Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan on Cognitive Function in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Prespecified Analysis of PARAGON-HF.

BACKGROUND: A hypothetical concern has been raised that sacubitril/valsartan might cause cognitive impairment because neprilysin is one of several enzymes degrading amyloid-ß peptides in the brain, some of which are neurotoxic and linked to Alzheimer-type dementia. To address this, we examined the effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan on cognitive function in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in a prespecified substudy of PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction). METHODS: In PARAGON-HF, serial assessment of cognitive function was conducted in a subset of patients with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE; score range, 0-30, with lower scores reflecting worse cognitive function). The prespecified primary analysis of this substudy was the change from baseline in MMSE score at 96 weeks. Other post hoc analyses included cognitive decline (fall in MMSE score of ≥3 points), cognitive impairment (MMSE score <24), or the occurrence of dementia-related adverse events. RESULTS: Among 2895 patients included in the MMSE substudy with baseline MMSE score measured, 1453 patients were assigned to sacubitril/valsartan and 1442 to valsartan. Their mean age was 73 years, and the median follow-up was 32 months. The mean±SD MMSE score at randomization was 27.4±3.0 in the sacubitril/valsartan group, with 10% having an MMSE score <24; the corresponding numbers were nearly identical in the valsartan group. The mean change from baseline to 96 weeks in the sacubitril/valsartan group was -0.05 (SE, 0.07); the corresponding change in the valsartan group was -0.04 (0.07). The mean between-treatment difference at week 96 was -0.01 (95% CI, -0.20 to 0.19; P=0.95). Analyses of a ≥3-point decline in MMSE, decrease to a score <24, dementia-related adverse events, and combinations of these showed no difference between sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan. No difference was found in the subgroup of patients tested for apolipoprotein E ε4 allele genotype. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in PARAGON-HF had relatively low baseline MMSE scores. Cognitive change, measured by MMSE, did not differ between treatment with sacubitril/valsartan and treatment with valsartan in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01920711.

Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibition in Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: In patients with symptomatic heart failure, sacubitril-valsartan has been found to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death from cardiovascular causes more effectively than an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor. Trials comparing the effects of these drugs in patients with acute myocardial infarction have been lacking. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with myocardial infarction complicated by a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, pulmonary congestion, or both to receive either sacubitril-valsartan (97 mg of sacubitril and 103 mg of valsartan twice daily) or ramipril (5 mg twice daily) in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure (outpatient symptomatic heart failure or heart failure leading to hospitalization), whichever occurred first. RESULTS: A total of 5661 patients underwent randomization; 2830 were assigned to receive sacubitril-valsartan and 2831 to receive ramipril. Over a median of 22 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 338 patients (11.9%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 373 patients (13.2%) in the ramipril group (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 1.04; P = 0.17). Death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 308 patients (10.9%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 335 patients (11.8%) in the ramipril group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.07); death from cardiovascular causes in 168 (5.9%) and 191 (6.7%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.08); and death from any cause in 213 (7.5%) and 242 (8.5%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.05). Treatment was discontinued because of an adverse event in 357 patients (12.6%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 379 patients (13.4%) in the ramipril group. CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril-valsartan was not associated with a significantly lower incidence of death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure than ramipril among patients with acute myocardial infarction. (Funded by Novartis; PARADISE-MI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02924727.).

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).

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.

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.

