The Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan on Left Ventricular Myocardial Deformation in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (PARAMOUNT trial).

BACKGROUND: Global longitudinal strain (GLS) and global circumferential strain (GCS) have been shown to be impaired in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. We sought to assess whether treating patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction with sacubitril/valsartan would significantly improve GLS and GCS compared with valsartan alone. METHODS AND RESULTS: PARAMOUNT (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB on Management of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction Trial) was a phase II, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind multicenter trial in 301 patients with New York Heart Association functional class II-III heart failure, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 45%, and an N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide of ≥400 pg/mL. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to sacubitril/valsartan titrated to 200 mg twice daily or valsartan titrated to 160 mg twice daily for 36 weeks. We assessed changes in the GLS and the GCS from baseline to 36 weeks, adjusting for baseline value, in patients with sufficient imaging quality for 2-dimensitonal speckle tracking analysis at both timepoints (n = 60 sacubitril/valsartan, n = 75 valsartan only). GCS was significantly improved at 36 weeks in the sacubitril/valsartan group when compared with the valsartan group (Δ4.42%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-8.17, P = .021), with no significant difference observed in GLS (Δ0.25%, 95% CI, -1.19 to 1.70, P = .73). Patients with a history of hospitalization for heart failure had a differentially greater improvement in GCS when treated with sacubitril/valsartan. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, sacubitril/valsartan improved GCS but not GLS when compared with valsartan during a 36-week period. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00887588.

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.).

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.

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).

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.

A putative placebo analysis of the effects of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure across the full range of ejection fraction.

AIMS: The PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials tested sacubitril/valsartan against active controls given renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) are ethically mandated in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction and are used in the vast majority of patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction. To estimate the effects of sacubitril/valsartan had it been tested against a placebo control, we made indirect comparisons of the effects of sacubitril/valsartan with putative placebos in HF across the full range of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed patient-level data from the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials (n = 13 194) and the CHARM-Alternative and CHARM-Preserved trials (n = 5050, candesartan vs. placebo). The rate ratio (RR) of sacubitril/valsartan vs. putative placebo was estimated by the product of the RR for sacubitril/valsartan vs. RASi and the RR for RASi vs. placebo. Total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death were analysed using the negative binomial method. Treatment effects were estimated using cubic spline methods by ejection fraction as a continuous measure. Across the range of LVEF, sacubitril/valsartan was associated with a RR 0.54 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45-0.65] for the recurrent primary endpoint compared with putative placebo (P < 0.001). Treatment benefits of sacubitril/valsartan vs. putative placebo varied non-linearly with LVEF with attenuation of effects observed at LVEF above 60%. When analyzing data from PARADIGM-HF and CHARM-Alternative, the estimated risk reduction of sacubitril/valsartan vs. putative placebo was 48% (95% CI 35-58%); P < 0.001. When analyzing data from PARAGON-HF and CHARM-Preserved (with LVEF ≥ 45%), the estimated risk reduction of sacubitril/valsartan vs. putative placebo was 29% (95% CI 7-46%); P = 0.013. Across the full range of LVEF, consistent effects were observed for time-to-first endpoints: first primary endpoint (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.64-0.82), first HF hospitalization (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.58-0.78), cardiovascular death (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64-0.89), and all-cause death (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71-0.96); all P < 0.02. CONCLUSION: This putative placebo analysis reinforces the treatment benefits of sacubitril/valsartan on risk of adverse cardiovascular events across the full range of LVEF, with most pronounced effects observed at a LVEF up to 60%.

Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan vs Standard Medical Therapies on Plasma NT-proBNP Concentration and Submaximal Exercise Capacity in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction: The PARALLAX Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: There is limited evidence on the benefits of sacubitril/valsartan vs broader renin angiotensin system inhibitor background therapy on surrogate outcome markers, 6-minute walk distance, and quality of life in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF >40%). Objective: To evaluate the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels, 6-minute walk distance, and quality of life vs background medication-based individualized comparators in patients with chronic heart failure and LVEF of more than 40%. Design, Setting, and Participants: A 24-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel group clinical trial (August 2017-October 2019). Of 4632 patients screened at 396 centers in 32 countries, 2572 patients with heart failure, LVEF of more than 40%, elevated NT-proBNP levels, structural heart disease, and reduced quality of life were enrolled (last follow-up, October 28, 2019). Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 either to sacubitril/valsartan (n = 1286) or to background medication-based individualized comparator (n = 1286), ie, enalapril, valsartan, or placebo stratified by prior use of a renin angiotensin system inhibitor. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end points were change from baseline in plasma NT-proBNP level at week 12 and in the 6-minute walk distance at week 24. Secondary end points were change from baseline in quality of life measures and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class at 24 weeks. Results: Among 2572 randomized patients (mean age, 72.6 years [SD, 8.5 years]; 1301 women [50.7%]), 2240 (87.1%) completed the trial. At baseline, the median NT-proBNP levels were 786 pg/mL in the sacubitril/valsartan group and 760 pg/mL in the comparator group. After 12 weeks, patients in the sacubitril/valsartan group (adjusted geometric mean ratio to baseline, 0.82 pg/mL) had a significantly greater reduction in NT-proBNP levels than did those in the comparator group (adjusted geometric mean ratio to baseline, 0.98 pg/mL) with an adjusted geometric mean ratio of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80 to 0.88; P < .001). At week 24, there was no significant between-group difference in median change from baseline in the 6-minute walk distance with an increase of 9.7 m vs 12.2 m (adjusted mean difference, -2.5 m; 95% CI, -8.5 to 3.5; P = .42). There was no significant between-group difference in the mean change in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (12.3 vs 11.8; mean difference, 0.52; 95% CI, -0.93 to 1.97) or improvement in NYHA class (23.6% vs 24.0% of patients; adjusted odds ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.18). The most frequent adverse events in the sacubitril/valsartan group vs the comparator group were hypotension (14.1% vs 5.5%), albuminuria (12.3% vs 7.6%), and hyperkalemia (11.6% vs 10.9%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with heart failure and left ventricular ejection factor of higher than 40%, sacubitril/valsartan treatment compared with standard renin angiotensin system inhibitor treatment or placebo resulted in a significantly greater decrease in plasma N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide levels at 12 weeks but did not significantly improve 6-minute walk distance at 24 weeks. Further research is warranted to evaluate potential clinical benefits of sacubitril/valsartan in these patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03066804.

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

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

Systolic blood pressure, cardiovascular outcomes and efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: results from PARADIGM-HF.

Background: Compared to heart failure patients with higher systolic blood pressure (SBP), those with lower SBP have a worse prognosis. To make matters worse, the latter patients often do not receive treatment with life-saving therapies that might lower blood pressure further. We examined the association between SBP and outcomes in the Prospective Comparison of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) with an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure trial (PARADIGM-HF), as well as the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, according to baseline SBP. Methods: We analysed the effect of treatment on SBP and on the primary composite outcome (cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization), its components and all-cause death. We examined baseline SBP as a categorical (<110, 110 to < 120, 120 to < 130, 130 to < 140 and ≥140 mmHg) and continuous variable, as well as average in-trial SBP and time-updated SBP. Findings: All-cause and cardiovascular mortality rates were highest in patients with the lowest SBP whereas there was a U-shaped relationship between SBP and the rate of heart failure hospitalization. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril was consistent across all baseline SBP categories for all outcomes. For example, the sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril hazard ratio for the primary endpoint was 0.88 (95%CI 0.74-1.06) in patients with a baseline SBP <110 mmHg and 0.81 (0.65-1.02) for those with a SBP ≥140 mmHg (P for interaction = 0.55). Symptomatic hypotension, study drug dose-reduction and discontinuation were more frequent in patients with a lower SBP. Interpretation: In PARADIGM-HF, patients with lower SBP at randomization, notably after tolerating full doses of both study drugs during a run-in period, were at higher risk but generally tolerated sacubitril/valsartan and had the same relative benefit over enalapril as patients with higher baseline SBP.

Importance of Clinical Worsening of Heart Failure Treated in the Outpatient Setting: Evidence From the Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure Trial (PARADIGM-HF).

