Search

Aims: This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in abnormal renal function (eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73m 2 ) patients combined with heart failure based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies., Methods: The Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant studies from inception to December 2023. Dichotomous variables were described as event counts with the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) values. Continuous variables were expressed as mean standard deviation (SD) with 95% CIs., Results: A total of 6 RCTs and 8 observational studies were included, involving 17335 eGFR below 60 ml/min/1.73m 2 patients combined with heart failure. In terms of efficacy, we analyzed the incidence of cardiovascular events and found that sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization in chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages 3-5 patients with heart failure (OR: 0.65, 95%CI: 0.54-0.78). Moreover, sacubitril/valsartan prevented the serum creatinine elevation (OR: 0.81, 95%CI: 0.68-0.95), the eGFR decline (OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.73-0.95) and the development of end-stage renal disease in this population (OR:0.73, 95%CI:0.60-0.89). As for safety outcomes, we did not find that the rate of hyperkalemia (OR:1.31, 95%CI:0.79-2.17) and hypotension (OR:1.57, 95%CI:0.94-2.62) were increased in sacubitril/valsartan group among CKD stages 3-5 patients with heart failure., Conclusions: Our meta-analysis proves that sacubitril/valsartan has a favorable effect on cardiac function without obvious risk of adverse events in abnormal renal function patients combined with heart failure, indicating that sacubitril/valsartan has the potential to become perspective treatment for these patients.

Background 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.)

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.)

Sepsis is a life-threatening situation that ultimately affects cardiac function, leading to cardiomyopathy and myocardial injury as a result of uncontrolled response to infection.Till now, there is limited effective treatment to rescue those cases. Thus, novel therapeutic strategies should be identified to achieve better outcomes for septic patients. For the first time, we aimed to evaluate the effect of sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) on sepsis-induced cardiac injury. Wistar male adult albino rats were randomly divided into four groups; Group I received the vehicle; Group II was given the vehicle plus 1 ml saline containing viable Escherichia coli (E. coli) (2.1 × 10 9  cfu) by intraperitoneal (i.p.) injection on the 1st and 2nd days; Group III received i.p. injection as group II plus oral administration of Sac/Val (30 mg/kg/day) and Nitro- ω-L-arginine (L-NNA) (25 mg/kg/day) for 7 days. Group IV was administered i.p. injection as group II plus oral administration of Sac/Val (30 mg/kg/day) for 7 days. Our data (n = 10) revealed successful induction of sepsis as it showed a significant increase in the measured cardiac enzymes, malondialdehyde (MDA), angiotensin II (Ang II), neprilysin, inflammasome, caspase 1, interleukin (IL)1β, and caspase 3 with cardiac histopathological changes, but there was a significant decrease in the antioxidants and blood pressure (BP). Co-administration of Sac/Val could obviously improve these changes. Interestingly, L-NNA given group showed a decrease in the cardioprotective effect of Sac/Val. Sac/Val could ameliorate sepsis induced cardiac damage via inhibition of Ang II and neprilysin with anti-inflammatory, anti-oxidant and anti-apoptotic properties., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Heart failure (HF) remains a huge medical burden worldwide, with aging representing a major risk factor. Here, we report the effects of sacubitril/valsartan, an approved drug for HF with reduced EF, in an experimental model of aging-related HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Eighteen-month-old female Fisher 344 rats were treated for 12 weeks with sacubitril/valsartan (60 mg/kg/day) or with valsartan (30 mg/kg/day). Three-month-old rats were used as control. No differential action of sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan alone, either positive or negative, was observed. The positive effects of both sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan on cardiac hypertrophy was evidenced by a significant reduction of wall thickness and myocyte cross-sectional area. Contrarily, myocardial fibrosis in aging heart was not reduced by any treatment. Doppler echocardiography and left ventricular catheterization evidenced diastolic dysfunction in untreated and treated old rats. In aging rats, both classical and non-classical renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) were modulated. In particular, with respect to untreated animals, both sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan showed a partial restoration of cardioprotective non-classical RAAS. In conclusion, this study evidenced the favorable effects, by both treatments, on age-related cardiac hypertrophy. The attenuation of cardiomyocyte size and hypertrophic response may be linked to a shift towards cardioprotective RAAS signaling. However, diastolic dysfunction and cardiac fibrosis persisted despite of treatment and were accompanied by myocardial inflammation, endothelial activation, and oxidative stress., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Macrophage polarisation-mediated inflammation plays a critical role in ventricular remodelling after myocardial infarction (MI). Sacubitril/Valsartan (Sac/Val) is an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor that has shown beneficial effects on MI and heart failure. This study aims to further explore the mechanisms by which Sac/Val exerts its protective effects against MI., Methods: A mouse MI model was induced by ligating the left anterior descending coronary artery, followed by Sac/Val administration. TTC staining and Masson trichrome staining were employed for estimating myocardial infarct size and fibrosis, respectively. The expression levels of proinflammatory factors were determined by ELISA and RT-qPCR. Flow cytometry and immunofluorescence staining were implemented to detect CD206-positive cell infiltration in mouse hearts. Western blotting was conducted to assess protein levels of Arg1, pro-fibrotic factors, and PI3K/Akt signalling-related markers., Results: Sac/Val treatment reduced myocardial infarct size and fibrosis in mice after MI. Sac/Val administration decreased proinflammatory cytokine production and facilitated M2 macrophage polarisation in MI mouse cardiac tissues. Sac/Val activated PI3K/Akt signalling in MI mouse hearts. Blocking PI3K/Akt signalling counteracted Sac/Val-mediated protective effects in MI mice., Conclusion: Sac/Val ameliorates MI-induced inflammation by facilitating M2 macrophage polarisation and activating PI3K/Akt signalling.

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 has been demonstrated to promote left ventricular (LV) reverse remodelling and improve outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF). Its molecular and tissue effects have not been fully elucidated yet, due to the paucity of preclinical studies, mostly based on ischaemic models. We aimed to evaluate the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on LV remodelling, myocardial fibrosis and mitochondrial biology in a murine model of non-ischaemic LV dysfunction., Methods: Adult transgenic male mice with cardiac-specific hyperaldosteronism (AS mice) received subcutaneous isoproterenol injections to induce LV systolic dysfunction. After 7 days, mice were randomized to a 2-week treatment with saline (ISO-AS n = 15), valsartan (ISO + V n = 12) or sacubitril/valsartan (ISO + S/V n = 12). Echocardiography was performed at baseline, at day 7, and after each of the 2 weeks of treatment. After sacrifice at day 21, histological and immunochemical assays were performed. A control group of AS mice was also obtained (Ctrl-AS n = 8)., Results: Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, but not with valsartan, induced a significant improvement in LVEF (p = 0.009 vs ISO-AS) and fractional shortening (p = 0.032 vs ISO-AS) after 2- week treatment. In both ISO + V and ISO + S/V groups, a trend toward reduction of the cardiac collagen 1/3 expression ratio was detected. ISO + V and ISO + S/V groups showed a significant recovery of mitochondrial morphology and inner membrane function meant for oxidative phosphorylation., Conclusion: In a murine model of non-ischaemic HF, sacubitril/valsartan proved to have beneficial effects on LV systolic function, and on cardiac energetics, by improving mitochondrial activity., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have nothing to declare., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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).)

