Targeting and Modulation of the Natriuretic Peptide System in Covid-19: A Single or Double-Edged Effect?

Natriuretic peptide system (NPS) is a group of peptide hormones or paracrine factors, including atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP), brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), and natriuretic peptide precursor C (NPC), that are structurally related. The physiological effects of NPS include natriuresis, increased glomerular filtration rate, inhibition release of renin, vasopressin, and aldosterone, sympathetic inhibition, vasodilatations, and prevents cardiac hypertrophy and remodeling. ANP has immunological effects, as it is produced locally from immune cells; it regulates innate and adaptive immune responses. Metabolism and degradation of ANP are achieved by neutral endopeptidase (NEP), also known as neprilysin. Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic may lead to acute lung injury (ALI) and/or respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The underlying causes of inflammatory and immunological disorders in patients with severe Covid-19 are connected to the immune over-stimulation with the subsequent release of pro-inflammatory cytokines. Covid-19 severity is linked with high ANP serum levels regardless of acute cardiac injury. Inflammatory stimuli appear to be linked with the release of NPs, which anti-inflammatory effects prevent the development of ALI/ARDS in Covid-19. Therefore, neprilysin inhibitors like sacubitril increase endogenous NPs and may reduce the risk of ALI in Covid-19 due to the potentiation of endogenous anti-inflammatory effects of NPs. However, sacubitril increases gastrin-releasing peptide, cathepsin G and release of pro-inflammatory cytokines that are inactivated by neprilysin. In conclusion, NPs and neprilysin have cardio-pulmonary protective effects against Covid-19-induced ALI/ARDS. Neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril has dual protective and harmful effects regarding metabolizing vasoactive peptides by neprilysin. These findings require potential reevaluation of the effect of neprilysin inhibitors in managing Covid-19.

New therapies for the treatment of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

PURPOSE: This review of chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), including new and emerging evidence for treatment of patients with this condition, is intended to offer data supporting the use of specific agents for this patient population. SUMMARY: Chronic heart failure is a major health concern affecting millions of Americans annually and remains a significant burden on the healthcare system. Heart failure is divided into categories based on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Current treatments for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, defined by an LVEF of less than 40%, involve a variety of agents with established morbidity and mortality benefits. This is in stark contrast to directed treatments for patients with HFpEF, defined by an LVEF of greater than 50%. Treatments for this form of heart failure have been elusive until recently, when studies were published with sacubitril/valsartan and empagliflozin. Results of the PARAGON-HF trial suggested benefit from sacubitril/valsartan in patients with an ejection fraction between 45% and 57%, leading to its approval in 2021 as the first medication indicated for treatment of patients with a preserved ejection fraction. Months later, the results of the EMPEROR-Preserved trial demonstrated a statistically significant benefit in the composite outcome of heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular death in patients with HFpEF taking empagliflozin. This medication has yet to gain approval for HFpEF; however, these data along with ongoing and future trials will likely impact standard treatment for these patients. CONCLUSION: The PARAGON-HF and EMPEROR-Preserved trials will serve as the foundation for a new era in the treatment of HFpEF.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on prescription of sacubitril/valsartan in Italy.

AIMS: The present study sought to examine the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown measures on the prescription of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure (HF) in Italy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) monitoring registries were analysed. The sacubitril/valsartan monitoring registry is based on 6-month prescriptions. A monthly aggregation on new activations throughout the observational period was computed. From March to December 2020, the initiation of new HF patients on sacubitril/valsartan decreased by nearly 40% with prescriptions dropping to values similar to 2018 when the registry was still operated off-line. A slight increase in prescriptions was observed after the lockdown measures were lifted, but prescriptions remained constantly below the pre-lockdown period. CONCLUSION: A marked and worrisome decline during the COVID-19 pandemic in the activation of a life-saving treatment such as sacubitril/valsartan was observed. This decline was clearly linked to the lockdown measures instated to counteract the COVID-19 pandemic. Upcoming studies should analyse the occurrence of new cases of HF as well as the severity of patients admitted to hospitals and their mortality compared to pre-pandemic levels.

Design, synthesis and biological evaluation of 1,5-disubstituted α-amino tetrazole derivatives as non-covalent inflammasome-caspase-1 complex inhibitors with potential application against immune and inflammatory disorders.

Compounds targeting the inflammasome-caspase-1 pathway could be of use for the treatment of inflammation and inflammatory diseases. Previous caspase-1 inhibitors were in great majority covalent inhibitors and failed in clinical trials. Using a mixed modelling, computational screening, synthesis and in vitro testing approach, we identified a novel class of non-covalent caspase-1 non cytotoxic inhibitors which are able to inhibit IL-1ß release in activated macrophages in the low µM range, in line with the best activities observed for the known covalent inhibitors. Our compounds could form the basis of further optimization towards potent drugs for the treatment of inflammation and inflammatory disorders including also dysregulated inflammation in Covid 19.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Sacubitril-Valsartan Compared with Enalapril Treatment in Patients with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure in Thailand.

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril-valsartan is effective in reducing the N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level of hospitalized patients with acute decompensated heart failure, with a high acquisition cost compared with enalapril treatment. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the cost utility of sacubitril-valsartan compared with enalapril for acute decompensated heart failure treatment. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to project the total costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of early initiation, and a 2-month delay of sacubitril-valsartan treatment and enalapril treatment in hospitalized patients with acute decompensated heart failure over a lifetime horizon from a Thai healthcare system perspective. Clinical inputs were mainly derived from the PIONEER-HF and PARADIGM-HF trials, together with Thai epidemiological data. Cost data were based on the Thai population. All costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually. A series of sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Compared with enalapril, sacubitril-valsartan incurred a higher total cost per year (THB 42,994 [US$1367.48] vs THB 19,787 [US$629.37]), and it gained more QALYs (4.969 vs 4.755). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was THB 108,508/QALY (US$3451.26/QALY). Early initiation of sacubitril-valsartan treatment was more cost effective than delayed treatment. Sensitivity analyses revealed that at a level of willingness to pay of THB 160,000/QALY (US$5089/QALY), sacubitril-valsartan was a cost-effective strategy of about 60%. CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril-valsartan is cost effective in patients with acute decompensated heart failure. However, the results are highly dependent on the long-term cardiovascular mortality, and they are applicable only to Thailand or countries with a similarly structured healthcare system. Long-term registries should be pursued to decrease the uncertainty around long-term mortality.

New Drugs 2021, Part 2.

ABSTRACT: The second of a two-part series, this article describes eight recently approved drugs, including the first drug approved for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2, a first-in-class HIV attachment inhibitor, and a new intravenous injection indicated for the treatment of acute pain in adults for whom other treatments are ineffective.

Candesartan as a tentative treatment for COVID-19: A prospective non-randomized open-label study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate whether the addition of candesartan to the standard care regimen improved the outcome in patients with coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: A prospective non-randomized open-label study was undertaken from May to August 2020 on 75 subjects (aged 18-70 years) hospitalized in Siloam Kelapa Dua Hospital. Uni- and multi-variable Cox regression analyses were performed to obtain hazard ratios (HRs). The primary outcomes were: (1) length of hospital stay; (2) time to negative swab; and (3) radiological outcome (time to improvement on chest X ray). RESULTS: None of the 75 patients with COVID-19 required intensive care. All patients were angiotensin-receptor-blocker naïve. In comparison with the control group, the candesartan group had a significantly shorter hospital stay [adjusted HR 2.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16-5.29] after adjusting for a wide range of confounders, and no increased risk of intensive care. In the non-obese subgroup, the candesartan group had a shorter time to negative swab (unadjusted HR 2.11, 95% CI 1.02-4.36; adjusted HR 2.40, 95% CI 1.08-5.09) and shorter time to improvement in chest x ray (adjusted HR 2.82, 95% CI 1.13-7.03) compared with the control group. CONCLUSION: Candesartan significantly reduces the length of hospital stay after adjustment for covariates. All primary outcomes improved significantly in the non-obese subgroup receiving candesartan.

The Rationale for Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitors in a Multi-Targeted Therapeutic Approach to COVID-19.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) disease (COVID-19) determines the angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) down-regulation and related decrease in angiotensin II degradation. Both these events trigger "cytokine storm" leading to acute lung and cardiovascular injury. A selective therapy for COVID-19 has not yet been identified. Clinical trials with remdesivir gave discordant results. Thus, healthcare systems have focused on "multi-targeted" therapeutic strategies aiming at relieving systemic inflammation and thrombotic complications. No randomized clinical trial has demonstrated the efficacy of renin angiotensin system antagonists in reducing inflammation related to COVID-19. Dexamethasone and tocilizumab showed encouraging data, but their use needs to be further validated. The still-controversial efficacy of these treatments highlighted the importance of organ injury prevention in COVID-19. Neprilysin (NEP) might be an interesting target for this purpose. NEP expression is increased by cytokines on lung fibroblasts surface. NEP activity is elevated in acute respiratory distress syndrome and it is conceivable that it is also high in COVID-19. NEP is implicated in the degradation of natriuretic peptides, bradykinin, substance P, adrenomedullin, and apelin that account for prevention of organ injury. Thus, NEP/angiotensin receptor type 1 (AT1R) inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan (SAC/VAL) may increase levels of these molecules and block AT1Rs required for ACE2 endocytosis in SARS-CoV-2 infection. Moreover, SAC/VAL has a positive impact on acute heart failure that is very frequently observed in deceased COVID-19 patients. The current review aims to summarize actual therapeutic strategies for COVID-19 and to examine the data supporting the potential benefits of SAC/VAL in COVID-19 treatment.

