ライフサイエンスコーパス: sacubitril

1 tagliptin and the combination of sitagliptin/sacubitril.

2 ver received the maximum combination dose of sacubitril (97 mg twice daily) and valsartan (103 mg twi

3 a PKG-dependent mechanism by which valsartan/sacubitril, a combination drug recently approved for tre

4 al effects of ARNi with neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril and angiotensin receptor blocker valsartan on

5 a induced by neprilysin inhibitors, that is, sacubitril, are unclear, although a contribution of brad

6 NEP inhibition with sacubitril blunted the ability of GLP-1 to increase cAMP

7 or the treatment of heart failure: Valsartan/sacubitril (formerly known as LCZ696 and currently marke

8 lsartan and the neprilysin inhibitor prodrug sacubitril in a 1:1 ratio in a sodium supramolecular com

9 trials are evaluating the role of valsartan/sacubitril in the treatment of heart failure with preser

10 Sacubitril is an ethyl ester prodrug of LBQ657, the acti

11 Sacubitril is converted by esterases to LBQ657, which in

12 valsartan [VAL]) and a neprilysin inhibitor (sacubitril [SAC]), was shown to be well tolerated and si

13 Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial, valsartan/sacubitril significantly reduced mortality and hospitali

14 w here the mechanisms of action of valsartan/sacubitril, the pharmacological properties of the drug,

15 edian NT-proBNP was significantly lower with sacubitril-valsartan (geometric mean ratio 0.68; 95% CI:

16 Randomization (1:1) to sacubitril-valsartan (n = 231; target dosage, 97/103 mg

17 Data on angioedema risk among sacubitril-valsartan (SV) users in real-world settings a

18 , patients were randomly assigned to receive sacubitril-valsartan (target dose, 97 mg of sacubitril w

19 In hierarchical analysis, sacubitril-valsartan achieved more wins than enalapril (

20 t 6 months, mean LVEF increased by 2.1% with sacubitril-valsartan and 1.2% with enalapril (between-gr

21 randomization; 2830 were assigned to receive sacubitril-valsartan and 2831 to receive ramipril.

22 randomization, 440 were assigned to receive sacubitril-valsartan and 441 to receive enalapril.

23 mediate value (ICER <$180 000 per QALY) at a sacubitril-valsartan cost of $10 242 or less per year, o

24 In patients with CCC and HFrEF, sacubitril-valsartan did not result in significant impro

25 or higher at baseline and were treated with sacubitril-valsartan during a 6- to 10-week run-in perio

26 lure occurred in 308 patients (10.9%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 335 patients (11.8%) i

27 vent occurred in 338 patients (11.9%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 373 patients (13.2%) i

28 ased from 223.8 to 218.9 dyne x s/cm5 in the sacubitril-valsartan group and increased from 213.2 to 2

29 and 8 to the baseline value was 0.53 in the sacubitril-valsartan group as compared with 0.75 in the

30 Results of Base-Case Analysis: The sacubitril-valsartan group experienced 0.08 fewer heart

31 ncentration was significantly greater in the sacubitril-valsartan group than in the enalapril group;

32 <100 mm Hg) occurred more frequently in the sacubitril-valsartan group than in the placebo group (8

33 A concordant pattern of kidney benefit with sacubitril-valsartan has also been observed in chronic h

34 In patients with symptomatic heart failure, sacubitril-valsartan has been found to reduce the risk o

35 ht into mechanisms underlying the effects of sacubitril-valsartan in HFrEF.

36 ction Fraction) trial tested the efficacy of sacubitril-valsartan in patients with heart failure with

37 a mechanistic explanation for the effects of sacubitril-valsartan in patients with HFrEF.

38 Limitation: The benefit of sacubitril-valsartan is based on a single clinical trial

39 Over 2 years, sacubitril-valsartan led to 0.042 additional quality-adj

40 The effect of sacubitril-valsartan on cardiac remodeling is uncertain.

41 ass II-IV) were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to sacubitril-valsartan or enalapril and followed for 6 mon

42 n) with HF with reduced ejection fraction to sacubitril-valsartan or enalapril for 12 weeks.

43 ety concerns were associated with either the sacubitril-valsartan or enalapril group.