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.)

Objectives: Intestinal ischemia reperfusion (IIR) is a critical emergency situation that needs immediate intervention. Small intestine is one of the most sensitive tissues to IR injury and it remains a highly morbid condition, with reported mortality rates ranging from 30% to 90%. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the suspected protective role of sacubitril/valsartan (SAC/VAL) on IIR injury., Methods: Thirty-two adult male Wistar rats were used in our model and divided into four groups: sham group, SAC/VAL treated group without IIR, IIR group, and SAC/VAL treated group with IIR. SAC/VAL in a dose of 30 mg/kg was administered orally just before induction of IIR., Key Findings: SAC/VAL significantly ameliorated IIR-induced changes as it decreased malondialdehyde (MDA), tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα), angiotensin II (ANG II), interleukin 6 (IL 6), active caspase 3, and signal transducer- and activator-of transcription (STAT1). However, SAC/VAL administration significantly increased antioxidant parameters such as total antioxidant capacity (TAC), superoxide dismutase (SOD), and reduced glutathione (GSH). Moreover, alteration of the histological structure was observed in IIR group that was improved by SAC/VAL., Conclusions: SAC/VAL prevents IIR-induced damage via modulation of renin angiotensin aldosterone system, antioxidant, anti-apoptotic, anti-inflammatory properties, and regulation of IL6/STAT1 pathway., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. 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.)

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).)

We aimed in this study to investigate the possible cardioprotective effects of sacubitril/valsartan against sunitinib-induced cardiac fibrosis (CF) and oxidative stress via targeting thioredoxin-interacting protein/thioredoxin (TXNIP/TRX) system and nuclear factor-kappa B (NF-κB)/Wingless-related MMTV integration site (Wnt)/β-catenin/Sex-determining region Y box 9 (SOX9) signaling. CF was induced in male Wistar albino rats by cumulative dose of sunitinib (300 mg/kg, given over 4 weeks as: 25 mg/kg orally, three times a week), which were co-treated with sacubitril/valsartan (68 mg/kg/day, orally) for four weeks. Significant elevation in blood pressure, cardiac inflammatory and fibrotic markers besides cardiac dysfunction were observed. These alterations were associated with disruption of TXNIP/TRX system, upregulation of NF-κB/Wnt/β-catenin/SOX9 pathway along with marked increase in lysyl oxidase (LOX) and matrix metalloproteinase-1 (MMP-1) expressions and extensive deposition of collagen fibers in cardiac tissues. Luckily, sacubitril/valsartan was able to reverse all of the aforementioned detrimental effects in sunitinib-administered rats. These findings illustrate a potential role of sacubitril/valsartan in alleviating CF and oxidative stress induced by sunitinib via antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic properties. These remarkable effects of sacubitril/valsartan were mediated by its ability to improve TXNIP/TRX system and downregulate NF-κB/Wnt/β-catenin/SOX9 signaling in addition to decreasing LOX and MMP-1 expressions in cardiac tissues. In summary, this study highlights sacubitril/valsartan as a potential therapeutic agent in mitigating CF and oxidative stress especially in cancer cases treated with sunitinib., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. 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.)

Introduction: The aim of this study was to investigate the role of sacubitril/valsartan in managing hypertension and cardiac remodeling in patients undergoing hemodialysis., Methods: Hemodialysis patients with stable blood pressure control were enrolled in the study. Sacubitril/valsartan was prescribed to replace previously used angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker or other antihypertensive drugs. During a 6-month follow-up period, pre-dialysis blood pressure, routine biochemical markers, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide levels were measured. Volume status was assessed using bioelectrical impedance analysis. Endothelial damage was evaluated by measuring asymmetric dimethylarginine expression, while echocardiography and life quality assessed by Short Form-12 Health Survey were conducted at baseline and after treatment., Results: The median daily dose of sacubitril/valsartan in 32 participants was 200 mg, and no obvious adverse reactions were reported. The defined daily dose of other antihypertensive drugs (baseline 2.00 ± 1.18, end point 1.46 ± 1.30, t = 3.216, p = 0.003) reduced significantly. After treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, left ventricular ejection fraction significantly increased from 64.81 ± 8.16% to 67.55 ± 5.85% (t = -4.022, p ≤ 0.001) and the thickness of posterior wall of the left ventricle reduced from 1.05 ± 0.14 cm to 1.00 ± 0.11 cm (t = 2.063, p = 0.048). The interventricular septal thickness (baseline 1.08 ± 0.16 cm, endpoint 1.02 ± 0.12 cm, t = 2.260, p = 0.031) remarkably reduced by the end of follow-up. The tricuspid regurgitation pressure gradient decreased from 28.47 ± 8.26 mm Hg at baseline to 23.79 ± 6.61 mm Hg (t = 2.531, p = 0.020) after treatment., Conclusion: Sacubitril/valsartan effectively manages hypertension in hemodialysis patients and may also independently improve left ventricular hypertrophy and systolic function, regardless of changes in the blood pressure or the volume load., (© 2024 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: Sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) is a widely used drug for hypertension in Asia, popular for its efficacy and safety. However, there has been no comprehensive literature review comparing it with olmesartan. This meta-analysis compared the antihypertensive and adverse effects of sacubitril/valsartan and olmesartan., Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The data were then analyzed and processed using Revman 5.4 and Stata SE14 software., Results: Six RCTs with 4,127 patients were identified, showing that LCZ696 had better blood pressure control than olmesartan; mean sitting systolic and diastolic blood pressure, sitting pulse pressure, 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure, and 24-hour ambulatory diastolic blood pressure were significantly decreased with LCZ696 compared with olmesartan. No significant difference between LCZ696 and olmesartan was observed in the occurrence of the majority of adverse events, with a decreased probability of headache in patients with sacubitril/valsartan compared with olmesartan. The subgroup analysis showed treatment with 400 mg/d LCZ696 was better than olmesartan in reducing serious adverse events., Conclusions: Sacubitril/valsartan was better than olmesartan in controlling blood pressure in patients with hypertension, with relatively higher safety., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction are associated with significant morbidity and mortality, as well as growing economic burden. This review describes recent studies on the use of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure patients with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction.

