Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists in Patients With Heart Failure and Impaired Renal Function.

BACKGROUND: Kidney dysfunction often leads to reluctance to start or continue life-saving heart failure (HF) therapy. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the efficacy and safety of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction experiencing significant kidney dysfunction. METHODS: We pooled individual patient data from the RALES (Randomized Aldactone Evaluation Study) and EMPHASIS-HF (Eplerenone in Mild Patients Hospitalization and Survival Study in Heart Failure) trials. The association between MRA treatment and outcomes was assessed according to whether the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) declined to <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 or not. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. RESULTS: Among 4,355 patients included, 295 (6.8%) experienced a deterioration of eGFR after randomization to <30 mL/min/1.73 m2. These patients had more impaired baseline cardiac and kidney function (eGFR 47.3 ± 13.4 mL/min/1.73 m2 vs 70.5 ± 21.8 mL/min/1.73 m2) and had a higher risk of the primary outcome than patients without eGFR deterioration (HR: 2.49; 95% CI: 2.01-3.08; P < 0.001). However, the risk reduction in the primary outcome with MRA therapy was similar in those who experienced a decrease in eGFR to <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 (HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.43-0.99) compared with those who did not (HR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.56-0.71) (Pinteraction = 0.87). In patients with a decrease in eGFR to <30 mL/min/1.73 m2, 21 fewer individuals (per 100 person-years) experienced the primary outcome with MRA treatment, vs placebo, compared with an excess of 3 more patients with severe hyperkalemia (>6.0 mmol/L). CONCLUSIONS: Because patients experiencing a decrease in eGFR to <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 are at very high risk, the absolute risk reduction with an MRA in these patients is large and this decline in eGFR should not automatically lead to treatment discontinuation.

Incremental prognostic value of biomarkers in PARADIGM-HF.

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

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.

Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition and renal outcomes across the spectrum of ejection fraction in heart failure.

AIMS: Patients with heart failure are at higher risk of progression to end-stage renal disease (ESRD), regardless of ejection fraction (EF). We assessed the renal effects of angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition in a pooled analysis of 13 195 patients with heart failure with reduced and preserved EF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We combined data from PARADIGM-HF (EF ≤40%; n = 8399) and PARAGON-HF (EF ≥45%; n = 4796) in a pre-specified pooled analysis. We assessed the effect of treatment (sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril or valsartan) on a composite of either ≥50% reduction in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), ESRD, or death from renal causes, in addition to changes in eGFR slope. We assessed whether baseline renal function or EF modified the effect of therapy on renal outcomes. At randomization, eGFR was 68 ± 20 ml/min/1.73 m2 in PARADIGM-HF and 63 ± 19 ml/min/1.73 m2 in PARAGON-HF. The composite renal outcome occurred in 70 of 6594 patients (1.1%) in the sacubitril/valsartan group and in 123 of 6601 patients (1.9%) in the valsartan or enalapril group (hazard ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42-0.75; p < 0.001). The mean eGFR change was -1.8 (95% CI -1.9 to -1.7) ml/min/1.73 m2 /year for the sacubitril/valsartan group, compared with -2.4 (95% CI -2.5 to -2.2) ml/min/1.73 m2 /year for the valsartan or enalapril group. The treatment effect on the composite renal endpoint was not modified by categories of baseline eGFR (p-interaction = 0.64), but was most pronounced in those with baseline EF between 30% and 60% (p-interaction = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the risk of serious adverse renal outcomes and slowed decline in eGFR, compared with valsartan or enalapril, independent of baseline renal function.

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.

