Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 113612

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2022 | Month : October | Volume : 16 | Issue : 10 | Page : OC18 - OC22 Full Version

Efficacy and Safety of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor versus Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitor in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction- A Prospective Observational Study from a Major Tertiary Care Hospital, Assam, India


Published: October 1, 2022 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2022/58399.17049
Bornali Dutta, Waseem Farooqui, Farhin Iqbal

1. Professor, Department of Cardiology, Gauhati Medical College, Guwahati, Assam, India. 2. Senior Resident, Department of Cardiology, Gauhati Medical College, Guwahati, Assam, India. 3. Associate Professor, Department of Cardiology, Gauhati Medical College, Guwahati, Assam, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Farhin Iqbal,
Flat 2A, RK Enclave, Lila Baruah Lane, Ambari, Guwahati 1, Assam, India.
E-mail: farhiniqbal@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor (ARNI) has shown to reduce morbidity and mortality in comparison to Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors (ACEI) in patients of Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction (HFrEF). However, the use of ARNI in real-world practice is limited and has not been studied in North-eastern Indian population

Aim: To compare the efficacy and safety of ARNI with ACEI in the management of symptomatic chronic HFrEF in North-eastern Indian population.

Materials and Methods: The prospective observational study was conducted in the Department of Cardiology at Gauhati Medical College, Guwahati, Assam, India, from April 2019 to October 2020. The study included patients with diagnosis of chronic HFrEF <40%, on ACEI therapy and who had atleast one hospitalisation for Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (ADHF) in the last six months. A total of 63 patients were included in this study. Three patients were lost on follow-up. Out of the 60 patients who were included in the final analysis, 30 patients each were included in two groups i.e, ARNI group and ACEI group. As per discretion of the treating physician, the patients were started on ARNI 50 mg twice daily which consist of Sacubitril/Valsartan (24/26 mg), along with other antiheart failure medications, and they were compared with the patients who continued on ACEI. Uptitration was considered with the aim to double the dose till the target dose was achieved at every two to four weeks at the treating physician’s discretion The endpoints included the rate of repeat Heart Failure (HF) hospitalisation, mortality, renal outcomes and quality of life. All statistical analyses were performed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS, IBM) software version 20.0.

Results: The demographics and clinical characteristics were comparable between the groups. The dose of ARNI was uptitrated to a maximum of 100 mg twice daily in 11 patients. ARNI significantly reduced HF hospitalisation (36.7% vs. 66.7%; p-value=0.039) and mortality (10% vs. 20%, p-value=0.038) compared to patients with ACEI. There was a significant improvement in the KCCQ score in the ARNI group as compared to the ACEI group (p-value=0.001). Treatment with ARNI was also associated with a significant improvement in the New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, serum creatinine, and estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (eGFR) and a significant reduction in N-Terminal pro B-type Natriuretic Peptide (NTproBNP) level.

Conclusion: In patients with symptomatic HFrEF, shifting to ARNI from background therapy on ACE inhibitors in comparison with continuation of ACE inhibitors appeared to be safe and superior in reducing the risk of death and of hospitalisation, when initiated on outpatient basis. ARNI could not be uptitrated in two-third of patients, yet substantial benefits are evident even at low doses in comparison to ACE inhibitor ramipril.

Keywords

Health related quality of life, Mortality, Ramipril, Risk of death, Sacubitril/Valsartan

Heart Failure (HF) has emerged as a global pandemic with 26 million people affected and an estimated health expenditure of United States $31 billion worldwide (1). Epidemiological data from United States suggest that 5.7 million individuals have HF and estimated prevalence will increase by 25% from current estimates by 2030 (2). The scarcity of clinical and demographic data on HF is a major limitation in India. The major HF registries from India shows that HF patients in India are younger by 10 years, and the majority of the burden lies below 65 years of age, as compared to the patients from high-income countries (3),(4),(5).

