Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan vs Valsartan in De Novo vs Acute on Chronic HFpEF and HFmrEF.

Background: Decompensated heart failure (HF) can be categorized as de novo or worsening of chronic HF. In PARAGLIDE-HF (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ARB Given following stabiLization In DEcompensated HFpEF), among patients with an ejection fraction >40% that stabilized after worsening HF, sacubitril/valsartan led to a significantly greater reduction in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and was associated with clinical benefit compared to valsartan. Objectives: This prespecified analysis characterized patients with de novo vs worsening chronic HF in PARAGLIDE-HF and assessed the interaction between HF chronicity and the effect of sacubitril/valsartan. Methods: Patients were classified as de novo (first diagnosis of HF) or chronic (known HF prior to the index event). Time-averaged proportional change in NT-proBNP from baseline to weeks 4 and 8 was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model. A win ratio consisting of time to cardiovascular death, number and times of HF hospitalizations during follow-up, number and times of urgent HF visits during follow-up, and time-averaged proportional change in NT-proBNP was assessed for each group. Results: Of the 466 participants, 153 (33%) had de novo HF and 313 (67%) had chronic HF. De novo patients had lower rates of atrial fibrillation/flutter and lower creatinine. There was a nonsignificant reduction in NT-proBNP with sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan for de novo (0.82; 95% CI: 0.62-1.07) and chronic HF (0.88; 95% CI: 0.73-1.07), interaction P = 0.66. The win ratio was nominally in favor of sacubitril/valsartan for both de novo (1.12; 95% CI: 0.70-1.58) and chronic HF (1.24; 95% CI: 0.89-1.71). Conclusions: There is no interaction between HF chronicity and the effect of sacubitril-valsartan.

Association of Sacubitril/Valsartan vs Valsartan With Blood Pressure Changes and Symptomatic Hypotension: the PARAGLIDE-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: In PARAGLIDE-HF, in patients with ejection fraction (EF) > 40%, stabilized after worsening heart failure (WHF), sacubitril/valsartan led to greater reduction in plasma NT-proBNP levels and was associated with clinical benefit compared to valsartan alone, despite more symptomatic hypotension (SH). Concern about SH may be limiting the use of sacubitril/valsartan in appropriate patients. METHODS: We characterized patients by the occurrence of SH (investigator-reported) after randomization to either sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan. A key trial inclusion criterion was systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥ 100 mmHg for the preceding 6 hours and no SH. We also compared outcomes based on baseline SBP stratified by the median blood pressure. The primary endpoint was time-averaged proportional change in NT-proBNP levels from baseline through weeks 4 and 8. A secondary hierarchical outcome (win ratio) consisted of: (1) cardiovascular death; (2) hospitalizations due to HF; (3) urgent HF visits; and (4) change in NT-proBNP levels. RESULTS: Among 466 randomized patients, 92 (19.7%) experienced SH (sacubitril/valsartan, n = 56 [24.0%]; valsartan, n = 36 [15.5%]; P = 0.020). The median time to the first SH event was similar between treatment arms (18 days vs 15 days, respectively; P = 0.42) as was the proportion of first SH events classified as serious by investigators. Patients who experienced SH with sacubitril/valsartan were more likely to be white (OR 1.87 [95% CI: 0.31, 11.15]), to have a lower baseline SBP (per 10 mmHg increase, OR 0.68 [95% CI: 0.55, 0.85]), or to have a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of > 60% (OR 2.21 [95% CI: 1.05, 4.65]). Time-averaged change in NT-proBNP levels did not differ between patients with baseline SBP ≥ 128 mmHg vs SBP < 128 mmHg (interaction, P = 0.43). The composite hierarchical outcome for sacubitril/valsartan in patients with baseline SBP ≥ 128 mmHg had a win ratio of 1.34 ([95% CI: 0.91, 1.99]; P = 0.096) vs SBP < 128 mmHg with a win ratio of 1.09 ([95%CI: 0.73, 1.66]; P = 0 .62; interaction P value = 0.42). CONCLUSION: Among patients with LVEF > 40% stabilized after WHF, incident SH was more common with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan. SH was associated with lower baseline SBP, being white, and having higher LVEF. Treatment benefits with sacubitril/valsartan may be more pronounced in patients with higher baseline SBP and lower LVEF (≤ 60%). (Funded by Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03988634.).

Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients Hospitalized With Decompensated Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) has not been described. OBJECTIVES: Data from randomized trials of sacubitril/valsartan in HF patients with EF ≤40% (PIONEER-HF [Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect of NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode] trial) and >40% (PARAGLIDE-HF [Prospective comparison of ARNI with ARB Given following stabiLization In DEcompensated HFpEF] trial) following recent worsening heart failure (WHF) were pooled to examine treatment effect across the EF spectrum. METHODS: The PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF trials were double-blind, randomized trials of sacubitril/valsartan vs control therapy (enalapril or valsartan, respectively). All participants in the PIONEER-HF trial and 69.5% in the PARAGLIDE-HF trial were enrolled during hospitalization for HF after stabilization. The remainder in the PARAGLIDE-HF trial were enrolled ≤30 days after a WHF event. The primary endpoint of both trials was time-averaged proportional change in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) from baseline through weeks 4 and 8. Adjudicated clinical endpoints were analyzed through the end of follow-up, adjusting for trial. RESULTS: The pooled analysis included 1,347 patients (881 from PIONEER-HF, 466 from PARAGLIDE-HF). Baseline characteristics included median age 66 years, 36% women, 31% Black, 34% de novo HF, and median EF 30%. The reduction in NT-proBNP was 24% greater with sacubitril/valsartan vs control therapy (n = 1,130; ratio of change = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.69-0.83; P < 0.0001). Cardiovascular death or hospitalization for HF was reduced by 30% with sacubitril/valsartan vs control therapy (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.54-0.91; P = 0.0077). This effect was consistent across the spectrum of EF ≤60%. Sacubitril/valsartan increased symptomatic hypotension (risk ratio: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.05-1.72). CONCLUSIONS: In patients stabilized after WHF, sacubitril/valsartan led to a greater reduction in plasma NT-proBNP and improved clinical outcome compared with control therapy, in particular across the spectrum of EF ≤60%. (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect of NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode [PIONEER-HF]; NCT02554890; Changes in NT-proBNP, Safety, and Tolerability in HFpEF Patients With a WHF Event [HFpEF Decompensation] Who Have Been Stabilized and Initiated at the Time of or Within 30 Days Post-decompensation [PARAGLIDE-HF]; NCT03988634).

Isovolumic Contraction Velocity in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction and Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan: the PROVE-HF Study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess tissue Doppler-derived mitral annular isovolumic contraction velocity (ICV) after starting sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and left ventricular [LV] EF < 40%). BACKGROUND: ICV may inform load-independent systolic function; combining ICV and LVEF may improve assessment of LV contractility. METHODS: Among 651 participants with HFrEF treated with sac/val, echocardiograms were performed at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Pretreatment median ICVs and LVEFs were used for classification to predict LV reverse remodeling, health status using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, and biomarker concentrations. RESULTS: The mean age was 64.6 ± 12.4 years, and 28% were women, baseline LVEF: 28.9% ± 6.9%. Compared to baseline, median ICV increased post sac/val therapy (4.6 [3.5, 6.1] vs 4.9 [3.6, 6.4]; P = 0.005). ICV added value to separate and combined models of biomarkers and clinical and echocardiographic variables for prediction of post-therapy EF recovery. Classification using baseline ICV/EF yielded relatively equal numbers in 4 groups based on low/high ICV or LVEF. Most deleterious results for remodeling, health status and biomarkers were found in patients with low ICV/low EF, whereas patients with high ICV/high EF had the best profiles; other groups were intermediate. Significant shifts toward better ICV/EF profiles were noted post sac/val treatment compared to baseline, with doubling of high ICV/high EF (241 [60%] vs 123 [31%]) and 78% reduction of low ICV/low EF (28 [7%] vs 125 [32%]). CONCLUSIONS: In HFrEF, ICV adds to the profiling of systolic function and represents an independent predictor of reverse cardiac remodeling after treatment with sac/val. ICV changes may be used for assessment of treatment responses.

