The Efficacy of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor Versus Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor or Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Post Myocardial Infarction: A Meta-Analysis.

Acute myocardial infarction (MI) is one of the leading global healthcare emergencies, contributing to over three million global deaths. The purpose of this study is to investigate further the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan over angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in reducing the risk of heart failure (HF) in post-MI patients and providing a clear evidence-based medicine guideline for future use. An electronic database search was conducted on English databases. Eight articles were included, fulfilling our inclusion criteria, i.e., adult patients of ≥18 years with a recent diagnosis of acute MI. Pooled analysis was done using Review Manager version 5.4.1 (Cochrane Collaboration, London, England), and the data for each outcome were analyzed as dichotomous variables. A total of eight clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis. Six studies analyzed the sacubitril/valsartan and ACEI combination. The pooled analysis reported a significant increase in the risk of hypotension (relative risk {RR}: 1.29 {1.18, 1.41}) in the sacubitril/valsartan compared to the ACEI alone group. In addition, a significant increase was observed in the left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) after using the sacubitril/valsartan combination compared to using ACEI alone (RR: 3.08 {2.68, 4.48}). Furthermore, no significant difference was observed between the groups in terms of mortality rate (RR: 0.86 {0.73, 1.02}), the risk of heart failure (RR: 0.62 {0.39, 1.00}), the frequency of recurrent MI (RR: 0.86 {0.27, 2.76}), and the mean difference of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) (weighted mean difference {WMD}: -174.36 {-414.18, 65.46}) between both the groups. However, the sacubitril/valsartan combination proved to be beneficial in significantly reducing the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (RR: 0.64 {0.48, 0.84}) and rehospitalizations (RR: 0.53 {0.39, 0.71}) as compared to ACEI post MI. Additionally, sacubitril/valsartan and ARB's combination was reported in two studies. This led to a significant decrease in NT-proBNP concentration (WMD: -71.91 {-138.43, -5.39}) post MI in the sacubitril/valsartan combination group compared to the ARB usage alone. However, no significant difference was observed in the improvement of LVEF (WMD: 0.88 {-5.11, 6.87}) between both groups. Although the sacubitril/valsartan combination has no difference in mortality and outcomes compared to ACEI, there is evidence that using it proves to be more beneficial post MI compared to ACEI and ARB usage alone.

Kotak S ，Hassan W ，Mehmood M ，Kumar U ，Sagreeka F ，Karishma F ，Kumari P ，Pirya F ，Saquib J ，Iqbal A ，Khan AA ，Varrassi G ，Khatri M ，Kumar S ... -  《Cureus》

The benefits of sacubitril-valsartan in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

We aimed to investigate whether sacubitril-valsartan could further improve the prognosis, cardiac function, and left ventricular (LV) remodelling in patients following acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) from inception to 10 May 2021 to identify potential articles. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) meeting the inclusion criteria were included and analysed. Thirteen RCTs, covering 1358 patients, were analysed. Compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), sacubitril-valsartan did not significantly reduced the cardiovascular mortality [risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.93, P = 0.434] and the rate of myocardial reinfarction (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.46, P = 0.295) of patients following AMI, but the rate of hospitalization for heart failure (HF) (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.66, P < 0.001) and the change of LV ejection fraction (LVEF) [weighted mean difference (WMD) 5.49, 95% CI 3.62 to 7.36, P < 0.001] were obviously improved. The N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-ProBNP) level (WMD -310.23, 95% CI -385.89 to -234.57, P < 0.001) and the LV end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD) (WMD -3.16, 95% CI -4.59 to -1.73, P < 0.001) were also significantly lower in sacubitril-valsartan group than in ACEI/ARB group. Regarding safety, sacubitril-valsartan did not increase the risk of hypotension, hyperkalaemia, angioedema, and cough. This meta-analysis suggests that early administration of sacubitril-valsartan may be superior to conventional ACEI/ARB to decrease the risk of hospitalization for HF, improve the cardiac function, and reverse the LV remodelling in patients following AMI.

Xiong B ，Nie D ，Qian J ，Yao Y ，Yang G ，Rong S ，Zhu Q ，Du Y ，Jiang Y ，Huang J ... -  《-》

The efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared with ACEI/ARB in the treatment of heart failure following acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Purpose: To systematically assess the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan (SV) by comparison with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for the treatment of heart failure caused by acute myocardial infarction (HF-AMI) based on current randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: Several electronic databases were searched up to 27 May 2023. Primary endpoints were the efficacy including the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and 6-min walk test (6MWT) and secondary endpoints were the safety including the major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) and adverse reaction (AE). Results: A total of 14 RCTs were included and all patients were from China. Among included 1,991 patients, 997 patients received SVs and 994 patients received ACEIs/ARBs. The pooled results demonstrated that patients in the SV group showed significantly better efficacy representing as increased LVEF [weighted mean difference (WMD): 4.43%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.84%-6.02%, p < 0.001] and 6MWT (WMD: 30.84 m, 95% CI: 25.65 m-36.03 m, p < 0.001) and decreased LVEDD (WMD: -3.24 mm, 95% CI: -4.96 mm ∼ -1.52 mm, p < 0.001) and NT-proBNP (WMD: -188.12 pg/mL, 95% CI: -246.75 pg/mL ∼ 129.49 pg/mL, p < 0.001), which was also verified by subgroup analysis based on the history of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Besides, the SV group showed significantly lower incidence rate of MACE [relative risk (RR): 0.60, 95% CI: 0.47-0.75, p < 0.001] and patients receiving SVs in the non-PCI group also showed lower incidence of AE (RR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.20-0.71, p = 0.002). Conclusion: For the treatment of HF-AMI, SV is more effective and safer than ACEI/ARB based on current evidence, but more high-quality RCTs are still needed to verify above findings.

Gao J ，Zhang X ，Xu M ，Deng S ，Chen X ... -  《-》

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》

Effect of sacubitril-valsartan on left ventricular remodeling in patients with acute myocardial infarction after primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Liu Y ，Sun Y ，Dai W 《Frontiers in Pharmacology》