BACKGROUND: Many episodes of worsening of heart failure (HF) are treated by increasing oral therapy or temporary intravenous treatment in the community or emergency department (ED), without hospital admission. We studied the frequency and prognostic importance of these episodes of worsening in the Prospective Comparison of ARNI (angiotensin-receptor-neprilysin inhibitor) with ACEI (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor) to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure Trial (PARADIGM-HF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Outpatient intensification of HF therapy was added to an expanded composite outcome with ED visits, HF hospitalizations, and cardiovascular deaths. In an examination of first nonfatal events, 361 of 8399 patients (4.3%) had outpatient intensification of HF therapy without a subsequent event (ie, ED visit/HF hospitalizations) within 30 days; 78 of 8399 (1.0%) had an ED visit without previous outpatient intensification of HF therapy or a subsequent event within 30 days; and 1107 of 8399 (13.2%) had HF hospitalizations without a preceding event. The risk of death (in comparison with no-event patients) was similar after each manifestation of worsening: outpatient intensification of HF therapy (hazard ratio, 4.8; 95% confidence interval, 3.9-5.9); ED visit (hazard ratio, 4.5; 95% confidence interval, 3.0-6.7); HF hospitalizations (hazard ratio, 5.9; 95% confidence interval, 5.2-6.6). The expanded composite added 14% more events and shortened time to accrual of a fixed number of events. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril was similar to the primary outcome for the expanded composite (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.86) and was consistent across the components of the latter. CONCLUSIONS: Focusing only on HF hospitalizations underestimates the frequency of worsening and the serious implications of all manifestations of worsening. For clinical trials conducted in an era of heightened efforts to avoid HF hospitalizations, inclusion of episodes of outpatient treatment intensification (and ED visits) in a composite outcome adds an important number of events and shortens the time taken to accrue a target number of end points in an event-driven trial. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255.

Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition versus enalapril in heart failure.

BACKGROUND: We compared the angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 with enalapril in patients who had heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction. In previous studies, enalapril improved survival in such patients. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 8442 patients with class II, III, or IV heart failure and an ejection fraction of 40% or less to receive either LCZ696 (at a dose of 200 mg twice daily) or enalapril (at a dose of 10 mg twice daily), in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure, but the trial was designed to detect a difference in the rates of death from cardiovascular causes. RESULTS: The trial was stopped early, according to prespecified rules, after a median follow-up of 27 months, because the boundary for an overwhelming benefit with LCZ696 had been crossed. At the time of study closure, the primary outcome had occurred in 914 patients (21.8%) in the LCZ696 group and 1117 patients (26.5%) in the enalapril group (hazard ratio in the LCZ696 group, 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 0.87; P<0.001). A total of 711 patients (17.0%) receiving LCZ696 and 835 patients (19.8%) receiving enalapril died (hazard ratio for death from any cause, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.93; P<0.001); of these patients, 558 (13.3%) and 693 (16.5%), respectively, died from cardiovascular causes (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.89; P<0.001). As compared with enalapril, LCZ696 also reduced the risk of hospitalization for heart failure by 21% (P<0.001) and decreased the symptoms and physical limitations of heart failure (P=0.001). The LCZ696 group had higher proportions of patients with hypotension and nonserious angioedema but lower proportions with renal impairment, hyperkalemia, and cough than the enalapril group. CONCLUSIONS: LCZ696 was superior to enalapril in reducing the risks of death and of hospitalization for heart failure. (Funded by Novartis; PARADIGM-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01035255.).

The effects of sacubitril/valsartan on coronary outcomes in PARADIGM-HF.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I), are beneficial both in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF) and after myocardial infarction (MI). We examined the effects of the angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan, compared with the ACE-I enalapril, on coronary outcomes in PARADIGM-HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined the effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril on the following outcomes: i) the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular (CV) death or HF hospitalization, ii) a pre-defined broader composite including, in addition, MI, stroke, and resuscitated sudden death, and iii) a post hoc coronary composite of CV-death, non-fatal MI, angina hospitalization or coronary revascularization. At baseline, of 8399 patients, 3634 (43.3%) had a prior MI and 4796 (57.1%) had a history of any coronary artery disease. Among all patients, compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the risk of the primary outcome (HR 0.80 [0.73-0.87], P<.001), the broader composite (HR 0.83 [0.76-0.90], P<.001) and the coronary composite (HR 0.83 [0.75-0.92], P<.001). Although each of the components of the coronary composite occurred less frequently in the sacubitril/valsartan group, compared with the enalapril group, only CV death was reduced significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the risk of both the primary endpoint and a coronary composite outcome in PARADIGM-HF. Additional studies on the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on atherothrombotic outcomes in high-risk patients are merited.

Sacubitril/Valsartan (LCZ696) in Heart Failure.

