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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition versus enalapril in heart failure.

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

The effects of sacubitril/valsartan on coronary outcomes in PARADIGM-HF.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I), are beneficial both in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF) and after myocardial infarction (MI). We examined the effects of the angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan, compared with the ACE-I enalapril, on coronary outcomes in PARADIGM-HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined the effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril on the following outcomes: i) the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular (CV) death or HF hospitalization, ii) a pre-defined broader composite including, in addition, MI, stroke, and resuscitated sudden death, and iii) a post hoc coronary composite of CV-death, non-fatal MI, angina hospitalization or coronary revascularization. At baseline, of 8399 patients, 3634 (43.3%) had a prior MI and 4796 (57.1%) had a history of any coronary artery disease. Among all patients, compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the risk of the primary outcome (HR 0.80 [0.73-0.87], P<.001), the broader composite (HR 0.83 [0.76-0.90], P<.001) and the coronary composite (HR 0.83 [0.75-0.92], P<.001). Although each of the components of the coronary composite occurred less frequently in the sacubitril/valsartan group, compared with the enalapril group, only CV death was reduced significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the risk of both the primary endpoint and a coronary composite outcome in PARADIGM-HF. Additional studies on the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on atherothrombotic outcomes in high-risk patients are merited.

Geographic variations in the PARADIGM-HF heart failure trial.

AIMS: The globalization of clinical trials has highlighted geographic variations in patient characteristics, event rates, and treatment effects. We investigated these further in PARADIGM-HF, the largest and most globally representative trial in heart failure (HF) to date. METHODS AND RESULTS: We looked at five regions: North America (NA) 602 (8%), Western Europe (WE) 1680 (20%), Central/Eastern Europe/Russia (CEER) 2762 (33%), Latin America (LA) 1433 (17%), and Asia-Pacific (AP) 1487 (18%). Notable differences included: WE patients (mean age 68 years) and NA (65 years) were older than AP (58 years) and LA (63 years) and had more coronary disease; NA and CEER patients had the worst signs, symptoms, and functional status. North American patients were the most likely to have a defibrillating-device (54 vs. 2% AP) and least likely prescribed a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (36 vs. 65% LA). Other evidence-based therapies were used most frequently in NA and WE. Rates of the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death or HF hospitalization (per 100 patient-years) varied among regions: NA 13.6 (95% CI 11.7-15.7) WE 9.6 (8.6-10.6), CEER 12.3 (11.4-13.2), LA 11.2 (10.0-12.5), and AP 12.5 (11.3-13.8). After adjustment for prognostic variables, relative to NA, the risk of CV death was higher in LA and AP and the risk of HF hospitalization lower in WE. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was consistent across regions. CONCLUSION: There were many regional differences in PARADIGM-HF, including in age, symptoms, comorbidity, background therapy, and event-rates, although these did not modify the benefit of sacubitril/valsartan. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255.

Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibition compared with enalapril on the risk of clinical progression in surviving patients with heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials in heart failure have focused on the improvement in symptoms or decreases in the risk of death and other cardiovascular events. Little is known about the effect of drugs on the risk of clinical deterioration in surviving patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared the angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 (400 mg daily) with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril (20 mg daily) in 8399 patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction in a double-blind trial. The analyses focused on prespecified measures of nonfatal clinical deterioration. In comparison with the enalapril group, fewer LCZ696-treated patients required intensification of medical treatment for heart failure (520 versus 604; hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.94; P=0.003) or an emergency department visit for worsening heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.85; P=0.001). The patients in the LCZ696 group had 23% fewer hospitalizations for worsening heart failure (851 versus 1079; P<0.001) and were less likely to require intensive care (768 versus 879; 18% rate reduction, P=0.005), to receive intravenous positive inotropic agents (31% risk reduction, P<0.001), and to have implantation of a heart failure device or cardiac transplantation (22% risk reduction, P=0.07). The reduction in heart failure hospitalization with LCZ696 was evident within the first 30 days after randomization. Worsening of symptom scores in surviving patients was consistently more common in the enalapril group. LCZ696 led to an early and sustained reduction in biomarkers of myocardial wall stress and injury (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and troponin) versus enalapril. CONCLUSIONS: Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition prevents the clinical progression of surviving patients with heart failure more effectively than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255.

