Asymptomatic vs Symptomatic Hypotension With Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction in PARADIGM-HF

BACKGROUND

Hypotension is an important clinical problem in heart failure (HF).

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to examine the association between asymptomatic vs symptomatic hypotension and outcomes in PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure).

METHODS

In a post hoc analysis of PARADIGM-HF, the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared to enalapril were estimated using time-updated Cox proportional hazards models. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization.

RESULTS

Among 8,399 patients in PARADIGM-HF, 1,343 (16.0%) experienced only asymptomatic hypotension, and 936 (11.1%) experienced symptomatic hypotension at least once after randomization. Patients with symptomatic hypotension were older and more frequently had cardiovascular comorbidities compared to those developing only asymptomatic hypotension. By contrast, left ventricular ejection fraction was lower in those with asymptomatic hypotension. Patients who experienced either type of hypotension were at higher risk for all outcomes examined. However, the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on the primary outcome was not diminished in patients experiencing hypotension compared to those who did not: the HR for sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.72-0.89) for no hypotension, 0.87 (95% CI: 0.70-1.08) for asymptomatic hypotension, and 0.51 (95% CI: 0.38-0.69) for symptomatic hypotension (Pinteraction = 0.01), and this was also true for cardiovascular and all-cause deaths. The safety of sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril was also maintained regardless of the occurrence of hypotension. Discontinuation of randomized treatment was less common with sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril in patients experiencing asymptomatic and symptomatic hypotension.

CONCLUSIONS

Although both asymptomatic and symptomatic hypotension during treatment with sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril were associated with worse outcomes, the benefits of sacubitril/valsartan were maintained (or even enhanced) in patients experiencing hypotension.

Clinical Correlates and Prognostic Impact of Cognitive Dysfunction in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction: Insights From PARAGON-HF

BACKGROUND

Cognitive impairment is common in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction but its clinical correlates and prognostic associations are poorly understood.

METHODS

We analyzed cognitive function, using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction enrolled in a prespecified substudy of the PARAGON-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction). Logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the variables associated with lower MMSE scores at baseline and postbaseline decline in MMSE scores at 48 weeks. Cox proportional hazards regression and semiparametric proportional rates models were used to examine the risk of clinical outcomes related to baseline MMSE scores, and decline in MMSE scores during follow-up, adjusted for prognostic variables including NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide).

RESULTS

At baseline, cognitive function was normal (MMSE score 28-30) in 1809 of 2895 patients (62.5%), borderline (score 24-27) in 794 (27.4%), and impaired (score <24) in 292 (10.1%). Variables associated with both a lower MMSE score at baseline and a decline in score from baseline included older age, a history of stroke or transient ischemia attack, and lower serum albumin. Compared with those with baseline MMSE scores of 28 to 30, patients in the lower MMSE score categories had a stepwise increase in the risk of the composite of time to first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.27 (95% CI, 1.06-1.53) for those with scores of 24 to 27 and 1.58 (95% CI, 1.21-2.06) for those with scores <24, respectively. These associations were also found for the individual components of the composite and all-cause death. Likewise, cognitive impairment was associated with a 50% higher risk of total (first and repeat) heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular deaths. Examining the change in MMSE score from baseline, a decrease in MMSE score during follow-up was associated with a higher risk of death.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction, even modest baseline impairment of cognitive function was associated with worse outcomes, including death. A decline in MMSE score during follow-up was a strong predictor of mortality, independent of other prognostic variables.

Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients With Heart Failure and Deterioration in eGFR to <30 mL/min/1.73 m2

BACKGROUND

Sacubitril/valsartan is a foundational therapy for patients with heart failure. Although current U.S. Food and Drug Administration labeling does not provide guidance regarding initiation or continuation of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with worsening kidney function, guidelines identify estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 as a contraindication to therapy.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of continuing sacubitril/valsartan in patients with deterioration of kidney function below an eGFR of 30 mL/min/1.73 m2.

METHODS

The association between a deterioration in eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2, efficacy and safety outcomes, and treatment with sacubitril/valsartan vs renin-angiotensin system inhibitor were evaluated using time updated Cox models in a post hoc parallel trial analyses of PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF.