44 Intervention: Treatment with sacubitril-valsartan or lisinopril.

45 ipants were randomized 1:1 to receive either sacubitril-valsartan or placebo for 6 months, with a tar

46 adjusted for baseline value, treatment with sacubitril-valsartan produced greater overall reductions

47 Conclusion: Treatment with sacubitril-valsartan provides reasonable value in reduci

48 Compared with enalapril, sacubitril-valsartan reduces cardiovascular mortality an

49 ed ejection fraction (HFrEF), treatment with sacubitril-valsartan reduces N-terminal pro-b-type natri

50 ater reductions from baseline were seen with sacubitril-valsartan than with enalapril in all others,

51 eduction in the NT-proBNP concentration with sacubitril-valsartan than with enalapril was evident as

52 Whether the initiation of sacubitril-valsartan therapy is safe and effective among

53 compensated heart failure, the initiation of sacubitril-valsartan therapy led to a greater reduction

54 Background: Sacubitril-valsartan therapy reduces cardiovascular mort

55 patients with HFrEF requiring hemodialysis, sacubitril-valsartan therapy was associated with benefic

56 Results of Sensitivity Analysis: Sacubitril-valsartan treatment was most sensitive to the

57 ticipants included 1:1 matched pairs of 1434 sacubitril-valsartan users and 1434 ACEI or ARB users (m

58 ctive: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril-valsartan versus angiotensin-converting enzym

59 ventricular ejection fraction (34%-36% with sacubitril-valsartan vs 33 to 35% with enalapril; treatm

60 New use of sacubitril-valsartan vs new or continued use of ACEIs or

61 modeling provided an ICER for treatment with sacubitril-valsartan vs RASis consistent with high econo

62 HF and an EF of 60% or less, treatment with sacubitril-valsartan vs RASis would be at least of econo

63 nge, -46.7% vs. -25.3%; ratio of change with sacubitril-valsartan vs. enalapril, 0.71; 95% confidence

64 l sources; the wholesale acquisition cost of sacubitril-valsartan was $7092 per year.

65 ssessments at 4 and 12 weeks, treatment with sacubitril-valsartan was associated with greater postdos

66 In a post hoc analysis, sacubitril-valsartan was associated with sustained reduc

67 Sacubitril-valsartan was initiated and the dose adjusted

68 analyzed, for those with EFs of 60% or less, sacubitril-valsartan was projected to add 0.53 quality-a

69 Treatment of HFrEF with sacubitril-valsartan, compared with enalapril, did not s

70 ry study of patients with HFrEF treated with sacubitril-valsartan, reduction in NT-proBNP concentrati

71 lts between chronic HF and post-MI trials of sacubitril-valsartan.

72 ty around the value obtained with purchasing sacubitril-valsartan.

73 Multiple PLR contracts were developed for sacubitril-valsartan.

74 nhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or sacubitril-valsartan.

75 P concentrations among patients treated with sacubitril-valsartan.

76 insulin was 29% lower in patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan (114 [7%] patients) compared with p

77 ients randomly assigned to enalapril than to sacubitril/valsartan (3.1 vs 2.2 per 100 patient-years;

78 enalapril than to those randomly assigned to sacubitril/valsartan (3.3 vs 2.3 per 100 patient-years;

79 as increased in patients assigned to receive sacubitril/valsartan (6.9 mL/m2; 95% CI, 0.0 to 13.7) vs

80 Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial, in which sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) reduced both death and HF

81 he angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) reduced cardiovascular mor

82 study sought to determine if treatment with sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) reduces rates of hospital

83 +/-5.6 years; 52% female) were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan (N=187) or enalapril (N=188).

84 with preserved ejection fraction to receive sacubitril/valsartan (n=2419) or valsartan (n=2403).