Efficacy and safety of LCZ696 (sacubitril-valsartan) according to age: insights from PARADIGM-HF.

BACKGROUND: The age at which heart failure develops varies widely between countries and drug tolerance and outcomes also vary by age. We have examined the efficacy and safety of LCZ696 according to age in the Prospective comparison of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure trial (PARADIGM-HF). METHODS: In PARADIGM-HF, 8399 patients aged 18-96 years and in New York Heart Association functional class II-IV with an LVEF ≤40% were randomized to either enalapril or LCZ696. We examined the pre-specified efficacy and safety outcomes according to age category (years): <55 (n = 1624), 55-64 (n = 2655), 65-74 (n = 2557), and ≥75 (n = 1563). FINDINGS: The rate (per 100 patient-years) of the primary outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH) increased from 13.4 to 14.8 across the age categories. The LCZ696:enalapril hazard ratio (HR) was <1.0 in all categories (P for interaction between age category and treatment = 0.94) with an overall HR of 0.80 (0.73, 0.87), P < 0.001. The findings for HFH were similar for CV and all-cause mortality and the age category by treatment interactions were not significant. The pre-specified safety outcomes of hypotension, renal impairment and hyperkalaemia increased in both treatment groups with age, although the differences between treatment (more hypotension but less renal impairment and hyperkalaemia with LCZ696) were consistent across age categories. INTERPRETATION: LCZ696 was more beneficial than enalapril across the spectrum of age in PARADIGM-HF with a favourable benefit-risk profile in all age groups.

Effect of the angiotensin-receptor-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 compared with enalapril on mode of death in heart failure patients.

AIMS: The angiotensin-receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) LCZ696 reduced cardiovascular deaths and all-cause mortality compared with enalapril in patients with chronic heart failure in the prospective comparison of ARNI with an Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial. To more completely understand the components of this mortality benefit, we examined the effect of LCZ696 on mode of death. METHODS AND RESULTS: PARADIGM-HF was a prospective, double-blind, randomized trial in 8399 patients with chronic heart failure, New York Heart Association Class II-IV symptoms, and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% receiving guideline-recommended medical therapy and followed for a median of 27 months. Mode of death was adjudicated by a blinded clinical endpoints committee. The majority of deaths were cardiovascular (80.9%), and the risk of cardiovascular death was significantly reduced by treatment with LCZ (hazard ratio, HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72-0.89, P < 0.001). Among cardiovascular deaths, both sudden cardiac death (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68-0.94, P = 0.008) and death due to worsening heart failure (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64-0.98, P = 0.034) were reduced by treatment with LCZ696 compared with enalapril. Deaths attributed to other cardiovascular causes, including myocardial infarction and stroke, were infrequent and distributed evenly between treatment groups, as were non-cardiovascular deaths. CONCLUSIONS: LCZ696 was superior to enalapril in reducing both sudden cardiac deaths and deaths from worsening heart failure, which accounted for the majority of cardiovascular deaths. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://clinicaltrials.gov/, NCT01035255.

A putative placebo analysis of the effects of LCZ696 on clinical outcomes in heart failure.

