Sacubitril-valsartan as a treatment for apparent resistant hypertension in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: Patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) frequently have difficult-to-control hypertension. We examined the effect of neprilysin inhibition on 'apparent resistant hypertension' in patients with HFpEF in the PARAGON-HF trial, which compared the effect of sacubitril-valsartan with valsartan. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this post hoc analysis, patients were categorized according to systolic blood pressure at the end of the valsartan run-in (n = 4795). 'Apparent resistant hypertension' was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥140 mmHg (≥135 mmHg if diabetes) despite treatment with valsartan, a calcium channel blocker, and a diuretic. 'Apparent mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA)-resistant' hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥140 mmHg (≥135 mmHg if diabetes) despite the above treatments and an MRA. The primary outcome in the PARAGON-HF trial was a composite of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. We examined clinical endpoints and the safety of sacubitril-valsartan according to the hypertension category. We also examined reductions in blood pressure from the end of valsartan run-in to Weeks 4 and 16 after randomization. Overall, 731 patients (15.2%) had apparent resistant hypertension and 135 (2.8%) had apparent MRA-resistant hypertension. The rate of the primary outcome was higher in patients with apparent resistant hypertension [17.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 15.6-19.1 per 100 person-years] compared to those with a controlled systolic blood pressure (13.4; 12.7-14.3 per 100 person-years), with an adjusted rate ratio of 1.28 (95% CI 1.05-1.57). The reduction in systolic blood pressure at Weeks 4 and 16, respectively, was greater with sacubitril-valsartan vs. valsartan in patients with apparent resistant hypertension [-4.8 (-7.0 to -2.5) and 3.9 (-6.6 to -1.3) mmHg] and apparent MRA-resistant hypertension [-8.8 (-14.0 to -3.5) and -6.3 (-12.5 to -0.1) mmHg]. The proportion of patients with apparent resistant hypertension achieving a controlled systolic blood pressure by Week 16 was 47.9% in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 34.3% in the valsartan group [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.78, 95% CI 1.30-2.43]. In patients with apparent MRA-resistant hypertension, the respective proportions were 43.6% vs. 28.4% (adjusted OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.18-5.89). CONCLUSION: Sacubitril-valsartan may be useful in treating apparent resistant hypertension in patients with HFpEF, even in those who continue to have an elevated blood pressure despite treatment with at least four antihypertensive drug classes, including an MRA. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PARAGON-HF: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01920711.

Effects of Sacubitril-Valsartan Versus Valsartan in Women Compared With Men With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction: Insights From PARAGON-HF.

BACKGROUND: Unlike heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, there is no approved treatment for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, the predominant phenotype in women. Therefore, there is a greater heart failure therapeutic deficit in women compared with men. METHODS: In a prespecified subgroup analysis, we examined outcomes according to sex in the PARAGON-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction), which compared sacubitril-valsartan and valsartan in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. The primary outcome was a composite of first and recurrent hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. We also report secondary efficacy and safety outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 2479 women (51.7%) and 2317 men (48.3%) were randomized. Women were older and had more obesity, less coronary disease, and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate and NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) levels than men. For the primary outcome, the rate ratio for sacubitril-valsartan versus valsartan was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.59-0.90) in women and 1.03 (95% CI, 0.84-1.25) in men (P interaction = 0.017). The benefit from sacubitril-valsartan was attributable to reduction in heart failure hospitalization. The improvement in New York Heart Association class and renal function with sacubitril-valsartan was similar in women and men, whereas the improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score was less in women than in men. The difference in adverse events between sacubitril-valsartan and valsartan was similar in women and men. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with valsartan, sacubitril-valsartan seemed to reduce the risk of heart failure hospitalization more in women than in men. Whereas the possible sex-related modification of the effect of treatment has several potential explanations, the present study does not provide a definite mechanistic basis for this finding. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01920711.

