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.).

Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibition in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

The angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril-valsartan led to a reduced risk of hospitalization for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes among patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. The effect of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibition in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is unclear.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 4822 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II to IV heart failure, ejection fraction of 45% or higher, elevated level of natriuretic peptides, and structural heart disease to receive sacubitril-valsartan (target dose, 97 mg of sacubitril with 103 mg of valsartan twice daily) or valsartan (target dose, 160 mg twice daily). The primary outcome was a composite of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. Primary outcome components, secondary outcomes (including NYHA class change, worsening renal function, and change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire [KCCQ] clinical summary score [scale, 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating fewer symptoms and physical limitations]), and safety were also assessed.

RESULTS

There were 894 primary events in 526 patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 1009 primary events in 557 patients in the valsartan group (rate ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 1.01; P = 0.06). The incidence of death from cardiovascular causes was 8.5% in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 8.9% in the valsartan group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.16); there were 690 and 797 total hospitalizations for heart failure, respectively (rate ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.00). NYHA class improved in 15.0% of the patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 12.6% of those in the valsartan group (odds ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.86); renal function worsened in 1.4% and 2.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.77). The mean change in the KCCQ clinical summary score at 8 months was 1.0 point (95% CI, 0.0 to 2.1) higher in the sacubitril-valsartan group. Patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group had a higher incidence of hypotension and angioedema and a lower incidence of hyperkalemia. Among 12 prespecified subgroups, there was suggestion of heterogeneity with possible benefit with sacubitril-valsartan in patients with lower ejection fraction and in women.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril-valsartan did not result in a significantly lower rate of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes among patients with heart failure and an ejection fraction of 45% or higher. (Funded by Novartis; PARAGON-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01920711.).

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.

Blood-pressure reduction with LCZ696, a novel dual-acting inhibitor of the angiotensin II receptor and neprilysin: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, active comparator study

BACKGROUND

LCZ696 is a first-in-class inhibitor of the angiotensin II receptor and neprilysin. We aimed to establish whether the dual actions of LCZ696 lead to further lowering of blood pressure, compared with the angiotensin-receptor blocker valsartan.

METHODS

1328 patients aged 18-75 years with mild-to-moderate hypertension were randomly assigned (double-blind) to 8 weeks' treatment in one of eight groups: 100 mg (n=156 patients), 200 mg (n=169), or 400 mg (n=172) LCZ696; 80 mg (n=163), 160 mg (n=166), or 320 mg (n=164) valsartan; 200 mg AHU377 (n=165); or placebo (n=173). The primary endpoint was the mean difference across the three single-dose pairwise comparisons of LCZ696 versus valsartan (100 mg vs 80 mg, 200 mg vs 160 mg, and 400 mg vs 320 mg) in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure during the 8-week treatment period. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00549770.

FINDINGS

1215 patients completed the 8-week treatment period. The average reduction in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure across the doses of LCZ696 versus the appropriate comparator dose of valsartan showed significantly greater reductions with LCZ696 (mean reduction: -2.17 mm Hg, 95% CI -3.28 to -1.06; p<0.0001). The reduction in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure was significantly different for 200 mg LCZ696 versus 160 mg valsartan (-2.97 mm Hg, 95% CI -4.88 to -1.07, p=0.0023) and for 400 mg LCZ696 versus 320 mg valsartan (-2.70 mm Hg, -4.61 to -0.80, p=0.0055). LCZ696 was well tolerated and no cases of angio-oedema were reported; only three serious adverse events occurred during the 8-week treatment period, of which none was judged to be related to the study drug, and no patients died.

INTERPRETATION

Compared with valsartan, dual-acting LCZ696 provides complementary and fully additive reduction of blood pressure, which suggests that the drug holds promise for treatment of hypertension and cardiovascular disease.

FUNDING

Novartis.

Dual angiotensin receptor and neprilysin inhibition as an alternative to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition in patients with chronic systolic heart failure: rationale for and design of the Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure trial (PARADIGM-HF)

AIMS

Although the focus of therapeutic intervention has been on neurohormonal pathways thought to be harmful in heart failure (HF), such as the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS), potentially beneficial counter-regulatory systems are also active in HF. These promote vasodilatation and natriuresis, inhibit abnormal growth, suppress the RAAS and sympathetic nervous system, and augment parasympathetic activity. The best understood of these mediators are the natriuretic peptides which are metabolized by the enzyme neprilysin. LCZ696 belongs to a new class of drugs, the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), which both block the RAAS and augment natriuretic peptides.

