were significantly decreased after treatment with SV. The variant rate of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was significantly higher in the SV group compared to the control group, especially in the PD subgroup. No significant difference was found in other echocardiographic parameters between SV and control group. Subgroup analysis of the PD group showed an increase in daily PD ultrafiltration (median [IQR]: 400 ml/d [200-500] vs. 500 ml/d [200-850], p  = 0.114) after SV treatment. Variant rate of overhydration (OH) measured by the body composition monitor (BCM) of the SV group were significantly different from the control group (median [IQR]: -13.13% [-42.85%-27.84%] vs. 0% [-17.95%-53.85%], p  = 0.049). The rate of hyperkalemia was slightly higher but without significant difference before and after the introduction of SV (19.6% vs. 27.5%, p  = 0.350). No event of hypotension and angioedema were observed., Conclusions: SV might have a cardio-protective role in ESRD patients undergoing dialysis, especially in PD patients. Serum potassium should be monitored during the treatment.

Management of drug resistant epilepsy (DRE) represents a challenge to the treating clinician. This manuscript addresses DRE and provides an overview of treatment options, medical, surgical, and dietary. It addresses treatment strategies in polytherapy, then focuses on the role cenobamate (CNB) may play in reducing the burden of DRE while providing practical advice for its introduction. CNB is a recently approved, third generation, anti-seizure medication (ASM), a tetrazole-derived carbamate, thought to have a dual mechanism of action, through its effect on sodium channels as well as on GABA A receptors at a non-benzodiazepine site. CNB, having a long half-life, is an effective add-on ASM in refractory focal epilepsy with a higher response rate and a higher seizure-freedom rate than is usually seen in regulatory clinical trials. Experience post-licensing, though still limited, supports the findings of clinical trials and is encouraging. Its spectrum of action in relation to generalized epilepsies and seizures remains to be established, and there are no data on its efficacy in monotherapy. At the time of writing, CNB has been prescribed for some 50 000 individuals with DRE and focal epilepsy. A larger number is needed to fully establish its safety profile. It should at all times be introduced slowly to minimize the risk of serious allergic drug reactions. It has clinically meaningful interactions which must be anticipated and managed to maximize tolerability and likelihood of successful treatment. Despite the above, it may well prove to be of major benefit in the treatment of many patients with drug resistant epilepsy., (© 2023 The Authors. Epilepsia Open published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International League Against Epilepsy.)

There is a lack of studies comparing the risk of cardio-cerebrovascular disease between angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) of different half-lives. We aimed to compare the risks of myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure (HF), and cerebrovascular disease with the use of valsartan, losartan, irbesartan, and telmisartan with different half-lives in a national claim-based retrospective cohort of patients aged ≥ 40 years with hypertension. To establish a cohort exposed to valsartan, losartan, irbesartan, or telmisartan, we performed propensity score (PS) matching and used an as-treated approach to evaluate exposure. The Cox regression model was employed to calculate hazard ratios, which were based on the incidence rate for each newly occurring event of MI, heart failure, or cerebrovascular disease. These hazard ratios were calculated to compare the risk of MI, heart failure, and cerebrovascular disease associated with valsartan, losartan, and irbesartan in comparison to telmisartan. A PS-matched cohort of 148,229 patients was established for each of valsartan, losartan, irbesartan, or telmisartan. The matched cohort analysis showed that the adjusted hazard ratio (aHRs, 95% confidence interval) for MI was higher for valsartan use (1.39, 1.33-1.45) and losartan use (1.10, 1.05-1.15) but lower for irbesartan use (0.90, 0.86-0.94) compared with the reference (telmisartan). The aHRs for HF were not different among these ARBs (angiotensin receptor blockers). The aHR for cerebrovascular disease was lower for valsartan use (0.85, 0.83-0.87) and losartan use (0.80, 0.78-0.82) but higher for irbesartan use (1.11, 1.09-1.13) compared with the reference. We found differences in the risk of MI and cerebrovascular disease with the use of different ARBs compared to telmisartan use. Valsartan, and losartan with a short half-life, which showed a higher risk of MI, had a lower risk of cerebrovascular disease. Conversely, irbesartan with a long half-life, which showed a lower risk of MI, had a higher risk of cerebrovascular disease., Competing Interests: The authors have no funding and conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

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., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests.

Abstract: Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and pulmonary hypertension have poor survival, and established medical therapies for both conditions are not available. In this retrospective study of 69 patients with HFpEF and either isolated postcapillary pulmonary hypertension (IpcPH, n = 53) or combined postcapillary and precapillary pulmonary hypertension (CpcPH, n = 16), we investigated the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on pulmonary hypertension measured using right heart catheterization at baseline (ie, presacubitril/valsartan) and 99 (94-123) days after switching to sacubitril/valsartan. After switching to sacubitril/valsartan, right heart catheterization showed significantly lower pulmonary artery pressures (systolic/diastolic/mean) in both patient groups compared with presacubitril/valsartan [IpcPH: 44 (38-52)/15 (12-19)/28 (22-33) mm Hg vs. 47 (40-55)/18 (15-23)/31 (26-35) mm Hg, P < 0.01; CpcPH: 54 (43-57)/18 (12-23)/34 (30-36) mm Hg vs. 61 (50-79)/24 (19-30)/40 (31-53) mm Hg, P < 0.05]. The median sacubitril/valsartan dose at follow-up was 24/26 (24/26-49/51) mg twice daily in both patients with IpcPH and CpcPH. Clinically, the New York Heart Association functional class improved by at least 1 class in 32 of 69 patients ( P < 0.01). In conclusion, sacubitril/valsartan therapy improves pulmonary hypertension in patients with HFpEF and either IpcPH or CpcPH. Further prospective randomized trials are needed for confirmation of our results., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)