Effects of sacubitril/valsartan in the PARADIGM-HF Trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) according to background therapy

Background—In the PARADIGM-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure), the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan was more effective than the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. We examined whether this benefit was consistent irrespective of background therapy. Methods and Results—We examined the effect of study treatment in the following subgroups: diuretics (yes/no), digitalis glycoside (yes/no), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (yes/no), and defibrillating device (implanted defibrillating device, yes/no). We also examined the effect of study drug according to β-blocker dose (≥50% and <50% of target dose) and according to whether patients had undergone previous coronary revascularization. We analyzed the primary composite end point of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization, as well as cardiovascular death. Most randomized patients (n=8399) were treated with a diuretic (80%) and β-blocker (93%); 47% of those taking a β-blocker were treated with ≥50% of the recommended dose. In addition, 4671 (56%) were treated with a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, 2539 (30%) with digoxin, and 1243 (15%) had a defibrillating device; 2640 (31%) had undergone coronary revascularization. Overall, the sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril hazard ratio for the primary composite end point was 0.80 (95% confidence interval, 0.73–0.87; P<0.001) and for cardiovascular death was 0.80 (0.71–0.89; P<0.001). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan was consistent across all subgroups examined. The hazard ratio for primary end point ranged from 0.74 to 0.85 and for cardiovascular death ranged from 0.75 to 0.89, with no treatment-by-subgroup interaction. Conclusions—The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan, over an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, was consistent regardless of background therapy and irrespective of previous coronary revascularization or β-blocker dose

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

Renal effects and associated outcomes during angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition in heart failure

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the renal effects of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. Background: Renal function is frequently impaired in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and may deteriorate further after blockade of the renin–angiotensin system. Methods: In the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACE inhibition to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial, 8,399 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction were randomized to treatment with sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril. The estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was available for all patients, and the urinary albumin/creatinine ratio (UACR) was available in 1872 patients, at screening, randomization, and at fixed time intervals during follow-up. We evaluated the effect of study treatment on change in eGFR and UACR, and on renal and cardiovascular outcomes, according to eGFR and UACR. Results: At screening, the eGFR was 70 ± 20 ml/min/1.73 m2 and 2,745 patients (33%) had chronic kidney disease; the median UACR was 1.0 mg/mmol (interquartile range: 0.4 to 3.2 mg/mmol) and 24% had an increased UACR. The decrease in eGFR during follow-up was less with sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril (−1.61 ml/min/1.73 m2/year; [95% confidence interval: −1.77 to −1.44 ml/min/1.73 m2/year] vs. −2.04 ml/min/1.73 m2/year [95% CI: −2.21 to −1.88 ml/min/1.73 m2/year ]; p < 0.001) despite a greater increase in UACR with sacubitril/valsartan than with enalapril (1.20 mg/mmol [95% CI: 1.04 to 1.36 mg/mmol] vs. 0.90 mg/mmol [95% CI: 0.77 to 1.03 mg/mmol]; p < 0.001). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan on cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization was not modified by eGFR, UACR (p interaction = 0.70 and 0.34, respectively), or by change in UACR (p interaction = 0.38). Conclusions: Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan led to a slower rate of decrease in the eGFR and improved cardiovascular outcomes, even in patients with chronic kidney disease, despite causing a modest increase in UACR

Sacubitril/valsartan reduces serum uric acid concentration, an independent predictor of adverse outcomes in PARADIGM-HF

Aims: Elevated serum uric acid concentration (SUA) has been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, but this may be due to unmeasured confounders. We examined the association between SUA and outcomes as well as the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on SUA in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in PARADIGM-HF. Methods and results: The association between SUA and the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization, its components, and all-cause mortality was examined using Cox regression analyses among 8213 patients using quintiles (Q1–Q5) of SUA adjusted for baseline prognostic variables including estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), diuretic dose, and log N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide. Change in SUA from baseline over 12 months was also evaluated in each treatment group. Patients in Q5 (SUA ≥8.6 mg/dL) compared with Q1 (<5.4 mg/dL) were younger (62.8 vs. 64.2 years), more often male (88.7% vs. 63.1%), had lower systolic blood pressure (119 vs. 123 mmHg), lower eGFR (57.4 vs. 76.6 mL/min/1.73 m2), and greater diuretic use. Higher SUA was associated with a higher risk of the primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratios) Q5 vs. Q1 = 1.28 [95% confidence intervals (1.09–1.50), P = 0.003], cardiovascular death [1.44 (1.11–1.77), P = 0.001], HF hospitalization [1.37 (1.11–1.70), P = 0.004], and all-cause mortality [1.36 (1.13–1.64), P = 0.001]. Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan reduced SUA by 0.24 (0.17–0.32) mg/dL over 12 months (P < 0.0001). Sacubitril/valsartan improved outcomes, irrespective of SUA concentration. Conclusion: Serum uric acid concentration was an independent predictor of worse outcomes after multivariable adjustment in patients with HFrEF. Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan reduced SUA and improved outcomes irrespective of SUA

Risk related to pre–diabetes mellitus and diabetes mellitus in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: insights from prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to determine impact on global mortality and morbidity in heart failure trial

