Association between sacubitril/valsartan initiation and changes in left ventricular ejection fraction: Insights from ARIADNE registry.

AIMS: We tested the hypothesis that initiation versus non-initiation of sacubitril/valsartan is associated with a more favorable subsequent change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in a real-world setting. METHODS: A prospective, non-randomized, double-arm, open-label, cohort study had been conducted across 687 centers in 17 European countries enrolling HFrEF patients aged ≥18 years with symptoms of HF (New York Heart Association [NYHA] II-IV) and "reduced LVEF". For the current analysis, 2602 patients with LVEF measured at baseline and follow-up were chosen, of which 860 (33%, mean age 67 years, 26% women) were started on sacubitril/valsartan at baseline and 1742 (67%, 68 years, 23% women) were not. Patients started on sacubitril/valsartan had higher NYHA class and lower LVEF. RESULTS: LVEF increased from mean 32.7% to 38.1% in the sacubitril/valsartan group versus from 35.9% to 38.7% in the non-sacubitril/valsartan group (mean difference in increase 2.6%, p < 0.001). LVEF increased from baseline in 64% versus 53% of patients and increased by ≥5% (absolute %) in 50% versus 35% of patients in the sacubitril/valsartan versus non-sacubitril/valsartan groups, respectively. In the overall cohort, initiation of sacubitril/valsartan was independently associated with any increase in LVEF (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.49 [1.26-1.75]) and with increase by ≥5% (OR 1.65 [1.39-1.95]). CONCLUSION: Initiating versus not initiating sacubitril/valsartan was independently associated with a greater subsequent increase in LVEF in this real-world setting. Reverse cardiac remodeling may be one mechanism of benefit of sacubitril/valsartan.

Outcomes with sacubitril/valsartan in outpatients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: The ARIADNE registry.

AIMS: ARIADNE aimed to assess the association between effects of sacubitril/valsartan and no sacubitril/valsartan treatment and clinical characteristics, functional capacity, and clinical outcomes (cause-specific mortality and hospitalizations) in outpatients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS: ARIADNE was a prospective European registry of 9069 patients with HFrEF treated by office-based cardiologists or selected primary care physicians. Of the 8787 eligible for analysis, 4173 patients were on conventional HF treatment (non-S/V group), whereas 4614 patients were either on sacubitril/valsartan treatment at enrolment or started sacubitril/valsartan within 1 month of enrolment (S/V group). We also generated a restricted analysis set (rS/V) including only those 2108 patients who started sacubitril/valsartan treatment within the month prior to or after enrolment. RESULTS: At the baseline, average age of patients enrolled in the study was 68 years, and 23.9% (2099/8787) were female. At the baseline, the proportions of patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class III symptoms were 30.9 (1288/4173), 42.8 (1974/4614), and 48.2% (1015/2108), in non-S/V, S/V, and rS/V groups, respectively. After 12 months of treatment, the proportion of patients with NYHA Class III at baseline who improved to Class II was 32.0% (290/907) in the non-S/V group vs. 46.3% (648/1399) in S/V group and 48.7% (349/717) in rS/V group. The overall mortality rate was 5.0 per 100 patient-years. Rates of HF hospitalizations were high (20.9, 20.3, and 21.2 per 100 patient-years in the non-S/V, S/V, and rS/V groups, respectively). Emergency room visits without hospitalization occurred in 3.9, 3.2, and 3.9% of patients in the non-S/V, S/V, and rS/V groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This large HFrEF European registry provides a contemporary outcome profile of outpatients with HFrEF treated with or without sacubitril/valsartan. In a real-world setting, sacubitril/valsartan was associated with an improvement of symptoms in patients with HFrEF compared with the conventional HFrEF treatment.

Utilization of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: real-world data from the ARIADNE registry.

AIMS: To compare baseline characteristics of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) initiated on sacubitril/valsartan compared with patients continued on conventional heart failure (HF)-treatment in a European out-patient setting. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between July 2016 and July 2019, ARIADNE enrolled 8787 outpatients aged ≥18 years with HFrEF from 17 European countries. Choice of therapy was solely at the investigators' discretion. In total, 4173 patients were on conventional HF-treatment (non-S/V group), while 4614 patients were on sacubitril/valsartan either at enrolment or started sacubitril/valsartan within 1 month of enrolment (S/V group). Of these, 2108 patients started sacubitril/valsartan treatment ±1 month around enrolment [restricted S/V (rS/V) group]. The average age of the patients was 68 years. Patients on S/V were more likely to have New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III or IV symptoms (50.3%, 44.6%, 32.1% in rS/V, S/V, and non-S/V, respectively) and had lower left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF; 32.3%, 32.7%, and 35.4% in rS/V, S/V, and non-S/V, respectively; P < 0.0001). The most frequently received HF treatments were angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ACEI/ARB; ∼84% in non-S/V), followed by ß-blockers (∼80%) and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs; 53%). The use of triple HF therapy (ACEI/ARB/angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor with ß-blockers and MRA) was higher in the S/V groups than non-S/V group (48.2%, 48.2%, and 40.2% in rS/V, S/V, and non-S/V, respectively). CONCLUSION: In this large multinational HFrEF registry, patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan tended to be younger with lower LVEF and higher NYHA class. Fewer than half of the patients received triple HF therapy.

PRospective Evaluation of natriuretic peptide-based reFERral of patients with chronic heart failure in primary care (PREFER): a real-world study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess current management practice of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in multinational primary care (PC) and determine whether N-terminal-pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-pro-BNP)-guided referral of HFrEF patients from PC to a cardiologist could improve care, defined as adherence to European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guideline-recommended pharmacotherapy. METHODS: PRospective Evaluation of natriuretic peptide-based reFERral of patients with chronic HF in PC (PREFER) study enrolled HFrEF patients from PC considered clinically stable and those with NT-pro-BNP ≥600 pg/mL were referred to a cardiologist for optimisation of HF treatment. The primary outcome of adherence to ESC HF guidelines after referral to specialist was assessed at the second visit within 4 weeks of cardiologist's referral and no later than 6 months after the baseline visit. Based on futility interim analysis, the study was terminated early. RESULTS: In total, 1415 HFrEF patients from 223 PCs from 18 countries in Europe were enrolled. Of these, 1324 (96.9%) were considered clinically stable and 920 (65.0%) had NT-pro-BNP ≥600 pg/mL (mean: 2631 pg/mL). In total, 861 (60.8%) patients fulfilled both criteria and were referred to a cardiologist. Before cardiologist consultation, 10.1% of patients were on ESC guideline-recommended HFrEF medications and 2.7% were on recommended dosages of HFrEF medication (defined as ≥50% of ESC guideline-recommended dose). Postreferral, prescribed HFrEF drugs remained largely unchanged except for an increase in diuretics (+4.6%) and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (+7.9%). No significant increase in patients' adherence to guideline-defined drug combinations (11.2% post-referral vs 10.1% baseline) or drug combinations and dosages (3.3% postreferral vs 2.7% baseline) was observed after cardiologist consultation. CONCLUSIONS: PREFER demonstrates substantial suboptimal treatment of HFrEF patients in the real world. Referral of patients with elevated NT-pro-BNP levels from PC to cardiologist did not result in meaningful treatment optimisation for treatments with known mortality and morbidity benefit.

[Monoclonal antibodies: Comparative methods for in vitro production]

The growth of antibody producing hybridoma in the abdominal cavity of the mouse with subsequent harvesting of the ascites fluid is a simple method for the production of monoclonal antibodies. However, due to the massive painful stress of the animal, this method is no longer tolerated by the legislator. In search of alternative methods the scientist has the choice between different techniques: Static tissue culture, spin- or roller-cultures as well as the production in bioreactors (automated cell culture devices). The presented work investigates the different methods and describes their applicability in a research lab. The results clearly show that for any desired amount of antibodies a production technique is available which allows the omission of the use of the "ascites-mouse".