Dataset Information

Neprilysin inhibition does not alter dynamic of proenkephalin-A 119-159 and pro-substance P in heart failure.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

As NEP degrades many substrates, the specific therapeutic mechanism of NEP inhibition with angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNi) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is not entirely evident. The aim of this study was to investigate the response of two substrates of NEP-the tachykinin and enkephalin systems-to the initiation of ARNi therapy in HFrEF.

Methods and results

Between 2016 and 2018, 141 consecutive patients with stable HFrEF [74 with initiation of ARNi and 67 controls on continuous angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) therapy] were prospectively enrolled. Plasma proenkephalin-A 119-159 (PENK) and pro-substance P (pro-SP) were serially determined. Proenkephalin-A 119-159 and pro-SP correlated strongly with each other (r_s = 0.67, P < 0.001) and kidney function (r_s = -0.66, P < 0.001 and r_s = -0.54, P < 0.001) and modestly with NT-proBNP (r_s = 0.32, P < 0.001 and r_s = 0.24, P = 0.006, respectively). Concentrations of circulating PENK were slightly elevated after 1 and 2 year follow-up compared with baseline (BL) [BL median: 67.4 pmol/L (IQR: 57.3-89.8), 1 year: 83.5 pmol/L (IQR: 62.4-111.6), 2 years: 92.3 pmol/L (IQR: 63.1-101.9); BL vs. 1 year: P = 0.017 and BL vs. 2 years: P = 0.019] in the overall analysis, but lost significance at 2 year follow-up when assessed in paired subanalysis (P = 0.116). Plasma pro-SP levels remained comparable during the entire follow-up [BL median: 78.3 pmol/L (IQR: 67.9-90.6), 1 year: 75.9 pmol/L (IQR: 58.6-96.3), 2 years: 79.7 pmol/L (IQR: 59.9-105.3); P = ns for both timepoints]. Biomarker patterns of ARNi patients were independent from baseline therapy, that is, ACEi or ARB (P > 0.05 between groups).

Conclusions

Although enkephalins and SP are known substrates of NEP, NEP inhibition by ARNi does not clearly affect the circulating precursors PENK and pro-SP in HFrEF.

SUBMITTER: Arfsten H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8120349 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), elevated soluble neprilysin (sNEP) levels are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular death, and its inhibition with sacubitril/valsartan has improved survival.ObjectivesThis study sought to determine the relevance of sNEP as a biomarker in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and to compare circulating sNEP levels in patients with HFpEF with normal controls.MethodsA case-control study was performed in 242 symptomatic patients with HFpEF previously enrolled in the Phosphodiesterase-5 Inhibition to Improve Clinical Status and Exercise Capacity in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (RELAX) and Nitrates's Effect on Activity Tolerance in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection (NEAT-HFpEF) clinical trials and 891 asymptomatic subjects without HF or diastolic dysfunction (confirmed by NT-proBNP levels <200 pg/ml and echocardiography) who were enrolled in the Prevalence of Asymptomatic Left Ventricular Dysfunction study. sNEP was measured using a sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in all subjects.ResultsOverall, sNEP levels were lower in HFpEF compared with controls (3.5 ng/ml; confidence interval [CI]: 2.5 to 4.8 vs. 8.5 ng/ml; CI: 7.2 to 10.0; p < 0.001). After adjusting for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and smoking history, mean sNEP levels were also lower in HFpEF compared with controls (4.0 ng/ml [CI: 2.7 to 5.4] vs. 8.2 ng/ml [CI: 6.8 to 9.7]; p = 0.002). The cohorts were propensity matched based on age, BMI, diabetes, hypertension, smoking history, and renal function, and sNEP levels remained lower in HFpEF compared with controls (median 2.4 ng/ml [interquartile range: 0.6 to 27.7] vs. 4.9 ng/ml [interquartile range: 1.2 to 42.2]; p = 0.02).ConclusionsPatients with HFpEF on average have significantly lower circulating sNEP levels compared with controls. These findings challenge our current understanding of the complex biology of circulating sNEP in HFpEF.