RESULTS

Among 8,346 randomized patients in PARADIGM-HF and 4,746 in PARAGON-HF, 691 (8.3%) and 613 (12.9%), respectively, had an eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 at least once in follow-up. Patients experiencing such deterioration were at higher risk of the primary outcome in both PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF. However, the incidence of the primary outcome remained lower with sacubitril/valsartan vs renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, regardless of deterioration in kidney function in both PARADIGM-HF (Pinteraction = 0.50) and PARAGON-HF (Pinteraction = 0.64). Rates of key safety outcomes were higher among patients experiencing eGFR deterioration; however, rates were similar between treatment groups including among those who remained on treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients experiencing deterioration of kidney function to a value below eGFR 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 faced high risk of cardiovascular and kidney disease outcomes. Continuation of sacubitril/valsartan was associated with persistent clinical benefit and no incremental safety risk. These data support continuation of sacubitril/valsartan for heart failure treatment even when eGFR declines below this threshold (PARADIGM-HF [Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure], NCT01035255; and PARAGON-HF [Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction], NCT01920711).

Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan on Cognitive Function in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Prespecified Analysis of PARAGON-HF

BACKGROUND

A hypothetical concern has been raised that sacubitril/valsartan might cause cognitive impairment because neprilysin is one of several enzymes degrading amyloid-β peptides in the brain, some of which are neurotoxic and linked to Alzheimer-type dementia. To address this, we examined the effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan on cognitive function in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in a prespecified substudy of PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction).

METHODS

In PARAGON-HF, serial assessment of cognitive function was conducted in a subset of patients with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE; score range, 0-30, with lower scores reflecting worse cognitive function). The prespecified primary analysis of this substudy was the change from baseline in MMSE score at 96 weeks. Other post hoc analyses included cognitive decline (fall in MMSE score of ≥3 points), cognitive impairment (MMSE score <24), or the occurrence of dementia-related adverse events.

RESULTS

Among 2895 patients included in the MMSE substudy with baseline MMSE score measured, 1453 patients were assigned to sacubitril/valsartan and 1442 to valsartan. Their mean age was 73 years, and the median follow-up was 32 months. The mean±SD MMSE score at randomization was 27.4±3.0 in the sacubitril/valsartan group, with 10% having an MMSE score <24; the corresponding numbers were nearly identical in the valsartan group. The mean change from baseline to 96 weeks in the sacubitril/valsartan group was -0.05 (SE, 0.07); the corresponding change in the valsartan group was -0.04 (0.07). The mean between-treatment difference at week 96 was -0.01 (95% CI, -0.20 to 0.19; P=0.95). Analyses of a ≥3-point decline in MMSE, decrease to a score <24, dementia-related adverse events, and combinations of these showed no difference between sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan. No difference was found in the subgroup of patients tested for apolipoprotein E ε4 allele genotype.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in PARAGON-HF had relatively low baseline MMSE scores. Cognitive change, measured by MMSE, did not differ between treatment with sacubitril/valsartan and treatment with valsartan in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01920711.

Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan Across the Spectrum of Renal Impairment in Patients With Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

The Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) classification integrates both estimated glomerular filtration rate and urine-albumin-creatinine ratio to stratify risk more comprehensively in patients with chronic kidney disease. There are limited data assessing whether this classification system is associated with prognosis and treatment response in heart failure populations.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the relative treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan across the KDIGO risk categories in patients with HFrEF.

METHODS

PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) was a global randomized controlled trial evaluating sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Patients were classified according to low, moderate, and high/very high KDIGO risk. Treatment responses were assessed according to baseline KDIGO risk. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death or heart failure hospitalization. A renal composite outcome was defined as sustained decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate by ≥40% or end-stage kidney disease.

RESULTS

Among 1,910 (23% of total) participants with available data, 42%, 32%, and 26% were classified as low, moderate, and high/very high KDIGO risk, respectively. Patients in the highest KDIGO risk categories experienced the highest rates of the primary composite outcome (7.6 per 100 person-years [95% CI: 6.5-9.0 per 100 person-years], 9.4 per 100 person-years [95% CI: 7.9-11.2 per 100 person-years], and 14.9 per 100 person-years [95% CI: 12.7-17.6 per 100 person-years]; P < 0.001). Sacubitril/valsartan had a similar safety profile and demonstrated consistent effects on the risk of both the primary outcome (PInteraction = 0.31) and the renal composite outcome (PInteraction = 0.50) across the spectrum of KDIGO risk.

CONCLUSIONS

One in 4 patients with HFrEF were classified as at least high KDIGO kidney risk; these individuals faced concordantly the highest risks of CV events. Sacubitril/valsartan exhibited consistent CV and kidney protective benefits as well as safety across the spectrum of baseline kidney risk. These data further support initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in HFrEF across a broad range of kidney risk. (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).