85 ble-blind trial of in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan (n=440) versus enalapril (n=441) in

86 reduction in the NT-proBNP was greater with sacubitril/valsartan (ratio of change: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.7

87 rial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) in stabilized patients with a

88 t ventricular (LV) ejection fraction <=40%), sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) treatment is associated with

89 Doses of sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) achieved in clinical tria

90 n receptor blocker and neprilysin inhibitor, sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val, LCZ696), will attenuate P

91 -HF) or valsartan 80 mg twice daily and then sacubitril/valsartan 49 mg/51 mg twice daily (in PARAGON

92 ated to enalapril 10 mg twice daily and then sacubitril/valsartan 97 mg/103 mg twice daily (in PARADI

93 reatment with enalapril 10 mg twice daily or sacubitril/valsartan 97/103 mg twice daily (previously k

94 ricular EF (LVEF) </=40%] were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan 97/103 mg twice daily versus enalap

95 ilure in patients receiving or not receiving sacubitril/valsartan [hazard ratio 0.64 (95% CI 0.45-0.8

96 analyzed whether the BP-lowering effects of sacubitril/valsartan accounted for its treatment effects

97 y outcomes and assessed the effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan across the LVEF spectrum.

98 Sacubitril/valsartan across the spectrum of ejection fra

99 d for acute decompensated HF, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan after initial stabilization conferr

100 come and: (1) the odds of having a claim for sacubitril/valsartan among insured patients with HFrEF a

101 Comprehensive implementation of sacubitril/valsartan among newly eligible patients was e

102 ore measured, 1453 patients were assigned to sacubitril/valsartan and 1442 to valsartan.

103 ts occurred in 6 patients (4.9%) assigned to sacubitril/valsartan and 17 (13.3%) assigned to receive

104 e occurred in 33 patients (1.4%) assigned to sacubitril/valsartan and 64 patients (2.7%) assigned to

105 l in 31% versus 17% of patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril, respectively.

106 included the wholesale acquisition cost for sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril.

107 The index date was the first fill for sacubitril/valsartan and if none, for an ACEI or ARB.

108 LVEF modified the association between sacubitril/valsartan and risk of hypotension (P(interact

109 The association between sacubitril/valsartan and the primary outcome was not mod

110 MMSE, did not differ between treatment with sacubitril/valsartan and treatment with valsartan in pat

111 contractile dysfunction vs. vehicle and both sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan attenuated progressiv

112 After 5 weeks, both sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan reduced CTGF expressi

113 In the border zone, sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan reduced hypertrophic

114 ations of these showed no difference between sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan.

115 in non-life-threatening hyperkalemia in the sacubitril/valsartan arm (28 [17%] vs 15 [9%]; P = .04),

116 erienced hypotension, more frequently in the sacubitril/valsartan arm (P < 0.001).

117 alapril to assess the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan at 52 weeks of follow-up.

118 A total of 727 patients (19.5%) received sacubitril/valsartan at baseline.

119 we show the potential myocardial benefits of sacubitril/valsartan beyond blood pressure control, thou

120 Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan caused a rightward shift in the dis

121 is associated with decreased likelihood of a sacubitril/valsartan claim and medication adherence with

122 s ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.76-0.90]) to have a sacubitril/valsartan claim within 6 months of HFrEF diag

123 s of PARADIGM-HF, the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared to enalapril were estimate

124 ompensated heart failure (HF), initiation of sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril decreased t

125 ores demonstrated consistent improvements in sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril through 36

126 linical outcomes and on the effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril.

127 scores were better in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan compared with those treated with en

128 racellular matrix homeostasis are altered by sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan alone.

129 trial, the relative and absolute benefits of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in HFpEF ap

130 risk of hypotension in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan.

131 Compared with ramipril, sacubitril/valsartan decreased the risk of coronary outc

132 Sixteen weeks after randomization, sacubitril/valsartan decreased tissue inhibitor of matri

133 Patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan demonstrated less increase in LV en

134 il/valsartan, and the BP-lowering effects of sacubitril/valsartan did not account for its effects on

135 after myocardial infarction, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan did not have a significant reverse

136 Compared with valsartan, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan did not improve the clinical compos

137 In this study, sacubitril/valsartan did not show superiority over enala

138 Compared with ramipril, sacubitril/valsartan did not significantly decrease the

139 Sacubitril/valsartan for 1-week limited LV contractile d

140 poned if eligible patients were treated with sacubitril/valsartan for 3 years.

