Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan Across the Spectrum of Renal Impairment in Patients With Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: The Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) classification integrates both estimated glomerular filtration rate(eGFR) and urine-albumin-creatinine-ratio to stratify risk more comprehensively in patients with chronic kidney disease. There are limited data assessing whether this classification system is associated with prognosis and treatment response in heart failure populations. METHODS: PARADIGM-HF was a global RCT evaluating sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril in patients with HFrEF. Patients were classified according to low, moderate, and high/very high KDIGO risk. Treatment responses were assessed according to baseline KDIGO risk. The primary outcome was a composite of CV death or HF hospitalization. A renal composite outcome was defined as sustained decline in eGFR by ≥40% or end stage kidney disease. RESULTS: Among 1,910 (23% of total) participants with available data, 42%, 32%, and 26% were classified as low, moderate, and high/very high KDIGO risk, respectively. Patients in the highest KDIGO risk categories experienced the highest rates of the primary composite outcome (7.6[6.5-9.0], 9.4[7.9-11.2], 14.9[12.7-17.6] per 100py; P<0.001). Sacubitril/valsartan had a similar safety profile and similarly reduced the risk of both the primary outcome (PInteraction=0.31) and the renal composite outcome (PInteraction=0.50) across the spectrum of KDIGO risk. CONCLUSION: One in 4 patients with HFrEF were classified as at least high KDIGO kidney risk; these individuals faced concordantly the highest risks of CV events. Sacubitril/valsartan exhibited consistent CV and kidney protective benefits as well as safety across the spectrum of baseline kidney risk. These data further support initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in HFrEF across a broad range of kidney risk.

Effects of sacubitril/valsartan according to polypharmacy status in PARAGON-HF.

AIMS: Patients with heart failure (HF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have a particularly high prevalence of comorbidities, often necessitating treatment with many medications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between polypharmacy status and outcomes in PARAGON-HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this post hoc analysis, baseline medication status was available in 4793 of 4796 patients included in the primary analysis of PARAGON-HF. The effects of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with valsartan, were assessed according to the number of medications at baseline: 683 non-polypharmacy (<5 medications); 2750 polypharmacy (5-9 medications), and 1360 hyper-polypharmacy (≥10 medications). The primary outcome was total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular deaths. Patients with hyper-polypharmacy were older, had more severe limitations due to HF (worse New York Heart Association class and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores), and had greater comorbidity. The non-adjusted risk of the primary outcome was significantly higher in patients taking more medications, and similar trends were seen for HF hospitalization and cardiovascular and all-cause death. The effect of sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan on the primary outcome from the lowest to highest polypharmacy category was (as a rate ratio): 1.19 (0.76-1.85), 0.94 (0.77-1.15), and 0.77 (0.61-0.96) (pinteraction = 0.16). Treatment-related adverse events were more common in patients in the higher polypharmacy categories but not more common with sacubitril/valsartan, versus valsartan, in any polypharmacy category. CONCLUSIONS: Polypharmacy is very common in patients with HFpEF, and those with polypharmacy have worse clinical status and a higher rate of non-fatal and fatal outcomes. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was not diminished in patients taking a larger number of medications at baseline.

Sacubitril/Valsartan-Related Hypotension in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved or Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Hypotension is a potential adverse effect of sacubitril/valsartan, but there are limited data regarding the predictors and implications of treatment-related hypotension in heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction. OBJECTIVES: We investigated predictors of treatment-associated hypotension, clinical outcomes after hypotension, and the relationship between left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and incidence of hypotension in the PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial. METHODS: PARAGON-HF randomized patients with chronic HF (≥45%) to sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan. Following randomization, hypotension was defined as investigator-reported hypotension with a systolic blood pressure <100 mm Hg. Predictors of hypotension were assessed using multivariable Cox models. Associations between hypotension and clinical outcomes were evaluated in time-updated Cox models. The relationship among treatment, LVEF, and incident rates of hypotension and clinical outcomes was estimated using Poisson regression models. RESULTS: Of 4,796 patients in PARAGON-HF, 637 (13%) experienced hypotension, more frequently in the sacubitril/valsartan arm (P < 0.001). Following documented hypotension, patients had higher risk of cardiovascular death and total HF hospitalizations (adjusted RR: 1.63; 95% CI: 1.27-2.09; P < 0.001) and all-cause death (adjusted HR: 1.62; 95% CI: 1.28-2.05; P < 0.001). LVEF modified the association between sacubitril/valsartan and risk of hypotension (Pinteraction = 0.019) such that patients with LVEF ≥60% experienced substantially higher treatment-related risks of hypotension. CONCLUSIONS: In PARAGON-HF, a higher LVEF was associated with an increased risk of hypotension in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan. Because these subjects are also less likely to derive clinical benefit from sacubitril/valsartan, our data reinforce that the benefit/risk ratio favors the use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with LVEF below normal, but not at higher LVEF. (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711).