Left ventricular dyssynchrony in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: Mechanical dyssynchrony has been postulated to play a pathophysiologic role in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We quantified left ventricular (LV) systolic dyssynchrony in 130 HFpEF patients with NYHA class II-IV symptoms, ejection fraction (EF) ≥45%, and NT-proBNP levels >400 pg/mL enrolled in the PARAMOUNT trial, and compared them to 40 healthy controls of similar age and gender. Dyssynchrony was assessed by 2D speckle tracking as standard deviation (SD) of time to peak longitudinal systolic strain in 12 ventricular segments and related to measures of systolic and diastolic function. Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction patients (62% women, mean age of 71 ± 9 years, body mass index of 30.2 ± 5.9 kg/m(2), systolic blood pressure 139 ± 15 mmHg) demonstrated significantly greater dyssynchrony than controls (SD of time to peak longitudinal strain; 90.6 ± 50.9 vs. 56.4 ± 33.5 ms, P < 0.001), even in the subset of patients (n = 63) with LVEF ≥55% and narrow QRS (≤100 ms). Among HFpEF patients, dyssynchrony was related to wider QRS interval, higher LV mass, and lower early diastolic tissue Doppler myocardial velocity (E'). Greater dyssynchrony remained significantly associated with worse diastolic function even after restricting the analysis to patients with EF≥55% and adjusting for age, gender, systolic blood pressure, LV mass index, and LVEF. CONCLUSION: Heart failure with preserved EF is associated with greater mechanical dyssynchrony compared with healthy controls of similar age and gender. Within an HFpEF population, the severity of dyssynchrony is related to the width of QRS complex, LV hypertrophy, and diastolic dysfunction.

Clinical characteristics of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients with rare pathogenic variants in dilated cardiomyopathy-associated genes: A subgroup analysis of the PARADIGM-HF trial.

AIMS: To evaluate the prevalence of pathogenic variants in genes associated with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) in a clinical trial population with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and describe the baseline characteristics by variant carrier status. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a post hoc analysis of the Phase 3 PARADIGM-HF trial. Forty-four genes, divided into three tiers, based on definitive, moderate or limited evidence of association with DCM, were assessed for rare predicted loss-of-function (pLoF) variants, which were prioritized using ClinVar annotations, measures of gene transcriptional output and evolutionary constraint, and pLoF confidence predictions. Prevalence was reported for pLoF variant carriers based on DCM-associated gene tiers. Clinical features were compared between carriers and non-carriers. Of the 1412 HFrEF participants with whole-exome sequence data, 68 (4.8%) had at least one pLoF variant in the 8 tier-1 genes (definitive/strong association with DCM), with Titin being most commonly affected. The prevalence increased to 7.5% when considering all 44 genes. Among patients with idiopathic aetiology, 10.0% (23/229) had tier-1 variants only and 12.6% (29/229) had tier-1, -2 or -3 variants. Compared to non-carriers, tier-1 carriers were younger (4 years; adjusted p-value [padj ] = 4 × 10-3 ), leaner (27.8 kg/m2 vs. 29.4 kg/m2 ; padj = 3.2 × 10-3 ), had lower ejection fraction (27.3% vs. 29.8%; padj = 5.8 × 10-3 ), and less likely to have ischaemic aetiology (37.3% vs. 67.4%; padj = 4 × 10-4 ). CONCLUSION: Deleterious pLoF variants in genes with definitive/strong association with DCM were identified in ∼5% of HFrEF patients from a PARADIGM-HF trial subset, who were younger, had lower ejection fraction and were less likely to have had an ischaemic aetiology.

Development and external validation of prognostic models to predict sudden and pump-failure death in patients with HFrEF from PARADIGM-HF and ATMOSPHERE.

