BACKGROUND: Heart failure is a common and severe condition, often complicated by diastolic dysfunction. Current standard therapies such as ACEIs and ARBs have limited efficacy in managing diastolic function. Sacubitril/Valsartan, an emerging therapy, warrants rigorous investigation to elucidate its impact on diastolic function in heart failure patients.
METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and utilized the PICO schema. Searches were performed on 4 databases-PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library-without temporal restrictions. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were strictly defined, and quality assessments were conducted using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool. Both fixed-effects and random-effects models were used for statistical analysis, depending on inter-study heterogeneity assessed by I2 statistics and Chi-square tests.
RESULTS: Out of 1129 identified publications, 8 studies met the criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. These studies consisted of both randomized controlled trials and cohort studies and featured diverse global populations. Significant reductions were found in the echocardiographic parameter E/e\' ratio and LAVi upon treatment with Sacubitril/Valsartan compared to standard therapies, with mean differences of -1.38 and -4.62, respectively, both with P values < .01.
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis demonstrates that Sacubitril/Valsartan significantly improves diastolic function parameters in heart failure patients compared to standard treatments. These findings underscore the potential benefits of Sacubitril/Valsartan in the management of heart failure, particularly for patients with diastolic dysfunction.

Background: Sacubitril/valsartan improves heart failure (HF) outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have shown inconsistent results. We conducted this meta-analysis to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared to valsartan within this specific patient population. Methods: We searched the MEDLINE database and ClinicalTrials.gov and identified four RCTs that could be included in our analysis, with 3375 patients in the sacubitril/valsartan group and 3362 in the valsartan group. Results: Our study shows that, in patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF, sacubitril/valsartan was superior to valsartan in some of the key HF outcomes, such as the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ CSS), with a small but significant mean difference of 1.13 (95% confidence interval or CI of 0.15 to 2.11, p-value 0.024), an improvement in the New York Heart Association (NYHA) class (odds ratio or OR of 1.32, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.58, p-value 0.002), and the composite outcome of hospitalizations for HF and cardiovascular death, with a relative risk (RR) of 0.86 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.99, p-value 0.04). However, there was no additional benefit with sacubitril/valsartan compared to valsartan for the outcomes of cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality. In terms of side effects, sacubitril/valsartan was associated with a higher risk of hypotension when compared to valsartan (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.19, p-value < 0.0001), but did not show an increased risk of hyperkalemia or worsening renal function. Conclusions: In individuals with HFmrEF or HFpEF, sacubitril/valsartan can result in improvements in the HF outcomes of the KCCQ CSS, the NYHA class, and the composite outcome of hospitalization for HF and cardiovascular death when compared to valsartan. While there was a higher risk of hypotension with sacubitril/valsartan compared to valsartan, there was no corresponding increase in the risk of hyperkalemia or worsening renal function.

BACKGROUND: Despite the established efficacy of vericiguat compared to placebo, uncertainties remain regarding its comparative efficacy to sacubitril/valsartan for patients with heart failure reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This study aimed to assess the relative efficacy of vericiguat and sacubitril/valsartan through a systematic review, network meta-analysis, and non-inferiority tests.
METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify the randomized phase 3 clinical trials involving vericiguat and sacubitril/valsartan. The hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for cardiovascular death (CVD) and hospitalization due to HF (hHF) were extracted from these trials and synthesized via network meta-analysis. Non-inferiority testing of vericiguat was performed using a fixed-margin method with a predefined non-inferiority margin (1.24). Sensitivity analyses explored the impact of the time from hHF to screening.
RESULTS: Among the 1366 studies, two trials (VICTORIA and PARADIGM-HF) met the inclusion criteria. Network meta-analysis demonstrated that the HR for CVD or hHF with vericiguat did not significantly differ from that for sacubitril/valsartan (HR: 0.88, 95% CI:0.62-1.23). The upper limit of the 95% CI was less than the predefined margin of 1.24, confirming vericiguat\'s non-inferiority to sacubitril/valsartan. Sensitivity analyses affirmed the robustness of the base-case results.
CONCLUSIONS: Vericiguat exhibited a comparable risk of CVD or hHF when contrasted with sacubitril/valsartan. Importantly, in patients with HFrEF, vericiguat\'s efficacy was not statistically inferior to that of sacubitril/valsartan. These findings reinforce the potential of vericiguat as a viable treatment option for this patient population.

Heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction are associated with significant morbidity and mortality, as well as growing economic burden. This review describes recent studies on the use of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure patients with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction.
Сердечная недостаточность с умеренно сниженной фракцией выброса и сердечная недостаточность с сохраненной фракцией выброса связаны со значительной заболеваемостью и смертностью, а также с растущим экономическим бременем. В обзоре представлено описание последних исследований по применению сакубитрила/валсартана у пациентов с сердечной недостаточностью с умеренно сниженной или сохраненной фракцией выброса.

UNASSIGNED: To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASIs) and angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors in preventing the recurrence of atrial fibrillation after atrial fibrillation ablation, we have written this meta-analysis. We systematically searched randomized controlled trials or cohort studies on RASIs and angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor-sacubitril/valsartan (SV) in preventing the recurrence of atrial fibrillation. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. Afterward, the meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. This meta-analysis results showed that the recurrence rate of atrial fibrillation after ablation in subjects using RASIs was lower than that in subjects not using them [relative risk = 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.72-0.99), P = 0.03]; the recurrence rate in subjects using SV was lower than that in subjects using RASIs [RR= 0.50, 95% CI (0.37-0.68), P < 0.00001]. These results show that both the use of RASIs and SV can prevent the recurrence of after atrial fibrillation ablation, among which the use of SV is more effective.

BACKGROUND: The characteristics, tolerability, and outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) who are treated with sacubitril/valsartan remain unclear in Japan.
METHODS: We conducted a nationwide multicenter study to evaluate the features and outcomes of patients newly prescribed sacubitril/valsartan for the management of HF. We analyzed adverse events (AEs) related to sacubitril/valsartan at 3 months, which were defined as hypotension, worsening renal function, hyperkalemia, and angioedema. Additionally, the association between AEs and outcomes was examined.
RESULTS: Among 993 patients, the mean age was 70 years and 291 (29.3 %) were female, and 22.8 % had left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50 %. Of them, 20.8 % had systolic blood pressure (sBP) <100 mmHg, and 19.5 % had estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <30 ml/min/1.73 m2 at baseline, which were the populations excluded from the eligibility in landmark trials. AEs related to sacubitril/valsartan were observed in 22.5 % of the patients at 3 months. Overall, 22.6 % of patients discontinued sacubitril/valsartan, and hypotension was the most common event leading to drug discontinuation. After adjustment, patients who had worse HF symptoms (New York Heart Association III or IV), sBP <100 mmHg, and eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m2 were associated with a higher risk of AEs related to sacubitril/valsartan. Additionally, patients experiencing AEs had a higher risk of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization than those who did not.
CONCLUSIONS: In Japan, sacubitril/valsartan was also prescribed to patients not eligible for landmark trials, and AEs were observed at a relatively high rate from soon after treatment initiation. Physicians should closely monitor patients for these events, especially in patients anticipated to have a higher risk of AEs.

UNASSIGNED: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a prevalent and clinically significant condition characterized by limited treatment options. In this context, the objective of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in managing HFpEF.
UNASSIGNED: A systematic search of relevant studies was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Randomized controlled trials comparing sacubitril/valsartan to ACEIs or ARBs in HFpEF patients were included. Inclusion criteria: LVEF>45%, NYHA II-IV, Sac/Val vs ACEI/ARB, RCTs, treatment duration >3 months, sample size ≥25 per group. Exclusion criteria: Animal studies, unclear/missing data, poor quality, case studies/expert opinions.Hospitalization for heart failure and cardiovascular mortality were the primary outcomes, while the additional results included mortality from all causes, improvement of NYHA class, modifications in NT-proBNP, and with LVEF.
UNASSIGNED: Sacubitril/valsartan substantially reduced heart failure hospitalization rates compared to ACEIs and ARBs, according to a total of six studies involving 5,201 participants (Relative Risk, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.85; P = .001). Nonetheless, there were no significant improvements in mortality due to cardiovascular disease (Relative Risk, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.79-1.12; P = .563). Sacubitril/valsartan did not affect total mortality from all causes significantly (Relative Risk, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.84-1.09; P = .453), but it did enhance NYHA classification (Relative Risk, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.10-1.43; P = .001). NT-proBNP levels decreased substantially (Weighted Mean Difference, -266.67; 95% CI, -525.86 to -7.47), whereas there had been little major shift in LVEF (Weighted Mean Difference, 1.49; 95% CI, -1.33 to 4.21; P = .342).
UNASSIGNED: Sacubitril/valsartan may provide superior benefits in reducing heart failure hospitalization rates, NT-proBNP levels, and improving NYHA classification in patients with HFpEF compared to ACEIs and ARBs. Sacubitril/valsartan might be considered as a preferred treatment option for HFpEF patients due to its benefits in reducing heart failure hospitalization rates and improving symptom severity.