Incidence and Outcomes of Pneumonia in Patients With Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of pneumonia and subsequent outcomes has not been compared in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to examine the rate and impact of pneumonia in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) and PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction) trials. METHODS: The authors analyzed the incidence of investigator-reported pneumonia and the rates of HF hospitalization, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death before and after the occurrence of pneumonia, and estimated risk after the first occurrence of pneumonia in unadjusted and adjusted analyses (the latter including N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide). RESULTS: In PARADIGM-HF, 528 patients (6.3%) developed pneumonia after randomization, giving an incidence rate of 29 (95% CI: 27 to 32) per 1,000 patient-years. In PARAGON-HF, 510 patients (10.6%) developed pneumonia, giving an incidence rate of 39 (95% CI: 36 to 42) per 1,000 patient-years. The subsequent risk of all trial outcomes was elevated after the occurrence of pneumonia. In PARADIGM-HF, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for the risk of death from any cause was 4.34 (95% CI: 3.73 to 5.05). The corresponding adjusted HR in PARAGON-HF was 3.76 (95% CI: 3.09 to 4.58). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of pneumonia was high in patients with HF, especially HFpEF, at around 3 times the expected rate. A first episode of pneumonia was associated with 4-fold higher mortality. (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF], NCT01035255; Prospective Comparison of ARNI [Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor] With ARB [Angiotensin Receptor Blocker] Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF], NCT01920711).

Cardiac and Noncardiac Disease Burden and Treatment Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan: Insights From a Combined PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The net clinical benefit of cardiac disease-modifying drugs might be influenced by the interaction of different domains of disease burden. We assessed the relative contribution of cardiac, comorbid, and demographic factors in heart failure (HF) and how their interplay might influence HF prognosis and efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction. METHODS: We combined data from 2 global trials that evaluated the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan compared with a renin-angiotensin antagonist in symptomatic HF patients (PARADIGM-HF [Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With an Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure; n=8399] and PARAGON-HF [Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptors Blockers Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction; n=4796]). We decomposed the previously validated Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure risk score into cardiac (left ventricular ejection fraction, New York Heart Association class, blood pressure, time since HF diagnosis, HF medications), noncardiac comorbid (body mass index, creatinine, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, smoking), and demographic (age, gender) categories. Based on these domains, an index representing the balance of cardiac to noncardiac comorbid burden was created (cardiac-comorbid index). Clinical outcomes were time to first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular deaths and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Higher scores of the cardiac domain were observed in PARADIGM-HF (10 [7-13] versus 5 [3-6], P<0.001) and higher scores of the demographic domain in PARAGON-HF (10 [8-13] versus 5 [2-9], P<0.001). In PARADIGM-HF, the contribution of the cardiac domain to clinical outcomes was greater than the noncardiac domain (P<0.001), while in PARAGON-HF the attributable risk of the comorbid and demographic categories predominated. Individual scores from each sub-domain were linearly associated with the risk of clinical outcomes (P<0.001). Beneficial effects of sacubitril/valsartan were observed in patients with preponderance of cardiac over noncardiac comorbid burden (cardiac-comorbid index >5 points), suggesting a significant treatment effect modification (interaction P<0.05 for both outcomes). CONCLUSIONS: Domains of disease burden are clinically relevant features that influence the prognosis and treatment of patients with HF. The therapeutic benefits of sacubitril/valsartan vary according to the balance of components of disease burden, across different ranges of left ventricular ejection fraction.

Age-Related Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Although heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is considered a disease of the elderly, younger patients are not spared from this syndrome. OBJECTIVES: This study therefore investigated the associations among age, clinical characteristics, and outcomes in patients with HFpEF. METHODS: Using data on patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥45% from 3 large HFpEF trials (TOPCAT [Aldosterone Antagonist Therapy for Adults With Heart Failure and Preserved Systolic Function], I-PRESERVE [Irbesartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Systolic Function], and CHARM Preserved [Candesartan Cilexetil in Heart Failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity]), patients were categorized according to age: ≤55 years (n = 522), 56 to 64 years (n = 1,679), 65 to 74 years (n = 3,405), 75 to 84 years (n = 2,464), and ≥85 years (n = 398). This study compared clinical and echocardiographic characteristics, as well as mortality and hospitalization rates, mode of death, and quality of life across age categories. RESULTS: Younger patients (age ≤55 years) with HFpEF were more often obese, nonwhite men, whereas older patients with HFpEF were more often white women with a higher prevalence of atrial fibrillation, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease (eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m2). Despite fewer comorbidities, younger patients had worse quality of life compared with older patients (age ≥85 years). Compared with patients age ≤55 years, patients age ≥85 years had higher mortality (hazard ratio: 6.9; 95% confidence interval: 4.2 to 11.4). However, among patients who died, sudden death was, proportionally, the most common mode of death (p < 0.001) in patients age ≤55 years. In contrast, older patients (age ≥85 years) died more often from noncardiovascular causes (34% vs. 20% in patients age ≤55 years; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the elderly, younger patients with HFpEF were less likely to be white, were more frequently obese men, and died more often of cardiovascular causes, particularly sudden death. In contrast, elderly patients with HFpEF had more comorbidities and died more often from noncardiovascular causes. (Aldosterone Antagonist Therapy for Adults With Heart Failure and Preserved Systolic Function [TOPCAT]; NCT00094302; Irbesartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Systolic Function [I-PRESERVE]; NCT00095238; Candesartan Cilexetil in Heart Failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity [CHARM Preserved]; NCT00634712).