BACKGROUND: Sudden death (SD) and pump failure death (PFD) are the two leading causes of death in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). OBJECTIVE: Identifying patients at higher risk for mode-specific death would allow better targeting of individual patients for relevant device and other therapies. METHODS: We developed models in 7156 patients with HFrEF from the Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial, using Fine-Gray regressions counting other deaths as competing risks. The derived models were externally validated in the Aliskiren Trial to Minimize Outcomes in Patients with Heart Failure (ATMOSPHERE) trial. RESULTS: NYHA class and NT-proBNP were independent predictors for both modes of death. The SD model additionally included male sex, Asian or Black race, prior CABG or PCI, cancer history, MI history, treatment with LCZ696 vs. enalapril, QRS duration and ECG left ventricular hypertrophy. While LVEF, ischemic etiology, systolic blood pressure, HF duration, ECG bundle branch block, and serum albumin, chloride and creatinine were included in the PFD model. Model discrimination was good for SD and excellent for PFD with Harrell's C of 0.67 and 0.78 after correction for optimism, respectively. The observed and predicted incidences were similar in each quartile of risk scores at 3 years in each model. The performance of both models remained robust in ATMOSPHERE. CONCLUSION: We developed and validated models which separately predict SD and PFD in patients with HFrEF. These models may help clinicians and patients consider therapies targeted at these modes of death. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PARADIGM-HF: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01035255, ATMOSPHERE: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00853658.

Burden of Heart Failure Signs and Symptoms, Prognosis, and Response to Therapy: The PARAGON-HF Trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the prognostic importance of heart failure (HF) signs and symptoms in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on HF signs and symptoms. BACKGROUND: In patients with HFpEF, worsening of HF symptoms, as a marker of cardiac decompensation, is frequently the reason for hospitalization. In this heterogenous disease entity, the prognostic value of HF signs and symptoms with regard to cardiovascular (CV) outcomes is poorly defined. METHODS: The authors examined the association between baseline HF signs and symptoms (rest dyspnea, exertional dyspnea, paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea, orthopnea, fatigue, edema, jugular venous distension, rales, and third heart sound) as well as burden of these HF signs and symptoms (classified as ≤2 and ≥3 HF signs and symptoms) and the primary composite of total HF hospitalizations and CV death, its components, and all-cause death in 4,725 patients enrolled in PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in HFpEF) with available signs and symptoms at randomization. Response to sacubitril/valsartan on the basis of the presence of signs and symptoms was evaluated. Effects of sacubitril/valsartan on signs and symptoms over time were assessed using binary repeated-measures logistic regression. RESULTS: Patients with high (≥3) burden of HF signs and symptoms (n = 1,772 [38%]) were more commonly women, had slightly lower left ventricular ejection fractions, higher body mass index, and more advanced New York Heart Association functional class compared with patients with low (≤2) burden (n = 2,953 [62%]) (p < 0.001 for all). Levels of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide did not differ significantly between groups (p = 0.14). Greater burden of signs and symptoms was associated with higher risk for total HF hospitalizations and CV death (rate ratio [RR]: 1.50; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.30 to 1.74) and all-cause death (RR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.21 to 1.65). Among individual signs and symptoms, orthopnea (RR: 1.29; 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.61) and rales (RR: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.10 to 2.10) were most predictive of the primary endpoint. Treatment response to sacubitril/valsartan was not significantly modified by burden of HF signs and symptoms (p for interaction = 0.08), though patients with orthopnea appeared to derive greater benefit from sacubitril/valsartan (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.90) than those without orthopnea (RR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.14; p for interaction = 0.04). Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan did not significantly decrease overall burden of HF signs and symptoms over time (odds ratio: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.67 to 1.07) but did reduce exertional dyspnea (odds ratio: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.63 to 0.93). CONCLUSIONS: High burden of HF signs and symptoms, particularly the presence of orthopnea and rales, portends a higher risk for adverse CV events in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction. Sacubitril/valsartan did not significantly decrease the burden of HF signs and symptoms over time but did reduce exertional dyspnea relative to valsartan. (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711).

Relationship between duration of heart failure, patient characteristics, outcomes, and effect of therapy in PARADIGM-HF.