141 lative risk reduction in primary events with sacubitril/valsartan from patients hospitalized within 3

142 ure and N-terminal pro-BNP were lower in the sacubitril/valsartan group (-4.2 mm Hg; 95% CI, -7.2 to

143 e enalapril group and 0.26% (SD 1.25) in the sacubitril/valsartan group (between-group reduction 0.13

144 At 8 months, sacubitril/valsartan group noted improvements in both KC

145 oncentrations were persistently lower in the sacubitril/valsartan group than in the enalapril group o

146 strain was normal and remained stable in the sacubitril/valsartan group throughout the study (change

147 ic therapy (0.77, 0.58-1.02, p=0.073) in the sacubitril/valsartan group.

148 d HFrEF enrolled in PARADIGM-HF who received sacubitril/valsartan had a greater long-term reduction i

149 Patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan had less LV enlargement and greater

150 Sacubitril/valsartan had more consistent effects than va

151 In conclusion, our findings demonstrate that sacubitril/valsartan has a superior cardioprotective eff

152 Sacubitril/valsartan has been approved for use in heart

153 otensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan has been shown to improve outcomes

154 Sacubitril/valsartan improved congestion to a greater ex

155 processing, and degradation, are altered by sacubitril/valsartan in comparison to enalapril.

156 f MRAs for patients with HFrEF is reduced by sacubitril/valsartan in comparison with enalapril.

157 Data from randomized trials of sacubitril/valsartan in HF patients with EF <=40% (PIONE

158 lure Episode), the in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in patients hospitalized for acute

159 Data on the effects of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with a systemic right v

160 hat the benefit/risk ratio favors the use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with LVEF below normal,

161 sed cardiac volumes and long-term effects of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with pre-HFpEF.

162 support of potential benefits of the use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with resistant hyperten

163 o better estimate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in reducing cardiovascular and rena

164 the risk of clinical events and response to sacubitril/valsartan in relation to time from last HF ho

165 to 10 weeks, and 9 months of treatment with sacubitril/valsartan in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Com

166 pproved for HFrEF, only 2 reduced mortality (sacubitril/valsartan in the PARADIGM-HF trial and dapagl

167 In the infarct, sacubitril/valsartan induced an early uptake of (99m)Tc-

168 nal social factors associated with delays in sacubitril/valsartan initiation and long-term adherence.

169 Reasons for lack of guideline-recommended sacubitril/valsartan initiation warrant investigation an

170 eGFR decline when transitioning from RASi to sacubitril/valsartan is not consistently associated with

171 Our data showed that sacubitril/valsartan is well tolerated and is associated

172 These findings demonstrate that sacubitril/valsartan leads to better HRQL in surviving p

173 In patients stabilized after WHF, sacubitril/valsartan led to a greater reduction in plasm

174 patients with EF >40% stabilized after WHF, sacubitril/valsartan led to greater reduction in plasma

175 Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan led to inconsistent changes in BNP,

176 Initiation and titration of sacubitril/valsartan led to variable changes in concentr

177 These findings suggest that sacubitril/valsartan may reduce profibrotic signaling, w

178 A hypothetical concern has been raised that sacubitril/valsartan might cause cognitive impairment be

179 These data suggest that sacubitril/valsartan might enhance glycaemic control in

180 Effects of sacubitril/valsartan on atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP)

181 of this study was to examine the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on biomarkers of ECM homeostasis an

182 This study investigated the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on biomarkers of extracellular matr

183 The effects of sacubitril/valsartan on biomarkers were compared with en

184 comes and to assess the treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan on congestion.

185 ved SBP and whether the treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan on outcomes are related to BP lower

186 This study sought to examine the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on results from different natriuret

187 However, the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on the primary outcome was not dimi

188 The effects of sacubitril/valsartan on these biomarkers were compared w

189 des were randomized to treatment with either sacubitril/valsartan or a renin-angiotensin system inhib

190 ymptomatic hypotension during treatment with sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril were associated with w

191 who were randomly assigned to treatment with sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril.

192 on: ivabradine and another combination drug, sacubitril/valsartan or LCZ696.

193 GFR changes should not deter continuation of sacubitril/valsartan or stall uptitration.

194 k post-MI to treatment with vehicle (water), sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan, as comparator group,

195 ndomized patients with chronic HF (>=45%) to sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan.

196 h chronic HF and EF 45% randomly assigned to sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan.

