Search

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

Novel therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i), etc. The purpose of this review is to determine the effects of ARNI and SGLT2i in heart failure (HF), compare the impact of SGLT2i with ARNI, and finally evaluate the current data regarding the combination of these two drugs in HF. Various trials on the respective medications have shown some significant reduction in all-cause mortality and cardiovascular (CV) death. The combination of these drugs has shown more CV benefits than monotherapy. There is emerging data about these two drugs in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). At present, there are less head-to-head comparison trials of these two drugs. This review provides insights on the current evidence, comparative efficacy, and combination therapy of ARNI and SGLT2i in managing HF, focussing on HFrEF and HFpEF.

BackgroundThe efficacy of the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan (SV) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) has been established. Two meta-analyses have demonstrated its significant role in enhancing ventricular remodeling. However, the effectiveness and safety of its use in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) remain unclear.Methods and resultsUp to October 2023, we searched the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases for studies involving ESRD patients treated with ARNI. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Effect sizes were reported as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We included 10 studies, encompassing 649 patients. ARNI was associated with improvements in blood pressure and left ventricular (LV) function in ESRD patients, including systolic blood pressure (SBP) (MD −12.76 mmHg; 95% CI, −18.03 to −7.5 mmHg), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (MD −6.41 mmHg; 95% CI, −8.10 to −4.72 mmHg), and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (MD, 4.61%; 95% CI, 1.78%−7.44%). Hemoglobin levels improved, but there were no significant statistical differences in other biomarkers for dialysis. Sacubitril/valsartan was generally well tolerated in ESRD patients. Improved indices of left ventricular function were noted at 6 months and were more pronounced at 12 months. A linear relationship between LVEF and left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) was observed, as indicated by a high correlation coefficient (r-value).ConclusionARNI effectively reduces blood pressure and enhances left ventricular function in dialysis patients, with early treatment associated with greater benefits. ARNI also demonstrates a favorable safety profile in this population. Further prospective studies are required to fully understand the long-term efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in dialysis patients.

