Therapeutic Effects of Heart Failure Medical Therapies on Standardized Kidney Outcomes: Comprehensive Individual Participant-Level Analysis of 6 Randomized Clinical Trials.

Background: Kidney outcomes have been variably defined using non-standardized composite endpoints in key heart failure (HF) trials, thus introducing complexity in their interpretation and cross-trial comparability. We examined the effects of steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), the angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors on composite kidney endpoints using uniform definitions in 6 contemporary HF trials. Methods: Individual participant-level data from trials of steroidal MRAs (EMPHASIS-HF, TOPCAT Americas), ARNI (PARADIGM-HF, PARAGON-HF), and SGLT2 inhibitors (DAPA-HF, DELIVER) were included. The standardized composite kidney endpoint was defined as a sustained decline (a reduction in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) confirmed by a subsequent measurement at least 30 days later) in eGFR by 40%, 50%, or 57%, end-stage kidney disease, or renal death. eGFR was recalculated in a standardized manner using the 2009 Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration creatinine equation. Results: Among 28,690 participants across the 6 trials (median age 69 years [IQR, 62-76]; 9,656 [33.7% ] women), the proportion experiencing the composite kidney endpoint with a more stringent definition of a sustained decline in kidney function (eGFR threshold of 57%) ranged from 0.3% to 3.3%. The proportion of patients experiencing this endpoint with a less stringent definition (eGFR threshold of 40%) ranged from 1.0% and 10.0%. The steroidal MRAs doubled the risk of the composite kidney endpoint when applying the least stringent definition compared with placebo, but these effects were less apparent and no longer significant with application of more stringent definitions. ARNI appeared to consistently reduce the occurrence of the composite kidney endpoints irrespective of specific eGFR threshold applied. The potential benefits of SGLT2-inhibitors on the composite kidney endpoints appeared more apparent when defined by more stringent eGFR thresholds, although none of these effects individually were statistically significant. Conclusions: When applying standardized stringent kidney endpoint definitions, steroidal MRAs, ARNI, and SGLT2-inhibitors have either neutral or beneficial effects on kidney outcomes in HF. Applying less stringent definitions increased event rates but included acute declines in eGFR that might not ultimately reflect long-term effects on kidney disease progression.

Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure: Are There Thresholds and Inflection Points in Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Thresholds Justifying a Clinical Classification?

BACKGROUND: Recent guidelines proposed a classification for heart failure (HF) on the basis of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), although it remains unclear whether the divisions chosen were biologically rational. Using patients spanning the full range of LVEF, we examined whether there was evidence of LVEF thresholds in patient characteristics or inflection points in clinical outcomes. METHODS: Using patient-level information, we created a merged dataset of 33 699 participants who had been enrolled in 6 randomized controlled HF trials including patients with reduced and preserved ejection fraction. The relationship between the incidence of all-cause death (and specific causes of death) and HF hospitalization, and LVEF, was evaluated using Poisson regression models. RESULTS: As LVEF increased, age, the proportion of women, body mass index, systolic blood pressure, and prevalence of atrial fibrillation and diabetes increased, whereas ischemic pathogenesis, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) decreased. As LVEF increased >50%, age and the proportion of women continued to increase, and ischemic pathogenesis and NT-proBNP decreased, but other characteristics did not change meaningfully. The incidence of most clinical outcomes (except noncardiovascular death) decreased as LVEF increased, with a LVEF inflection point of around 50% for all-cause death and cardiovascular death, around 40% for pump failure death, and around 35% for HF hospitalization. Higher than those thresholds, there was little further decline in the incidence rate. There was no evidence of a J-shaped relationship between LVEF and death; no evidence of worse outcomes in patients with high-normal ("supranormal") LVEF. Similarly, in a subset of patients with echocardiographic data, there were no structural differences in patients with a high-normal LVEF suggestive of amyloidosis, and NT-proBNP levels were consistent with this conclusion. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HF, there was a LVEF threshold of around 40% to 50% where the pattern of patient characteristics changed, and event rates began to increase compared with higher LVEF values. Our findings provide evidence to support current upper LVEF thresholds defining HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction on the basis of prognosis. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifiers: NCT00634309, NCT00634400, NCT00634712, NCT00095238, NCT01035255, NCT00094302, NCT00853658, and NCT01920711.

Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibition in Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: In patients with symptomatic heart failure, sacubitril-valsartan has been found to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death from cardiovascular causes more effectively than an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor. Trials comparing the effects of these drugs in patients with acute myocardial infarction have been lacking. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with myocardial infarction complicated by a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, pulmonary congestion, or both to receive either sacubitril-valsartan (97 mg of sacubitril and 103 mg of valsartan twice daily) or ramipril (5 mg twice daily) in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure (outpatient symptomatic heart failure or heart failure leading to hospitalization), whichever occurred first. RESULTS: A total of 5661 patients underwent randomization; 2830 were assigned to receive sacubitril-valsartan and 2831 to receive ramipril. Over a median of 22 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 338 patients (11.9%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 373 patients (13.2%) in the ramipril group (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 1.04; P = 0.17). Death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 308 patients (10.9%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 335 patients (11.8%) in the ramipril group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.07); death from cardiovascular causes in 168 (5.9%) and 191 (6.7%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.08); and death from any cause in 213 (7.5%) and 242 (8.5%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.05). Treatment was discontinued because of an adverse event in 357 patients (12.6%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 379 patients (13.4%) in the ramipril group. CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril-valsartan was not associated with a significantly lower incidence of death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure than ramipril among patients with acute myocardial infarction. (Funded by Novartis; PARADISE-MI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02924727.).

Rapid, accurate publication and dissemination of clinical trial results: benefits and challenges.

Large-scale clinical trials are essential in cardiology and require rapid, accurate publication, and dissemination. Whereas conference presentations, press releases, and social media disseminate information quickly and often receive considerable coverage by mainstream and healthcare media, they lack detail, may emphasize selected data, and can be open to misinterpretation. Preprint servers speed access to research manuscripts while awaiting acceptance for publication by a journal, but these articles are not formally peer-reviewed and sometimes overstate the findings. Publication of trial results in a major journal is very demanding but the use of existing checklists can help accelerate the process. In case of rejection, procedures such as easing formatting requirements and possibly carrying over peer-review to other journals could speed resubmission. Secondary publications can help maximize benefits from clinical trials; publications of secondary endpoints and subgroup analyses further define treatment effects and the patient populations most likely to benefit. These rely on data access, and although data sharing is becoming more common, many challenges remain. Beyond publication in medical journals, there is a need for wider knowledge dissemination to maximize impact on clinical practice. This might be facilitated through plain language summary publications. Social media, websites, mainstream news outlets, and other publications, although not peer-reviewed, are important sources of medical information for both the public and for clinicians. This underscores the importance of ensuring that the information is understandable, accessible, balanced, and trustworthy. This report is based on discussions held on December 2021, at the 18th Global Cardiovascular Clinical Trialists meeting, involving a panel of editors of some of the top medical journals, as well as members of the lay press, industry, and clinical trialists.

Stroke in patients with heart failure and reduced or preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: Stroke is an important problem in patients with heart failure (HF), but the intersection between the two conditions is poorly studied across the range of ejection fraction. The prevalence of history of stroke and related outcomes were investigated in patients with HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Individual patient meta-analysis of seven clinical trials enrolling patients with HF with reduced (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Of the 20 159 patients with HFrEF, 1683 (8.3%) had a history of stroke, and of the 13 252 patients with HFpEF, 1287 (9.7%) had a history of stroke. Regardless of ejection fraction, patients with a history of stroke had more vascular comorbidity and worse HF. Among those with HFrEF, the incidence of the composite of cardiovascular death, HF hospitalization, stroke, or myocardial infarction was 18.23 (16.81-19.77) per 100 person-years in those with prior stroke vs. 13.12 (12.77-13.48) in those without [hazard ratio 1.37 (1.26-1.49), P < 0.001]. The corresponding rates in patients with HFpEF were 14.16 (12.96-15.48) and 9.37 (9.06-9.70) [hazard ratio 1.49 (1.36-1.64), P < 0.001]. Each component of the composite was more frequent in patients with stroke history, and the risk of future stroke was doubled in patients with prior stroke. Among patients with prior stroke, 30% with concomitant atrial fibrillation were not anticoagulated, and 29% with arterial disease were not taking statins; 17% with HFrEF and 38% with HFpEF had uncontrolled systolic blood pressure (≥140 mmHg). CONCLUSION: Heart failure patients with a history of stroke are at high risk of subsequent cardiovascular events, and targeting underutilization of guideline-recommended treatments might be a way to improve outcomes in this high-risk population.

