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.).

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.

Prognostic Implications of Congestion on Physical Examination Among Contemporary Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: PARADIGM-HF.

BACKGROUND: The contemporary prognostic value of the physical examination- beyond traditional risk factors including natriuretic peptides, risk scores, and symptoms-in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction is unknown. We aimed to determine the association between physical signs of congestion at baseline and during study follow-up with quality of life and clinical outcomes and to assess the treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan on congestion. METHODS: We analyzed participants from PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in HF) with an available physical examination at baseline. We examined the association of the number of signs of congestion (jugular venous distention, edema, rales, and third heart sound) with the primary outcome (cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization), its individual components, and all-cause mortality using time-updated, multivariable-adjusted Cox regression. We further evaluated whether sacubitril/valsartan reduced congestion during follow-up and whether improvement in congestion is related to changes in clinical outcomes and quality of life, assessed by Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary scores. RESULTS: Among 8380 participants, 0, 1, 2, and 3+ signs of congestion were present in 70%, 21%, 7%, and 2% of patients, respectively. Patients with baseline congestion were older, more often female, had higher MAGGIC risk scores (Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure) and lower Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary scores (P<0.05). After adjusting for baseline natriuretic peptides, time-updated Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure score, and time-updated New York Heart Association class, increasing time-updated congestion was associated with all outcomes (P<0.001). Sacubitril/valsartan reduced the risk of the primary outcome irrespective of clinical signs of congestion at baseline (P=0.16 for interaction), and treatment with the drug improved congestion to a greater extent than did enalapril (P=0.011). Each 1-sign reduction was independently associated with a 5.1 (95% CI, 4.7-5.5) point improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary scores. Change in congestion strongly predicted outcomes even after adjusting for baseline congestion (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In HF with reduced ejection fraction, the physical exam continues to provide significant independent prognostic value even beyond symptoms, natriuretic peptides, and Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure risk score. Sacubitril/valsartan improved congestion to a greater extent than did enalapril. Reducing congestion in the outpatient setting is independently associated with improved quality of life and reduced cardiovascular events, including mortality. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255.

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.

Health-related quality of life outcomes in PARAGON-HF.

AIMS: Heart failure (HF) is associated with poor health-related quality of life (HRQL). Patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have similar HRQL impairment as those with reduced ejection fraction. This study describes the impact of sacubitril/valsartan on HRQL in patients with HFpEF enrolled in the PARAGON-HF trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients completed the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and EuroQol (EQ-5D) at randomization, 4, 8 months, and annually thereafter. Changes in HRQL scores were evaluated using repeated measures models adjusted for treatment, baseline values and region. The pre-specified principal efficacy assessment was at 8 months at which time patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan had borderline higher KCCQ clinical summary score (CSS) with least squares mean (LSM) adjusted difference of 1.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.0, 2.1; p = 0.051). Including all visits up to 36 months, the LSM difference in KCCQ-CSS favoured sacubitril/valsartan with average adjusted difference of 1.1 (95% CI 0.1, 2.0; p = 0.034). Patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan had greater odds of clinically meaningful improvement (≥5-point increase) in KCCQ-CSS (odds ratio 1.31; 95% CI 1.06, 1.61) at 8 months. At 8 months, there was no significant difference in the EQ visual analogue scale between the treatment arms, but sacubitril/valsartan was associated with higher EQ-5D utility score (US-based) with LSM adjusted difference of 0.01 (95% CI 0.00, 0.02; p = 0.019). CONCLUSION: Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan had a borderline benefit on KCCQ-CSS at 8 months in patients with HFpEF. This benefit became more significant when data from all visits up to 36 months were included. This modest overall benefit was also supported by greater odds of patients reporting a clinically meaningful improvement in HRQL with sacubitril/valsartan.

Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan on Serum Lipids in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.