Estimated 5-Year Number Needed to Treat to Prevent Cardiovascular Death or Heart Failure Hospitalization With Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibition vs Standard Therapy for Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: An Analysis of Data From the PARADIGM-HF Trial.

Importance: The addition of receptor-neprilysin inhibition to standard therapy, including a renin-angiotensin system blocker, has been demonstrated to improve outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) compared with standard therapy alone. The long-term absolute risk reduction from angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) therapy, and whether it merits widespread use among diverse subpopulations, has not been well described. Objective: To calculate estimated 5-year number needed to treat (NNT) values overall and for different subpopulations for the Prospective Comparison of ARNI with Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor (ACEI) to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) cohort. Design, Setting, and Participants: Overall and subpopulation 5-year NNT values were estimated for different end points using data from PARADIGM-HF, a double-blind, randomized trial of sacubitril-valsartan vs enalapril. This multicenter, international study included 8399 men and women with HFrEF (ejection fraction, ≤40%). The study began in December 2009 and ended in March 2014. Analyses began in March 2018. Interventions: Random assignment to sacubitril-valsartan or enalapril. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization, cardiovascular death, and all-cause mortality. Results: The final cohort of 8399 individuals included 1832 women (21.8%) and 5544 white individuals (66.0%), with a mean (SD) age of 63.8 (11.4) years. The 5-year estimated NNT for the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization with ARNI therapy incremental to ACEI therapy in the overall cohort was 14. The 5-year estimated NNT values were calculated for different clinically relevant subpopulations and ranged from 12 to 19. The 5-year estimated NNT for all-cause mortality in the overall cohort with ARNI incremental to ACEI was 21, with values ranging from 16 to 31 among different subgroups. Compared with imputed placebo, the 5-year estimated NNT for all-cause mortality with ARNI was 11. The 5-year estimated NNT values were also calculated for other HFrEF therapies compared with controls from landmark trials for all-cause mortality and were found to be 18 for ACEI, 24 for angiotensin receptor blockers, 8 for ß-blockers, 15 for mineralocorticoid antagonists, 14 for implantable cardioverter defibrillator, and 14 for cardiac resynchronization therapy. Conclusions and Relevance: The 5-year estimated NNT with ARNI therapy incremental to ACEI therapy overall and for clinically relevant subpopulations of patients with HFrEF are comparable with those for well-established HF therapeutics. These data further support guideline recommendations for use of ARNI therapy among eligible patients with HFrEF.

Incidence, Predictors, and Outcomes Associated With Hypotensive Episodes Among Heart Failure Patients Receiving Sacubitril/Valsartan or Enalapril: The PARADIGM-HF Trial (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure).

