Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibition in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Acute decompensated heart failure accounts for more than 1 million hospitalizations in the United States annually. Whether the initiation of sacubitril-valsartan therapy is safe and effective among patients who are hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure is unknown. METHODS: We enrolled patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction who were hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure at 129 sites in the United States. After hemodynamic stabilization, patients were randomly assigned to receive sacubitril-valsartan (target dose, 97 mg of sacubitril with 103 mg of valsartan twice daily) or enalapril (target dose, 10 mg twice daily). The primary efficacy outcome was the time-averaged proportional change in the N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentration from baseline through weeks 4 and 8. Key safety outcomes were the rates of worsening renal function, hyperkalemia, symptomatic hypotension, and angioedema. RESULTS: Of the 881 patients who underwent randomization, 440 were assigned to receive sacubitril-valsartan and 441 to receive enalapril. The time-averaged reduction in the NT-proBNP concentration was significantly greater in the sacubitril-valsartan group than in the enalapril group; the ratio of the geometric mean of values obtained at weeks 4 and 8 to the baseline value was 0.53 in the sacubitril-valsartan group as compared with 0.75 in the enalapril group (percent change, -46.7% vs. -25.3%; ratio of change with sacubitril-valsartan vs. enalapril, 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.81; P<0.001). The greater reduction in the NT-proBNP concentration with sacubitril-valsartan than with enalapril was evident as early as week 1 (ratio of change, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.85). The rates of worsening renal function, hyperkalemia, symptomatic hypotension, and angioedema did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction who were hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure, the initiation of sacubitril-valsartan therapy led to a greater reduction in the NT-proBNP concentration than enalapril therapy. Rates of worsening renal function, hyperkalemia, symptomatic hypotension, and angioedema did not differ significantly between the two groups. (Funded by Novartis; PIONEER-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02554890 .).

Cardiovascular biomarkers in patients with acute decompensated heart failure randomized to sacubitril-valsartan or enalapril in the PIONEER-HF trial.

AIMS: Circulating high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hsTn) and soluble ST2 (sST2) reflect myocardial stress in patients with heart failure (HF). Production of cyclic guanosine 3'5' monophosphate (cGMP) in response to activation of natriuretic peptide receptors reduces cardiac afterload and preload. We assessed the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on these biomarkers in patients with reduced ejection fraction and acute decompensated HF (ADHF). METHODS AND RESULTS: PIONEER-HF was a randomized, double-blind trial of sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril in hospitalized patients with ADHF following haemodynamic stabilization. We measured circulating hsTnT, sST2, and urinary cGMP at baseline, 1, 2 (sST2, cGMP), 4, and 8 weeks (n = 694 with all baseline biomarkers). Ratios of geometric means (timepoint/baseline) were determined and compared as a ratio for sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril. Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan led to a significantly greater decline in hsTnT and sST2. This effect emerged as early as 1 week for sST2 and was significant for both at 4 weeks with a 16% greater reduction in hsTnT (P < 0.001) and 9% greater reduction in sST2 (P = 0.0033). Serial urinary cGMP increased with sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril (P < 0.001, 1 week). The significant differences between treatment groups for each biomarker were sustained at 8 weeks. In an exploratory multivariable-adjusted analysis of cardiovascular death or HF-rehospitalization, the concentrations of hsTnT, sST2 at week 1 were significantly associated with subsequent outcome. CONCLUSION: Biomarkers of myocardial stress are elevated in patients with ADHF and associated with outcome. Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan reduces myocardial injury and haemodynamic stress as reflected by biomarkers, with an onset that is apparent within 1-4 weeks. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02554890 clinical.trials.gov.