Background Dyslipidemia is common in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Sacubitril/valsartan improves glycemic control and augments natriuretic peptide signaling, providing mechanisms by which sacubitril/valsartan may affect serum lipids. However, empiric data on these effects are lacking. Methods and Results We analyzed 4774 participants from PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin-Receptor Blockers Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction) with available screening lipids. During follow-up visits, we analyzed the treatment effect on lipid levels and assessed for interaction by baseline lipid levels. At the 16-week visit, we adjusted these treatment effects for the change in several biomarkers (including hemoglobin A1c and urinary cyclic guanosine monophosphate/creatinine [a biomarker of natriuretic peptide activation]). The average age was 73±8 years, 52% were women, 43% had diabetes mellitus, and 64% were on statin therapy. Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan reduced triglycerides -5.0% (95% CI, -6.6% to -3.5%), increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol +2.6% (95% CI, +1.7% to +3.4%), and increased low-density lipoprotein cholesterol +1.7% (95% CI, +0.4% to +3.0%). Sacubitril/valsartan reduced triglycerides most among those with elevated baseline levels (triglycerides≥200 mg/dL) (P-interaction<0.001), and at 16 weeks by -13.0% (95% CI, -18.1% to -7.6%), or -29.9 (95% CI, -44.3 to -15.5) mg/dL, in this group. Adjusting for the change in urinary cyclic guanosine monophosphate/creatinine significantly attenuated treatment effects on triglycerides and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, but not low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, while adjusting for other biomarkers did not significantly alter the treatment effects. Conclusions Sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduces triglycerides compared with valsartan, an effect that was nearly threefold stronger in those with elevated baseline triglycerides. Modest increases in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol cholesterol were also observed with therapy. The underlying mechanism(s) of changes in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides are related to sacubitril/valsartan's effects on natriuretic peptide activity. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01920711.

Effect of sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril on changes in heart failure therapies over time: the PARADIGM-HF trial.

AIMS: Sacubitril/valsartan improves morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Whether initiation of sacubitril/valsartan limits the use and dosing of other elements of guideline-directed medical therapy for HFrEF is unknown. We examined the effects of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, on ß-blocker and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) use and dosing in a large randomized clinical trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with full data on medication use were included. We examined ß-blocker and MRA use in patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril through 12-month follow-up. New initiations and discontinuations of ß-blocker and MRA were compared between treatment groups. Overall, 8398 (99.9%) had full medication and dose data at baseline. Baseline use of ß-blocker and MRA at any dose was 87% and 56%, respectively. Mean doses of ß-blocker and MRA were similar between treatment groups at baseline and at 6-month and 12-month follow-up. New initiations through 12-month follow-up were infrequent and similar in the sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril groups for ß-blockers [37 (9.0%) vs. 42 (10.2%), P = 0.56] and MRA [127 (7.6%) vs. 143 (9.2%), P = 0.10]. Among patients on MRA therapy at baseline, there were fewer MRA discontinuations in patients on sacubitril/valsartan as compared with enalapril at 12 months [125 (6.2%) vs. 187 (9.0%), P = 0.001]. Discontinuations of ß-blockers were not significantly different between groups in follow-up (2.2% vs. 2.6%, P = 0.26). CONCLUSIONS: Initiation of sacubitril/valsartan, even when titrated to target dose, did not appear to lead to greater discontinuation or dose down-titration of other key guideline-directed medical therapies, and was associated with fewer discontinuations of MRA. Use of sacubitril/valsartan (when compared with enalapril) may promote sustained MRA use in follow-up.

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.

Gaining Efficiency in Clinical Trials With Cardiac Biomarkers: JACC Review Topic of the Week.