It has been known since the 1990s that long-term morbidity and mortality is improved in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) by treatments that target the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS). It has also long been thought that enhancement of the activity of natriuretic peptides (NPs) could potentially benefit patients with HFrEF, but multiple attempts to realize this benefit had failed over the years - until 2014, when a large, phase III, randomized, controlled clinical trial (PARADIGM-HF) was completed comparing sacubitril/valsartan with enalapril, a well-established treatment for HFrEF. Sacubitril/valsartan (formerly known as LCZ696) is a first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) that simultaneously suppresses RAAS activation through blockade of angiotensin II type 1 receptors and enhances vasoactive peptides including NPs through inhibition of neprilysin, the enzyme responsible for their degradation. In PARADIGM-HF, patients with HFrEF treated with sacubitril/valsartan had 20% less risk for cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure (the primary endpoint), 20% less risk for cardiovascular death, 21% less risk for first hospitalization for heart failure, and 16% less risk for death from any cause, compared with enalapril (all p < 0.001). Concerning tolerability, the sacubitril/valsartan group had higher proportions of patients with hypotension and nonserious angioedema but lower proportions with renal impairment, hyperkalemia, and cough, compared with the enalapril group. The use of sacubitril/valsartan has been endorsed by the latest heart failure treatment guidelines in Europe and the USA. This chapter reviews the discoveries, scientific reasoning, and clinical evidence that led to the development of sacubitril/valsartan, the first novel therapy in a new drug class to improve survival in HFrEF in the last 15 years.

Geographic variations in the PARADIGM-HF heart failure trial.

AIMS: The globalization of clinical trials has highlighted geographic variations in patient characteristics, event rates, and treatment effects. We investigated these further in PARADIGM-HF, the largest and most globally representative trial in heart failure (HF) to date. METHODS AND RESULTS: We looked at five regions: North America (NA) 602 (8%), Western Europe (WE) 1680 (20%), Central/Eastern Europe/Russia (CEER) 2762 (33%), Latin America (LA) 1433 (17%), and Asia-Pacific (AP) 1487 (18%). Notable differences included: WE patients (mean age 68 years) and NA (65 years) were older than AP (58 years) and LA (63 years) and had more coronary disease; NA and CEER patients had the worst signs, symptoms, and functional status. North American patients were the most likely to have a defibrillating-device (54 vs. 2% AP) and least likely prescribed a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (36 vs. 65% LA). Other evidence-based therapies were used most frequently in NA and WE. Rates of the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death or HF hospitalization (per 100 patient-years) varied among regions: NA 13.6 (95% CI 11.7-15.7) WE 9.6 (8.6-10.6), CEER 12.3 (11.4-13.2), LA 11.2 (10.0-12.5), and AP 12.5 (11.3-13.8). After adjustment for prognostic variables, relative to NA, the risk of CV death was higher in LA and AP and the risk of HF hospitalization lower in WE. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was consistent across regions. CONCLUSION: There were many regional differences in PARADIGM-HF, including in age, symptoms, comorbidity, background therapy, and event-rates, although these did not modify the benefit of sacubitril/valsartan. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255.

Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibition compared with enalapril on the risk of clinical progression in surviving patients with heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials in heart failure have focused on the improvement in symptoms or decreases in the risk of death and other cardiovascular events. Little is known about the effect of drugs on the risk of clinical deterioration in surviving patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared the angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 (400 mg daily) with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril (20 mg daily) in 8399 patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction in a double-blind trial. The analyses focused on prespecified measures of nonfatal clinical deterioration. In comparison with the enalapril group, fewer LCZ696-treated patients required intensification of medical treatment for heart failure (520 versus 604; hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.94; P=0.003) or an emergency department visit for worsening heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.85; P=0.001). The patients in the LCZ696 group had 23% fewer hospitalizations for worsening heart failure (851 versus 1079; P<0.001) and were less likely to require intensive care (768 versus 879; 18% rate reduction, P=0.005), to receive intravenous positive inotropic agents (31% risk reduction, P<0.001), and to have implantation of a heart failure device or cardiac transplantation (22% risk reduction, P=0.07). The reduction in heart failure hospitalization with LCZ696 was evident within the first 30 days after randomization. Worsening of symptom scores in surviving patients was consistently more common in the enalapril group. LCZ696 led to an early and sustained reduction in biomarkers of myocardial wall stress and injury (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and troponin) versus enalapril. CONCLUSIONS: Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition prevents the clinical progression of surviving patients with heart failure more effectively than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255.

Efficacy and safety of LCZ696 (sacubitril-valsartan) according to age: insights from PARADIGM-HF.