Impact of Sacubitril/Valsartan Compared With Ramipril on Cardiac Structure and Function After Acute Myocardial Infarction: The PARADISE-MI Echocardiographic Substudy.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors attenuate left ventricular (LV) enlargement after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Preclinical data suggest similar benefits with combined angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibition, but human data are conflicting. The PARADISE-MI Echo Study (Prospective ARNI Versus ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After Myocardial Infarction) tested the effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with ramipril on LV function and adverse remodeling after high risk-AMI. METHODS: In a prespecified substudy, 544 PARADISE-MI participants were enrolled in the Echo Study to undergo protocol echocardiography at randomization and after 8 months. Patients were randomized within 0.5 to 7 days of presentation with their index AMI to receive a target dose of sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg or ramipril 5 mg twice daily. Echocardiographic measures were performed at a core laboratory by investigators blinded to treatment assignment. The effect of treatment on change in echo measures was assessed with ANCOVA with adjustment for baseline value and enrollment region. The primary end points were change in LV ejection fraction (LVEF) and left atrial volume (LAV), and prespecified secondary end points included changes in LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes. RESULTS: Mean age was 64±12 years; 26% were women; mean LVEF was 42±12%; and LAV was 49±17 mL. Of 544 enrolled patients, 457 (84%) had a follow-up echo at 8 months (228 taking sacubitril/valsartan, 229 taking ramipril). There was no significant difference in change in LVEF (P=0.79) or LAV (P =0.62) by treatment group. Patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan demonstrated less increase in LV end-diastolic volume (P=0.025) and greater decline in LV mass index (P=0.037), increase in tissue Doppler e'lat (P=0.005), decrease in E/e'lat (P=0.045), and decrease in tricuspid regurgitation peak velocity (P=0.024) than patients randomized to ramipril. These differences remained significant after adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics. Baseline LVEF, LV end-diastolic volume, LV end-systolic volume, LV mass index, LAV, and Doppler-based diastolic indices were associated with risk of cardiovascular death or incident heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan compared with ramipril after AMI did not result in changes in LVEF or LAV at 8 months. Patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan had less LV enlargement and greater improvement in filling pressure. Measures of LV size, systolic function, and diastolic properties were predictive of cardiovascular death and incident heart failure after AMI in this contemporary, well-treated cohort. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02924727.

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.

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.

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.

Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibition in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: The angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril-valsartan led to a reduced risk of hospitalization for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes among patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. The effect of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibition in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned 4822 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II to IV heart failure, ejection fraction of 45% or higher, elevated level of natriuretic peptides, and structural heart disease to receive sacubitril-valsartan (target dose, 97 mg of sacubitril with 103 mg of valsartan twice daily) or valsartan (target dose, 160 mg twice daily). The primary outcome was a composite of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. Primary outcome components, secondary outcomes (including NYHA class change, worsening renal function, and change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire [KCCQ] clinical summary score [scale, 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating fewer symptoms and physical limitations]), and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: There were 894 primary events in 526 patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 1009 primary events in 557 patients in the valsartan group (rate ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 1.01; P = 0.06). The incidence of death from cardiovascular causes was 8.5% in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 8.9% in the valsartan group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.16); there were 690 and 797 total hospitalizations for heart failure, respectively (rate ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.00). NYHA class improved in 15.0% of the patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 12.6% of those in the valsartan group (odds ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.86); renal function worsened in 1.4% and 2.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.77). The mean change in the KCCQ clinical summary score at 8 months was 1.0 point (95% CI, 0.0 to 2.1) higher in the sacubitril-valsartan group. Patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group had a higher incidence of hypotension and angioedema and a lower incidence of hyperkalemia. Among 12 prespecified subgroups, there was suggestion of heterogeneity with possible benefit with sacubitril-valsartan in patients with lower ejection fraction and in women. CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril-valsartan did not result in a significantly lower rate of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes among patients with heart failure and an ejection fraction of 45% or higher. (Funded by Novartis; PARAGON-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01920711.).

Effects of sacubitril/valsartan on glycemia in patients with diabetes and heart failure: the PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF trials.

BACKGROUND: Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan lowered HbA1c and reduced new insulin therapy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and diabetes in the PARADIGM-HF trial. We sought to assess the glycemic effects of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and diabetes, and across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in heart failure and diabetes. METHODS: We compared the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, relative to valsartan, on HbA1c, new insulin therapy and hypoglycemia in the randomized controlled trial PARAGON-HF, and performed pooled analyses of PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF. RESULTS: Among 2395 patients with HFpEF and diabetes in PARAGON-HF, sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan reduced HbA1c (baseline-adjusted between-group difference in HbA1c change at 48 weeks: - 0.24%, 95% CI - 0.33 to - 0.16%, P < 0.001). Numerically, new insulin treatment was initiated less often in the sacubitril/valsartan group than in the valsartan group, but the difference was not statistically significant (12.8% vs. 16.1%; HR: 0.80, 95% CI 0.62-1.02, P = 0.07). Hypoglycemia adverse event reports were low, but more frequent in those receiving sacubitril/valsartan than in the valsartan group (4.2% vs. 2.6%; HR: 1.64, 95% CI 1.05-2.56, P = 0.030). In a pooled analysis of PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF, the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on change in HbA1c was not significantly modified by LVEF (Pinteraction = 0.56). Across the spectrum of LVEF, sacubitril/valsartan reduced new insulin therapy (HR: 0.75, 95% CI 0.63-0.89, P = 0.001), compared with enalapril or valsartan. CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril/valsartan reduced HbA1c and new insulin therapy in patients with heart failure and diabetes across the spectrum of LVEF but may be associated with a slightly higher risk for hypoglycemia. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01920711.

Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibition and Renal Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: In patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease is common and associated with a higher risk of renal events than in patients without chronic kidney disease. We assessed the renal effects of angiotensin/neprilysin inhibition in patients who have heart failure with preserved ejection fraction enrolled in the PARAGON-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction). METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, event-driven trial, we assigned 4822 patients who had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction to receive sacubitril/valsartan (n=2419) or valsartan (n=2403). Herein, we present the results of the prespecified renal composite outcome (time to first occurrence of either: ≥50% reduction in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), end-stage renal disease, or death from renal causes), the individual components of this composite, and the influence of therapy on eGFR slope. RESULTS: At randomization, eGFR was 63±19 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2. At study closure, the composite renal outcome occurred in 33 patients (1.4%) assigned to sacubitril/valsartan and 64 patients (2.7%) assigned to valsartan (hazard ratio, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.33-0.77]; P=0.001). The treatment effect on the composite renal end point did not differ according to the baseline eGFR (<60 versus ≥60 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2 (P-interaction=0.92). The decline in eGFR was less for sacubitril/valsartan than for valsartan (-2.0 [95% CI, -2.2 to -1.9] versus -2.7 [95% CI, -2.8 to -2.5] mL·min-1·1.73 m-2 per year). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the risk of renal events, and slowed decline in eGFR, in comparison with valsartan. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01920711.

Sacubitril/Valsartan Across the Spectrum of Ejection Fraction in Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: While disease-modifying therapies exist for heart failure (HF) with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), few options are available for patients in the higher range of LVEF (>40%). Sacubitril/valsartan has been compared with a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system inhibitor alone in 2 similarly designed clinical trials of patients with reduced and preserved LVEF, permitting examination of its effects across the full spectrum of LVEF. METHODS: We combined data from PARADIGM-HF (LVEF eligibility≤40%; n=8399) and PARAGON-HF (LVEF eligibility≥45%; n=4796) in a prespecified pooled analysis. We divided randomized patients into LVEF categories: ≤22.5% (n=1269), >22.5% to 32.5% (n=3987), >32.5% to 42.5% (n=3143), > 42.5% to 52.5% (n=1427), > 52.5% to 62.5% (n=2166), and >62.5% (n=1202). We assessed time to first cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization, its components, and total heart failure hospitlizations, all-cause mortality, and noncardiovascular mortality. Incidence rates and treatment effects were examined across categories of LVEF. RESULTS: Among 13 195 randomized patients, we observed lower rates of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization, but similar rates of noncardiovascular death, among patients in the highest versus the lowest groups. Overall sacubitril/valsartan was superior to renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system inhibition for first cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization (Hazard Ratio [HR] 0.84 [95% CI, 0.78-0.90]), cardiovascular death (HR 0.84 [95% CI, 0.76-0.92]), heart failure hospitalization (HR 0.84 [95% CI, 0.77-0.91]), and all-cause mortality (HR 0.88 [95% CI, 0.81-0.96]). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan was modified by LVEF (treatment-by-continuous LVEF interaction P=0.02), and benefit appeared to be present for individuals with EF primarily below the normal range, although the treatment benefit for cardiovascular death diminished at a lower ejection fraction. We observed effect modification by LVEF on the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan in both men and women with respect to composite total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death, although women derived benefit to higher ejection fractions. CONCLUSIONS: The therapeutic effects of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system inhibitor alone, vary by LVEF with treatment benefits, particularly for heart failure hospitalization, that appear to extend to patients with heart failure and mildly reduced ejection fraction. These therapeutic benefits appeared to extend to a higher LVEF range in women compared with men. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT01920711 (PARAGON-HF), NCT01035255 (PARADIGM-HF).

A putative placebo analysis of the effects of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure across the full range of ejection fraction.

