-
Journal of the American College of... Jul 2023U.S. guidelines recommend consideration of sacubitril/valsartan in chronic heart failure (HF) and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (EF). Whether initiation... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
U.S. guidelines recommend consideration of sacubitril/valsartan in chronic heart failure (HF) and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (EF). Whether initiation is safe and effective in EF >40% after a worsening heart failure (WHF) event is unknown.
OBJECTIVES
PARAGLIDE-HF (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ARB Given following stabiLization In DEcompensated HFpEF) assessed sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan in EF >40% following a recent WHF event.
METHODS
PARAGLIDE-HF is a double-blind, randomized controlled trial of sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan in patients with EF >40% enrolled within 30 days of a WHF event. The primary endpoint was time-averaged proportional change in amino terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) from baseline through Weeks 4 and 8. A secondary hierarchical outcome (win ratio) consisted of: 1) cardiovascular death; 2) HF hospitalizations; 3) urgent HF visits; and 4) change in NT-proBNP.
RESULTS
In 466 patients (233 sacubitril/valsartan; 233 valsartan), time-averaged reduction in the NT-proBNP was greater with sacubitril/valsartan (ratio of change: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.73-0.999; P = 0.049). The hierarchical outcome favored sacubitril/valsartan but was not significant (unmatched win ratio: 1.19; 95% CI: 0.93-1.52; P = 0.16). Sacubitril/valsartan reduced worsening renal function (OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.40-0.93) but increased symptomatic hypotension (OR: 1.73; 95% CI: 1.09-2.76). There was evidence of a larger treatment effect in the subgroup with EF ≤60% for NT-proBNP change (0.78; 95% CI: 0.61-0.98) and the hierarchical outcome (win ratio: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.09-1.95).
CONCLUSIONS
Among patients with EF >40% stabilized after WHF, sacubitril/valsartan led to greater reduction in plasma NT-proBNP levels and was associated with clinical benefit compared with valsartan alone, despite more symptomatic hypotension. (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ARB Given following stabiLization In DEcompensated HFpEF; NCT03988634).
Topics: Humans; Heart Failure; Neprilysin; Angiotensins; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Stroke Volume; Tetrazoles; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Valsartan; Aminobutyrates; Biphenyl Compounds; Hypotension; Drug Combinations
PubMed: 37212758
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2023.04.019 -
Clinical Cardiology Aug 2023This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of single-pill combination (SPC) antihypertensive drugs in patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension. Through Searching... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of single-pill combination (SPC) antihypertensive drugs in patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension. Through Searching Pubmed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science collected only randomized controlled trials on the efficacy of single-pill combination antihypertensive drugs in people with uncontrolled essential hypertension. The search period is from the establishment of the database to July 2022. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment, and statistical analyses were performed using Review Manage 5.3 and Stata 15.1 software. This review ultimately included 32 references involving 16 273 patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension. The results of the network meta-analysis showed that a total of 11 single-pill combination antihypertensive drugs were included, namely: Amlodipine/valsartan, Telmisartan/amlodipine, Losartan/HCTZ, Candesartan/HCTZ, Amlodipine/benazepril, Telmisartan/HCTZ, Valsartan/HCTZ, Irbesartan/amlodipine, Amlodipine/losartan, Irbesartan/HCTZ, and Perindopril/amlodipine. According to SUCRA, Irbesartan/amlodipine may rank first in reducing systolic blood pressure (SUCRA: 92.2%); Amlodipine/losartan may rank first in reducing diastolic blood pressure (SUCRA: 95.1%); Telmisartan/amlodipine may rank first in blood pressure control rates (SUCRA: 83.5%); Amlodipine/losartan probably ranks first in diastolic response rate (SUCRA: 84.5%). Based on Ranking Plot of the Network, we can conclude that single-pill combination antihypertensive drugs are superior to monotherapy, and ARB/CCB combination has better advantages than other SPC in terms of systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, blood pressure control rate, and diastolic response rate. However, due to the small number of some drug studies, the lack of relevant studies has led to not being included in this study, which may impact the results, and readers should interpret the results with caution.