METHODS

Patients with chronic HF, NYHA class II-IV symptoms, an elevated plasma BNP or NT-proBNP level, and an LVEF of ≤40% were enrolled in the Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortailty and morbidity in Heart Failure trial (PARADIGM-HF). Patients entered a single-blind enalapril run-in period (titrated to 10 mg b.i.d.), followed by an LCZ696 run-in period (100 mg titrated to 200 mg b.i.d.). A total of 8436 patients tolerating both periods were randomized 1:1 to either enalapril 10 mg b.i.d. or LCZ696 200 mg b.i.d. The primary outcome is the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization, although the trial is powered to detect a 15% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death.

PERSPECTIVES

PARADIGM-HF will determine the place of the ARNI LCZ696 as an alternative to enalapril in patients with systolic HF. PARADIGM-HF may change our approach to neurohormonal modulation in HF.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01035255.

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.

Clinical Trial Registration—

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255.

Developing therapies for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: current state and future directions

The burden of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is considerable and is projected to worsen. To date, there are no approved therapies available for reducing mortality or hospitalizations for these patients. The pathophysiology of HFpEF is complex and includes alterations in cardiac structure and function, systemic and pulmonary vascular abnormalities, end-organ involvement, and comorbidities. There remain major gaps in our understanding of HFpEF pathophysiology. To facilitate a discussion of how to proceed effectively in future with development of therapies for HFpEF, a meeting was facilitated by the Food and Drug Administration and included representatives from academia, industry, and regulatory agencies. This document summarizes the proceedings from this meeting.

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.

Efficacy and safety of LCZ696 (sacubitril-valsartan) according to age: insights from PARADIGM-HF

Background

The age at which heart failure develops varies widely between countries and drug tolerance and outcomes also vary by age. We have examined the efficacy and safety of LCZ696 according to age in the Prospective comparison of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure trial (PARADIGM-HF).

Methods

In PARADIGM-HF, 8399 patients aged 18–96 years and in New York Heart Association functional class II–IV with an LVEF ≤40% were randomized to either enalapril or LCZ696. We examined the pre-specified efficacy and safety outcomes according to age category (years): <55 (n = 1624), 55–64 (n = 2655), 65–74 (n = 2557), and ≥75 (n = 1563).

Findings

The rate (per 100 patient-years) of the primary outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH) increased from 13.4 to 14.8 across the age categories. The LCZ696:enalapril hazard ratio (HR) was <1.0 in all categories (P for interaction between age category and treatment = 0.94) with an overall HR of 0.80 (0.73, 0.87), P < 0.001. The findings for HFH were similar for CV and all-cause mortality and the age category by treatment interactions were not significant. The pre-specified safety outcomes of hypotension, renal impairment and hyperkalaemia increased in both treatment groups with age, although the differences between treatment (more hypotension but less renal impairment and hyperkalaemia with LCZ696) were consistent across age categories.

Interpretation

LCZ696 was more beneficial than enalapril across the spectrum of age in PARADIGM-HF with a favourable benefit–risk profile in all age groups.

Effects of a Novel Aldosterone Synthase Inhibitor for Treatment of Primary Hypertension

Background—

LCI699, a novel inhibitor of aldosterone synthase, reduces serum aldosterone, and may have benefit in the treatment of hypertension.

Methods and Results—

We performed the first double-blind, randomized trial with LCI699 in patients with primary hypertension. We randomized 524 patients to LCI699 0.25 mg once daily (n=92), 0.5 mg once daily (n=88), 1.0 mg once daily (n=86), and 0.5 mg twice daily (n=97); eplerenone 50 mg twice daily (n=84); or placebo (n=77) for 8 weeks. Adrenocorticotropic hormone (250 μg IV) stimulation testing was performed in a subset of patients to quantify the selectivity of LCI699 for aldosterone synthase compared with 11-β-hydroxylase. Reductions in clinic diastolic blood pressure were significant for LCI699 1.0 mg (−7.1 mm Hg; P =0.0012) and eplerenone 50 mg twice daily (−7.9 mm Hg; P <0.0001) compared with placebo (−2.6 mm Hg) but not other doses of LCI699. Significant reductions in clinic systolic blood pressure were observed with all doses of LCI699 ( P <0.005 or better) and eplerenone ( P <0.0001). All doses of LCI699 significantly reduced 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure compared with placebo ( P <0.01). Adrenocorticotropic hormone stimulation of cortisol was suppressed in ≈20% of subjects receiving LCI699 at a total daily dose of 1.0 mg. Safety and tolerability were similar among LCI699, placebo, and eplerenone.