The momentum of cardiovascular drug development has slowed dramatically. Use of validated cardiac biomarkers in clinical trials could accelerate development of much-needed therapies, but biomarkers have been used less for cardiovascular drug development than in therapeutic areas such as oncology. Moreover, there are inconsistences in biomarker use in clinical trials, such as sample type, collection times, analytical methods, and storage for future research. With these needs in mind, participants in a Cardiac Safety Research Consortium Think Tank proposed the development of international guidance in this area, together with improved quality assurance and analytical methods, to determine what biomarkers can reliably show. Participants recommended the development of systematic methods for sample collection, and the archiving of samples in all cardiovascular clinical trials (including creation of a biobank or repository). The academic and regulatory communities also agreed to work together to ensure that published information is fully and clearly expressed.

Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Insights From PARADIGM-HF.

Background Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common comorbidity in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, associated with undertreatment and worse outcomes. New treatments for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction may be particularly important in patients with concomitant COPD. Methods and Results We examined outcomes in 8399 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, according to COPD status, in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Blocker-Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial. Cox regression models were used to compare COPD versus non-COPD subgroups and the effects of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril. Patients with COPD (n=1080, 12.9%) were older than patients without COPD (mean 67 versus 63 years; P<0.001), with similar left ventricular ejection fraction (29.9% versus 29.4%), but higher NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide; median, 1741 pg/mL versus 1591 pg/mL; P=0.01), worse functional class (New York Heart Association III/IV 37% versus 23%; P<0.001) and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Clinical Summary Score (73 versus 81; P<0.001), and more congestion and comorbidity. Medical therapy was similar in patients with and without COPD except for beta-blockade (87% versus 94%; P<0.001) and diuretics (85% versus 80%; P<0.001). After multivariable adjustment, COPD was associated with higher risks of heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR], 1.32; 95% CI, 1.13-1.54), and the composite of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.05-1.34), but not cardiovascular death (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.94-1.30), or all-cause mortality (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.99-1.31). COPD was also associated with higher risk of all cardiovascular hospitalization (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.05-1.31) and noncardiovascular hospitalization (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.29-1.64). The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril was consistent in patients with and without COPD for all end points. Conclusions In PARADIGM-HF, COPD was associated with lower use of beta-blockers and worse health status and was an independent predictor of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular hospitalization. Sacubitril/valsartan was beneficial in this high-risk subgroup. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01035255.

Serum potassium and outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a post-hoc analysis of the PARAGON-HF trial.

AIMS: The relationship between serum potassium concentration and outcomes in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is not well-established. The aim of this study was to explore the association between serum potassium and clinical outcomes in the PARAGON-HF trial in which 4822 patients with HFpEF were randomised to treatment with sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan. METHODS AND RESULTS: The relationship between serum potassium concentrations and the primary study composite outcome of total (first and recurrent) heart failure hospitalisations and cardiovascular death was analysed. Hypo-, normo-, and hyperkalaemia were defined as serum potassium <4 mmol/L, 4-5 mmol/L and >5 mmol/L, respectively. Both screening and time-updated potassium (categorical and continuous spline-transformed) were studied. Patient mean age was 73 years and 52% were women. Patients with higher baseline potassium more often had an ischaemic aetiology and diabetes and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist treatment. Compared with normokalaemia, both time-updated (but not screening) hypo- and hyperkalaemia were associated with a higher risk of the primary outcome [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for hypokalaemia 1.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.30-1.85; P < 0.001, and for hyperkalaemia HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02-1.44; P = 0.025]. Hypokalaemia had a stronger association with a higher risk of all-cause, cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular death than hyperkalaemia. The association of hypokalaemia with increased risk of all-cause and cardiovascular death was most marked in participants with impaired kidney function (interaction P < 0.05). Serum potassium did not significantly differ between sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan throughout the follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Both hypo- and hyperkalaemia were associated with heart failure hospitalisation but only hypokalaemia was associated with mortality, especially in the context of renal impairment. Hypokalaemia was as strongly associated with death from non-cardiovascular causes as with cardiovascular death. Collectively, these findings suggest that potassium disturbances are a more of a marker of HFpEF severity rather than a direct cause of death.

