Search

Background: Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) significantly contributes to the progression of heart failure (HF). Standard treatment for HF has long been angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), targeting the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS). Recent developments in HF management introduced sacubitril/valsartan (S/V), a novel angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), showing promising results in global trials. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of early S/V application compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) in reducing NT-proBNP levels and improving clinical outcomes, specifically focusing on dyspnea symptomatology, in Chinese patients with AMI complicated by HF., Methods: This single-center, mixed methods study was conducted at Tangshan Gongren Hospital from January to December 2021, including 88 patients diagnosed with AMI and HF. Patients were divided into two groups: 31 received S/V, while 57 were treated with ACEIs. Data collection encompassed baseline demographic, clinical, and biochemical variables, NT-proBNP levels, blood pressure measurements, and dyspnea symptom severity. Follow-up assessments were conducted 1 year post-discharge to evaluate NT-proBNP levels, and symptom progression. Statistical analyses, including t-tests, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, and chi-square tests, were performed to compare outcomes between the two groups., Results: At baseline, no significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of demographic, lifestyle, and medical history. Although patients in the S/V group presented with more severe baseline renal impairment and cardiac dysfunction, there was no significant difference in NT-proBNP levels from admission to discharge. 1-year follow-up showed a trend towards reduced NT-proBNP levels in the S/V group, though this difference did not reach statistical significance. All patients in both groups reported improvements in dyspnea at discharge and at follow-up, with no significant inter-group difference. Notably, the S/V group demonstrated a more significant reduction in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure from admission to discharge compared to the ACEIs group., Conclusions: This study found that S/V had similar effects to ACEIs in reducing NT-proBNP levels among Chinese patients with AMI complicated by HF, though S/V was associated with greater reductions in blood pressure. These findings suggest that while S/V may offer additional benefits in blood pressure management, its impact on cardiac biomarkers in acute settings may not significantly differ from ACEIs. Given the study's limitations, including its single-center design, small sample size, and baseline differences. Further multi-center, randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate these findings and explore tailored treatment strategies for AMI patients with concurrent HF., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (© 2025 Wang et al.)

Sacubitril/Valsartan is a combination of neprilysin inhibitor and angiotensin II receptor blocker that proved its own efficacy and safety in heart failure patients to ameliorate cardiovascular morbidity and mortality compared to angiotensin II-converting enzyme inhibitors alone. However, end-stage renal disease patients have not been included in the randomized controlled trials, so the beneficial effects as well as the risk profile of this association remain still undefined in these patients. Only observational studies on this drug association have been carried out in end-stage renal disease patients investigating mostly biohumoral or echocardiographic markers. Therefore, its application is still controversial and not free of complications due to the potential risk of hypotension and hyperkaliemia. The efficacy to improve biohumoral markers and cardiac function in dialysis patients and the potential application especially in those patients with severe and resistant hypertension and/or left ventricular dysfunction could be crucial in end-stage renal disease patients. Ongoing long-term randomized controlled trials should thoroughly define the effective benefits and/or adverse effects in patients on substitutive treatment., Competing Interests: Declarations. Ethics Approval: Ethics approval is not requested. Consent to Participate: No consent to participate was necessary. Informed Consent: The manuscript is a narrative revision, and no written consent was requested to prepare it. Consent for Publication: No consent for publication was requested., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Treatment of heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) using angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor demonstrates beneficial effects on cardiac remodeling (CR). We assessed the impact of sacubitril/valsartan on the concentrations of HF biomarkers in relation to parameters of CR using imaging techniques in patients with HFrEF. In a prospective single-center open-label study, 68 patients with symptomatic HFrEF were treated with sacubitril/valsartan and followed-up every three months for 12 months. Soluble suppression of tumorigenicity 2 (sST2), N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) were measured in blood samples. Additionally, echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI) were performed to assess heart structural and functional changes. Following treatment initiation, follow-up visits revealed an improved NYHA functional class in these patients, alongside significant decreases in all circulating biomarkers, increases in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and reductions in volume- and diameter-related LV parameters. Sustained gradual decreases in sST2 concentrations over time correlated with NT-proBNP concentrations (rho=+0.26, P < 0.001). Both biomarkers were inversely correlated with LVEF, and positively correlated with volume- and diameter-related LV parameters from echocardiography and cMRI. However, NT-proBNP concentrations exhibited stronger correlations with these LV parameters and were associated with the number of LV segments showing fibrosis, unlike sST2. Sacubitril/valsartan treatment in HFrEF leads to reduced sST2 and NT-proBNP concentrations with distinct decreasing curves, which are linked to reverse CR through LV-related parameters. In contrast to sST2, NT-proBNP is also associated with fibrosis, suggesting that both biomarkers unveil distinct mechanisms during CR in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. James L. Januzzi is a Trustee of the American College of Cardiology, has received grant support from Abbott, Applied Therapeutics, HeartFlow Inc, Innolife and Roche Diagnostics, consulting income from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beckman, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Janssen, Novartis, Merck, and Roche Diagnostics, and participates in clinical endpoint committees/data safety monitoring boards for Abbott, AbbVie, Bayer, CVRx, Intercept, Pfizer and Takeda. The other authors have nothing to declare., (Copyright © 2025 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) has played an increasingly important role in the management of heart failure (HF). However, the evidence on the benefits of ARNI in HF patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) undergoing dialysis is limited. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of ARNI in patients with concomitant HF and ESKD on maintenance dialysis., Methods and Results: We systematically searched the MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for studies reporting outcomes after ARNI treatment in HF patients with ESKD on dialysis. All meta-analyses were performed using the random effects model. Twenty-six studies comprising 2494 patients with concomitant HF and ESKD undergoing dialysis were included. Our synthesis showed a significant improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) between before and after ARNI treatment (mean change: 8.05%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.57-10.54). Compared to the conventional group, the ARNI group showed a greater improvement in LVEF (mean difference: 4.03%; 95% CI 2.90-5.16). This effect was more pronounced in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (p interaction  < 0.0001). Patients treated with ARNI had a lower risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.64; 95% CI 0.45-0.92; p = 0.01) but had a similar rate of HF hospitalization (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.43-1.18; p = 0.19). ARNI treatment showed benefits in the improvement of left ventricular end-systolic diameter, left ventricular mass index, left atrial diameter, and E/e' ratio (p < 0.05), while it did not significantly increase the risk of severe hyperkalaemia (p = 0.33) or symptomatic hypotension (p = 0.53)., Conclusion: This meta-analysis provided insights into the benefits of ARNI in HF patients with ESKD undergoing dialysis by improving left ventricular function, reversing left ventricular remodelling, and reducing the risk of all-cause mortality, without increasing the risk of HF hospitalizations, severe hyperkalaemia, and symptomatic hypotension., (© 2024 The Author(s). European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Mechanisms of disease pathobiology, prognosis, and potentially treatment responses might vary by race in patients with heart failure (HF)., Objectives: The authors aimed to examine the safety and efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan among patients with HF by self-reported race., Methods: PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) and PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction) were global, randomized clinical trials testing sacubitril/valsartan against a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi) (enalapril or valsartan, respectively) in patients with HF and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% (PARADIGM-HF) or left ventricular ejection fraction ≥45% (PARAGON-HF). Patients with self-reported race were categorized as White, Asian, or Black. We assessed the composite of first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death, its components, and angioedema across races., Results: Among 12,097 participants, 9,451 (78.1%) were White, 2,116 (17.5%) were Asian, and 530 (4.4%) were Black. Over a median follow-up of 2.5 years, Black (adjusted HR: 1.68; 95% CI: 1.42-1.98) and Asian patients (adjusted HR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.18-1.47) experienced higher risks of the primary outcome compared with White patients. Treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan vs RASi on the primary endpoint were consistent among White (HR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.77-0.91), Asian (HR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.78-1.10), and Black patients (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.58-1.07; P interaction  = 0.58). Rates of severe angioedema were higher with sacubitril/valsartan vs RASi (White: 0.2% vs 0.1%; Black: 1.5% vs 0.0%; Asian: 0.1% vs 0.1%)., Conclusions: In a pooled experience of 2 global trials, Black and Asian patients exhibited a higher risk of cardiovascular events than White patients. The benefits of sacubitril/valsartan were consistent across races. Risks of severe angioedema were low but numerically higher with sacubitril/valsartan. (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF]; NCT01035255; Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials were sponsored by Novartis. Dr Lu has received research funding from the Gottfried und Julia Bangerter-Rhyner Foundation, the SICPA Foundation, and the Société Académique Vaudoise. Dr Claggett has been a consultant for Amgen, AO Biome, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corvia, Gilead, Myokardia, Cardurion, and Novartis. Dr Packer has received consulting fees from 89bio, AbbVie, Actavis, Alderlyx, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Attralus, Boehringer Ingelheim, Caladrius, Casana, CSL Behring, Cytokinetics, Imara, Lilly, Medtronic, Moderna, Novartis, Pharmacosmos, Reata, Regeneron, Relypsa, and Salamandra. Dr Pfeffer has received the following research grant support Lexicon and Novartis, paid to his institution; has served as a consultant to Alexion, Alnylam, Apnimed, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly Alliance, DalCor, Intellia, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute—Collaborating Network of Networks for Evaluating COVID-19 and Therapeutic Strategies (Master Protocol Committee), Novartis, and Novo Nordisk; and has equity in DalCor. Dr Lewis has received personal fees from Amgen and Dal-Cor. Dr Lam has received grants from Novo Nordisk and Roche Diagnostics; has served as a consultant for Alleviant Medical, Allysta Pharma, AnaCardio AB, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biopeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), CardioRenal, Cytokinetics, Darma, Echonous, Eli Lilly, Impulse Dynamics, Intellia Therapeutics, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Medscape/WebMD, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Prosciento, Quidel Corporation, Radcliffe Group, Recardio, Recor Medical, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, and Siemens Healthcare; has served as cofounder and nonexecutive director of Us2.ai outside the submitted work; and has patents pending (PCT/SG2016/050217; method for diagnosis and prognosis of chronic heart failure) and issued (U.S. Patent No. 10 702 247; automated clinical workflow that recognizes and analyses 2-dimensional and Doppler echo images for cardiac measurements and the diagnosis, prediction and prognosis of heart disease). Dr Rouleau has served as a Data Monitoring Committee member; and has received consulting fees from Alexion, Intellia, BMS, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Novartis. Dr Zile has received research funding from Novartis; and has been a consultant for Novartis, Abbott, Boston Scientific, CVRx, EBR, Endotronics, Ironwood, Merck, Medtronic, and Myokardia V Wave. Dr Lefkowitz is an employee of Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. Dr Desai has received research grant support from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Alnylam, Bayer, and Novartis; and has received consulting fees and/or honoraria from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Alnylam, Axon Therapeutics, Avidity Biopharma, Bayer, Biofourmis, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Parexel, Regeneron, River2Renal, Roche, Verily, Veristat, and Zydus. Dr Jhund has received speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Alkem Metabolics, ProAdWise Communications, and Sun Pharmaceuticals; advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis; research funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Analog Devices Inc; has served as the director of Global Clinical Trial Partners; and his employer the University of Glasgow has been remunerated for clinical trial work from AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Novartis and Novo Nordisk. Dr McMurray has received grants, paid to his employer, from AstraZeneca, Theracos, and GlaxoSmithKline during the conduct of the study; grants paid to his employer from Novartis, Amgen, BMS, Bayer, Abb-vie, Dal-Cor, Kidney Research UK, and Cardurion; and grants from British Heart Foundation. Dr Solomon has received research grants from Actelion, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bayer, BMS, Celladon, Cytokinetics, Eidos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, Lilly, Mesoblast, MyoKardia, National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Neurotronik, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Respicardia, Sanofi Pasteur, Theracos, and Us2.ai; and has consulted for Abbott, Action, Akros, Alnylam, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Cardior, Cardurion, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Daiichi-Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck, Myokardia, Novartis, Roche, Theracos, Quantum Genomics, Cardurion, Janssen, Cardiac Dimensions, Tenaya, Sanofi Pasteur, Dinaqor, Tremeau, CellProThera, Moderna, American Regent, Sarepta, Lexicon, Anacardio, Akros, and PureTech Health. Dr Vaduganathan has received research grant support, served on advisory boards, or had speaker engagements with American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Baxter Healthcare, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cytokinetics, Fresenius Medical Care, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Milestone Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Relypsa, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, and Tricog Health; and has participated on clinical trial committees for studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, Galmed, Novartis, Bayer AG, Occlutech, and Impulse Dynamics. Dr Pabon has reported that she has no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2025 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) have been shown to lower haemoglobin levels, potentially related to reductions in erythropoietin levels and haematopoiesis. We examined whether sacubitril/valsartan might attenuate this effect of RASi alone on incident anaemia in patients with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF/HFpEF)., Methods and Results: PARAGON-HF was a global, multicentre randomized clinical trial of sacubitril/valsartan versus the RASi valsartan in patients with HF and left ventricular ejection fraction ≥45%. We evaluated haemoglobin trajectory and risks of incident anaemia and new iron therapy initiation during follow-up. Among 4795 participants, 1111 (23.2%) had anaemia at randomization and 5.6% were treated with iron at baseline. Over a median follow-up of 2.9 years, patients with anaemia were at significantly higher risk for total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death, compared with those without anaemia (21.6 vs. 11.5 per 100 patient-years; adjusted rate ratio 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-1.54; p = 0.001). Sacubitril/valsartan slightly slowed the decline in haemoglobin levels by 0.1 g/dl (95% CI 0.0-0.2 g/dl; p = 0.005). Participants treated with sacubitril/valsartan were at significantly lower risk of developing anaemia (30.3% vs. 37.6%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.76; 95% CI 0.68-0.85; p < 0.001) and starting iron therapy (8.1% vs. 10.0%; HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.67-0.97; p = 0.026). Treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan on total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death were consistent among patients across the haemoglobin spectrum (p interaction  = 0.60)., Conclusions: Among patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan resulted in modestly smaller declines in haemoglobin, lower rates of incident anaemia, and fewer new initiations of iron therapy compared with RASi., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01920711., (© 2024 European Society of Cardiology.)

Sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, has demonstrated a superior blood pressure-lowering effect compared with renin-angiotensin system inhibitors in several clinical trials. However, there has been no available evidence on the comparison between sacubitril/valsartan and calcium channel blockers (CCBs), a well-established class of antihypertensive drugs. In this open-label, multicenter study, we aimed to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan versus amlodipine, one of the most widely used CCBs, after 8 weeks of treatment. A total of 359 Japanese patients with essential hypertension (office systolic blood pressure [SBP] ≥ 150 to < 180 mmHg), aged 18-79, were randomly assigned to receive either once-daily sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg or once-daily amlodipine 5 mg in a 1:1 allocation ratio. The primary endpoint was the noninferiority of sacubitril/valsartan compared with amlodipine in mean change in 24-h SBP from baseline to Week 8, followed by a significance test as a secondary endpoint analysis. The mean change in 24-h SBP in sacubitril/valsartan was noninferior to that in amlodipine (between-treatment difference -0.62 mmHg [95% confidential interval: -3.23 to 1.98; p = 0.003 for noninferiority; independent t-test with noninferiority margin 3.0 mmHg]), with no significant difference observed (p = 0.637). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events (AEs). These results suggested that the blood pressure-lowering effect of sacubitril/valsartan is comparable to that of amlodipine, with no marked differences in tolerability between the two groups. Sacubitril/valsartan, a potent antihypertensive drug comparable to amlodipine, is expected to improve blood pressure control in clinical practice., (© 2024 The Author(s). The Journal of Clinical Hypertension published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Aims: Pediatric heart failure is a significant cause of illness and death in children. We aimed to assess sacubitril/valsartan's effectiveness and find the proper dosage for pediatric patients., Methods: Patients unresponsive to traditional medicines for at least 12 months prescribed sacubitril/valsartan from January 2020 to March 2023 were reviewed. The initial dose was 0.2 mg/kg bid, gradually increasing in 0.1 mg/kg increments. The target dose was determined based on blood pressure fluctuations at 70/50 mmHg. Clinical efficacy and quantity-effect relationship were evaluated using echocardiography, NT-proBNP, and the concentration of valsartan, sacubitril, sacubitrilat., Results: A total of 23 pediatric patients with dilated cardiomyopathy and advanced heart failure were enrolled. Mean sacubitril/valsartan dose was 1.84 mg/kg/day. After 6 months, LVEF increased significantly (38.09% to 45% at 3 months, 52% at 6 months; p < 0.001). LV size reduced to 4.4 cm (IQR, 4.1-5.2) and 4.5 cm (IQR, 4-5.1) at 3 and 6 months, respectively, from 4.6 cm (IQR, 4.2-5.6) at baseline (both P < 0.05). NT-proBNP levels reduced by 5.7 at 3 months (p < 0.05) and 5.38 at 6 months (p < 0.001). Sacubitrilat is the active form of Sacubitril. The highest concentration of sacubitrilat was observed at approximately 1.6 mg/kg. The maintenance dose correlated positively with time (p < 0.001) and valsartan/sacubitril concentration (p < 0.05)., Conclusion: Low dose sacubitril/valsartan is effective in children with heart failure, with dosage adjustments to avoid hypotension. Adjusted dosing can increase EF and reduce heart size, offering new possibilities for pediatric heart failure treatment., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest All authors have declared that they have no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Sacubitril/valsartan improves outcomes in chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF). The underlying mechanisms on left ventricular (LV) myocardial function are incompletely understood. In this study, 117 patients with symptomatic HF and LVEF ≤ 40% were enrolled prospectively. Noninvasive pressure-volume analysis was calculated from transthoracic echocardiography with simultaneous arm-cuff blood pressure measurements. Primary outcome parameters were LV end-systolic elastance ( E es ; a measure of LV contractility), effective arterial elastance ( E a ). The mean age was 65 ± 13 yr, 30% were female, and 54.7% had ischemic heart disease. During 6 mo of follow-up, eight patients died, three withdrew their consent, and four were lost to follow-up. About 102 patients were included in pressure-volume analyses. After 6 mo of sacubitril/valsartan treatment, E a / E es ). The mean age was 65 ± 13 yr, 30% were female, and 54.7% had ischemic heart disease. During 6 mo of follow-up, eight patients died, three withdrew their consent, and four were lost to follow-up. About 102 patients were included in pressure-volume analyses. After 6 mo of sacubitril/valsartan treatment, E es increased (0.66 mmHg/mL [IQR 0.45-0.94] vs. 0.78 mmHg/mL [IQR 0.57-1.10], P = 0.001), E a decreased (1.76 mmHg/mL [IQR 1.48-2.13] vs. 1.62 mmHg/mL [IQR 1.36-1.96], P = 0.014), and the E a / E < 0.0001). In conclusion, sacubitril/valsartan is associated with improved ventricular-arterial coupling by enhancing LV contractility and reducing afterload. Beyond LV reverse remodeling, optimized ventricular-arterial interaction may contribute to the favorable outcome of sacubitril/valsartan treatment in HF with reduced EF. es The study demonstrates that 6-mo treatment with sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction is associated with increased left ventricular contractility, reduced afterload, and improved ventricular-arterial coupling. Together with reverse remodeling, these changes indicate a leftward shift of the operating left ventricular pressure-volume relationship. These data provide new insights into the understanding of pharmacological mechanisms in the failing heart and may facilitate tailored medical therapy.P < 0.001). LV end-diastolic pressure and LV volumes were reduced, and LVEF increased from 33% to 43% (both P < 0.001). Clinical improvement occurred in NYHA functional class, NT-proBNP level, and 6-min walking distance. Change in LVEF correlated with change in E es ( r = 0.33, P = 0.0008), while change in NT-proBNP was associated with change in LV end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP) ( r = 0.42, P < 0.0001). In conclusion, sacubitril/valsartan is associated with improved ventricular-arterial coupling by enhancing LV contractility and reducing afterload. Beyond LV reverse remodeling, optimized ventricular-arterial interaction may contribute to the favorable outcome of sacubitril/valsartan treatment in HF with reduced EF. NEW & NOTEWORTHY The study demonstrates that 6-mo treatment with sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction is associated with increased left ventricular contractility, reduced afterload, and improved ventricular-arterial coupling. Together with reverse remodeling, these changes indicate a leftward shift of the operating left ventricular pressure-volume relationship. These data provide new insights into the understanding of pharmacological mechanisms in the failing heart and may facilitate tailored medical therapy.

