Effects of Serelaxin in Patients with Acute Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Serelaxin is a recombinant form of human relaxin-2, a vasodilator hormone that contributes to cardiovascular and renal adaptations during pregnancy. Previous studies have suggested that treatment with serelaxin may result in relief of symptoms and in better outcomes in patients with acute heart failure. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven trial, we enrolled patients who were hospitalized for acute heart failure and had dyspnea, vascular congestion on chest radiography, increased plasma concentrations of natriuretic peptides, mild-to-moderate renal insufficiency, and a systolic blood pressure of at least 125 mm Hg, and we randomly assigned them within 16 hours after presentation to receive either a 48-hour intravenous infusion of serelaxin (30 µg per kilogram of body weight per day) or placebo, in addition to standard care. The two primary end points were death from cardiovascular causes at 180 days and worsening heart failure at 5 days. RESULTS: A total of 6545 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At day 180, death from cardiovascular causes had occurred in 285 of the 3274 patients (8.7%) in the serelaxin group and in 290 of the 3271 patients (8.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.15; P = 0.77). At day 5, worsening heart failure had occurred in 227 patients (6.9%) in the serelaxin group and in 252 (7.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.07; P = 0.19). There were no significant differences between the groups in the incidence of death from any cause at 180 days, the incidence of death from cardiovascular causes or rehospitalization for heart failure or renal failure at 180 days, or the length of the index hospital stay. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients who were hospitalized for acute heart failure, an infusion of serelaxin did not result in a lower incidence of death from cardiovascular causes at 180 days or worsening heart failure at 5 days than placebo. (Funded by Novartis Pharma; RELAX-AHF-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01870778.).

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.

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).