Aims: In recent years, survival in patients with breast cancer has increased. Despite the improvement in outcomes of those patients, the risk of treatment-related cardiotoxicity remains high, and its presence has been associated with a higher risk of treatment termination and thus lower therapeutic efficacy. Prior trials demonstrated that a preventive initiation of heart failure drugs, including the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone inhibitors, might reduce the risk of treatment-related cardiotoxicity. However, to date, no study investigated the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan, a novel antineurohormonal drug shown to be superior to the previous therapies, in the prevention of cardiotoxicity in patients with early-stage breast cancer, which is the aim of the trial., Methods and Results: MAINSTREAM is a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicentre, clinical trial. After the run-in period, a total of 480 patients with early breast cancer undergoing treatment with anthracyclines and/or anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 drugs will be randomized to the highest tolerated dose of sacubitril/valsartan, being preferably 97/103 mg twice daily or placebo in 1:1 ratio. The patients will be monitored, including routine transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and laboratory biomarker monitoring, for 24 months. The primary endpoint of the trial will be the occurrence of a decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction by ≥5% in TTE within 24 months. The key secondary endpoints will be the composite endpoint of death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure, as well as other imaging, laboratory, and clinical outcomes, including the occurrence of the cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction resulting in the necessity to initiate treatment. The first patients are expected to be recruited in the coming months, and the estimated completion of the study and publication of the results are expected in December 2027, pending recruitment., Conclusions: The MAINSTREAM trial will determine the efficacy and safety of treatment with sacubitril/valsartan as a prevention of cardiotoxicity in patients with early breast cancer (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT05465031)., (© 2023 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: A novel tool for the evaluation of left ventricular (LV) systo-diastolic function through echo-derived haemodynamic forces (HDFs) has been recently proposed. The present study aimed to assess the predictive value of HDFs on (i) 6 month treatment response to sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients and (ii) cardiovascular events., Methods and Results: Eighty-nine consecutive HFrEF patients [70% males, 65 ± 9 years, LV ejection fraction (LVEF) 27 ± 7%] initiating sacubitril/valsartan underwent clinical, laboratory, ultrasound and cardiopulmonary exercise testing evaluations. Patients experiencing no adverse events and showing ≥50% reduction in plasma N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and/or ≥10% LVEF increase over 6 months were considered responders. Patients were followed up for the composite endpoint of HF-related hospitalisation, atrial fibrillation and cardiovascular death. Forty-five (51%) patients were responders. Among baseline variables, only HDF-derived whole cardiac cycle LV strength (wLVS) was higher in responders (4.4 ± 1.3 vs. 3.6 ± 1.2; p = 0.01). wLVS was also the only independent predictor of sacubitril/valsartan response at multivariable logistic regression analysis [odds ratio 1.36; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10-1.67], with good accuracy at receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis [optimal cutpoint: ≥3.7%; area under the curve (AUC) = 0.736]. During a 33 month (23-41) median follow-up, a wLVS increase after 6 months (ΔwLVS) showed a high discrimination ability at time-dependent ROC analysis (optimal cut-off: ≥0.5%; AUC = 0.811), stratified prognosis (log-rank p < 0.0001) and remained an independent predictor for the composite endpoint (hazard ratio 0.76; 95% CI 0.61-0.95; p < 0.01), after adjusting for clinical and instrumental variables., Conclusions: HDF analysis predicts sacubitril/valsartan response and might optimise decision-making in HFrEF patients., (© 2023 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: The PARAGLIDE-HF trial demonstrated reductions in natriuretic peptides with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in patients with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction who had a recent worsening HF event, but was not adequately powered to examine clinical outcomes. PARAGON-HF included a subset of PARAGLIDE-HF-like patients who were recently hospitalized for HF. Participant-level data from PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF were pooled to better estimate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in reducing cardiovascular and renal events in HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction., Methods and Results: Both PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF were multicentre, double-blind, randomized, active-controlled trials of sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan in patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF >40% in PARAGLIDE-HF and ≥45% in PARAGON-HF). In the pre-specified primary analysis, we pooled participants in PARAGLIDE-HF (all of whom were enrolled during or within 30 days of a worsening HF event) with a 'PARAGLIDE-like' subset of PARAGON-HF (those hospitalized for HF within 30 days). We also pooled the entire PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF populations for a broader context. The primary endpoint for this analysis was the composite of total worsening HF events (including first and recurrent HF hospitalizations and urgent visits) and cardiovascular death. The secondary endpoint was the pre-specified renal composite endpoint for both studies (≥50% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate from baseline, end-stage renal disease, or renal death). Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced total worsening HF events and cardiovascular death in both the primary pooled analysis of participants with recent worsening HF [n = 1088; rate ratio (RR) 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.99; P = 0.042] and in the pooled analysis of all participants (n = 5262; RR 0.86; 95% CI: 0.75-0.98; P = 0.027). In the pooled analysis of all participants, first nominal statistical significance was reached by Day 9 after randomization, and treatment benefits were larger in those with LVEF ≤60% (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.66-0.91) compared with those with LVEF >60% (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.86-1.40; Pinteraction = 0.021). Sacubitril/valsartan was also associated with lower rates of the renal composite endpoint in the primary pooled analysis [hazard ratio (HR) 0.67; 95% CI 0.43-1.05; P = 0.080] and the pooled analysis of all participants (HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.44-0.83; P = 0.002)., Conclusion: In pooled analyses of PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF, sacubitril/valsartan reduced cardiovascular and renal events among patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. These data provide support for use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction, particularly among those with an LVEF below normal, regardless of care setting., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Some patients with heart failure may experience transient changes in kidney function upon transition to sacubitril/valsartan. Whether such changes portend adverse outcomes or influence long-term treatment benefits with sacubitril/valsartan continuation is unknown., Objectives: This investigation aimed to evaluate the association between the occurrence of moderate estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline (>15%) after initial exposure to sacubitril/valsartan and subsequent cardiovascular outcomes and its treatment benefits in PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF., Methods: In sequential run-in phases, patients were titrated to enalapril 10 mg twice daily and then sacubitril/valsartan 97 mg/103 mg twice daily (in PARADIGM-HF) or valsartan 80 mg twice daily and then sacubitril/valsartan 49 mg/51 mg twice daily (in PARAGON-HF)., Results: Among randomized participants, 11% in PARADIGM-HF and 10% in PARAGON-HF experienced eGFR decline (>15%) during sacubitril/valsartan run-in. eGFR partially recovered (from nadir to postrandomization week 16) regardless of sacubitril/valsartan continuation or switch to renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi) postrandomization. Initial eGFR decline was not consistently associated with clinical outcomes in either trial. Treatment benefits of sacubitril/valsartan vs RASi on primary outcomes were similar irrespective of run-in eGFR decline in PARADIGM-HF (eGFR decline, HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.53-0.90; and no eGFR decline, HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.73-0.88; P interaction  = 0.32) and PARAGON-HF (eGFR decline, rate ratio [RR]: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.52-1.36 and no eGFR decline, RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.75-1.02, P interaction  = 0.92). The treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan remained consistent across a range of eGFR declines., Conclusions: Moderate eGFR decline when transitioning from RASi to sacubitril/valsartan is not consistently associated with adverse outcomes, and its long-term benefits are retained in heart failure across a broad range of eGFR declines. Early eGFR changes should not deter continuation of sacubitril/valsartan or stall uptitration. (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711; Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitors with Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF]; NCT01035255)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF were funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Dr Chatur is supported by the Arthur J.E. Child Scholarship from the Libin Cardiovascular Institute of Alberta. Dr Claggett has served as consultant for Amgen, AO Biome, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corvia, Gilead, Myokardia, Cardurion, and Novartis. Dr McCausland is supported by grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases grants and Satellite Healthcare; and has received research funding paid directly to his institution from Advanced Medical and Fifth Eye. Dr Rouleau has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca. Dr Zile has received fees for serving on steering committees from Abbott and Ironwood Pharma; has received consulting fees from Boston Scientific and MyoKardia; has received grant support and fees for serving on steering committees from CVRx and Medtronic; has received fees for serving on eligibility committees 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 Packer has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Akcea Therapeutics, Actavis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardiorentis, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead Sciences, Johnson & Johnson, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Relypsa, Sanofi, Synthetic Biologics, and Theravance Biopharma. Dr Pfeffer has received grants, paid to his institution, for serving on the Steering Committee of PARAGON-HF and for serving as Study Chair of PARADISE-MI from Novartis; has received personal fees for consulting from AstraZeneca, CinCor, Corvidia, DalCor, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, NovoNordisk, Pharmascience, and Sanofi; and owns stock options in DalCor. Dr Lefkowitz is an employee of Novartis. Dr McMurray has received payments through Glasgow University from work on clinical trials, consulting, and other activities from Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Cardurion, Cytokinetics, DalCor, GSK, Ionis, KBP Biosciences, Novartis, Pfizer, and Theracos; and has received 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, BMS, Celladon, Cytokinetics, Eidos, Gilead, GSK, Ionis, Lilly, Mesoblast, MyoKardia, NIH/NHLBI, Neurotronik, Novartis, NovoNordisk, Respicardia, Sanofi Pasteur, Theracos, and US2.AI; and has consulted for Abbott, Action, Akros, Alnylam, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boeringer Ingelheim, BMS, Cardior, Cardurion, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Daiichi-Sankyo, GSK, 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 grants, serves on advisory boards, or participated in speaking engagements for American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter Healthcare, Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cytokinetics, Novo Nordisk, Relypsa, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, and Tricog Health; and participates in clinical trial committees for studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, Occlutech, Impulse Dynamics, Galmed, Bayer AG, and Novartis., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This phase III study assessed the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared with those of olmesartan in Japanese patients with essential hypertension. Patients (n = 1161, aged ≥20 years) with mild to moderate hypertension (mean sitting systolic blood pressure [msSBP] ≥150 to <180 mmHg) were randomized to receive sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg (n = 387), sacubitril/valsartan 400 mg (n = 385), or olmesartan 20 mg (n = 389) once daily for 8 weeks. The primary assessment was a reduction in msSBP from baseline with sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg vs. olmesartan 20 mg at Week 8. Secondary assessments included msSBP reduction with sacubitril/valsartan 400 mg vs. olmesartan at Week 8 and reductions in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (msDBP), mean sitting pulse pressure (msPP), and overall blood pressure (BP) control rate for all treatment groups at Week 8. Sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg provided a significantly greater reduction in msSBP from baseline than olmesartan at Week 8 (between-treatment difference: -5.01 mmHg [95% confidence interval: -6.95 to -3.06 mmHg, P < 0.001 for noninferiority and superiority]). Greater reductions in msSBP with sacubitril/valsartan 400 mg vs. olmesartan, as well as in msDBP and msPP with both doses of sacubitril/valsartan vs. olmesartan (P < 0.05 for all), were also observed. Patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan achieved an overall higher BP control rate. The safety and tolerability profiles of sacubitril/valsartan were generally comparable to those of olmesartan. The adverse event rate with sacubitril/valsartan was not dose-dependent. Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan was effective and provided superior BP reduction, with a higher proportion of patients achieving target BP goals than treatment with olmesartan in Japanese patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Aims: The angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), sacubitril/valsartan, has been shown to be effective in treatment of patients with heart failure (HF), but limited data are available in patients with advanced disease. This retrospective observational study assessed the effects of ARNI treatment in patients with advanced HF., Methods and Results: We reviewed medical records of all advanced HF patients evaluated at our centre for unconventional therapies from September 2016 to January 2019. We studied 44 patients who started ARNI therapy and who had a haemodynamic assessment before beginning ARNI and after 6 ± 2 months. The primary endpoint was variation in pulmonary pressures and filling pressures at 6 months after starting ARNI therapy. Mean patient age was 51.6 ± 7.4 years; 84% were male. At 6 ± 2 months after starting ARNI, there was significant reduction of systolic pulmonary artery pressure [32 mmHg, interquartile range (IQR) 27-45 vs. 25 mmHg, IQR 22.3-36.5; P < 0.0001] and mean pulmonary artery pressure (20 mmHg, IQR 15.3-29.8 vs. 17 mmHg, IQR 13-24.8; P = 0.046). Five of 22 patients (23%) were deferred from the heart transplant list because of improvement, whereas four were listed de novo. After 23 ± 9 months, three patients were treated with a left ventricular assist device implantation, whereas six patients underwent heart transplantation (one in emergency conditions for refractory ventricular tachycardia)., Conclusions: Sacubitril/valsartan is effective in reducing filling pressures and pulmonary pressures in patients with advanced HF. The absence of adverse events during follow-up suggests that sacubitril/valsartan is safe and well-tolerated in this cohort of patients., (© 2022 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Chagas cardiomyopathy is the most prevalent non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy in Latin America, with high morbidity and mortality even today. Treatment of these patients is based on the use of medications for heart failure. This study evaluated a case series of patients with Chagas heart disease who used sacubitril/valsartan at a referral hospital for this disease in Brazil. After 6 months, there was a symptomatic improvement in these individuals assessed by the New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, with a 44.3% reduction in the absolute number of patients classified as III-IV in the period (P = 0.035), but without changes in the parameters on the echocardiogram for reverse ventricular remodelling. There was a high mortality rate and number of hospitalizations. These results emphasize the importance of studying the use of sacubitril/valsartan in Chagas heart disease to better describe its effectiveness considering the particularities of these individuals., (© 2021 British Pharmacological Society.)