Topics: Humans; Antihypertensive Agents; Losartan; Hypertension; Telmisartan; Irbesartan; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Hydrochlorothiazide; Valine; Drug Therapy, Combination; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Amlodipine; Valsartan; Tetrazoles; Blood Pressure; Essential Hypertension
PubMed: 37432701
DOI: 10.1002/clc.24082 -
JAMA Network Open Dec 2023The long-term relative risk of antihypertensive treatments with regard to mortality and morbidity is not well understood. (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Mortality and Morbidity Among Individuals With Hypertension Receiving a Diuretic, ACE Inhibitor, or Calcium Channel Blocker: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.
IMPORTANCE
The long-term relative risk of antihypertensive treatments with regard to mortality and morbidity is not well understood.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the long-term posttrial risk of primary and secondary outcomes among trial participants who were randomized to either a thiazide-type diuretic, calcium channel blocker (CCB), or angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor with up to 23 years of follow-up.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
This prespecified secondary analysis of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT), a multicenter randomized, double-blind, active-controlled clinical trial, followed up with participants aged 55 years or older with a diagnosis of hypertension and at least 1 other coronary heart disease risk factor for up to 23 years, from February 23, 1994, to December 31, 2017. Trial participants were linked with administrative databases for posttrial mortality (N = 32 804) and morbidity outcomes (n = 22 754). Statistical analysis was performed from January 2022 to October 2023.
INTERVENTIONS
Participants were randomly assigned to receive a thiazide-type diuretic (n = 15 002), a CCB (n = 8898), or an ACE inhibitor (n = 8904) for planned in-trial follow-up of approximately 4 to 8 years and posttrial passive follow-up for up to 23 years.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary end point was mortality due to cardiovascular disease (CVD). Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, combined fatal and nonfatal (morbidity) CVD, and both mortality and morbidity for coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, end-stage renal disease, and cancer.
RESULTS
A total of 32 804 participants (mean [SD] age, 66.9 [7.7] years; 17 411 men [53.1%]; and 11 772 Black participants [35.9%]) were followed up for all-cause mortality and a subgroup of 22 754 participants (mean [SD] age, 68.7 [7.2] years; 12 772 women [56.1%]; and 8199 Black participants [36.0%]) were followed up for fatal or nonfatal CVD through 2017 (mean [SD] follow-up, 13.7 [6.7] years; maximum follow-up, 23.9 years). Cardiovascular disease mortality rates per 100 persons were 23.7, 21.6, and 23.8 in the diuretic, CCB, and ACE inhibitor groups, respectively, at 23 years after randomization (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.97 [95% CI, 0.89-1.05] for CCB vs diuretic; AHR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.97-1.15] for ACE inhibitor vs diuretic). The long-term risks of most secondary outcomes were similar among the 3 groups. Compared with the diuretic group, the ACE inhibitor group had a 19% increased risk of stroke mortality (AHR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.03-1.37]) and an 11% increased risk of combined fatal and nonfatal hospitalized stroke (AHR, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.03-1.20]).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial in an adult population with hypertension and coronary heart disease risk factors, CVD mortality was similar between all 3 groups. ACE inhibitors increased the risk of stroke outcomes by 11% compared with diuretics, and this effect persisted well beyond the trial period.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00000542.