Effect of Sacubitril-Valsartan vs Enalapril on Aortic Stiffness in Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Compared with enalapril, sacubitril-valsartan reduces cardiovascular mortality and heart failure hospitalization in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). These benefits may be related to effects on hemodynamics and cardiac remodeling. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether treatment of HFrEF with sacubitril-valsartan improves central aortic stiffness and cardiac remodeling compared with enalapril. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, double-blind clinical trial of 464 participants with heart failure and ejection fraction of 40% or less enrolled across 85 US sites between August 17, 2016, and June 28, 2018. Follow-up was completed on January 26, 2019. INTERVENTIONS: Randomization (1:1) to sacubitril-valsartan (n = 231; target dosage, 97/103 mg twice daily) vs enalapril (n = 233; target dosage, 10 mg twice daily) for 12 weeks. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was change from baseline to week 12 in aortic characteristic impedance (Zc), a measure of central aortic stiffness. Prespecified secondary outcomes included change from baseline to week 12 in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, ejection fraction, global longitudinal strain, mitral annular relaxation velocity, mitral E/e' ratio, left ventricular end-systolic and end-diastolic volume indexes (LVESVI and LVEDVI), left atrial volume index, and ventricular-vascular coupling ratio. RESULTS: Of 464 validly randomized participants (mean age, 67.3 [SD, 9.1] years; 23.5% women), 427 completed the study. At 12 weeks, Zc decreased from 223.8 to 218.9 dyne × s/cm5 in the sacubitril-valsartan group and increased from 213.2 to 214.4 dyne × s/cm5 in the enalapril group (treatment difference, -2.2 [95% CI, -17.6 to 13.2] dyne × s/cm5; P = .78). Of 9 prespecified secondary end points, no significant between-group difference in change from baseline was seen in 4, including left ventricular ejection fraction (34%-36% with sacubitril-valsartan vs 33 to 35% with enalapril; treatment difference, 0.6% [95% CI, -0.4% to 1.7%]; P = .24). However, greater reductions from baseline were seen with sacubitril-valsartan than with enalapril in all others, including left atrial volume (from 30.4 mL/m2 to 28.2 mL/m2 vs from 29.8 mL/m2 to 30.5 mL/m2; treatment difference, -2.8 mL/m2 [95% CI, -4.0 to -1.6 mL/m2]; P < .001), LVEDVI (from 75.1 mL/m2 to 70.3 mL/m2 vs from 79.1 mL/m2 to 75.6 mL/m2; treatment difference, -2.0 mL/m2 [95% CI, -3.7 to 0.3 mL/m2]; P = .02), LVESVI (from 50.8 mL/m2 to 46.3 mL/m2 vs from 54.1 to 50.6 mL/m2; treatment difference, -1.6 mL/m2 [95% CI, -3.1 to -0.03 mL/m2]; P = .045), and mitral E/e' ratio (from 13.8 to 12.3 vs from 13.4 to 13.8; treatment difference, -1.8 [95% CI, -2.8 to -0.8]; P = .001). Rates of adverse events including hypotension (1.7% vs 3.9%) were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Treatment of HFrEF with sacubitril-valsartan, compared with enalapril, did not significantly reduce central aortic stiffness. The study findings may provide insight into mechanisms underlying the effects of sacubitril-valsartan in HFrEF. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02874794.

Association of Change in N-Terminal Pro-B-Type Natriuretic Peptide Following Initiation of Sacubitril-Valsartan Treatment With Cardiac Structure and Function in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

IMPORTANCE: In patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), treatment with sacubitril-valsartan reduces N-terminal pro-b-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentrations. The effect of sacubitril-valsartan on cardiac remodeling is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether NT-proBNP changes in patients with HFrEF treated with sacubitril-valsartan correlate with changes in measures of cardiac volume and function. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective, 12-month, single-group, open-label study of patients with HFrEF enrolled in 78 outpatient sites in the United States. Sacubitril-valsartan was initiated and the dose adjusted. Enrollment commenced on October 25, 2016, and follow-up was completed on October 22, 2018. EXPOSURES: NT-proBNP concentrations among patients treated with sacubitril-valsartan. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the correlation between changes in log2-NT-proBNP concentrations and left ventricular (LV) EF, LV end-diastolic volume index (LVEDVI), LV end-systolic volume index (LVESVI), left atrial volume index (LAVI), and ratio of early transmitral Doppler velocity/early diastolic annular velocity (E/e') at 12 months. RESULTS: Among 794 patients (mean age, 65.1 years; 226 women [28.5%]; mean LVEF = 28.2%), 654 (82.4%) completed the study. The median NT-proBNP concentration at baseline was 816 pg/mL (interquartile range [IQR], 332-1822) and 455 pg/mL (IQR, 153-1090) at 12 months (difference, P < .001). At 12 months, the change in log2-NT-proBNP concentration was correlated with changes in LVEF (r = -0.381 [IQR, -0.448 to -0.310]; P < .001), LVEDVI (r = 0.320 [IQR, 0.246 to 0.391]; P < .001), LVESVI (r = 0.405 [IQR, 0.335 to 0.470]; P < .001), LAVI (r = 0.263 [IQR, 0.186 to 0.338]; P < .001), and E/e' (r = 0.269 [IQR, 0.182 to 0.353]; P < .001). At 12 months, LVEF increased from 28.2% to 37.8% (difference, 9.4% [95% CI, 8.8% to 9.9%]; P < .001), while LVEDVI decreased from 86.93 to 74.15 mL/m2 (difference, -12.25 mL/m2 [IQR, -12.92 to -11.58]; P < .001) and LVESVI decreased from 61.68 to 45.46 mL/m2 (difference, -15.29 mL/m2 [95% CI, -16.03 to -14.55]; P < .001). LAVI and E/e' ratio also decreased significantly. The most frequent adverse events were hypotension (17.6%), dizziness (16.8%), hyperkalemia (13.2%), and worsening kidney function (12.3%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this exploratory study of patients with HFrEF treated with sacubitril-valsartan, reduction in NT-proBNP concentration was weakly yet significantly correlated with improvements in markers of cardiac volume and function at 12 months. The observed reverse cardiac remodeling may provide a mechanistic explanation for the effects of sacubitril-valsartan in patients with HFrEF. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02887183.

