A re-examination of the BEST Trial using composite outcomes, including emergency department visits

Objectives: The influence of choice of endpoint on trial size, duration, and interpretation of results was examined in patients with heart failure who were enrolled in BEST (Beta-blocker Evaluation of Survival Trial). Background: The choice of endpoints in heart failure trials has evolved over the past 3 decades. Methods: In the BEST trial, we used Cox regression analysis to examine the effect of bucindolol on the current standard composite of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization (CVD/HFH) compared with the original primary mortality endpoint and the expanded composite that included emergency department (ED) visits. We also undertook an analysis of recurrent events primarily using the Lin, Wei, Ying, and Yang model. Results: Overall, 448 (33%) patients on placebo and 411 (30%) patients on bucindolol died (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.78 to 1.02; p = 0.11). A total of 730 (54%) patients experienced CVD/HFH on placebo and 624 (46%) on bucindolol (HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.89; p < 0.001). Adding ED visits increased these numbers to 768 (57%) and 668 (49%), respectively (HR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.73 to 0.90; p < 0.001). A total of 568 (42%) patients on placebo experienced HFH compared with 476 (35%) patients on bucindolol (HR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.69 to 0.89; p < 0.001), with a total of 1,333 and 1,124 admissions, respectively. With the same statistical assumptions, using the composite endpoint instead of all-cause mortality would have reduced the trial size by 40% and follow-up duration by 69%. The rate ratio for recurrent events (CVD/HFH) was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.73 to 0.94; p = 0.003). Conclusions: Choice of endpoint has major implications for trial size and duration, as well as interpretation of results. The value of broader composite endpoints and inclusion of recurrent events needs further investigation. (Beta Blocker Evaluation in Survival Trial [BEST]; NCT00000560

Efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan relative to a prior decompensation: the PARADIGM-HF trial

Objectives: This study assessed whether the benefit of sacubtril/valsartan therapy varied with clinical stability. Background: Despite the benefit of sacubitril/valsartan therapy shown in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial, it has been suggested that switching from an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker should be delayed until occurrence of clinical decompensation. Methods: Outcomes were compared among patients who had prior hospitalization within 3 months of screening (n = 1,611 [19%]), between 3 and 6 months (n = 1,009 [12%]), between 6 and 12 months (n = 886 [11%]), >12 months (n = 1,746 [21%]), or who had never been hospitalized (n = 3,125 [37%]). Results: Twenty percent of patients without prior HF hospitalization experienced a primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization during the course of the trial. Despite the increased risk associated with more recent hospitalization, the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan therapy did not differ from that of enalapril according to the occurrence of or time from hospitalization for HF before screening, with respect to the primary endpoint or with respect to cardiovascular or all-cause mortality. Conclusions: Patients with recent HF decompensation requiring hospitalization were more likely to experience cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization than those who had never been hospitalized. Patients who were clinically stable, as shown by a remote HF hospitalization (>3 months prior to screening) or by lack of any prior HF hospitalization, were as likely to benefit from sacubitril/valsartan therapy as more recently hospitalized patients. (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF]; NCT01035255)

Influence of Sacubitril/Valsartan (LCZ696) on 30-day readmission after heart failure hospitalization

Background: Patients with heart failure (HF) are at high risk for hospital readmission in the first 30 days following HF hospitalization. Objectives: This study sought to determine if treatment with sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) reduces rates of hospital readmission at 30-days following HF hospitalization compared with enalapril. Methods: We assessed the risk of 30-day readmission for any cause following investigator-reported hospitalizations for HF in the PARADIGM-HF trial, which randomized 8,399 participants with HF and reduced ejection fraction to treatment with LCZ696 or enalapril. Results: Accounting for multiple hospitalizations per patient, there were 2,383 investigator-reported HF hospitalizations, of which 1,076 (45.2%) occurred in subjects assigned to LCZ696 and 1,307 (54.8%) occurred in subjects assigned to enalapril. Rates of readmission for any cause at 30 days were 17.8% in LCZ696-assigned subjects and 21.0% in enalapril-assigned subjects (odds ratio: 0.74; 95% confidence interval: 0.56 to 0.97; p = 0.031). Rates of readmission for HF at 30-days were also lower in subjects assigned to LCZ696 (9.7% vs. 13.4%; odds ratio: 0.62; 95% confidence interval: 0.45 to 0.87; p = 0.006). The reduction in both all-cause and HF readmissions with LCZ696 was maintained when the time window from discharge was extended to 60 days and in sensitivity analyses restricted to adjudicated HF hospitalizations. Conclusions: Compared with enalapril, treatment with LCZ696 reduces 30-day readmissions for any cause following discharge from HF hospitalization