197 The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril was similar to the p

198 yment amounts varied by plan type, with more sacubitril/valsartan prescriptions for commercial plans

199 populations for each plan type, 4-fold more sacubitril/valsartan prescriptions were dispensed in com

200 sion in the remote myocardium, although only sacubitril/valsartan prevented interstitial fibrosis.

201 artan reduced hypertrophic markers, but only sacubitril/valsartan reduced cardiomyocyte size and incr

202 led analyses of PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF, sacubitril/valsartan reduced cardiovascular and renal ev

203 We further evaluated whether sacubitril/valsartan reduced congestion during follow-up

204 l Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure), sacubitril/valsartan reduced morbidity and mortality com

205 ed ejection fraction, whether treatment with sacubitril/valsartan reduced NT-proBNP below specific pa

206 Sacubitril/valsartan reduced SBP by 5.2 mm Hg (95% confi

207 However, sacubitril/valsartan reduced SBP more in women (6.3 mm H

208 rt failure with preserved ejection fraction, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the risk of renal events, a

209 Sacubitril/valsartan reduced the risk of the primary out

210 antly modify the neutral treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan relative to ramipril (P interaction

211 (125 +/- 11 vs. 126 +/- 11 mmHg; P = 0.762), sacubitril/valsartan resulted in a greater absolute redu

212 ON-HF experienced eGFR decline (>15%) during sacubitril/valsartan run-in.

213 uggesting that the in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan should be routinely considered for

214 ltered in HF with reduced ejection fraction, sacubitril/valsartan significantly decreased many of the

215 F and PARAGON-HF randomized clinical trials, sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced hospitalizati

216 Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced total worseni

217 nth follow-up healthcare utilization between sacubitril/valsartan switchers and ACEI or ARB maintaine

218 , PINP, and PIIINP had decreased more in the sacubitril/valsartan than enalapril group.

219 The decline in eGFR was less for sacubitril/valsartan than for valsartan (-2.0 [95% CI, -

220 8 months after randomization was higher with sacubitril/valsartan than with enalapril: ratio of geome

221 patients' perspectives on a decision aid for sacubitril/valsartan that explicitly addresses out-of-po

222 ews on a publicly available decision aid for sacubitril/valsartan that explicitly incorporates consid

223 (Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan Therapy on Biomarkers, Myocardial R

224 otensin II receptor blocker), be switched to sacubitril/valsartan to reduce morbidity and mortality.

225 ovide important insights into the effects of sacubitril/valsartan treatment on individual patient res

226 In this trial of patients with pre-HFpEF, sacubitril/valsartan treatment was associated with a gre

227 The incremental costs and QALYs gained with sacubitril/valsartan treatment were estimated at $35512

228 With sacubitril/valsartan treatment, B-type natriuretic pepti

229 Low sacubitril/valsartan use in both plan types highlights t

230 opayment policies may be more influential on sacubitril/valsartan use than its PA policies.

231 Sacubitril/valsartan use was associated with a lower ris

232 determine whether the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan varies in relation to the proximity

233 Overall, the sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril hazard ratio for t

234 acodynamics (PK/PD), safety, and efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril in children 1 mont

235 (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect of NT-pr

236 nts with EF <=40% (PIONEER-HF [Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect of NT-pr

237 (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect of NT-pr

238 In PIONEER-HF (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect on NT-pr

239 PIONEER-HF (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect on NT-pr

240 The PIONEER-HF (comParIson Of sacubitril/valsartaN versus Enalapril on Effect on nt-pR

241 We aimed to investigate the effect of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril on HbA1c and time

242 h HF attributable to LVSD were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril to assess the effi

243 een Veterans with HFrEF who were switched to sacubitril/valsartan versus maintained on an ACEI or ARB

244 hat evaluated the cardioprotective effect of sacubitril/valsartan versus placebo administered concomi

245 spitalization for HF was reduced by 30% with sacubitril/valsartan vs control therapy (HR: 0.70; 95% C

246 of randomized treatment was less common with sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril in patients experienci

247 lobal randomized controlled trial evaluating sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril in patients with heart

248 sions per 1000 patients with HF treated with sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril over 30 years.

249 on compared to those who did not: the HR for sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.72

250 abiLization In DEcompensated HFpEF) assessed sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan in EF >40% following a

251 double-blind, randomized controlled trial of sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan in patients with EF >4

252 ind, randomized, active-controlled trials of sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan in patients with HF w

253 enalapril, 87.8%), and the safety profile of sacubitril/valsartan was acceptable in children.

254 he angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan was associated with a reduction in

255 The effect of sacubitril/valsartan was consistent across all subgroups

256 Sacubitril/valsartan was effective across the LVEF spect

257 Sacubitril/valsartan was effective at reducing cardiovas

258 ts than Medicare, population-adjusted use of sacubitril/valsartan was higher in commercial plans.

259 he angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan was more effective than the angiote

260 Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan was nearly twice as likely as enala

261 th BNP and NT-proBNP during 8 to 10 weeks of sacubitril/valsartan were associated with worse outcomes

262 ociated with worse outcomes, the benefits of sacubitril/valsartan were maintained (or even enhanced)

263 ith valsartan, absolute risk reductions with sacubitril/valsartan were more prominent in patients enr

264 Beneficial effects of sacubitril/valsartan were observed in patients with prep

265 Veterans with treated HFrEF were switched to sacubitril/valsartan within the first 2 years of Food an

266 n fraction, the Markov model calculated that sacubitril/valsartan would increase life expectancy at a

267 Sensitivity analyses demonstrated sacubitril/valsartan would remain cost-effective vs enal

268 The benefit of LCZ696 (sacubitril/valsartan) compared with enalapril was consis

269 (NEP) inhibitor, and a component of LCZ696 (sacubitril/valsartan).

270 had a follow-up echo at 8 months (228 taking sacubitril/valsartan, 229 taking ramipril).

271 Of the patients eligible for sacubitril/valsartan, 4.7% (6372) had a claim within 6 m

272 e similar between treatment arms (incidence: sacubitril/valsartan, 88.8%; enalapril, 87.8%), and the

273 Sacubitril/valsartan, a combination angiotensin receptor

274 rved ejection fraction, favorably altered by sacubitril/valsartan, and have important prognostic valu

275 no patients on target doses of beta-blocker, sacubitril/valsartan, and mineralocorticoid receptor ant

276 e SBP did not modify the treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan, and the BP-lowering effects of sac

277 Hypotension is a potential adverse effect of sacubitril/valsartan, but there are limited data regardi

278 Conversely, sacubitril/valsartan, combining NP degradation inhibitio

279 receive optimised HF therapy (up to 4 drugs: sacubitril/valsartan, empagliflozin, ivabradine, ferric

280 y increased with initiation and titration of sacubitril/valsartan, more than doubling by the first fo

281 less likely to derive clinical benefit from sacubitril/valsartan, our data reinforce that the benefi

282 The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan, over an angiotensin-converting enz

283 Given improvements in mortality with sacubitril/valsartan, this analysis provides comprehensi

284 Given the biochemical targets of sacubitril/valsartan, this study hypothesized that circu

285 Given the biochemical targets of sacubitril/valsartan, we hypothesized that circulating b

286 stolic dysfunction and pulmonary congestion, sacubitril/valsartan-compared with ramipril-reduced the

287 s, the clinical validity of measuring BNP in sacubitril/valsartan-treated patients has been questione

288 In sacubitril/valsartan-treated patients, median NT-proBNP

289 main open questions are the efficacy of the sacubitril/valsartan-vericiguat combination in HFrEF and

290 ly during treatment with enalapril than with sacubitril/valsartan.

291 ion that was not significantly attenuated by sacubitril/valsartan.

292 394/2896) of insurance plans required PA for sacubitril/valsartan.

293 ocket cost as relevant in a decision aid for sacubitril/valsartan.

294 easurements before and during treatment with sacubitril/valsartan.

295 rease meaningfully early after initiation of sacubitril/valsartan.

296 among women who derive greater benefit from sacubitril/valsartan.

297 tion fraction were initiated and titrated on sacubitril/valsartan.

298 ) patients during the first 8 to 10 weeks of sacubitril/valsartan.

299 In 466 patients (233 sacubitril/valsartan; 233 valsartan), time-averaged redu

300 sacubitril-valsartan (target dose, 97 mg of sacubitril with 103 mg of valsartan twice daily) or enal