Rationale and design of the comParIson Of sacubitril/valsartaN versus Enalapril on Effect on nt-pRo-bnp in patients stabilized from an acute Heart Failure episode (PIONEER-HF) trial.

OBJECTIVE: The objective is to assess the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril in patients with heart failure (HF) with a reduced ejection fraction (EF) stabilized during hospitalization for acute decompensated HF. BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan, a first-in-class angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, improves survival among ambulatory HF patients with a reduced EF. However, there is very limited experience with the in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in patients who have been stabilized following hospitalization for acute decompensated HF. METHODS: PIONEER-HF is a 12-week, prospective, multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial enrolling a planned 882 patients at more than 100 participating sites in the United States. Medically stable patients >18 years of age with an EF <40% and an amino terminal-pro b-type natriuretic peptide >1600 pg/mL or b-type natriuretic peptide >400 pg/mL are eligible for participation no earlier than 24 hours and up to 10 days from initial presentation while still hospitalized. Patients are randomly assigned 1:1 to in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan titrated to 97/103 mg by mouth twice daily versus enalapril titrated to 10 mg by mouth twice daily for 8 weeks. All patients receive open-label treatment with sacubitril/valsartan for the remaining 4 weeks of the study. The primary efficacy end point is the time-averaged proportional change in amino terminal-pro b-type natriuretic peptide from baseline through weeks 4 and 8. Secondary and exploratory end points include serum and urinary biomarkers as well as clinical outcomes. Safety end points include the incidence of angioedema, hypotension, renal insufficiency, and hyperkalemia. CONCLUSION: The PIONEER-HF trial will inform clinical practice by providing evidence on the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan among patients who have been stabilized following an admission for acute decompensated HF with a reduced EF.

Rationale and methods of the Prospective Study of Biomarkers, Symptom Improvement, and Ventricular Remodeling During Sacubitril/Valsartan Therapy for Heart Failure (PROVE-HF).

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan is an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor indicated for the treatment of patients with chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction; however, its mechanism of benefit remains unclear. Biomarkers that are linked to ventricular remodeling, myocardial injury, and fibrosis may provide mechanistic insight and important clinical guidance regarding sacubitril/valsartan use. METHODS: This 52-week, multicenter, open-label, single-arm study is designed to (1) correlate biomarker changes with cardiac remodeling parameters, cardiovascular outcomes, and patient-reported outcome data and (2) determine short- and long-term changes in concentrations of biomarkers related to potential mechanisms of action and effects of sacubitril/valsartan therapy. Approximately 830 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction will be initiated and titrated on sacubitril/valsartan according to United States prescribing information. Primary efficacy end points include the changes in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide concentrations and cardiac remodeling from baseline to 1 year. Secondary end points include changes in concentrations of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and remodeling to 6 months, and changes in patient-reported outcomes using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-23 from baseline to 1 year. In addition, several other relevant biomarkers will be measured. Biomarker changes relative to the number of cardiovascular events in 12 months will also be assessed as exploratory end points. CONCLUSIONS: Results from the Prospective Study of Biomarkers, Symptom Improvement, and Ventricular Remodeling During Sacubitril/Valsartan Therapy for Heart Failure (PROVE-HF) will help establish a mechanistic understanding of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor therapeutic benefits and provide clinicians with clarity on how to interpret information on biomarkers during treatment (PROVE-HF ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02887183).

Change the management of patients with heart failure: Rationale and design of the CHAMP-HF registry.

Heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a common and costly condition that diminishes patients' health status and confers a poor prognosis. Despite the availability of multiple guideline-recommended pharmacologic and cardiac device therapies for patients with chronic HFrEF, outcomes remain suboptimal. Currently, there is limited insight into the rationale underlying clinical decisions by health care providers and patient factors that guide the use and intensity of outpatient HF treatments. A better understanding of current practice patterns has the potential to improve patients' outcomes. The CHAnge the Management of Patients with Heart Failure (CHAMP-HF) registry will evaluate the care and outcomes of patients with chronic HFrEF by assessing real-world treatment patterns, as well as the reasons for and barriers to medication treatment changes. CHAMP-HF will enroll approximately 5,000 patients with chronic HFrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%) at approximately 150 US sites, and patients will be followed for a maximum duration of 24 months. Participating sites will collect data from both providers (HF history, examination findings, results of diagnostic studies, pharmacotherapy treatment patterns, decision-making factors, and clinical outcomes) and patients (medication adherence and patient-reported outcomes). The CHAMP-HF registry will provide a unique opportunity to study practice patterns and the adoption of new HF therapies across a diverse mix of health care providers and outpatient practices in the United States that care for HFrEF patients.

Long-term outcomes in African American kidney transplant recipients under contemporary immunosuppression: a four-yr analysis of the Mycophenolic acid Observational REnal transplant (MORE) study.

Mycophenolic acid Observational REnal transplant (MORE) was a prospective, observational study of de novo kidney transplant patients receiving mycophenolic acid (MPA). Four-yr data on 904 patients receiving tacrolimus and enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (EC-MPS) or mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) were analyzed to evaluate immunosuppression and graft outcomes in African American (AA, n = 218) vs. non-AA (n = 686) patients. Mean tacrolimus dose was higher in AA vs. non-AA patients but mean tacrolimus trough concentration was similar. Use of the recommended MPA dose in AA patients decreased from 78.9% at baseline to 33.1% at year 3. More AA patients received the recommended MPA dose with EC-MPS than MMF at month 6 (56.2% vs. 35.7%, p = 0.016) and month 36 (46.6% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.029), with no safety penalty. Significantly, more AA patients received corticosteroids than non-AA patients. Biopsy-proven acute rejection was higher in AA vs. non-AA patients (18.9% vs. 10.7%, p = 0.003), as was graft loss (10.9% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.003); differences were confirmed by Cox regression analysis. Patient survival was similar. Estimated GFR was comparable in AA vs. non-AA patients. Kidney allograft survival remains lower for AA vs. non-AA recipients even under the current standard of care.

Tacrolimus exposure in the real world: an analysis from the Mycophenolic acid Observational REnal transplant study.

Tacrolimus exposure and renal function data to 36 months post-transplant were analyzed from the prospective, observational Mycophenolic acid Observational REnal transplant (MORE) registry in which de novo kidney transplant patients were managed according to local practice. Tacrolimus trough (C0 ) concentration at month 12 was stratified as low (<6 ng/mL), moderate (6-8 ng/mL), or high (>8 ng/mL) in 724 patients. Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was stratified as low (<60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) ) or high (≥60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) ). High tacrolimus C0 (>8 ng/mL) was observed in 47.7%, 34.1%, 26.8%, and 26.7% of patients at baseline and months 12, 24, and 36, respectively. Biopsy-proven acute rejection was similar to month 36 regardless of tacrolimus C0 category at month 12. Tacrolimus C0 >8 ng/mL vs. <6 ng/mL at month 12 was predictive of low eGFR at month 24 (p = 0.023) with a nonsignificant trend at month 36 (p = 0.085). Infections (p < 0.013) and BK virus infection (p < 0.001) were most frequent in the low tacrolimus C0 cohort. Neutropenia was most frequent in the high tacrolimus C0 category (p = 0.010). In conclusion, over a quarter of patients were exposed to high tacrolimus C0 to 36 months post-transplant. Tacrolimus exposure did not affect rejection risk, but tacrolimus C0 >8 ng/mL at month 12 was predictive of subsequent low eGFR compared to C0 <6 ng/mL.

Long-term dosing patterns of enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium or mycophenolate mofetil with tacrolimus after renal transplantation.

