Glycaemic durability of an early combination therapy with vildagliptin and metformin versus sequential metformin monotherapy in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (VERIFY): a 5-year, multicentre, randomised, double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: Early treatment intensification leading to sustained good glycaemic control is essential to delay diabetic complications. Although initial combination therapy has been suggested to offer more opportunities than a traditional stepwise approach, its validity remains to be determined. METHODS: Vildagliptin Efficacy in combination with metfoRmIn For earlY treatment of type 2 diabetes (VERIFY) was a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study of newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes conducted in 254 centres across 34 countries. The study consisted of a 2-week screening visit, a 3-week metformin-alone run-in period, and a 5-year treatment period, which was further split into study periods 1, 2, and 3. Patients aged 18-70 years were included if they had type 2 diabetes diagnosed within 2 years prior to enrolment, and centrally confirmed glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of 48-58 mmol/mol (6·5-7·5%) and a body-mass index of 22-40 kg/m2. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio either to the early combination treatment group or to the initial metformin monotherapy group, with the help of an interactive response technology system and simple randomisation without stratification. Patients, investigators, clinical staff performing the assessments, and data analysts were masked to treatment allocation. In study period 1, patients received either the early combination treatment with metformin (stable daily dose of 1000 mg, 1500 mg, or 2000 mg) and vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily, or standard-of-care initial metformin monotherapy (stable daily dose of 1000 mg, 1500 mg, or 2000 mg) and placebo twice daily. If the initial treatment did not maintain HbA1c below 53 mmol/mol (7·0%), confirmed at two consecutive scheduled visits which were 13 weeks apart, patients in the metformin monotherapy group received vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily in place of the placebo and entered study period 2, during which all patients received the combination therapy. The primary efficacy endpoint was the time from randomisation to initial treatment failure, defined as HbA1c measurement of at least 53 mmol/mol (7·0%) at two consecutive scheduled visits, 13 weeks apart from randomisation through period 1. The full analysis set included patients who received at least one randomised study medication and had at least one post-randomisation efficacy parameter assessed. The safety analysis set included all patients who received at least one dose of randomised study medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01528254. FINDINGS: Trial enrolment began on March 30, 2012, and was completed on April 10, 2014. Of the 4524 participants screened, 2001 eligible participants were randomly assigned to either the early combination treatment group (n=998) or the initial metformin monotherapy group (n=1003). A total of 1598 (79·9%) patients completed the 5-year study: 811 (81·3%) in the early combination therapy group and 787 (78·5%) in the monotherapy group. The incidence of initial treatment failure during period 1 was 429 (43·6%) patients in the combination treatment group and 614 (62·1%) patients in the monotherapy group. The median observed time to treatment failure in the monotherapy group was 36·1 (IQR 15·3-not reached [NR]) months, while the median time to treatment failure time for those receiving early combination therapy could only be estimated to be beyond the study duration at 61·9 (29·9-NR) months. A significant reduction in the relative risk for time to initial treatment failure was observed in the early combination treatment group compared with the monotherapy group over the 5-year study duration (hazard ratio 0·51 [95% CI 0·45-0·58]; p<0·0001). Both treatment approaches were safe and well tolerated, with no unexpected or new safety findings, and no deaths related to study treatment. INTERPRETATION: Early intervention with a combination therapy of vildagliptin plus metformin provides greater and durable long-term benefits compared with the current standard-of-care initial metformin monotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes. FUNDING: Novartis.

Aliskiren, Enalapril, or Aliskiren and Enalapril in Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with chronic heart failure, angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors reduce mortality and hospitalization, but the role of a renin inhibitor in such patients is unknown. We compared the ACE inhibitor enalapril with the renin inhibitor aliskiren (to test superiority or at least noninferiority) and with the combination of the two treatments (to test superiority) in patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction. METHODS: After a single-blind run-in period, we assigned patients, in a double-blind fashion, to one of three groups: 2336 patients were assigned to receive enalapril at a dose of 5 or 10 mg twice daily, 2340 to receive aliskiren at a dose of 300 mg once daily, and 2340 to receive both treatments (combination therapy). The primary composite outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 36.6 months, the primary outcome occurred in 770 patients (32.9%) in the combination-therapy group and in 808 (34.6%) in the enalapril group (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.03). The primary outcome occurred in 791 patients (33.8%) in the aliskiren group (hazard ratio vs. enalapril, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.10); the prespecified test for noninferiority was not met. There was a higher risk of hypotensive symptoms in the combination-therapy group than in the enalapril group (13.8% vs. 11.0%, P=0.005), as well as higher risks of an elevated serum creatinine level (4.1% vs. 2.7%, P=0.009) and an elevated potassium level (17.1% vs. 12.5%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with chronic heart failure, the addition of aliskiren to enalapril led to more adverse events without an increase in benefit. Noninferiority was not shown for aliskiren as compared with enalapril. (Funded by Novartis; ATMOSPHERE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00853658.).