AIMS: Although active-controlled trials with renin­angiotensin inhibitors are ethically mandated in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, clinicians and regulators often want to know how the experimental therapy would perform compared with placebo. The angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 was compared with enalapril in PARADIGM-HF. We made indirect comparisons of the effects of LCZ696 with putative placebos. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used the treatment-arm of the Studies Of Left Ventricular Dysfunction (SOLVD-T) as the reference trial for comparison of an ACE inhibitor to placebo and the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity-Alternative trial (CHARM-Alternative) as the reference trial for comparison of an ARB to placebo. The hazard ratio of LCZ696 vs. a putative placebo was estimated through the product of the hazard ratio of LCZ696 vs. enalapril (active-control) and that of the historical active-control (enalapril or candesartan) vs. placebo. For the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization in PARADIGM-HF, the relative risk reduction with LCZ696 vs. a putative placebo from SOLVD-T was 43% (95%CI 34­50%; P < 0.0001) with similarly large effects on cardiovascular death (34%, 21­44%; P < 0.0001) and heart failure hospitalization (49%, 39­58%; P < 0.0001). For all-cause mortality, the reduction compared with a putative placebo was 28% (95%CI 15­39%; P < 0.0001). Putative placebo analyses based on CHARM-Alternative gave relative risk reductions of 39% (95%CI 27­48%; P < 0.0001) for the composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization, 32% (95%CI 16­45%; P < 0.0001) for cardiovascular death, 46% (33­56%; P < 0.0001) for heart failure hospitalization, and 26% (95%CI 11­39%; P < 0.0001) for all-cause mortality. CONCLUSION: These indirect comparisons of LCZ696 with a putative placebo show that the strategy of combined angiotensin receptor blockade and neprilysin inhibition led to striking reductions in cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, as well as heart failure hospitalization. These benefits were obtained even though LCZ696 was added to comprehensive background beta-blocker and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist therapy.

Prevalent and Incident Anemia in PARADIGM-HF and the Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan.

BACKGROUND: Anemia is common in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Renin-angiotensin system blockers lower hemoglobin and may induce anemia. OBJECTIVES: The authors investigated whether concomitant neprilysin inhibition might ameliorate this effect of renin-angiotensin system blockers in PARADIGM-HF (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure). METHODS: Anemia was defined as hemoglobin <120 g/L in women and <130 g/L in men at screening. The authors investigated the effect of randomized treatment on clinical outcomes according to anemia status, change in hemoglobin from baseline, and the incidence of anemia. RESULTS: Of 8,239 participants with a baseline hemoglobin measurement, 1,677 (20.4%) were anemic. Patients with anemia had a more severe heart failure profile, worse kidney function, greater neurohormonal derangement, and worse clinical outcomes. Sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, decreased the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization similarly in patients with (HR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.71-1.00) and without anemia (HR: 0.78 [95% CI: 0.71-0.87]; P value for interaction = 0.478). Between baseline and 12 months, hemoglobin decreased by 1.5 g/L (95% CI: 1.2-1.7 g/L) with sacubitril/valsartan compared with 2.3 g/L (95% CI: 2.0-2.6 g/L) with enalapril: mean difference 0.8 g/L (95% CI: 0.5-1.2 g/L; P < 0.001). Patients assigned to sacubitril/valsartan were less likely to develop anemia at 12 months (321 of 2,806 [11.4%]) compared with patients randomized to enalapril (440 of 2,824 [15.6%]) (OR: 0.70 [95% CI: 0.60-0.81]; P < 0.001). These findings were similar in PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction) (sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan). There was biomarker evidence of increased iron utilization with sacubitril/valsartan. CONCLUSIONS: Irrespective of anemia status, sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril, decreased mortality and hospitalization. Hemoglobin decreased less with sacubitril/valsartan and the incidence of new anemia was lower with sacubitril/valsartan. (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF] trial; NCT01035255).

Iron indices and intravenous ferumoxytol: time to steady-state.

BACKGROUND: The ongoing nature of iron loss in patients receiving hemodialysis makes it difficult to maintain adequate iron stores without supplementation. The effects of ferumoxytol on iron indices have been measured 35 days after baseline, but no study has assessed indices at earlier points in time. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the time to transferrin saturation (TSAT) and ferritin stabilization, the point at which TSAT and serum ferritin levels can be accurately measured during a 13-treatment period following a loading dose of ferumoxytol. METHODS: Ferumoxytol was administered according to the package insert to 15 adults undergoing hemodialysis. Vital signs were recorded before treatment, 30 and 60 minutes after receiving ferumoxytol, and at the end of treatment to monitor for adverse reactions and hemodynamic instability. Monitoring continued for a 13-treatment period (30 days) after drug administration. Blood was collected throughout the study to measure TSAT, ferritin, hemoglobin (Hb), and C-reactive protein (CRP). RESULTS: TSAT values at 14, 21, and 28 days after drug administration were not significantly different from those at 7 days, signifying that TSAT values stabilized by day 7. Serum ferritin values at day 14 were significantly lower than those 7 days after drug administration (p = 0.028). Although serum ferritin values at days 21 and 28 tended to decrease relative to values at day 14, the differences were not statistically significant. Therefore, it appears that serum ferritin stabilized by day 14 after drug administration. Mean (SD) Hb values at screening and at end of the study were 11.7 (1.0) g/dL and 12.0 (0.9) g/dL, respectively (p = NS). CRP also did not change significantly throughout the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Dialysis patients achieve stable iron indices quickly. TSAT stabilized by day 7 and ferritin stabilized 14 days after a loading dose of ferumoxytol 1 g. Adverse effects were minimal and did not necessitate discontinuation of ferumoxytol.

Natriuretic peptide-based inclusion criteria in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction clinical trials: insights from PARAGON-HF.

AIM: Natriuretic peptides (NPs) are now routinely incorporated as key inclusion criteria in clinical trials of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) as objective measures of risk. An early amendment in PARAGON-HF required all participants to have elevated NP concentrations, but some were enrolled pre-amendment, providing a unique opportunity to understand the influence of enrolment pathway in HFpEF clinical trials. METHODS AND RESULTS: Among 4796 participants in PARAGON-HF, 193 (4.0%) did not meet the final NP-based enrolment criteria (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide >300 pg/ml for patients in sinus rhythm or >900 pg/ml for patients in atrial fibrillation/flutter). These patients had lower rates of the primary endpoint of total heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular death as compared with patients meeting final enrolment criteria (8.6 [6.7-11.2] events per 100 patient-years vs. 14.0 [13.4-14.7] events per 100 patient-years; p = 0.01). The rate ratio for the treatment effect comparing sacubitril/valsartan with valsartan was 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.74-0.99; p = 0.04) in those who met final criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Natriuretic peptides are an important tool in HFpEF clinical trials to objectively affirm diagnoses and enrich clinical event rates.

Diabetes and pre-diabetes in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction.

AIM: There is an association between heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and insulin resistance, but less is known about the diabetic continuum, and in particular about pre-diabetes, in HFpEF. We examined characteristics and outcomes of participants with diabetes or pre-diabetes in PARAGON-HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients aged ≥50 years with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥45%, structural heart disease and elevated N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) were eligible. Patients were classified according to glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c): (i) normal HbA1c, <6.0%; (ii) pre-diabetes, 6.0%-6.4%; (iii) diabetes, ≥6.5% or history of diabetes. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death and total heart failure hospitalizations (HFH). Of 4796 patients, 50% had diabetes and 18% had pre-diabetes. Compared to patients with normal HbA1c, patients with pre-diabetes and diabetes more often were obese, had a history of myocardial infarction and had lower Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores, while patients with diabetes had more clinical evidence of congestion, but similar NT-proBNP concentrations. The risks of the primary composite outcome (rate ratio [RR] 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35-1.88), total HFH (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.39-2.02) and CV death (hazard ratio [HR] 1.35, 95% CI 1.07-1.71) were higher among patients with diabetes, compared to those with normal HbA1c. Patients with pre-diabetes had a higher risk (which was intermediate between that of patients with diabetes and those with normal HbA1c) of the primary outcome (HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.00-1.60) and HFH (HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.03-1.77), but not of CV death (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.75-1.40). Patients with diabetes treated with insulin had worse outcomes than those not, and those with 'lean diabetes' had similar mortality rates to those with a higher body mass index, but lower rates of HFH. CONCLUSION: Pre-diabetes is common in patients with HFpEF and is associated with worse clinical status and greater risk of HFH. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01920711.