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) is the first drug approved for the treatment of symptomatic chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in adult patients. There have been no reports of hepatotoxicity secondary to sacubitril/valsartan administration. Here, we report the first case of severe liver injury caused by sacubitril/valsartan.
METHODS: A 90-year-old female patient taking sacubitril/valsartan was admitted due to chronic heart failure. Subsequently, the patient developed serious liver injury with increased hepatic transaminases.
METHODS: Drug-induced liver injury, sacubitril/valsartan-related. No liver injury caused by other reasons was observed after thorough examination. After the withdrawal of sacubitril/valsartan, the liver function of the patient gradually returned to normal.
METHODS: We chose general liver protection methods to improve her hepatic function, including magnesium isoglycyrrhizinate at 100 mg daily and polyene phosphatidylcholine capsules at 456 mg 3 times daily. We consulted with a hepatologist to discuss the best plan for her treatment. The last, we stopped sacubitril/valsartan.
RESULTS: After the withdrawal of sacubitril/valsartan, the liver function of the patient gradually returned to normal.
CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril/valsartan-induced liver injury is very rare. Clinicians should pay particular attention to the possibility of hepatotoxicity during sacubitril/valsartan treatment.

Recent studies have focused on treating heart failure, primarily mitigating symptoms and reducing the risk of mortality and other cardiovascular complications. A promising new treatment approach involves using LCZ696, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) comprising sacubitril and valsartan. This treatment is superior to the conventional drugs enalapril or valsartan in patients diagnosed with heart failure. A systematic search was conducted on PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Elsevier\'s ScienceDirect databases to identify studies comparing sacubitril/valsartan with other drugs in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The analyses were conducted using the random-effects model. The study\'s primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, death from cardiovascular causes, first hospitalization for heart failure, congestive heart failure, and changes in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) clinical score. The pooled analysis showed that treatment with the sacubitril/valsartan combination was associated with a significantly decreased rate of first hospitalization for heart failure (RR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.79, 0.98, p: 0.03; I2: 57%) and significantly increased KCCQ clinical score (WMD: 2.20; 95% CI: 0.33, 4.06, p: 0.02; I2: 100%). However, the two groups had no significant difference in all-cause mortality (RR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.80, 1.01, p: 0.08; I2: 20%), death from cardiovascular causes (RR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.87, 1.05, p: 0.34; I2: 0%), or congestive heart failure (RR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.75, 1.25, p: 0.19; I2: 38%). The research findings suggest that sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) reduces hospitalizations due to heart failure and improves KCCQ clinical scores. This treatment also reduces the decline in renal function and side effects associated with enalapril or valsartan. Nonetheless, further high-quality randomized controlled trials with large sample sizes are needed to assess other impacts of this therapy on heart failure patients. Overall, the use of LCZ696 represents a promising new approach to the treatment of heart failure.

Valsartan is an orally active non-peptide angiotensin receptor antagonist, an effective and well-tolerated anti-hypertensive drug. Besides its antihypertensive action, it has clinical implications in many other disorders, like heart failure (HF), arrhythmia, chronic kidney disease (CKD), diabetic complications (DM), atherosclerosis, etc. Besides angiotensin receptor blocking activity, valsartan reduces circulating levels of biochemical markers, such as hs-CRP, which is responsible for its anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidant activity. Moreover, valsartan also acts by inhibiting or inducing various signalling pathways, such as inducing autophagy via the AKT/mTOR/S6K pathway or inhibiting the TLR/NF-kB pathway. The current review exhaustively discusses the therapeutic implications of valsartan with specific emphasis on the mechanism of action in various disorders. The article provides a detailed spectrum of the therapeutic profile of valsartan and will likely be very useful to researchers working in the relevant research areas.