Importance of the 'area under the curve' from serial NT-proBNP measurements during treatment with sacubitril/valsartan.

AIMS: Serial assessment of natriuretic peptides is widely utilized in heart failure clinics. Uncertainty exists regarding the value of multiple natriuretic peptide measurements and how they might be best interpreted. METHODS AND RESULTS: Six hundred thirty-two patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (<40%) and complete biomarker data were enrolled to receive sacubitril/valsartan. Patients underwent periodic study visits during 1-year follow-ups. Echocardiographic data and cardiac biomarkers, including N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) were collected during study visits. Patients were categorized into three groups based on tertiles of baseline NT-proBNP levels. The area under the curve (AUC) of NT-proBNP measurements across study visits was calculated. Compared with patients with higher AUC (and thus higher concentrations over a longer period of time), those with lower AUC were younger, had a lower prevalence of chronic kidney disease, prior coronary artery bypass graft, atrial fibrillation, and higher body-mass index. A significant interaction existed between baseline NT-proBNP and subsequent AUC for predicting LVEF change across visits (P-value < 0.001): among those with lower baseline NT-proBNP, similar improvements in left ventricular (LV) volumes LV ejection fraction, and LV mass index were observed across subsequent AUC (P-value > 0.1). However, among those with higher baseline NT-proBNP, those with lower subsequent AUC had a greater improvement in cardiac remodelling indices (P-value < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Serial NT-proBNP monitoring (integrating the totality of measurements as an AUC) during treatment with sacubitril/valsartan informs unique information regarding the future changes in cardiac remodelling indices, especially among those with higher NT-proBNP levels at baseline.

Changes in mid-regional pro-adrenomedullin during treatment with sacubitril/valsartan.

AIMS: Adrenomedullin is a vasodilatory peptide with a role in microcirculatory and endothelial homeostasis. Adrenomedullin is a substrate for neprilysin and may therefore play a role in beneficial effects of sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) treatment. METHODS AND RESULTS: Mid-regional pro-adrenomedullin (MR-proADM) was measured in 156 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) treated with Sac/Val and 264 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) randomized to treatment with Sac/Val or valsartan. Echocardiography and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire results were collected at baseline and after 6 and 12 months in the HFrEF cohort. Median (Q1-Q3) baseline MR-proADM concentrations were 0.80 (0.59-0.99) nmol/L in HFrEF and 0.88 (0.68-1.20) nmol/L in HFpEF. After 12 weeks of treatment with Sac/Val, MR-proADM increased by median 49% in HFrEF and 60% in HFpEF, while there were no significant changes in valsartan-treated patients (median 2%). Greater increases in MR-proADM were associated with higher Sac/Val doses. Changes in MR-proADM correlated weakly with changes in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, cardiac troponin T and urinary cyclic guanosine monophosphate. Increases in MR-proADM were associated with decreases in blood pressure, but not significantly associated with changes in echocardiographic parameters or health status. CONCLUSIONS: MR-proAD concentrations rise substantially following treatment with Sac/Val, in contrast to no change from valsartan. Change in MR-proADM from neprilysin inhibition did not correlate with improvements in cardiac structure and function or health status. More data are needed regarding the role of adrenomedullin and its related peptides in the treatment of heart failure. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROVE-HF ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02887183, PARAMOUNT ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00887588.

Sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction: a pre-specified participant-level pooled analysis of PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF.