BACKGROUND: In PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure), heart failure treatment with sacubitril/valsartan reduced the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization compared with enalapril but resulted in more symptomatic hypotension. Concern on hypotension may be limiting use of sacubitril/valsartan in appropriate patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: We characterized patients in PARADIGM-HF by whether they reported hypotension during study run-in periods (enalapril, followed by sacubitril/valsartan) and after randomization and assessed whether hypotension modified the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan. Of the 10 513 patients entering the enalapril run-in, 136 (1.3%) experienced hypotension and 93 (68%) were unable to continue to the next phase; of 9419 patients entering the sacubitril/valsartan run-in period, 228 (2.4%) patients experienced hypotension and 51% were unable to successfully complete the run-in. After randomization, 388 (9.2%) participants had 501 hypotensive events with enalapril, and 588 (14.0%) participants had 803 hypotensive events with sacubitril/valsartan (P<0.001). There was no difference between randomized treatment groups in the number of participants who discontinued therapy because of hypotension. Individuals with a hypotensive event in either group were older, had lower blood pressure at randomization, and were more likely to have an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Participants with hypotensive events during run-in who were ultimately randomized derived similar efficacy from sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril as those without hypotensive events (P interaction>0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Hypotension was more common with sacubitril/valsartan relative to enalapril in PARADIGM-HF but did not differentially affect permanent discontinuations. Patients with hypotension during run-in derived similar benefit from sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril as those who did not experience hypotension.

Renal Effects and Associated Outcomes During Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibition in Heart Failure.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the renal effects of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. BACKGROUND: Renal function is frequently impaired in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and may deteriorate further after blockade of the renin-angiotensin system. METHODS: In the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACE inhibition to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial, 8,399 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction were randomized to treatment with sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril. The estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was available for all patients, and the urinary albumin/creatinine ratio (UACR) was available in 1872 patients, at screening, randomization, and at fixed time intervals during follow-up. We evaluated the effect of study treatment on change in eGFR and UACR, and on renal and cardiovascular outcomes, according to eGFR and UACR. RESULTS: At screening, the eGFR was 70 ± 20 ml/min/1.73 m2 and 2,745 patients (33%) had chronic kidney disease; the median UACR was 1.0 mg/mmol (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.4 to 3.2 mg/mmol) and 24% had an increased UACR. The decrease in eGFR during follow-up was less with sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril (-1.61 ml/min/1.73 m2/year; [95% confidence interval: -1.77 to -1.44 ml/min/1.73 m2/year] vs. -2.04 ml/min/1.73 m2/year [95% CI: -2.21 to -1.88 ml/min/1.73 m2/year ]; p < 0.001) despite a greater increase in UACR with sacubitril/valsartan than with enalapril (1.20 mg/mmol [95% CI: 1.04 to 1.36 mg/mmol] vs. 0.90 mg/mmol [95% CI: 0.77 to 1.03 mg/mmol]; p < 0.001). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan on cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization was not modified by eGFR, UACR (p interaction = 0.70 and 0.34, respectively), or by change in UACR (p interaction = 0.38). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan led to a slower rate of decrease in the eGFR and improved cardiovascular outcomes, even in patients with chronic kidney disease, despite causing a modest increase in UACR.

Hyporesponsiveness to Darbepoetin Alfa in Patients With Heart Failure and Anemia in the RED-HF Study (Reduction of Events by Darbepoetin Alfa in Heart Failure): Clinical and Prognostic Associations.

BACKGROUND: A poor response to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents such as darbepoetin alfa has been associated with adverse outcomes in patients with diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, and anemia; whether this is also true in heart failure is unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a post hoc analysis of the RED-HF trial (Reduction of Events by Darbepoetin Alfa in Heart Failure), in which 1008 patients with systolic heart failure and anemia (hemoglobin level, 9.0-12.0 g/dL) were randomized to darbepoetin alfa. We examined the relationship between the hematopoietic response to darbepoetin alfa and the incidence of all-cause death or first heart failure hospitalization during a follow-up of 28 months. For the purposes of the present study, patients in the lowest quartile of hemoglobin change after 4 weeks were considered nonresponders. The median initial hemoglobin change in nonresponders (n=252) was -0.25 g/dL and +1.00 g/dL in the remainder of patients (n=756). Worse renal function, lower sodium levels, and less use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers were independently associated with nonresponse. Although a low endogenous erythropoietin level helped to differentiate responders from nonresponders, its predictive value in a multivariable model was poor (C statistic=0.69). Nonresponders had a higher rate of all-cause death or first heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.54) and a higher risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.63) than responders. CONCLUSIONS: A poor response to darbepoetin alfa was associated with worse outcomes in heart failure patients with anemia. Patients with a poor response were difficult to identify using clinical and biochemical biomarkers. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00358215.