Growth differentiation factor 15 and cardiovascular risk: individual patient meta-analysis.

AIMS: Levels of growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15), a cytokine secreted in response to cellular stress and inflammation, have been associated with multiple types of cardiovascular (CV) events. However, its comparative prognostic performance across different presentations of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) remains unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: An individual patient meta-analysis was performed using data pooled from eight trials including 53 486 patients. Baseline GDF-15 concentration was analyzed as a continuous variable and using established cutpoints (<1200 ng/L, 1200-1800 ng/L, > 1800 ng/L) to evaluate its prognostic performance for CV death/hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and their components using Cox models adjusted for clinical variables and established CV biomarkers. Analyses were further stratified on ASCVD status: acute coronary syndrome (ACS), stabilized after recent ACS, and stable ASCVD. Overall, higher GDF-15 concentration was significantly and independently associated with an increased rate of CV death/HHF and MACE (P < 0.001 for each). However, while GDF-15 showed a robust and consistent independent association with CV death and HHF across all presentations of ASCVD, its prognostic association with future myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke only remained significant in patients stabilized after recent ACS or with stable ASCVD [hazard ratio (HR): 1.24, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.17-1.31 and HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 1.05-1.28 for MI and stroke, respectively] and not in ACS (HR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.90-1.06 and HR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.39-1.92, respectively). CONCLUSION: Growth differentiation factor 15 consistently adds prognostic information for CV death and HHF across the spectrum of ASCVD. GDF-15 also adds prognostic information for MI and stroke beyond clinical risk factors and cardiac biomarkers but not in the setting of ACS.

Revisiting Race and the Benefit of RAS Blockade in Heart Failure: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Concerns have arisen that renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers are less effective in Black patients than non-Black patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Objective: To determine whether the effects of RAS blockers on cardiovascular outcomes differ between Black patients and non-Black patients with HFrEF. Data Sources: MEDLINE and Embase databases through December 31, 2023. Study Selection: Randomized trials investigating the effect of RAS blockers on cardiovascular outcomes in adults with HFrEF that enrolled Black and non-Black patients. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Individual-participant data were extracted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Independent Personal Data (PRISMA-IPD) reporting guidelines. Effects were estimated using a mixed-effects model using a 1-stage approach. Main Outcome and Measure: The primary outcome was first hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death. Results: The primary analysis, based on the 3 placebo-controlled RAS inhibitor monotherapy trials, included 8825 patients (9.9% Black). Rates of death and hospitalization for HF were substantially higher in Black than non-Black patients. The hazard ratio (HR) for RAS blockade vs placebo for the primary composite was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.69-1.03) in Black patients and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.67-0.79) in non-Black patients (P for interaction = .14). The HR for first HF hospitalization was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.70-1.13) in Black patients and 0.62 (95% CI, 0.56-0.69) in non-Black patients (P for interaction = .006). Conversely, the corresponding HRs for cardiovascular death were 0.83 (95% CI, 0.65-1.07) and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.77-0.93), respectively (P for interaction = .99). For total hospitalizations for HF and cardiovascular deaths, the corresponding rate ratios were 0.82 (95% CI, 0.66-1.02) and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.66-0.80), respectively (P for interaction = .27). The supportive analyses including the 2 trials adding an angiotensin receptor blocker to background angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor treatment (n = 16 383) gave consistent findings. Conclusions and Relevance: The mortality benefit from RAS blockade was similar in Black and non-Black patients. Despite the smaller relative risk reduction in hospitalization for HF with RAS blockade in Black patients, the absolute benefit in Black patients was comparable with non-Black patients because of the greater incidence of this outcome in Black patients.