AIMS: The PARAGLIDE-HF trial demonstrated reductions in natriuretic peptides with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in patients with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction who had a recent worsening HF event, but was not adequately powered to examine clinical outcomes. PARAGON-HF included a subset of PARAGLIDE-HF-like patients who were recently hospitalized for HF. Participant-level data from PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF were pooled to better estimate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in reducing cardiovascular and renal events in HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. METHODS AND RESULTS: Both PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF were multicentre, double-blind, randomized, active-controlled trials of sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan in patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF >40% in PARAGLIDE-HF and ≥45% in PARAGON-HF). In the pre-specified primary analysis, we pooled participants in PARAGLIDE-HF (all of whom were enrolled during or within 30 days of a worsening HF event) with a 'PARAGLIDE-like' subset of PARAGON-HF (those hospitalized for HF within 30 days). We also pooled the entire PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF populations for a broader context. The primary endpoint for this analysis was the composite of total worsening HF events (including first and recurrent HF hospitalizations and urgent visits) and cardiovascular death. The secondary endpoint was the pre-specified renal composite endpoint for both studies (≥50% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate from baseline, end-stage renal disease, or renal death). Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced total worsening HF events and cardiovascular death in both the primary pooled analysis of participants with recent worsening HF [n = 1088; rate ratio (RR) 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.99; P = 0.042] and in the pooled analysis of all participants (n = 5262; RR 0.86; 95% CI: 0.75-0.98; P = 0.027). In the pooled analysis of all participants, first nominal statistical significance was reached by Day 9 after randomization, and treatment benefits were larger in those with LVEF ≤60% (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.66-0.91) compared with those with LVEF >60% (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.86-1.40; Pinteraction = 0.021). Sacubitril/valsartan was also associated with lower rates of the renal composite endpoint in the primary pooled analysis [hazard ratio (HR) 0.67; 95% CI 0.43-1.05; P = 0.080] and the pooled analysis of all participants (HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.44-0.83; P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: In pooled analyses of PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF, sacubitril/valsartan reduced cardiovascular and renal events among patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. These data provide support for use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction, particularly among those with an LVEF below normal, regardless of care setting.

Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibition in Patients With Mildly Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction and Worsening Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: U.S. guidelines recommend consideration of sacubitril/valsartan in chronic heart failure (HF) and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (EF). Whether initiation is safe and effective in EF >40% after a worsening heart failure (WHF) event is unknown. OBJECTIVES: PARAGLIDE-HF (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ARB Given following stabiLization In DEcompensated HFpEF) assessed sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan in EF >40% following a recent WHF event. METHODS: PARAGLIDE-HF is a double-blind, randomized controlled trial of sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan in patients with EF >40% enrolled within 30 days of a WHF event. The primary endpoint was time-averaged proportional change in amino terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) from baseline through Weeks 4 and 8. A secondary hierarchical outcome (win ratio) consisted of: 1) cardiovascular death; 2) HF hospitalizations; 3) urgent HF visits; and 4) change in NT-proBNP. RESULTS: In 466 patients (233 sacubitril/valsartan; 233 valsartan), time-averaged reduction in the NT-proBNP was greater with sacubitril/valsartan (ratio of change: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.73-0.999; P = 0.049). The hierarchical outcome favored sacubitril/valsartan but was not significant (unmatched win ratio: 1.19; 95% CI: 0.93-1.52; P = 0.16). Sacubitril/valsartan reduced worsening renal function (OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.40-0.93) but increased symptomatic hypotension (OR: 1.73; 95% CI: 1.09-2.76). There was evidence of a larger treatment effect in the subgroup with EF ≤60% for NT-proBNP change (0.78; 95% CI: 0.61-0.98) and the hierarchical outcome (win ratio: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.09-1.95). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with EF >40% stabilized after WHF, sacubitril/valsartan led to greater reduction in plasma NT-proBNP levels and was associated with clinical benefit compared with valsartan alone, despite more symptomatic hypotension. (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ARB Given following stabiLization In DEcompensated HFpEF; NCT03988634).

Rationale, Design and Baseline Characteristics of the PARAGLIDE-HF Trial: Sacubitril/Valsartan vs Valsartan in HFmrEF and HFpEF With a Worsening Heart Failure Event.