The therapeutic effect of sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) on heart failure has been confirmed, while its role in atherosclerosis remains largely unexplored. The present study aimed to investigate the effects of S/V on the expression of metastasis‑associated lung adenocarcinoma transcript 1 (MALAT1), inflammation and apoptosis in human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) induced by oxidized low‑density lipoprotein (ox‑LDL) and to elucidate its possible mechanism. Cell Counting Kit‑8 assay was used to detect cell viability. Reverse transcription‑quantitative PCR was performed to detect the MALAT1 expression. ELISA was performed to detect the levels of IL‑1β, IL‑6 and TNF‑α. Flow cytometry was conducted to detect the apoptotic rate of cells. A nitric oxide (NO) detection kit was used to determine the concentration of NO. Western blotting analysis was performed to determine the levels of intercellular cell adhesion molecule (ICAM)‑1, vascular cell adhesion molecule (VCAM)‑1, endothelin‑1, caspase‑3, Bax, Bcl‑2, Toll‑like receptor 4 (TLR4), p65 and p‑p65. Compared with the ox‑LDL group, S/V treatment significantly increased the cell viability, NO concentration and Bcl‑2 expression, decreased the levels of IL‑1β, IL‑6 and TNF‑α and reduced the expressions of MALAT1, ICAM‑1, VCAM‑1, cleaved‑caspase‑3, Bax, TLR4 and p‑p65. Overall, the findings suggested that S/V could downregulate the expression of MALAT1, inhibit inflammation and apoptosis and improve endothelial function in ox‑LDL‑induced HUVECs via inactivating the TLR4/NF‑κB signaling pathway. Therefore, S/V might be utilized as a promising therapeutic strategy for the prevention and treatment of atherosclerosis.