AIMS: The PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials tested sacubitril/valsartan against active controls given renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) are ethically mandated in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction and are used in the vast majority of patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction. To estimate the effects of sacubitril/valsartan had it been tested against a placebo control, we made indirect comparisons of the effects of sacubitril/valsartan with putative placebos in HF across the full range of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed patient-level data from the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials (n = 13 194) and the CHARM-Alternative and CHARM-Preserved trials (n = 5050, candesartan vs. placebo). The rate ratio (RR) of sacubitril/valsartan vs. putative placebo was estimated by the product of the RR for sacubitril/valsartan vs. RASi and the RR for RASi vs. placebo. Total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death were analysed using the negative binomial method. Treatment effects were estimated using cubic spline methods by ejection fraction as a continuous measure. Across the range of LVEF, sacubitril/valsartan was associated with a RR 0.54 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45-0.65] for the recurrent primary endpoint compared with putative placebo (P < 0.001). Treatment benefits of sacubitril/valsartan vs. putative placebo varied non-linearly with LVEF with attenuation of effects observed at LVEF above 60%. When analyzing data from PARADIGM-HF and CHARM-Alternative, the estimated risk reduction of sacubitril/valsartan vs. putative placebo was 48% (95% CI 35-58%); P < 0.001. When analyzing data from PARAGON-HF and CHARM-Preserved (with LVEF ≥ 45%), the estimated risk reduction of sacubitril/valsartan vs. putative placebo was 29% (95% CI 7-46%); P = 0.013. Across the full range of LVEF, consistent effects were observed for time-to-first endpoints: first primary endpoint (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.64-0.82), first HF hospitalization (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.58-0.78), cardiovascular death (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64-0.89), and all-cause death (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71-0.96); all P < 0.02. CONCLUSION: This putative placebo analysis reinforces the treatment benefits of sacubitril/valsartan on risk of adverse cardiovascular events across the full range of LVEF, with most pronounced effects observed at a LVEF up to 60%.

Prognostic Implications of Congestion on Physical Examination Among Contemporary Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: PARADIGM-HF.

BACKGROUND: The contemporary prognostic value of the physical examination- beyond traditional risk factors including natriuretic peptides, risk scores, and symptoms-in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction is unknown. We aimed to determine the association between physical signs of congestion at baseline and during study follow-up with quality of life and clinical outcomes and to assess the treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan on congestion. METHODS: We analyzed participants from PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in HF) with an available physical examination at baseline. We examined the association of the number of signs of congestion (jugular venous distention, edema, rales, and third heart sound) with the primary outcome (cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization), its individual components, and all-cause mortality using time-updated, multivariable-adjusted Cox regression. We further evaluated whether sacubitril/valsartan reduced congestion during follow-up and whether improvement in congestion is related to changes in clinical outcomes and quality of life, assessed by Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary scores. RESULTS: Among 8380 participants, 0, 1, 2, and 3+ signs of congestion were present in 70%, 21%, 7%, and 2% of patients, respectively. Patients with baseline congestion were older, more often female, had higher MAGGIC risk scores (Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure) and lower Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary scores (P<0.05). After adjusting for baseline natriuretic peptides, time-updated Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure score, and time-updated New York Heart Association class, increasing time-updated congestion was associated with all outcomes (P<0.001). Sacubitril/valsartan reduced the risk of the primary outcome irrespective of clinical signs of congestion at baseline (P=0.16 for interaction), and treatment with the drug improved congestion to a greater extent than did enalapril (P=0.011). Each 1-sign reduction was independently associated with a 5.1 (95% CI, 4.7-5.5) point improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary scores. Change in congestion strongly predicted outcomes even after adjusting for baseline congestion (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In HF with reduced ejection fraction, the physical exam continues to provide significant independent prognostic value even beyond symptoms, natriuretic peptides, and Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure risk score. Sacubitril/valsartan improved congestion to a greater extent than did enalapril. Reducing congestion in the outpatient setting is independently associated with improved quality of life and reduced cardiovascular events, including mortality. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255.

Systolic blood pressure, cardiovascular outcomes and efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: results from PARADIGM-HF.