MORE was a four-yr, prospective, observational study at 40 transplant centers in the US. Data were analyzed to evaluate changes in mycophenolic acid (MPA) dosing over time in 904 de novo kidney transplant recipients receiving enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (EC-MPS, n = 616) or mycophenolate mofetil (MMF, n = 288) with tacrolimus. Induction therapy and steroid treatment were similar in the two subpopulations. The proportion of patients receiving the maximal recommended MPA dose was 80.5%, 43.9%, 39.2%, 34.6%, and 30.1% at baseline and years 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. More patients received the maximal recommended MPA dose with EC-MPS vs. MMF at month 1 (79.2% vs. 71.7%, p = 0.016), month 3 (68.5% vs. 56.9%, p = 0.001), and month 6 (52.9% vs. 44.0%, p = 0.028). Multivariate analysis showed the risk of biopsy-proven acute rejection, graft loss or death to be similar for EC-MPS vs. MMF. Estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was similar with EC-MPS vs. MMF at all time points. There were no significant differences in any category of adverse event between the EC-MPS and MMF cohorts during follow-up, including gastrointestinal events. In conclusion, MPA dose was maintained more effectively in the first six months after kidney transplantation using EC-MPS vs. MMF, without an increase in adverse events.

Impact of a switch to fingolimod versus staying on glatiramer acetate or beta interferons on patient- and physician-reported outcomes in relapsing multiple sclerosis: post hoc analyses of the EPOC trial.

BACKGROUND: The Evaluate Patient OutComes (EPOC) study assessed physician- and patient-reported outcomes in individuals with relapsing multiple sclerosis who switched directly from injectable disease-modifying therapy (iDMT; glatiramer acetate, intramuscular or subcutaneous interferon beta-1a, or interferon beta-1b) to once-daily, oral fingolimod. Post hoc analyses evaluated the impact of a switch to fingolimod versus staying on each of the four individual iDMTs. METHODS: Overall, 1053 patients were randomized 3:1 to switch to fingolimod or remain on iDMT. The primary endpoint was the change in Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) Global Satisfaction score. Secondary endpoints included changes in scores for TSQM Effectiveness, Side Effects and Convenience subscales, Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), Patient-Reported Outcome Indices for Multiple Sclerosis (PRIMUS) Activities, 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) Mental Component Summary (MCS) and Physical Component Summary (PCS) and mean investigator-reported Clinical Global Impressions of Improvement (CGI-I). All outcomes were evaluated after 6 months of treatment. RESULTS: Changes in TSQM Global Satisfaction scores were superior after a switch to fingolimod when compared with scores in patients remaining on any of the iDMTs (all p <0.001). Likewise, all TSQM subscale scores improved following a switch to fingolimod (all p <0.001), except when compared with glatiramer acetate for the TSQM Side Effects subscale (p = 0.111). FSS scores were found to be superior for fingolimod versus remaining on subcutaneous interferon beta-1a and interferon beta-1b, BDI-II scores were significantly improved for fingolimod except for the comparison with intramuscular interferon beta-1a, and SF-36 scores were superior with fingolimod compared with remaining on interferon beta-1b (MCS and PCS; p = 0.030 and p = 0.022, respectively) and subcutaneous interferon beta-1a (PCS only; p = 0.024). Mean CGI-I scores were superior with fingolimod when compared with continuing treatment with any of the iDMTs (all p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: After 6 months, a switch to fingolimod showed superiority compared with remaining on each iDMT for a range of patient- and physician-reported outcomes, including global satisfaction with treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01216072 .

A randomized, double-blind study of 30 versus 20 mg dexmethylphenidate extended-release in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: late-day symptom control.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of dexmethylphenidate extended-release (d-MPH-ER) 30 versus 20 mg in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in a 12-hour laboratory classroom setting. In a randomized, double-blind, 3-period × 3-treatment, crossover study, children aged 6 to 12 years with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition-diagnosed ADHD previously stabilized on MPH (40-60 mg/d) or D-MPH (20-30 mg/day) [corrected] were randomized to receive D-MPH-ER 20 mg/day, 30 mg/day, [corrected] or placebo for 7 days each. Primary efficacy measurements were change in the average SKAMP-Combined [corrected] score from predose to 10, 11, and 12 hours postdose [Avg(10-12)] between 30 mg [corrected] and 20 mg D-MPH-ER. Safety was assessed by adverse events, (AEs), [corrected] vital sign monitoring, and ECGs. [corrected] A total of 165 children were randomized, and 162 included in the intent-to-treat analysis. Mean Avg (10-12) change from pre-dose [corrected] in SKAMP-Combined score was significantly greater for D-MPH-ER 30 mg (-4.47) compared with D-MPH-ER 20 mg (-2.02; P = 0.002). Most common adverse events (≥ 3% in any group) were decreased appetite (6.1%, 4.9%, and 0%), headache (4.3%, 4.3%, and 1.9%), abdominal pain (3.7%, 3.1%, and 3.1%), and tachycardia (1.2%, 3.1%, and 0.6%) for D-MPH-ER 30 mg, D-MPH-ER 20 mg, and placebo, respectively). Significantly greater improvement in ADHD symptoms was noted with D-MPH-ER 30 mg compared with D-MPH-ER 20 mg at hours 10 through 12. Tolerability was comparable between doses. Dexmethylphenidate extended-release 30-mg dose may provide further benefit to patients who do not maintain optimal symptom control later in the day with D-MPH-ER 20 mg.