Aims: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is a fatal disease identified by progressive elevated pulmonary arterial pressure, which neurohormonal activation is a notable contributor to its development. Sacubitril/valsartan is a complex of sacubitril [via enhancing the natriuretic peptide (NP) system] and valsartan [via blocking the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS)]. Regulation of the two neurohormonal system had been shown to attenuate PH. This study was to explore the role of sacubitril/valsartan in both monocrotaline (MCT)-induced and hypoxia-induced rat models and the underlying mechanism., Main Methods: The rats were treated with MCT or hypoxic environment for 14 days, after that sacubitril/valsartan were given for another 14 days. Hemodynamic measurements and histological assessments were performed. The expression of NPs was measured using RT-PCR and ELISA, while the protein level of natriuretic peptide receptors (NPRs) and AT1 receptor were detected by western blot, the concentrations of cGMP, IL-1β, IL-6, TNF-α and TGF-β1 were tested by ELISA., Key Findings: We found that sacubitril/valsartan significantly improved the hemodynamic and histological data of two PH models. Sacubitril/valsartan suppressed the protein expression of AT1 receptor (P < 0.05). The intervention increased the expression of ANP and CNP (P< 0.05) and therefore upregulated the protein expression of NPRs (P < 0.05), raised the concentration of cGMP (P < 0.05). In addition, the treatment reduced the concentration of IL-1β, IL-6 and TNF-α (P < 0.05) but have no effects on TGF-β1., Significance: Sacubitril/valsartan alleviated PH in MCT-induced and hypoxia-induced rat models by inhibiting the activated RAAS, promoting ANP/NPR-A/cGMP and CNP/NPR-B/cGMP pathway, restoring the NPR-C signaling and the anti-inflammatory effects., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite the progress in the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the prognosis remains unfavorable., Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness, tolerance and safety after one-year follow-up of Polish patients with stable chronic HFrEF treated with sacubitril/valsartan., Material and Methods: This was an observational multicenter study conducted in 3 centers (Kraków, Łódź and Warszawa) specializing in heart failure (HF). We enrolled 89 HFrEF patients (aged 59.3 ±13.5 years, 82% males) in NYHA class II-IV (ambulatory). Clinical, laboratory and echocardiographic parameters were evaluated at baseline and after a one-year follow-up. The composite endpoint was defined as death or urgent HF hospitalization., Results: After 1 year, 80% of patients used 50% or more of the target dose of sacubitril/valsartan. After a year of treatment, there were significant improvements of HF symptoms, N-terminal prohormone B-type natriuretic peptide (NT proBNP), ejection fraction (EF), and distance in six-minute walk test (6MWP) (all p < 0.001). Patients treated with the highest dose of sacubitril/valsartan exhibited the greatest benefits. The safety profile was favorable and consistent with that previously reported; however, therapy discontinuation due to side effects occurred in 11% of patients. The independent predictors for composite endpoint (n = 24, 26.9%) were history of HF hospitalization, tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) and angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor (ACEI)-naive patients., Conclusions: Treatment of chronic HFrEF patients with sacubitril/valsartan is safe and is associated with significant clinical and objective improvement. The non-survivors had more advanced HF, so the initiation and uptitration of sacubitril/valsartan should be done early.

The sacubitril/valsartan combination is an important agent used in the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Pulmonary artery stiffness (PAS) is an index developed to evaluate the pulmonary vascular bed. Changes in pulmonary vascular structures in HFrEF patients can affect PAS. In this study, we aimed to investigate the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on PAS in HFrEF patients. One hundred fifty HFrEF patients, who received sacubitril/valsartan therapy and continued for at least 6 months without interruption, were examined retrospectively. N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels (NT-proBNP), NYHA classes, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLWHFQ) scores, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classes and echocardiograpic parameters such as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP), right ventricle myocardial performance index (RV-MPI), Tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), right ventricular fractional area change (RV-FAC) and PAS changes were evaluated before and 6 months after sacubitril/valsartan treatment. PAS was calculated by using the maximal frequency shift and acceleration time of the pulmonary artery flow trace measured in the echocardiogram. PAS values were significantly reduced (23.8 ± 2.8 vs 19.1 ± 3.1 kHz/ms, p < 0.001) after the sacubitril/valsartan treatment. Sacubitril/valsartan treatment was associated with significant improvements in NYHA class and MLWHFQ scores; significant reductions in the NT-proBNP levels, mPAP, and RV-MPI, and significant increases in LVEF, TAPSE, and RV-FAC (p < 0.05). The significant reduction in the PAS value was significantly correlated with the improvements in the MLWFQ scores, NT-proBNP levels, mPAP, RV-MPI, TAPSE and RV-FAC. In HFrEF patients, switching from angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker therapy to sacubitril/valsartan may result in reduction in PAS.