AIMS: Little is known about patient characteristics, outcomes, and the effect of treatment in relation to duration of heart failure (HF). We have investigated these questions in PARADIGM-HF. The aim of the study was to compare patient characteristics, outcomes, and the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, in relation to time from HF diagnosis in PARADIGM-HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: HF duration was categorized as 0-1, >1-2, >2-5, and >5 years. Outcomes were adjusted for prognostic variables, including N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). The primary endpoint was the composite of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death. The number of patients in each group was as follows: 0-1 year, 2523 (30%); >1-2 years, 1178 (14%); >2-5 years, 2054 (24.5%); and >5 years, 2644 (31.5%). Patients with longer-duration HF were older, more often male, and had worse New York Heart Association class and quality of life, more co-morbidity, and higher troponin-T but similar NT-proBNP levels. The primary outcome rate (per 100 person-years) increased with HF duration: 0-1 year, 8.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.6-9.2]; >1-2 years, 11.2 (10.0-12.7); >2-5 years, 13.4 (12.4-14.6); and >5 years, 14.2 (13.2-15.2); P < 0.001. The hazard ratio was 1.26 (95% CI 1.07-1.48), 1.52 (1.33-1.74), and 1.53 (1.33-1.75), respectively, for >1-2, >2-5, and >5 years, compared with 0-1 year. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was consistent across HF duration for all outcomes, with the primary endpoint hazard ratio 0.80 (95% CI 0.67-0.97) for 0-1 year and 0.73 (0.63-0.84) in the >5 year group. For the primary outcome, the number needed to treat for >5 years was 18, compared with 29 for 0-1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with longer-duration HF had more co-morbidity, worse quality of life, and higher rates of HF hospitalization and death. The benefit of a neprilysin inhibitor was consistent, irrespective of HF duration. Switching to sacubitril/valsartan had substantial benefits, even in patients with long-standing HF.

Elevation in high-sensitivity troponin T in heart failure and preserved ejection fraction and influence of treatment with the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696.

BACKGROUND: Elevated high-sensitivity troponin is associated with increasing disease severity in patients with stable heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, but less is known about the association in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined the prevalence of elevated high-sensitivity troponin T (hs-TnT) in 298 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction enrolled in the Prospective comparison of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor with angiotensin receptor blocker on Management Of heart failUre with preserved ejectioN fracTion (PARAMOUNT) trial, in which the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 reduced markers of heart failure severity compared with valsartan. We assessed the association between hs-TnT and cardiac structure and function, and the effect of LCZ696, compared with valsartan, on hs-TnT over 36 weeks. Elevated hs-TnT in the myocardial injury range (>0.014 µg/L) was found in 55% of patients and was associated with older age, history of diabetes mellitus, higher N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, lower estimated glomerular filtration rate, and larger left atrial size, left ventricular volume, and mass. LCZ696 treatment reduced hs-TnT to a greater extent at 12 weeks (12% reduction; P=0.05) and at 36 weeks (14% reduction; P=0.03) compared with valsartan. CONCLUSIONS: Troponin T was elevated in a substantial number of patients enrolled in a heart failure with preserved ejection fraction clinical trial and was associated with abnormalities of cardiac structure, function, and elevated baseline N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide. Decreases in hs-TnT with LCZ696 in parallel with improvement in N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide and left atrial size suggest that the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 may reduce this measure of myocardial injury in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00887588.

Impaired systolic function by strain imaging in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the frequency and magnitude of impaired systolic deformation in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). BACKGROUND: Although diastolic dysfunction is widely considered a key pathophysiologic mediator of HFpEF, the prevalence of concomitant systolic dysfunction has not been clearly defined. METHODS: We assessed myocardial systolic and diastolic function in 219 HFpEF patients from a contemporary HFpEF clinical trial. Myocardial deformation was assessed using a vendor-independent 2-dimensional speckle-tracking software. The frequency and severity of impaired deformation was assessed in HFpEF, and compared to 50 normal controls free of cardiovascular disease and to 44 age- and sex-matched hypertensive patients with diastolic dysfunction (hypertensive heart disease) but no HF. Among HFpEF patients, clinical, echocardiographic, and biomarker correlates of left ventricular strain were determined. RESULTS: The HFpEF patients had preserved left ventricular ejection fraction and evidence of diastolic dysfunction. Compared to both normal controls and hypertensive heart disease patients, the HFpEF patients demonstrated significantly lower longitudinal strain (LS) (-20.0 ± 2.1 and -17.07 ± 2.04 vs. -14.6 ± 3.3, respectively, p < 0.0001 for both) and circumferential strain (CS) (-27.1 ± 3.1 and -30.1 ± 3.5 vs. -22.9 ± 5.9, respectively; p < 0.0001 for both). In HFpEF, both LS and CS were related to LVEF (LS, R = -0.46; p < 0.0001; CS, R = -0.51; p < 0.0001) but not to standard echocardiographic measures of diastolic function (E' or E/E'). Lower LS was modestly associated with higher NT-proBNP, even after adjustment for 10 baseline covariates including LVEF, measures of diastolic function, and LV filling pressure (multivariable adjusted p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Strain imaging detects impaired systolic function despite preserved global LVEF in HFpEF that may contribute to the pathophysiology of the HFpEF syndrome. (LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure and Preserved Left-ventricular Ejection Fraction; NCT00887588).