Association of mycophenolic acid dose with efficacy and safety events in kidney transplant patients receiving tacrolimus: an analysis of the Mycophenolic acid Observational REnal transplant registry.

BACKGROUND: Dose-finding studies for mycophenolic acid (MPA) in tacrolimus-treated kidney transplant patients are lacking. METHODS: Data from 901 de novo kidney transplant recipients enrolled in the prospective, non-interventional Mycophenolic acid Observational REnal (MORE) transplant registry were analyzed according to baseline daily MPA dose (<2000, 2000 or >2000 mg). RESULTS: The proportion of patients receiving 2000 and <2000 mg was 77.6% and 19.9% at baseline, 74.5% and 23.3% at month 1, 62.4% and 35.5% at month 3, 48.5% and 50.2% at month 6, and 44.1% and 55.2% at month 12. More patients were maintained on 2000 mg with enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (EC-MPS) vs. mycophenolate mofetil (month 6, 52.7% vs. 43.0% [p=0.02]; month 12, 47.3% vs. 39.4% [p=0.08]). Multivariate modeling showed no significant effect of baseline MPA dose on 12-month risk of biopsy-proven acute rejection, graft loss or estimated GFR, or on safety events including MPA discontinuation other than a higher rate of gastrointestinal adverse events in patients with an initial MPA dose>2000 mg (p=0.029) vs. 2000 mg. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that an initial MPA dose of <2000 mg does not compromise 12-month efficacy in tacrolimus-treated kidney transplants, but controlled trials are required and the lower threshold for MPA dose remains to be defined.

Immediate versus delayed switch from levodopa/carbidopa to levodopa/carbidopa/entacapone: effects on motor function and quality of life in patients with Parkinson's disease with end-of-dose wearing off.

OBJECTIVE: Assess motor function and quality of life (QoL) in Parkinson's disease (PD) subjects with end-of-dose wearing off (EODWO), comparing immediate and delayed switch (IS, DEL) to levodopa/carbidopa/entacapone (LCE). BACKGROUND: LCE treatment improves motor function in PD patients with EODWO. Correlations with QoL have not been previously assessed. METHODS: A 16-week, prospective, randomized, multicenter, open-label study in PD subjects on stable levodopa/carbidopa (LC) doses with EODWO. The IS subjects switched to LCE at baseline; DEL subjects at week 4. The primary efficacy variable was UPDRS III score (baseline to week 4). QoL measurements (PDQUALIF, PDQ-39) were assessed at baseline, weeks 4, 8, and study endpoint. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population comprised 350/359 patients (IS, n = 177; DEL, n = 173). A significant decrease in UPDRS III scores at week 4 was observed (IS, 3.7U, p < .0001; DEL, 1.8U, p = .0018). Group differences favored IS (1.9U, p = .0148). At week 8, IS subjects had significant total score decreases in PDQUALIF (2.5U, p = .0133) and PDQ-39 (5.8U, p = .0001). In the mobility and activities of daily living PDQ-39 subdomains, IS subjects had significantly larger week 4 decreases (versus DEL p = .0331 and p = .0125, respectively). Adverse events included diarrhea (14.5%), nausea (12.3%), and dizziness (8.4%). CONCLUSION: The IS provided greater motor improvement at week 4 and improved QoL at week 8.

Initiation of Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibition After Acute Decompensated Heart Failure: Secondary Analysis of the Open-label Extension of the PIONEER-HF Trial.

