Long-Term Treatment With Sacubitril/Valsartan in Japanese Patients With Chronic Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction　- Open-Label Extension of the PARALLEL-HF Study.

BACKGROUND: The PARALLEL-HF study assessed the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril in Japanese patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This open-label extension (OLE) assessed long-term safety with sacubitril/valsartan.Methods and Results: This study enrolled 150 patients who received sacubitril/valsartan 50 or 100 mg, b.i.d., in addition to optimal background heart failure (HF) therapy. A dose level of sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg, b.i.d., was targeted by Week 8. At OLE baseline, higher concentrations of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and urine cGMP, and lower concentrations of N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), were observed in the sacubitril/valsartan core group (patients who received sacubitril/valsartan in both the core and extension study) than in the enalapril core group (patients who received enalapril in the core study and were then transitioned to sacubitril/valsartan). The mean exposure to study drug was 98.9%. There was no trend of worsening of HF at Month 12. No obvious changes in cardiac biomarkers were observed, whereas BNP and urine cGMP increased and NT-proBNP decreased in the enalapril core group, which was evident at Weeks 2-4 and sustained to Month 12. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term sacubitril/valsartan at doses up to 200 mg, b.i.d., has a positive risk-benefit profile; it was safe and well tolerated in Japanese patients with chronic HFrEF.

Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Japanese Patients With Heart Failure According to Baseline Systolic Blood Pressure　- Results From a Subgroup Analysis of the PARALLEL-HF Study.

BACKGROUND: Lower systolic blood pressure (SBP) is known to be associated with poor prognosis in heart failure (HF). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan according to baseline SBP tertiles in Japanese patients from the PARALLEL-HF study.Methods and Results: In all, 223 patients were stratified into tertiles according to baseline SBP (≤114 mmHg: n=75; >114 and ≤130 mmHg: n=76; and >130 mmHg: n=72). Patients with lower SBP (≤114 mmHg) had the highest median N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentrations at baseline (P=0.0184). No significant difference was observed between sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril for the composite outcome of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization across SBP tertiles (P-interaction=0.2682). Although the P-interaction value was not significant (0.2106), a greater reduction in NT-proBNP with sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril was observed in patients with SBP >130 mmHg (P=0.0076). The incidence of hypotension-related events and reduction or discontinuation of treatment due to hypotension-related events was higher in the lower SBP subgroup, and these events were more frequent in the sacubitril/valsartan than enalapril group. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril was consistent across baseline SBP tertiles in Japanese patients from the PARALLEL-HF study. Hypotension-related events were more common in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan with lower SBP.

Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Japanese Patients With Chronic Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction　- Results From the PARALLEL-HF Study.

BACKGROUND: In the Prospective Comparison of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) With ACEi to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) study, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan reduced the primary outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death and heart failure (HF) hospitalization compared with enalapril in patients with chronic HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). A prospective randomized trial was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in Japanese HFrEF patients.Methods and Results:In the Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEi to determine the noveL beneficiaL trEatment vaLue in Japanese Heart Failure patients (PARALLEL-HF) study, 225 Japanese HFrEF patients (New York Heart Association [NYHA] class II-IV, left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] ≤35%) were randomized (1 : 1) to receive sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg bid or enalapril 10 mg bid. Over a median follow up of 33.9 months, no significant between-group difference was observed for the primary composite outcome of CV death and HF hospitalization (HR 1.09; 95% CI 0.65-1.82; P=0.6260). Early and sustained reductions in N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) from baseline were observed with sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril (between-group difference: Week 2: 25.7%, P<0.01; Month 6: 18.9%, P=0.01, favoring sacubitril/valsartan). There was no significant difference in the changes in NYHA class and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) clinical summary score at Week 8 and Month 6. Sacubitril/valsartan was well tolerated with fewer study drug discontinuations due to adverse events, although the sacubitril/valsartan group had a higher proportion of patients with hypotension. CONCLUSIONS: In Japanese patients with HFrEF, there was no difference in reduction in the risk of CV death or HF hospitalization between sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril, and sacubitril/valsartan was safe and well tolerated.

Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor in Japanese Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction　- Baseline Characteristics and Treatment of PARALLEL-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the present analyses was to describe the baseline characteristics and treatment of the Japanese patients with HFrEF in THE PARALLEL-HF study. Methods and Results: Key demographic, clinical and laboratory findings, along with treatment, were reported and compared with patients enrolled in the PARADIGM-HF trial and other contemporary randomized clinical trials and registries of Japanese patients with HFrEF. In addition, the MAGGIC and EMPHASIS-HF risk scores were calculated. A total of 225 Japanese patients were randomized in PARALLEL-HF with a mean age of 67.9 years and the majority of the patients being male (85.8%) and in NYHA Class II (93.8%). Key baseline characteristics in PARALLEL-HF were generally comparable with PARADIGM-HF, and other contemporary clinical trials and registries of Japanese HFrEF patients. Patients enrolled in PARALLEL-HF were well treated with conventional evidence-based therapy at baseline (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker, 62.7%/37.3%; ß-blockers, 94.7%; mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, 59.1%). Despite the evidence-based treatment and most patients being in NYHA Class II, these patients had a low LVEF (mean 28.1%) and were at high risk of cardiovascular mortality and morbidity as assessed by the MAGGIC and EMPHASIS-HF risk scores. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the patients in PARALLEL-HF were largely representative of contemporary ambulatory patients with HFrEF who are well treated with evidence-based therapies. PARALLEL-HF will determine whether sacubitril/valsartan provides similar improvements in clinical outcomes in Japanese HFrEF patients as observed in the PARADIGM-HF study.

Incidence and risk factors of hypotension-related adverse events among Japanese patients with heart failure receiving sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril: Results from the PARALLEL-HF study.

BACKGROUND: The PARALLEL-HF trial showed that treatment with sacubitril/valsartan resulted in more symptomatic hypotension versus enalapril in Japanese patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction, similar to PARADIGM-HF. Use of sacubitril/valsartan in these patients may be limited by concerns regarding hypotension. METHODS: This post-hoc analysis characterized hypotension-related adverse events (AEs) and their effects on efficacy using data from PARALLEL-HF, in which patients received sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg twice daily or enalapril 10 mg twice daily. RESULTS: Of 223 patients, 28.2 % experienced hypotension-related AEs and incidence was higher with sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril (hazard ratio, 2.2; 95 % CI, 1.3-3.8; p = 0.0027). However, reduction in mean systolic blood pressure from baseline to study end did not significantly differ (sacubitril/valsartan: -2.2 mmHg vs enalapril: -1.3 mmHg; p = 0.6895). Patients who experienced hypotension-related AEs had lower mean body mass index, higher median N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide at randomization, and more frequent history of stroke. Hypotension-related AEs leading to treatment discontinuation were not significantly different for sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril (3.4 % vs 6.9 %, p = 0.5957). Reduction in risk of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization was similar with sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril in patients with or without hypotension-related AEs. CONCLUSIONS: Incidence of hypotension-related AEs was higher in the sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril group but did not affect risk of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization, which was similar between treatment groups.