BACKGROUND: The PARAGON-HF trial studied the effect of sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) compared with valsartan (Val) on clinical outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) or mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF). Further data are needed regarding the use of Sac/Val in these groups with EF and with recent worsening heart failure (WHF) events and in key populations not broadly represented in the PARAGON-HF trial, including those with de novo HF, the severely obese and Black patients. METHODS: The PARAGLIDE-HF trial is a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial of Sac/Val vs Val that enrolled patients at 100 sites. Medically stable patients ≥ 18 years old with EF > 40%, amino terminal-pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels ≥ 500 pg/mL and within 30 days of a WHF event were eligible for participation. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to Sac/Val vs Val. The primary efficacy endpoint is time-averaged proportional change in NT-proBNP from baseline through Weeks 4 and 8. Secondary endpoints include clinical outcomes during follow-up and additional biomarker assessments. Safety endpoints include symptomatic hypotension, worsening renal function and hyperkalemia. RESULTS: The trial enrolled 467 participants from June 2019 through October 2022 (52% women, 22% Black, age 70 ± 12 years, median (IQR) BMI 33 (27-40) kg/m2). The median (IQR) EF was 55% (50%-60%), 23% with HFmrEF (LVEF 41%-49%), 24% with EF > 60% and 33% with de novo HFpEF. Median screening NT-proBNP was 2009 (1291-3813) pg/mL, and 69% were enrolled in the hospital. CONCLUSIONS: The PARAGLIDE-HF trial enrolled a broad and diverse range of patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction and will inform clinical practice by providing evidence about the safety, tolerability and efficacy of Sac/Val vs Val in those with a recent WHF event.

Prediction of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Change Following Treatment With Sacubitril/Valsartan.

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) improves left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction regardless of previous treatments. Improvements in LVEF may change eligibility for primary implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) placement. Awaiting LVEF improvement may expose patients to potential risks for arrhythmic complications. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to develop a model predicting LVEF change after Sac/Val therapy. METHODS: A total of 416 persons with HF and LVEF of <35% were included in this analysis. Following initiation of Sac/Val, echocardiographic parameters were measured serially for 1 year. A machine learning algorithm was implemented to develop a risk model for predicting the persistence of LVEF of <35% after 1 year and was validated in a separate group of study participants. RESULTS: Baseline LVEF, left ventricular mass index, HF duration, age, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide concentration at baseline and change by day 14, and body mass index were the most significant factors for identifying lack of LVEF improvement to ≥35% after 1 year. In the training and validation cohorts, the areas under the model curve for predicting lack of LVEF improvement were 0.92 and 0.86, respectively. Three categories of likelihood for LVEF of <35% after 1 year of Sac/Val treatment were developed based on the model predictions: 3.8%, 30.1%, and 83.7%. During follow-up, arrhythmia event rates were 0.9%, 2.9%, and 6.7% in these groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Many persons with HF with reduced ejection fraction eligible for ICD insertion experience an increase in LVEF to ≥35% after treatment with Sac/Val. Early identification of those less likely to improve their LVEF might allow for more refined selection of primary ICD candidates. (Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan Therapy on biomarkers, Myocardial Remodeling, and Outcomes [PROVE-HF]; NCT02887183).

Age Differences in Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan on Cardiac Remodeling, Biomarkers, and Health Status.

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) improves outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). OBJECTIVES: In this study, the authors sought to explore age differences in effects of Sac/Val on biomarkers, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ)-23 scores and cardiac remodeling. METHODS: After initiation and titration of Sac/Val, concentrations of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), high-sensitivity troponin T (hs-cTnT), and soluble suppressor of tumorigenicity 2 (sST2) were measured and KCCQ-23 scores obtained from baseline to 12 months. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and indexed left ventricular end-systolic (LVESVi) and indexed left ventricular end-diastolic (LVEDVi) and left atrial volume index (LAVi) volumes were measured with the use of echocardiography. Safety end points were assessed. Age-stratified analysis was performed for groups aged <65, 65-74, and ≥75 years. RESULTS: Among 794 participants with HFrEF (mean age 65.1 years, 28.5% women), compared with patients aged <65 years (n = 369), 65-74 years (n = 237), and those aged ≥75 years (n = 188), had similar reductions in hs-cTnT and sST2, but less NT-proBNP reduction (-45.6% vs -40.2% vs -30.5%, respectively; P = 0.02). Gains in KCCQ-23 were smaller (+11.8 vs +11.4 vs +6.0 points; P = 0.03) in patients aged ≥75 years, although similar proportions of each age group achieved ≥10-point and ≥20-point increases in KCCQ-23 by month 12. Improvements in LVEF, LVEDVi, LVESVi, and LAVi were similar among age groups. Incidence of safety end points was also similar. CONCLUSIONS: Sac/Val resulted in significant improvements in prognostic biomarkers and measures of cardiac remodeling and health status from baseline to month 12 across age categories. Older study participants showed somewhat blunted reduction in NT-proBNP and less improvement in KCCQ-23 overall summary scores. (Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan Therapy on Biomarkers, Myocardial Remodeling, and Outcomes [PROVE-HF]; NCT02887183).