Background: Compared to heart failure patients with higher systolic blood pressure (SBP), those with lower SBP have a worse prognosis. To make matters worse, the latter patients often do not receive treatment with life-saving therapies that might lower blood pressure further. We examined the association between SBP and outcomes in the Prospective Comparison of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) with an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure trial (PARADIGM-HF), as well as the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, according to baseline SBP. Methods: We analysed the effect of treatment on SBP and on the primary composite outcome (cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization), its components and all-cause death. We examined baseline SBP as a categorical (<110, 110 to < 120, 120 to < 130, 130 to < 140 and ≥140 mmHg) and continuous variable, as well as average in-trial SBP and time-updated SBP. Findings: All-cause and cardiovascular mortality rates were highest in patients with the lowest SBP whereas there was a U-shaped relationship between SBP and the rate of heart failure hospitalization. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril was consistent across all baseline SBP categories for all outcomes. For example, the sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril hazard ratio for the primary endpoint was 0.88 (95%CI 0.74-1.06) in patients with a baseline SBP <110 mmHg and 0.81 (0.65-1.02) for those with a SBP ≥140 mmHg (P for interaction = 0.55). Symptomatic hypotension, study drug dose-reduction and discontinuation were more frequent in patients with a lower SBP. Interpretation: In PARADIGM-HF, patients with lower SBP at randomization, notably after tolerating full doses of both study drugs during a run-in period, were at higher risk but generally tolerated sacubitril/valsartan and had the same relative benefit over enalapril as patients with higher baseline SBP.

Importance of Clinical Worsening of Heart Failure Treated in the Outpatient Setting: Evidence From the Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure Trial (PARADIGM-HF).

BACKGROUND: Many episodes of worsening of heart failure (HF) are treated by increasing oral therapy or temporary intravenous treatment in the community or emergency department (ED), without hospital admission. We studied the frequency and prognostic importance of these episodes of worsening in the Prospective Comparison of ARNI (angiotensin-receptor-neprilysin inhibitor) with ACEI (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor) to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure Trial (PARADIGM-HF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Outpatient intensification of HF therapy was added to an expanded composite outcome with ED visits, HF hospitalizations, and cardiovascular deaths. In an examination of first nonfatal events, 361 of 8399 patients (4.3%) had outpatient intensification of HF therapy without a subsequent event (ie, ED visit/HF hospitalizations) within 30 days; 78 of 8399 (1.0%) had an ED visit without previous outpatient intensification of HF therapy or a subsequent event within 30 days; and 1107 of 8399 (13.2%) had HF hospitalizations without a preceding event. The risk of death (in comparison with no-event patients) was similar after each manifestation of worsening: outpatient intensification of HF therapy (hazard ratio, 4.8; 95% confidence interval, 3.9-5.9); ED visit (hazard ratio, 4.5; 95% confidence interval, 3.0-6.7); HF hospitalizations (hazard ratio, 5.9; 95% confidence interval, 5.2-6.6). The expanded composite added 14% more events and shortened time to accrual of a fixed number of events. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril was similar to the primary outcome for the expanded composite (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.86) and was consistent across the components of the latter. CONCLUSIONS: Focusing only on HF hospitalizations underestimates the frequency of worsening and the serious implications of all manifestations of worsening. For clinical trials conducted in an era of heightened efforts to avoid HF hospitalizations, inclusion of episodes of outpatient treatment intensification (and ED visits) in a composite outcome adds an important number of events and shortens the time taken to accrue a target number of end points in an event-driven trial. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255.

Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition versus enalapril in heart failure.

BACKGROUND: We compared the angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 with enalapril in patients who had heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction. In previous studies, enalapril improved survival in such patients. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 8442 patients with class II, III, or IV heart failure and an ejection fraction of 40% or less to receive either LCZ696 (at a dose of 200 mg twice daily) or enalapril (at a dose of 10 mg twice daily), in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure, but the trial was designed to detect a difference in the rates of death from cardiovascular causes. RESULTS: The trial was stopped early, according to prespecified rules, after a median follow-up of 27 months, because the boundary for an overwhelming benefit with LCZ696 had been crossed. At the time of study closure, the primary outcome had occurred in 914 patients (21.8%) in the LCZ696 group and 1117 patients (26.5%) in the enalapril group (hazard ratio in the LCZ696 group, 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 0.87; P<0.001). A total of 711 patients (17.0%) receiving LCZ696 and 835 patients (19.8%) receiving enalapril died (hazard ratio for death from any cause, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.93; P<0.001); of these patients, 558 (13.3%) and 693 (16.5%), respectively, died from cardiovascular causes (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.89; P<0.001). As compared with enalapril, LCZ696 also reduced the risk of hospitalization for heart failure by 21% (P<0.001) and decreased the symptoms and physical limitations of heart failure (P=0.001). The LCZ696 group had higher proportions of patients with hypotension and nonserious angioedema but lower proportions with renal impairment, hyperkalemia, and cough than the enalapril group. CONCLUSIONS: LCZ696 was superior to enalapril in reducing the risks of death and of hospitalization for heart failure. (Funded by Novartis; PARADIGM-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01035255.).