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, red cell distribution width, and sacubitril/valsartan.

AIMS: Red cell distribution width (RDW) is a strong prognostic marker in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction and other conditions. However, very little is known about its prognostic significance in HF with preserved ejection fraction. We examined the relationship between RDW and outcomes and the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with valsartan, on RDW and clinical outcomes in PARAGON-HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: PARAGON-HF enrolled patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of ≥45%, structural heart disease, and elevated N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). The primary endpoint was a composite of total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular deaths. Median RDW at randomization was 14.1% (interquartile range 13.5-15.0%). Patients with higher RDW levels were more often men and had more comorbidity, a higher heart rate and NT-proBNP concentration, more advanced New York Heart Association class, and worse Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores. There was a graded relationship between quartiles of RDW at randomization and the primary endpoint, with a significantly higher risk associated with increasing RDW, even after adjustment for NT-proBNP and other prognostic variables {Quartile 1, reference; Quartile 2, rate ratio 1.03 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.28]; Quartile 3, 1.25 [1.01 to 1.54]; Quartile 4, 1.70 [1.39 to 2.08]}. This association was seen for each of the secondary outcomes, including cardiovascular and all-cause death. Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan reduced RDW at 48 weeks [mean change -0.09 (95% CI -0.15 to -0.02)]. The effect of sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan was not significantly modified by RDW levels at randomization. CONCLUSIONS: RDW, a routinely available and inexpensive biomarker, provides incremental prognostic information when added to established predictors. Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan led to a small reduction in RDW.

Independent prognostic importance of blood urea nitrogen to creatinine ratio in heart failure.

AIM: Blood urea nitrogen (BUN) to creatinine ratio is associated with worse outcomes in acute heart failure (HF) but little is known about its importance in chronic HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We combined individual patient data from clinical trials (HF with reduced ejection fraction [HFrEF]: PARADIGM-HF, ATMOSPHERE and DAPA-HF, and HF with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF]: PARAGON-HF and I-PRESERVE). The primary outcome examined was a composite time to first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death; its components and all-cause death were also examined. Each HF phenotype was categorized according to median BUN/creatinine ratio, generating four groups that is, HFpEF ≤ and >median BUN/creatinine ratio and HFrEF ≤ and >median BUN/creatinine ratio. The association between BUN/creatinine ratio and outcomes was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox proportional hazard models. Overall, 28 820 patients were analysed. The median (IQR) BUN/creatinine ratio was 20.1 (Q1-Q3 16.7-24.7) in HFpEF and 18.7 (15.2-22.8) in HFrEF. In both HFpEF and HFrEF, higher BUN/creatinine ratio was associated with older age, female sex, and diabetes, but similar estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). The risk of each outcome examined was significantly higher in patients with BUN/creatinine ratio ≥median, compared to

Prevalent and Incident Anemia in PARADIGM-HF and the Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan.