The management of Heart Failure with reduced Ejection Fraction (HFrEF) has been revolutionised by the introduction of ARNI consisting of sacubitril-valsartan which has proven to effectively reduce the risk of death from cardiovascular causes or repeat hospitalisations for heart failure. The effect of ARNI was evaluated in Paradigm-HF trial which suggested a 20% relative reduction in primary end point of cardiovascular death or heart HF hospitalisation (6). These findings provided a strong support for preferential use of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor (ARNI) in treatment of chronic HF. The recent American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association classification now include a class I recommendation for replacing Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors (ACEI) or Angiotensin Receptor Blocker (ARB) therapy in patients with chronic symptomatic HFrEF {New York Heart Association (NYHA II or III)} to further reduce morbidity or mortality (7). In relation to Indian context the improvement observed with of ARNI over and above ACEI in HF with reduced ejection fraction was evident in the sub-study analysis from Paradigm-HF trial among 637 patients of Indian origin. The analysis showed that the primary outcome, Cardiovacular (CV) death, and the first hospitalisation for HF and all-cause mortality were comparatively lower in the ARNI group than enalapril group and no significant difference was observed between the benefits of treatment in Indian and the total Paradigm-HF cohort (8). Another study from India showed that ARNI reduces cardiovascular mortality, heart failure associated hospitalisation, and all-cause mortality in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, also found improvement in overall Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQL) in surviving patients (9).

There is no available registry data on heart failure in North-eastern India. In accordance with the evidence from above-mentioned studies and no such previous studies being conducted in the North-eastern part of the country. This single-centre prospective observational study was undertaken for assessing the clinical efficacy and safety of shifting to ARNI from background therapy on ACE inhibitors, in comparison with continuation of ACEI in the management of symptomatic chronic HFrEF on an outpatient basis.

Material and Methods

The single-centre, open-label, prospective observational study was conducted in the Department of Cardiology at Gauhati Medical College, Guwahati, Assam, India, from April 2019 to October 2020. All patients with diagnosis of chronic heart failure on background ACEI therapy were included after fulfilling study inclusion criteria and after obtaining informed consent. Total enumeration technique was adapted for sampling. Prior ethical clearance was taken from the Institutional Ethics Committee (MC/190/2007/Pt-11/Mar-2019/20).

nclusion criteria:

• Age of atleast 18 years.
• Patient with history of atleast one hospitalisation with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in last six month.
• New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II, III, or IV and an ejection fraction of 40% or less.
• N-Terminal pro B-type Natriuretic Peptide (NT-proBNP) level ≥ 600 pg/mL

Exclusion criteria:

• Symptomatic hypotension, a blood pressure of less than 100 mmHg.
• Chronic kidney disease with eGFR below 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 of body surface area.
• Patient with confirmed pregnancy.
• History of angioedema or unacceptable side effects during receipt of ACE inhibitors.
• Patients without follow-up data.

A total of 63 patients with heart failure and low ejection fraction were included in this study. Three patients were lost on follow-up before three months, two in ARNI group and one in ACEI group and hence, not included in the final analysis. Out of the 60 patients who were included in final analysis, 30 patients each were included in ARNI and ACEI groups.

Study Procedure

As per the treating physician’s discretion, the patients were started on ARNI 50 mg which consisted of sacubitril/valsartan (24/26 mg) twice daily, along with other anti-heart failure medications. These patients were compared with those who continued on ACEI. Though uptitration was at the treating physician’s discretion however attempt was made to double the dose till the target dose was achieved every two to four weeks. The other group continued on ramipril, with aim of dose uptitration to 10 mg once daily or dose reduction akin to ARNI group. In the ARNI group, patients already on treatment with ACEI, were switched on to ARNI after a washout period of 36 hours. Concomitant HF therapies were optimised along with the initiation and uptitration of Sacubitril/Valsartan. Downtitration or temporary discontinuation of study medication was also done as per the discretion of the physician.

Detailed history, physical examination, and necessary investigations were done in all patients. The data on past medical history, clinical presentations, vital parameters, clinical examinations, baseline investigations, and coronary angiography, NYHA functional class and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) (10) were collected. Echocardiography was done using Siemens Acuson CV70 to evaluate left ventricular function and regional wall motion abnormality.

Follow-up data were obtained at baseline, one month, three months and six months, for efficacy outcome parameters (Hospitalisation, NYHA functional class, Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (LVEF), serum NTproBNP levels, mortality) and key adverse drug effects (blood pressure, serum creatinine, and serum potassium). Those who developed adverse effects (hypotension, raised serum creatinine, or hyperkalaemia) were managed by reducing diuretics dose, stopping Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonist (MRA), or reducing ARNI doses.

Statistical Analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS, IBM) software version 20.0. The qualitative data were expressed as number and proportions while the quantitative data were expressed as mean and standard deviation. Categorical and continuous variables were compared with the Chisquare test and Independent sample t-test, respectively. A p-value <0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

Results

The demographics and clinical characteristics were comparable between the groups. The mean age of the patients was 50.4±10.5 years in ARNI group and 49.4±10.5 years in ACEI group. The proportion of male was higher among both the groups. The mean systolic blood pressure was 114.3 mmHg in ARNI group and 113.7 mmHg in ACEI group. The heart rate was slightly higher in ARNI group than ACEI (80.1 vs 78.4; p-value=0.367). The mean left ventricular ejection fraction, serum creatinine levels, NT-proBNP levels were comparable between both the groups. Hypertension (43.3% vs 40%), smoking (36.7% vs. 40%), and dyslipidemia (30% vs 36.7%) were the most common aetiologies observed in both the groups. Majority of patients from both the groups presented with class II NYHA functional class and had a aetiological diagnosis of dilated cardiomyopathy (Table/Fig 1).

Follow-up: At the end of six months, out of 30 patients, 27 patients completed follow-up and three patients died in the ARNI group. The dose of ARNI was uptitrated to a maximum of 100 mg (sacubitril 49 mg/valsartan 51 mg) twice daily in 11 patients. Out of the remaining patient uptitration was attempted in 12 patients but because of low blood pressure in 10 patients and hyperkalaemia in two patients, on follow-up were advised to continue on 50 mg (sacubitril 24 mg/ valsartan 26 mg) twice daily dosage of ARNI and the remaining four patients were continued on sacubitril 24 mg/valsartan 26 mg dosage during the study period. No patients in the ARNI group could be titrated to maximum recommended dose of 200 mg (sacubitril 97 mg/valsartan 103 mg) twice daily.

Similarly, at the end of six months, out of a total of 30 patients, 24 patients completed follow-up and six patients died in the group on ACE Inhibitors. The dose of ACE-Inhibitors was uptitrated to a maximum of 10 mg per day in 16 patients and a maximum of 5 mg per day in six patients. The remaining two patients were advised to consume dose of 2.5 mg/day throughout the study period.

Comparison of efficacy outcomes between ARNI and ACEI: The rate of hospitalisation was significantly higher in ACEI compared to ARNI group (66.7% vs 36.7%; p-value=0.039) which indicates that ARNI significantly reduces heart failure hospitalisation over ACEI in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (Table/Fig 2). The mortality rate was two-fold increase in ACEI group compared to the ARNI group (20% vs 10%; p-value=0.038).

There was a significant improvement in the HRQOL as assessed by KCCQ overall score in the ARNI group as compared to the group treated with ACEI at six months. Similarly, mean NYHA class was significantly decreased in ARNI group compared to ACEI group at six months follow-up. At baseline, NT-proBNP level was comparable between both the groups. However, ARNI group showed significantly reduced level of NT-proBNP compared to ACEI group at six months follow-up. The mean serum creatinine was significantly reduced in ARNI group compared to ACEI. The level of eGFR was comparable between both the groups at baseline, but there was significant improvement in patient on ARNI compared to ACEI at six months follow-up (Table/Fig 3). Significant improvement in health-related quality of life (as assessed using KCCQ score) and significant reduction in NT-proBNP was observed as early as one month after switching to ARNI, which was maintained till the end of study (Table/Fig 4),(Table/Fig 5).

Adverse effects: There incidence of symptomatic hypotension was 13.3% in ARNI group, compared to 6.6% in ACEI group. However, the incidence of hyperkalemia was higher in the group treated with ACEI (16.6%) compared to ARNI (6.6%). These side-effects rarely required discontinuation of treatment (Table/Fig 6).

Discussion

The present study represents the first reported real-world experience from North-eastern India on use of ARNI in HFrEF in comparison to ACE inhibitor ramipril when initiated on outpatient basis. The main observation of this study was significant improvement in the various efficacy outcome variables such as decreased rate of hospitalisation for heart failure, improvement in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class and improvement in overall health related quality of life as assessed by Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) score on treatment with ARNI when compared to therapy with ACE Inhibitors, with non significant improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction. The overall incidence of adverse events was similar in ARNI and ACEI group and none of the adverse events led to withdrawal of any patient from the study. One of the key observations in this study was that, the authors could uptitrate ARNI to a maximum of 100 mg twice daily in one-third and none could be uptitrated to 200 mg, however substantial benefits are evident even at low doses in comparison to ACE inhibitor ramipril in the study population.

Paradigm-HF trial has shown ARNI to be effective in reducing the risk of death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalisation for heart failure. It also reduced the risk of death from any cause and improved physical functional capacity related to heart failure (6). In this subanalysis of Indian patients of Paradigm-HF, treatment with ARNI was superior to enalapril and safe in reducing the risk of cardiovascular death, heart failure hospitalisation and all-cause mortality and the findings are in concordance with the results of the global trial (8). In another Indian study, the use of ARNI in outpatients with HFrEF was found to be safe and was associated with a significant clinical improvement, as reflected by improvement in NYHA class, KCCQ score and a significant reduction in the NT-proBNP level (9). Similar to above studies, this study also observed significant improvement in the various efficacy outcome variables such as decreased rate of hospitalisation for heart failure, improvement in NHYA Class on treatment with ARNI when compared to therapy with ACEI, with non significant improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction.

The overall profile of safety events, the present study revealed hypotension was more in the ARNI group and the incidence of hyperkalemia and cough was noticed more in the ACEI group. Paradigm-HF and India sub-analysis had similar observations in the side effect profile with increased of hypotension observed in ARNI group and increased incidence of hyperkalemia and cough in the enalapril group (6),(8). Whereas, the study conducted by Jariwala P et al., treatment was well tolerated without any major side-effects observed during the follow-up after initiation on outpatient basis for a period of six months (9). All the adverse events reported in the present study were mild to moderate in intensity and subsided with treatment. None of the adverse events led to withdrawal of any patient from the study.

Damman K et al., to evaluated the renal effects of ARNI in patients with HFrEF, compared with enalapril. The ARNI led to a slower rate of decrease in the eGFR and improved cardiovascular outcomes, even in patients with chronic kidney disease, despite causing a modest increase in urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (11). The present study also found improved renal parameters in the ARNI group as compared to ACEI and are in contrast to the findings reported by Jariwala P et al., who noted an insignificant rise in mean creatinine levels on follow-up (9).

In the present study, ARNI was uptitrated to a maximum of 100 mg twice daily in one third and none could be uptitrated to 200 mg, however substantial benefits are evident even at low doses in comparison to ACE inhibitor ramipril in the study population. Similar to the current study, Vardeny O et al., observed reduced risk of death and HF hospitalisation even by taking lower ARNI doses, compared to ACE inhibitors (12). Another meta-analysis observed that the dose of 200 mg BID is possible only in 35% of European patients, with a potential of discontinuation in 12.8% of cases (13). However, this finding is in contrast to another Indian study where uptitration of ARNI was safely achieved in majority of patients (14). The underdosing of ARNI was necessitated because of fall blood pressure and intolerance to higher dose in the present study group of patients. This was partly contributed by patient population itself as the current study patients had lower blood pressure even at baseline, compared to other Indian studies (9),(14). However, since uptitration was at the discretion of the treating physician, fear of worsening side-effects on part of treating physician, could also contribute to underdosing. Evidence also suggests considerable underdosing and physician underuse of recommended drugs in real-world conditions. Many studies have demonstrated that majority of patients with HFrEF did not receive target doses of medical therapy at any point during follow-up (15),(16).

