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).

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.

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.

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: comparison of patient characteristics and clinical outcomes within Asia and between Asia, Europe and the Americas.

AIMS: Nearly 60% of the world's population lives in Asia but little is known about the characteristics and outcomes of Asian patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) compared to other areas of the world. METHODS AND RESULTS: We pooled two, large, global trials, with similar design, in 13 174 patients with HFrEF (patient distribution: China 833, India 1390, Japan 209, Korea 223, Philippines 223, Taiwan 199 and Thailand 95, Western Europe 3521, Eastern Europe 4758, North America 613, and Latin America 1110). Asian patients were younger (55.0-63.9 years) than in Western Europe (67.9 years) and North America (66.6 years). Diuretics and devices were used less, and digoxin used more, in Asia. Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist use was higher in China (66.3%), the Philippines (64.1%) and Latin America (62.8%) compared to Europe and North America (range 32.8% to 49.6%). The rate of cardiovascular death/heart failure hospitalization was higher in Asia (e.g. Taiwan 17.2, China 14.9 per 100 patient-years) than in Western Europe (10.4) and North America (12.8). However, the adjusted risk of cardiovascular death was higher in many Asian countries than in Western Europe (except Japan) and the risk of heart failure hospitalization was lower in India and in the Philippines than in Western Europe, but significantly higher in China, Japan, and Taiwan. CONCLUSION: Patient characteristics and outcomes vary between Asia and other regions and between Asian countries. These variations may reflect several factors, including geography, climate and environment, diet and lifestyle, health care systems, genetics and socioeconomic influences.

Baseline Characteristics of Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction in the PARAGON-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: To describe the baseline characteristics of patients with heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction enrolled in the PARAGON-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in HFpEF) comparing sacubitril/valsartan to valsartan in reducing morbidity and mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS: We report key demographic, clinical, and laboratory findings, and baseline therapies, of 4822 patients randomized in PARAGON-HF, grouped by factors that influence criteria for study inclusion. We further compared baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in PARAGON-HF with those patients enrolled in other recent trials of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Among patients enrolled from various regions (16% Asia-Pacific, 37% Central Europe, 7% Latin America, 12% North America, 28% Western Europe), the mean age of patients enrolled in PARAGON-HF was 72.7±8.4 years, 52% of patients were female, and mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 57.5%, similar to other trials of HFpEF. Most patients were in New York Heart Association class II, and 38% had ≥1 hospitalizations for heart failure within the previous 9 months. Diabetes mellitus (43%) and chronic kidney disease (47%) were more prevalent than in previous trials of HFpEF. Many patients were prescribed angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (85%), ß-blockers (80%), calcium channel blockers (36%), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (24%). As specified in the protocol, virtually all patients were on diuretics, had elevated plasma concentrations of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (median, 911 pg/mL; interquartile range, 464-1610), and structural heart disease. CONCLUSIONS: PARAGON-HF represents a contemporary group of patients with HFpEF with similar age and sex distribution compared with prior HFpEF trials but higher prevalence of comorbidities. These findings provide insights into the impact of inclusion criteria on, and regional variation in, HFpEF patient characteristics. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01920711.

Efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) add-on to amlodipine in Asian patients with systolic hypertension uncontrolled with amlodipine monotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696, an angiotensin receptor and neprilysin inhibitor) add-on to amlodipine compared with amlodipine monotherapy in Asian patients with systolic hypertension uncontrolled with amlodipine. METHODS: Patients with mean clinic SBP at least 145 mmHg and less than 180 mmHg after a 4-week treatment with amlodipine 5 mg/day were randomized to receive LCZ696/amlodipine (200/5 mg/day) or amlodipine 5 mg/day for 8 weeks. The primary assessment was the superiority of LCZ696/amlodipine versus amlodipine in lowering 24-h ambulatory SBP from baseline to week 8. Secondary assessments included 24-h ambulatory DBP and pulse pressure (PP), daytime and night-time BP, clinic BP and PP, BP control/responder rate (<140/90 mmHg or a reduction ≥20/10 mmHg from baseline), and safety. RESULTS: Of the 371 patients screened, 266 (71.7%) patients (mean age 55.4 years; 24-h SBP/DBP 139.0/86.1 mmHg at baseline) who did not respond to 4-week treatment with amlodipine 5 mg/day were randomized. At week 8, LCZ696/amlodipine provided greater reductions in 24-h SBP compared with amlodipine monotherapy from baseline (-13.9 versus -0.8 mmHg, P < 0.001). All the secondary efficacy assessments were significantly (P < 0.001) in favour of LCZ696/amlodipine, for instance, 24-h PP (-5.8 versus -0.6 mmHg). Overall, the incidence of adverse events was 20.0% with LCZ696/amlodipine and 21.3% with amlodipine. CONCLUSION: LCZ696/amlodipine showed significantly greater 24-h ambulatory BP and PP reductions compared with amlodipine monotherapy. Both treatments were generally well tolerated. Therefore, LCZ696/amlodipine combination could be an effective treatment for patients with systolic hypertension uncontrolled with amlodipine.