BACKGROUND: Anemia is common in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Renin-angiotensin system blockers lower hemoglobin and may induce anemia. OBJECTIVES: The authors investigated whether concomitant neprilysin inhibition might ameliorate this effect of renin-angiotensin system blockers in PARADIGM-HF (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure). METHODS: Anemia was defined as hemoglobin <120 g/L in women and <130 g/L in men at screening. The authors investigated the effect of randomized treatment on clinical outcomes according to anemia status, change in hemoglobin from baseline, and the incidence of anemia. RESULTS: Of 8,239 participants with a baseline hemoglobin measurement, 1,677 (20.4%) were anemic. Patients with anemia had a more severe heart failure profile, worse kidney function, greater neurohormonal derangement, and worse clinical outcomes. Sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, decreased the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization similarly in patients with (HR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.71-1.00) and without anemia (HR: 0.78 [95% CI: 0.71-0.87]; P value for interaction = 0.478). Between baseline and 12 months, hemoglobin decreased by 1.5 g/L (95% CI: 1.2-1.7 g/L) with sacubitril/valsartan compared with 2.3 g/L (95% CI: 2.0-2.6 g/L) with enalapril: mean difference 0.8 g/L (95% CI: 0.5-1.2 g/L; P < 0.001). Patients assigned to sacubitril/valsartan were less likely to develop anemia at 12 months (321 of 2,806 [11.4%]) compared with patients randomized to enalapril (440 of 2,824 [15.6%]) (OR: 0.70 [95% CI: 0.60-0.81]; P < 0.001). These findings were similar in PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction) (sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan). There was biomarker evidence of increased iron utilization with sacubitril/valsartan. CONCLUSIONS: Irrespective of anemia status, sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril, decreased mortality and hospitalization. Hemoglobin decreased less with sacubitril/valsartan and the incidence of new anemia was lower with sacubitril/valsartan. (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF] trial; NCT01035255).

Incremental prognostic value of biomarkers in PARADIGM-HF.

AIMS: It is uncertain how much candidate biomarkers improve risk prediction when added to comprehensive models including routinely collected clinical and laboratory variables in heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: Aldosterone, cystatin C, high-sensitivity troponin T (hs-TnT), galectin-3, growth differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15), kidney injury molecule-1, matrix metalloproteinase-2 and -9, soluble suppression of tumourigenicity-2, tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-1 (TIMP-1) and urinary albumin to creatinine ratio were measured in 1559 of PARADIGM-HF participants. We tested whether these biomarkers, individually or collectively, improved the performance of the PREDICT-HF prognostic model, which includes clinical, routine laboratory, and natriuretic peptide data, for the primary endpoint and cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. The mean age of participants was 67.3 ± 9.9 years, 1254 (80.4%) were men and 1103 (71%) were in New York Heart Association class II. During a mean follow-up of 30.7 months, 300 patients experienced the primary outcome and 197 died. Added individually, only four biomarkers were independently associated with all outcomes: hs-TnT, GDF-15, cystatin C and TIMP-1. When all biomarkers were added simultaneously to the PREDICT-HF models, only hs-TnT remained an independent predictor of all three endpoints. GDF-15 also remained predictive of the primary endpoint; TIMP-1 was the only other predictor of both cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. Individually or in combination, these biomarkers did not lead to significant improvements in discrimination or reclassification. CONCLUSIONS: None of the biomarkers studied individually or collectively led to a meaningful improvement in the prediction of outcomes over what is provided by clinical, routine laboratory, and natriuretic peptide variables.

Duration of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction and Outcomes With Sacubitril/Valsartan: Insights From the PARAGON-HF Trial.

OBJECTIVE: In this post hoc analysis of the PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HFpEF) trial, we evaluated clinical outcomes and responses to sacubitril/valsartan by duration of heart failure (HF) with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 45% at initial diagnosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: The primary outcome was a composite of total hospitalizations due to HF and cardiovascular deaths, analyzed by using a semiparametric proportional rates method, stratified by geographic region. Among 4784 (99.7%) randomized participants in the PARAGON-HF trial for whom baseline HF duration was captured, 1359 (28%) had durations of HF of < 6 months, 1295 (27%) of 6 months-2 years, and 2130 (45%) of > 2 years. Longer HF duration was associated with higher comorbidity burdens, worse health status and lower rates of prior hospitalization due to HF. Over a median follow-up of 35 months, longer HF duration was associated with a higher risk of first and recurrent primary events (per 100 patient-years): < 6 months, 12.0 (95% CI, 10.4-14.0); 6 months-2 years, 12.2 (10.6-14.2); > 2 years, 15.8 (14.2-17.5). Relative treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan were consistent, irrespective of baseline HF duration on the primary endpoint (Pinteraction = 0.112). Clinically meaningful (≥ 5 point) improvements in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Clinical Summary Scores were also similarly observed, irrespective of HF duration; (Pinteraction = 0.112). Adverse events were similar between treatment arms across HF duration categories. CONCLUSIONS: In PARAGON-HF, longer HF duration was independently predictive of adverse HF outcomes. Treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan were consistent, irrespective of baseline HF duration, suggesting that even ambulatory patients with longstanding HFpEF and predominantly mild symptoms stand to benefit from treatment optimization.

Sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction: a pre-specified participant-level pooled analysis of PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF.

AIMS: The PARAGLIDE-HF trial demonstrated reductions in natriuretic peptides with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in patients with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction who had a recent worsening HF event, but was not adequately powered to examine clinical outcomes. PARAGON-HF included a subset of PARAGLIDE-HF-like patients who were recently hospitalized for HF. Participant-level data from PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF were pooled to better estimate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in reducing cardiovascular and renal events in HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. METHODS AND RESULTS: Both PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF were multicentre, double-blind, randomized, active-controlled trials of sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan in patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF >40% in PARAGLIDE-HF and ≥45% in PARAGON-HF). In the pre-specified primary analysis, we pooled participants in PARAGLIDE-HF (all of whom were enrolled during or within 30 days of a worsening HF event) with a 'PARAGLIDE-like' subset of PARAGON-HF (those hospitalized for HF within 30 days). We also pooled the entire PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF populations for a broader context. The primary endpoint for this analysis was the composite of total worsening HF events (including first and recurrent HF hospitalizations and urgent visits) and cardiovascular death. The secondary endpoint was the pre-specified renal composite endpoint for both studies (≥50% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate from baseline, end-stage renal disease, or renal death). Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced total worsening HF events and cardiovascular death in both the primary pooled analysis of participants with recent worsening HF [n = 1088; rate ratio (RR) 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.99; P = 0.042] and in the pooled analysis of all participants (n = 5262; RR 0.86; 95% CI: 0.75-0.98; P = 0.027). In the pooled analysis of all participants, first nominal statistical significance was reached by Day 9 after randomization, and treatment benefits were larger in those with LVEF ≤60% (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.66-0.91) compared with those with LVEF >60% (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.86-1.40; Pinteraction = 0.021). Sacubitril/valsartan was also associated with lower rates of the renal composite endpoint in the primary pooled analysis [hazard ratio (HR) 0.67; 95% CI 0.43-1.05; P = 0.080] and the pooled analysis of all participants (HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.44-0.83; P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: In pooled analyses of PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF, sacubitril/valsartan reduced cardiovascular and renal events among patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. These data provide support for use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction, particularly among those with an LVEF below normal, regardless of care setting.

The Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan on Left Ventricular Myocardial Deformation in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (PARAMOUNT trial).

BACKGROUND: Global longitudinal strain (GLS) and global circumferential strain (GCS) have been shown to be impaired in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. We sought to assess whether treating patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction with sacubitril/valsartan would significantly improve GLS and GCS compared with valsartan alone. METHODS AND RESULTS: PARAMOUNT (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB on Management of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction Trial) was a phase II, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind multicenter trial in 301 patients with New York Heart Association functional class II-III heart failure, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 45%, and an N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide of ≥400 pg/mL. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to sacubitril/valsartan titrated to 200 mg twice daily or valsartan titrated to 160 mg twice daily for 36 weeks. We assessed changes in the GLS and the GCS from baseline to 36 weeks, adjusting for baseline value, in patients with sufficient imaging quality for 2-dimensitonal speckle tracking analysis at both timepoints (n = 60 sacubitril/valsartan, n = 75 valsartan only). GCS was significantly improved at 36 weeks in the sacubitril/valsartan group when compared with the valsartan group (Δ4.42%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-8.17, P = .021), with no significant difference observed in GLS (Δ0.25%, 95% CI, -1.19 to 1.70, P = .73). Patients with a history of hospitalization for heart failure had a differentially greater improvement in GCS when treated with sacubitril/valsartan. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, sacubitril/valsartan improved GCS but not GLS when compared with valsartan during a 36-week period. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00887588.

Importance of cystatin C in estimating glomerular filtration rate: the PARADIGM-HF trial.