Background: Sacubitril/valsartan was shown to be superior to enalapril in the Prospective Comparison of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor with an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) study. However, the study design raised uncertainty about the potential real-world tolerability amongst less well selected cohorts. We aimed to examine the real-world tolerability and factors associated with successful titration of sacubitril/valsartan., Methods: We performed a retrospective single centre analysis in a tertiary referral centre of 235 consecutive patients prescribed sacubitril/valsartan between August 2016 and January 2018., Results: At baseline, our patients were younger, had lower baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP), reduced ischaemic aetiology and a higher rate of mineralocorticoids receptor antagonist compared to PARADIGM-HF. At last assessment, 120 patients (51%) reached target dose (97/103 mg bi-daily [BD]), 67 patients (29%) were stable on a mid-range dose (≥49/51 mg BD), 22 patients (9%) tolerated the low dose (24/26 mg BD) and 26 patients (11%) discontinued, comparable to PARADIGM-HF. Adverse effects were similar to PARADIGM-HF and hypotension remained the primary reason of sub-maximal titration. Several baseline characteristics were associated with successful titration to target dose including; higher baseline body mass index, systolic blood pressure (SBP) and sodium, male gender and treatment coordinated by multidisciplinary heart failure (HF) clinic., Conclusion: Comparable results to PARADIGM-HF in attaining target dose of sacubitril/valsartan and tolerability profile can be achieved in a real-world setting. Several baseline characteristics involving patient factors, markers of disease severity and systems of care predict successful titration to the target dose 97/103 mg BD., (Crown Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin II Receptor Blocker Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial reported that sacubitril/valsartan (S/V), an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, significantly reduced mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, fewer than 1% of patients in the PARADIGM-HF study had New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class IV symptoms. Accordingly, data that informed the use of S/V among patients with advanced HF were limited. The LIFE (LCZ696 in Hospitalized Advanced Heart Failure) study was a 24-week prospective, multicenter, double-blinded, double-dummy, active comparator trial that compared the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of S/V with those of valsartan in patients with advanced HFrEF. The trial planned to randomize 400 patients ≥18 years of age with advanced HF, defined as an EF ≤35%, New York Heart Association functional class IV symptoms, elevated natriuretic peptide concentration (B-type natriuretic peptide [BNP] ≥250 pg/ml or N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP] ≥800 pg/ml), and ≥1 objective finding of advanced HF. Following a 3- to 7-day open label run-in period with S/V (24 mg/26 mg twice daily), patients were randomized 1:1 to S/V titrated to 97 mg/103 mg twice daily versus 160 mg of V twice daily. The primary endpoint was the proportional change from baseline in the area under the curve for NT-proBNP levels measured through week 24. Secondary and tertiary endpoints included clinical outcomes and safety and tolerability. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, enrollment in the LIFE trial was stopped prematurely to ensure patient safety and data integrity. The primary analysis consists of the first 335 randomized patients whose clinical follow-up examination results were not severely impacted by COVID-19. (Entresto [LCZ696] in Advanced Heart Failure [LIFE STUDY] [HFN-LIFE]; NCT02816736)., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background/aims: The persistent existence of pathological cardiac remodeling, resulting from aortic stenosis, is related to poor clinical prognosis after successful transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val), comprising an angiotensin receptor blocker and a neprilysin inhibitor, has been demonstrated to have a beneficial effect against pathological cardiac remodeling, including cardiac fibrosis and inflammation in heart failure. The aim of this study was to determine whether Sac/Val exerts a cardioprotective effect after pressure unloading in mice., Methods and Results: Male C57BL/6 J mice were subjected to debanding (DB) surgery after 8 weeks (wk) of aortic banding (AB). Cardiac function was assessed by echocardiography, which indicated a protective effect of Sac/Val after DB. After treatment with Sac/Val post DB, decreased heart weight and myocardial cell size were observed in mouse hearts. In addition, histological analysis, immunofluorescence, and western blot results showed that Sac/Val attenuated cardiac fibrosis and inflammation after DB. Finally, our data indicated that Sac/Val treatment could significantly suppress NF-κB signaling and NLRP3 inflammasome activation in mice after relief of pressure overload., Conclusion: Sac/Val exerted its beneficial effects to prevent maladaptive cardiac fibrosis and dysfunction in mice following pressure unloading, which was at least partly due to the inhibition of NLRP3 inflammasome activation.

During the last three decades, timely myocardial reperfusion using either thrombolytic therapy or primary percutaneous intervention (pPCI) has allowed amazing improvements in outcomes with a more than halving in 1-year ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) mortality. However, mortality and left ventricle (LV) remodeling remain substantial in these patients. As such, novel therapeutic interventions are required to reduce myocardial infarction size, preserve LV systolic function, and improve survival in reperfused-STEMI patients. Myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury (MIRI) prevention represents the main goal to reach in order to reduce STEMI mortality. There is currently no effective therapy for MIRI prevention in STEMI patients. A significant reason for the weak and inconsistent results obtained in this field may be the presence of multiple, partially redundant, mechanisms of cell death during ischemia-reperfusion, whose relative importance may depend on the conditions. Therefore, it is always more recognized that it is important to consider a "multi-targeted cardioprotective therapy", defined as an additive or synergistic cardioprotective agents or interventions directed to distinct targets with different timing of application (before, during, or after pPCI). Given that some neprilysin (NEP) substrates (natriuretic peptides, angiotensin II, bradykinin, apelins, substance P, and adrenomedullin) exert a cardioprotective effect against ischemia-reperfusion injury, it is conceivable that antagonism of proteolytic activity by this enzyme may be considered in a multi-targeted strategy for MIRI prevention. In this review, by starting from main pathophysiological mechanisms promoting MIRI, we discuss cardioprotective effects of NEP substrates and the potential benefit of NEP pharmacological inhibition in MIRI prevention.

Atrial structural and electrical remodelling play important roles in atrial fibrillation (AF). Sacubitril/valsartan attenuates cardiac remodelling in heart failure. However, the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on AF is unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on atrial electrical and structural remodelling in AF and investigate the underlying mechanism of action. Thirty-three rabbits were randomized into sham, RAP, and sac/val groups. HL-1 cells were subjected to control treatment or rapid pacing with or without LBQ657 and valsartan. Echocardiography, atrial electrophysiology, and histological examination were performed. The concentration of Ca 2+ and expression levels of calcineurin, NFAT, p-NFAT, Cav1.2, collagen Ⅰ and Ⅲ, ANP, BNP, CNP, NT-proBNP, and ST2 in HL-1 cells, and I caL in left atrial cells, were determined. We observed that compared to that in the sham group, the atrium and right ventricle were enlarged, myocardial fibrosis was markedly higher, AF inducibility was significantly elevated, and atrial effective refractory periods were shortened in the RAP group. These effects were significantly reversed by sacubitril/valsartan. Compared to that in the sham group, collagen Ⅰ and Ⅲ, NT-proBNP, ST2, calcineurin, and NFAT were significantly up-regulated, while p-NFAT and Ca v 1.2 were down-regulated in the RAP group, and sacubitril/valsartan inhibited these changes. Ca 2+ concentration increased and I CaL density decreased in in vivo and in vitro AF models, reversed by sacubitril/valsartan. Sacubitril/valsartan attenuates atrial electrical remodelling and ameliorates structure remodelling in AF. This study paves the way for the possibility of clinical use of sacubitril/valsartan in AF patients., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: To provide pathophysiological and clinical insights into the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on glomerular function., Recent Findings: Heart failure and glomerular dysfunction are closely intertwined. In addition to reduced heart failure hospitalization and all-cause mortality, patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan have a slower deterioration of glomerular filtration rate over time compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers. The effects of sacubitril/valsartan are probably mediated through enhancement of natriuretic peptides, reduction of glomerular inflammation and fibrosis, and relaxation of mesangial cells and podocytes. Further studies will elucidate underlying pathophysiological mechanisms of sacubitril/valsartan on glomerular function and their prognostic significance in subjects with and without heart failure.

Background Exosomes are small extracellular vesicles that function as intercellular messengers and effectors. Exosomal cargo contains regulatory small molecules, including miRNAs, mRNAs, lncRNAs, and small peptides that can be modulated by different pathological stimuli to the cells. One of the main mechanisms of action of drug therapy may be the altered production and/or content of the exosomes. Methods and Results We studied the effects on exosome production and content by neprilysin inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blockers, sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan alone, using human-induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes under normoxic and hypoxic injury model in vitro , and assessed for physiologic correlation using an ischemic myocardial injury rodent model in vivo. We demonstrated that the treatment with sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan alone resulted in the increased production of exosomes by induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes in vitro in both conditions as well as in the rat plasma in vivo. Next-generation sequencing of these exosomes exhibited downregulation of the expression of rno-miR-181a in the sacubitril/valsartan treatment group. In vivo studies employing chronic rodent myocardial injury model demonstrated that miR-181a antagomir has a beneficial effect on cardiac function. Subsequently, immunohistochemical and molecular studies suggested that the downregulation of miR-181a resulted in the attenuation of myocardial fibrosis and hypertrophy, restoring the injured rodent heart after myocardial infarction. Conclusions We demonstrate that an additional mechanism of action of the pleiotropic effects of sacubitril/valsartan may be mediated by the modulation of the miRNA expression level in the exosome payload.

BackgroundPulmonary hypertension (PH) results in increased right ventricular (RV) afterload and ventricular remodeling. Sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) is a dual acting drug, composed of the neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril and the angiotensin receptor blocker valsartan, that has shown promising outcomes in reducing the risk of death and hospitalization for chronic systolic left ventricular heart failure. In this study, we aimed to examine if angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibition using sac/val attenuates RV remodeling in PH.Methods and ResultsRV pressure overload was induced in Sprague-Dawley rats via banding the main pulmonary artery. Three different cohorts of controls, placebo-treated PH, and sac/val-treated PH were studied in a 21-day treatment window. Terminal invasive hemodynamic measurements, quantitative histological analysis, biaxial mechanical testing, and constitutive modeling were employed to conduct a multiscale analysis on the effects of sac/val on RV remodeling in PH. Sac/val treatment decreased RV maximum pressures (29% improvement, P =0.002), improved RV contractile (30%, P =0.012) and relaxation (29%, P =0.043) functions, reduced RV afterload (35% improvement, P =0.016), and prevented RV-pulmonary artery uncoupling. Furthermore, sac/val attenuated RV hypertrophy (16% improvement, P =0.006) and prevented transmural reorientation of RV collagen and myofibers ( P =0.011). The combined natriuresis and vasodilation resulting from sac/val led to improved RV biomechanical properties and prevented increased myofiber stiffness in PH (61% improvement, P =0.032).ConclusionsSac/val may prevent maladaptive RV remodeling in a pressure overload model via amelioration of RV pressure rise, hypertrophy, collagen, and myofiber reorientation as well as tissue stiffening both at the tissue and myofiber level.

Background: Guidelines recommend targeting systolic blood pressure (SBP) <130 mm Hg in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) with limited data., Objectives: This study sought to determine the optimal achieved SBP and whether the treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan on outcomes are related to BP lowering, particularly among women who derive greater benefit from sacubitril/valsartan., Methods: Using 4,795 trial participants, this study related baseline and time-updated mean achieved SBP quartiles (<120, 120 to 129, 130 to 139, ≥140 mm Hg) to the primary outcome (cardiovascular death and total heart failure hospitalization), its components, myocardial infarction or stroke, and a renal composite outcome. At the 16-week visit, the study assessed the relationship between SBP change and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score (KCCQ-OSS) and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). The study analyzed whether the BP-lowering effects of sacubitril/valsartan accounted for its treatment effects., Results: Average age was 73 ± 8 years, and 52% of participants were women. After multivariable adjustment, baseline and mean achieved SBP of 120 to 129 mm Hg demonstrated the lowest risk for all outcomes. Sacubitril/valsartan reduced SBP by 5.2 mm Hg (95% confidence interval: 4.4 to 6.0) compared with valsartan at 4 weeks, which was not modified by baseline SBP. However, sacubitril/valsartan reduced SBP more in women (6.3 mm Hg) than men (4.0 mm Hg) (interaction p = 0.005). Change in SBP was directly associated with change in NT-proBNP (p < 0.001) but not KCCQ-OSS (p = 0.40). The association between sacubitril/valsartan and the primary outcome was not modified by baseline SBP (interaction p = 0.50) and was similar when adjusting for time-updated SBP, regardless of sex., Conclusions: Baseline and mean achieved SBP of 120 to 129 mm Hg identified the lowest risk patients with HFpEF. Baseline SBP did not modify the treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan, and the BP-lowering effects of sacubitril/valsartan did not account for its effects on outcomes, regardless of sex. (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711)., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril in patients with symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods: We used a previously developed Markov model calibrated with patient-level data from the PARADIGM-HF trial, adapted to the Portuguese setting. The model considers two health states (alive or dead) and uses regression analyzes to estimate hospitalizations and deaths over time. A panel of experts estimated resource consumption in the outpatient setting. To estimate resource consumption with hospitalizations, the National Health Service Diagnosis Related Groups database was used. Unit costs were based on national legislation, and on the Infomed database. The model considers a societal perspective, a time horizon of 30-years, and a 5% annual discount rate. Sensitivity analyses assessed the robustness of results. Results: Sacubitril/valsartan increases life expectancy by 0.5 life-years, corresponding to 0.4 incremental quality adjusted life-years (QALY) versus enalapril. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is 22,702€/QALY. Sensitivity analysis shows that results are robust, but sensitive to the parameter estimates of the cardiovascular survival curve. Conclusion: Sacubitril/valsartan is a cost-effective therapeutic option in the treatment of Portuguese patients with HFrEF and translate into significant health gains and increased life expectancy versus the current standard of care.