A pre-specified statistical analysis plan for the VERIFY study: Vildagliptin efficacy in combination with metformin for early treatment of T2DM.

AIMS: To ensure the integrity of the planned analyses and maximize the clinical utility of the VERIFY study results by describing the detailed concepts behind its statistical analysis plan (SAP) before completion of data collection and study database lock. The SAP will be adhered to for the final primary data analysis of the VERIFY trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Vildagliptin efficacy in combination with metformin for early treatment of T2DM (VERIFY) is an ongoing, multicentre, randomized controlled trial aiming to demonstrate the clinical benefits of glycaemic durability and glucose control achieved with an early combination therapy in newly-diagnosed type 2 diabetes (T2DM) patients. RESULTS: The SAP was initially designed at the study protocol conception phase and later modified, as reported here, in collaboration between the steering committee members, statisticians, and the VERIFY study leadership team. All authors were blinded to treatment allocation. An independent statistician has additionally retrieved and presented unblinded data to the independent data safety monitoring committee. An overview of the trial design with a focus on describing the fine-tuning of the analysis plan for the primary efficacy endpoint, risk of initial treatment failure, and secondary, exploratory and pre-specified subgroup analyses is provided here. CONCLUSION: According to optimal trial practice, the details of the statistical analysis and data-handling plan prior to locking the database are reported here. The SAP accords with high-quality standards of internal validity to minimize analysis bias and will enhance the utility of the reported results for improved outcomes in the management of T2DM.

Influence of diabetes on sacubitril/valsartan titration and clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized for heart failure.

AIMS: Diabetes mellitus is associated with worse outcomes and lower attainment of disease-modifying therapies in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This post hoc analysis of TRANSITION compared the patterns of tolerability and uptitration of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFrEF stabilized after hospital admission due to acute decompensated HF depending on the presence or absence of diabetes as a co-morbidity. METHODS: TRANSITION, a randomized, open-label study compared sacubitril/valsartan initiation pre-discharge vs. post-discharge (up to14 days) in 991 patients hospitalized for acutely decompensated HFrEF. The impact of diabetes status on tolerability and safety was studied at 10-week and 26-week post-randomization. RESULTS: Among the 991 patients analysed at baseline, 460 (46.4%) had diabetes and exhibited a higher risk profile. At 10 weeks, sacubitril/valsartan target dose (97/103 mg bid) was achieved in a similar proportion of patients in each subgroup, when initiated pre-discharge or post-discharge respectively [diabetes subgroup: 47% (n = 105/226) vs. 50% (n = 115/228); relative risk ratio (RRR), 0.923; P = 0.412; non-diabetes subgroup: 45% (n = 119/267) vs. 51% (n = 133/261); RRR, 0.878; P = 0.155]. The proportions of patients achieving and maintaining either 49/51 mg or 97/103 mg bid [diabetes subgroup: 61.1% (n = 138/226) vs. 67.5% (n = 154/228); RRR, 0.909; P = 0.175; non-diabetes subgroup: 62.9% [n = 168/267] vs 69.3% [n = 181/261]; RRR, 0.906; P = 0.118] or any dose for ≥2 weeks leading to Week 10 [diabetes subgroup: 85% (n = 192/226) vs. 88.2% (n = 201/228); RRR, 0.966; P = 0.356; non-diabetes subgroup: 86.9% (n = 232/267) vs. 90.8% (n = 237/261); RRR, 0.963; P = 0.215] were also similar in each subgroup, when initiated pre-discharge or post-discharge, respectively. At 10 weeks, hypotension and renal dysfunction rates were similar, although hyperkalaemia was higher among patients with diabetes (15.9% vs. 9.5%). The rate of permanent discontinuation due to adverse events was similar in the diabetes and non-diabetes subgroups at 10 weeks, respectively: pre-discharge (7.5% vs. 7.1%) or post-discharge (5.7% vs. 4.2%). Similar patterns of uptitration and tolerability were observed at 26 weeks. Cardiac biomarkers including NT-proBNP (P < 0.005) and hs-TnT (P < 0.005) reduced significantly from baseline levels in both subgroups at Weeks 4 and 10; however, the response was greater among patients without diabetes. Mortality (diabetes vs. non-diabetes subgroups: 3.3% vs 4.0%; P = 0.438) and HF rehospitalization (diabetes vs. non-diabetes subgroups: 36.3% vs. 33.0%; P = 0.295) did not differ between the groups at 26 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a higher risk profile among patients with diabetes, sacubitril/valsartan initiation either before or shortly after discharge in hospitalized patients with HFrEF resulted in comparable rates of dose up-titration and tolerability as in those without diabetes.