Dose-Response to Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Doses of sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) achieved in clinical trials of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are often not reached in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate associations among Sac/Val doses and changes in prognostic biomarkers, health status, and cardiac remodeling among individuals with HFrEF through 12 months of treatment with Sac/Val administered per usual care. METHODS: A total of 794 persons with HFrEF (ejection fraction [EF] ≤40%) were categorized according to average daily doses of Sac/Val divided into tertiles. Change from baseline to 12 months in biomarkers (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T, soluble ST2, atrial natriuretic peptide, urinary cyclic guanosine monophosphate), Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-23 scores, and parameters of cardiac reverse remodeling (left ventricular EF, indexed left atrial and ventricular volumes, and E/e') were assessed. RESULTS: The average daily dose was 112 mg in Tertile 1 (low dose), 342 mg in Tertile 2 (moderate dose), and 379 mg in Tertile 3 (high dose). Similar changes in prognostic biomarkers were observed in all dose tertiles. Gains in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-23 scores were comparable regardless of dose category. Consistent reverse cardiac remodeling in all dose categories occurred; the median absolute left ventricular EF improvement across HF dose groups was 9.3%, 8.7%, and 10.2%, for low, moderate, and high doses, respectively; similar improvements in left atrial and ventricular volumes and E/e' were also observed across dose categories. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with HFrEF, similar improvement in prognostic biomarkers, health status, and cardiac remodeling were observed across various Sac/Val doses. (Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan Therapy on Biomarkers, Myocardial Remodeling and Outcomes [PROVE-HF]; NCT02887183.

Comparative Effect of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibition on B-type Natriuretic Peptide Levels Measured by Three Different Assays: The PROVE-HF Study.

BACKGROUND: Several different B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) assays are used clinically for diagnostic and prognostic evaluation of heart failure (HF). BNP binds weakly to neprilysin and is cleaved in multiple areas adjacent to the binding sites for the antibodies used in these immunoassays. We assessed the changes in BNP following neprilysin inhibition as measured by 3 immunoassays that recognize different epitopes. METHODS: Among 130 participants with HF with reduced ejection fraction, blood was collected prior to treatment with sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) and then repeatedly measured through 52 weeks of treatment. BNP concentrations were measured with 3 widely used BNP assays (Siemens, Abbott, and Quidel). RESULTS: Study participants had a mean age of 65 ± 13 years and 76% were men. The median BNP concentration at baseline was 133 ng/L by the Siemens assay, 127 ng/L by the Abbott assay, and 141 ng/L by the Quidel assay. Following initiation of sac/val, there were significantly greater declines in BNP measured by Quidel and Abbott (P = 0.009 and P < 0.001), respectively (both with N-terminal capture antibodies), compared to Siemens (with C-terminal capture antibodies). The difference from baseline was not statistically significant until after week 12 (mean -10.1% for Quidel and -14.3% for Abbott) compared to non-significant differences before 12 weeks (mean -4.5% for Quidel and -6.0% for Abbott). CONCLUSIONS: Following initiation of sac/val, BNP measurements may modestly differ depending on the assay method used, particularly after a few months of treatment. Whether these differences relate to neprilysin-mediated degradation of antibody binding sites deserves further study. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROVE-HF ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02887183.