Background—The prevalence of pre–diabetes mellitus and its consequences in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction are not known. We investigated these in the Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial. Methods and Results—We examined clinical outcomes in 8399 patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction according to history of diabetes mellitus and glycemic status (baseline hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c]: <6.0% [<42 mmol/mol], 6.0%–6.4% [42–47 mmol/mol; pre–diabetes mellitus], and ≥6.5% [≥48 mmol/mol; diabetes mellitus]), in Cox regression models adjusted for known predictors of poor outcome. Patients with a history of diabetes mellitus (n=2907 [35%]) had a higher risk of the primary composite outcome of heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular mortality compared with those without a history of diabetes mellitus: adjusted hazard ratio, 1.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.25 to 1.52;P<0.001. HbA1c measurement showed that an additional 1106 (13% of total) patients had undiagnosed diabetes mellitus and 2103 (25%) had pre–diabetes mellitus. The hazard ratio for patients with undiagnosed diabetes mellitus (HbA1c, >6.5%) and known diabetes mellitus compared with those with HbA1c<6.0% was 1.39 (1.17–1.64); P<0.001 and 1.64 (1.43–1.87); P<0.001, respectively. Patients with pre–diabetes mellitus were also at higher risk (hazard ratio, 1.27 [1.10–1.47];P<0.001) compared with those with HbA1c<6.0%. The benefit of LCZ696 (sacubitril/valsartan) compared with enalapril was consistent across the range of HbA1c in the trial. Conclusions—In patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, dysglycemia is common and pre–diabetes mellitus is associated with a higher risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes (compared with patients with no diabetes mellitus and HbA1c <6.0%). LCZ696 was beneficial compared with enalapril, irrespective of glycemic status

Dementia-related adverse events in PARADIGM-HF and other trials in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

Aims: Inhibition of neprilysin, an enzyme degrading natriuretic and other vasoactive peptides, is beneficial in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), as shown in PARADIGM-HF which compared the angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan with enalapril. As neprilysin is also one of many enzymes clearing amyloid-β peptides from the brain, there is a theoretical concern about the long-term effects of sacubitril/valsartan on cognition. Therefore, we have examined dementia-related adverse effects (AEs) in PARADIGM-HF and placed these findings in the context of other recently conducted HFrEF trials. Methods and results: In PARADIGM-HF, patients with symptomatic HFrEF were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan 97/103 mg b.i.d. or enalapril 10 mg b.i.d. in a 1:1 ratio. We systematically searched AE reports, coded using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA), using Standardized MedDRA Queries (SMQs) with ‘broad’ and ‘narrow’ preferred terms related to dementia. In PARADIGM-HF, 8399 patients aged 18–96 years were randomized and followed for a median of 2.25 years (up to 4.3 years). The narrow SMQ search identified 27 dementia-related AEs: 15 (0.36%) on enalapril and 12 (0.29%) on sacubitril/valsartan [hazard ratio (HR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33–1.59]. The broad search identified 97 (2.30%) and 104 (2.48%) AEs (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.75–1.37), respectively. The rates of dementia-related AEs in both treatment groups in PARADIGM-HF were similar to those in three other recent trials in HFrEF. Conclusion: We found no evidence that sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, increased dementia-related AEs, although longer follow-up may be necessary to detect such a signal and more sensitive tools are needed to detect lesser degrees of cognitive impairment. Further studies to address this question are warranted

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)

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&lt;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&lt;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&lt;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

Integrating High-Sensitivity Troponin T and Sacubitril/Valsartan Treatment in HFpEF

OBJECTIVES This study examined the relationship among high-sensitivity troponin-T (hs-TnT), outcomes, and treatment with sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure (HF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). BACKGROUND hs-TnT is a marker of myocardial injury in HF. METHODS The PARAGON-HF trial randomized 4,796 patients with HFpEF to sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan. We compared the risk of the composite outcome of cardiovascular death (CVD) and total HF hospitalization (HHF) according to hs-TnT. We also assessed the effect of allocated treatment on hs-TnT. RESULTS hs-TnT was available in 1,141 patients (24%) at run-in (median value: 17 ng/L) and 1,260 (26%) at randomization, with 58.3% having hs-TnT >14 ng/L (upper limit of normal). During a median follow-up of 34 months, there were 393 outcome events (82 CVD, 311 HHF). Adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), log-hs-TnT at randomization was an independent predictor of the composite outcome (HR: 1.38; 95% CI: 1.19-1.59; P 17 ng/L) appeared to have a greater benefit from sacubitril/valsartan treatment when accounting for other potential effect modifiers (P interaction = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS Higher baseline hs-TnT was associated with increased risk of CVD/HHF, whereas hs-TnT decrease at 16 weeks led to lower subsequent risk of CVD/HHF compared with those who had persistently elevated values. Sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced hs-TnT compared with valsartan. hs-TnT may be helpful in identifying patients with HFpEF who are more likely to benefit from sacubitril/valsartan. (J Am Coll Cardiol HF 2021;9:627-635) (c) 2021 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation