Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan on Cognitive Function in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Prespecified Analysis of PARAGON-HF.

BACKGROUND: A hypothetical concern has been raised that sacubitril/valsartan might cause cognitive impairment because neprilysin is one of several enzymes degrading amyloid-ß peptides in the brain, some of which are neurotoxic and linked to Alzheimer-type dementia. To address this, we examined the effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan on cognitive function in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in a prespecified substudy of PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction). METHODS: In PARAGON-HF, serial assessment of cognitive function was conducted in a subset of patients with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE; score range, 0-30, with lower scores reflecting worse cognitive function). The prespecified primary analysis of this substudy was the change from baseline in MMSE score at 96 weeks. Other post hoc analyses included cognitive decline (fall in MMSE score of ≥3 points), cognitive impairment (MMSE score <24), or the occurrence of dementia-related adverse events. RESULTS: Among 2895 patients included in the MMSE substudy with baseline MMSE score measured, 1453 patients were assigned to sacubitril/valsartan and 1442 to valsartan. Their mean age was 73 years, and the median follow-up was 32 months. The mean±SD MMSE score at randomization was 27.4±3.0 in the sacubitril/valsartan group, with 10% having an MMSE score <24; the corresponding numbers were nearly identical in the valsartan group. The mean change from baseline to 96 weeks in the sacubitril/valsartan group was -0.05 (SE, 0.07); the corresponding change in the valsartan group was -0.04 (0.07). The mean between-treatment difference at week 96 was -0.01 (95% CI, -0.20 to 0.19; P=0.95). Analyses of a ≥3-point decline in MMSE, decrease to a score <24, dementia-related adverse events, and combinations of these showed no difference between sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan. No difference was found in the subgroup of patients tested for apolipoprotein E ε4 allele genotype. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in PARAGON-HF had relatively low baseline MMSE scores. Cognitive change, measured by MMSE, did not differ between treatment with sacubitril/valsartan and treatment with valsartan in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01920711.

Independent prognostic importance of blood urea nitrogen to creatinine ratio in heart failure.

AIM: Blood urea nitrogen (BUN) to creatinine ratio is associated with worse outcomes in acute heart failure (HF) but little is known about its importance in chronic HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We combined individual patient data from clinical trials (HF with reduced ejection fraction [HFrEF]: PARADIGM-HF, ATMOSPHERE and DAPA-HF, and HF with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF]: PARAGON-HF and I-PRESERVE). The primary outcome examined was a composite time to first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death; its components and all-cause death were also examined. Each HF phenotype was categorized according to median BUN/creatinine ratio, generating four groups that is, HFpEF ≤ and >median BUN/creatinine ratio and HFrEF ≤ and >median BUN/creatinine ratio. The association between BUN/creatinine ratio and outcomes was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox proportional hazard models. Overall, 28 820 patients were analysed. The median (IQR) BUN/creatinine ratio was 20.1 (Q1-Q3 16.7-24.7) in HFpEF and 18.7 (15.2-22.8) in HFrEF. In both HFpEF and HFrEF, higher BUN/creatinine ratio was associated with older age, female sex, and diabetes, but similar estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). The risk of each outcome examined was significantly higher in patients with BUN/creatinine ratio ≥median, compared to

Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan Across the Spectrum of Renal Impairment in Patients With Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: The Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) classification integrates both estimated glomerular filtration rate and urine-albumin-creatinine ratio to stratify risk more comprehensively in patients with chronic kidney disease. There are limited data assessing whether this classification system is associated with prognosis and treatment response in heart failure populations. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the relative treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan across the KDIGO risk categories in patients with HFrEF. METHODS: PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) was a global randomized controlled trial evaluating sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Patients were classified according to low, moderate, and high/very high KDIGO risk. Treatment responses were assessed according to baseline KDIGO risk. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death or heart failure hospitalization. A renal composite outcome was defined as sustained decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate by ≥40% or end-stage kidney disease. RESULTS: Among 1,910 (23% of total) participants with available data, 42%, 32%, and 26% were classified as low, moderate, and high/very high KDIGO risk, respectively. Patients in the highest KDIGO risk categories experienced the highest rates of the primary composite outcome (7.6 per 100 person-years [95% CI: 6.5-9.0 per 100 person-years], 9.4 per 100 person-years [95% CI: 7.9-11.2 per 100 person-years], and 14.9 per 100 person-years [95% CI: 12.7-17.6 per 100 person-years]; P < 0.001). Sacubitril/valsartan had a similar safety profile and demonstrated consistent effects on the risk of both the primary outcome (PInteraction = 0.31) and the renal composite outcome (PInteraction = 0.50) across the spectrum of KDIGO risk. CONCLUSIONS: One in 4 patients with HFrEF were classified as at least high KDIGO kidney risk; these individuals faced concordantly the highest risks of CV events. Sacubitril/valsartan exhibited consistent CV and kidney protective benefits as well as safety across the spectrum of baseline kidney risk. These data further support initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in HFrEF across a broad range of kidney risk. (This Study Will Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Enalapril on Morbidity and Mortality of Patients With Chronic Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF]; NCT01035255).

Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients With Heart Failure and Deterioration in eGFR to <30 mL/min/1.73 m2.

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan is a foundational therapy for patients with heart failure. Although current U.S. Food and Drug Administration labeling does not provide guidance regarding initiation or continuation of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with worsening kidney function, guidelines identify estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 as a contraindication to therapy. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of continuing sacubitril/valsartan in patients with deterioration of kidney function below an eGFR of 30 mL/min/1.73 m2. METHODS: The association between a deterioration in eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2, efficacy and safety outcomes, and treatment with sacubitril/valsartan vs renin-angiotensin system inhibitor were evaluated using time updated Cox models in a post hoc parallel trial analyses of PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF. RESULTS: Among 8,346 randomized patients in PARADIGM-HF and 4,746 in PARAGON-HF, 691 (8.3%) and 613 (12.9%), respectively, had an eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 at least once in follow-up. Patients experiencing such deterioration were at higher risk of the primary outcome in both PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF. However, the incidence of the primary outcome remained lower with sacubitril/valsartan vs renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, regardless of deterioration in kidney function in both PARADIGM-HF (Pinteraction = 0.50) and PARAGON-HF (Pinteraction = 0.64). Rates of key safety outcomes were higher among patients experiencing eGFR deterioration; however, rates were similar between treatment groups including among those who remained on treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Patients experiencing deterioration of kidney function to a value below eGFR 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 faced high risk of cardiovascular and kidney disease outcomes. Continuation of sacubitril/valsartan was associated with persistent clinical benefit and no incremental safety risk. These data support continuation of sacubitril/valsartan for heart failure treatment even when eGFR declines below this threshold (PARADIGM-HF [Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure], NCT01035255; and PARAGON-HF [Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction], NCT01920711).