Prospective Comparison Of Angiotensin Receptor-neprilysin Inhibitor Research Articles

Updates for Cardio‐Kidney Protective Effects by Angiotensin Receptor‐Neprilysin Inhibitor: Requirement for Additional Evidence of Kidney Protection

The incidence of heart failure and chronic kidney disease is increasing, and many patients develop both diseases. Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) is a promising therapeutic candidate for both diseases. ARNI has demonstrated superior cardioprotective effects compared with renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RAS-Is) in large clinical trials such as the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI [Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor] to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial. It has also been suggested that ARNI can provide renoprotective effects beyond those of RAS-Is in patients with HF. ARNI might have beneficial effects on the kidneys because of its ability to improve cardiac function in patients with heart failure and affect renal hemodynamics by enhancing the effects of hormones such as natriuretic peptide. In contrast, in the PARADIGM-HF trial, ARNI was associated with more albuminuria compared with RAS-I; thus, it is unclear whether long-term ARNI therapy has renoprotective effects. Additionally, ARNI did not provide renoprotective effects beyond RAS-I in patients with chronic kidney disease in the UK HARP-III (United Kingdom Heart and Renal Protection-III) trial. In other words, the patient population in which ARNI is more renoprotective than RAS-I might be limited. Collectively, ARNI may have renoprotective effects in addition to cardioprotective effects, but the evidence to date is applicable only to heart failure. Theoretically, given the molecular mechanism of ARNI, it could also be renoprotective in conditions such as nephrosclerosis, which has low risks of albuminuria and reduced kidney perfusion, but the evidence for such effects is lacking. Further research is needed to clarify whether ARNI therapy is an acceptable treatment strategy for renal protection.

Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Japanese Patients With Chronic Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction - Results From the PARALLEL-HF Study.

In the Prospective Comparison of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) With ACEi to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) study, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan reduced the primary outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death and heart failure (HF) hospitalization compared with enalapril in patients with chronic HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). A prospective randomized trial was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in Japanese HFrEF patients.Methods and Results:In the Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEi to determine the noveL beneficiaL trEatment vaLue in Japanese Heart Failure patients (PARALLEL-HF) study, 225 Japanese HFrEF patients (New York Heart Association [NYHA] class II-IV, left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] ≤35%) were randomized (1 : 1) to receive sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg bid or enalapril 10 mg bid. Over a median follow up of 33.9 months, no significant between-group difference was observed for the primary composite outcome of CV death and HF hospitalization (HR 1.09; 95% CI 0.65-1.82; P=0.6260). Early and sustained reductions in N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) from baseline were observed with sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril (between-group difference: Week 2: 25.7%, P<0.01; Month 6: 18.9%, P=0.01, favoring sacubitril/valsartan). There was no significant difference in the changes in NYHA class and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) clinical summary score at Week 8 and Month 6. Sacubitril/valsartan was well tolerated with fewer study drug discontinuations due to adverse events, although the sacubitril/valsartan group had a higher proportion of patients with hypotension. In Japanese patients with HFrEF, there was no difference in reduction in the risk of CV death or HF hospitalization between sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril, and sacubitril/valsartan was safe and well tolerated.

Sacubitril/valsartan 24/26 Mg Dose Is A Predictor For Higher Mortality Rate In Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Receiving Sacubitril/valsartan: Interim Results

Introduction Currently, the American College of Cardiology (ACC)/ American Heart Association (AHA)/ Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA) guideline recommends replacing angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) with angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) to further reduce mortality or heart failure (HF) rehospitalization rate. However, little evidence is available for low (24/26 mg) and middle (49/51 mg) doses because the Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACE-I to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity of Patients with Chronic Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial required dose titration up to high dose (97/103 mg) prior to randomization. Thus, our study in the real-world setting seeks to evaluate the effect of sacubitril/valsartan dose (low vs. middle vs. target dose) on mortality rate in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods Patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan diagnosed as HFrEF from July 2015 to December 2019 were included in this retrospective cohort study. Patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan less than 1 year and receiving dialysis were excluded. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The follow-up period was up to 3.5 years after sacubitril/valsartan initiation. The hazard ratios and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. The survival data regression analysis using the Cox proportional hazards model was performed to examine the association between Entresto doses and mortality while controlling age, body mass index, brain natriuretic peptide, creatinine, ejection fraction, gender, systolic blood pressure, and prior ACE-I or ARB use. The significant level was set at 0.05. Results A total of 164 patients in 24/26 mg group, 78 patients in 49/51 mg group, and 80 patients in 97/103 mg group were included in this preliminary analysis. The all-cause mortality rate was significantly higher in 24/26 mg group compared with 97/103 mg group (27.4 vs. 11.3 %; hazard ratio = 2.77; 95% CI 1.35-5.67; p=0.0054). There was no significant difference in mortality rate between 49/51 mg and 97/103 groups (12.8 vs. 11.3 %; hazard ratio = 1.08; 95% CI 0.44-2.68; p=0.859). After controlling for the pre-specified variables, the significant difference between 24/26 and 97/103 mg groups was not retained (HR = 3.96, 95% CI 0.435-35.949, p=0.222) but the hazard of mortality at any given time was greatest in 24/26 mg group compared with 49/59 and 97/103 mg groups. Conclusions The results of this study indicate that sacubitril/valsartan 24/26 mg use is a predictor for a higher mortality rate in patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan. The final analysis with a larger sample size will be needed for further investigation.