• Treatment of patients with decompensated HFrEF and RD is challenging. • Effect of RD on initiation of sacubitril/valsartan was studied. • Most HF patients with RD tolerated sacubitril/valsartan initiation. • Sacubitril/valsartan treatment led to early and significant improvements in eGFR. • Initiation and up-titration of ARNI early after ADHF are feasible and beneficial. Treatment of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and renal dysfunction (RD) is challenging owing to the risk of further deterioration in renal function, especially after acute decompensated HF (ADHF). We assessed the effect of RD (estimated glomerular filtration rate of ≥30 to <60 mL/min/1.73 m2) on initiation, up-titration, and tolerability of sacubitril/valsartan in hemodynamically stabilized patients with HFrEF admitted for ADHF (RD, n = 476; non-RD, n = 483). At week 10, the target dose of sacubitril/valsartan (97/103 mg twice daily) was achieved by 42% patients in RD subgroup vs 54% in non-RD patients (P <.001). Sacubitril/valsartan was associated with greater estimated glomerular filtration rate improvements in RD subgroup than non-RD (change from baseline least squares mean 4.1 mL/min/1.73 m2, 95% confidence interval 2.2–6.1, P <.001). Cardiac biomarkers improved significantly in both subgroups; however, compared with the RD subgroup, the improvement was greater in those without RD (N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, −28.6% vs −44.8%, high-sensitivity troponin T −20.3% vs −33.9%) (P <.001). Patients in the RD subgroup compared with those without RD experienced higher rates of hyperkalemia (16.3% vs 6.5%, P <.001), investigator-reported cardiac failure (9.7% vs 5.6%, P =.029), and renal impairment (6.4% vs 2.1%, P =.002). Most patients with HFrEF and concomitant RD hospitalized for ADHF tolerated early initiation of sacubitril/valsartan and showed significant improvements in estimated glomerular filtration rate and cardiac biomarkers. NCT02661217. RD was defined as an eGFR (MDRD formula) of ≥30 to <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 determined at randomization bid, twice daily. CI, confidence interval; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; HF, heart failure; HFrEF, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction; hsTnT, high sensitivity troponin T; LSM, least squares mean; NT-proBNP, N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide; RD, renal dysfunction. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Most patients (about 90 %) who develop heart failure (HF) have hypertension. • All drugs used in the treatment of heart failure lower blood pressure. • Heart failure patients in general have reduced systolic function. • The totality of evidence indicates no difference in drug treatment related to EF. • RASi or ARNI, MRA, beta-blocker and SGLT2i plus diuretics are used to treat HF patients. More than 90 % of patients developing heart failure (HF) have hypertension. The most frequent concomitant conditions are type-2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, atrial fibrillation, and coronary disease. HF outcome research focuses on decreasing mortality and preventing hospitalization for worsening HF syndrome. All drugs that decrease these HF endpoints lower blood pressure. Current drug treatments for HF are (i) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, (ii) selected beta-blockers, (iii) steroidal and non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and (iv) sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. For various reasons, these drug treatments were first studied in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Subsequently, they have been investigated in HF patients with a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, HFpEF) of mostly hypertensive etiology, and with modest benefits largely assessed on top of background treatment with the drugs already proven effective in HFrEF. Additionally, diuretics are given on symptomatic indications. Patients with HFpEF may have diastolic dysfunction but also systolic dysfunction visualized by lack of longitudinal shortening. Considering the totality of evidence and the overall need for antihypertensive treatment and/or treatment of hypertensive complications in almost all HF patients, the principal drug treatment of HF appears to be the same regardless of LVEF. Rather than LVEF-guided treatment of HF, treatment of HF should be directed by symptoms (related to the level of fluid retention), signs (tachycardia), severity (NYHA functional class), and concomitant diseases and conditions. All HF patients should be given all the drug classes mentioned above if well tolerated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background There are limited data on the use of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) in minority populations with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. We used data from the CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients With Heart Failure) registry to evaluate ARNI initiation and associated changes in health status and clinical outcomes across different races and ethnicities. Methods and Results CHAMP-HF was a prospective, observational registry of US outpatients with chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction. We compared patients starting ARNI with patients not starting ARNI using a propensity-matched analysis. Patients were grouped as Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic White, or non-Hispanic other individuals, where "non-Hispanic other" consists of all patients who did not identify as Hispanic, Black, or White. Health status was assessed using the 12-item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire. Outcomes were analyzed with multivariable models that included race and ethnicity, ARNI initiation, and an interaction term between race and ethnicity and ARNI initiation. Cox proportional hazards models were used for death/HF hospitalization, and multiple regression was used for change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score. The analysis included 1516 patients, with 758 patients in each group (ARNI and no ARNI). Changes in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score after ARNI initiation were similar among all race and ethnicity groups (mean [SD], non-Hispanic White individuals, 3.5 [19.0]; non-Hispanic Black individuals, 2.0 [17.0]; non-Hispanic other individuals, 5.5 [20.3]; and Hispanic individuals, 3.2 [20.1]), with no statistically significant interaction between race and ethnicity and ARNI initiation (P=0.21). There was similarly no statistically significant interaction between race and ethnicity and ARNI initiation for HF hospitalization (P=0.82) or all-cause mortality (P=0.92). Conclusions In a large registry of outpatients with HF with reduced ejection fraction, the association between ARNI initiation and outcomes did not differ by race and ethnicity. These data support the use of ARNI therapy for chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction irrespective of race and ethnicity.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to evaluate ventricular repolarization before, at the first month, and sixth month after Sacubutril/Valsartan, an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) treatment in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Materials and Methods: We included 49 patients with HFrEF who switched to ARNI therapy. The 12-lead electrocardiography (ECG) was evaluated before ARNI therapy and also during the first and sixth months of the therapy. We evaluated demographic, clinical, and laboratory parameters, as well as medications and ECG data, including heart rate. Additionally, we examined QT, QTc, Tp-e, Tp-e calculated (Tp-ec), Tp-ec/QTc, Tpe/QT, and Tp-e/QTc. Results: After receiving ARNI treatment, ventricular repolarization indices were significantly reduced in the first and sixth months compared to before treatment. Specifically, the QTc values decreased from 457.6 ms to 443.8 ms, and the Tp-e/QT ratio decreased from 0.21±0.03 to 0.19±0.03. Additionally, the QTc values decreased from 457.6 ms to 444.9 ms, and the Tp-e/QT ratio decreased from 0.21±0.03 to 0.18±0.03. However, when the first and sixth months under ARNI treatment were compared, no significant difference was found (QTc: 443.8 ms vs. 444.9 ms, Tp-e/QT: 0.19±0.03 vs. 0.18±0.003). Conclusion: ARNI treatment in HFrEF positively affected QTc, Tp-e, and Tp-ec intervals and Tp-e/QT, Tp-e/QTc, and Tp-ec/QTc ratios, which are indicators of ventricular repolarization. Moreover, this effect started in the first month and continued in the sixth month. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND More than 90% of patients developing heart failure (HF) have an epidemiological background of hypertension. The most frequent concomitant conditions are type 2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, atrial fibrillation, and coronary disease, all disorders/diseases closely related to hypertension. METHODS HF outcome research focuses on decreasing mortality and preventing hospitalization for worsening HF syndrome. All drugs that decrease these HF endpoints lower blood pressure. Current drug treatments for HF are (i) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, (ii) selected beta-blockers, (iii) steroidal and nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and (iv) sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. RESULTS For various reasons, these drug treatments were first studied in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, subsequently, they have been investigated and, as we see it, documented as beneficial in HF patients with a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, HFpEF) and mostly hypertensive etiology, with effect estimates assessed partly on top of background treatment with the drugs already proven effective in HFrEF. Additionally, diuretics are given on symptomatic indications. CONCLUSIONS Considering the totality of evidence and the overall need for antihypertensive treatment and/or treatment of hypertensive complications in almost all HF patients, the principal drug treatment of HF appears to be the same regardless of LVEF. Rather than LVEF-guided treatment of HF, treatment of HF should be directed by symptoms (related to the level of fluid retention), signs (tachycardia), severity (NYHA functional class), and concomitant diseases and conditions. All HF patients should be given all the drug classes mentioned above if well tolerated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Longer duration of chronic heart failure (HF) with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥ 45% was associated with a higher comorbidity burden, lower baseline health status and adverse clinical outcomes in the PARAGON-HF trial. • Sacubitril/valsartan was well tolerated across the spectrum of HF duration, with consistent relative and higher absolute treatment effects in participants with the longest baseline HF durations. • Sustained focus on optimization of medical therapy at all stages of the HF disease course, in all clinical settings and across the HF spectrum, is needed to abrogate downstream disease progression. In this post hoc analysis of the PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HFpEF) trial, we evaluated clinical outcomes and responses to sacubitril/valsartan by duration of heart failure (HF) with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 45% at initial diagnosis. The primary outcome was a composite of total hospitalizations due to HF and cardiovascular deaths, analyzed by using a semiparametric proportional rates method, stratified by geographic region. Among 4784 (99.7%) randomized participants in the PARAGON-HF trial for whom baseline HF duration was captured, 1359 (28%) had durations of HF of < 6 months, 1295 (27%) of 6 months–2 years, and 2130 (45%) of > 2 years. Longer HF duration was associated with higher comorbidity burdens, worse health status and lower rates of prior hospitalization due to HF. Over a median follow-up of 35 months, longer HF duration was associated with a higher risk of first and recurrent primary events (per 100 patient-years): < 6 months, 12.0 (95% CI, 10.4–14.0); 6 months–2 years, 12.2 (10.6–14.2); > 2 years, 15.8 (14.2–17.5). Relative treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan were consistent, irrespective of baseline HF duration on the primary endpoint (P interaction = 0.112). Clinically meaningful (≥ 5 point) improvements in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Clinical Summary Scores were also similarly observed, irrespective of HF duration; (P interaction = 0.112). Adverse events were similar between treatment arms across HF duration categories. In PARAGON-HF, longer HF duration was independently predictive of adverse HF outcomes. Treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan were consistent, irrespective of baseline HF duration, suggesting that even ambulatory patients with longstanding HFpEF and predominantly mild symptoms stand to benefit from treatment optimization. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the results of the PARACYS-RV trial, which aimed to compare the effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan (an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor) to placebo in adults with congenital systemic right ventricular (sRV) heart failure. The trial was prematurely terminated due to safety concerns, as there was a high rate of worsening heart failure events in patients who received placebo compared to those who received sacubitril/valsartan. Although the trial was inconclusive regarding the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan, the results showed promising trends in improving exercise duration and reducing levels of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide. The article emphasizes the need for further research and suggests future trials should avoid crossovers to placebo and discontinuation of other heart failure medications. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Frail older adults may be less likely to receive guideline‐directed medical therapy (GDMT)—renin‐angiotensin blockers, beta‐blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists—for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We aimed to examine the uptake of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) and GDMT in frail older adults with HFrEF. Methods: Using 2015–2019 Medicare data, we estimated the proportion of beneficiaries with HFrEF receiving ARNI and GDMT each year by frailty status, defined by a claims‐based frailty index. Logistic regression was used to identify clinical characteristics associated with ARNI initiation. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to examine the association of GDMT use in 2015 and death or heart failure hospitalization in 2016–2019. Results: Among 147,506–180,386 beneficiaries with HFrEF (mean age: 77 years; 27% women; 42.6–49.1% frail) in 2015–2019, the proportion of patients receiving ARNI increased in both non‐frail (0.4%–16.4%) and frail (0.3%–13.7%) patients (p for yearly‐trend‐by‐frailty = 0.970). Among those not receiving a renin‐angiotensin system blocker, patients with age ≥ 85 years (odds ratio [95% CI], 0.89 [0.80–0.99]), dementia (0.88 [0.81–0.96]), and frailty (0.87 [0.81–0.94]) were less likely to initiate ARNI. The proportion of patients receiving all 3 GDMT classes increased in non‐frail patients (22.0%–27.0%) but changed minimally in frail patients (19.6%–21.8%). Regardless of frailty status, treatment with at least 1 class of GDMT was associated with lower death or heart failure hospitalization than no GDMT medications (hazard ratio [95% CI], 0.94 [0.91–0.97], 0.92 [0.89–0.94], 0.94 [0.91–0.97] for 1, 2, and 3 classes, respectively). Conclusions: Our results suggest an evidence‐practice gap in the use of ARNI and GDMT in Medicare beneficiaries with HFrEF, particularly those with frailty. Efforts to narrow this gap are needed to reduce the burden of HFrEF in older adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Heart failure guidelines recommend replacing an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) with an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) to reduce morbidity and mortality in NYHA Class II–III patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Objective: This study aims to determine if a pharmacist-led outpatient ARNI replacement and titration program led to more patients achieving target doses of ARNI compared to usual care. Methods: A single health system, retrospective electronic medical record review identified 791 patients with active ARNI prescriptions and at least two outpatient cardiology visits with a pharmacist or usual care provider between January 2015 through September 2018. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients who achieved a target ARNI dose of 97/103 mg twice daily. The secondary outcomes were the median dose achieved, number of visits required to achieve target dose, hospitalizations, and all-cause death. Results: ARNI was initiated and continued by a pharmacist in 64 patients and 727 by usual care. More patients in the pharmacist group, 60.9% (n = 39), achieved target dose vs. 18.0% (n = 131) of patients managed by usual care (95% CI, 0.31–0.55, p < 0.0001). The pharmacist group also had higher median total daily dose of ARNI (200 mg (IQR = 300) vs 100 mg (IQR = 100), p < 0.0001) and more likely to achieve a higher total daily dose in fewer visits. Conclusions: An advanced practice provider pharmacist-led outpatient ARNI replacement and titration program was more effective in achieving target doses of ARNI in HFrEF patients as compared to usual care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The combined angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor is a promising cardioprotective pharmacological agent. This study investigated the beneficial effects of thiorphan (TH)/irbesartan (IRB), in myocardial ischemia–reperfusion (IR) injury, compared to each of nitroglycerin and carvedilol. Male Wistar rats were divided into five groups (10 rats/group): Sham, untreated I/R, TH/IRB + IR (0.1/10 mg/kg), nitroglycerin + IR (0.2 mg/kg), and carvedilol + IR (10 mg/kg). Mean arterial blood pressure, cardiac functions and arrhythmia incidence, duration and score were assessed. Cardiac levels of creatine kinase‐MB (CK‐MB), oxidative stress, endothelin‐1, ATP, Na+/K+ ATPase pump activity and mitochondria complexes activities were measured. Histopathological examination, Bcl/Bax immunohistochemistry studies and electron microscopy examination of left ventricle were performed. TH/IRB preserved the cardiac functions and mitochondrial complexes activities, mitigated cardiac damage, reduced oxidative stress and arrhythmia severity, improved the histopathological changes and decreased cardiac apoptosis. TH/IRB showed a comparable effect to each of nitroglycerin and carvedilol in alleviating the IR injury consequences. TH/IRB showed significant preservation of mitochondrial complexes activity I and II compared to nitroglycerin. TH/IRB significantly increased LVdP/dtmax and decreased oxidative stress, cardiac damage and endothelin‐1 along with increasing the ATP content, Na+/K+ ATPase pump activity and mitochondrial complexes activity when compared to carvedilol. TH/IRB showed a cardioprotective effect in reducing IR injury that is comparable to each of nitroglycerin and carvedilol that could be explained in part by its ability to preserve mitochondrial function, increase ATP, decrease oxidative stress as well as endothelin 1. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Aims Diabetes mellitus is associated with worse outcomes and lower attainment of disease‐modifying therapies in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This post hoc analysis of TRANSITION compared the patterns of tolerability and uptitration of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFrEF stabilized after hospital admission due to acute decompensated HF depending on the presence or absence of diabetes as a co‐morbidity. Methods TRANSITION, a randomized, open‐label study compared sacubitril/valsartan initiation pre‐discharge vs. post‐discharge (up to14 days) in 991 patients hospitalized for acutely decompensated HFrEF. The impact of diabetes status on tolerability and safety was studied at 10‐week and 26‐week post‐randomization. Results Among the 991 patients analysed at baseline, 460 (46.4%) had diabetes and exhibited a higher risk profile. At 10 weeks, sacubitril/valsartan target dose (97/103 mg bid) was achieved in a similar proportion of patients in each subgroup, when initiated pre‐discharge or post‐discharge respectively [diabetes subgroup: 47% (n = 105/226) vs. 50% (n = 115/228); relative risk ratio (RRR), 0.923; P = 0.412; non‐diabetes subgroup: 45% (n = 119/267) vs. 51% (n = 133/261); RRR, 0.878; P = 0.155]. The proportions of patients achieving and maintaining either 49/51 mg or 97/103 mg bid [diabetes subgroup: 61.1% (n = 138/226) vs. 67.5% (n = 154/228); RRR, 0.909; P = 0.175; non‐diabetes subgroup: 62.9% [n = 168/267] vs 69.3% [n = 181/261]; RRR, 0.906; P = 0.118] or any dose for ≥2 weeks leading to Week 10 [diabetes subgroup: 85% (n = 192/226) vs. 88.2% (n = 201/228); RRR, 0.966; P = 0.356; non‐diabetes subgroup: 86.9% (n = 232/267) vs. 90.8% (n = 237/261); RRR, 0.963; P = 0.215] were also similar in each subgroup, when initiated pre‐discharge or post‐discharge, respectively. At 10 weeks, hypotension and renal dysfunction rates were similar, although hyperkalaemia was higher among patients with diabetes (15.9% vs. 9.5%). The rate of permanent discontinuation due to adverse events was similar in the diabetes and non‐diabetes subgroups at 10 weeks, respectively: pre‐discharge (7.5% vs. 7.1%) or post‐discharge (5.7% vs. 4.2%). Similar patterns of uptitration and tolerability were observed at 26 weeks. Cardiac biomarkers including NT‐proBNP (P