C-Reactive protein and risk of ESRD: results from the Trial to Reduce Cardiovascular Events With Aranesp Therapy (TREAT)

Background: To better understand a potential association of elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) level with progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD), we examined the relationship of CRP level with the development of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in the Trial to Reduce Cardiovascular Events With Aranesp Therapy (TREAT). Study Design Post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Setting & Participants: 4,038 patients with type 2 diabetes, CKD, and anemia in TREAT. Predictor: Baseline serum CRP concentrations. Outcomes: The primary outcome was development of ESRD; secondary outcomes included doubling of serum creatinine level, a composite of ESRD/serum creatinine doubling, and a composite of death or ESRD. Measurements: We fit unadjusted and adjusted Cox regression models to test the association of baseline CRP level with time to the development of the outcomes of interest. Results: Mean age of participants was 67 years, 43% were men, and 64% were white. Approximately half (48%) the patients had CRP levels > 3.0 mg/L; 668 patients developed ESRD, and 1,270 developed the composite outcome of death or ESRD. Compared with patients with baseline CRP levels ≤ 3.0 mg/L, those with moderately/markedly elevated CRP levels (≥6.9 mg/L; 24% of patients) had a higher adjusted risk for ESRD (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.07-1.63) and the composite outcome of death or ESRD (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.21-1.64). Although nonsignificant, similar trends were noted in competing-risk models. Limitations: Results may not be generalizable to nondiabetic CKD or diabetic CKD in the absence of anemia. Conclusions: Elevated baseline CRP levels are common in type 2 diabetic patients with anemia and CKD and are associated with the future development of ESRD and the composite of death or ESRD

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

Efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril at lower than target doses in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: the PARADIGM-HF trial.

AimsIn this analysis, we utilized data from PARADIGM-HF to test the hypothesis that participants who exhibited any dose reduction during the trial would have similar benefits from lower doses of sacubitril/valsartan relative to lower doses of enalapril.Methods and resultsIn a post-hoc analysis from PARADIGM-HF, we characterized patients by whether they received the maximal dose (200 mg sacubitril/valsartan or 10 mg enalapril twice daily) throughout the trial or had any dose reduction to lower doses (100/50/0 mg sacubitril/valsartan or 5/2.5/0 mg enalapril twice daily). The treatment effect for the primary outcome was estimated, stratified by dose level using time-updated Cox regression models. In the two treatment arms, participants with a dose reduction (43% of those randomized to enalapril and 42% of those randomized to sacubitril/valsartan) had similar baseline characteristics and similar baseline predictors of the need for dose reduction. In a time-updated analysis, any dose reduction was associated with a higher subsequent risk of the primary event [hazard ratio (HR) 2.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2-2.7]. However, the treatment benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril following a dose reduction was similar (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70-0.93, P < 0.001) to that observed in patients who had not experienced any dose reduction (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.71-0.88, P < 0.001).ConclusionsIn PARADIGM-HF, study medication dose reduction identified patients at higher risk of a major cardiovascular event. The magnitude of benefit for patients on lower doses of sacubitril/valsartan relative to those on lower doses of enalapril was similar to that of patients who remained on target doses of both drugs

Effects of sacubitril/valsartan on biomarkers of extracellular matrix regulation in patients with HFrEF