Conclusions—

Aldosterone synthase inhibition with LCI699 significantly lowered clinic and ambulatory blood pressure. A minority of subjects developed blunted adrenocorticotropic hormone–stimulated release of cortisol. These results support additional research to evaluate use of aldosterone synthase inhibition in primary hypertension and/or patients characterized by aldosterone excess.

Clinical Trial Registration—

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00758524.

Renal effects of the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Increases in serum creatinine with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors can lead to unnecessary discontinuation of these agents. The dual-acting angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 improves clinical outcome patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and pilot data suggest potential benefit in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The effects of LCZ696 on renal function have not been assessed.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 301 HFpEF patients were randomly assigned to LCZ696 or valsartan in the PARAMOUNT trial. We studied renal function [creatinine, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), cystatin C, and urinary albumin to creatinine ratio (UACR)] at baseline, 12 weeks, and after 36 weeks of treatment. Worsening renal function (WRF) was determined as an serum creatinine increase of >0.3 mg/dL and/or >25% between two time-points. Mean eGFR at baseline was 65.4 ± 20.4 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) . The eGFR declined less in the LCZ696 group than in the valsartan group (-1.5 vs. -5.2 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) ; P = 0.002). The incidence of WRF was lower in the LCZ696 group (12%) than in the valsartan group (18%) at any time-point, but this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.18). Over 36 weeks, the geometric mean of UACR increased in the LCZ696 group (2.4-2.9 mg/mmol), whereas it remained stable in the valsartan group (2.1-2.0 mg/mmol; P for difference between groups = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

In patients with HFpEF, therapy with LCZ696 for 36 weeks was associated with preservation of eGFR compared with valsartan therapy, but an increase in UACR.

Importance of Clinical Worsening of Heart Failure Treated in the Outpatient Setting: Evidence From the Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure Trial (PARADIGM-HF)

BACKGROUND

Many episodes of worsening of heart failure (HF) are treated by increasing oral therapy or temporary intravenous treatment in the community or emergency department (ED), without hospital admission. We studied the frequency and prognostic importance of these episodes of worsening in the Prospective Comparison of ARNI (angiotensin-receptor-neprilysin inhibitor) with ACEI (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor) to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure Trial (PARADIGM-HF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Outpatient intensification of HF therapy was added to an expanded composite outcome with ED visits, HF hospitalizations, and cardiovascular deaths. In an examination of first nonfatal events, 361 of 8399 patients (4.3%) had outpatient intensification of HF therapy without a subsequent event (ie, ED visit/HF hospitalizations) within 30 days; 78 of 8399 (1.0%) had an ED visit without previous outpatient intensification of HF therapy or a subsequent event within 30 days; and 1107 of 8399 (13.2%) had HF hospitalizations without a preceding event. The risk of death (in comparison with no-event patients) was similar after each manifestation of worsening: outpatient intensification of HF therapy (hazard ratio, 4.8; 95% confidence interval, 3.9-5.9); ED visit (hazard ratio, 4.5; 95% confidence interval, 3.0-6.7); HF hospitalizations (hazard ratio, 5.9; 95% confidence interval, 5.2-6.6). The expanded composite added 14% more events and shortened time to accrual of a fixed number of events. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril was similar to the primary outcome for the expanded composite (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.86) and was consistent across the components of the latter.

CONCLUSIONS

Focusing only on HF hospitalizations underestimates the frequency of worsening and the serious implications of all manifestations of worsening. For clinical trials conducted in an era of heightened efforts to avoid HF hospitalizations, inclusion of episodes of outpatient treatment intensification (and ED visits) in a composite outcome adds an important number of events and shortens the time taken to accrue a target number of end points in an event-driven trial.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255.