This study aimed to estimate the financial and economic impact of sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril for the treatment and prevention of hospitalization/rehospitalization because of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The budget impact analysis was guided by the Philippine Reference Case and ISPOR's Principles of Good Practice for Budget Impact Analysis. A government-funded healthcare payer perspective and a societal perspective were considered. Data collection was guided by the pathways of disease progression and care. Collection of costing data followed a bottom-up approach. The model was based on a Markov model used in a study in Thailand. Over the next 5 years, there will be 17 625 less hospitalizations (∼5.1% less than enalapril arm) and 7968 less cardiovascular-related deaths (∼7.0% less than enalapril arm). In 5 years, the total cost of treating patients with HFrEF with sacubitril/valsartan at current market coverage and annual growth conditions is ₱15.430 billion, which is ₱11.077 billion higher than fully treating with enalapril only. The total required additional investment with treatment of sacubitril/valsartan compared with the full enalapril arm are ₱407 million (at 30-day coverage), ₱800 million (at 60-day coverage), and ₱1.181 billion (at 90-day coverage). If hospitalizations costs alone are considered, only the 30-day coverage is cost-saving. If a societal perspective is considered, all options are cost-saving where at least ₱4.003 billion is saved by the economy. The initial investment required to treat patients with HFrEF with sacubitril/valsartan is high; nevertheless, the year-on-year cost deficit shrinks in favor of investing in sacubitril/valsartan treatment. • There is no study, to date, demonstrating the budget impact of covering sacubitril/valsartan in the Philippines, which is needed to guide decision makers in assessing whether the adoption of a new health technology is affordable, given the budget constraints. • This study showed that although the initial cost to treat patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) with sacubitril/valsartan in the Philippines is high, its additional cost shrinks over time particularly if a societal perspective is adopted, favoring its coverage for treating HFrEF. • Coverage of sacubitril/valsartan in the Philippines could be considered to prevent hospitalization or rehospitalization because of HFrEF, and this could be affordable if the increased productivity is considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Left ventricular non-compaction (LVNC) is a rare disease defined by morphological criteria, consisting of a two-layered ventricular wall, a thin compacted epicardial layer, and a thick hyper-trabeculated myocardium layer with deep recesses. Controversies still exist regarding whether it is a distinct cardiomyopathy (CM) or a morphological trait of different conditions. This review analyzes data from the literature regarding diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis in LVNC and the current knowledge regarding reverse remodeling in this form of CM. Furthermore, for clear exemplification, we report a case of a 41-year-old male who presented symptoms of heart failure (HF). LVNC CM was suspected at the time of transthoracic echocardiography and was subsequently confirmed upon cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. A favorable remodeling and clinical outcome were registered after including an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor in the HF treatment. LVNC remains a heterogenous CM, and although a favorable outcome is not commonly encountered, some patients respond well to therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of sacubitril/valsartan on left ventricular (LV) reverse remodeling, potentially modifying the timing for cardiac device implantation in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), which has not been specifically addressed. Methods and results: A secondary data analysis of a prospective cohort of HFrEF patients was conducted. Inclusion criteria: patients who started sacubitril/valsartan between November 2017 and August 2019 after previous optimal medical therapy. Primary endpoint: time to achieve LV Ejection Fraction (EF) > 35%. Kaplan–Meier was used to estimate median time and Cox regression model to investigate the patients’ characteristics associated with event incidence rate. In total, 48 patients were included, with a mean age of 72.5 years, predominantly male (70.8%). From the initial 48 patients with LVEF ≤ 35%, 27 (56%) reached LVEF > 35%, in a median time of 11.3 months (95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 9.4–19.6). In multivariate analysis, baseline LVEF between 30 and 35% was associated with increased cumulative incidence of attaining LVEF > 35% (Incidence rate ratio = 3.9; 95%CI: 1.6–9.9; p-value = 0.004). Conclusion: We observed an improvement in LVEF to >35% in the majority of patients who switched to sacubitril/valsartan, illustrating its role in cardiac remodeling. We speculate that this improvement may allow delaying implantation of Cardioverter-Defibrillator/Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.