Renal outcomes with different fixed-dose combination therapies in patients with hypertension at high risk for cardiovascular events (ACCOMPLISH): a prespecified secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The Avoiding Cardiovascular Events through Combination Therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) trial showed that initial antihypertensive therapy with benazepril plus amlodipine was superior to benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. We assessed the effects of these drug combinations on progression of chronic kidney disease. METHODS: ACCOMPLISH was a double-blind, randomised trial undertaken in five countries (USA, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland). 11 506 patients with hypertension who were at high risk for cardiovascular events were randomly assigned via a central, telephone-based interactive voice response system in a 1:1 ratio to receive benazepril (20 mg) plus amlodipine (5 mg; n=5744) or benazepril (20 mg) plus hydrochlorothiazide (12.5 mg; n=5762), orally once daily. Drug doses were force-titrated for patients to attain recommended blood pressure goals. Progression of chronic kidney disease, a prespecified endpoint, was defined as doubling of serum creatinine concentration or end-stage renal disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate <15 mL/min/1.73 m(2) or need for dialysis). Analysis was by intention to treat (ITT). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00170950. FINDINGS: The trial was terminated early (mean follow-up 2.9 years [SD 0.4]) because of superior efficacy of benazepril plus amlodipine compared with benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide. At trial completion, vital status was not known for 143 (1%) patients who were lost to follow-up (benazepril plus amlodipine, n=70; benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide, n=73). All randomised patients were included in the ITT analysis. There were 113 (2.0%) events of chronic kidney disease progression in the benazepril plus amlodipine group compared with 215 (3.7%) in the benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide group (HR 0.52, 0.41-0.65, p<0.0001). The most frequent adverse event in patients with chronic kidney disease was peripheral oedema (benazepril plus amlodipine, 189 of 561, 33.7%; benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide, 85 of 532, 16.0%). In patients with chronic kidney disease, angio-oedema was more frequent in the benazepril plus amlodipine group than in the benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide group. In patients without chronic kidney disease, dizziness, hypokalaemia, and hypotension were more frequent in the benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide group than in the benazepril plus amlodipine group. INTERPRETATION: Initial antihypertensive treatment with benazepril plus amlodipine should be considered in preference to benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide since it slows progression of nephropathy to a greater extent. FUNDING: Novartis.

Efficacy and safety of valsartan in children aged 1-5 years with hypertension, with or without chronic kidney disease: a randomized, double-blind study followed by open-label phase.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the dose-response relationship for reduction in mean systolic blood pressure (MSBP) with valsartan solution, in young children with hypertension with or without chronic kidney disease (CKD). METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy study, 127 young children aged 1-5 years with hypertension (MSBP ≥95th percentile) were randomized (1:1) to receive valsartan 0.25 or 4 mg/kg/day for 6 weeks, followed by a 20 week open-label phase, where patients received valsartan 1 mg/kg/day for 4 weeks, and then optionally titrated to 2 mg/kg/day or up to 4 mg/kg/day. The primary endpoint was the change in MSBP from baseline at Week 6 during the double-blind phase. RESULTS: Overall, 120 patients (94.5%) completed the study; 63 had CKD. A clinically and statistically significant reduction in MSBP from baseline to Week 6 was observed with the valsartan 4 mg/kg group compared with the valsartan 0.25 mg/kg group (8.5 vs 4.1 mmHg; p = .0157). A positive dose-response relationship for MSBP reduction was observed between the 0.25 mg/kg and 4 mg/kg groups (p = .0012). In the CKD subgroup, a significant reduction in MSBP was observed with 4 mg/kg (9.2 mmHg) versus 0.25 mg/kg (1.2 mmHg; p = .0096). In the non-CKD subgroup, a numerically greater decrease in MSBP was observed with 4 mg/kg (7.8 mmHg) versus 0.25 mg/kg (6.9 mmHg; p = .6531). Incidence of adverse events was lower with valsartan 4 mg/kg than 0.25 mg/kg (41.9% vs 51.6%) and similar between CKD and non-CKD subgroups (48.4% vs 45.3%) irrespective of dose. Increase in serum potassium (>20% compared to baseline) was observed more frequently in patients with CKD compared to non-CKD patients. CONCLUSION: Valsartan was efficacious and well tolerated in children 1 to 5 years of age with hypertension, with or without CKD. Clinical trial registration: The study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT01617681).