Prognostic importance of emerging cardiac, inflammatory, and renal biomarkers in chronic heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction and anaemia: RED-HF study.

AIMS: To test the prognostic value of emerging biomarkers in the Reduction of Events by Darbepoetin Alfa in Heart Failure (RED-HF) trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Circulating cardiac [N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and high-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT)], neurohumoral [mid-regional pro-adrenomedullin (MR-proADM) and copeptin], renal (cystatin C), and inflammatory [high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP)] biomarkers were measured at randomization in 1853 participants with complete data. The relationship between these biomarkers and the primary composite endpoint of heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death over 28 months of follow-up (n = 834) was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression, the c-statistic and the net reclassification index (NRI). After adjustment, the hazard ratio (HR) for the composite outcome in the top tertile of the distribution compared to the lowest tertile for each biomarker was: NT-proBNP 3.96 (95% CI 3.16-4.98), hsTnT 3.09 (95% CI 2.47-3.88), MR-proADM 2.28 (95% CI 1.83-2.84), copeptin 1.66 (95% CI 1.35-2.04), cystatin C 1.92 (95% CI 1.55-2.37), and hsCRP 1.51 (95% CI 1.27-1.80). A basic clinical prediction model was improved on addition of each biomarker individually, most strongly by NT-proBNP (NRI +62.3%, P < 0.001), but thereafter was only improved marginally by addition of hsTnT (NRI +33.1%, P = 0.004). Further addition of biomarkers did not improve discrimination further. Findings were similar for all-cause mortality. CONCLUSION: Once NT-proBNP is included, only hsTnT moderately further improved risk stratification in this group of chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients with moderate anaemia. NT-proBNP and hsTnT far outperform other emerging biomarkers in prediction of adverse outcome.

Sacubitril/valsartan reduces serum uric acid concentration, an independent predictor of adverse outcomes in PARADIGM-HF.

AIMS: Elevated serum uric acid concentration (SUA) has been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, but this may be due to unmeasured confounders. We examined the association between SUA and outcomes as well as the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on SUA in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in PARADIGM-HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: The association between SUA and the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization, its components, and all-cause mortality was examined using Cox regression analyses among 8213 patients using quintiles (Q1-Q5) of SUA adjusted for baseline prognostic variables including estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), diuretic dose, and log N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide. Change in SUA from baseline over 12 months was also evaluated in each treatment group. Patients in Q5 (SUA ≥8.6 mg/dL) compared with Q1 (<5.4 mg/dL) were younger (62.8 vs. 64.2 years), more often male (88.7% vs. 63.1%), had lower systolic blood pressure (119 vs. 123 mmHg), lower eGFR (57.4 vs. 76.6 mL/min/1.73 m2 ), and greater diuretic use. Higher SUA was associated with a higher risk of the primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratios) Q5 vs. Q1 = 1.28 [95% confidence intervals (1.09-1.50), P = 0.003], cardiovascular death [1.44 (1.11-1.77), P = 0.001], HF hospitalization [1.37 (1.11-1.70), P = 0.004], and all-cause mortality [1.36 (1.13-1.64), P = 0.001]. Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan reduced SUA by 0.24 (0.17-0.32) mg/dL over 12 months (P < 0.0001). Sacubitril/valsartan improved outcomes, irrespective of SUA concentration. CONCLUSION: Serum uric acid concentration was an independent predictor of worse outcomes after multivariable adjustment in patients with HFrEF. Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan reduced SUA and improved outcomes irrespective of SUA.

Heart rate and its reduction in chronic heart failure and beyond.