Global Differences in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: The PARAGON-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a global public health problem with important regional differences. We investigated these differences in the PARAGON-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in HFpEF), the largest and most inclusive global HFpEF trial. METHODS: We studied differences in clinical characteristics, outcomes, and treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan in 4796 patients with HFpEF from the PARAGON-HF trial, grouped according to geographic region. RESULTS: Regional differences in patient characteristics and comorbidities were observed: patients from Western Europe were oldest (mean 75±7 years) with the highest prevalence of atrial fibrillation/flutter (36%); Central/Eastern European patients were youngest (mean 71±8 years) with the highest prevalence of coronary artery disease (50%); North American patients had the highest prevalence of obesity (65%) and diabetes (49%); Latin American patients were younger (73±9 years) and had a high prevalence of obesity (53%); and Asia-Pacific patients had a high prevalence of diabetes (44%), despite a low prevalence of obesity (26%). Rates of the primary composite end point of total hospitalizations for HF and death from cardiovascular causes were lower in patients from Central Europe (9 per 100 patient-years) and highest in patients from North America (28 per 100 patient-years), which was primarily driven by a greater number of total hospitalizations for HF. The effect of treatment with sacubitril-valsartan was not modified by region (interaction P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with HFpEF recruited worldwide in PARAGON-HF, there were important regional differences in clinical characteristics and outcomes, which may have implications for the design of future clinical trials. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01920711.

Prior Heart Failure Hospitalization, Clinical Outcomes, and Response to Sacubitril/Valsartan Compared With Valsartan in HFpEF.

BACKGROUND: The period shortly after hospitalization for heart failure (HF) represents a high-risk window for recurrent clinical events, including rehospitalization or death. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine whether the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan varies in relation to the proximity to hospitalization for HF among patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). METHODS: In this post hoc analysis of PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI [Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor] with ARB [Angiotensin Receptor Blocker] Global Outcomes in HFpEF), we assessed the risk of clinical events and response to sacubitril/valsartan in relation to time from last HF hospitalization among patients with HFpEF (≥45%). The primary outcome was composite total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death, analyzed by using a semiparametric proportional rates method, stratified by geographic region. RESULTS: Of 4,796 validly randomized patients in PARAGON-HF, 622 (13%) were screened during hospitalization or within 30 days of prior hospitalization, 555 (12%) within 31 to 90 days, 435 (9%) within 91 to 180 days, and 694 (14%) after 180 days; 2,490 (52%) were never previously hospitalized. Over a median follow-up of 35 months, risk of total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death was inversely and nonlinearly associated with timing from prior HF hospitalization (p < 0.001). There was a gradient in relative risk reduction in primary events with sacubitril/valsartan from patients hospitalized within 30 days (rate ratio: 0.73; 95% confidence interval: 0.53 to 0.99) to patients never hospitalized (rate ratio: 1.00; 95% confidence interval: 0.80 to 1.24; trend in relative risk reduction: pinteraction = 0.15). With valsartan alone, the rate of total primary events was 26.7 (≤30 days), 24.2 (31 to 90 days), 20.7 (91 to 180 days), 15.7 (>180 days), and 7.9 (not previously hospitalized) per 100 patient-years. Compared with valsartan, absolute risk reductions with sacubitril/valsartan were more prominent in patients enrolled early after hospitalization: 6.4% (≤30 days), 4.6% (31 to 90 days), and 3.4% (91 to 180 days), whereas no risk reduction was observed in patients screened >180 days or who were never hospitalized (trend in absolute risk reduction: pinteraction = 0.050). CONCLUSIONS: Recent hospitalization for HFpEF identifies patients at high risk for near-term clinical progression. In the PARAGON-HF trial, the relative and absolute benefits of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in HFpEF appear to be amplified when initiated in the high-risk window after hospitalization and warrant prospective validation. (PARAGON-HF; NCT01920711).