Background and Aims: The efficacy and safety of early sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) initiation after acute heart failure (AHF) has not been demonstrated outside North America. The present study aimed to evaluate the effect of in-hospital Sac/Val therapy initiation after an AHF episode on N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level in Japanese patients., Methods: This was an investigator-initiated, multicentre, prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint pragmatic trial. After haemodynamic stabilization within 7 days after hospitalization, eligible inpatients were allocated to switch from angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker to Sac/Val (Sac/Val group) or to continue angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (control group). The primary efficacy endpoint was the 8-week proportional change in geometric means of NT-proBNP levels., Results: A total of 400 patients were equally randomized, and 376 (median age 75 years, 31.9% women, de novo heart failure rate 55.6%, and median left ventricular ejection fraction 37%) were analysed. The per cent changes in NT-proBNP level geometric means at Weeks 4/8 were -35%/-45% (Sac/Val group) and -18%/-32% (control group), and their group ratio (Sac/Val vs. control) was 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.68-0.94; P = .008) at Week 4 and 0.81 (95% confidence interval 0.68-0.95; P = .012) at Week 8, respectively. In the pre-specified subgroup analyses, the effects of Sac/Val were confined to patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction < 40% and were more evident in those in sinus rhythm and taking mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. No adverse safety signal was evident., Conclusions: In-hospital Sac/Val therapy initiation in addition to contemporary recommended therapy triggered a greater NT-proBNP level reduction in Japanese patients hospitalized for AHF. These findings may expand the evidence on Sac/Val therapy in this clinical situation outside North America., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT05164653) and Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCTs021210046)., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Heart failure (HF) and renal dysfunction often coexist and interact in many complex and bidirectional pathways, leading to detrimental effects on patient outcomes. The treatment of HF patients with renal dysfunction presents a significant clinical challenge. Interestingly, sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), may have beneficial effects on cardiac and renal outcomes in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction, particularly by slowing the rate of decrease in the estimated glomerular filtration rate compared to a single angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor. Recently, more reports have emphasized the renal protection of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HF. In HF patients with renal dysfunction, however, there is no strong evidence supporting the use of sacubitril/valsartan to reduce the absolute risk of hyperkalemia and worsening renal function; therefore, the administration of ARNI requires a careful balance between the benefits and risks. Furthermore, the lack of evidence-based management highlights the importance of an individualized approach based on published experience and multidisciplinary collaborations, as well as underlines the need for in-depth studies investigating the underlying mechanisms in cardiorenal interactions with a focus on treatments., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Xiaogang Zhu et al.)

Background: There is evidence supporting the efficacy of Sacubitril /Valsartan for improving left heart failure, but few studies have examined its effects on right ventricular (RV) dysfunction. The current study aimed to investigate the effects of Sacubitril /Valsartan on RV dysfunction in patients with right heart failure., Methods: The current study was a randomized and parallel clinical trial study. Patients over 18 years with any degree of right heart failure regardless of Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were included. The included patients were assigned randomly to three study arms using simple random allocation, i.e. the intervention group (Sacubitril Valsartan recipients) and the control groups (Losartan and Captopril recipients). The SPSS software version 19 was used for data analysis., Results: The changes in LVEF, RV FAC, RV diameter, DOE grade, and TAPSE in the Sacubitril/Valsartan group were significantly higher than the other two groups. The severity of RV dysfunction, as well as TR (Tricuspid Regurgitation) severity, decreased significantly three months after the intervention compared to the beginning of the intervention in all groups especially in the Sacubitril/Valsartan group (p: 0.006). The mortality rate in the Sacubitril/Valsartan, Losartan, and Captopril groups, were 2 (6.7%), 2 (11.2%), and 1 (7.7%) respectively (p: 0.83). Also, 27.6, 62.5, and 7.7% of cases in the Sacubitril/Valsartan, Losartan, and Captopril reached to optimum dose (p: 0.006)., Conclusions: Considering the results, it seems that Sacubitril/Valsartan has a positive effect on improving RV dysfunction in patients with right heart disorders., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (©2024 Pacini Editore SRL, Pisa, Italy.)

Background: Hypotension is an important clinical problem in heart failure (HF)., Objectives: This study sought to examine the association between asymptomatic vs symptomatic hypotension and outcomes in PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure)., Methods: In a post hoc analysis of PARADIGM-HF, the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared to enalapril were estimated using time-updated Cox proportional hazards models. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization., Results: Among 8,399 patients in PARADIGM-HF, 1,343 (16.0%) experienced only asymptomatic hypotension, and 936 (11.1%) experienced symptomatic hypotension at least once after randomization. Patients with symptomatic hypotension were older and more frequently had cardiovascular comorbidities compared to those developing only asymptomatic hypotension. By contrast, left ventricular ejection fraction was lower in those with asymptomatic hypotension. Patients who experienced either type of hypotension were at higher risk for all outcomes examined. However, the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on the primary outcome was not diminished in patients experiencing hypotension compared to those who did not: the HR for sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.72-0.89) for no hypotension, 0.87 (95% CI: 0.70-1.08) for asymptomatic hypotension, and 0.51 (95% CI: 0.38-0.69) for symptomatic hypotension (P interaction  = 0.01), and this was also true for cardiovascular and all-cause deaths. The safety of sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril was also maintained regardless of the occurrence of hypotension. Discontinuation of randomized treatment was less common with sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril in patients experiencing asymptomatic and symptomatic hypotension., Conclusions: Although both asymptomatic and symptomatic hypotension during treatment with sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril were associated with worse outcomes, the benefits of sacubitril/valsartan were maintained (or even enhanced) in patients experiencing hypotension., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The PARADIGM-HF trial was sponsored by Novartis. Dr Matsumoto has received research grants and personal fees from Abbott, Bayer Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Medtronic, Novartis, Ono Pharma, Orbus Neich, Otsuka Pharma, and the Uehara Memorial Foundation. Dr Böhm has received lecture fees from Amgen, Bayer, Servier, Medtronic, Boehringer Ingelheim, ReCor, Vifor Pharma, and Bristol Myers Squibb; has received grant support and lecture fees from AstraZeneca; and has received grant support from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Dr Desai has received grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study; has received personal fees from Abbott, Biofourmis, Boston Scientific, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corvidia, DalCor Pharma, Relypsa, Regeneron, and Merck; has received grants and personal fees from Alnylam and Novartis; and has received personal fees from Amgen, outside the submitted work. Dr Køber has received speaker fees from Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and AstraZeneca. Dr Lefkowitz is an employee of Novartis. Dr Packer has received consulting fees from 89bio, AbbVie, Actavis, Alderlyx, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Attralus, Boehringer Ingelheim, Caladrius, Casana, CSL Behring, Cytokinetics, Imara, Lilly, Medtronic, Moderna, Novartis, Pharmacosmos, Reata, Regeneron, Relypsa, and Salamandra. Dr Rouleau has received grants and consulting fees from Novartis; and has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca. 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/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Neurotronik, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Respicardia, Sanofi Pasteur, Theracos, and US2.AI; and has consulted 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. Dr Swedberg has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis. Dr Vaduganathan has received research grant support from or served on Advisory Boards for American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Baxter Healthcare, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cytokinetics, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Relypsa, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, and Tricog Health; has had speaker engagements with AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics; and participates on Clinical Trial Committees for studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, Occlutech, Impulse Dynamicx, Galmed, and Novartis. Dr Vardeny has received research support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Cardurion; and has received personal consulting fees from Bayer, Cytokinetics, Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Cardior. The employer of Dr Voors (University Medical Center Groningen) has received consultancy and/or research fees from Adrenomed, Anacardio, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Cardurion, Corteria, Cytokinetics, Eli Lilly, Moderna, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, and Salubrisbio. Dr Zile has received fees for serving on a Steering Committee from Abbott and Ironwood Pharma; has received consulting fees from Boston Scientific and MyoKardia; has received grant support and fees for serving on a Steering Committee from CVRx and Medtronic; has received fees for serving on an Eligibility Committee from EBR Systems and V-Wave; has received fees for serving on a Clinical Events Committee from Endotronics; and has received fees for serving on a Data and Safety Monitoring Board from Merck. Dr Jhund has received speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Alkem Metabolics, ProAdWise Communications, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and Intas Pharmaceuticals; has received Advisory Board fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis; has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Analog Devices Inc; Dr Jhund’s employer (University of Glasgow) has been remunerated for clinical trial work by AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk; and is a director of Global Clinical Trial Partners Ltd. Dr McMurray has 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; has received personal consultancy fees from Alnylam Pharma, Bayer, BMS, George Clinical PTY Ltd, Ionis Pharma, Novartis, Regeneron Pharma, and River 2 Renal Corporation; has received personal lecture fees from Abbott, Alkem Metabolics, AstraZeneca, 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; and is a director of Global Clinical Trial Partners Ltd. 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.)

Aims: We explored timing, settings and predictors of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) initiation in a large, nationwide cohort of patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)., Methods and Results: Patients with HFrEF (ejection fraction <40%) registered in the Swedish HF Registry in 2017-2021 and naïve to ARNI were evaluated for timing and location of, and their characteristics at ARNI initiation. ARNI use increased from 8.3% in 2017 to 26.7% in 2021. Among 3892 hospitalized patients, 8% initiated ARNI in-hospital or ≤14 days after discharge, 4% between 15 and 90 days, and 88% >90 days after discharge or never initiated. Factors associated with earlier initiation included follow-up in specialized HF care, more severe HF, previous HF treatment use and higher income, whereas older age, higher comorbidity burden and living alone were associated with later/no initiation. Of 16 486 HFrEF patients, 8.1% inpatients and 5.9% outpatients initiated an ARNI at the index date. Factors associated with initiation in outpatients were overall consistent with those linked with an in-hospital/earlier ARNI initiation; 4.9% of 10 209 with HF duration <6 months and 9.1% of 5877 with HF duration ≥6 months initiated ARNI. Predictors of ARNI initiation in HF duration <6 months were inpatient status, lower ejection fraction, hypertension, whereas previous angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker use was associated with less likely initiation. Discontinuation at 1 year ranged between 13% and 20% across the above-reported analyses., Conclusions: In-hospital and early initiation of ARNI are limited in real-world care but still slightly more likely than in outpatients. ARNI were more likely initiated in patients with more severe HF, which might suggest its use as a second-line treatment and only following worsening of clinical status. One-year discontinuation rates were consistent regardless of the timing/setting of ARNI initiation., (© 2024 The Author(s). European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

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).)