Importance: In PIONEER-HF, among stabilized patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF), the in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan was well tolerated and led to improved outcomes compared with enalapril. However, there are limited data comparing the strategies of in-hospital vs postdischarge initiation of sacubitril/valsartan. Objective: To describe changes in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels in patients recently hospitalized for ADHF and switching from taking enalapril to taking sacubitril/valsartan after discharge and compare clinical outcomes for patients randomized to receive in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan vs in-hospital initiation of enalapril who later switched to taking sacubitril/valsartan during an open-label extension phase. Interventions: Sacubitril/valsartan titrated to 97/103 mg twice daily. Design, Setting, and Participants: The PIONEER-HF trial was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled trial conducted at 129 US sites between May 2016 and May 2018 that compared the in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril (titrated to target dose, 10 mg twice daily) for 8 weeks among patients admitted for ADHF with reduced ejection fraction and hemodynamic stability. All patients were to continue in a 4-week, open-label study of sacubitril/valsartan; of 881 patients enrolled in PIONEER-HF, 832 (94%) continued in the open-label study. Main Outcomes and Measures: Changes in NT-proBNP levels from week 8 to 12 as well as the exploratory composite of heart failure rehospitalization or cardiovascular death from randomization through week 12. Results: Of 881 participants, 226 (27.7%) were women, 487 (58.5%) were white, 297 (35.7%) were black, 15 (1.8%) were Asian, and 73 (8.8%) were of Hispanic ethnicity; the mean (SD) age was 61 (14) years. For patients who continued to take sacubitril/valsartan, NT-proBNP levels declined -17.2% (95% CI, -3.2 to -29.1) from week 8 to 12. The NT-proBNP levels declined to a greater extent for those switching from taking enalapril to sacubitril/valsartan after the week 8 visit (-37.4%; 95% CI, -28.1 to -45.6; P < .001; comparing changes in 2 groups). Over the entire 12 weeks of follow-up, patients that began taking sacubitril/valsartan in the hospital had a lower hazard for the composite outcome compared with patients that initiated enalapril in the hospital and then had a delayed initiation of sacubitril/valsartan 8 weeks later (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI 0.49-0.97). Conclusions and Relevance: Switching patients' treatment from enalapril to sacubitril/valsartan at 8 weeks after randomization led to a further 37% reduction in NT-proBNP levels in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and a recent hospitalization for ADHF. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02554890.

Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibition Based on History of Heart Failure and Use of Renin-Angiotensin System Antagonists.

BACKGROUND: The PIONEER-HF (comParIson Of sacubitril/valsartaN versus Enalapril on Effect on nt-pRo-bnp in patients stabilized from an acute Heart Failure episode) trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) in stabilized patients with acute decompensated heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction. OBJECTIVES: The study sought to determine whether and how prior HF history and treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) affected the results. METHODS: The PIONEER-HF trial was a prospective, multicenter, double-blind, randomized clinical trial enrolling 881 patients with an ejection fraction ≤40%. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to in-hospital initiation of S/V (n = 440) versus enalapril (n = 441). Pre-specified subgroup analyses were performed based on prior HF history (i.e., de novo HF vs. worsening chronic HF) and treatment with an ACE inhibitor or ARB (i.e., ACE inhibitor or ARB-yes vs. ACE inhibitor or ARB-no) at admission. RESULTS: At enrollment, 303 (34%) patients presented with de novo HF and 576 (66%) patients with worsening chronic HF. A total of 421 (48%) patients had been treated with an ACE inhibitor or ARB, while 458 (52%) had not been treated with an ACE inhibitor or ARB. N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide declined significantly in all 4 subgroups (p < 0.001), with greater decreases in the S/V versus the enalapril arm (p < 0.001). There was no interaction between prior HF history (p = 0.350) or ACE inhibitor or ARB treatment (p = 0.880) and the effect of S/V versus enalapril on cardiovascular death or rehospitalization for HF. The incidences of adverse events were comparable between S/V and enalapril across all 4 subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients admitted for acute decompensated HF, S/V was safe and well tolerated, led to a significantly greater reduction in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, and improved clinical outcomes compared with enalapril irrespective of previous HF history or ACE inhibitor or ARB treatment. (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect of NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode [PIONEER-HF]; NCT02554890).

Activity Sensors to Evaluate the Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan on Quality-of-Life in Heart Failure: rational and design of the AWAKE-HF study.