Heart Failure Duration and Mechanistic Efficacy of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Although sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) is indicated for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), gaps in care continue to exist for those with newer onset HFrEF vs those with longer durations of disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: We categorized 794 persons with HFrEF (EF of ≤40%) according to a HF duration of less than 12 months, 12-24 months, 24-60 months, and more than> 60 months. After the initiation of Sac/Val, concentrations of N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide, high sensitivity cardiac troponin T, and soluble ST2 were measured, and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire 23 scores were obtained serially from baseline to 12 months. The left ventricular ejection fraction was measured by echocardiography. Significant decreases in the concentrations of N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide, high sensitivity cardiac troponin T, and soluble ST2 were observed regardless of HF duration (P < .001). Comparable gains in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire 23 scores were achieved in all HF duration categories. Moreover, consistent reverse cardiac remodeling in all HF duration categories occurred, with the absolute left ventricular ejection fraction improvement by 12 months across HF duration groups of 12.2%, 6.9%, 8.5%, and 8.6% for HF duration of less than 12 months, 12-24 months, 24-60 months, and more than 60 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The initiation of Sac/Val decreases prognostic biomarkers, improves health status, and reverses cardiac remodeling processes, regardless of HF duration. BRIEF LAY SUMMARY: We categorized 794 persons with heart failure owing to a low ejection fraction according to disease duration into 4 groups: less than 12 months, 12-24 months, 24-60 months, and more than 60 months. After the initiation of sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), we found that regardless of the duration of heart failure significant improvements occurred in cardiac biomarkers, patients felt better with improved health status and on testing with cardiac ultrasound examination, improvement in heart size, and function occurred. These results suggest that, regardless of heart failure duration, patients with a reduced ejection fraction would benefit from use of sacubitril/valsartan for their care.

Changes in cardiac biomarkers in association with alterations in cardiac structure and function, and health status in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: the EVALUATE-HF trial.

AIMS: N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), cardiac troponin T (cTnT) and soluble ST2 (sST2) provide complementary prognostic information in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We aimed to assess the association between changes in these markers with changes in cardiac structure, function and health status. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients in the EVALUATE-HF trial (n = 464) were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril for 12 weeks, followed by 12-week open-label sacubitril/valsartan. Cardiac biomarkers, echocardiography, and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaires (KCCQ) were completed at baseline, and after 12 and 24 weeks. A total of 410 patients (88%) had serial biomarker measurements available (mean age 67 ± 9 years, 75% male and 75% white). After 24 weeks of treatment, NT-proBNP, sST2 and cTnT decreased by median (Q1, Q3) -31% (-55%, +6%), -6% (-19%, +8%) and - 3% (-13%, +8%), respectively (all p < 0.001). Decreases in NT-proBNP were associated with reductions in cardiac volumes and improvements in systolic and diastolic function and health status. Decreases in cTnT were associated with reductions in left ventricular mass, but not with changes in left ventricular function or KCCQ. Decreases in sST2 were consistently associated with improvements in health status, but not with measures of cardiac structure or function. There was no effect modification from treatment on the associations investigated (p for interaction >0.05) CONCLUSION: In HFrEF, serial changes in NT-proBNP correlate with changes in several key measures of cardiac structure and health status. cTnT changes correlate with changes in left ventricular mass and sST2 with changes in health status. These data highlight possible complementary pathophysiologic implications of changes in NT-proBNP, cTnT and sST2. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02874794.

Early B-Type Natriuretic Peptide Change in HFrEF Patients Treated With Sacubitril/Valsartan: A Pooled Analysis of EVALUATE-HF and PROVE-HF.