Impaired left atrial function in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: Left atrial (LA) enlargement is present in the majority of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) patients and is a marker of risk. However, the importance of LA function in HFpEF is less well understood. METHODS AND RESULTS: The PARAMOUNT trial enrolled HFpEF patients (LVEF ≥45%, NT-proBNP >400 pg/mL). We assessed LA reservoir, conduit, and pump function using two-dimensional volume indices and speckle tracking echocardiography in 135 HFpEF patients in sinus rhythm at the time of echocardiography and 40 healthy controls of similar age and gender. Systolic LA strain was related to clinical characteristics and measures of cardiac structure and function. Compared with controls, HFpEF patients had worse LA reservoir, conduit, and pump function. The differences in systolic LA strain (controls 39.2 ± 6.6% vs. HFpEF 24.6 ± 7.3%) between groups remained significant after adjustments and even in the subsets of HFpEF patients with normal LA size or without a history of AF. Among HFpEF patients, lower systolic LA strain was associated with higher prevalence of prior HF hospitalization and history of AF, as well as worse LV systolic function, and higher LV mass and LA volume. However, NT-proBNP and E/E' were similar across the quartiles of LA function. CONCLUSIONS: In this HFpEF cohort, we observed impairment in all phases of LA function, and systolic LA strain was decreased independent of LA size or history of AF. LA dysfunction may be a marker of severity and play a pathophysiological role in HFpEF. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00887588.

The effects of high-dose amlodipine/benazepril combination therapies on blood pressure reduction in patients not adequately controlled with amlodipine monotherapy.

BACKGROUND: This study compared the efficacy and safety of amlodipine/benazepril (10/40 mg/day and 10/20 mg/day) with amlodipine 10 mg/day in patients whose blood pressure (BP) was not adequately controlled with amlodipine monotherapy. METHODS: After a lead-in period with amlodipine monotherapy, 812 non-responder patients (mean sitting diastolic BP > or =95 mmHg) were randomized to one of three treatment groups. Ambulatory BP monitoring was conducted in 276 patients. RESULTS: Treatment with amlodipine/benazepril 10/40 mg/day and 10/20 mg/day resulted in a decrease of mean sitting systolic and mean sitting diastolic BP by 13.3/12.7 mmHg and 12.1/11.6 mmHg, respectively, compared with monotherapy (6.6/8.5 mmHg) (p < 0.0001). Both combinations resulted in more responders than monotherapy (74% and 65% vs. 54%; p < 0.0001 and p < 0.0085, respectively). Amlodipine/benazepril 10/40 mg/day and 10/20 mg/day decreased ambulatory systolic and diastolic BP by 9.9/6.7 mmHg and 7.4/5.2 mmHg compared with monotherapy (p < 0.0001). The incidence of pedal edema was lower in the amlodipine/benazepril combinations compared with monotherapy (4.5%, 5.5% vs. 9.2%, respectively, p=NS). No significant metabolic side-effects were noted among the combination groups. CONCLUSION: Amlodipine/benazepril combinations were well tolerated and resulted in significant BP reductions and better BP responder rates than amlodipine monotherapy.