Dataset Information

Sacubitril/valsartan versus angiotensin inhibitors and arrhythmia endpoints in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) therapy has been associated with improved survival for patients with symptomatic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

Objectives

We performed a meta-analysis of arrhythmia endpoints from studies comparing ARNI with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for patients with HFrEF to assess for incremental benefit.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Baseline study characteristics were collected and outcomes were sustained ventricular arrhythmias, atrial arrhythmias, appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy, sudden cardiac death (SCD), and biventricular (BiV) pacing rate.

Results

We included 9 studies, 4 randomized trials, and 5 observational studies (5589 patients on ARNI vs 5615 on ACEIs/ARBs). Follow-up ranged from 2 to 51 months. The mean age was 65.4 ± 9.8 years, with 77.3% male patients and a mean ejection fraction of 29.0% ± 7.6%. Ischemic cardiomyopathy was present in 62% of patients. In the ARNI group, there were less SCD (odds ratio [OR] 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-0.96; P = .02), ventricular arrhythmias (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.25-0.79; P = .005), and appropriate ICD therapy (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.21-0.74; P = .004). Higher rates of BiV pacing were seen (mean difference 3.13, 95% CI 2.58-3.68; P < .00001) when compared with ACEIs/ARBs. No difference in atrial arrhythmias was seen.

Conclusion

ARNI therapy provides incremental benefit with respect to ventricular tachyarrhythmias/SCD, which may, in part, explain improved outcomes in patients with HFrEF compared to ACEIs/ARBs. There was increased BiV pacing and decreased ICD therapy in the ARNI group.

SUBMITTER: Fernandes ADF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8710618 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThis paper aims to compare the effectiveness of sacubitril-valsartan and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) in systolic heart failure (HF).BackgroundSacubitril-valsartan reduced risks of death and hospitalization for HF versus enalapril in ambulatory patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin II Receptor Blocker Neprilysin Inhibitor with Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in HF) trial. However, the comparative effectiveness of sacubitril-valsartan and ACE/ARB in patients treated in routine clinical practice is unclear.MethodsWe identified patients with systolic HF in a U.S. administrative claims database treated with sacubitril-valsartan or ACE/ARB from July 1, 2015, to February 2, 2018. One-to-one propensity score matching was used to balance patients on 29 clinical variables. Cox models were used to compare outcomes between treatment groups.ResultsA total of 7,893 matched pairs were included; mean (SD) follow-up was 6.3 (5.4) months. Sacubitril-valsartan was associated with lower risks of all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.81 to 0.91; p < 0.001), all-cause mortality (HR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.66 to 0.97; p = 0.027), and all-cause hospitalization (HR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.80 to 0.91; p < 0.001), but not HF hospitalization (HR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.96 to 1.19; p = 0.26). A lower risk of the primary outcome with sacubitril-valsartan was observed in white patients (HR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.76 to 0.90) but not black patients (21% of population, HR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.15; interaction p = 0.032). No statistically significant differences in treatment response by sex or age were observed.ConclusionsSacubitril-valsartan was associated with lower risks of death and hospitalization compared with ACE/ARB in a heterogeneous cohort of patients with systolic HF. However, our finding that outcomes with sacubitril-valsartan and ACE/ARBs were similar in black patients warrants further evaluation.

Project description:Background Sacubitril/valsartan, a first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, received US Food and Drug Administration approval in 2015 for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Our objective was to describe the sacubitril/valsartan initiation rate, associated characteristics, and 6-month follow-up dosing among veterans with HFrEF who are renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor (RAASi) naïve. Methods and Results Retrospective cohort study of veterans with HFrEF who are RAASi naïve defined as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%; ≥1 in/outpatient heart failure visit, first RAASi (sacubitril/valsartan, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor [ACEI]), or angiotensin-II receptor blocker [ARB]) fill from July 2015 to June 2019. Characteristics associated with sacubitril/valsartan initiation were identified using Poisson regression models. From July 2015 to June 2019, we identified 3458 sacubitril/valsartan and 29 367 ACEI or ARB initiators among veterans with HFrEF who are RAASi naïve. Sacubitril/valsartan initiation increased from 0% to 26.5%. Sacubitril/valsartan (versus ACEI or ARB) initiators were less likely to have histories of stroke, myocardial infarction, or hypertension and more likely to be older and have diabetes mellitus and lower LVEF. At 6-month follow-up, the prevalence of ≥50% target daily dose for sacubitril/valsartan, ACEI, and ARB initiators was 23.5%, 43.2%, and 47.1%, respectively. Conclusions Sacubitril/valsartan initiation for HFrEF in the Veterans Administration increased in the 4 years immediately following Food and Drug Administration approval. Sacubitril/valsartan (versus ACEI or ARB) initiators had fewer baseline cardiovascular comorbidities and the lowest proportion on ≥50% target daily dose at 6-month follow-up. Identifying the reasons for lower follow-up dosing of sacubitril/valsartan could support guideline recommendations and quality improvement strategies for patients with HFrEF.