Topics: Adult; Male; Female; Humans; Aged; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Diuretics; Antihypertensive Agents; Calcium Channel Blockers; Cardiovascular Diseases; Hypertension; Thiazides; Sodium Chloride Symporter Inhibitors; Stroke; Antiviral Agents; Coronary Disease
PubMed: 38048133
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.44998 -
Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation :... Oct 2023Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major public health issue affecting an estimated 850 million people globally. The leading causes of CKD is diabetes and hypertension,... (Review)
Review
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major public health issue affecting an estimated 850 million people globally. The leading causes of CKD is diabetes and hypertension, which together account for >50% of patients with end-stage kidney disease. Progressive CKD leads to the requirement for kidney replacement therapy with transplantation or dialysis. In addition, CKD, is a risk factor for premature cardiovascular disease, particularly from structural heart disease and heart failure (HF). Until 2015, the mainstay of treatment to slow progression of both diabetic and many non-diabetic kidney diseases was blood pressure control and renin-angiotensin system inhibition; however, neither angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) nor angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) reduced cardiovascular events and mortality in major trials in CKD. The emergence of cardiovascular and renal benefits observed with sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) from clinical trials of their use as anti-hyperglycaemic agents has led to a revolution in cardiorenal protection for patients with diabetes. Subsequent clinical trials, notably DAPA-HF, EMPEROR, CREDENCE, DAPA-CKD and EMPA-KIDNEY have demonstrated their benefits in reducing risk of HF and progression to kidney failure in patients with HF and/or CKD. The cardiorenal benefits-on a relative scale-appear similar in patients with or without diabetes. Specialty societies' guidelines are continually adapting as trial data emerges to support increasingly wide use of SGLT2i. This consensus paper from EURECA-m and ERBP highlights the latest evidence and summarizes the guidelines for use of SGLT2i for cardiorenal protection focusing on benefits observed relevant to people with CKD.
Topics: Humans; Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Renal Dialysis; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Cardiovascular Diseases; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Heart Failure
PubMed: 37230946
DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfad112 -
JACC. Heart Failure Jul 2023Anemia is common in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Renin-angiotensin system blockers lower... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Anemia is common in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Renin-angiotensin system blockers lower hemoglobin and may induce anemia.
OBJECTIVES
The authors investigated whether concomitant neprilysin inhibition might ameliorate this effect of renin-angiotensin system blockers in PARADIGM-HF (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure).
METHODS
Anemia was defined as hemoglobin <120 g/L in women and <130 g/L in men at screening. The authors investigated the effect of randomized treatment on clinical outcomes according to anemia status, change in hemoglobin from baseline, and the incidence of anemia.
RESULTS
Of 8,239 participants with a baseline hemoglobin measurement, 1,677 (20.4%) were anemic. Patients with anemia had a more severe heart failure profile, worse kidney function, greater neurohormonal derangement, and worse clinical outcomes. Sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, decreased the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization similarly in patients with (HR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.71-1.00) and without anemia (HR: 0.78 [95% CI: 0.71-0.87]; P value for interaction = 0.478). Between baseline and 12 months, hemoglobin decreased by 1.5 g/L (95% CI: 1.2-1.7 g/L) with sacubitril/valsartan compared with 2.3 g/L (95% CI: 2.0-2.6 g/L) with enalapril: mean difference 0.8 g/L (95% CI: 0.5-1.2 g/L; P < 0.001). Patients assigned to sacubitril/valsartan were less likely to develop anemia at 12 months (321 of 2,806 [11.4%]) compared with patients randomized to enalapril (440 of 2,824 [15.6%]) (OR: 0.70 [95% CI: 0.60-0.81]; P < 0.001). These findings were similar in PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction) (sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan). There was biomarker evidence of increased iron utilization with sacubitril/valsartan.
CONCLUSIONS
Irrespective of anemia status, sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril, decreased mortality and hospitalization. Hemoglobin decreased less with sacubitril/valsartan and the incidence of new anemia was lower with sacubitril/valsartan. (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF] trial; NCT01035255).
Topics: Male; Humans; Female; Heart Failure; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Tetrazoles; Treatment Outcome; Stroke Volume; Valsartan; Enalapril; Aminobutyrates; Drug Combinations; Anemia
PubMed: 37407154
DOI: 10.1016/j.jchf.2022.12.012