Aliskiren alone or in combination with enalapril vs. enalapril among patients with chronic heart failure with and without diabetes: a subgroup analysis from the ATMOSPHERE trial.

AIMS: Because of concerns about the safety of aliskiren in patients with diabetes, study treatment was stopped prematurely in the Aliskiren Trial of Minimizing OutcomeS for Patients with HEart failuRE (ATMOSPHERE). We examined outcomes and treatment effect in these patients compared with those without diabetes. METHODS AND RESULTS: ATMOSPHERE included 7016 patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) randomly assigned to enalapril plus aliskiren, aliskiren alone, or enalapril. At baseline, 1944 (27.7%) patients had diabetes. Median follow-up was shorter in patients with diabetes compared with those without (24 months vs. 46 months). Among patients with diabetes, the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 216 patients (33.1%) in the enalapril group (reference), 172 (27.4%) in the aliskiren group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67-1.00; P = 0.053], and 196 (29.5%) in the combination group (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.71-1.04; P = 0.13). The effects of the treatments studied did not differ significantly compared with patients without diabetes. In patients with diabetes, aliskiren monotherapy was associated with a lower risk of symptomatic hypotension compared to enalapril [42 (6.7%) vs. 65 (10.0%); P = 0.04], whereas other adverse events were generally balanced between the three groups. CONCLUSION: In patients with HFrEF and diabetes, there was no signal of harm and a trend towards benefit when direct renin inhibition monotherapy was compared with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, whereas combined aliskiren and enalapril treatment led to more adverse events with no improvement in outcomes. Treatment effects did not differ in patients with diabetes compared with those without. Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00853658.

Aliskiren, an orally effective renin inhibitor, provides antihypertensive efficacy alone and in combination with valsartan.

BACKGROUND: By blocking the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) at its rate-limiting step, renin inhibition may provide improved RAAS suppression. We investigated the blood pressure (BP)-lowering effects of the oral direct renin inhibitor aliskiren, alone or in combination with the angiotensin receptor blocker valsartan. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, 8-week trial, 1123 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension underwent a 3 to 4 week single-blind placebo run-in and were then randomized in a modified factorial study design to receive once-daily, double-blind oral treatment with placebo, aliskiren monotherapy (75, 150, or 300 mg), valsartan monotherapy (80, 160, or 320 mg), aliskiren and valsartan in combination, or valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (160/12.5 mg). The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline in mean sitting diastolic BP (DBP) at endpoint. RESULTS: Once-daily oral treatment with aliskiren 300 mg significantly (P < .0001) lowered mean sitting DBP and systolic BP (SBP) compared with placebo; aliskiren monotherapy demonstrated a safety and tolerability profile comparable to placebo. Changes in DBP and SBP were fitted to a first-order dose-response surface (lack-of-fit test, P = .65), which showed that aliskiren and valsartan alone and in combination produced dose-related reductions in DBP and SBP. Coadministration of aliskiren and valsartan produced a greater antihypertensive effect than either drug alone, comparable in magnitude to the effect of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide, with similar tolerability to the component monotherapies and to placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Aliskiren monotherapy provides antihypertensive efficacy and placebo-like tolerability in patients with hypertension. Aliskiren and valsartan in combination may provide additive BP-lowering effects with maintained tolerability.

Aliskiren, a novel orally effective renin inhibitor, provides dose-dependent antihypertensive efficacy and placebo-like tolerability in hypertensive patients.