Understanding the early mortality benefit observed in the PARADIGM-HF trial: considerations for the management of heart failure with sacubitril/valsartan.

This review aims to elucidate the optimal dosing of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) therapy in the heart failure (HF) treatment paradigm through examination of the trial population characteristics and the mortality benefit observed in the Prospective Comparison of ARNI with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF; NCT01035255) trial. Considerations regarding the initiation and titration of sacubitril/valsartan, a first-in-class ARNI, will also be addressed. The approval of sacubitril/valsartan heralded the first novel pharmacological class in over a decade for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The PARADIGM-HF trial showed that treatment with valsartan/valsartan reduced the risk of first occurrence of either cardiovascular death or HF-related hospitalization (composite primary endpoint) by 20% compared with enalapril in patients with HFrEF. The incremental benefits of treatment with valsartan/valsartan over enalapril demonstrated in the PARADIGM-HF trial led to strong recommendations for its use over ACEIs or angiotensin receptor blockers to further reduce morbidity and mortality in the 2016 and 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America updates to the guidelines for the management of HF. Although the optimal timing for the initiation of valsartan/valsartan has yet to be determined, its early use is likely to have a positive impact on patient outcomes.

Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor for Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: Real-World Experience From Taiwan.

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. 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. 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). 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.

Effects of the Angiotensin-Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor on Cardiac Reverse Remodeling: Meta-Analysis.

BackgroundThe angiotensin‐receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan was shown to be superior to the angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril in terms of reducing cardiovascular mortality in the PARADIGM‐HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) study. However, the impact of ARNI on cardiac reverse remodeling (CRR) has not been established.Methods and ResultsWe conducted a meta‐analysis to compare the effects of ARNI versus angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers on CRR indices. We searched databases for studies published between 2010 and 2019 that reported CRR indices following ARNI administration. Effect size was expressed as mean difference (MD) with 95% CIs. Twenty studies enrolling 10 175 patients were included. ARNI improved functional capacity in patients with heart failure (HF) and a reduced ejection fraction (EF), including increasing New York Heart Association functional class (MD −0.79, 95% CI −0.86, −0.71) and 6‐minute walking distance (MD 27.62 m, 95% CI 15.76, 39.48). ARNI outperformed angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers in terms of CRR indices, with striking changes in left ventricular EF, diameter, and volume. However, there were no significant improvements in indices except left ventricular mass index (MD −3.25 g/m2, 95% CI −3.78, −2.72) and left atrial volume (MD −7.20 mL, 95% CI −14.11, −0.29) in HF patients with preserved EF treated with ARNI. Improvements in CRR indices were observed at 3 months and became more significant with longer follow‐up to 12 months. The regression equation for the relationship between left ventricular EF and end‐diastolic dimension was y=0.041+0.071x+0.045x2+0.006x3.ConclusionsARNI distinctly improved left ventricular size and hypertrophy compared with angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers in HF with reduced EF patients, even after short‐term follow‐up. Patients appeared to benefit more in terms of CRR treated with ARNI as early as possible and for at least 3 months. Further large sample trials are required to determine the effects of ARNI on CRR in HF with preserved EF patients.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Sacubitril/Valsartan Use Compared With Standard Care in Chronic Heart Failure Patients With Reduced Ejection Fraction in South Korea

PurposeSacubitril/valsartan, the first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), is a possible treatment option for chronic heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan use in South Korea for treating patients with HFrEF compared with that of enalapril, an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, and with angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). MethodsA Markov model was designed to estimate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of treatment for patients with HFrEF. Cohorts in the alive-state incurred a monthly risk of hospitalization because of deteriorated HF, adverse events (AEs), or death. Transition probabilities of sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril were estimated by using data from the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial. The effectiveness of ARBs (eg, reduction in mortality and hospitalization rates) was assumed to be identical to that of enalapril, according to the results of the meta-analysis. However, there was no comparative evidence for AEs. We therefore conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis and adjusted the incidence rate of AEs for ARBs. The utility for estimating quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was elicited by the survey of the general South Korean population by using EuroQol-5 dimensions. We calculated the medical costs, including medication, monitoring, hospitalization, AEs, and terminal care, from the health care sector perspective. Costs and effectiveness were discounted by 5%. One-way sensitivity analyses and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to determine the model robustness. FindingsThe total cost per patient for sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril was $25,832 and $18,295, respectively. Sacubitril/valsartan was associated with an ∼8- month longer life expectancy compared with enalapril and a QALY gain of 0.59. As a result, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril was $12,722 per QALY. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of sacubitril/valsartan versus ARB was $11,970 with an incurred cost of $18,741 for the ARB group. The main results and those of various sensitivity analyses were lower than a threshold of $20,000. ImplicationsFrom a health care sector perspective, sacubitril/valsartan is a cost-effective treatment for HFrEF compared with enalapril and ARBs. This finding could be helpful for cardiologists or decision makers in reaching cost-effective choices regarding the treatment selection process.