Background: data regarding the effectiveness and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are scarse. Objective: to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in HFrEF and CKD in a real-world population. Methods: we included consecutive ambulatory HFrEF patients that initiated sacubitril/valsartan between February 2017 and October 2020, stratified by CKD (KDIGO stage 5 excluded). Primary outcomes: the incidence rate per 100 patient-years and the annualized length of stay (LOS) of acute decompensated HF hospitalizations (HFH). Secondary outcomes: all-cause mortality, NYHA improvement, and titration of sacubitril/valsartan. Results: We included 179 patients, 77 with CKD, those being older (72 ± 10 vs. 65 ± 12 years, p < 0.001), had higher NT-proBNP (4623 ± 5266 vs. 1901 ± 1835 pg/mL, p < 0.001), and high anaemia incidence (p < 0.001). After 19 ± 11 months, a significant reduction in HFH adjusted incidence rate (57.5% decrease in CKD vs. 74.6%, p = 0.261) was observed, with 5 days there was a reduction in annualized LOS in both groups (p = 0.319). NYHA improved similarly in both groups (p = 0.670). CKD patients presented non-significant higher all-cause mortality (HR = 2.405, 95%CI: [0.841; 6.879], p = 0.102). Both groups had similar sacubitril/valsartan maximum dose achievement and drug withdrawal. Conclusion: sacubitril/valsartan was effective on reducing HFH and LOS without affecting all-cause mortality in a CKD real-world population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Diabetes mellitus is associated with worse outcomes and lower attainment of disease‐modifying therapies in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This post hoc analysis of TRANSITION compared the patterns of tolerability and uptitration of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFrEF stabilized after hospital admission due to acute decompensated HF depending on the presence or absence of diabetes as a co‐morbidity. Methods: TRANSITION, a randomized, open‐label study compared sacubitril/valsartan initiation pre‐discharge vs. post‐discharge (up to14 days) in 991 patients hospitalized for acutely decompensated HFrEF. The impact of diabetes status on tolerability and safety was studied at 10‐week and 26‐week post‐randomization. Results: Among the 991 patients analysed at baseline, 460 (46.4%) had diabetes and exhibited a higher risk profile. At 10 weeks, sacubitril/valsartan target dose (97/103 mg bid) was achieved in a similar proportion of patients in each subgroup, when initiated pre‐discharge or post‐discharge respectively [diabetes subgroup: 47% (n = 105/226) vs. 50% (n = 115/228); relative risk ratio (RRR), 0.923; P = 0.412; non‐diabetes subgroup: 45% (n = 119/267) vs. 51% (n = 133/261); RRR, 0.878; P = 0.155]. The proportions of patients achieving and maintaining either 49/51 mg or 97/103 mg bid [diabetes subgroup: 61.1% (n = 138/226) vs. 67.5% (n = 154/228); RRR, 0.909; P = 0.175; non‐diabetes subgroup: 62.9% [n = 168/267] vs 69.3% [n = 181/261]; RRR, 0.906; P = 0.118] or any dose for ≥2 weeks leading to Week 10 [diabetes subgroup: 85% (n = 192/226) vs. 88.2% (n = 201/228); RRR, 0.966; P = 0.356; non‐diabetes subgroup: 86.9% (n = 232/267) vs. 90.8% (n = 237/261); RRR, 0.963; P = 0.215] were also similar in each subgroup, when initiated pre‐discharge or post‐discharge, respectively. At 10 weeks, hypotension and renal dysfunction rates were similar, although hyperkalaemia was higher among patients with diabetes (15.9% vs. 9.5%). The rate of permanent discontinuation due to adverse events was similar in the diabetes and non‐diabetes subgroups at 10 weeks, respectively: pre‐discharge (7.5% vs. 7.1%) or post‐discharge (5.7% vs. 4.2%). Similar patterns of uptitration and tolerability were observed at 26 weeks. Cardiac biomarkers including NT‐proBNP (P < 0.005) and hs‐TnT (P < 0.005) reduced significantly from baseline levels in both subgroups at Weeks 4 and 10; however, the response was greater among patients without diabetes. Mortality (diabetes vs. non‐diabetes subgroups: 3.3% vs 4.0%; P = 0.438) and HF rehospitalization (diabetes vs. non‐diabetes subgroups: 36.3% vs. 33.0%; P = 0.295) did not differ between the groups at 26 weeks. Conclusions: Despite a higher risk profile among patients with diabetes, sacubitril/valsartan initiation either before or shortly after discharge in hospitalized patients with HFrEF resulted in comparable rates of dose up‐titration and tolerability as in those without diabetes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundEvidence regarding the mortality benefit of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (NIDCM) is inconsistent. The most recent randomized study, the DANISH trial, did not find improved outcomes with ICD. However, based on previous studies and meta-analyses, current guidelines still highly recommend ICD implantation in NIDCM patients. The introduction of novel medications for heart failure improved the clinical outcome dramatically. We aimed in this study to evaluate the effect of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitors (ARNi) and sodium-glucose transport protein 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) on the mortality benefit of ICD in NIDCM.MethodsWe used a previous metanalysis algorithm and added an updated comprehensive literature search in PubMed for randomized control trials that examined the mortality benefit of ICD in NIDCM vs. optimal medical treatment. The primary outcome included death from any cause. We did a meta-regression analysis to search for a single independent factor affecting mortality. Using previous data, we evaluated the theoretical effect of ICD implementation on patients treated with SGLT2 inhibitors and ARNi.ResultsNo new articles were added to the results of the previous meta-analysis. 2,622 patients with NIDCM from 5 cohort studies published between 2002 and 2016 were included in the analysis. 50% of them underwent ICD implantation for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death, and 50% did not. ICD was associated with a significantly decreased risk for death from any cause compared to control (OR = 0.79, 95%CI: 0.66–0.95, p = 0.01, I2 = 0%). The theoretical addition of ARNi and the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin did not change the significant mortality effect of ICD (OR = 0.82, 95%CI: 0.7–0.9, p = 0.001, I2 = 0%) and (OR = 0.82, 95%CI: 0.7–0.9, p = 0.001, I2 = 0%). A meta-regression revealed no association between death from any cause and left bundle branch block (LBBB), use of amiodarone, use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers, year initiated enrollment, and the year ended enrollment (R2 = 0.0).ConclusionIn patients with NIDCM, the addition of ARNi and SGLT2i did not affect the mortality advantages of ICD for primary prevention.PROSPERO registry numberhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42023403210.

Despite the fact that cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the number 1 cause of death globally, investment in drug development and new drug approvals for CVD are precipitously declining. In contrast, the trajectory of both investment in development as well as new drug approvals for oncology have been increasing steadily over the same time frame. The factors that have spurred drug development in oncology may be applicable to new efforts to overcome barriers to drug development for CVD. Greater investment in basic research and application of expedited regulatory pathways have contributed to a lowering of development barriers in oncology. Barriers in implementation are also critical. More rapid adoption of guideline-based therapies and lower access barriers by payers have contributed to fewer implementation barriers for oncology therapeutics. There is substantially greater advocacy among patients and physicians for new oncology therapeutics, and such advocacy efforts are likely to have had a meaningful impact on lowering barriers to develop new oncology therapeutics. Broad support of patient and physician advocacy efforts directed towards CVD may help overcome existing development and implementation barriers to new drug development, thereby spurring more rapid progress in the fight to eradicate cardiovascular disease.

