Advertisement

Vasodilatory Properties of Sacubitril/Valsartan Explored in Hypertensives Aged Over 55 Years: A Meta-Analysis

  • Renato De VecchisEmail author
  • Carmelina Ariano
Review Article
  • 22 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction

A complete assessment of the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan for hypertension is not available yet.

Methods

Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by incorporating only RCTs including patients aged > 55 years in which the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan were compared with those of a reference drug (comparator). The mean reductions in systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure in the sitting position (msSBP and msDBP, respectively)were assumed as primary efficacy endpoints. Even mean reduction in ambulatory systolic blood pressure (maSBP) and ambulatory diastolic blood pressure(maDBP), were explored. Adverse events (AEs) were taken as safety outcomes.

Results

Five RCTs were included for a total of 1513 patients for analysis. In all studies, the comparator drug was an ARB (valsartan in two cases and olmesartan in the remaining three cases). Compared with ARBs, after 12 weeks there was a significant reduction in msSBP (weight mean difference [WMD] = − 5.41 mmHg, 95% CI − 7.0 to − 3.8; P < 0.01), msDBP (WMD = − 1.22 mmHg, 95% CI : − 2.15 to − 0.3; P < 0.01), maSBP (WMD = − 4.58 mmHg, 95% CI: − 5.62 to − 3.54; P < 0.01) and maDBP (WMD = − 2.17 mm Hg, 95% Cl: − 2.78 to − 1.56; P < 0.01).

Conclusions

Comparison with ARBs consistently showed superiority of the antihypertensive effect of sacubitril/valsartan. Therefore, based on the preliminary evidence derived from these small trials, sacubitril/valsartan could be proposed as an elective drug for hypertension in patients aged over 55.

Keywords

Sacubitril/valsartan Hypertension Elderly Meta-analysis 

Notes

Funding

The authors Renato De Vecchis and Carmelina Ariano declare that the present article has not benefitted from any source of funding.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Author Renato De Vecchis declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author Carmelina Ariano declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent from individual participants was not required for this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Kario K, Sun N, Chiang FT, Supasyndh O, Baek SH, Inubushi-Molessa A, Zhang Y, Gotou H, Lefkowitz M, Zhang J. Efficacy and safety of LCZ696, a first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, in Asian patients with hypertension: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Hypertension. 2014;63(4):698–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ito S, Satoh M, Tamaki Y, Gotou H, Charney A, Okino N, Akahori M, Zhang J. Safety and efficacy of LCZ696, a first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, in Japanese patients with hypertension and renal dysfunction. Hypertens Res. 2015;38(4):269–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kario K, Tamaki Y, Okino N, Gotou H, Zhu M, Zhang J. LCZ696, a first-in-class angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor: the first clinical experience in patients with severe hypertension. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2016;18(4):308–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andersen MB, Simonsen U, Wehland M, Pietsch J, Grimm D. LCZ696 (Valsartan/Sacubitril)—a possible new treatment for hypertension and heart failure. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2016;118(1):14–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ruiz-Hurtado G, Ruilope LM. Advantages of sacubitril/valsartan beyond blood pressure control in arterial hypertension. Eur Heart J. 2017;38(44):3318–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Campbell DJ. Long-term neprilysin inhibition—implications for ARNIs. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2017;14(3):171–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Riddell E, Vader JM. Potential expanded indications for neprilysin inhibitors. Curr Heart Fail Rep. 2017;14(2):134–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moncloa F, Sromovsky JA, Walker JF, Davies RO. Enalapril in hypertension and congestive heart failure. Overall review of efficacy and safety. Drugs. 1985;30(Suppl 1):82–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Todd PA, Heel RC. Enalapril. A review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic use in hypertension and congestive heart failure. Drugs. 1986;31(3):198–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McMurray JJ, Packer M, Desai AS, Gong J, Lefkowitz MP, Rizkala AR, Rouleau JL, Shi VC, Solomon SD, Swedberg K, Zile MR, PARADIGM-HF Investigators and Committees. Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition versus enalapril in heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(11):993–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    De Vecchis R, Ariano C, Di Biase G, Noutsias M. Sacubitril/valsartan for heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction: a retrospective cohort study. Herz. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00059-017-4671-1.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    De Vecchis R, Ariano C, Di Biase G, Noutsias M. Cognitive performance of patients with chronic heart failure on sacubitril/valsartan: a retrospective cohort study. Herz. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00059-018-4683-5.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Izzo JL Jr, Zappe DH, Jia Y, Hafeez K, Zhang J. Efficacy and safety of crystalline valsartan/sacubitril (LCZ696) compared with placebo and combinations of free valsartan and sacubitril in patients with systolic hypertension: the RATIO study. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 2017;69(6):374–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang TD, Tan RS, Lee HY, Ihm SH, Rhee MY, Tomlinson B, Pal P, Yang F, Hirschhorn E, Prescott MF, Hinder M, Langenickel TH. Effects of sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) on natriuresis, diuresis, blood pressures, and NT-proBNP in salt-sensitive hypertension. Hypertension. 2017;69(1):32–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Williams B, Cockcroft JR, Kario K, Zappe DH, Brunel PC, Wang Q, Guo W. Effects of sacubitril/valsartan versus olmesartan on central hemodynamics in the elderly with systolic hypertension: the PARAMETER study. Hypertension. 2017;69(3):411–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Supasyndh O, Wang J, Hafeez K, Zhang Y, Zhang J, Rakugi H. Efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) compared with olmesartan in elderly asian patients (≥65 years) with systolic hypertension. Am J Hypertens. 2017;30(12):1163–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schmieder RE, Wagner F, Mayr M, Delles C, Ott C, Keicher C, Hrabak-Paar M, Heye T, Aichner S, Khder Y, Yates D, Albrecht D, Langenickel T, Freyhardt P, Janka R, Bremerich J. The effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared to olmesartan on cardiovascular remodelling in subjects with essential hypertension: the results of a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study. Eur Heart J. 2017;38(44):3308–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ogawa T, de Bold AJ. The heart as an endocrine organ. Endocr Connect. 2014;3(2):R31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    de Bold AJ. Thirty years of research on atrial natriuretic factor: historical background and emerging concepts. Can J Physiol Pharmacol. 2011;89(8):527–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Volpe M, Rubattu S, Burnett J. Natriuretic peptides in cardiovascular diseases: current use and perspectives. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(7):419–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Italian Society of Hypertension 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Preventive Cardiology and Rehabilitation UnitDSB 29 “S. Gennaro dei Poveri Hospital”NapoliItaly

Personalised recommendations