Aims: Pharmacologic blockade of neurohormonal pathways in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) can result in acute changes in biomarkers of kidney function. We evaluated the effect of sacubitril/valsartan versus ramipril on initial changes in serum creatinine and the association of these changes with longer-term outcomes among participants in PARADISE-MI., Methods and Results: In this randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, event-driven trial, 5661 patients with an acute MI were assigned to receive sacubitril/valsartan or ramipril, with no run-in. The frequency of an initial pre-specified increase in serum creatinine (≥26.5 or ≥44 μmol/L) from baseline to week 1 was compared between arms. Multivariable Cox regression models were fit to examine the association of acute changes in serum creatinine with the primary cardiovascular composite outcome (cardiovascular death, first heart failure hospitalization, or outpatient heart failure), all-cause mortality, and longer-term changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). An initial increase in serum creatinine ≥26.5 μmol/L occurred in 155 of 2604 (6.0%) patients assigned to sacubitril/valsartan and 120 of 2603 (4.6%) patients assigned to ramipril (odds ratio [OR] 1.32; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.68). The corresponding numbers for an increase ≥44 μmol/L were 57 (2.2%) and 42 (1.6%), respectively (OR 1.37; 95% CI 0.92-2.05). A higher odds of increased serum creatinine ≥26.5 and ≥44 μmol/L for sacubitril/valsartan versus ramipril appeared to be restricted to patients who had a greater decline in systolic blood pressure over the same period (p-interaction = 0.05 and 0.001, respectively). In multivariable analyses, neither an acute increase in serum creatinine ≥26.5 or ≥44 μmol/L was associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular outcomes, all-cause mortality, or differences in longer-term eGFR slope. Findings were similar across the randomized treatment arms (p-interaction >0.6 for all)., Conclusions: Following acute MI, patients assigned to sacubitril/valsartan had a higher frequency of initial increases in serum creatinine at 1 week, compared with ramipril. In adjusted models, initial increases in serum creatinine with either treatment were not associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes or changes in longer-term kidney function., (© 2024 European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: LCZ696 (sacubitril/valsartan) exerts cardioprotective effects. Recent studies have suggested that it improves the endothelial function; however, the underlying mechanisms have not been thoroughly investigated. We investigated whether LCZ696 ameliorates diabetes-induced endothelial dysfunction., Methods: Diabetes was induced using streptozotocin in 8-week-old male C57BL/6 mice. Diabetic mice were randomly assigned to receive LCZ696 (100 mg/kg/day), valsartan (50 mg/kg/day), or a vehicle for three weeks. The endothelium-dependent and endothelium-independent vascular responses of the aortic segments were determined based on the response to acetylcholine and sodium nitroprusside, respectively. Human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVEC) and aortic segments obtained from C57BL/6 mice were used to perform in vitro and ex vivo experiments, respectively., Results: LCZ696 and valsartan reduced the blood pressure in diabetic mice (P＜0.05). The administration of LCZ696 (P＜0.001) and valsartan (P＜0.01) ameliorated endothelium-dependent vascular relaxation, but not endothelium-independent vascular relaxation, under diabetic conditions. LCZ696, but not valsartan, increased eNOS Ser1177 (P=0.06) and Akt (P＜0.05) phosphorylation in the aorta. In HUVEC, methylglyoxal (MGO), a major precursor of advanced glycation end products, decreased eNOS Ser1177 phosphorylation (P＜0.05) and increased eNOS Thr495 phosphorylation (P＜0.001). However, atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP) reversed these effects. ANP also ameliorated the MGO-induced impairment of endothelium-dependent vascular relaxation in the aortic segments (P＜0.05), although L-NAME completely blocked this effect (P＜0.001)., Conclusion: LCZ696 ameliorated diabetes-induced endothelial dysfunction by increasing the bioavailability of ANP. Our findings suggest that LCZ696 has a vascular protective effect in a diabetic model and highlight that it may be more effective than valsartan.

Background: Sacubitril/valsartan, being both a neprilysin inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker, exhibits a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitory effect. However, no study has investigated the administration of sacubitril/valsartan in patients early after surgery using cardiopulmonary bypass., Methods and Results: This was a prospective observational study of 63 patients who underwent open heart surgery and were treated with sacubitril/valsartan. No serious adverse events occurred. Among the 63 patients, sacubitril/valsartan was discontinued in 13 due to hypotension (n=10), renal dysfunction (n=2), and dizziness (n=1). Atrial natriuretic peptide concentrations increased significantly from Day 3 of treatment (P=0.0142 vs. Postoperative Day 1) and remained high thereafter. In contrast, plasma renin activity was significantly suppressed from Day 3 onwards (P=0.00206 vs. Postoperative Day 1). A decrease in creatinine concentrations and an increase in the estimated glomerular filtration rate were observed on Day 3; this improvement in renal function was not observed in the historical control group, in which patients did not receive sacubitril/valsartan. New postoperative atrial fibrillation was less frequent in the study group compared with the historical control (12.7% vs. 38.0%; P=0.0034)., Conclusions: Sacubitril/valsartan administration was safe immediately after open heart surgery in patients without postoperative hypotension. It enhanced serum atrial natriuretic peptide concentrations and suppressed RAAS activation.

Chronic Chagas cardiomyopathy (CCC) has unique pathogenic and clinical features with worse prognosis than other causes of heart failure (HF), despite the fact that patients with CCC are often younger and have fewer comorbidities. Patients with CCC were not adequately represented in any of the landmark HF studies that support current treatment guidelines. PARACHUTE-HF (Prevention And Reduction of Adverse outcomes in Chagasic Heart failUre Trial Evaluation) is an active-controlled, randomized, phase IV trial designed to evaluate the effect of sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg twice daily vs enalapril 10 mg twice daily added to standard of care treatment for HF. The study aims to enroll approximately 900 patients with CCC and reduced ejection fraction at around 100 sites in Latin America. The primary outcome is a hierarchical composite of time from randomization to cardiovascular death, first HF hospitalization, or relative change from baseline to week 12 in NT-proBNP levels. PARACHUTE-HF will provide new data on the treatment of this high-risk population. (Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan Compared With Enalapril on Morbidity, Mortality, and NT-proBNP Change in Patients With CCC [PARACHUTE-HF]; NCT04023227)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures PARACHUTE-HF is funded by Novartis Pharma AG. Dr Bocchi has received consulting fees from Servier, AstraZeneca, and Boehringer Ingelheim; has received travel/hotel/registration fees from Servier; has served as a member of the steering committee for Servier, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim; has received research grant support through the Heart Institute (Incor) from Janssen, Bayer/Merck, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, and Novartis; and has received honoraria from Servier, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Echeverria has received research support from Pfizer, Novartis, and Boehringer Ingelheim; has received consulting fees from Novartis and Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Bayer. Drs Demacq, Chiang, Ferrari, and Gimpelewicz are Novartis employees. Dr de Barros e Silva has received research support from Pfizer, Bayer, and Roche Diagnostics; and has received consulting fees from Pfizer, Bayer, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr Morillo has received research support from Abbott, Medtronic, and Novartis; and has received consulting fees from Abbott, Medtronic, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr Ramires has received speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Pfizer, Novartis, and Bristol; and has received consulting fees from Novartis and Bristol. Dr Bahit has received honoraria (modest) from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Janssen, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Chavez-Mendoza has received a speaker fee from Novartis. Dr McMurray has received payments through Glasgow University from work on clinical trials, consulting, and other activities from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cardurion, Cytokinetics, GlaxoSmithKline, KBP Biosciences, and Novartis; has received personal consultancy fees from Alnylam Pharma, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, George Clinical PTY Ltd, Ionis Pharma, Novartis, Regeneron Pharma, and River 2 Renal Corporation; has received personal lecture fees from Abbott, Alkem Metabolics, AstraZeneca, 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 and Pharma Ltd, Lupin Pharma, Medscape/Heart.Org, ProAdWise Communications, Radcliffe Cardiology, Sun Pharma, The Corpus, Translation Research Group, and Translational Medicine Academy; and is a director of Global Clinical Trial Partners Ltd. Dr Lopes has received research support from Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, and Pfizer; and has received consulting fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Merck, Pfizer, and Portola. 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.)

Purpose: The objective of this meta-analysis is to determine how sacubitril/valsartan (SV) compares to equivalent and sub-equivalent angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)., Methods: The databases of PubMed and EMBASE were used to identify those randomized controlled trials which compared SV to ARB/ACEI in patients with HFrEF. Only those trials that reported outcomes regarding total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and worsening heart failure were considered. Meta-analysis was performed separately in those patients receiving equivalent doses of ARB/ACEI and those receiving sub-equivalent doses. Equivalent doses were SV 97/103 = valsartan 160 mg twice daily = enalapril 20 mg twice daily = ramipril 5 mg twice daily. Meta-analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.4., Results: Twelve randomized trials were identified involving 17,484 patients: 11,291 in the sub-equivalent group (8 trials) and 6193 in the equivalent group (4 trials). Meta-analyses showed there were no statistical differences regarding the outcomes of total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and worsening heart failure in the equivalent dosing group. However, SV reduced total mortality (risk ratio (RR) = 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.78-0.93, p < 0.001), cardiovascular mortality (RR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.73-0.90, p ≤ 0.001) and worsening heart failure (RR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.64-0.92, p = 0.005) in the sub-equivalent group., Conclusion: When compared to equivalent doses of ARB/ACEI, SV is not superior in reducing mortality and worsening heart failure. SV is superior when compared to sub-equivalent doses of ACEI., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

The purpose of this report is to describe the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan in 5 hemodialysis patients with hypertension, including a patient with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and a patient with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) focused on the functional changes in the heart. We switched from angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) to sacubitril/valsartan and compared blood pressure post dialysis, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-pro-BNP) levels and the findings of echocardiography for a period of 6 months. A month after the initiation of sacubitril/valsartan, there was improvement of symptoms and blood pressure post-dialysis, the NT-pro-BNP levels decreased from 23,132.2 ± 16,561.3 pg/mL to 8327 ± 3334.3 pg/mL, and the echocardiography findings showed a decrease in the left atrial dimension from 37.7 ± 5.7 mm to 33 ± 4.9 mm and an increase in the left ventricular ejection fraction from 58.2 ± 16.9% to 66.4 ± 15.0%. These results were sustained for up to 6 months. Also, blood pressure post-dialysis changed from 164 ± 11/77 mmHg to 150 ± 13/72 mmHg over the 6-month period. There were no side effects, such as hyperkalemia and lymphoedema. In conclusion, 5 patients had hypertension, including 2 patients with heart failure. Sacubitril/valsartan improved blood pressure post-dialysis, heart failure symptoms, NT-pro- BNP, the left atrial dimension, the left ventricular ejection fraction, and E/e', E/A found via echocardiography for a 6-months period. Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan was effective in hemodialysis patients in the cardiac function., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Japanese Society of Nephrology.)