Effect of neprilysin inhibition on renal function in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic heart failure who are receiving target doses of inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system: a secondary analysis of the PARADIGM-HF trial

BACKGROUND

Neprilysin inhibition has favourable effects on experimental diabetic nephropathy. We sought to assess the effects of neprilysin inhibition on the course of renal function in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

In the randomised, double-blind PARADIGM-HF trial, the effects of sacubitril/valsartan (97 mg/103 mg twice daily) were compared with enalapril (10 mg twice daily) in 8399 patients with mild-to-moderate chronic heart failure and systolic dysfunction. In this secondary intention-to-treat analysis, we assessed the change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) over a 44-month follow-up period in patients with (n=3784) and those without (n=4615) diabetes. PARADIGM-HF is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01035255.

FINDINGS

eGFR decreased by 1·1 mL/min per 1·73 m² per year (95% CI 1·0-1·2) in patients without diabetes, but by 2·0 mL/min per 1·73 m² per year (1·9-2·1) in those with diabetes (p<0·0001). Compared with patients treated with enalapril, those treated with sacubitril/valsartan had a slower rate of decline in eGFR (-1·3 vs -1·8 mL/min per 1·73 m² per year; p<0·0001), and the magnitude of the benefit was larger in patients with versus those without diabetes (difference 0·6 mL/min per 1·73 m² per year [95% CI 0·4-0·8] in patients with vs 0·3 mL/min per 1·73 m² per year [0·2-0·5] in those without diabetes; p_interaction=0·038). The greater effect of neprilysin inhibition in patients with diabetes could not be explained by the effects of treatment on the course of heart failure or on HbA_1c. The incremental benefit of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with diabetes was no longer apparent when changes in eGFR were adjusted for urinary cyclic guanosine monophosphate (p=0·41).

INTERPRETATION

In patients in whom the renin-angiotensin system is already maximally blocked, the addition of neprilysin inhibition attenuates the effect of diabetes to accelerate the deterioration of renal function that occurs in patients with chronic heart failure.

FUNDING

Novartis.

Influence of Ejection Fraction on Outcomes and Efficacy of Sacubitril/Valsartan (LCZ696) in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: The Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) Trial

BACKGROUND

The angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) reduced cardiovascular morbidity and mortality compared with enalapril in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (EF) in the Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial. We evaluated the influence of EF on clinical outcomes and on the effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Eight thousand three hundred ninety-nine patients with New York Heart Association class II to IV HF with reduced EF [left ventricular EF (LVEF) ≤40%] were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan 97/103 mg twice daily versus enalapril 10 mg twice daily and followed for a median of 27 months. The primary study end point was cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. LVEF was assessed at the sites and recorded on case report forms. We related LVEF to study outcomes and assessed the effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan across the LVEF spectrum. The mean LVEF in PARADIGM-HF, reported by sites, was 29.5 (interquartile range, 25-34). The risk of all outcomes increased with decreasing LVEF. Each 5-point reduction in LVEF was associated with a 9% increased risk of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.13; P<0.001), a 9% increased risk for CV death (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.14), a 9% increased risk in HF hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.14) and a 7% increased risk in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.12) in adjusted analyses. Sacubitril/valsartan was effective across the LVEF spectrum, with no evidence of heterogeneity, when modeled either in tertiles (P interaction=0.87) or continuously (P interaction=0.95).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with HF and reduced EF enrolled in PARADIGM-HF, LVEF was a significant and independent predictor of all outcomes. Sacubitril/valsartan was effective at reducing cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization throughout the LVEF spectrum.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255.

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.

Comparing LCZ696 with enalapril according to baseline risk using the MAGGIC and EMPHASIS-HF risk scores: an analysis of mortality and morbidity in PARADIGM-HF

BACKGROUND

Although most patients in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial had mild symptoms, there is a poor correlation between reported functional limitation and prognosis in heart failure.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to examine the spectrum of risk in PARADIGM-HF and the effect of LCZ696 across that spectrum.

METHODS

This study analyzed rates of the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization, its components, and all-cause mortality using the MAGGIC (Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure) and EMPHASIS-HF (Eplerenone in Mild Patients Hospitalization and Survival Study in Heart Failure) risk scores to categorize patients. The authors determined whether risk, on the basis of these scores, modified the treatment effect of LCZ696.