Impact of Sacubitril/Valsartan Compared With Ramipril on Cardiac Structure and Function After Acute Myocardial Infarction: The PARADISE-MI Echocardiographic Substudy.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors attenuate left ventricular (LV) enlargement after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Preclinical data suggest similar benefits with combined angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibition, but human data are conflicting. The PARADISE-MI Echo Study (Prospective ARNI Versus ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After Myocardial Infarction) tested the effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with ramipril on LV function and adverse remodeling after high risk-AMI. METHODS: In a prespecified substudy, 544 PARADISE-MI participants were enrolled in the Echo Study to undergo protocol echocardiography at randomization and after 8 months. Patients were randomized within 0.5 to 7 days of presentation with their index AMI to receive a target dose of sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg or ramipril 5 mg twice daily. Echocardiographic measures were performed at a core laboratory by investigators blinded to treatment assignment. The effect of treatment on change in echo measures was assessed with ANCOVA with adjustment for baseline value and enrollment region. The primary end points were change in LV ejection fraction (LVEF) and left atrial volume (LAV), and prespecified secondary end points included changes in LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes. RESULTS: Mean age was 64±12 years; 26% were women; mean LVEF was 42±12%; and LAV was 49±17 mL. Of 544 enrolled patients, 457 (84%) had a follow-up echo at 8 months (228 taking sacubitril/valsartan, 229 taking ramipril). There was no significant difference in change in LVEF (P=0.79) or LAV (P =0.62) by treatment group. Patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan demonstrated less increase in LV end-diastolic volume (P=0.025) and greater decline in LV mass index (P=0.037), increase in tissue Doppler e'lat (P=0.005), decrease in E/e'lat (P=0.045), and decrease in tricuspid regurgitation peak velocity (P=0.024) than patients randomized to ramipril. These differences remained significant after adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics. Baseline LVEF, LV end-diastolic volume, LV end-systolic volume, LV mass index, LAV, and Doppler-based diastolic indices were associated with risk of cardiovascular death or incident heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan compared with ramipril after AMI did not result in changes in LVEF or LAV at 8 months. Patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan had less LV enlargement and greater improvement in filling pressure. Measures of LV size, systolic function, and diastolic properties were predictive of cardiovascular death and incident heart failure after AMI in this contemporary, well-treated cohort. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02924727.

The Effects of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibition on Major Coronary Events in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: Insights From the PARADISE-MI Trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients who survive an acute myocardial infarction (AMI), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors decrease the risk of subsequent major cardiovascular events. Whether angiotensin-receptor blockade and neprilysin inhibition with sacubitril/valsartan reduce major coronary events more effectively than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in high-risk patients with recent AMI remains unknown. We aimed to compare the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on coronary outcomes in patients with AMI. METHODS: We conducted a prespecified analysis of the PARADISE-MI trial (Prospective ARNI vs ACE Inhibitors Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI), which compared sacubitril/valsartan (97/103 mg twice daily) with ramipril (5 mg twice daily) for reducing heart failure events after myocardial infarction in 5661 patients with AMI complicated by left ventricular systolic dysfunction, pulmonary congestion, or both. In the present analysis, the prespecified composite coronary outcome was the first occurrence of death from coronary heart disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction, hospitalization for angina, or postrandomization coronary revascularization. RESULTS: Patients were randomly assigned at a median of 4.4 [3.0-5.8] days after index AMI (ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction 76%, non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction 24%), by which time 89% of patients had undergone coronary reperfusion. Compared with ramipril, sacubitril/valsartan decreased the risk of coronary outcomes (hazard ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.74-0.99], P=0.04) over a median follow-up of 22 months. Rates of the components of the composite outcomes were lower in patients on sacubitril/valsartan but were not individually significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: In survivors of an AMI with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and pulmonary congestion, sacubitril/valsartan-compared with ramipril-reduced the risk of a prespecified major coronary composite outcome. Dedicated studies are necessary to confirm this finding and elucidate its mechanism. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02924727.

Duration of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction and Outcomes With Sacubitril/Valsartan: Insights From the PARAGON-HF Trial.