BACKGROUND: Stopping the detrimental effects of the renin-angiotensin system at the most upstream point of the cascade offers theoretical advantages for cardiovascular protection. This study compares the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of the novel oral renin inhibitor aliskiren with placebo and an active comparator. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study was a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, active-comparator 8-week trial in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension (mean sitting diastolic blood pressure [DBP] > or =95 and <110 mm Hg). After a 2-week, single-blind placebo run-in, 652 patients were randomized to receive double-blind treatment with once-daily oral doses of aliskiren (150, 300, or 600 mg), irbesartan 150 mg, or placebo. Aliskiren 150, 300, and 600 mg effectively lowered both trough mean sitting DBP and systolic blood pressure (SBP) (P<0.001 versus placebo for both variables). The least-squares mean reductions in trough DBP were 9.3+/-0.8, 11.8+/-0.8, and 11.5+/-0.8 mm Hg, respectively, versus 6.3+/-0.8 mm Hg for placebo, and the least-squares mean reductions in trough SBP were 11.4+/-1.3, 15.8+/-1.2, and 15.7+/-1.2 mm Hg, respectively, versus 5.3+/-1.2 mm Hg for placebo. The antihypertensive effect of aliskiren 150 mg was comparable to that of irbesartan 150 mg (8.9+/-0.7 and 12.5+/-1.2 mm Hg, least-squares reduction in mean sitting DBP and SBP, respectively, for irbesartan). Aliskiren 300 and 600 mg lowered mean sitting DBP significantly more than irbesartan 150 mg (P<0.05). Aliskiren showed safety and tolerability comparable to those of placebo and irbesartan; the incidence of adverse events and number of patients discontinuing therapy were similar in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily oral treatment with aliskiren lowers blood pressure effectively, with a safety and tolerability profile comparable to that of irbesartan and placebo, in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Aliskiren 150 mg is as effective as irbesartan 150 mg in lowering blood pressure.

Signs and symptoms in chronic heart failure: relevance of clinical trial results to point of care-data from Val-HeFT.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials emphasize mortality and morbidity endpoints. AIMS: To bring relevance of trial results to point of care by examining the prognostic and therapeutic value of individual signs and symptoms (S&S). METHODS: We analysed data from 5010 patients with stable chronic heart failure and left ventricular dysfunction who were participants in the Val-HeFT study. Individual S&S were stratified by severity. Treatment differences between valsartan and placebo were analysed by S&S strata at baseline and endpoint by logistical regression, and an overall S&S score by ANCOVA. Hazard ratios of S&S strata were calculated for mortality and heart failure hospitalisation. Prognostic contributions of S&S to other variables were determined by multivariate analysis. RESULTS: At endpoint, there were significantly fewer valsartan and more placebo patients with severe symptoms. Over time, improvement in the S&S overall score was significantly more favourable for valsartan than placebo. S&S strata were significantly predictive of risk for hospitalisation and death. S&S were each independent and incremental predictors of mortality compared to other variables. Symptom strata separated out moderately symptomatic patients with a mortality rate which was intermediate between that for NYHA Class II and III. CONCLUSION: Risk stratification of individual S&S defined prognosis, identified patients with an intermediate mortality between Class II and III, and treatment benefits of valsartan over placebo.

Sustained reduction of aldosterone in response to the angiotensin receptor blocker valsartan in patients with chronic heart failure: results from the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial.

BACKGROUND: Aldosterone has been implicated in the progression of heart failure. The Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT) provided the first opportunity to examine the long-term effects of an angiotensin receptor blocker on plasma aldosterone levels in patients with NYHA class II through IV heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: Plasma aldosterone was measured by radioimmunoassay in core laboratories at baseline and during follow-up in patients assigned to valsartan at a target dose of 160 mg twice daily or placebo. In the placebo group, aldosterone (baseline, 150+/-160 pg/mL, mean+/-SD; n=2025) increased at 4, 12, and 24 months. In the valsartan group, aldosterone (baseline, 137+/-124 pg/mL, mean+/-SD; n=2023) decreased at 4 months and remained suppressed for up to 2 years. At end point (last measurement in each patient), mean aldosterone increased by 17.8+/-3.0 pg/mL (SEM) (11.9%) in the placebo group and decreased by 23.8+/-3.0 pg/mL (SEM) (-17.4%) in the valsartan group (P<0.00001). The effect of valsartan was similar in all subgroups, including those receiving neither ACE inhibitors (ACE-I) nor beta-blockers (BB) at baseline and those receiving concomitant ACE-I or BB. In contrast, outcome effects varied in the 4 subgroups, with a statistically significant reduction in the combined mortality/morbidity end point in those receiving neither neurohormonal inhibitor and an adverse trend in those treated with both drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Valsartan added to background therapy for heart failure produces sustained reduction in plasma aldosterone, consistent with the observed significant reduction in the combined mortality/morbidity end point. A similar reduction in all subgroups based on ACE-I or BB therapy, despite differing clinical outcomes in these subgroups, suggests that aldosterone plasma levels may not be a critical marker of the progression of heart failure.

