Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan on renal function in patients with chronic kidney disease and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: A real-world 12-week study.

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are often complicated with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, several drugs, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), have not shown apparent benefits in terms of morbidity and mortality of HFpEF. PARAMOUNT and other studies have shown the potential benefits of Sacubitril/Valsartan on patients with HFpEF, but its effects on renal function and the effect of low-dose Sacubitril/Valsartan in actual clinical conditions have not been thoroughly evaluated. In our longitudinal and observational research, 353 patients were followed up for 12 weeks. We evaluated renal function [urinary protein, serum creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)] and cardiac function [NT-proBNP (brain natriuretic peptide), New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left atrial width and left ventricular end-diastolic width] at baseline and during follow-up. Worsening renal function (WRF) was defined as an increased serum creatinine≥26.5umol/L or decreased eGFR≥20%. The decline of eGFR in the Sacubitril/Valsartan group was slower than that in the control group (p = 0.021). The outcome of proteinuria in the ACEI/ARB group was significantly better than that in the Sacubitril/Valsartan group (p = 0.001). In terms of echocardiogram, the average left atrial width in Sacubitril/Valsartan group decreased by 1.38 ± 3.02 mm, which was significantly lower than that in the ACEI/ARB group (p = 0.02). The increase of urine protein class in the ACEI/ARB group increased the risk of WRF with statistical significance (OR = 2.36, 95%CI 1.01-5.49, p = 0.047), but no statistical significance was found in all the patients or Sacubitril/Valsartan group. In conclusion, Sacubitril/Valsartan could more effectively slow down renal function decline and reverse myocardial remodeling in patients with CKD and HFpEF than ACEI/ARB, even at low doses, though its protective effect on urinary protein is not as good as that of ACEI/ARB.

Jia R ，Zhang X ，Xu Y ，Zheng Z ，Jiang L ，Zhang X ，Sun C ，Wu X ，Li S ，Raj A ，Sun D ... -  《-》

Sacubitril/valsartan improves all-cause mortality in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction and chronic kidney disease.

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

Lee WC ，Liao TW ，Chen TY ，Fang HY ，Fang YN ，Chen HC ，Lin YS ，Chang SH ，Chen MC ... -  《-》

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan and Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/Angiotensin Receptor Blockers in Patients With Reduced Ejection Fraction Combined With Moderate-to-Severe Chronic Kidney Disease.

Zhang Z ，Chen S ，Xu X ，Luo G ，Huang J ... -  《-》

Effect of sacubitril/valsartan and ACEI/ARB on glycaemia and the development of diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Sacubitril/valsartan and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI)/angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) therapies were reported to affect glycaemic control and the development of diabetes mellitus (DM), but the findings are inconsistent. We examined the evidence for the effects of sacubitril/valsartan and ACEI/ARB in DM by conducting a meta-analysis. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library), Embase, PubMed, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for data from randomised clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan and ACEI/ARB in patients, as of May 25, 2022. Patients were grouped by their disease background at baseline. The main outcomes were the number of new-onset DM and hypoglycaemia, elevated glycaemia, inadequate DM control, diabetes treatment, and diabetic complications, from baseline to the end of the trials. The risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (ROB 2). The quality of the evidence was evaluated according to the Recommendations for Assessment, Development, and Evaluation guidelines. The meta-analysis of the incidence of various outcomes was conducted using fixed or random effects models. The results are expressed as binary risk, 95% confidence interval (CI), and relative risk (RR). The Mantel-Haenszel method and Z test were used to determine the overall results and determine the significance of the RR. This study included 31 RCTs and 86,809 subjects. Compared with placebo, sacubitril/valsartan treatment significantly reduced the risk of new-onset DM among all patients (RR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.64-0.95), patients with heart failure (HF) (RR = 0.24, 95% CI: 0.12-0.48), HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (RR = 0.24, 95% CI: 0.12-0.50), and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (RR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.34-0.85). In contrast, sacubitril/valsartan treatment significantly increased the risk of hypoglycaemia among all patients (RR = 1.91, 95% CI: 1.05-3.47), patients with not all-DM (defined as part of the study population having DM at baseline) (RR = 5.71, 95% CI: 2.02-16.21), and patients with HFpEF (RR = 7.06, 95% CI: 2.10-23.76). Compared with ACEI/ARB, sacubitril/valsartan treatment significantly increased the risk of hypoglycaemia among patients with HF (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.12-3.06, p = 0.02) and HFpEF (RR 3.59, 95% CI 1.51-8.55, p = 0.004). Compared with placebo, ACEI/ARB treatment did significantly reduce the risk of new-onset DM among all patients (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.77-0.93, p = 0.0007) and patients with not all-HF (defined as part of the study population having HF at baseline) (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.82-0.93, p<0.0001) and HFpEF (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.44-0.83, p = 0.002), diabetes complications among patients with non-HF (/not all-DM) (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.76-0.99, p = 0.04), and subsequent diabetes treatment among patients with new-onset DM (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.58-0.84, p = 0.0002) and significantly increased the risk of hypoglycaemia among patients with not all-DM (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.172-3.61, p = 0.01). The results of our study, especially in reducing glycaemia and new-onset DM, revealed that sacubitril/valsartan had a positive effect on the control of glycaemia and the development of DM. ACEI/ARB also had a beneficial effect but the effect was weaker than that of sacubitril/valsartan. The above effects varied across diseases but the evidence was strongest in patients with HF. CRD42022336311.