BACKGROUND: The age at which heart failure develops varies widely between countries and drug tolerance and outcomes also vary by age. We have examined the efficacy and safety of LCZ696 according to age in the Prospective comparison of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure trial (PARADIGM-HF). METHODS: In PARADIGM-HF, 8399 patients aged 18-96 years and in New York Heart Association functional class II-IV with an LVEF ≤40% were randomized to either enalapril or LCZ696. We examined the pre-specified efficacy and safety outcomes according to age category (years): <55 (n = 1624), 55-64 (n = 2655), 65-74 (n = 2557), and ≥75 (n = 1563). FINDINGS: The rate (per 100 patient-years) of the primary outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH) increased from 13.4 to 14.8 across the age categories. The LCZ696:enalapril hazard ratio (HR) was <1.0 in all categories (P for interaction between age category and treatment = 0.94) with an overall HR of 0.80 (0.73, 0.87), P < 0.001. The findings for HFH were similar for CV and all-cause mortality and the age category by treatment interactions were not significant. The pre-specified safety outcomes of hypotension, renal impairment and hyperkalaemia increased in both treatment groups with age, although the differences between treatment (more hypotension but less renal impairment and hyperkalaemia with LCZ696) were consistent across age categories. INTERPRETATION: LCZ696 was more beneficial than enalapril across the spectrum of age in PARADIGM-HF with a favourable benefit-risk profile in all age groups.

Effect of the angiotensin-receptor-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 compared with enalapril on mode of death in heart failure patients.

AIMS: The angiotensin-receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) LCZ696 reduced cardiovascular deaths and all-cause mortality compared with enalapril in patients with chronic heart failure in the prospective comparison of ARNI with an Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial. To more completely understand the components of this mortality benefit, we examined the effect of LCZ696 on mode of death. METHODS AND RESULTS: PARADIGM-HF was a prospective, double-blind, randomized trial in 8399 patients with chronic heart failure, New York Heart Association Class II-IV symptoms, and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% receiving guideline-recommended medical therapy and followed for a median of 27 months. Mode of death was adjudicated by a blinded clinical endpoints committee. The majority of deaths were cardiovascular (80.9%), and the risk of cardiovascular death was significantly reduced by treatment with LCZ (hazard ratio, HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72-0.89, P < 0.001). Among cardiovascular deaths, both sudden cardiac death (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68-0.94, P = 0.008) and death due to worsening heart failure (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64-0.98, P = 0.034) were reduced by treatment with LCZ696 compared with enalapril. Deaths attributed to other cardiovascular causes, including myocardial infarction and stroke, were infrequent and distributed evenly between treatment groups, as were non-cardiovascular deaths. CONCLUSIONS: LCZ696 was superior to enalapril in reducing both sudden cardiac deaths and deaths from worsening heart failure, which accounted for the majority of cardiovascular deaths. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://clinicaltrials.gov/, 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.

The angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a phase 2 double-blind randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality, but effective treatments are lacking. We assessed the efficacy and safety of LCZ696, a first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), in patients with this disorder. METHODS: PARAMOUNT was a phase 2, randomised, parallel-group, double-blind multicentre trial in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-III heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction 45% or higher, and NT-proBNP greater than 400 pg/mL. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) by central interactive voice response system to LCZ696 titrated to 200 mg twice daily or valsartan titrated to 160 mg twice daily, and treated for 36 weeks. Investigators and participants were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was change in NT-proBNP, a marker of left ventricular wall stress, from baseline to 12 weeks; analysis included all patients randomly assigned to treatment groups who had a baseline and at least one postbaseline assessment. This trial is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT00887588. FINDINGS: 149 patients were randomly assigned to LCZ696 and 152 to valsartan; 134 in the LCZ696 group and 132 in the valsartan group were included in analysis of the primary endpoint. NT-proBNP was significantly reduced at 12 weeks in the LCZ696 group compared with the valsartan group (LCZ696: baseline, 783 pg/mL [95% CI 670-914], 12 weeks, 605 pg/mL [512-714]; valsartan: baseline, 862 pg/mL [733-1012], 12 weeks, 835 [710-981]; ratio LCZ696/valsartan, 0·77, 95% CI 0·64-0·92, p=0·005). LCZ696 was well tolerated with adverse effects similar to those of valsartan; 22 patients (15%) on LCZ696 and 30 (20%) on valsartan had one or more serious adverse event. INTERPRETATION: In patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, LCZ696 reduced NT-proBNP to a greater extent than did valsartan at 12 weeks and was well tolerated. Whether these effects would translate into improved outcomes needs to be tested prospectively. FUNDING: Novartis.