Objectives: Patients with post-myocardial infarction (MI) are more likely to die later from heart failure (HF), arrhythmic events, or reinfarction. According to recent studies, mortality rates were noticeably higher in women, than in men. This has been linked to variations in age, comorbidities, symptom presentation, and pathophysiology of the underlying coronary artery disease. There is little information on how these typical gender disparities affect post-MI survival. Studies on individuals with coronary artery disease have primarily focused on men, with women typically being left out of most series. Despite the relatively high prevalence of ischemic heart disease in women, there is a lack of information regarding the clinical course of the condition, its management, and clinical outcomes in this particular population due to the underrepresentation of women in the medical literature in this field. The gender disparities in post-MI patients who present with HF will be briefly discussed in this article. Materials and Methods: A total of 50 patients that presented with HF and had a previous history of MI were included in this study after taking consent. After taking history and detailed physical examination, investigations that were sent were reviewed and the subjects followed up in the hospital stay to look for outcomes. The data are compiled and subjected to statistical analysis. Results: It is observed that among the 50 subjects, 32% of them had recurrent HF (13 of the 30 females and three of the 20 males). p = 0.04 is statistically significant. Among the study subjects, the hospital outcomes observed showed that, out of 50 subjects, 47 subjects recovered and the other three died in hospital stay. All the three deaths are women. p = 0.15 is not statistically significant. Conclusion: This study concludes that women are more likely than males to require hospitalization for recurrent HF following a MI. This study also demonstrates that, despite the higher risk of recurrent HF, women do not have a higher mortality risk than males. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: In recent large trials, sacubitril/valsartan demonstrated favorable effects in patients with HF. However, many patients do not achieve the target dose of treatment. This study investigated the factors linked to up-titration of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods: Using a multicenter retrospective database, 204 consecutive patients with HFpEF (left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 40%) who were treated with sacubitril/valsartan between October 2020 and March 2022 were analyzed. Up-titration was defined as an increase in dosage above 24/26 mg BID beyond 12 weeks after the initiation of sacubitril/valsartan. Results: Among the patients, 55% underwent up-titration, and 8% discontinued the drug. The baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP) was higher in patients with up-titration than in those with no up-titration; SBP values similar to that at baseline were observed between the 2 groups at 2 to 4 weeks and at 12 weeks after the commencement of sacubitril/valsartan treatment. The majority of those who discontinued sacubitril/valsartan did so because of hypotension. The multivariable logistic regression model showed that a history of hypertension, history of atrial fibrillation, baseline SBP, and baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 were associated with sacubitril/valsartan up-titration. Conclusion: Approximately half of all patients did not undergo up-titration, and 8% of those with HFpEF discontinued the sacubitril/valsartan therapy. For aggressive up-titration and continuation of sacubitril/valsartan, patients with lower baseline SBP, renal dysfunction, absence of a history of hypertension, and presence of atrial fibrillation may require more careful monitoring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Abstract Sacubitril/valsartan, simultaneously inhibits neprilysin and angiotensin II receptor, showed an effect in reducing blood pressure (BP). The authors aimed to study whether it can be used as an antihypertensive agent in patients with refractory hypertension who have already been treated. A total of 66 Chinese patients with refractory hypertension were enrolled. Patients received sacubitril/valsartan 200 instead of angiotensin II receptor blocker or angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor while other agents continued. If BP was uncontrolled after 4 weeks, sacubitril/valsartan was increased to 400 mg. The BP reduction was evaluated by office BP and ambulatory BP monitoring after 8‐week treatment. The baseline office BP and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were 150.0/95.0 mmHg and 113.3 mmHg. BP and MAP reduced to 130.6/83.2 mmHg and 99.0 mmHg at week 8. Office BP and MAP reductions were 19.4/11.8 mmHg and 14.3 mmHg at endpoint (all p

The US Food and Drug Administration approved sacubitril/valsartan for patients with chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction in 2015 on the basis of the results of the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI [Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor] With ACEI [Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor] to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial. There are limited data assessing the generalizability of PARADIGM-HF trial participants to a broader population of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction routinely encountered in outpatient clinical practice. We compared the baseline characteristics of patients in the PARADIGM-HF trial with those in the CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients With Heart Failure) study a large US outpatient registry of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. Patients in the PARADIGM-HF trial (n=8442) were similar to those in the CHAMP-HF registry (n=3497) in terms of age (mean, 64 versus 66 years), sex (22% versus 29% women), New York Heart Association class III to IV (25% versus 32%), systolic blood pressure (mean, 121 versus 121 mm Hg), left ventricular ejection fraction (mean, 29% versus 29%), and other key baseline characteristics. The median (25th-75th percentile) Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure risk scores were similar for the 2 studies (20 [16-24] versus 22 [8-27]). Despite this, only 13% of patients in the CHAMP-HF registry were prescribed sacubitril/valsartan at baseline. These data suggest participants randomized in the PARADIGM-HF trial have similar baseline characteristics to those encountered in routine outpatient clinical practice, but there is a substantial lag in the adoption of sacubitril/valsartan for patients with chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction.

In a rapidly growing and aging population, heart failure (HF) has become recognised as a public health concern that imposes high economic and societal costs worldwide. HF management stems from the use of highly cost-effective angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and ß-blockers to the use of newer drugs such as sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), ivabradine, and vericiguat. Modelling studies of pharmacological treatments that report on cost effectiveness in HF is important in order to guide clinical decision making. Multiple costeffectiveness analysis of dapagliflozin for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) suggests that it is not only cost-effective and has the potential to improve long-term clinical outcomes, but is also likely to meet conventional cost-effectiveness thresholds in many countries. Similar promising results have also been shown for vericiguat while a cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) of empagliflozin has shown cost effectiveness in HF patients with Type 2 diabetes. Despite the recent FDA approval of dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in HF, it might take time for these SGLT2i to be widely used in real-world practice. A recent economic evaluation of vericiguat found it to be cost effective at a higher cost per QALY threshold than SGLT2i. However, there is a lack of clinical or realworld data regarding whether vericiguat would be prescribed on top of newer treatments or in lieu of them. Sacubitril/valsartan has been commonly compared to enalapril in cost effectiveness analysis and has been found to be similar to that of SGLT2i but was not considered a cost-effective treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in Thailand and Singapore with the current economic evaluation evidences. In order for more precise analysis on cost effectiveness analysis, it is necessary to take into account the income level of various countries as it is certainly easier to allocate more financial resources for the intervention, with greater effectiveness, in high- and middleincome countries than in low-income countries. This review aims to evaluate evidence and cost effectiveness studies in more recent HF drugs i.e., SGLT2i, ARNi, ivabradine, vericiguat and omecamtiv, and gaps in current literature on pharmacoeconomic studies in HF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The efficacy of the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan (SV) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) has been established. Two meta-analyses have demonstrated its significant role in enhancing ventricular remodeling. However, the effectiveness and safety of its use in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) remain unclear., Methods and Results: Up to October 2023, we searched the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases for studies involving ESRD patients treated with ARNI. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Effect sizes were reported as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We included 10 studies, encompassing 649 patients. ARNI was associated with improvements in blood pressure and left ventricular (LV) function in ESRD patients, including systolic blood pressure (SBP) (MD -12.76 mmHg; 95% CI, -18.03 to -7.5 mmHg), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (MD -6.41 mmHg; 95% CI, -8.10 to -4.72 mmHg), and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (MD, 4.61%; 95% CI, 1.78%-7.44%). Hemoglobin levels improved, but there were no significant statistical differences in other biomarkers for dialysis. Sacubitril/valsartan was generally well tolerated in ESRD patients. Improved indices of left ventricular function were noted at 6 months and were more pronounced at 12 months. A linear relationship between LVEF and left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) was observed, as indicated by a high correlation coefficient (r-value)., Conclusion: ARNI effectively reduces blood pressure and enhances left ventricular function in dialysis patients, with early treatment associated with greater benefits. ARNI also demonstrates a favorable safety profile in this population. Further prospective studies are required to fully understand the long-term efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in dialysis patients., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Zhou, Zhang, Dong, Li, Sun and Zhang.)