AIMS: The 2021 Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation combining creatinine and cystatin C provides a better estimation of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) compared to the creatinine-only equation. METHODS AND RESULTS: CKD-EPI creatinine-cystatin C equation (creatinine-cystatin) was compared to creatinine-only (creatinine) equation in a subpopulation of Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF). Patients were categorized according to difference in eGFR using the two equations: Group 1 (<-10 mL/min/1.73 m2, i.e. creatinine-cystatin more than 10 mL/min lower than creatinine), Group 2 (>-10 and <10 mL/min/1.73 m2), and Group 3 (>10 mL/min/1.73 m2, i.e. creatinine-cystatin more than 10 mL/min higher than creatinine). Cystatin C and creatinine were available in 1966 patients at randomization. Median (interquartile range) eGFR difference was -0.7 (-6.4-4.8) mL/min/1.73 m2. Compared to creatinine, creatinine-cystatin led to a substantial reclassification of chronic kidney disease stages. Overall, 212 (11%) and 355 (18%) patients were reallocated to a better and worse eGFR category, respectively. Compared to patients in Group 2, those in Group 1 (lower eGFR with creatinine-cystatin) had higher mortality and those in Group 3 (higher eGFR with creatinine-cystatin) had lower mortality. Increasing difference in eGFR (due to lower eGFR with creatinine-cystatin compared to creatinine) was associated with increasing elevation of biomarkers (including N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and troponin) and worsening Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score. The reason why the equations diverged with increasing severity of heart failure was that creatinine did not rise as steeply as cystatin C. CONCLUSION: The CKD-EPI creatinine-only equation may overestimate GFR in sicker patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifier: NCT01035255.

Urinary cGMP (Cyclic Guanosine Monophosphate)/BNP (B-Type Natriuretic Peptide) Ratio, Sacubitril/Valsartan, and Outcomes in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: An Analysis of the PARADIGM-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: The ratio of ucGMP (urinary cyclic guanosine monophosphate) to BNP (B-type natriuretic peptide) is thought to reflect the responsiveness of tissues to natriuretic peptides. METHODS: We examined the relationship between ucGMP/BNP ratio and clinical outcomes, the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, on the ucGMP/BNP ratio, and the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan on clinical outcomes according to baseline ucGMP/BNP ratio in PARADIGM-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure). ucGMP/BNP ratio was available at baseline (N=2031), 1 month (N=1959), and 8 months after randomization (N=1746). The primary outcome was a composite of heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death. RESULTS: Compared with the lowest tertile of baseline ucGMP/BNP ratio, patients in the higher tertiles had a lower risk of the primary outcome (tertile 1, reference; tertile 2, hazard ratio 0.57 [95% CI, 0.45-0.71]; tertile 3, hazard ratio, 0.54 [0.43-0.67]). Compared with baseline, the ucGMP/BNP ratio at 1 month and 8 months after randomization was higher with sacubitril/valsartan than with enalapril: ratio of geometric mean ratios at 1 month, 1.38 (95% CI, 1.27-1.51) and 8 months, 1.32 (95% CI, 1.20-1.45), and this difference was consistent across tertiles of ucGMP/BNP ratio at baseline (Pinteraction=0.19 and 0.91, respectively). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, was consistent across tertiles of ucGMP/BNP ratio at baseline for all outcomes (Pinteraction ≥0.31). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, higher ucGMP/BNP ratio was associated with better outcomes. Sacubitril/valsartan increased the ucGMP/BNP ratio, compared with enalapril, and the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on clinical outcomes was not modified by baseline ucGMP/BNP ratio. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique Identifier: NCT01035255.