Project description:Background Sacubitril/Valsartan has been highly efficacious in randomized trials of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, the effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan in older patients hospitalized for HFrEF in real-world US practice is unclear. Methods and Results This study included Medicare beneficiaries age ≥65 years who were hospitalized for HFrEF ≤40% in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry between October 2015 and December 2018, and eligible for sacubitril/valsartan. Associations between discharge prescription of sacubitril/valsartan and clinical outcomes were assessed after inverse probability of treatment weighting and adjustment for other HFrEF medications. Overall, 1551 (10.9%) patients were discharged on sacubitril/valsartan. Of those not prescribed sacubitril/valsartan, 7857 (62.0%) were prescribed an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker. Over 12-month follow-up, compared with a discharge prescription of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker, sacubitril/valsartan was independently associated with lower all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.94; P=0.004) but not all-cause hospitalization (adjusted HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.89-1.07; P=0.55) or heart failure hospitalization (adjusted HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.91-1.18; P=0.59). Patients prescribed sacubitril/valsartan versus those without a prescription had lower risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.60-0.79; P<0.001), all-cause hospitalization (adjusted HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82-0.98; P=0.02), but not heart failure hospitalization (adjusted HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.82-1.08; P=0.40). Conclusions Among patients hospitalized for HFrEF, prescription of sacubitril/valsartan at discharge was independently associated with reduced postdischarge mortality compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker, and reduced mortality and all-cause hospitalization compared with no sacubitril/valsartan. These findings support the use of sacubitril/valsartan to improve postdischarge outcomes among older patients hospitalized for HFrEF in routine US clinical practice.

Project description:AimsIvabradine and sacubitril/valsartan are second-line therapies for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) based on guideline recommendations. We aimed to evaluate the synergistic effects of these two medications.Methods and resultsPatients' data were extracted from a multicentre database between 2016 and 2018. Patients were classified into (1) Simultaneous group: simultaneous prescription of ivabradine and sacubitril/valsartan within 6 weeks; (2A) Sequential group, ivabradine-first: ivabradine was prescribed first, followed by sacubitril/valsartan; and (2B) Sequential group, sacubitril/valsartan-first: sacubitril/valsartan was prescribed first, followed by ivabradine. A total of 464 patients with HFrEF were enrolled. Cardiovascular death and/or unplanned re-hospitalizations for HF were less frequent (28.6% vs. 44.8%, P = 0.01), and the improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was significantly greater in patients from the Simultaneous group than those from the Sequential group (∆LVEF 12.8 ± 12.9% vs. 9.3 ± 12.6%, P = 0.007). Among Sequential subgroups, the ivabradine-first treatment decreased heart rate and increased systolic blood pressure (SBP) compared with sacubitril/valsartan-first treatment (∆heart rate -9.1 ± 12.9 b.p.m. vs. 2.6 ± 16.0 b.p.m., P < 0.001; ∆SBP 4.6 ± 16.5 mmHg vs. -4.8 ± 17.2 mmHg, P < 0.001), whereas sacubitril/valsartan-first treatment showed a higher degree of LVEF improvement (∆LVEF 3.6 ± 7.8% vs. 0.7 ± 7.7%, P = 0.002) than ivabradine-first treatment. At the end of follow-up, SBP, LVEF, and left ventricular volume were comparable between two Sequential subgroups.ConclusionsAmong patients with HFrEF, simultaneous rather than sequential treatment with sacubitril/valsartan and ivabradine was a better strategy to reduce adverse events and achieve left ventricular reverse remodelling. Ivabradine treatment had a more significant benefit on improving haemodynamic stability, whereas sacubitril/valsartan treatment showed a more significant effect on improving LVEF.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study sought to describe the short-term health status benefits of angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) therapy in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).BackgroundAlthough therapy with sacubitril/valsartan, a neprilysin inhibitor, improved patients' health status (compared with enalapril) at 8 months in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACE inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) study, the early impact of ARNI on patients' symptoms, functions, and quality of life is unknown.MethodsHealth status was assessed by using the 12-item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) in 3,918 outpatients with HFrEF and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% across 140 U.S. centers in the CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure) registry. ARNI therapy was initiated in 508 patients who were matched 1:2 to 1,016 patients who were not initiated on ARNI (no-ARNI), using a nonparsimonious time-dependent propensity score (6 sociodemographic factors, 23 clinical characteristics), prior KCCQ overall summary (KCCQ-OS) score, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker status.ResultsMultivariate linear regression demonstrated a greater mean improvement in KCCQ-OS in patients initiated on ARNI therapy (5.3 ± 19 vs. 2.5 ± 17.4, respectively; p < 0.001) over a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 57 (32 to 104) days. The proportions of ARNI versus no-ARNI groups with ≥10-point (large) and ≥20-point (very large) improvements in KCCQ-OS were 32.7% versus 26.9%, respectively, and 20.5% versus 12.1%, respectively, consistent with numbers needed to treat of 18 and 12, respectively.ConclusionsIn routine clinical care, ARNI therapy was associated with early improvements in health status, with 20% experiencing a very large health status benefit compared with 12% who were not started on ARNI therapy. These findings support the use of ARNI to improve patients' symptoms, functions, and quality of life.