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: 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.)

Aims: Cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) multimorbidity is prevalent among individuals with heart failure (HF), but whether cardiac structure and function, clinical outcomes, and treatment response to sacubitril/valsartan vary in relation to CKM status is unknown., Methods and Results: In this PARAGON-HF post-hoc analysis, we evaluated the impact of CKM multimorbidity (atherosclerotic cardiovascular [CV] disease, chronic kidney disease, and type 2 diabetes) on cardiac structure and function, clinical outcomes, and treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan. The primary outcome was a composite of total HF hospitalizations and CV death. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary outcome and a composite kidney outcome (sustained estimated glomerular filtration rate reduction of ≥50%, end-stage kidney disease, or kidney-related death). At baseline, 35.2% had one CKM condition, 33.3% had two, 15.9% had three, and only 15.6% had HF alone. CKM multimorbidity was associated with higher septal and posterior wall thickness, lower global longitudinal strain, higher E/e', and worse right ventricular function. Total HF hospitalizations or CV death increased with greater CKM multimorbidity, with the highest relative risk observed with three CKM conditions (rate ratio 3.06, 95% confidence interval 2.33-4.03), compared with HF alone. Treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan were consistent irrespective of the number of CKM conditions for the primary endpoint (p interaction  = 0.75), CV death (p interaction  = 0.82), total HF hospitalizations (p interaction  = 0.67), and the composite kidney endpoint (p interaction  = 0.99)., Conclusions: Cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic multimorbidity was common in PARAGON-HF and associated with adverse changes in cardiac structure and function and with a stepwise increase in risk of clinical outcomes. Treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan were consistent irrespective of CKM burden., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01920711., (© 2024 European Society of Cardiology.)

Purpose: Sacubitril/valsartan (SAC/VAL) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are recommended therapy for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but little is known about their real-world comparative effectiveness among patients with HFpEF. The objective of this study was to determine the comparative effectiveness of SAC/VAL vs ARBs in preventing HF-related hospitalization or all-cause hospitalization among patients with HFpEF., Methods: We conducted a cohort study using IBM MarketScan commercial and Medicare supplemental databases to identify patients aged 18 years or older with a diagnosis of HFpEF and initiation of SAC/VAL (2015-2020) or ARB (2009-2014) therapy. The index date was the date of the first SAC/VAL or ARB prescription fill. After propensity score (PS) matching with a ratio of 1 up to 3, Cox proportional hazards regression was used with robust variance estimators to compare the risks of HF-related hospitalization and all-cause hospitalization between the 2 therapies. Several subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted to check the robustness of the main analysis., Results: After PS matching, 2,520 patients (846 receiving SAC/VAL and 1,674 receiving an ARB) were included in the final analyses. After controlling for covariates, there was no difference in the risk of HF-related hospitalization between SAC/VAL and ARB recipients (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99-1.77). There was also no difference in the risk of all-cause hospitalization between SAC/VAL and ARB recipients (aHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.91-1.24)., Conclusion: Among individuals with private or Medicare Advantage insurance plans, there was no significant difference in the risk of HF-related hospitalization or all-cause hospitalization between adults with HFpEF who received SAC/VAL and those who received ARB therapy., (© American Society of Health-System Pharmacists 2024. 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: The Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) classification integrates both estimated glomerular filtration rate and urine-albumin-creatinine ratio to stratify risk more comprehensively in patients with chronic kidney disease. There are limited data assessing whether this classification system is associated with prognosis and treatment response in heart failure populations., Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the relative treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan across the KDIGO risk categories in patients with HFrEF., Methods: PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) was a global randomized controlled trial evaluating sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Patients were classified according to low, moderate, and high/very high KDIGO risk. Treatment responses were assessed according to baseline KDIGO risk. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death or heart failure hospitalization. A renal composite outcome was defined as sustained decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate by ≥40% or end-stage kidney disease., Results: Among 1,910 (23% of total) participants with available data, 42%, 32%, and 26% were classified as low, moderate, and high/very high KDIGO risk, respectively. Patients in the highest KDIGO risk categories experienced the highest rates of the primary composite outcome (7.6 per 100 person-years [95% CI: 6.5-9.0 per 100 person-years], 9.4 per 100 person-years [95% CI: 7.9-11.2 per 100 person-years], and 14.9 per 100 person-years [95% CI: 12.7-17.6 per 100 person-years]; P < 0.001). Sacubitril/valsartan had a similar safety profile and demonstrated consistent effects on the risk of both the primary outcome (P Interaction  = 0.31) and the renal composite outcome (P Interaction  = 0.50) across the spectrum of KDIGO risk., Conclusions: One in 4 patients with HFrEF were classified as at least high KDIGO kidney risk; these individuals faced concordantly the highest risks of CV events. Sacubitril/valsartan exhibited consistent CV and kidney protective benefits as well as safety across the spectrum of baseline kidney risk. These data further support initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in HFrEF across a broad range of kidney risk. (This Study Will Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Enalapril on Morbidity and Mortality of Patients With Chronic Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF]; NCT01035255)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures PARADIGM-HF was funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Dr Chatur is supported by the Canadian Arthur J.E. Child’s Cardiology Fellowship. Dr Neuen has received fees for advisory boards, steering committee roles, scientific presentations, and travel support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cambridge Healthcare Research, Cornerstone Medical Education, the Limbic, Medscape, and Janssen, with all honoraria paid to The George Institute for Global Health. Dr Claggett has been a consultant for Amgen, AO Biome, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corvia, Gilead, Myokardia, Cardurion, and Novartis. Dr Beldhuis is supported by the Junior Clinical Scientist Grant from the Dutch Heart Foundation; and her employer is supported by an unrestricted medical grant from Novartis. Dr Mc Causland has received research funding from NIDDK, Satellite Healthcare, Fifth Eye, Novartis, and Lexicon paid directly to his institution; has received consulting fees from GlaxoSmithKline and Zydus Therapeutics; and has received expert witness fees from Rubin-Anders Scientific. Dr Desai has received research grant support from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Alnylam, Bayer, and Novartis; and has received consulting fees and/or honoraria from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Alnylam, Axon Therapeutics, Avidity Biopharma, Bayer, Biofourmis, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Parexel, Regeneron, River2Renal, Roche, Verily, Veristat, and Zydus. Dr Rouleau has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca. Dr Zile has received fees for serving on a steering committee from Abbott and Ironwood Pharma; has received consulting fees from Boston Scientific and MyoKardia; has received grant support and fees for serving on a steering committee from CVRx and Medtronic; has received fees for serving on an eligibility committee from EBR Systems and V-Wave; has received fees for serving on a clinical events committee from Endotronics; and has received fees for serving on a data and safety monitoring board from Merck. Dr Lefkowitz is an employee of Novartis. Dr Packer has received consulting fees from 89bio, Abbvie, Actavis, Alderlyx, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Attralus, Boehringer Ingelheim, Caladrius, Casana, CSL Behring, Cytokinetics, Imara, Lilly, Medtronic, Moderna, Novartis, Pharmacosmos, Reata, Regeneron, Relypsa, and Salamandra. Dr McMurray has received grants and his employer paid by AstraZeneca, Theracos, and GlaxoSmithKline during the conduct of the study; has received grants and his employer being paid by Novartis, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Bayer, Abb-vie, Dal-Cor, Kidney Research UK, and Cardurion; and has received grants from British Heart Foundation. 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 consulted 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, CellProThera, Moderna, American Regent, Sarepta, Lexicon, Anacardio, Akros, and Puretech Health. Dr Vaduganathan has received research grant support, has served on advisory boards, or has 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 has participated on clinical trial committees for studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, Galmed, Novartis, Bayer AG, Occlutech, and Impulse Dynamics., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Aims: The PARACOR-19 randomized controlled trial (RCT) was designed to examine the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on markers of cardiac injury, inflammation, structure, and function among patients who have recovered from acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection., Methods and Results: PARACOR-19 was a single-centre, double-blind RCT of patients with cardiovascular risk factors and a history of COVID-19 infection 4-16 weeks prior to enrolment. Patients were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan (titrated to the maximum dose of 97/103 mg twice daily) versus matching placebo. Co-primary endpoints were change from baseline to 12 weeks in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) and soluble ST2 (sST2). Exploratory endpoints included change from baseline to 12 weeks in additional circulating biomarkers. Overall, 42 patients were randomized between August 2021 and March 2023 (n = 20 sacubitril/valsartan, n = 22 placebo). Median (25th-75 th ) time from COVID-19 diagnosis to enrolment was 67 (48-80) days. Median age was 67 (62-71) years, 48% were female, and 91% were White. Compared with placebo, sacubitril/valsartan did not have a significant effect on the co-primary endpoints of change from baseline in hs-TnT and sST2 (all p ≥ 0.29). In exploratory analyses, sacubitril/valsartan led to a 46% greater reduction in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and 51% greater reduction in C-terminal telopeptide of collagen type I (CITP). Permanent drug discontinuation occurred in four patients in the sacubitril/valsartan group and three patients in the placebo group. There were no deaths and one patient was hospitalized in each group., Conclusion: In this pilot RCT of patients who recovered from acute COVID-19, sacubitril/valsartan did not lower hs-cTnT or sST2 compared with placebo. Exploratory analyses suggested potential benefits of sacubitril/valsartan on cardiac wall stress and collagen turnover as measured by NT-proBNP and CITP. Sacubitril/valsartan was well tolerated., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04883528., (© 2024 European Society of Cardiology.)