AIMS: Limited data are available regarding the ability of sacubitril/valsartan to provide clinically meaningful health-related quality of life (HRQoL) improvements among individuals with heart failure (HF). Objective measurement of physical activity and sleep using actigraphy can provide insight into daily functioning and HRQoL. METHODS AND RESULTS: We designed an 18 week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study to objectively assess changes in function and HRQoL directly after initiating sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril in participants with HF in their home environments. A total of 136 outpatient, ambulatory participants with New York Heart Association Class II or III HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) will be included in the study. Patients will undergo a 2 week baseline observational phase (continuing current HF treatment); data from the second week of this phase will be the baseline value for comparison with those of subsequent periods. Patients will then enter an 8 week blinded-treatment phase (randomly assigned 1:1 to sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril), followed by an 8 week open-label extension phase (treatment with only sacubitril/valsartan). The primary efficacy endpoint is the change in mean activity counts during the most active 30 min of the participant's day between baseline and the final randomized treatment phase measurement. Secondary endpoints include the change in mean sleep activity during the randomized and open-label phases; questionnaires will also assess HRQoL measures. Rather than analysing pooled actigraphy data, the researchers are considering each participant to be acting as his or her own control. CONCLUSIONS: This will be the first study to assess the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on objective measures of sleep and activity in individuals with HFrEF within the context of their daily lives. Wearable accelerometer devices will be used to gain insight into how the medication affects physical activity and sleep.

Association Between Sacubitril/Valsartan Initiation and Health Status Outcomes in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to describe the short-term health status benefits of angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) therapy in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). BACKGROUND: Although therapy with sacubitril/valsartan, a neprilysin inhibitor, improved patients' health status (compared with enalapril) at 8 months in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACE inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) study, the early impact of ARNI on patients' symptoms, functions, and quality of life is unknown. METHODS: Health status was assessed by using the 12-item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) in 3,918 outpatients with HFrEF and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% across 140 U.S. centers in the CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure) registry. ARNI therapy was initiated in 508 patients who were matched 1:2 to 1,016 patients who were not initiated on ARNI (no-ARNI), using a nonparsimonious time-dependent propensity score (6 sociodemographic factors, 23 clinical characteristics), prior KCCQ overall summary (KCCQ-OS) score, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker status. RESULTS: Multivariate linear regression demonstrated a greater mean improvement in KCCQ-OS in patients initiated on ARNI therapy (5.3 ± 19 vs. 2.5 ± 17.4, respectively; p < 0.001) over a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 57 (32 to 104) days. The proportions of ARNI versus no-ARNI groups with ≥10-point (large) and ≥20-point (very large) improvements in KCCQ-OS were 32.7% versus 26.9%, respectively, and 20.5% versus 12.1%, respectively, consistent with numbers needed to treat of 18 and 12, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In routine clinical care, ARNI therapy was associated with early improvements in health status, with 20% experiencing a very large health status benefit compared with 12% who were not started on ARNI therapy. These findings support the use of ARNI to improve patients' symptoms, functions, and quality of life.

Titration of Medical Therapy for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend that patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) have medical therapy titrated to target doses derived from clinical trials, as tolerated. The degree to which titration occurs in contemporary U.S. practice is unknown. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to characterize longitudinal titration of HFrEF medical therapy in clinical practice and to identify associated factors and reasons for medication changes. METHODS: Among 2,588 U.S. outpatients with chronic HFrEF in the CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure) registry with complete medication data and no contraindications to medical therapy, use and dose of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI)/angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), beta-blocker, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) were examined at baseline and at 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: At baseline, 658 (25%), 525 (20%), 287 (11%), and 45 (2%) patients were receiving target doses of MRA, beta-blocker, ACEI/ARB, and ARNI therapy, respectively. At 12 months, proportions of patients with medication initiation or dose increase were 6% for MRA, 10% for beta-blocker, 7% for ACEI/ARB, and 10% for ARNI; corresponding proportions with discontinuation or dose decrease were 4%, 7%, 11%, and 3%, respectively. Over 12 months, <1% of patients were simultaneously treated with target doses of ACEI/ARB/ARNI, beta-blocker, and MRA. In multivariate analysis, across the classes of medications, multiple patient characteristics were associated with a higher likelihood of initiation or dose increase (e.g., previous HF hospitalization, higher blood pressure, lower ejection fraction) and discontinuation or dose decrease (e.g., previous HF hospitalization, impaired quality of life, more severe functional class). Medical reasons were the most common reasons for discontinuations and dose decreases of each therapy, but the relative contributions from patient preference, health team, and systems-based reasons varied by medication. CONCLUSIONS: In this contemporary U.S. registry, most eligible HFrEF patients did not receive target doses of medical therapy at any point during follow-up, and few patients had doses increased over time. Although most patients had no alterations in medical therapy, multiple clinical factors were independently associated with medication changes. Further quality improvement efforts are urgently needed to improve guideline-directed medication titration for HFrEF.