Changes in brain natriuretic peptide and norepinephrine over time and mortality and morbidity in the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT).

BACKGROUND: Neurohormones are considered markers of heart failure progression. We examined whether changes in brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and norepinephrine (NE) over time are associated with corresponding changes in mortality and morbidity in the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Plasma BNP and NE were measured before randomization and during follow-up in approximately 4300 patients in the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial. The relation between baseline BNP and NE and all-cause mortality and first morbid event (M&M) was analyzed in subgroups, with values above and below the median, and by quartiles. The change and percent change from baseline to 4 and 12 months in BNP and NE were also analyzed by quartiles for subsequent M&M. Risk ratios for M&M were calculated using a Cox proportional hazard model. Risk ratio of M&M for patients with baseline BNP or NE above the median was significantly higher than that for patients with values below the median. Baseline BNP and NE in quartiles also showed a quartile-dependent increase in M&M. BNP had a stronger association with M&M than NE. Patients with the greatest percent decrease in BNP and NE from baseline to 4 and 12 months had the lowest whereas patients with greatest percent increase in BNP and NE had the highest M&M. CONCLUSIONS: Not only are plasma BNP and NE important predictors of heart failure M&M, but changes in these neurohormones over time are associated with corresponding changes in M&M. These data further reinforce their role as significant surrogate markers in HF and underscore the importance of including their measurement in HF trials.

Effects of valsartan on circulating brain natriuretic peptide and norepinephrine in symptomatic chronic heart failure: the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT).

BACKGROUND: Brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and norepinephrine (NE) are strongly related to severity of and are independent predictors of outcome in heart failure. The long-term effects of angiotensin receptor blockers on BNP and NE in heart failure patients are not known. METHODS AND RESULTS: Both BNP and NE were measured in 4284 patients randomized to valsartan or placebo in the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT) at baseline and 4, 12, and 24 months after randomization. The effects of valsartan were tested by ANCOVA, controlling for baseline values and concomitant ACE inhibitors and/or beta-blockers. BNP and NE concentrations were similar at baseline in the 2 groups and were decreased by valsartan starting at 4 months and up to 24 months. BNP increased over time in the placebo group. At the end point, least-squares mean (+/-SEM) BNP increased from baseline by 23+/-5 pg/mL in the placebo group (n=1979) but decreased by 21+/-5 pg/mL (n=1940) in the valsartan group (P<0.0001). NE increased by 41+/-6 pg/mL (n=1979) and 12+/-6 pg/mL (n=1941) for placebo and valsartan, respectively (P=0.0003). Concomitant therapy with both ACE inhibitors and beta-blockers significantly reduced the effect of valsartan on BNP but not on NE (P for interaction=0.0223 and 0.2289, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In Val-HeFT, the largest neurohormone study in patients with symptomatic chronic heart failure, BNP and NE rose over time in the placebo group. Valsartan caused sustained reduction in BNP and attenuated the increase in NE over the course of the study. These neurohormone effects of valsartan are consistent with the clinical benefits reported in Val-HeFT.