Aim: Sacubitril/valsartan treatment reduces mortality and hospitalizations in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction but has limited application in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on peak oxygen consumption (VO 2 ) in patients with non-obstructive HCM., Methods and Results: This is a phase II, randomized, open-label multicentre study that enrolled adult patients with symptomatic non-obstructive HCM (New York Heart Association class I-III) who were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive sacubitril/valsartan (target dose 97/103 mg) or control for 16 weeks. The primary endpoint was a change in peak VO 2 . Secondary endpoints included echocardiographic measures of cardiac structure and function, natriuretic peptides and other cardiac biomarkers, and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure quality of life. Between May 2018 and October 2021, 354 patients were screened for eligibility, 115 patients (mean age 58 years, 37% female) met the study inclusion criteria and were randomly assigned to sacubitril/valsartan (n = 79) or control (n = 36). At 16 weeks, there was no significant change in peak VO 2 from baseline in the sacubitril/valsartan (15.3 [4.3] vs. 15.9 [4.3] ml/kg/min, p = 0.13) or control group (p = 0.47). No clinically significant changes were found in blood pressure, cardiac structure and function, plasma biomarkers, or quality of life., Conclusion: In patients with HCM, a 16-week treatment with sacubitril/valsartan was well tolerated but had no effect on exercise capacity, cardiac structure, or function., (© 2024 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: In patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), treatment with sacubitril-valsartan (S/V) may reverse left ventricular remodeling (rLVR). Whether this effect is superior to that induced by other renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors is not well known., Methods: HFrEF patients treated with S/V (n = 795) were compared, by propensity score matching, with a historical cohort of 831 HFrEF patients (non-S/V group) treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (RAS inhibitors). All patients were also treated with beta-blockers and shared the same protocol with repeat echocardiogram 8-12 months after starting therapy. The difference-in-difference (DiD) analysis was used to evaluate the impact of S/V on CR indices between the two groups., Results: After propensity score matching, compared to non-S/V group (n = 354), S/V group (n = 354) showed a relative greater reduction in end-diastolic and end-systolic volume index (ESVI), and greater increase in ejection fraction (DiD estimator =  + 5.42 mL/m 2 , P = 0.0005; + 4.68 mL/m 2 , P = 0.0009, and + 1.76%, P = 0.002, respectively). Reverse LVR (reduction in ESVI ≥ 15% from baseline) was more prevalent in S/V than in non-S/V group (34% vs 26%, P = 0.017), while adverse LVR (aLVR, increase in ESVI at follow-up ≥ 15%) was more frequent in non-S/V than in S/V (16% vs 7%, P < 0.001). The beneficial effect of S/V on CR over other RAS inhibitors was appreciable across a wide range of patient's age and baseline end-diastolic volume index, but it tended to attenuate in more dilated left ventricles (P for interaction = NS for both)., Conclusion: In HFrEF patients treated with beta-blockers, sacubitril/valsartan is associated with a relative greater benefit in LV reverse remodeling indices than other RAS inhibitors., (© 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.)

Aims: Patients with heart failure (HF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have a particularly high prevalence of comorbidities, often necessitating treatment with many medications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between polypharmacy status and outcomes in PARAGON-HF., Methods and Results: In this post hoc analysis, baseline medication status was available in 4793 of 4796 patients included in the primary analysis of PARAGON-HF. The effects of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with valsartan, were assessed according to the number of medications at baseline: 683 non-polypharmacy (<5 medications); 2750 polypharmacy (5-9 medications), and 1360 hyper-polypharmacy (≥10 medications). The primary outcome was total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular deaths. Patients with hyper-polypharmacy were older, had more severe limitations due to HF (worse New York Heart Association class and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores), and had greater comorbidity. The non-adjusted risk of the primary outcome was significantly higher in patients taking more medications, and similar trends were seen for HF hospitalization and cardiovascular and all-cause death. The effect of sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan on the primary outcome from the lowest to highest polypharmacy category was (as a rate ratio): 1.19 (0.76-1.85), 0.94 (0.77-1.15), and 0.77 (0.61-0.96) (p interaction  = 0.16). Treatment-related adverse events were more common in patients in the higher polypharmacy categories but not more common with sacubitril/valsartan, versus valsartan, in any polypharmacy category., Conclusions: Polypharmacy is very common in patients with HFpEF, and those with polypharmacy have worse clinical status and a higher rate of non-fatal and fatal outcomes. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was not diminished in patients taking a larger number of medications at baseline., (© 2024 European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Despite the established efficacy of vericiguat compared to placebo, uncertainties remain regarding its comparative efficacy to sacubitril/valsartan for patients with heart failure reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This study aimed to assess the relative efficacy of vericiguat and sacubitril/valsartan through a systematic review, network meta-analysis, and non-inferiority tests., Methods: A systematic review was conducted to identify the randomized phase 3 clinical trials involving vericiguat and sacubitril/valsartan. The hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for cardiovascular death (CVD) and hospitalization due to HF (hHF) were extracted from these trials and synthesized via network meta-analysis. Non-inferiority testing of vericiguat was performed using a fixed-margin method with a predefined non-inferiority margin (1.24). Sensitivity analyses explored the impact of the time from hHF to screening., Results: Among the 1366 studies, two trials (VICTORIA and PARADIGM-HF) met the inclusion criteria. Network meta-analysis demonstrated that the HR for CVD or hHF with vericiguat did not significantly differ from that for sacubitril/valsartan (HR: 0.88, 95% CI:0.62-1.23). The upper limit of the 95% CI was less than the predefined margin of 1.24, confirming vericiguat's non-inferiority to sacubitril/valsartan. Sensitivity analyses affirmed the robustness of the base-case results., Conclusion: Vericiguat exhibited a comparable risk of CVD or hHF when contrasted with sacubitril/valsartan. Importantly, in patients with HFrEF, vericiguat's efficacy was not statistically inferior to that of sacubitril/valsartan. These findings reinforce the potential of vericiguat as a viable treatment option for this patient population., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Kyungmin Lee is an employee of Bayer Korea. The authors indicate no other conflicts of interest regarding the content of this article. All authors take responsibility for all aspects of the reliability and freedom from bias of the data presented and their discussed interpretation., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

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.)

Heart failure (HF) is a significant public health concern characterized by notable rates of morbidity and mortality. Multimorbidity, ranging from 43% to 98% among HF patients, significantly impacts prognosis and treatment response. HF management requires a holistic approach, including guideline-directed medical therapy. Sacubitril/valsartan (angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor [ARNI]) is a cornerstone of HF treatment, supported by robust evidence from large-scale clinical trials across different levels of left ventricular ejection fraction. The recommendations presented in this paper have been developed by a group of cardiologists in India who convened in expert opinion meetings to discuss the utilization of ARNI in chronic HF patients with five different comorbid conditions like type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), chronic kidney disease, myocardial infarction (MI), obesity, and hypertension. Key focus areas include initiation, dose titration, and management across different HF phenotypes and comorbidities. Emphasis is placed on the efficacy of ARNI irrespective of glycemic status in the T2DM population, its role in HF patients with obesity, and addressing challenges related to renal function decline and hyperkalemia. Additionally, the document highlights ARNI's potential benefits in hypertensive and post-MI HF patients, alongside observations on the obesity paradox in HF prognosis. Overall, these recommendations aim to optimize ARNI therapy in HF patient populations with different comorbidities, addressing specific challenges and considerations to improve outcomes and quality of life.

Aims: Serial assessment of natriuretic peptides is widely utilized in heart failure clinics. Uncertainty exists regarding the value of multiple natriuretic peptide measurements and how they might be best interpreted., Methods and Results: Six hundred thirty-two patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (<40%) and complete biomarker data were enrolled to receive sacubitril/valsartan. Patients underwent periodic study visits during 1-year follow-ups. Echocardiographic data and cardiac biomarkers, including N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) were collected during study visits. Patients were categorized into three groups based on tertiles of baseline NT-proBNP levels. The area under the curve (AUC) of NT-proBNP measurements across study visits was calculated. Compared with patients with higher AUC (and thus higher concentrations over a longer period of time), those with lower AUC were younger, had a lower prevalence of chronic kidney disease, prior coronary artery bypass graft, atrial fibrillation, and higher body-mass index. A significant interaction existed between baseline NT-proBNP and subsequent AUC for predicting LVEF change across visits (P-value < 0.001): among those with lower baseline NT-proBNP, similar improvements in left ventricular (LV) volumes LV ejection fraction, and LV mass index were observed across subsequent AUC (P-value > 0.1). However, among those with higher baseline NT-proBNP, those with lower subsequent AUC had a greater improvement in cardiac remodelling indices (P-value < 0.05)., Conclusions: Serial NT-proBNP monitoring (integrating the totality of measurements as an AUC) during treatment with sacubitril/valsartan informs unique information regarding the future changes in cardiac remodelling indices, especially among those with higher NT-proBNP levels at baseline., (© 2023 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Sacubitril/Valsartan (Sac-Val) has improved clinical prognosis in patients affected by heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Comorbidities have a crucial impact on clinical presentation and prognosis in HF patients. Cognitive impairment (CoI) and Depression are a very common comorbidity in patients with HF and is widely recognized as a specific determinant of chronic disability, and HF patients with poor physical functional performance in Short physical performance battery (SPPB) showed a worse prognosis. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the potential effects of Sac-Val on functional, humoral, and cognitive aspects, evaluated by performing comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA), in a cohort of elderly HFrEF. We studied 61 patients (51 men and 10 women, mean age 76.4 ± 5.1 years) suffering from HFrEF. After 6 months follow-up, we observed a significant improvement in humoral and functional parameters of CGA, renal function, NTpro-BNP levels and echocardiographic parameters. In the whole population, multivariate analysis shows that changes of Cardiac Index, NT-proBNP and Respiratory rate contributed for 26.0%, 9.7% and 4.8% to GDS variability, respectively, and the whole model accounted for a 41.1% of GDS variation; moreover changes of Global longitudinal strain, estimated glomerular filtration rate, Cardiac Index and BMI contributed for 23.9%, 11.7%, 5.4% and 4.0% to SPPB variability, respectively, and the whole model accounted for a 45% of SPPB variation. This represents the first real-world study carried out in an elderly population suffering from chronic HFrEF with numerous comorbidities, in which treatment with Sac-Val for 6 months induced important improvements in clinical, humoral, hemodynamic, and functional outcomes, without adverse effects on cognitive performance., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Società Italiana di Medicina Interna (SIMI).)