Background: Myocardial fibrosis is an important pathophysiological mechanism underlying the development of heart failure (HF). Given the biochemical targets of sacubitril/valsartan, we hypothesized that circulating biomarkers reflecting the mechanisms that determine extracellular matrix (ECM) homeostasis, including collagen synthesis, processing, and degradation, are altered by sacubitril/valsartan in comparison to enalapril. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on biomarkers of ECM homeostasis and the association between the rate of primary composite outcome (cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization) and these biomarkers. Methods: Biomarkers at baseline (n = 2,067) and both baseline and 8 months after randomization (n = 1,776) included aldosterone, soluble ST2 (sST2), tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase (TIMP)-1, matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-2, MMP-9, Galectin-3 (Gal-3), N-terminal propeptide of collagen I (PINP), and N-terminal propeptide of collagen III (PIIINP). The effects of sacubitril/valsartan on biomarkers were compared with enalapril. Baseline biomarker values and changes from baseline to 8 months were related to primary outcome. Results: At baseline, the profibrotic biomarkers aldosterone, sST2, TIMP-1, Gal-3, PINP, and PIIINP were higher, and biomarkers associated with collagen degradation, MMP-2 and -9, were lower than published referent control values. Eight months after randomization, aldosterone, sST2, TIMP-1, MMP-9, PINP, and PIIINP had decreased more in the sacubitril/valsartan than enalapril group. At baseline, higher values of sST-2, TIMP-1, and PIIINP were associated with higher primary outcome rates. Changes from baseline to 8 months in sST-2 and TIMP-1 were associated with change in outcomes. Conclusions: Biomarkers associated with profibrotic signaling are altered in HF with reduced ejection fraction, sacubitril/valsartan significantly decreased many of these biomarkers, and these biomarkers have important prognostic value. These findings suggest that sacubitril/valsartan may reduce profibrotic signaling, which may contribute to the improved outcomes. (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

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

Abstract 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%

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction

Importance  The angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan was associated with a reduction in cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and hospitalizations compared with enalapril. Sacubitril/valsartan has been approved for use in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction in the United States and cost has been suggested as 1 factor that will influence the use of this agent. Objective  To estimate the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril in the United States. Design, Setting, and Participants  Data from US adults (mean [SD] age, 63.8 [11.5] years) with HF with reduced ejection fraction and characteristics similar to those in the PARADIGM-HF trial were used as inputs for a 2-state Markov model simulated HF. Risks of all-cause mortality and hospitalization from HF or other reasons were estimated with a 30-year time horizon. Quality of life was based on trial EQ-5D scores. Hospital costs combined Medicare and private insurance reimbursement rates; medication costs included the wholesale acquisition cost for sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril. A discount rate of 3% was used. Sensitivity analyses were performed on key inputs including: hospital costs, mortality benefit, hazard ratio for hospitalization reduction, drug costs, and quality-of-life estimates. Main Outcomes and Measures  Hospitalizations, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental costs per QALY gained. Results  The 2-state Markov model of US adult patients (mean age, 63.8 years) calculated that there would be 220 fewer hospital admissions per 1000 patients with HF treated with sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril over 30 years. The incremental costs and QALYs gained with sacubitril/valsartan treatment were estimated at $35 512 and 0.78, respectively, compared with enalapril, equating to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of$45 017 per QALY for the base-case. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated ICERs ranging from $35 357 to$75 301 per QALY. Conclusions and Relevance  For eligible patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction, the Markov model calculated that sacubitril/valsartan would increase life expectancy at an ICER consistent with other high-value accepted cardiovascular interventions. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated sacubitril/valsartan would remain cost-effective vs enalapril

Reduced loop diuretic use in patients taking sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril: the PARADIGM-HF trial.

Aims: To assess differences in diuretic dose requirements in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril 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: Overall, 8399 patients with New York Heart Association class II–IV heart failure and reduced LVEF were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg bid or enalapril 10 mg twice daily. Loop diuretic doses were assessed at baseline, 6, 12, and 24 months, and furosemide dose equivalents were calculated via multiplication factors (2x for torsemide and 40x for bumetanide). Percentages of participants with reductions or increases in loop diuretic dose were determined. At baseline, 80.8% of participants were taking any diuretics (n = 6290 for loop diuretics, n = 496 for other diuretics); of those, recorded dosage data for loop diuretics were available on 5487 participants. Mean baseline furosemide equivalent doses were 48.2 mg for sacubitril/valsartan and 49.6 mg for enalapril (P = 0.25). Patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan were more likely to reduce diuretic dose and less likely to increase diuretic dose relative to those randomized to enalapril at 6, 12, 24 months post‐randomization, with an overall decreased diuretic use of 2.0% (P = 0.02), 4.1% (P < 0.001), and 6.1% (P < 0.001) at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively, with similar findings in an on‐treatment analysis. Conclusion: Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan was associated with more loop diuretic dose reductions and fewer dose increases compared with enalapril, suggesting that treatment with sacubitril/valsartan may reduce the requirement for loop diuretics relative to enalapril in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction