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

Baseline characteristics and treatment of patients in prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to determine impact on global mortality and morbidity in heart failure trial (PARADIGM-HF)

Aim<p></p> To describe the baseline characteristics and treatment of the patients randomized in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective comparison of ARNi with ACEi to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure) trial, testing the hypothesis that the strategy of simultaneously blocking the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system and augmenting natriuretic peptides with LCZ696 200 mg b.i.d. is superior to enalapril 10 mg b.i.d. in reducing mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.<p></p> Methods<p></p> Key demographic, clinical and laboratory findings, along with baseline treatment, are reported and compared with those of patients in the treatment arm of the Studies Of Left Ventricular Dysfunction (SOLVD-T) and more contemporary drug and device trials in heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.<p></p> Results<p></p> The mean age of the 8442 patients in PARADIGM-HF is 64 (SD 11) years and 78% are male, which is similar to SOLVD-T and more recent trials. Despite extensive background therapy with beta-blockers (93% patients) and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (60%), patients in PARADIGM-HF have persisting symptoms and signs, reduced health related quality of life, a low LVEF (mean 29 ± SD 6%) and elevated N-terminal-proB type-natriuretic peptide levels (median 1608 inter-quartile range 886–3221 pg/mL).<p></p> Conclusion<p></p> PARADIGM-HF will determine whether LCZ696 is more beneficial than enalapril when added to other disease-modifying therapies and if further augmentation of endogenous natriuretic peptides will reduce morbidity and mortality in heart failure and reduced ejection fractio

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

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

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

Who approves/pays for additional monitoring?

Major considerations in the provision of healthcare are availability, affordability, accessibility, and appropriateness, especially in the setting of heart failure where disease burden is growing, developments have been rapid and newer biomarkers, diagnostic and imaging techniques, monitoring systems, devices, procedures, and drugs have all been developed in a relatively short period of time. Many monitoring and diagnostic systems have been developed but the disproportionate cost of conducting trials of their effectiveness has limited their uptake. There are added complexities, in that the utilization of doctors for the supervision of the monitoring results may be optimal in one setting and not in another because of differences in the characteristics of organization of healthcare provision, making even interpretation of the trials we have had, still difficult to interpret. New technologies are continuously changing the approach to healthcare and will reshape the structure of the healthcare systems in the future. Mobile technologies can empower patients and carers by giving them more control over their health and social care needs and reducing their dependence on healthcare professionals for monitoring their health, but a significant problem is the integration of the multitude of monitored parameters with clinical data and the recognition of intervention thresholds. Digital technology can help, but we need to prove its cost/efficacy and how it will be paid for. Governments in many European countries and worldwide are trying to establish frameworks that promote the convergence of standards and regulations for telemedicine solutions and yet simultaneously health authorities are closely scrutinizing healthcare spending, with the objective of reducing and optimizing expenditure in the provision of health services. There are multiple factors to be considered for the reimbursement models associated with the implementation of physiological monitoring yet it remains a challenge in cash-strapped health systems

Efficacy of ivabradine in heart failure patients with a high-risk profile (analysis from the SHIFT trial)

Aims Early start and patient profile-oriented heart failure (HF) management has been recommended. In this post hoc analysis from the SHIFT trial, we analysed the treatment effects of ivabradine in HF patients with systolic blood pressure (SBP) < 110 mmHg, resting heart rate (RHR) ≥ 75 b.p.m., left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 25%, New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class III/IV, and their combination. Methods and results The SHIFT trial enrolled 6505 patients (LVEF ≤ 35% and RHR ≥ 70 b.p.m.), randomized to ivabradine or placebo on the background of guideline-defined standard care. Compared with placebo, ivabradine was associated with a similar relative risk reduction of the primary endpoint (cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization) in patients with SBP < 110 and ≥110 mmHg [hazard ratio (HR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74–1.08 vs. HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72–0.89, P interaction = 0.34], LVEF ≤ 25% and >25% (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.72–1.01 vs. HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71–0.90, P interaction = 0.53), and NYHA III–IV and II (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.74–0.94 vs. HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.69–0.94, P interaction = 0.79). The effect was more pronounced in patients with RHR ≥ 75 compared with <75 (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.68–0.85 vs. HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.81–0.1.16, P interaction = 0.02). When combining these profiling parameters, treatment with ivabradine was also associated with risk reductions comparable with patients with low-risk profiles for the primary endpoint (relative risk reduction 29%), cardiovascular death (11%), HF death (49%), and HF hospitalization (38%; all P values for interaction: 0.40). No safety concerns were observed between study groups. Conclusions Our analysis shows that RHR reduction with ivabradine is effective and improves clinical outcomes in HF patients across various risk indicators such as low SBP, high RHR, low LVEF, and high NYHA class to a similar extent and without safety concern

Should beta-blocker therapy be reduced or withdrawn after an episode of decompensated heart failure? Results from COMET.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether beta-blocker therapy should be reduced or withdrawn in patients who develop acute decompensated heart failure (HF). We studied the relationship between changes in beta-blocker dose and outcome in patients surviving a HF hospitalisation in COMET. METHODS: Patients hospitalised for HF were subdivided on the basis of the beta-blocker dose administered at the visit following hospitalisation, compared to that administered before. RESULTS: In COMET, 752/3029 patients (25%, 361 carvedilol and 391 metoprolol) had a non-fatal HF hospitalisation while on study treatment. Of these, 61 patients (8%) had beta-blocker treatment withdrawn, 162 (22%) had a dose reduction and 529 (70%) were maintained on the same dose. One-and two-year cumulative mortality rates were 28.7% and 44.6% for patients withdrawn from study medication, 37.4% and 51.4% for those with a reduced dosage (n.s.) and 19.1% and 32.5% for those maintained on the same dose (HR,1.59; 95%CI, 1.28-1.98; p<0.001, compared to the others). The result remained significant in a multivariable model: (HR, 1.30; 95%CI, 1.02-1.66; p=0.0318). No interaction with the beneficial effects of carvedilol, compared to metoprolol, on outcome was observed (p=0.8436). CONCLUSIONS: HF hospitalisations are associated with a high subsequent mortality. The risk of death is higher in patients who discontinue beta-blocker therapy or have their dose reduced. The increase in mortality is only partially explained by the worse prognostic profile of these patients