Aims: Sub-analysis of a retrospective nation-wide observational analysis of heart failure (HF) epidemiology reported to the Czech National Registry of Reimbursed Health Services between 2012 and 2018 aimed at angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), angiotensin-II-receptor antagonists (ARB) and angiotensin receptor blocker/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) use., Methods and Results: ACEi and ARBs were generally used in 87.6% of all HF patients in 2012 (n=154 627); 84.5% in 2013 (n=170 861); 83.5% in 2014 (n=186 963); 81.6% in 2015 (n=198 844); 80.1% in 2016 (n=205 793); 78.0% in 2017 (n=212 152) and in 76.7% in 2018 (n=219 235). In a sub-analysis of patients with a medical procedure and/or examination using an I50.x ICD code accounted for in the given year, ACEi and ARBs were generally used in 99.3% in 2012 (n=63 250); 96% in 2013 (n=62 241); 95.2% in 2014 (n=64 414); 93.3% in 2015 (n=65 217); 91.8% in 2016 (n=65 236); 90.1% in 2017 (n=65 761) and in 88.6% in 2018 (n=66 332). In 2018, the majority of patients with HF were prescribed ramipril (n=49 909; 17.5%) and perindopril (n=44 332; 15.5%). The mostly prescribed ARBs in 2018 were telmisartan (n=18 669; 6.5%); losartan (n=13 935; 4.9%) and valsartan (n=4 849; 1.7%). In 24.5% of cases, ACEIs and ARBs were prescribed in a fixed combination with another drug. ARNI became gradually more prescribed from 2018 (n=9 659 in November 2020)., Conclusion: In an analysis of ACEIs, ARBs and ARNIs utilization in all patients treated for heart failure in the given year in the whole country, we found a comparable rate of drug prescription in comparison with specific heart failure registries. This indicates a good translation of current standard of care into common clinical practice. Ramipril and perindopril remained the mostly prescribed ACEIs and telmisartan became the mostly prescribed ARB. Since 2018, ARNIs began to be widely prescribed., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Aims: Sacubitril/valsartan is strongly supported in guidelines for the management of heart failure, but suboptimal adherence and treatment non-persistence may limit the population-level benefit that this therapy might otherwise offer., Methods and Results: We identified a cohort of Medicare beneficiaries (2014-2017) initiating sacubitril/valsartan after ≥6 months of continuous enrolment. We assessed adherence as the proportion of days covered (PDC) and proportion of patients non-persistent (having no prescription available) at 180 days after initiation. We fit a multivariable negative binomial model with a count of adherent days to evaluate independent factors associated with of sacubitril/valsartan adherence. Among 27 063 new sacubitril/valsartan users, most (n = 17 663, 65%) were prescribed low-dose at 24 mg/26 mg and most (n = 19 984, 74%) were switched from prior angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ACEi/ARB) rather than being RASi treatment naïve. Median 180-day PDC was 86% (25th-75th percentiles 58-98%). Black patients, those with high comorbid disease burden (≥8 comorbidities), and patients with recent hospitalization within 30 days had fewer adherent days, while those treated with preceding ACEi/ARB had more adherent days. Thirty-four percent of patients did not have an active sacubitril/valsartan prescription at day 180. Among these, few had preceding dose down-titrations (6% among patients on 49 mg/51 mg and 9% among patients on 97 mg/103 mg) and 68% did not have a subsequent ACEi/ARB prescription. Among patients who remained persistent, dose up-titrations occurred in 29% of patients who started on 24 mg/26 mg and 27% of patients on 49 mg/51 mg., Conclusions: Overall adherence to sacubitril/valsartan among Medicare beneficiaries is acceptable, but is lower in Black patients, those with higher comorbidities or those who started therapy after recent hospitalization. While broad implementation of guideline-directed medical therapy is a key priority, additional focused efforts to improve adherence early after hospitalization and among at-risk patients are needed in parallel., (© 2022 European Society of Cardiology.)

Besides the well-recognized risk factors, novel conditions increasing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality are emerging. Undesirable emotions and behavior such as anxiety and depression, appear to participate in worsening cardiovascular pathologies. On the other hand, deteriorating conditions of the heart and vasculature result in disturbed mental and emotional health. The pathophysiological background of this bidirectional interplay could reside in an inappropriate activation of vegetative neurohormonal and other humoral systems in both cardiovascular and psychological disturbances. This results in circulus vitiosus potentiating mental and circulatory disorders. Thus, it appears to be of utmost importance to examine the alteration of emotions, cognition, and behavior in cardiovascular patients. In terms of this consideration, recognizing the potential of principal cardiovascular drugs to interact with the mental state in patients with heart or vasculature disturbances is unavoidable, to optimize their therapeutic benefit. In general, beta-blockers, central sympatholytics, ACE inhibitors, ARBs, aldosterone receptor blockers, sacubitril/valsartan, and fibrates are considered to exert anxiolytic effect in animal experiments and clinical settings. Statins and some beta-blockers appear to have an equivocal impact on mood and anxiety and ivabradine expressed neutral psychological impact. It seems reasonable to suppose that the knowledge of a patient's mood, cognition, and behavior, along with applying careful consideration of the choice of the particular cardiovascular drug and respecting its potential psychological benefit or harm might improve the individualized approach to the treatment of cardiovascular disorders., (© 2022 The Authors. Medicinal Research Reviews published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Aims: Heart failure (HF) is a systemic inflammatory disorder with infections being an important cause of morbidity and mortality. We asked if HF patients have a higher susceptibility to infections compared with the general population and if a subtle secondary immunodeficiency facilitates infectious complications., Methods and Results: In a cohort of 92 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction, we analysed recirculating lymphocyte subpopulations, serum immunoglobulin levels, and specific antibody titres against pneumococcal antigens. We quantified susceptibility to infections of the respiratory tract with a validated questionnaire and compared it to the general population. Susceptibility to infections of the respiratory tract was comparable in HF patients and the general population. Hypogammaglobulinaemia was present in 16% of HF patients, but anti-pneumococcal titres showed no evidence of specific secondary antibody deficiency. Relative lymphopaenia in our HF cohort was due to B lymphocytopenia with a relative reduction in naive B-cells and expansion of memory B-cells while CD4+ and CD8+ T-lymphocytes as well as NK-cell counts were comparable between HF and healthy donors. The intake of the angiotensin receptor neprilysin (CD10) inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan was associated with increased B-lymphocyte counts, possibly by an increased output of CD10+ transitional B lymphocytes from the bone marrow., Conclusion: Despite a reduction of B lymphocytes in HF and mild hypogammaglobulinaemia, patients showed no evidence of secondary immunodeficiency or increased susceptibility to infections. The relevance of B-cell lymphopenia in HF patients and modulation of B-cell counts under ARNI treatment remains to be investigated., (© 2022 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Heart failure is associated with notable morbidity and mortality, and therefore, novel therapies are needed. This minireview focused on the effects and mechanisms of action of sacubitril/valsartan, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and vericiguat in heart failure patients. A systematic review of the current literature was conducted. Seventeen randomised clinical trials regarding the effects of these drug classes were included. The mechanism of action of each treatment could improve pathophysiological imbalances present in heart failure. All three drug classes revealed a reduction in hospitalisations for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes in patients with reduced ejection fraction. Sacubitril/valsartan also reduced hospitalisations and death from cardiovascular causes in patients with mid-range ejection fraction, but not in patients with preserved ejection fraction. The sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, sotagliflozin and empagliflozin, reduced hospitalisations and death from cardiovascular causes in heart failure patients with preserved ejection fraction. None of the three drug classes was associated with a higher prevalence of treatment discontinuation due to increases in adverse effects in large-scale randomised clinical trials compared with placebo. Further studies are required to clarify the extent of effects of these medications in different subpopulations-especially in patients with mid-range and preserved ejection fraction., (© 2022 The Authors. Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Nordic Association for the Publication of BCPT (former Nordic Pharmacological Society).)

Background: Sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), has demonstrated a survival benefit and reduces heart failure hospitalization in patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF); however, our experience in this field is limited. This study aimed to summarize a real clinical practice of the use of ARNI in HFrEF patients hospitalized due to HFrEF in the era before the 2021 ESC HF recommendations, as well as assess their clinical outcome with regard to ARNI administration., Methods and Materials: Overall, 613 patients with HFrEF hospitalized in 2018-2020 were enrolled into a retrospective one-centre cross-sectional analysis. The study population was categorized into patients receiving (82/13.4%) and not-receiving (531/82.6%) ARNI. Clinical outcomes defined as rehospitalization, number of rehospitalizations, time to the first rehospitalization and death from any cause were analysed in the 1-2 year follow-up in the ARNI and non-ARNI groups, matched as to age and LVEF., Results: Clinical characteristics revealed the following differences between ARNI and non-ARNI groups: A higher percentage of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) ( p = 0.014) and defibrillators with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-D) ( p = 0.038), higher frequency of atrial fibrillation ( p = 0.002) and history of stroke ( p = 0.024) were in the ARNI group. The percentage of patients with HFrEF NYHA III/IV presented an increasing trend to be higher in the ARNI (64.1%) as compared to the non-ARNI group (51.5%, p = 0.154). Incidence of rehospitalization, number of rehospitalizations and time to the first rehospitalization were comparable between the groups. There were no differences between the numbers of deaths of any cause in the ARNI (28%) and non-ARNI (28%) groups. The independent negative predictor of death in the whole population of ARNI and non-ARNI groups was the coexistence of coronary artery disease (CAD) (beta= -0.924, HR 0.806, p = 0.011)., Conclusions: Our current positive experience in ARNI therapy is limited to extremely severe patients with HFrEF. Regardless of the more advanced HF and HF comorbidities, the patients treated with ARNI presented similar mortality and rehospitalizations as the patients treated by standard therapy.