Wang R ，Ye H ，Zhao Y ，Wei J ，Wang Y ，Zhang X ，Wang L ... -  《BMC Medicine》

Cardiovascular and Renal Outcomes of Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonist Use in PARAGON-HF.

This study sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) according to background mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) therapy. Current guidelines recommend consideration of MRAs in selected patients with HFpEF. This study assessed cardiovascular outcomes, renal outcomes, and safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in patients with HFpEF according to background MRA treatment. PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI [angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor] with ARB [angiotensin-receptor blockers] Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction) randomized 4,796 patients with HFpEF to sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan. In a pre-specified subgroup analysis, the effect of sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan was evaluated according to baseline MRA use on the primary study composite of total heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular death using semiparametric proportional rates methods, as well as the renal composite of ≥50% decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate, development of end-stage renal disease, or death from renal causes using Cox proportional hazards regression models. Annual decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate was analyzed with repeated-measures mixed-effect models. Key safety outcomes included incidence of hypotension, hyperkalemia, and elevations in serum creatinine above predefined thresholds. Patients treated with MRAs at baseline (n = 1,239, 26%), compared with MRA nonusers (n = 3,557, 74%), were younger (72 vs. 73 years), more often male (52% vs. 47%), had lower left ventricular ejection fraction (57% vs. 58%), and a higher proportion of prior HF hospitalization (59% vs. 44%) (all p < 0.001). Efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan with regard to the primary cardiovascular (for MRA users: rate ratio: 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56 to 0.95; vs. for MRA nonusers: rate ratio: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.11; pinteraction = 0.11) and renal endpoints (for MRA users: hazard ratio: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.76; vs. for MRA non-users: HR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.95; pinteraction = 0.21) did not significantly vary by baseline MRA use. The incidence of key safety outcomes including hypotension and severe hyperkalemia (K > 6.0 mmol/l) did not vary by baseline MRA use. However, annual decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate was less with the combination of MRA and sacubitril/valsartan (for MRA users: absolute difference favoring sacubitril/valsartan: +1.2 ml/min/1.73 m2 per year; 95% CI: 0.6 to 1.7; vs. for MRA nonusers: +0.4; 95% CI: 0.1 to 0.7; pinteraction = 0.01). Clinical efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan with regard to predefined cardiorenal composite outcomes in PARAGON-HF was consistent in patients treated and not treated with MRA at baseline. Addition of sacubitril/valsartan rather than valsartan alone to MRA appears to be associated with a lesser decline in renal function and no increase in severe hyperkalemia. These data support possible added value of combination treatment with sacubitril/valsartan and MRA in patients with HFpEF. (Prospective Comparison of ARNI [angiotensin receptor -neprilysin inhibitor] with ARB [angiotensin-receptor blockers] Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711).

Jering KS ，Zannad F ，Claggett B ，Mc Causland FR ，Ferreira JP ，Desai A ，Barkoudah E ，McMurray JJV ，Pfeffer MA ，Solomon SD ... -  《-》