OBJECTIVE: In this post hoc analysis of the PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HFpEF) trial, we evaluated clinical outcomes and responses to sacubitril/valsartan by duration of heart failure (HF) with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 45% at initial diagnosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: The primary outcome was a composite of total hospitalizations due to HF and cardiovascular deaths, analyzed by using a semiparametric proportional rates method, stratified by geographic region. Among 4784 (99.7%) randomized participants in the PARAGON-HF trial for whom baseline HF duration was captured, 1359 (28%) had durations of HF of < 6 months, 1295 (27%) of 6 months-2 years, and 2130 (45%) of > 2 years. Longer HF duration was associated with higher comorbidity burdens, worse health status and lower rates of prior hospitalization due to HF. Over a median follow-up of 35 months, longer HF duration was associated with a higher risk of first and recurrent primary events (per 100 patient-years): < 6 months, 12.0 (95% CI, 10.4-14.0); 6 months-2 years, 12.2 (10.6-14.2); > 2 years, 15.8 (14.2-17.5). Relative treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan were consistent, irrespective of baseline HF duration on the primary endpoint (Pinteraction = 0.112). Clinically meaningful (≥ 5 point) improvements in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Clinical Summary Scores were also similarly observed, irrespective of HF duration; (Pinteraction = 0.112). Adverse events were similar between treatment arms across HF duration categories. CONCLUSIONS: In PARAGON-HF, longer HF duration was independently predictive of adverse HF outcomes. Treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan were consistent, irrespective of baseline HF duration, suggesting that even ambulatory patients with longstanding HFpEF and predominantly mild symptoms stand to benefit from treatment optimization.

Pharmacogenetics-guided dalcetrapib therapy after an acute coronary syndrome: the dal-GenE trial.

AIMS: In a retrospective analysis of dal-Outcomes, the effect of dalcetrapib on cardiovascular events was influenced by an adenylate cyclase type 9 (ADCY9) gene polymorphism. The dal-GenE study was conducted to test this pharmacogenetic hypothesis. METHODS AND RESULTS: dal-GenE was a double-blind trial in patients with an acute coronary syndrome within 1-3 months and the AA genotype at variant rs1967309 in the ADCY9 gene. A total of 6147 patients were randomly assigned to receive dalcetrapib 600 mg or placebo daily. The primary endpoint was the time from randomization to first occurrence of cardiovascular death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal stroke. After a median follow-up of 39.9 months, the primary endpoint occurred in 292 (9.5%) of 3071 patients in the dalcetrapib group and 327 (10.6%) of 3076 patients in the placebo group [hazard ratio 0.88; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-1.03; P = 0.12]. The hazard ratios for the components of the primary endpoint were 0.79 (95% CI 0.65-0.96) for myocardial infarction, 0.92 (95% CI 0.64-1.33) for stroke, 1.21 (95% CI 0.91-1.60) for death from cardiovascular causes, and 2.33 (95% CI 0.60-9.02) for resuscitated cardiac arrest. In a pre-specified on-treatment sensitivity analysis, the primary endpoint event rate was 7.8% (236/3015) in the dalcetrapib group and 9.3% (282/3031) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0.83; 95% CI 0.70-0.98). CONCLUSION: Dalcetrapib did not significantly reduce the risk of occurrence of the primary endpoint of ischaemic cardiovascular events at end of study. A new trial would be needed to test the pharmacogenetic hypothesis that dalcetrapib improves the prognosis of patients with the AA genotype. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration dal-GenE ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02525939.

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.).

Prognostic Impact of Cardiovascular Versus Noncardiovascular Hospitalizations in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: Insights From TOPCAT.

BACKGROUND: Patients with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction are commonly admitted to the hospital for both cardiovascular (CV) and noncardiovascular (non-CV) reasons. The prognostic implications of non-CV hospitalizations in this population are not well understood. In this study, we aimed to examine the prognostic implications of hospitalizations owing to CV and non-CV reasons in a HF with preserved ejection fraction population. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist trial (TOPCAT) randomized 3445 stable outpatients with chronic HF with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 45% or greater and either prior hospitalization for HF or elevated natriuretic peptides to treatment with spironolactone or placebo. Hospitalizations for any cause were reported by investigators during study follow-up and characterized according to prespecified category causes. This analysis focused on the subset of TOPCAT participants enrolled in the Americas (n = 1767), in which 2973 hospitalizations were observed in 1062 subjects (60%) over a mean follow-up of 3.3 years of study follow-up, of which 1474 (49%) were ascribed to CV causes. Among 1056 first hospitalizations, 478 (45%) were for CV reasons and 578 (55%) for non-CV reasons. Mortality rates were lowest for participants not hospitalized during the trial (3.2 per 100 patient-years [PY]), but similarly elevated after first hospitalization for CV and non-CV reasons (11.0 per 100 PY vs 12.6 per 100 PY, respectively; P = .24). Among those hospitalized for CV reasons, mortality rates were similar after hospitalization for HF and non-CV related reasons (15.2 per 100 PY vs 12.6 per 100 PY; P = .23). Recurrent hospitalization, whether owing to CV or non-CV causes, was associated with a heightened risk for subsequent mortality, with similar death rates after hospitalization twice for CV reasons (18.5 per 100 PY), twice for non-CV reasons (21.6 per 100 PY), or once each for CV and non-CV reasons (18.4 per 100 PY). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction, hospitalization for any cause is associated with a heightened risk for postdischarge mortality, with an even higher risk associated with recurrent hospitalization. Given the high burden of non-CV hospitalizations in this population, the targeted management of comorbid medical illness may be critical to decreasing morbidity and mortality.

