Effect of vericiguat on left ventricular structure and function in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: The VICTORIA echocardiographic substudy.

AIM: Vericiguat significantly reduced the primary composite outcome of heart failure (HF) hospitalization or cardiovascular death in the VICTORIA trial. It is unknown if these outcome benefits are related to reverse left ventricular (LV) remodelling with vericiguat in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The aim of this study was to compare the effects of vericiguat versus placebo on LV structure and function after 8 months of therapy in patients with HFrEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Standardized transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) was performed at baseline and after 8 months of therapy in a subset of HFrEF patients in VICTORIA. The co-primary endpoints were changes in LV end-systolic volume index (LVESVI) and LV ejection fraction (LVEF). Quality assurance and central reading were performed by an echocardiographic core laboratory blinded to treatment assignment. A total of 419 patients (208 vericiguat, 211 placebo) with high-quality paired TTE at baseline and 8 months were included. Baseline clinical characteristics were well balanced between treatment groups and echocardiographic characteristics were representative of patients with HFrEF. LVESVI significantly declined (60.7 ± 26.8 to 56.8 ± 30.4 ml/m2 ; p < 0.01) and LVEF significantly increased (33.0 ± 9.4% to 36.1 ± 10.2%; p < 0.01) in the vericiguat group, but similarly in the placebo group (absolute changes for vericiguat vs. placebo: LVESVI -3.8 ± 15.4 vs. -7.1 ± 20.5 ml/m2 ; p = 0.07 and LVEF +3.2 ± 8.0% vs. +2.4 ± 7.6%; p = 0.31). The absolute rate per 100 patient-years of the primary composite endpoint at 8 months tended to be lower in the vericiguat group (19.8) than the placebo group (29.6) (p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: In this pre-specified echocardiographic study, significant improvements in LV structure and function occurred over 8 months in both vericiguat and placebo in a high-risk HFrEF population with recent worsening HF. Further studies are warranted to define the mechanisms of vericiguat's benefit in HFrEF.

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.

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.

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.