Sacubitril/Valsartan in Advanced Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Rationale and Design of the LIFE Trial.

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 Heart Failure) trial reported that sacubitril/valsartan (S/V), an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, significantly reduced mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, fewer than 1% of patients in the PARADIGM-HF study had New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class IV symptoms. Accordingly, data that informed the use of S/V among patients with advanced HF were limited. The LIFE (LCZ696 in Hospitalized Advanced Heart Failure) study was a 24-week prospective, multicenter, double-blinded, double-dummy, active comparator trial that compared the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of S/V with those of valsartan in patients with advanced HFrEF. The trial planned to randomize 400 patients ≥18 years of age with advanced HF, defined as an EF ≤35%, New York Heart Association functional class IV symptoms, elevated natriuretic peptide concentration (B-type natriuretic peptide [BNP] ≥250 pg/ml or N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP] ≥800 pg/ml), and ≥1 objective finding of advanced HF. Following a 3- to 7-day open label run-in period with S/V (24 mg/26 mg twice daily), patients were randomized 1:1 to S/V titrated to 97 mg/103 mg twice daily versus 160 mg of V twice daily. The primary endpoint was the proportional change from baseline in the area under the curve for NT-proBNP levels measured through week 24. Secondary and tertiary endpoints included clinical outcomes and safety and tolerability. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, enrollment in the LIFE trial was stopped prematurely to ensure patient safety and data integrity. The primary analysis consists of the first 335 randomized patients whose clinical follow-up examination results were not severely impacted by COVID-19. (Entresto [LCZ696] in Advanced Heart Failure [LIFE STUDY] [HFN-LIFE]; NCT02816736).

[Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management of heart failure outpatient clinics. Lessons during the lockdown restrictions]. / Le ricadute della pandemia COVID-19 sulla gestione dell'Ambulatorio Scompenso. Esperienze e considerazioni operative dopo il lockdown.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, non-urgent outpatient activities were temporarily suspended. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of this measure on the management of the heart failure outpatient clinic at our institution. METHODS: We analyzed the clinical outcome of 110 chronic heart failure patients (mean age 73 ± 9 years) whose follow-up visit had been delayed. RESULTS: At their last visit before the lockdown, 80.9% was in NYHA class II, had an ejection fraction of 37 ± 7%, and B-type natriuretic peptide level was moderately elevated (266 ± 138 pg/ml). All patients received loop diuretics, 97.2% beta-blockers, 64.9% an aldosterone antagonist, 60.9% sacubitril/valsartan (S/V), and 72.2% of the remaining patients were on angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or valsartan therapy. Patients were contacted by phone during and at the end of the lockdown period to fix a new appointment and underwent a structured interview to assess their clinical conditions and ongoing therapy and to verify whether they had contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection. Twelve patients (13.2%) contracted COVID-19. None was hospitalized for worsening heart failure or reported defibrillator shocks and none changed autonomously the prescribed therapy. Overall, 75% of patients reported stable or improved general well-being from the last in-person visit, while 25% described subjective worsening due to the social effect of the pandemic. Unchanged body weight and blood pressure values were reported by 86% and 78.4% of patients, respectively. Lower blood pressure values compared to baseline were recorded in 15.2% of patients on conventional renin-angiotensin system inhibition vs 21% of those on S/V, one of whom had to down-titrate S/V for persistent but asymptomatic hypotension; 4 patients up-titrated S/V to 200 mg/day following phone indications. CONCLUSIONS: Cancellation of scheduled follow-up visits during 3 months did not have significant negative effects in a cohort of stable patients with chronic heart failure on optimized medical therapy. Telephone support was effective in keeping connections with the patients during the lockdown, allowing appropriate management and implementation of drug therapy. In particular, patients who received S/V were not affected by delays in scheduled visits, confirming the tolerability and safety of this novel therapy in terms of both clinical and biohumoral parameters.

Standard headache and neuralgia treatments and SARS-CoV-2: opinion of the Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Group. / Tratamientos habituales utilizados en cefaleas, neuralgias y SARS-CoV-2. Posicionamiento del grupo de estudio de cefaleas de la Sociedad Española de Neurología.

INTRODUCTION: In recent months, doubts have arisen among patients, general practitioners, and neurologists as to whether some drugs commonly used in patients with headaches and neuralgia may favour or complicate the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We collected information on the opinions of scientific societies and medicines agencies (American, European, and Spanish) to clarify doubts regarding the use of drugs such as lisinopril, candesartan, ibuprofen, corticosteroids, carbamazepine, and monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: We make recommendations about the use of standard headache treatments in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, based on the current scientific evidence. CONCLUSIONS: At present, there is no robust scientific argument to formally contraindicate any of the standard treatments employed for headaches and neuralgias.