Aims: The angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), sacubitril/valsartan, confers additional protective effects compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers (ACEIs/ARBs) in terms of reversed left ventricular (LV) remodelling and improves the prognosis of patients with heart failure (HF). However, few studies have examined the effects of ARNI on the left atrium. Accordingly, this study compared the effects of ARNI and ACEI/ARB on left atrial (LA) remodelling in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)., Methods and Results: This was a single-centre retrospective study of patients with HFrEF hospitalized at the First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University between 26 February 2016 and 8 July 2020. Patients were classified into ARNI and ACEI/ARB groups and further subgroups based on the left atrial volume index (LAVI): mildly abnormal (29 mL/m 2  ≤ LAVI < 34 mL/m 2 ), moderately abnormal (34 mL/m 2  ≤ LAVI < 40 mL/m 2 ), and severely abnormal (LAVI ≥ 40 mL/m 2 ). The primary endpoint was changes in LA parameters by echocardiography. The secondary endpoint was all-cause mortality. A total of 336 patients (mean age: 64.11 ± 12.86, 30.06% female) were included. Except those lost to follow-up, 274 HFrEF patients remained, with 144 cases in the ARNI group and 130 cases in the ACEI/ARB group. Greater reductions from baseline were seen with ARNI in LA diameter (LAD) (P = 0.013, t-test), superior and LA superior-inferior diameter (LASID) (P < 0.0001), LA transverse diameter (LATD) (P < 0.0001), LA volume (LAV) (P < 0.0001), LAVI (P < 0.0001), and LA sphericity index (LASI) (P < 0.0001). Over a mean follow-up of 19.40 months, 97 patients (67.3%) in the ARNI group and 29 patients (22.3%) in the ACEI/ARB group showed LA reverse remodelling (LARR). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed significantly lower overall mortality in the ARNI group compared with the ACEI/ARB group (P = 0.048, log-rank test). The mildly abnormal LAVI group of ARNI patients showed a reduction in mortality compared with ACEI/ARB patients (P = 0.044). However, no significant difference was observed for the moderately abnormal (P = 0.571) or severely abnormal LAVI groups (P = 0.609), suggesting that early initiation of ARNI was associated with a better prognosis., Conclusions: In this proof-of-concept study, ARNI use showed greater effects on LARR and was associated with a better prognosis compared with ACEI/ARB use in HFrEF. Early initiation of ARNI in the HF disease process may produce greater benefit, but this needs to be confirmed in future studies., (© 2021 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Heart Failure (HF) is among the major causes of global morbidity as well as mortality. Increased prevalence, frequent and prolonged hospitalization, rehospitalization, long-term consumption of healthcare resources, absenteeism, and death upsurge the economic burden linked to HF. For decades, Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors (ACEIs), Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers (ARBs), Beta-Blockers (BBs), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), have remained the mainstay of the standard of care for HF management. Despite their proven efficacy and cost-effectiveness, HF remains a global pandemic and is still increasing in prevalence. Sacubitril/ Valsartan (SAC/VAL) is an Angiotensin Receptor/Neprilysin Inhibitor (ARNI) that proved out to be a game-changer drug in HF treatment. Recent data indicated that SAC/VAL is more efficient and can improve the overall quality of life of HF patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) with fewer side effects. It is now incorporated in the guidelines as an alternative to ACEIs or ARBs to lower morbidity in addition to mortality in HFrEF patients. This review article will discuss the current guidelines-approved indications and highlight the potential emerging indications, in addition to the currently ongoing clinical trials that will expand the use of SAC/VAL., (Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epub@benthamscience.net.)

Heart failure (HF) is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, has been approved for the treatment of HF. At present, there have been few systematic and detailed reviews discussing the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in HF. In this review, we first introduced the pharmacological mechanisms of sacubitril/valsartan, including the reduction in the degradation of natriuretic peptides in the natriuretic peptide system and inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system. Then, we summarized the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan in HF patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) including the reduction in risks of mortality and hospitalization, reversal of cardiac remodeling, regulation of biomarkers of HF, improvement of the quality of life, antiarrhythmia, improving renal dysfunction and regulation of metabolism. Finally, we discussed the safety and tolerability of sacubitril/valsartan in the treatment of HFrEF or HFpEF. Compared with ACEIs/ARBs or placebo, sacubitril/valsartan showed good safety and tolerability, although the risk of hypotension might be high. In conclusion, the overwhelming majority of studies show that sacubitril/valsartan is effective and safe in the treatment of HFrEF patients but that it has little benefit in HFpEF patients. Sacubitril/valsartan will probably be a promising anti-HF drug in the near future.

Purpose: Only a few studies are available on dose-related effects of sacubitril/valsartan (angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibition (ARNI)) in real-life patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We sought to investigate clinical and functional effects in real-life HFrEF patients receiving ARNI at a different cumulative dose., Methods: This was an observational study in consecutive outpatients admitted for HFrEF from October 2017 to June 2019. The PARADIGM criteria were needed for enrolment. ARNI was uptitrated according to blood pressure, drug tolerability, renal function and kaliemia. At least 10-month follow-up was required in each patient. Clinical assessment, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) score, 6-min walk test and strain echocardiography were performed in each patient on a regular basis during the observational period. At the end of the study, patients were divided into two groups based on the median yearly dose of the ARNI medication., Results: A total of 90 patients, 64 ± 11 years, 82% males, were enrolled. The cut-off dose was established in 75 mg BID, and the study population was divided into group A (≤ 75 mg), 52 patients (58%), and group B (> 75 mg), 38 patients (42%). The follow-up duration was 12 months (range 11-13). NYHA class, KCCQ score and 6MWT performance ameliorated in both groups, with a quicker time to benefit in group B. The proportion of patients walking > 350 m increased from 21 to 58% in group A (p < 0.001), and from 29 to 82% in group B (p < 0.001). A positive effect was also disclosed in the left ventricular remodelling, strain deformation and diastolic function., Conclusion: One-year ARNI treatment was effective in our real-life HFrEF patient population, leading to clinical and functional improvement in both study groups, slightly greater and with a shorter time to benefit in group B., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Sacubitril/valsartan, vericiguat, and the sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) dapagliflozin and empagliflozin proved effective in phase 3 trials on heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)., Methods: We compared the treatment arms (sacubitril/valsartan, vericiguat, and SGLT2i) with the respective control arms (standard-of-care [SOC]) through a network meta-analysis of the phase 3 trials (PARADIGM-HF, VICTORIA, DAPA-HF, EMPEROR-Reduced), a phase 2 trial on vericiguat and the HFrEF subgroup of DECLARE-TIMI 58., Results: There was a trend towards decreased risk of cardiovascular (CV) death or HF hospitalization with SGLT2i than sacubitril/valsartan (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.05) and vericiguat (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.94). A non-significant effect of SGLT2i on CV mortality compared to sacubitril/valsartan (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.24) and vericiguat (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.22) was found. SGLT2i demonstrated the greatest effect on HF hospitalization (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.77) over the SOC, as well as a significant benefit over vericiguat (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.89), but not over sacubitril/valsartan (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.02). SGLT2i were ranked as the most effective therapy, followed by sacubitril/valsartan and vericiguat., Conclusions: Based on an indirect comparison, SGLT2i therapy is not associated with a significantly lower risk of CV death or HF hospitalization or CV death alone compared to sacubitril/valsartan or vericiguat. The risk of HF hospitalization does not differ significantly between patients on SGLT2i or sacubitril/valsartan, while dapagliflozin is superior to vericiguat., Registration Number: PROSPERO ID 186351., (© 2020. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is an irreversible, progressive disease characterized by persistent kidney damage, and significantly increased risks of cardiovascular event. However, therapeutic strategies to prevent or slow the progression of CKD remain limited. Sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696), the representative of the first novel angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, has been incorporated into clinical practice guidelines for improving outcomes as a milestone in patients with heart failure. Considering the complex and close relationship between CKD and heart failure, LCZ696 may be beneficial in the treatment of CKD. This review summarizes the pharmacological mechanism and clinical application of LCZ696 in patients with CKD, including its effect on cardiovascular risk and renal outcome, together with potential adverse events. Additionally, due to the influence of serum creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate on LCZ696 in patients with heart failure, we also discussed the effects of LCZ696 in patients with advanced CKD and end-stage renal disease. It should be noted that, current clinical studies on LCZ696 are mostly carried out in patients with heart failure, and renal indicators are selected as secondary outcomes. Therefore, more researches should be conducted in patients with CKD alone in the future, to determine the efficacy and safety of LCZ696 in patients with CKD., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Aims: The aim of this study was to characterise clinical priority of adverse events with sacubitril/valsartan for targeting preventive measures., Methods: We used the US Food and Drug Administration adverse event reporting system (worldwide pharmacovigilance database) to compare adverse events recording sacubitril/valsartan as suspect with other cardiovascular drugs. Disproportionality analyses were performed by calculating the reporting odds ratios, deemed significant when the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval was greater than 1. Clinical priority was assigned to adverse events with significant disproportionality by scoring (range 0-10 points) five features (number of events, magnitude of the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval, mortality frequency, important/designated medical event, biological plausibility)., Results: Sacubitril/valsartan was recorded in 20,021 reports, with 178 adverse events associated with significant disproportionality: 71.9%, 25.9% and 2.2% were classified as weak, moderate and strong clinical priorities, respectively. Increased reporting emerged for several cardiovascular adverse events, including 'renal failure' (N = 388; lower limit of the 95% confidence interval 2.26), 'hyperkalaemia' (314; 2.42) and 'angioedema' (309; 1.56). Sudden cardiac death (priority score 9 points) was the only designated medical event with strong clinical priority. Notably, sudden cardiac death occurred early after sacubitril/valsartan administration (average onset 124 days), with concomitant drugs known for pro-arrhythmic potential (e.g. amiodarone, escitalopram, mirtazapine, loop diuretics) in 26.2% of records., Conclusion: The increased cardiovascular reporting of sacubitril/valsartan in the real world was largely predictable from pre-approval evidence, underlying disease and likely patients' comorbidities. The unexpected reporting of sudden cardiac death occurred well before the complete development of positive electrical remodelling induced by sacubitril/valsartan, and calls for stringent clinical monitoring (to reduce the pro-arrhythmic burden related to co-medications), and further investigation on appropriate combination with other preventive measures., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2020. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)