Variation in Renal Function Following Transition to Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients With Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Some patients with heart failure may experience transient changes in kidney function upon transition to sacubitril/valsartan. Whether such changes portend adverse outcomes or influence long-term treatment benefits with sacubitril/valsartan continuation is unknown. OBJECTIVES: This investigation aimed to evaluate the association between the occurrence of moderate estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline (>15%) after initial exposure to sacubitril/valsartan and subsequent cardiovascular outcomes and its treatment benefits in PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF. METHODS: In sequential run-in phases, patients were titrated to enalapril 10 mg twice daily and then sacubitril/valsartan 97 mg/103 mg twice daily (in PARADIGM-HF) or valsartan 80 mg twice daily and then sacubitril/valsartan 49 mg/51 mg twice daily (in PARAGON-HF). RESULTS: Among randomized participants, 11% in PARADIGM-HF and 10% in PARAGON-HF experienced eGFR decline (>15%) during sacubitril/valsartan run-in. eGFR partially recovered (from nadir to postrandomization week 16) regardless of sacubitril/valsartan continuation or switch to renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi) postrandomization. Initial eGFR decline was not consistently associated with clinical outcomes in either trial. Treatment benefits of sacubitril/valsartan vs RASi on primary outcomes were similar irrespective of run-in eGFR decline in PARADIGM-HF (eGFR decline, HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.53-0.90; and no eGFR decline, HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.73-0.88; Pinteraction = 0.32) and PARAGON-HF (eGFR decline, rate ratio [RR]: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.52-1.36 and no eGFR decline, RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.75-1.02, Pinteraction = 0.92). The treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan remained consistent across a range of eGFR declines. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate eGFR decline when transitioning from RASi to sacubitril/valsartan is not consistently associated with adverse outcomes, and its long-term benefits are retained in heart failure across a broad range of eGFR declines. Early eGFR changes should not deter continuation of sacubitril/valsartan or stall uptitration. (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711; Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitors with Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF]; NCT01035255).

Investigator-reported ventricular arrhythmias and mortality in heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: Few reports have examined the incidence of ventricular tachycardia (VT) and ventricular fibrillation (VF) or their relationship with mortality in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) or heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from the PARAGON-HF, TOPCAT, I-Preserve, and CHARM-Preserved trials were merged. VT/VF, reported as adverse events, were identified. Patients who experienced VT/VF were compared with patients who did not. The relationship between VT/VF and mortality was examined in time-updated Cox proportional hazard regression models. Variables associated with VT/VF were examined in Cox proportional hazard regression models. The rate of VT/VF in patients with HFmrEF compared with patients with HFpEF was examined in a Cox proportional hazards regression model. Of 13 609 patients, over a median follow-up of 1170 days (interquartile range: 966-1451), 146 (1.1%) experienced an investigator-reported VT/VF (incidence rate 0.3 per 100 person-years). Patients who experienced VT/VF were more likely to be male, have had a myocardial infarction, poorer renal function, more adverse left ventricular remodelling, and higher N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) than patients who did not. Occurrence of VT/VF was associated with NT-proBNP, history of atrial fibrillation/flutter, male sex, lower ejection fraction, and history of hypertension. VT/VF was associated with all-cause death [adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 3.95, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.80-5.57; P < 0.001] and cardiovascular death, driven by death from heart failure and not sudden death. Patients with HFmrEF had a higher rate of VT/VF than patients with HFpEF (adjusted HR: 2.19, 95% CI: 1.77-2.71). CONCLUSION: VT/VF was uncommon in patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF. However, such events were strongly associated with mortality and appear to be a marker of disease severity rather than risk of sudden death. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov unique identifier: NCT01920711(PARAGON-HF); NCT00094302 (TOPCAT); NCT00095238 (I-Preserve); NCT00634712 (CHARM-Preserved).

Trajectory and correlates of pulmonary congestion by lung ultrasound in patients with acute myocardial infarction: insights from PARADISE-MI.

AIM: PARADISE-MI examined the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), pulmonary congestion, or both. We sought to assess the trajectory of pulmonary congestion using lung ultrasound (LUS) and its association with cardiac structure and function in a pre-specified substudy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients without prior heart failure (HF) underwent eight-zone LUS and echocardiography at baseline (±2 days of randomization) and after 8 months. B-lines were quantified offline, blinded to treatment, clinical findings, time point, and outcomes. Among 152 patients (median age 65, 32% women, mean LVEF 41%), B-lines were detectable in 87% at baseline [median B-line count: 4 (interquartile range 2-8)]. Among 115 patients with LUS data at baseline and follow-up, B-lines decreased significantly from baseline (mean ± standard deviation: -1.6 ± 7.3; P = 0.018). The proportion of patients without pulmonary congestion at follow-up was significantly higher in those with fewer B-lines at baseline. Adjusted for baseline, B-lines at follow-up were on average 6 (95% confidence interval: 3-9) higher in patients who experienced an intercurrent HF event vs. those who did not (P = 0.001). A greater number of B-lines at baseline was associated with larger left atrial size, higher E/e' and E/A ratios, greater degree of mitral regurgitation, worse right ventricular systolic function, and higher tricuspid regurgitation velocity (P-trend <0.05 for all). CONCLUSION: In this AMI cohort, B-lines, indicating pulmonary congestion, were common at baseline and, on average, decreased significantly from baseline to follow-up. Worse pulmonary congestion was associated with prognostically important echocardiographic markers.