Valsartan benefits left ventricular structure and function in heart failure: Val-HeFT echocardiographic study.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to evaluate the effect of an angiotensin receptor blocker on left ventricular (LV) structure and function when added to prescribed heart failure therapy. BACKGROUND: The clinical benefit derived from heart failure therapy is attributed to the regression of LV remodeling. METHODS: At 302 multinational sites, 5,010 patients in New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification II to IV heart failure taking angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) and/or beta-blocker (BB) were randomized into valsartan and placebo groups and followed for a mean of 22.4 months. Serial echocardiographic measurements of left ventricular internal diastolic diameter (LVIDd) and ejection fraction (EF) were recorded. Total study reproducibility calculated to 90% power at 5% significance defined detectable differences of 0.09 cm for LVIDd and 0.86% for EF. RESULTS: Baseline LVIDd and EF for valsartan and placebo groups were similar: 3.6 +/- 0.5 versus 3.7 +/- 0.5 (cm/m(2)) and 26.6 +/- 7.3 versus 26.9 +/- 7.0 (%). Mean group changes from baseline over time were compared. Significant decrease in LVIDd and increase in EF began by four months, reached plateau by one year, and persisted to two years in valsartan compared with placebo patients, irrespective of age, gender, race, etiology, NYHA classification, and co-treatment therapy. Changes at 18 months were -0.12 +/- 0.4 versus -0.05 +/- 0.4 (cm/m(2)), p < 0.00001 for LVIDd, and +4.5 +/- 8.9 versus +3.2 +/- 8.6 (%), p < 0.00001 for EF. The exception occurred in patients taking both ACEI and BB as co-treatment, in whom the decrease in LVIDd and increase in EF were no different between valsartan and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: The Val-HeFT echocardiographic substudy of 5,010 patients with moderate heart failure demonstrated that valsartan therapy taken with either ACEI or BB reversed LV remodeling.

The Aliskiren Trial to Minimize OutcomeS in Patients with HEart failure trial (ATMOSPHERE): revised statistical analysis plan and baseline characteristics.

AIMS AND METHODS: To: (i) describe the baseline characteristics of patients in ATMOSPHERE and the changes in the planned analysis of ATMOSPHERE resulting from the mandated discontinuation of study treatment in patients with diabetes; (ii) compare the baseline characteristics of patients in ATMOSPHERE with those in the Prospective comparison of Angiotensin Receptor neprilysin inhibitors with Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure trial (PARADIGM-HF); and (iii) compare the characteristics of patients with and without diabetes at baseline in ATMOSPHERE. RESULTS: A total of 7063 patients were randomized into ATMOSPHERE April 2009-April 2014 at 755 sites in 43 countries. Their average age was 63 years and 78% were men. ATMOSPHERE patients were generally similar to those in PARADIGM-HF although fewer had diabetes, renal dysfunction, and were treated with a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist. In ATMOSPHERE, patients with diabetes differed in numerous ways from those without. Patients with diabetes were older and had worse heart failure status but a similar left ventricular ejection fraction (mean 28%); they had a higher body mass index and more co-morbidity, especially hypertension and coronary heart disease. Mean estimated glomerular filtration rate was slightly lower in those with diabetes compared with those without. CONCLUSION: ATMOSPHERE will determine whether patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (particularly those without diabetes) benefit from the addition of a direct renin inhibitor to standard background therapy, including an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, beta-blocker, and a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist. ATMOSPHERE will also determine whether aliskiren alone is superior to, or at least non-inferior to, enalapril.

Effect of valsartan added to background ACE inhibitor therapy in patients with heart failure: results from Val-HeFT.

AIMS: To investigate the effect of valsartan in the Valsartan-Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT) when added to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) alone in patients with heart failure (HF). METHODS: Subjects in Val-HeFT receiving ACEi but not beta-blocker at baseline were analysed; 1532 were assigned to valsartan and 1502 assigned to placebo. Primary outcome events (all-cause mortality, hospitalisation for adjudicated heart failure, sudden death with resuscitation and need for >4 h of parenteral therapy for worsening heart failure) were monitored. RESULTS: Mortality was not affected by valsartan but morbidity endpoints were significantly reduced (36.3% in placebo, 31.0% in valsartan, p=0.002) in patients receiving an ACEi but no beta-blocker. Quality of life (QOL) was significantly improved, ejection fraction (EF) significantly increased, left ventricular (LV) diameter significantly reduced and plasma B-type natriuretic peptide, norepinephrine and aldosterone levels significantly reduced with valsartan compared to placebo. The morbidity benefit was significant in patients on ACEi doses below the median (22% reduction, p=0.003) and not statistically significant in those receiving ACEi doses above the median (14% reduction, p=0.143). CONCLUSION: Valsartan reduces heart failure hospitalisations and slows LV remodelling in patients treated with an ACEi in the absence of beta-blockade, particularly in those on lower doses of ACEi.