Sacubitril/Valsartan and Frailty in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is an increasingly common problem, and frail patients are less likely to receive new pharmacologic therapies because the risk-benefit profile is perceived to be less favorable than in nonfrail patients. OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan according to frailty status in 4,796 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction randomized in the PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial. METHODS: Frailty was measured by using the Rockwood cumulative deficit approach. The primary endpoint was total heart failure hospitalizations or cardiovascular death. RESULTS: A frailty index (FI) was calculable in 4,795 patients. In total, 45.2% had class 1 frailty (FI ≤0.210, not frail), 43.5% had class 2 frailty (FI 0.211-0.310, more frail), and 11.4% had class 3 frailty (FI ≥0.311, most frail). There was a graded relationship between FI class and the primary endpoint, with a significantly higher risk associated with greater frailty (class 1: reference; class 2 rate ratio: 2.19 [95% CI: 1.85-2.60]; class 3 rate ratio: 3.29 [95% CI: 2.65-4.09]). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan on the primary endpoint from lowest to highest FI class (as a rate ratio) was: 0.98 [95% CI: 0.76-1.27], 0.92 [95% CI: 0.76-1.12], and 0.69 [95% CI: 0.51-0.95]), respectively (Pinteraction = 0.23). When FI was examined as a continuous variable, the interaction with treatment was significant for the primary outcome (Pinteraction = 0.002) and total heart failure hospitalizations (Pinteraction < 0.001), with those most frail deriving greater benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Frailty was common in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and associated with worse outcomes. Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan seemed to show a greater reduction in the primary endpoint with increasing frailty, although this was not significant when FI was examined as a categorical variable. (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711).

Worsening Heart Failure Episodes Outside a Hospital Setting in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: The PARAGON-HF Trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the frequency and prognostic implications of urgent heart failure (HF) visits in a large global clinical trial of HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). BACKGROUND: Episodes of worsening HF managed without hospitalization are common and prognostically important in HF with reduced ejection fraction (EF). The significance of these ambulatory worsening HF events in HFpEF is uncertain. METHODS: PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction) randomly assigned 4,796 patients with HFpEF (≥45%) to treatment with sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan with a primary composite endpoint of total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death. Urgent ambulatory HF visits requiring intravenous diuretic treatment were prospectively collected and adjudicated by a blinded committee. We examined the effect of study treatment on a prespecified expanded composite of cardiovascular death and worsening HF events (including HF hospitalizations and urgent HF visits) and the effect of each type of HF event on subsequent mortality. RESULTS: Of 884 first worsening HF events, 66 (7.5%) were urgent HF visits. Patients whose first episode of worsening HF event was an urgent visit had similar age, comorbidities, baseline N-terminal prohormone of B-type natriuretic peptide, and Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure risk scores to those in whom the first HF event was a hospitalization (all comparisons p > 0.05). Regardless of the treatment setting, patients with a first episode of worsening HF had higher rates of subsequent death (19.2 per 100 patient-years; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 16.9 to 21.8 for HF hospitalization and 10.1 per 100 patients-years; 95% CI: 5.4 to 18.7 for urgent HF visit) compared with those who did not experience worsening HF (death rate 4.0 per 100 patient-years; 95% CI: 3.6 to 4.4). Including total urgent HF visits in the composite study endpoint added 95 total events and would have shortened the trial duration needed for event accrual. The addition of urgent HF visits in a prespecified composite endpoint reinforced the treatment efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan (rate ratio 0.86; 95% CI: 0.75 to 0.99; p = 0.040). CONCLUSIONS: Like HF hospitalizations, worsening HF events treated in the ambulatory setting are prognostically important in HFpEF. Inclusion of these events in the composite primary endpoint underscores the benefit of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in PARAGON-HF. (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF 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.