Background and Aims: Anemia is a common complication of heart failure and Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD). Sacubitril-valsartan is a novel therapy for the treatment of chronic Heart Failure with a reduced Ejection Fraction (HFrEF). We have evaluated the short-term effects of sacubitril- valsartan on the anemia of CRS. Methods: The study group comprised 39 patients with HFrEF, who were followed-up for three months. The study is a retrospective analysis of clinical data. Data of 3 months’ and baseline visits were recorded including plasmatic creatinine, glomerular filtration rate, cystatin C, kaliemia, haemoglobin, pro-BNP, and albuminuria. Results: In all, 34 patients ended the follow-up. Mean sacubitril-valsartan dosage at baseline was 101 ± 62 mg/day and 126 ± 59 mg/day at end. Mean hemoglobin increased from 12.2 ± 1.1 g/dl at baseline to 12.9 ± 1.0 g/dl (p = 0.001,). Prevalence of anemia was 64.7% (95%CI, 47.9-78.5%) at baseline and 38.4 (95%CI, 23.9-55.0%) after the follow-up (p = 0.016). Serum cystatin C levels decreased from 2.71 ± 1.0 to 2.48 ± 1.0 mg/l (p = 0.028). Serum K levels remained unchanged (baseline 4.94 ± 0.60, three months visit 4.94 ± 0.61 mmol/l, p = 0.998). Conclusions: Sacubitril-valsartan improves anemia in CRS patients. An improvement in serum cystatin levels was observed. Few untoward effects were detected. These findings should be confirmed in wider clinical trials.

Background: Semaglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist, has shown promising nephroprotective effects in clinical trials, though real-world data on its long-term impact on renal function in high-risk diabetic nephropathy patients remain scarce. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective observational study involving 156 patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD) treated with subcutaneous semaglutide between 2019 and 2023. Inclusion required an eGFR > 15 mL/min/1.73 m² or albuminuria > 30 mg/g and at least two years of follow-up. The primary outcome was the change in eGFR slope after semaglutide initiation. Subgroup analyses were performed based on baseline eGFR, albuminuria, and SGLT2i co-treatment. Results: In the whole study population, the median eGFR slope significantly improved from −3.29 (IQR 7.54) to −0.79 (IQR 6.01) mL/min/1.73 m²/year post-treatment (p < 0.001). Multiple linear regression showed a hazard ratio for the effect of semaglutide on the eGFR slope of 4.06 (2.43–5.68), p < 0.001. In patients with baseline eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m², the slope improved from −3.77 to −1.01 (p < 0.0001), while patients on concurrent SGLT2i therapy saw slope changes from −2.96 to −0.37 (p < 0.0001). Patients with albuminuria 30–1000 mg/g also improved from −2.96 to −0.04 (p < 0.0001); however, those > 1000 mg/g did not show a significant change (p = 0.184). Semaglutide also reduced BMI (p = 0.04), HbA1c (p = 0.002), triglycerides (p = 0.001), CRP (p = 0.003), and GGT values (p = 0.004). Conclusions: In real-world practice, semaglutide significantly attenuated renal function decline in high-risk diabetic patients, particularly those with advanced CKD or concurrent SGLT2i therapy. These findings support its nephroprotective role beyond glycemic control.

Background: Automatic office blood pressure measurement (AOBPM) in the waiting room could improve the performance of diagnosing hypertension without requiring an isolated room to carry out exploration. Methods: In a cross‐sectional study, we compared the performance to diagnose and phenotyping hypertension by 3 methods of blood pressure measurements, standard office blood pressure, unattended AOBPM in an isolated room or in an office waiting room AOBPM, compared with daytime ambulatory blood pressure measurement (daytime ambulatory blood pressure monitoring) from a 24‐hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring as a reference. The cutoff values for hypertension and validation for waiting room or isolated room AOBPM were performed by receiver operating characteristic curves and Bland–Altman plots compared with daytime ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Results: Out of the 548 participants recruited, 349 (64%) had hypertension, while 199 (36%) were being studied for a diagnosis of hypertension. Waiting room AOBPM and unattended AOBPM stratified hypertension status in a comparable way (n=398; 73% [95% CI, 69%–76%; and n=417; 75% [95% CI, 72%–79%] participants, respectively), and both methods stratified better hypertension status than standard office blood pressure measurement did (n=338; 62% [95% CI, 57%–65%]). Overall, the diagnostic accuracy for white coat syndrome was better for waiting room AOBPM, while for masked hypertension it was by unattended AOBPM (80% [95% CI, 77%–83%] versus 87% [95% CI, 83%–89%] and 88% 95% CI, 85%–90%] versus 73% [95% CI, 69%–76%], respectively). Conclusions: To assess hypertension status, waiting room AOBPM is equivalent to unattended AOBPM in an isolated room and both better than standard office blood pressure measurement. The detection of hypertension phenotypes differs depending on the site of the measurement, waiting room or isolated room. Registration: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov ; unique identifier: NCT06198855.