Although, this study was not powered enough to draw conclusions concerning cardiovascular mortality and heart failure-related rehospitalisation rates, yet these indices give us an understanding that shifting to ARNI from background therapy on ACE inhibitors in comparison with continuation of ACE inhibitors appeared to be safe and superior in reducing the risk of death and of hospitalisation, when initiated on outpatient basis.

Limitation(s)

The present study was limited by small sample size and may not be powered enough to detect differences in clinical outcomes. This was a comparative, observational study from a single institution and the results may be confounded by unmeasured confounders. The maximum follow-up duration was for six months and hence, some clinical outcome might change on a longer follow-up. Since, in the study centre most of the patients were on ACEI ramipril, benefit of shifting to ARNI from other ACEI were not included. Multicentric, randomised trials with longer follow-up with a larger sample size and longer follow-up are necessary to fully understand and evaluate the efficacy and safety outcomes of ARNI in comparison to ACEI therapy in symptomatic HFrEF in the study population.

Conclusion

This study concluded that in patients with symptomatic HFrEF, shifting to ARNI from background therapy on ACE inhibitors in comparison with continuation of ACEI appeared to be safe and superior in reducing the cardiovascular outcome and improving overall health related quality of life, when initiated on outpatient basis. Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor could not be uptitrated in two-third of patients, yet substantial benefits are evident even at low doses in comparison to ACE inhibitor ramipril.