Background: The prevalence of hypertension still increases with the very rapidly increasing longevity in some countries, such as China. The control rate remains low., Objectives: This randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study assessed the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/allisartan, compared with olmesartan in Chinese patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension., Methods: Eligible patients aged 18 to 75 years (n = 1,197) with mild-to-moderate hypertension were randomized to receive sacubitril/allisartan 240 mg (n = 399), sacubitril/allisartan 480 mg (n = 399), or olmesartan 20 mg (n = 399) once daily for 12 weeks. Patients who completed the 12-week treatment then received another 12-week extended treatment (n = 1,084) and 28-week prolonged treatment (n = 189). The primary end point was a reduction in clinic mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP) from baseline at 12 weeks., Results: Sacubitril/allisartan 240 mg/d provided a greater reduction in msSBP than olmesartan at 12 weeks (between-group difference: -1.9 mm Hg [95% CI: -4.2 to 0.4 mm Hg]; P  = 0.0007, for noninferiority). Sacubitril/allisartan 480 mg/d provided a significantly greater reduction in msSBP than olmesartan at 12 weeks (between-treatment difference: -5.0 mm Hg [95% CI: -7.3 to -2.8 mm Hg]; P  < 0.001, for superiority). Greater reductions in 24-hour, and daytime and nighttime systolic and diastolic blood pressure were also observed with both doses of sacubitril/allisartan compared with olmesartan ( P  ≤ 0.001 for 480 mg/d). The blood pressure reductions tended to be dose-dependent for sacubitril/allisartan. Sacubitril/allisartan was well tolerated, and no cases of angioedema or death were reported., Conclusions: Sacubitril/allisartan is effective for the treatment of hypertension and well tolerated in Chinese patients., Competing Interests: The study was funded by Salubris Pharma (Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, China). The study investigators were also financially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (grants 82070432, 82070435, 82270469, and 82370426); Ministry of Science and Technology (grants 2018YFC1704902 and 2022YFC3601302); Shanghai Municipal Commissions of Science and Technology (grant 19DZ2340200) and Health (a special grant for “leading academics”); the Three-year Action Program of Shanghai Municipality for Strengthening the Construction of Public Health System (GWV-10.1-XK05) Big Data and Artificial Intelligence Application; the Clinical Research Program, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine (grant 2018CR010); and the Shenzhen Science and Technology Program (grant KQTD20200820151701004). Prof Wang has received lecture and consulting fees from Novartis, Omron, Servier, and Viatris. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (© 2024 The Authors.)

In a rapidly growing and aging population, heart failure (HF) has become recognised as a public health concern that imposes high economic and societal costs worldwide. HF management stems from the use of highly cost-effective angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and β-blockers to the use of newer drugs such as sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), ivabradine, and vericiguat. Modelling studies of pharmacological treatments that report on cost effectiveness in HF is important in order to guide clinical decision making. Multiple cost-effectiveness analysis of dapagliflozin for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) suggests that it is not only cost-effective and has the potential to improve long-term clinical outcomes, but is also likely to meet conventional cost-effectiveness thresholds in many countries. Similar promising results have also been shown for vericiguat while a cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) of empagliflozin has shown cost effectiveness in HF patients with Type 2 diabetes. Despite the recent FDA approval of dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in HF, it might take time for these SGLT2i to be widely used in real-world practice. A recent economic evaluation of vericiguat found it to be cost effective at a higher cost per QALY threshold than SGLT2i. However, there is a lack of clinical or real-world data regarding whether vericiguat would be prescribed on top of newer treatments or in lieu of them. Sacubitril/valsartan has been commonly compared to enalapril in cost effectiveness analysis and has been found to be similar to that of SGLT2i but was not considered a cost-effective treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in Thailand and Singapore with the current economic evaluation evidences. In order for more precise analysis on cost effectiveness analysis, it is necessary to take into account the income level of various countries as it is certainly easier to allocate more financial resources for the intervention, with greater effectiveness, in high- and middle-income countries than in low-income countries. This review aims to evaluate evidence and cost effectiveness studies in more recent HF drugs i.e., SGLT2i, ARNi, ivabradine, vericiguat and omecamtiv, and gaps in current literature on pharmacoeconomic studies in HF.

Left ventricular non-compaction (LVNC) is a rare disease defined by morphological criteria, consisting of a two-layered ventricular wall, a thin compacted epicardial layer, and a thick hyper-trabeculated myocardium layer with deep recesses. Controversies still exist regarding whether it is a distinct cardiomyopathy (CM) or a morphological trait of different conditions. This review analyzes data from the literature regarding diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis in LVNC and the current knowledge regarding reverse remodeling in this form of CM. Furthermore, for clear exemplification, we report a case of a 41-year-old male who presented symptoms of heart failure (HF). LVNC CM was suspected at the time of transthoracic echocardiography and was subsequently confirmed upon cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. A favorable remodeling and clinical outcome were registered after including an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor in the HF treatment. LVNC remains a heterogenous CM, and although a favorable outcome is not commonly encountered, some patients respond well to therapy.

Abstract Aims This study aimed to determine the effects of sodium‐glucose cotransporter‐2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), compare the effect of SGLT2i with angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), and find whether combination of SGLT2i and ARNI is better than monotherapy. Methods and results Embase, Medline, and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating SGLT2i or ARNI in HFrEF. And a total of six trials were included. SGLT2i was found to significantly reduce the risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure by 27% [hazard ratio (HR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67–0.80], hospitalization for heart failure by 31% (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.62–0.77), cardiovascular death by 16% (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74–0.95), and all‐cause death by 16% (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75–0.94) in HFrEF only with a statistically higher risk of genital infection (risk ratio (RR) 2.78, 95% CI 1.46–5.29). The reduction in cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure was of similar magnitude in patients with or without diabetes mellitus (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.64–0.80 vs. HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65–0.87) using SGLT2i. Indirect treatment comparison showed that SGLT2i and ARNI had similar effects on primary outcome (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.82–1.06). And combination of SGLT2i and ARNI achieved a better prognosis performance (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53–0.89) compared with ARNI monotherapy. Conclusions SGLT2i could safely reduce cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure in HFrEF regardless of diabetes mellitus status. SGLT2i and ARNI demonstrate similar effects, while combination of SGLT2i and ARNI results in a better cardiovascular protective effect.

Background There are limited data on the use of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) in minority populations with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. We used data from the CHAMP‐HF (Change the Management of Patients With Heart Failure) registry to evaluate ARNI initiation and associated changes in health status and clinical outcomes across different races and ethnicities. Methods and Results CHAMP‐HF was a prospective, observational registry of US outpatients with chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction. We compared patients starting ARNI with patients not starting ARNI using a propensity‐matched analysis. Patients were grouped as Hispanic, non‐Hispanic Black, non‐Hispanic White, or non‐Hispanic other individuals, where “non‐Hispanic other” consists of all patients who did not identify as Hispanic, Black, or White. Health status was assessed using the 12‐item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire. Outcomes were analyzed with multivariable models that included race and ethnicity, ARNI initiation, and an interaction term between race and ethnicity and ARNI initiation. Cox proportional hazards models were used for death/HF hospitalization, and multiple regression was used for change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score. The analysis included 1516 patients, with 758 patients in each group (ARNI and no ARNI). Changes in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score after ARNI initiation were similar among all race and ethnicity groups (mean [SD], non‐Hispanic White individuals, 3.5 [19.0]; non‐Hispanic Black individuals, 2.0 [17.0]; non‐Hispanic other individuals, 5.5 [20.3]; and Hispanic individuals, 3.2 [20.1]), with no statistically significant interaction between race and ethnicity and ARNI initiation (P=0.21). There was similarly no statistically significant interaction between race and ethnicity and ARNI initiation for HF hospitalization (P=0.82) or all‐cause mortality (P=0.92). Conclusions In a large registry of outpatients with HF with reduced ejection fraction, the association between ARNI initiation and outcomes did not differ by race and ethnicity. These data support the use of ARNI therapy for chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction irrespective of race and ethnicity.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) has become a huge challenge for the global public health system due to its high morbidity, mortality and severe economic burden. In recent years, angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), a new class of drugs, has shown good therapeutic effects on CVD patients in several clinical studies, reducing the morbidity and mortality of CVD patients. In this study, we retrieved publications on ARNI research in the cardiovascular field from the Web of Science core collection and analyzed the annual output, spatial and temporal distribution, institutions and authors, core journals, keywords and co-cited literature based on CiteSpace. As a result, 604 publications were retrieved, and the number of annual publications generally increased year by year, with the largest number of articles. The analysis of the co-occurrence of output countries and authors showed that a few developed countries such as the United States, Canada, and United Kingdom are the most active in this field, forming academic groups represented by John Joseph Valentine McMurray and Scott D. Solomon, and New England Journal of Medicine, Cirulation, and Journal of the American College of Cardiology are the most popular journals in the field, with research hotspots focused on ARNI in the treatment of total ejection fraction heart failure, hypertension and its target organ damage, with the potential for future benefit throughout the cardiovascular event chain as research progresses. This study reveals the prospective application of ARNI in the cardiovascular field and the research hotspots, providing broader and deeper guidance for its use in the clinic, which is beneficial to improve the treatment and prognosis of CVD patients.