OBJECTIVES: This study assessed changes in B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) treated with sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) according to standard prescribing information. BACKGROUND: Through inhibition of neprilysin, Sac/Val may increase BNP concentrations. METHODS: In an individual patient analysis from the EVALUATE-HF (Study of Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan vs. Enalapril on Aortic Stiffness in Patients With Mild to Moderate HF With Reduced Ejection Fraction) (n = 221) and the PROVE-HF (Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan Therapy on Biomarkers, Myocardial Remodeling and Outcomes) (n = 146) studies, we examined changes in BNP, N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-proBNP), and urinary cyclic guanosine monophosphate (ucGMP) from baseline to week 4 and week 12. RESULTS: Median (IQRs) concentration of BNP at baseline, week 4, and week 12 were 145 [IQR: 55-329], 136 [IQR: 50-338], and 135 [IQR: 51-299] ng/L, respectively. There was no significant change from baseline to week 4 (0% [-30% to +41%]; P = 0.36) or week 12 (+1% [-36% to +50%]; P = 0.97). By week 12, one-half of the study participants had a BNP decline. There was no association between Sac/Val dose and BNP changes. Change in BNP was directly associated with change in NT-proBNP (rho: = 0.81; P < 0.001), which decreased by -30% (-50% to -8%) and -32% (-54% to -1%) to weeks 4 and 12 (P < 0.001 for both). In contrast, change in BNP was only weakly associated with change in ucGMP (rho: = 0.19; P < 0.001). Increases in ucGMP were observed regardless of whether BNP was decreased (+11% [-34% to +115%]), unchanged (+34% [-15% to +205%]), or increased (+57% [-12% to +14%]). CONCLUSIONS: In this pooled analysis of patients with HFrEF with standard indications for Sac/Val treatment, there was no significant overall increase in BNP concentrations, and patients demonstrated increase in ucGMP regardless of the trajectory of BNP change. (Study of Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan vs. Enalapril on Aortic Stiffness in Patients With Mild to Moderate HF With Reduced Ejection Fraction [EVALUATE-HF]; NCT02874794) (Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan Therapy on Biomarkers, Myocardial Remodeling and Outcomes [PROVE-HF]; NCT02887183).

Association Between Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibition, Cardiovascular Biomarkers, and Cardiac Remodeling in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) treatment is associated with reverse cardiac remodeling and reductions in biomarkers reflecting ventricular wall stress and myocardial injury, such as NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide), hs-cTnT (high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T), and soluble suppressor of tumorigenicity 2 (sST2). How longitudinal changes in these biomarkers analyzed collectively are associated with cardiac remodeling in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction treated with S/V is uncertain. METHODS: In a prospective study of S/V in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, this prespecified exploratory analysis included patients with serially collected biomarkers and echocardiographic measures of cardiac remodeling through 12 months of treatment. A multivariate latent growth curve model assessed associations between simultaneous changes in biomarkers and left ventricular ejection fraction and left atrial volume index. RESULTS: Seven hundred fifteen out of 794 total study participants were included (mean age 65 years, 73% male). Mean baseline left ventricular ejection fraction and left atrial volume index were 29% and 40 mL/m2, respectively. Adjusted geometric mean baseline concentrations for biomarkers included NT-proBNP of 649 pg/mL, hs-cTnT of 15.9 ng/L, and sST2 of 24.7 ng/mL. Following initiation of S/V, circulating concentrations of NT-proBNP, hs-cTnT, and sST2 significantly decreased within 30 days and remained significantly different than baseline at all subsequent timepoints. From baseline to month 12, decreases in adjusted biomarker concentrations averaged -27.9% (95% CI, -35.1% to -20.7%; P<0.001) for NT-proBNP; -6.7% (95% CI, -8.8% to -4.7%; P<0.001) for hs-cTnT; and -1.6% (95% CI, -2.9% to -0.4%; P<0.001) for sST2. NT-proBNP concentrations were predictive of later changes in hs-cTnT. The magnitude of reductions in NT-proBNP and hs-cTnT concentrations associated with improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction and left atrial volume index. There was no association between changes in sST2 and changes in other measures. CONCLUSIONS: Following initiation of S/V, NT-proBNP, hs-cTnT, and sST2 concentrations decreased significantly. Longitudinal changes in NT-proBNP and hs-cTnT together associated with left atrial and left ventricular reverse remodeling. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02887183.