Background: Literature describing recovery of left ventricular (LV) function post sacubitril/valsartan treatment and the optimal management of heart failure (HF) patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan remain sparse., Methods: We recruited 437 consecutive chronic HF patients with baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 40%, who were treated with sacubitril/valsartan. All patients underwent routine echocardiographic measurement., Results: During treatment period, recovery of LVEF to 50% or greater was observed in 77 (17.6%) patients. After multivariate analysis, recovery of LV dysfunction was associated with non-ischemic etiology of HF, smaller baseline LV end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), and higher initial dosage of sacubitril/valsartan. Compared to those without recovery of LV dysfunction, death from cardiovascular causes or first unplanned hospitalization for HF (CVD/HFH) were significantly lower in patients with LVEF recovery [11.7% vs. 24.4%, hazard ratio (HR) 0.42, p = 0.014]. Among patients with recovery of LVEF, 51 patients continued to receive the same dosage of sacubitril/valsartan had higher LVEF and were less likely to have deterioration of LVEF than the other 26 patients who received either tapering dose of sacubitril/valsartan or switching from sacubitril/valsartan to renin-angiotensin-system blockers (LVEF 56.4 ± 5.3% vs. 45.0 ± 12.8%, p < 0.001; ΔLVEF 1.2 ± 5.1% vs. -9.3 ± 12.0%, p < 0.001). CVD/HFH occurred more frequently in the taper group than the maintenance group (23.1% vs. 5.9%, HR 0.22, p = 0.035)., Conclusions: Non-ischemic etiology of HF, smaller baseline LVEDD, and higher initial dosage of sacubitril/valsartan could predict better recovery of LV function. Among patients with functional recovery, tapering sacubitril/valsartan dose was associated with deterioration of recovered heart function and had less favorable prognosis during follow-up., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: HF elderly patients are underrepresented in Sacubitril/Valsartan HF trials, and the effect of S/V in real-life patients with advanced age is unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use and safety of S/V in a real-word cohort of elderly patients., Methods: We performed a prospective registry of patients who started S/V in clinical practice. We compared baseline characteristics, adverse events during follow-up and causes of S/V withdrawal according to age., Results: A total of 427 patients started treatment with S/V: 222 (52.0%)<70 years old, 140 (32.8%) between 70 and 79 and 65 (15.2%)≥80. During a mean follow-up of 7.0±0.1months S/V was well tolerated, with no age-related differences in adverse events (26.8%, 25.9%, 23.1% respectively; p=0.83). Symptomatic hypotension tended to be more frequent in the elderly (19.8%, 25.6%, 33.3% respectively; p=0.17). The withdrawal of S/V was more frequent in younger patients (14.4%, 10.0%, 4.6% respectively; p=0.05) and related to poor prognosis (HR 13.51, 95% CI 3.22-56.13, p<0.001)., Conclusions: Sacubitril/Valsartan is useful and safe in elderly people with HF-rEF in real-life clinical practice, and withdrawal is associated to poor prognosis. The doses achieved are lower in elderly people., (Copyright © 2019 SEGG. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Background: Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) was recommended by major guidelines as the frontline therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) since its clinical benefit was proved in the Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial. However, little is known about its safety and effectiveness in real-world practice, often with sicker and more fragile patients. In addition, East Asia population is underrepresented in PARADIGM-HF trial., Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients who received ARNI in 3 medical institutes located in Northern Taiwan. Patients who received a prescription of at least 30 days of ARNI were enrolled. The date of first prescription was defined as the index date, and a period of 12 months preceding the index date was defined as the baseline period., Results: A total of 452 patients were identified (age: 61.9 ± 15.0, male: 79.4%). Compared to PARADIGM-HF populations, our patients had higher values of baseline serum creatinine (mean: 1.5 vs 1.1 mg/dL) and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP; median: 554.5 vs 255 pg/mL). After 12 months, 41.6% of the patients received less than half of the standard dose. Overall, all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and heart failure readmission rate were 3.0%, 1.1%, and 6.9% in 12 months, respectively. In those who had both baseline and 12-month data, renal function did not change (1.7-1.8 mg/dL, P = .091), left ventricular ejection fraction improved (30.8%-36.8%, P < .001), BNP decreased (777.0-655.8 pg/mL, P = .032), and uric acid decreased (7.5-7.1 mg/dL, P = .009)., Conclusion: In our study, patients with HFrEF had higher BNP and serum creatinine level at baseline and had received lower dose of ARNI than the PARADIGM-HF populations. Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor appeared to be safe as regard renal function and effective in real-world practice. Left ventricular reverse remodeling was observed 1 year after heart failure medication treatment, including ARNI.

Background: While disease-modifying therapies exist for heart failure (HF) with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), few options are available for patients in the higher range of LVEF (>40%). Sacubitril/valsartan has been compared with a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system inhibitor alone in 2 similarly designed clinical trials of patients with reduced and preserved LVEF, permitting examination of its effects across the full spectrum of LVEF., Methods: We combined data from PARADIGM-HF (LVEF eligibility≤40%; n=8399) and PARAGON-HF (LVEF eligibility≥45%; n=4796) in a prespecified pooled analysis. We divided randomized patients into LVEF categories: ≤22.5% (n=1269), >22.5% to 32.5% (n=3987), >32.5% to 42.5% (n=3143), > 42.5% to 52.5% (n=1427), > 52.5% to 62.5% (n=2166), and >62.5% (n=1202). We assessed time to first cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization, its components, and total heart failure hospitlizations, all-cause mortality, and noncardiovascular mortality. Incidence rates and treatment effects were examined across categories of LVEF., Results: Among 13 195 randomized patients, we observed lower rates of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization, but similar rates of noncardiovascular death, among patients in the highest versus the lowest groups. Overall sacubitril/valsartan was superior to renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system inhibition for first cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization (Hazard Ratio [HR] 0.84 [95% CI, 0.78-0.90]), cardiovascular death (HR 0.84 [95% CI, 0.76-0.92]), heart failure hospitalization (HR 0.84 [95% CI, 0.77-0.91]), and all-cause mortality (HR 0.88 [95% CI, 0.81-0.96]). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan was modified by LVEF (treatment-by-continuous LVEF interaction P =0.02), and benefit appeared to be present for individuals with EF primarily below the normal range, although the treatment benefit for cardiovascular death diminished at a lower ejection fraction. We observed effect modification by LVEF on the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan in both men and women with respect to composite total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death, although women derived benefit to higher ejection fractions., Conclusions: The therapeutic effects of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system inhibitor alone, vary by LVEF with treatment benefits, particularly for heart failure hospitalization, that appear to extend to patients with heart failure and mildly reduced ejection fraction. These therapeutic benefits appeared to extend to a higher LVEF range in women compared with men., Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT01920711 (PARAGON-HF), NCT01035255 (PARADIGM-HF).