References

1.
Ambrosy AP, Fonarow G, Butler J, Chioncel O, Greene SJ, Vaduganathan M, et al. The global health and economic burden of hospitalizations for heart failure: Lessons learned from hospitalised heart failure registries. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(12):1123-33. [crossref] [PubMed]
2.
Writing Group Members, Mozaffarian D, Benjamin EJ, Go AS, Arnett DK, Blaha MJ, Cushman M, et al. American Heart Association Statistics Committee; Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2016 Update: A Report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2016;133(4):e38- 60. Doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000350. Epub 2015 Dec 16. Erratum in: Circulation. 2016 Apr 12;133(15):e599. PMID: 26673558.
3.
Sanjay G, Jeemon P, Agarwal A, Viswanathan S, Sreedharan M, Vijayaraghavan G, et al. In-hospital and three-year outcomes of heart failure patients in South India: The Trivandrum Heart Failure Registry. J Card Fail. 2018;24(12):842- 48. Doi: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2018.05.007. Epub 2018 Jun 7. PMID: 29885494; PMCID: PMC7263011. [crossref] [PubMed]
4.
Dokainish H, Teo K, Zhu J, Roy A, AlHabib KF, ElSayed A, et al. INTER-CHF Investigators. Global mortality variations in patients with heart failure: Results from the International Congestive Heart Failure (INTER-CHF) prospective cohort study. Lancet Glob Health. 2017;5(7):e665-e672. Doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(17)30196-1. Epub 2017 May 3. Erratum in: Lancet Glob Health. 2017;5(7):e664. PMID: 28476564.
5.
Chopra VK, Mittal S, Bansal M, Singh B, Trehan N. Clinical profile and oneyear survival of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: The largest report from India. Indian Heart J. 2019;71(3):242-48. Doi: 10.1016/j. ihj.2019.07.008. Epub 2019 Aug 7. PMID: 31543197; PMCID: PMC6796637. [crossref] [PubMed]
6.
McMurray JJ, Packer M, Desai AS, Gong J, Lefkowitz MP, Rizkala AR, et al. PARADIGM-HF Investigators and Committees. Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition versus enalapril in heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(11):993-1004. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1409077. Epub 2014 Aug 30. PMID: 25176015. [crossref] [PubMed]
7.
Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, Butler J, Casey DE Jr, Colvin MM, et al. 2016 ACC/ AHA/HFSA Focused Update on New Pharmacological Therapy for Heart Failure: An Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Failure Society of America. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68(13):1476-88. Doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.05.011. Epub 2016 May 20. Erratum in: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Sep 27;68(13):1495. PMID: 27216111.
8.
Jain AR, Aggarwal RK, Rao NS, Billa G, Kumar S. Efficacy and safety of sacubitril/ valsartan compared with enalapril in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: Results from PARADIGM-HF India sub-study. Indian Heart J. 2020;72(6):535-40. Doi: 10.1016/j.ihj.2020.09.016. Epub 2020 Sep 28. PMID: 33357641; PMCID: PMC7772612. [crossref] [PubMed]
9.
Jariwala P, Punjani A, Boorugu H, Madhawar DB. A clinical experience of Indian patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction using an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor [ARNI] on an outpatient basis. Indian Heart J. 2021;73(2):211-13. [crossref] [PubMed]
10.
Green CP, Porter CB, Bresnahan DR, Spertus JA. Development and evaluation of the Kansas City cardiomyopathy questionnaire: A new health status measure for heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;35:1245-55. [crossref] [PubMed]
11.
Damman K, Gori M, Claggett B, Jhund PS, Senni M, Lefkowitz MP, et al. Renal effects and associated outcomes during angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition in heart failure. JACC Heart Fail. 2018;6(6):489-98. Doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2018.02.004. Epub 2018 Apr 11. PMID: 29655829. [crossref] [PubMed]
12.
Vardeny O, Claggett B, Packer M, Zile MR, Rouleau J, Swedberg K, et al. Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEi to determine impact on global mortality and morbidity in heart failure (PARADIGM-HF) investigators. Efcacy of sacubitril/ valsartan vs.enalapril at lower than target doses in heart failure with reduced ejec-tion fraction: the PARADIGM-HF trial. Eur J Heart Fail. 2016;18:1228-34. [crossref] [PubMed]
13.
Giovinazzo S, Carmisciano L, Toma M, Benenati S, Tomasoni D, Sormani MP, et al. Sacubitril/valsartan in real-life European patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. ESC Heart Fail. 2021;8(5):3547-56. Doi: 10.1002/ehf2.13547. Epub 2021 Aug 2. PMID: 34338429; PMCID: PMC8497227. [crossref] [PubMed]
14.
Jain D, Pandey UK, Tripathi S, Kaushley A, Verma B, Ghosh S, et al. Benefits of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A longitudinal study. J Clin of Diagn Res. 2022;16(4):OC08-OC13. https://www.doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2022/54929/16200. [crossref]
15.
Hsiao FC, Wang CL, Chang PC, Lu YY, Huang CY, Chu PH, et al. Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: Real-world experience from Taiwan. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther. 2020;25(2):152-57. Doi: 10.1177/1074248419872958. Epub 2019 Sep 12. PMID: 31514513. [crossref] [PubMed]
16.
Greene SJ, Fonarow GC, DeVore AD, Sharma PP, Vaduganathan M, Albert NM, et al. Titration of medical therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73(19):2365-83. Doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.02.015. Epub 2019 Mar 4. PMID: 30844480; PMCID: PMC7197490. [crossref] [PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/58399.17049

Date of Submission: Jun 12, 2022
Date of Peer Review: Jul 21, 2022
Date of Acceptance: Aug 18, 2022
Date of Publishing: Oct 01, 2022

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Jun 19, 2022
• Manual Googling: Aug 13, 2022
• iThenticate Software: Aug 16, 2022 (22%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com