RESULTS

The complete MAGGIC risk score was available for 8,375 of the 8,399 patients in PARADIGM-HF. The median MAGGIC score was 20 (IQR: 16 to 24). An increase of 1 point was associated with a 6% increased risk for the primary endpoint (p < 0.001) and a 7% increased risk for cardiovascular death (p < 0.001). The benefit of LCZ696 over enalapril for the primary endpoint was similar across the spectrum of risk (p = 0.159). Treating 100 patients for 2 years with LCZ696 instead of enalapril led to 7 fewer patients in the highest quintile of risk experiencing primary outcomes, compared with 3 in the lowest quintile. Analyses using the EMPHASIS-HF risk score gave similar findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Although most PARADIGM-HF patients had mild symptoms, many were at high risk for adverse outcomes and obtained a large absolute benefit from LCZ696, compared with enalapril, over a relatively short treatment period. LCZ696's benefit was consistent across the spectrum of risk. (PARADIGM-HF trial [Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure]; NCT01035255).

Prior Heart Failure Hospitalization, Clinical Outcomes, and Response to Sacubitril/Valsartan Compared With Valsartan in HFpEF

BACKGROUND

The period shortly after hospitalization for heart failure (HF) represents a high-risk window for recurrent clinical events, including rehospitalization or death.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to determine whether the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan varies in relation to the proximity to hospitalization for HF among patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

METHODS

In this post hoc analysis of PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI [Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor] with ARB [Angiotensin Receptor Blocker] Global Outcomes in HFpEF), we assessed the risk of clinical events and response to sacubitril/valsartan in relation to time from last HF hospitalization among patients with HFpEF (≥45%). The primary outcome was composite total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death, analyzed by using a semiparametric proportional rates method, stratified by geographic region.

RESULTS

Of 4,796 validly randomized patients in PARAGON-HF, 622 (13%) were screened during hospitalization or within 30 days of prior hospitalization, 555 (12%) within 31 to 90 days, 435 (9%) within 91 to 180 days, and 694 (14%) after 180 days; 2,490 (52%) were never previously hospitalized. Over a median follow-up of 35 months, risk of total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death was inversely and nonlinearly associated with timing from prior HF hospitalization (p < 0.001). There was a gradient in relative risk reduction in primary events with sacubitril/valsartan from patients hospitalized within 30 days (rate ratio: 0.73; 95% confidence interval: 0.53 to 0.99) to patients never hospitalized (rate ratio: 1.00; 95% confidence interval: 0.80 to 1.24; trend in relative risk reduction: pinteraction = 0.15). With valsartan alone, the rate of total primary events was 26.7 (≤30 days), 24.2 (31 to 90 days), 20.7 (91 to 180 days), 15.7 (>180 days), and 7.9 (not previously hospitalized) per 100 patient-years. Compared with valsartan, absolute risk reductions with sacubitril/valsartan were more prominent in patients enrolled early after hospitalization: 6.4% (≤30 days), 4.6% (31 to 90 days), and 3.4% (91 to 180 days), whereas no risk reduction was observed in patients screened >180 days or who were never hospitalized (trend in absolute risk reduction: pinteraction = 0.050).

CONCLUSIONS

Recent hospitalization for HFpEF identifies patients at high risk for near-term clinical progression. In the PARAGON-HF trial, the relative and absolute benefits of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in HFpEF appear to be amplified when initiated in the high-risk window after hospitalization and warrant prospective validation. (PARAGON-HF; NCT01920711).

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.

Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan on Physical and Social Activity Limitations in Patients With Heart Failure: A Secondary Analysis of the PARADIGM-HF Trial

Importance

Health-related quality of life (HRQL) of patients with heart failure is markedly reduced compared with that in patients with other chronic diseases, demonstrating substantial limitations in physical and social activities. In the Prospective Comparison of ARNI With an ACE-Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial, sacubitril/valsartan improved overall HRQL compared with enalapril, as determined by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ).

Objective

To examine the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on physical and social activities.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The PARADIGM-HF trial was a randomized, double-blind, active treatment-controlled clinical trial performed from December 8, 2009, to March 31, 2014, in 8399 patients with New York Heart Association class II to IV disease and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less at 1043 centers in 38 countries. Data analysis was performed from August 1, 2017, to December 25, 2017.

Interventions

Sacubitril/valsartan, 200 mg twice daily, or enalapril, 10 mg twice daily.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Patients completed HRQL assessments using the KCCQ at randomization, 4-month, 8-month, and annual visits. The effect of sacubitril/valsartan on components of the physical and social limitation sections of the KCCQ at 8 months and longitudinally and related biomarkers and clinical outcomes were studied.

Results

At baseline, 7618 of 8399 patients (90.7%) (mean [SD] age, 64 [11] years; 5987 [78.6%] male and 1631 [21.4%] female) completed the initial KCCQ assessment. Patients reported the greatest limitations at baseline in jogging and sexual relationships. Patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan had significantly better adjusted change scores in most physical and social activities at 8 months and during 36 months compared with those receiving enalapril. The largest improvement over enalapril was in household chores (adjusted change score difference, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.19-3.50; P < .001) and sexual relationships (adjusted change score difference, 2.72; 95% CI, 0.97-4.46; P = .002); both persisted through 36 months (overall change score difference, 1.69 [95% CI, 0.78-2.60], P < .001; and 2.36 [95% CI, 1.01-3.71], P = .001, respectively).

Conclusions and Relevance

In patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, sacubitril/valsartan significantly improved nearly all KCCQ physical and social activities compared with enalapril, with the largest responses in household chores and sexual relationships. In addition to reduced likelihood of cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, and heart failure hospitalization, sacubitril/valsartan may improve limitations in common activities in these patients.

Trial Registration

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01035255.

Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan on Biomarkers of Extracellular Matrix Regulation in Patients With HFpEF

BACKGROUND

Myocardial fibrosis may contribute to the pathophysiology of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Given the biochemical targets of sacubitril/valsartan, this study hypothesized that circulating biomarkers reflecting the mechanisms that determine extracellular matrix homeostasis are altered by sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan alone.

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on biomarkers of extracellular matrix homeostasis and the association between biomarkers and the primary endpoint (total heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular death).

METHODS

N-terminal propeptide of collagen I and III, tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase 1, carboxyl-terminal telopeptide of collagen type I, and soluble ST2 were measured at baseline (n = 1,135) and 16 (n = 1,113) and 48 weeks (n = 1,016) after randomization. The effects of sacubitril/valsartan on these biomarkers were compared with those of valsartan alone. Baseline biomarker values and changes from baseline to 16 weeks were related to primary endpoint.

RESULTS

At baseline, all 5 biomarkers were higher than published referent control values. Sixteen weeks after randomization, sacubitril/valsartan decreased tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase 1 by 8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6% to 10%; p < 0.001), soluble ST2 by 4% (95% CI: 1% to 7%; p = 0.002), and N-terminal propeptide of collagen III by 3% (95% CI: 0% to 6%; p = 0.04) and increased carboxyl-terminal telopeptide of collagen type I by 4% (95% CI: 1% to 8%; p = 0.02) compared with valsartan alone, consistently in men and women and patients with left ventricular ejection fraction above or below the median of 57%. Higher levels of tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase 1 and soluble ST2 at baseline and increases in these markers at 16 weeks were associated with higher primary endpoint event rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Biomarkers reflecting extracellular matrix homeostasis are elevated in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, favorably altered by sacubitril/valsartan, and have important prognostic value. (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711).

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 inhibitorenalapril 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 was0.80 (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 rangedfrom 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 previouscoronary revascularization or β-blocker dose.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255.

Effect of sacubitril/valsartan on recurrent events in the Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure trial (PARADIGM-HF)

Aims

Recurrent hospitalizations are a major part of the disease burden in heart failure (HF), but conventional analyses consider only the first event. We compared the effect of sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril on recurrent events, incorporating all HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular (CV) deaths in PARADIGM‐HF, using a variety of statistical approaches advocated for this type of analysis.

Methods and results

In PARADIGM‐HF, a total of 8399 patients were randomized and followed for a median of 27 months. We applied various recurrent event analyses, including a negative binomial model, the Wei, Lin and Weissfeld (WLW), and Lin, Wei, Ying and Yang (LWYY) methods, and a joint frailty model, all adjusted for treatment and region. Among a total of 3181 primary endpoint events (including 1251 CV deaths) during the trial, only 2031 (63.8%) were first events (836 CV deaths). Among a total of 1195 patients with at least one HF hospitalization, 410 (34%) had at least one further HF hospitalization. Sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril reduced the risk of recurrent HF hospitalization using the negative binomial model [rate ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67–0.89], the WLW method [hazard ratio (HR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.71–0.89], the LWYY method (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68–0.90), and the joint frailty model (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.66–0.86) (all P < 0.001). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril on recurrent HF hospitalizations/CV death was similar.

Conclusions

In PARADIGM‐HF, approximately one third of patients with a primary endpoint (time‐to‐first) experienced a further event. Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan reduced both first and recurrent events. The treatment effect size was similar, regardless of the statistical approach applied.