Effects of sacubitril/valsartan on glycemia in patients with diabetes and heart failure: the PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF trials.

BACKGROUND: Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan lowered HbA1c and reduced new insulin therapy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and diabetes in the PARADIGM-HF trial. We sought to assess the glycemic effects of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and diabetes, and across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in heart failure and diabetes. METHODS: We compared the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, relative to valsartan, on HbA1c, new insulin therapy and hypoglycemia in the randomized controlled trial PARAGON-HF, and performed pooled analyses of PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF. RESULTS: Among 2395 patients with HFpEF and diabetes in PARAGON-HF, sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan reduced HbA1c (baseline-adjusted between-group difference in HbA1c change at 48 weeks: - 0.24%, 95% CI - 0.33 to - 0.16%, P < 0.001). Numerically, new insulin treatment was initiated less often in the sacubitril/valsartan group than in the valsartan group, but the difference was not statistically significant (12.8% vs. 16.1%; HR: 0.80, 95% CI 0.62-1.02, P = 0.07). Hypoglycemia adverse event reports were low, but more frequent in those receiving sacubitril/valsartan than in the valsartan group (4.2% vs. 2.6%; HR: 1.64, 95% CI 1.05-2.56, P = 0.030). In a pooled analysis of PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF, the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on change in HbA1c was not significantly modified by LVEF (Pinteraction = 0.56). Across the spectrum of LVEF, sacubitril/valsartan reduced new insulin therapy (HR: 0.75, 95% CI 0.63-0.89, P = 0.001), compared with enalapril or valsartan. CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril/valsartan reduced HbA1c and new insulin therapy in patients with heart failure and diabetes across the spectrum of LVEF but may be associated with a slightly higher risk for hypoglycemia. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01920711.

Sacubitril-valsartan as a treatment for apparent resistant hypertension in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: Patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) frequently have difficult-to-control hypertension. We examined the effect of neprilysin inhibition on 'apparent resistant hypertension' in patients with HFpEF in the PARAGON-HF trial, which compared the effect of sacubitril-valsartan with valsartan. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this post hoc analysis, patients were categorized according to systolic blood pressure at the end of the valsartan run-in (n = 4795). 'Apparent resistant hypertension' was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥140 mmHg (≥135 mmHg if diabetes) despite treatment with valsartan, a calcium channel blocker, and a diuretic. 'Apparent mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA)-resistant' hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥140 mmHg (≥135 mmHg if diabetes) despite the above treatments and an MRA. The primary outcome in the PARAGON-HF trial was a composite of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. We examined clinical endpoints and the safety of sacubitril-valsartan according to the hypertension category. We also examined reductions in blood pressure from the end of valsartan run-in to Weeks 4 and 16 after randomization. Overall, 731 patients (15.2%) had apparent resistant hypertension and 135 (2.8%) had apparent MRA-resistant hypertension. The rate of the primary outcome was higher in patients with apparent resistant hypertension [17.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 15.6-19.1 per 100 person-years] compared to those with a controlled systolic blood pressure (13.4; 12.7-14.3 per 100 person-years), with an adjusted rate ratio of 1.28 (95% CI 1.05-1.57). The reduction in systolic blood pressure at Weeks 4 and 16, respectively, was greater with sacubitril-valsartan vs. valsartan in patients with apparent resistant hypertension [-4.8 (-7.0 to -2.5) and 3.9 (-6.6 to -1.3) mmHg] and apparent MRA-resistant hypertension [-8.8 (-14.0 to -3.5) and -6.3 (-12.5 to -0.1) mmHg]. The proportion of patients with apparent resistant hypertension achieving a controlled systolic blood pressure by Week 16 was 47.9% in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 34.3% in the valsartan group [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.78, 95% CI 1.30-2.43]. In patients with apparent MRA-resistant hypertension, the respective proportions were 43.6% vs. 28.4% (adjusted OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.18-5.89). CONCLUSION: Sacubitril-valsartan may be useful in treating apparent resistant hypertension in patients with HFpEF, even in those who continue to have an elevated blood pressure despite treatment with at least four antihypertensive drug classes, including an MRA. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PARAGON-HF: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01920711.

Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibition and Renal Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: In patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease is common and associated with a higher risk of renal events than in patients without chronic kidney disease. We assessed the renal effects of angiotensin/neprilysin inhibition in patients who have heart failure with preserved ejection fraction enrolled in the PARAGON-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction). METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, event-driven trial, we assigned 4822 patients who had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction to receive sacubitril/valsartan (n=2419) or valsartan (n=2403). Herein, we present the results of the prespecified renal composite outcome (time to first occurrence of either: ≥50% reduction in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), end-stage renal disease, or death from renal causes), the individual components of this composite, and the influence of therapy on eGFR slope. RESULTS: At randomization, eGFR was 63±19 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2. At study closure, the composite renal outcome occurred in 33 patients (1.4%) assigned to sacubitril/valsartan and 64 patients (2.7%) assigned to valsartan (hazard ratio, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.33-0.77]; P=0.001). The treatment effect on the composite renal end point did not differ according to the baseline eGFR (<60 versus ≥60 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2 (P-interaction=0.92). The decline in eGFR was less for sacubitril/valsartan than for valsartan (-2.0 [95% CI, -2.2 to -1.9] versus -2.7 [95% CI, -2.8 to -2.5] mL·min-1·1.73 m-2 per year). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the risk of renal events, and slowed decline in eGFR, in comparison with valsartan. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01920711.

Impact of Regulatory Guidance on Evaluating Cardiovascular Risk of New Glucose-Lowering Therapies to Treat Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Lessons Learned and Future Directions.

Responding to concerns about the potential for increased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes, specifically myocardial infarction, associated with certain glucose-lowering therapies, the US Food and Drug Administration and the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency issued guidance to the pharmaceutical industry in 2008. Glucose-lowering therapies were granted regulatory approval primarily from smaller studies that have demonstrated reductions in glycated hemoglobin concentration. Such studies were overall underpowered and of insufficient duration to show any effect on cardiovascular outcomes. The 2008 guidance aimed to ensure the cardiovascular safety of new glucose-lowering therapies to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. This resulted in a plethora of new cardiovascular outcome trials, most designed primarily as placebo-controlled noninferiority trials, but with many also powered for superiority. Several of these outcome trials demonstrated cardiovascular benefits of the newer agents, resulting in the first-ever cardiovascular protection indications for glucose-lowering therapies. Determining whether the guidance continues to have value in its current form is critically important as we move forward after the first decade of implementation. In February 2018, a think tank comprising representatives from academia, industry, and regulatory agencies convened to consider the guidance in light of the findings of the completed cardiovascular outcome trials. The group made several recommendations for future regulatory guidance and for cardiovascular outcome trials of glucose-lowering therapies. These recommendations include requiring only the 1.3 noninferiority margin for regulatory approval, conducting trials for longer durations, considering studying glucose-lowering therapies as first-line management of type 2 diabetes mellitus, considering heart failure or kidney outcomes within the primary outcome, considering head-to-head active comparator trials, increasing the diversity of patients enrolled, evaluating strategies to streamline registries and the study of unselected populations, and identifying ways to improve translation of trial results to general practice.

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.

Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction In Perspective.

Approximately half of the patients with signs and symptoms of heart failure have a left ventricular ejection fraction that is not markedly abnormal. Despite the historically initial surprise, heightened risks for heart failure specific major adverse events occur across the broad range of ejection fraction, including normal. The recognition of the magnitude of the problem of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in the past 20 years has spurred an explosion of clinical investigation and growing intensity of informative outcome trials. This article addresses the historic development of this component of the heart failure syndrome, including the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and existing and planned therapeutic studies. Looking forward, more specific phenotyping and even genotyping of subpopulations should lead to improvements in outcomes from future trials.