Associations Between New York Heart Association Classification, Objective Measures, and Long-term Prognosis in Mild Heart Failure: A Secondary Analysis of the PARADIGM-HF Trial.

Importance: Heart failure (HF) treatment recommendations are centered on New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification, such that most apparently asymptomatic patients are not eligible for disease-modifying therapies. Objectives: To assess within-patient variation in NYHA classification over time, the association between NYHA class and an objective measure of HF severity (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP] level), and their association with long-term prognosis in the PARADIGM-HF trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: All patients in PARADIGM-HF were in NYHA class II or higher at baseline and were treated with sacubitril-valsartan during a 6- to 10-week run-in period before randomization. Patients classified as NYHA class I, II, and III in PARADIGM-HF were compared at randomization. Exposures: NYHA class at randomization after 6 to 10 weeks of the run-in period. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was cardiovascular death or first HF hospitalization. Logistic regression models, areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), kernel density estimation overlaps, and Cox proportional hazards models were used. Results: The analysis included 8326 patients with known NYHA classification at randomization. Of 389 patients in NYHA class I, 228 (58%) changed functional class during the first year after randomization. Level of NT-proBNP was a poor discriminator of NYHA classification: for NYHA class I vs II, the AUC was 0.51 (95% CI, 0.48-0.54). For NT-proBNP level, estimated kernel density overlap was 93% between NYHA class I vs II, 79% between NYHA I vs III, and 83% between NYHA II vs III. Patients classified as NYHA III displayed a distinctively higher rate of cardiovascular events (NYHA III vs I, hazard ratio [HR], 1.84; 95% CI, 1.44-2.37; NYHA III vs II, HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.35-1.64). Patients in NYHA class I and II revealed lower event rates (NYHA II vs I, HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.97-1.58). Stratification by NT-proBNP level (<1600 pg/mL or ≥1600 pg/mL) identified subgroups with distinctive risk, such that NYHA class I patients with high NT-proBNP levels (n = 175) had a numerically higher event rate than patients with low NT-proBNP levels from any NYHA class (vs I, HR, 3.43; 95% CI, 2.03-5.87; vs II, HR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.58-2.86; vs III, HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.00-1.88). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, patients in NYHA class I and II overlapped substantially in objective measures and long-term prognosis. Physician-defined "asymptomatic" functional class concealed patients who were at substantial risk for adverse outcomes. NYHA classification might be limited to differentiate mild forms of HF. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01035255.

Sacubitril/valsartan and loop diuretic requirement in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in the PARAGON-HF trial.

AIMS: As sacubitril/valsartan may potentiate early natriuresis, expert consensus documents recommend diuretic dose reduction on first initiation. However, there are limited data on the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on the background of varying diuretic regimens or on diuretic requirements over time in heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: In this post hoc analysis of PARAGON-HF, of the 4796 patients, background diuretic therapy was distributed as follows: 341 (7%) on no diuretic, 698 (15%) on non-loop diuretic, and 3757 (78%) were on loop diuretics (1255, 1589, and 913 were on <40, 40 and >40 mg furosemide equivalent doses, respectively). The primary composite outcome of total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death was analysed using semiparametric proportional rates methods. The cumulative incidence of the primary composite outcome (first events) was lowest in patients on no diuretic and highest in those on >40 mg of loop diuretic (p < 0.001). The effects of sacubitril/valsartan (vs. valsartan) on the primary composite outcome (recurrent events) did not significantly vary by baseline diuretic use (pinteraction  = 0.65). Treatment effects on safety outcomes were similar across diuretic categories. Sacubitril/valsartan reduced new loop diuretic initiations over the course of the trial (hazard ratio 0.83; 95% confidence interval 0.68-1.00, p = 0.055), with similar mean loop diuretic dose and rates of diuretic discontinuation between treatment groups in follow-up. Patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan experienced a slight early reduction in diuretic initiation or dose escalation at 30 days after initiation (net reduction 1.7%, p = 0.02), but these differences were not sustained beyond this timepoint. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HFpEF on higher baseline diuretic doses were at heightened risk of HF events, but similarly benefited from sacubitril/valsartan with a consistent safety profile across a range of diuretic doses. Initiation of sacubitril/valsartan was associated with modestly lower new loop diuretic requirement in follow-up.