Heart rate (HR) is associated with cardiovascular outcomes in all the stages of the cardiovascular continuum as well as in patients with pulmonary, cerebrovascular, and renal disease, sepsis, cancer, and erectile dysfunction. In patients with cardiovascular disease, but also in the general population, increased HR represents an important indicator of mortality with each acceleration of HR over 70 b.p.m. increasing the risk. In patients in sinus rhythm with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), a HR >70 b.p.m. increased the risk of hospitalization, and >75 b.p.m. the risk of cardiovascular death as shown in the Systolic Heart Failure Treatment with the If Inhibitor Ivabradine Trial (SHIFT). Reducing HR with ivabradine by 11 b.p.m. (placebo-controlled) reduced the primary composite endpoint (cardiovascular death and hospitalization for worsening heart failure). Ivabradine was well tolerated showing benefit irrespective of age or diabetes status, and also in the presence of low systolic blood pressure and severe heart failure (SHIFT trial). Therefore, HR qualifies as a modifiable risk factor in heart failure. In patients with stable coronary disease, HR is a risk marker but HR reduction with ivabradine does not improve outcomes. The role of selective HR lowering remains unclear in patients with pulmonary, renal, cerebrovascular, and other diseases, as the potential benefit of interventions on HR has not been explored in these conditions. Future studies should scrutinize if HR reduction improves outcomes, defining HR as a potential risk factor and therapeutic target in other conditions beyond heart failure.

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.

Dementia-related adverse events in PARADIGM-HF and other trials in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

AIMS: Inhibition of neprilysin, an enzyme degrading natriuretic and other vasoactive peptides, is beneficial in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), as shown in PARADIGM-HF which compared the angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan with enalapril. As neprilysin is also one of many enzymes clearing amyloid-ß peptides from the brain, there is a theoretical concern about the long-term effects of sacubitril/valsartan on cognition. Therefore, we have examined dementia-related adverse effects (AEs) in PARADIGM-HF and placed these findings in the context of other recently conducted HFrEF trials. METHODS AND RESULTS: In PARADIGM-HF, patients with symptomatic HFrEF were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan 97/103 mg b.i.d. or enalapril 10 mg b.i.d. in a 1:1 ratio. We systematically searched AE reports, coded using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA), using Standardized MedDRA Queries (SMQs) with 'broad' and 'narrow' preferred terms related to dementia. In PARADIGM-HF, 8399 patients aged 18-96 years were randomized and followed for a median of 2.25 years (up to 4.3 years). The narrow SMQ search identified 27 dementia-related AEs: 15 (0.36%) on enalapril and 12 (0.29%) on sacubitril/valsartan [hazard ratio (HR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33-1.59]. The broad search identified 97 (2.30%) and 104 (2.48%) AEs (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.75-1.37), respectively. The rates of dementia-related AEs in both treatment groups in PARADIGM-HF were similar to those in three other recent trials in HFrEF. CONCLUSION: We found no evidence that sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, increased dementia-related AEs, although longer follow-up may be necessary to detect such a signal and more sensitive tools are needed to detect lesser degrees of cognitive impairment. Further studies to address this question are warranted.

Efficacy of Sacubitril/Valsartan Relative to a Prior Decompensation: The PARADIGM-HF Trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study assessed whether the benefit of sacubtril/valsartan therapy varied with clinical stability. BACKGROUND: Despite the benefit of sacubitril/valsartan therapy shown in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial, it has been suggested that switching from an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker should be delayed until occurrence of clinical decompensation. METHODS: Outcomes were compared among patients who had prior hospitalization within 3 months of screening (n = 1,611 [19%]), between 3 and 6 months (n = 1,009 [12%]), between 6 and 12 months (n = 886 [11%]), >12 months (n = 1,746 [21%]), or who had never been hospitalized (n = 3,125 [37%]). RESULTS: Twenty percent of patients without prior HF hospitalization experienced a primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization during the course of the trial. Despite the increased risk associated with more recent hospitalization, the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan therapy did not differ from that of enalapril according to the occurrence of or time from hospitalization for HF before screening, with respect to the primary endpoint or with respect to cardiovascular or all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with recent HF decompensation requiring hospitalization were more likely to experience cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization than those who had never been hospitalized. Patients who were clinically stable, as shown by a remote HF hospitalization (>3 months prior to screening) or by lack of any prior HF hospitalization, were as likely to benefit from sacubitril/valsartan therapy as more recently hospitalized patients. (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF]; NCT01035255).