Abstract 19363: Prevention of Progressive Worsening of Heart Failure Over Time With The Angiotensin-receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor Sacubitril/valsartan (lcz696)

Background: The aim of this analysis was to examine the effect of the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696), compared with enalapril, on progressive worsening over time in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF) enrolled in the Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidly in Heart Failure trial (PARADIGM-HF). Methods: In PARADIGM-HF, 4212 patients were randomized to enalapril and 4187 to sacubitril/valsartan. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular (CV) death or hospitalization for heart failure (HF). To make a more comprehensive evaluation of HF worsening over time, we analysed the broader composite of CV death, HF hospitalization, emergency department visit for HF or intensification of therapy for HF (as time-to-first event) using the Kaplan-Meier (KM) method. Results: At baseline, 71% of patients were in NYHA functional class II and 24% in class III. Their mean LVEF was 27% and 93% were treated with a beta-blocker and 56% with a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist. The median duration of follow-up was 27 months. The 1, 2 and 3 year KM rates for the composite outcome in the enalapril group were 16.5 (95% CI 15.5, 17.7)%, 27.6 (26.2, 29.1) and 34.8 (33.1-36.6)%, respectively. The corresponding rates in the sacubitril/valsartan group were 13.4 (12.4, 14.5), 22.1 (20.8, 23.4) and 29.5 (27.9, 31.2)%, respectively. Overall 1275 enalapril treated and 1038 sacubitril/valsartan treated patients had an event, giving a hazard ratio 0.79 (95% CI 0.73, 0.86), p&lt;0.0001. Over the course of the trial, 55 fewer patients per 1000 treated with sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, experienced worsening (number needed to treat = 18). Conclusions: Even in patients with predominantly mild symptoms, well treated with evidence-based pharmacological therapy, worsening of HF over time was common, with more than a third of patients exhibiting progression within 3 years. The ARNI sacubitril/valsartan led to clinically important relative and absolute reductions in progressive worsening, compared with enalapril.

Neprilysin inhibition to treat heart failure: a tale of science, serendipity, and second chances.

This review describes the role of neprilysin (also known as neutral endopeptidase or enkephalinase) in the degradation of natriuretic and other vasoactive peptides, including bradykinin and adrenomedullin. The initial development of neprilysin inhibitors, then angiotensin converting enzyme-neprilysin inhibitors and, most recently, the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) LCZ696 (sacubitril valsartan) as an extension of the nurohumoral basis for the treatment of heart failure is also summarised. Finally, the implications of the compelling benefits of LCZ696 compared with enalapril in the Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure trial (PARADIGM-HF) is discussed.

Independence of the blood pressure lowering effect and efficacy of the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, LCZ696, in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: an analysis of the PARAMOUNT trial

The first in class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, LCZ696 has been shown to reduce levels of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), reduce left atrial size and improve New York Heart Association (NYHA) class in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). We examined whether the effects of LCZ696 were independent of systolic blood pressure (SBP) lowering. In the Prospective comparison of ARNi (angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor) with ARB (angiotensin receptor blocker) on Management Of heart failUre with preserved ejectioN fracTion (PARAMOUNT) trial 301 patients were randomly assigned to LCZ696 or valsartan. We examined the relationship between SBP lowering and LCZ696 on NT-proBNP level, left atrial size, NYHA class and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). By 12 weeks blood pressure was reduced by 9 mmHg (SD 15)/5 mmHg (SD 11) in patients receiving LCZ696 in comparison with 3 mmHg (SD 17)/2 mmHg (SD 12) in those receiving valsartan. The change in NT-proBNP was poorly correlated with change in SBP (LCZ696, r = 0.17, P = 0.06; valsartan, r = 0.05, P = 0.58) After adjustment for change in SBP, the ratio of change in NT-proBNP at 12 weeks for LCZ696 vs. valsartan was 0.76 (95% CI 0.63-0.93, P = 0.008), and similar to the ratio not adjusting for SBP (0.76, 95% CI 0.63-0.92, P = 0.006); P for interaction was 0.38). Similarly, reduction in left atrial volume index at 36 weeks, improvement in NYHA class and eGFR were all independent of the change in SBP. In patients with HFpEF, the effect of the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 on NT-proBNP, left atrial volume, functional class, and eGFR was independent of reduction in SBP.