The Effects of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibition on Major Coronary Events in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: Insights From the PARADISE-MI Trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients who survive an acute myocardial infarction (AMI), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors decrease the risk of subsequent major cardiovascular events. Whether angiotensin-receptor blockade and neprilysin inhibition with sacubitril/valsartan reduce major coronary events more effectively than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in high-risk patients with recent AMI remains unknown. We aimed to compare the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on coronary outcomes in patients with AMI. METHODS: We conducted a prespecified analysis of the PARADISE-MI trial (Prospective ARNI vs ACE Inhibitors Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI), which compared sacubitril/valsartan (97/103 mg twice daily) with ramipril (5 mg twice daily) for reducing heart failure events after myocardial infarction in 5661 patients with AMI complicated by left ventricular systolic dysfunction, pulmonary congestion, or both. In the present analysis, the prespecified composite coronary outcome was the first occurrence of death from coronary heart disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction, hospitalization for angina, or postrandomization coronary revascularization. RESULTS: Patients were randomly assigned at a median of 4.4 [3.0-5.8] days after index AMI (ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction 76%, non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction 24%), by which time 89% of patients had undergone coronary reperfusion. Compared with ramipril, sacubitril/valsartan decreased the risk of coronary outcomes (hazard ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.74-0.99], P=0.04) over a median follow-up of 22 months. Rates of the components of the composite outcomes were lower in patients on sacubitril/valsartan but were not individually significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: In survivors of an AMI with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and pulmonary congestion, sacubitril/valsartan-compared with ramipril-reduced the risk of a prespecified major coronary composite outcome. Dedicated studies are necessary to confirm this finding and elucidate its mechanism. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02924727.

Health-related quality of life outcomes in PARAGON-HF.

AIMS: Heart failure (HF) is associated with poor health-related quality of life (HRQL). Patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have similar HRQL impairment as those with reduced ejection fraction. This study describes the impact of sacubitril/valsartan on HRQL in patients with HFpEF enrolled in the PARAGON-HF trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients completed the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and EuroQol (EQ-5D) at randomization, 4, 8 months, and annually thereafter. Changes in HRQL scores were evaluated using repeated measures models adjusted for treatment, baseline values and region. The pre-specified principal efficacy assessment was at 8 months at which time patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan had borderline higher KCCQ clinical summary score (CSS) with least squares mean (LSM) adjusted difference of 1.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.0, 2.1; p = 0.051). Including all visits up to 36 months, the LSM difference in KCCQ-CSS favoured sacubitril/valsartan with average adjusted difference of 1.1 (95% CI 0.1, 2.0; p = 0.034). Patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan had greater odds of clinically meaningful improvement (≥5-point increase) in KCCQ-CSS (odds ratio 1.31; 95% CI 1.06, 1.61) at 8 months. At 8 months, there was no significant difference in the EQ visual analogue scale between the treatment arms, but sacubitril/valsartan was associated with higher EQ-5D utility score (US-based) with LSM adjusted difference of 0.01 (95% CI 0.00, 0.02; p = 0.019). CONCLUSION: Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan had a borderline benefit on KCCQ-CSS at 8 months in patients with HFpEF. This benefit became more significant when data from all visits up to 36 months were included. This modest overall benefit was also supported by greater odds of patients reporting a clinically meaningful improvement in HRQL with sacubitril/valsartan.