Abstract Bradykinin‐mediated angioedema, a nonallergic reaction most commonly caused by renin angiotensin system (RAS) blockers, has the potential to lead to a critical condition. RAS blockers are important for treating heart failure and are widely used in clinical settings. We present the case of an 85‐year‐old man who was administered enalapril after percutaneous coronary intervention for an acute myocardial infarction and developed severe angioedema requiring a tracheostomy. He had multiple risks for angioedema including advanced age, smoking history, renal dysfunction, and longstanding use of an angiotensin receptor blocker. The prompt diagnosis of drug‐induced angioedema is critical and depends on physicians' recognition of risk factors and knowledge of pathophysiology. In the present era of increasingly prevalent heart failure, it is imperative that the possibility of angioedema receives attention, especially given the continuing reliance on RAS blockers and the advent of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, a new type of heart failure drug.

Abstract Hypertension is a worldwide epidemic that continues to grow, with a subset of patients responding poorly to current treatment available. This is especially relevant in Asia, which constitutes 61% of the global population. Hypertension in Asia is a unique entity that is often salt‐sensitive, nocturnal, and systolic predominant. Sacubitril/valsartan is a first‐in‐class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor that was first used in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Sacubitril inhibits neprilysin, a metallopeptidase that degrades natriuretic peptides (NPs). NPs exert sympatholytic, diuretic, natriuretic, vasodilatory, and insulin‐sensitizing effects mostly via cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP)‐mediated pathways. As an antihypertensive agent, sacubitril/valsartan has outperformed angiotensin II receptor type 1 blockers (ARBs), with additional reductions of office systolic blood pressures ranging between 5 and 7 mmHg, in multiple studies in Asia and around the globe. The drug was well tolerated even in the elderly or those with chronic kidney disease. Its mechanisms of actions are particularly attractive for treatment of hypertension in Asia. Sacubitril/valsartan offers a novel, dual class, single‐molecule property that may be considered as first‐line antihypertensive therapy. Further investigations are needed to validate its safety for long‐term use and to explore other potentials such as in the management of insulin resistance and obesity, which often coexist with hypertension in Asia.

Background: Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) are emerging medical treatments for decompensated heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. In clinical practice, the combination of ARNI and SGLT2i cannot be administered owing to the poor hemodynamic status in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This study aimed to compare different strategies of HF management for ARNI first or SGLT2i first in such a population. Methods: From January 2016 to December 2021, 165 patients were diagnosed with HFrEF and New York Heart Association functional class ≥II and already received optimal medical treatment. Ninety-five patients received the ARNI-first strategy, and 70 patients received the SGLT2i-first strategy according to the physician’s choice. Age, sex, hemodynamic condition, etiologies of HF, comorbidities, serum creatinine, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-ProBNP), echocardiographic parameters, and clinical outcomes were compared between the ARNI and SGLT2i-first strategy groups. Results: In the SGLT2i-first group, the median interval between the addition of the second medication was longer (ARNI-first vs. SGLT2i-first; 74 [49–100] days vs. 112 [86–138] days; p = 0.044). Improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), change in left atrial dimension, and change in left ventricular end-diastolic and end-systolic volume (LVESV) did not differ between the two groups. The incidence of HF hospitalization, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality did not differ between the two groups. A non-significant trend of lower NT-proBNP levels (ARNI-first vs. SGLT2i-first; 1383 [319–2507] pg/mL vs. 570 [206–1314] pg/mL; p = 0.055) and significantly higher discontinuation rate of diuretic agents (ARNI-first vs. SGLT2i- first; 6.8% vs. 17.5%; p = 0.039) were noted in the SGLT2i-first group. When early combination (≤14D) compared to late combination (>14D), better positive remodeling of LVESV presented significantly in early combination subgroups. Conclusions: In patients with symptomatic HFrEF, SGLT2i-first strategy may provide a higher possibility of discontinuing diuretic agents than the ARNI-first strategy. Changes in LV performance, progression of renal function, and clinical outcomes did not differ between the two groups. Early combination (≤14D) provided better LV remodeling.

Sacubitril/valsartan, simultaneously inhibits neprilysin and angiotensin II receptor, showed an effect in reducing blood pressure (BP). The authors aimed to study whether it can be used as an antihypertensive agent in patients with refractory hypertension who have already been treated. A total of 66 Chinese patients with refractory hypertension were enrolled. Patients received sacubitril/valsartan 200 instead of angiotensin II receptor blocker or angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor while other agents continued. If BP was uncontrolled after 4 weeks, sacubitril/valsartan was increased to 400 mg. The BP reduction was evaluated by office BP and ambulatory BP monitoring after 8‐week treatment. The baseline office BP and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were 150.0/95.0 mmHg and 113.3 mmHg. BP and MAP reduced to 130.6/83.2 mmHg and 99.0 mmHg at week 8. Office BP and MAP reductions were 19.4/11.8 mmHg and 14.3 mmHg at endpoint (all p <.001). The 24‐h, daytime and nighttime ambulatory BP were 146.2/89.1, 148.1/90.3, and 137.5/83.7 mmHg, respectively at baseline, and BP reduced to 129.6/79.8, 130.6/81.1, and 121.7/75.8 mmHg, respectively at week 8. The 24‐h, daytime and nighttime ambulatory BP reductions were 16.6/9.3, 17.5/9.2, and 15.8/7.9 mmHg, respectively at endpoint (all p <.001). Sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced office and ambulatory BP in refractory hypertension patients. Our study provided new evidence for sacubitril/valsartan in refractory hypertension. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan (SAC/VAL) has shown benefit in patients with symptomatic heart failure (HF), including those naïve to renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitor (RAASi) therapy, and is considered the preferred RAASi for chronic HF. Real-world data on ARNI, specifically in RAASi-naïve patients, are limited. This study compared real-world outcomes of ARNI (SAC/VAL) vs. angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) therapy in RAASi-naïve patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods: This retrospective cohort study included de-identified data on RAASi-naïve patients with HFrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40%) who had newly initiated SAC/VAL or ACEi/ARB between July 1, 2015, and March 31, 2019, from the Optum® Electronic Health Records database in the US. New SAC/VAL users were propensity score matched 1:2 with new ACEi/ARB users by pre-selected characteristics. One-year post-index rates of all-cause, HF, and cardiovascular hospitalizations and the composite of HF hospitalization or emergency room (ER) visits were measured using negative binomial regression. Time to first all-cause hospitalization, HF hospitalization, and composite of HF hospitalization or ER visits was measured using a subdistribution hazards model. Results: The matched sample included 3059 new SAC/VAL and 6118 new ACEi/ARB users. Rates of all-cause hospitalization and composite of HF hospitalization or ER visits were significantly lower with SAC/VAL compared with ACEi/ARB (incidence rate ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.87 [0.81–0.93] and 0.87 [0.81–0.94], respectively), whereas rates of HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular hospitalizations were similar (1.00 [0.91–1.11] and 0.94 [0.87–1.02], respectively). Time-to-event analyses also showed a similar trend. Conclusions: In real-world clinical practice, RAASi-naïve patients with HFrEF initiating SAC/VAL were less likely to be hospitalized than those initiating ACEi/ARB, suggesting a potential for a reduced clinical and economic burden in these patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril‐valsartan has been recommended as one of the first‐line therapies in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. However, whether ARNI could benefit patients with ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) by improving left ventricular (LV) remodeling remains unknown. The primary objective of the PERI‐STEMI trial is to assess whether sacubitril‐valsartan is more effective in preventing adverse LV remodeling for patients with STEMI than enalapril. Hypothesis: We hypothesize that sacubitril/valsartan is superior to enalapril in preventing adverse LV remodeling evaluated by cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging at the 6‐month follow‐up. Methods: PERI‐STEMI is an investigator‐initiated, prospective, multi‐center, randomized, open‐label, superiority trial with blinded evaluation of outcomes. A total of 376 first‐time STEMI patients with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) within 12 h after symptom onset will be randomized to sacubitril‐valsartan or enalapril treatment. All the patients will receive a baseline cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) examination at 4–7 days post‐PPCI. The primary endpoint is the change of indexed LV mass at the 6‐month follow‐up CMR. Results: Enrollment of the first patient is planned in November 2021. Recruitment is anticipated to last for 12–18 months and patients will be followed for 5 years after randomization. The study is expected to complete in June 2027. Conclusions: The results of the PERI‐STEMI trial are expected to provide CMR evidence on whether ARNI could benefit patients with STEMI, so as to facilitate the strategy of CMR‐based risk stratification and therapy selection for these patients. PERI‐STEMI is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04912167). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Joseph J Cuthbert,1 Pierpaolo Pellicori,2 Andrew L Clark1 1Department of Academic Cardiology, Hull York Medical School, Hull and East Yorkshire Medical Research and Teaching Centre, Castle Hill Hospital, Kingston upon Hull HU16 5JQ, UK; 2Robertson Institute of Biostatistics and Clinical Trials Unit, University of Glasgow, University Avenue, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UKCorrespondence: Joseph J CuthbertDepartment of Academic Cardiology, Hull York Medical School, Hull and East Yorkshire Medical Research and Teaching Centre, Castle Hill Hospital, Cottingham, Kingston upon Hull HU16 5JQ, UKTel + 44 (0)1482 461776Fax + 44 (0)1482 461779Email joe.cuthbert@hey.nhs.ukAbstract: One of the defining features of heart failure (HF) is neurohormonal activation. The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system (RAAS) and sympathetic nervous system (SNS) cause vasoconstriction and fluid retention and, in response, the secretion of natriuretic peptides (NPs) from volume and pressure-overloaded myocardium promotes vasodilation and diuresis. Inhibition of the RAAS with either angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) has been the cornerstone of medical treatment for HF with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) but, until recently, it was unclear how the beneficial effects of NPs may be augmented in patients with HF. Neprilysin, a metalloproteinase widely distributed throughout the body, plays a role in degrading the gross excess of circulating NPs in patients with HF. Early studies of neprilysin inhibition suggested possible physiological benefits. In 2014, the PARADIGM-HF trial found that sacubitril-valsartan, a combination of the ARB valsartan, and the neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril, was superior to enalapril in patients with HFrEF, reducing the relative risk of cardiovascular (CV) death or first hospitalisation with HF by 20%. Almost half of the patients with HF symptoms have a “preserved” ejection fraction (HFpEF); however, the PARAGON-HF study found that sacubitril-valsartan in patients with LVEF ≥ 45% had no effect on CV death or first and recurrent hospitalisations with HF compared to valsartan. Guidelines across the world have changed to include sacubitril-valsartan for patients with HFrEF yet, nearly 6 years after PARADIGM-HF, there is still uncertainty as to when and in whom sacubitril-valsartan should be started. Furthermore, there may yet be subsets of patients with HFpEF who might benefit from treatment with sacubitril-valsartan. This review will describe the mechanisms behind the outcome benefit of sacubitril-valsartan in patients with HFrEF and to consider its future role in the management of patients with HF.Keywords: sacubitril-valsartan, heart failure, PARADIGM-HF, PARAGON-HF, natriuretic peptide, angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor

Abstract Aims The angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan reduces mortality and hospitalizations in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Favourable effects on haemodynamic and functional parameters have been observed in patients with HFrEF undergoing ARNI therapy, using standard transthoracic echocardiography. Global longitudinal strain (GLS) assessment uses a semi‐automatic procedure to provide a reliable and repeatable method that improves the detection of early changes of contractile function. We aimed to assess the effects of ARNI on GLS and myocardial mechanics in patients with HFrEF. Methods and results Thirty patients with New York Heart Association class II–III HFrEF were treated with ARNI and monitored using standard echocardiographic examination and GLS measurements at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. ARNI therapy resulted in a significant reduction of ventricular volumes and a significant increase in left ventricular ejection fraction at 6 months but not 3 months by standard transthoracic echocardiography (left ventricular ejection fraction from 28 ± 8% at baseline to 34 ± 12% at 6 months, P

Background: Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) reduces morbidity and mortality in patients of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, the use of ARNI in real-world practice is limited by safety issues, especially in acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) patients. Methods and Results: Forty-seven hospitalized ADHF inpatients and 53 chronic compensated heart failure (CCHF) outpatients were enrolled in the study. ARNI was initiated and aimed to be up-titrated to a target dose of 97 mg of sacubitril with 103 mg of valsartan twice daily. Efficacy endpoints were New York Heart Association functional class, 6-min walk distance (6MWD), change in N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-pro BNP) levels and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from baseline with follow-up at 1 month, 6 months, and 2 years. Safety endpoints were the rates of worsening serum creatinine, hyperkalemia, symptomatic hypotension, angioedema, and need for drug discontinuation. Cumulative adverse drug effect was observed in 42.6% and 13.2% patients of ADHF and CCHF groups, respectively. The most common side-effect was symptomatic hypotension that occurred in 10 (21.3%) patients of ADHF group and 3 (5.7%) patients of CCHF group. Drug discontinuation rate was 19.1% in ADHF group and 3.8% in CCHF group. Significant improvement was seen in both the groups with respect to 6 MWD, functional class, change in NT-pro BNP levels and LVEF. At 2-year follow-up, 3 (6.4%) deaths occurred in ADHF group while none was reported from CCHF group. Conclusion: ARNI results in a significant clinical, biochemical, and functional improvement in HFrEF patients but at the cost of worsening renal function and hypotension especially in ADHF setting.

Novel therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i), etc. The purpose of this review is to determine the effects of ARNI and SGLT2i in heart failure (HF), compare the impact of SGLT2i with ARNI, and finally evaluate the current data regarding the combination of these two drugs in HF. Various trials on the respective medications have shown some significant reduction in all-cause mortality and cardiovascular (CV) death. The combination of these drugs has shown more CV benefits than monotherapy. There is emerging data about these two drugs in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). At present, there are less head-to-head comparison trials of these two drugs. This review provides insights on the current evidence, comparative efficacy, and combination therapy of ARNI and SGLT2i in managing HF, focussing on HFrEF and HFpEF., 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 Cardiological Society of India. Published by Elsevier, a division of RELX India, Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The objective of this study was to evaluate the pharmacoeconomic value of sacubitril-valsartan for the treatment of heart failure (HF). PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, Scopus, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP databases were searched systematically and the retrieval time ended in August 2019. According to the criteria of inclusion and exclusion, the quality of studies included was evaluated as per the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) scale, and the results were extracted and analyzed systematically. The total of 11 cost-effectiveness studies was identified, 10 were performed in the developed countries and 1 in Thailand. All the patients in the studies had chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Totally, the quality of all the 11 studies was reported to be of an average score of 20.5. Study perspective and time horizons were described in the 11 studies. All included studies discounted the cost or effectiveness. Only 1 study estimated direct and indirect costs; 10 studies evaluated direct cost. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of sacubitril-valsartan treating HFrEF was $13,150 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) in Thailand and $86,735 in Singapore. In European countries, the ICER was from $21,786 to $34,576 per QALY and mean value was $25,410.6 per QALY. In the USA, ICER values ranged from $47,099 to $143,891 per QALY, and mean value was $73,383.5 per QALY; ICER was $30,090 per QALY in Colombia. With the exception of Thailand and Singapore, the ICER of other countries in the included literature was below the implemented country-specific thresholds. Based on existing literatures, with the exception of Thailand and Singapore, sacubitril-valsartan for the treatment of HFrEF is a better cost-effective therapy with ICER basically below the implemented country-specific thresholds. Sacubitril-valsartan was not considered a cost-effective treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in Thailand and Singapore with the current economic evaluation evidences, but with the willingness-to-pay (WTP) of other counties, sacubitril-valsartan was found to be a cost-effective treatment compared with comparator. Drug cost, time horizon, and hospitalization were the most influential variables across studies. Four studies indicated that with the longer time horizon, the lower ICER value would gain. Further studies are warranted to better evaluate comprehensive utility value of sacubitril-valsartan on heart failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]