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, red cell distribution width, and sacubitril/valsartan

AIMS

Red cell distribution width (RDW) is a strong prognostic marker in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction and other conditions. However, very little is known about its prognostic significance in HF with preserved ejection fraction. We examined the relationship between RDW and outcomes and the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with valsartan, on RDW and clinical outcomes in PARAGON-HF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

PARAGON-HF enrolled patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of ≥45%, structural heart disease, and elevated N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). The primary endpoint was a composite of total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular deaths. Median RDW at randomization was 14.1% (interquartile range 13.5-15.0%). Patients with higher RDW levels were more often men and had more comorbidity, a higher heart rate and NT-proBNP concentration, more advanced New York Heart Association class, and worse Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores. There was a graded relationship between quartiles of RDW at randomization and the primary endpoint, with a significantly higher risk associated with increasing RDW, even after adjustment for NT-proBNP and other prognostic variables {Quartile 1, reference; Quartile 2, rate ratio 1.03 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.28]; Quartile 3, 1.25 [1.01 to 1.54]; Quartile 4, 1.70 [1.39 to 2.08]}. This association was seen for each of the secondary outcomes, including cardiovascular and all-cause death. Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan reduced RDW at 48 weeks [mean change -0.09 (95% CI -0.15 to -0.02)]. The effect of sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan was not significantly modified by RDW levels at randomization.

CONCLUSIONS

RDW, a routinely available and inexpensive biomarker, provides incremental prognostic information when added to established predictors. Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan led to a small reduction in RDW.

Independent prognostic importance of blood urea nitrogen to creatinine ratio in heart failure

AIM

Blood urea nitrogen (BUN) to creatinine ratio is associated with worse outcomes in acute heart failure (HF) but little is known about its importance in chronic HF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We combined individual patient data from clinical trials (HF with reduced ejection fraction [HFrEF]: PARADIGM-HF, ATMOSPHERE and DAPA-HF, and HF with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF]: PARAGON-HF and I-PRESERVE). The primary outcome examined was a composite time to first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death; its components and all-cause death were also examined. Each HF phenotype was categorized according to median BUN/creatinine ratio, generating four groups that is, HFpEF ≤ and >median BUN/creatinine ratio and HFrEF ≤ and >median BUN/creatinine ratio. The association between BUN/creatinine ratio and outcomes was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox proportional hazard models. Overall, 28 820 patients were analysed. The median (IQR) BUN/creatinine ratio was 20.1 (Q1-Q3 16.7-24.7) in HFpEF and 18.7 (15.2-22.8) in HFrEF. In both HFpEF and HFrEF, higher BUN/creatinine ratio was associated with older age, female sex, and diabetes, but similar estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). The risk of each outcome examined was significantly higher in patients with BUN/creatinine ratio ≥median, compared to

CONCLUSION

Higher BUN/creatinine ratio was associated with worse outcomes in patients with chronic HF across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction, independently of eGFR and NT-proBNP. BUN/creatinine ratio may reflect neurohumoral activation (especially increased arginine vasopressin), altered renal blood flow or other pathophysiologic mechanisms not incorporated in conventional prognostic variables.

Collapse

Key Words

• Blood urea nitrogen
• Creatinine
• Heart failure

Collapse

MESH Headings

• Humans
• Female
• Heart Failure
• Prognosis
• Blood Urea Nitrogen
• Creatinine
• Stroke Volume/physiology
• Ventricular Function, Left
• Natriuretic Peptide, Brain
• Peptide Fragments

Collapse

Grants

• RE/18/6/34217 British Heart Foundation Centre of Research Excellence

Collapse

Incremental prognostic value of biomarkers in PARADIGM-HF

AIMS

It is uncertain how much candidate biomarkers improve risk prediction when added to comprehensive models including routinely collected clinical and laboratory variables in heart failure.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Aldosterone, cystatin C, high-sensitivity troponin T (hs-TnT), galectin-3, growth differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15), kidney injury molecule-1, matrix metalloproteinase-2 and -9, soluble suppression of tumourigenicity-2, tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-1 (TIMP-1) and urinary albumin to creatinine ratio were measured in 1559 of PARADIGM-HF participants. We tested whether these biomarkers, individually or collectively, improved the performance of the PREDICT-HF prognostic model, which includes clinical, routine laboratory, and natriuretic peptide data, for the primary endpoint and cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. The mean age of participants was 67.3 ± 9.9 years, 1254 (80.4%) were men and 1103 (71%) were in New York Heart Association class II. During a mean follow-up of 30.7 months, 300 patients experienced the primary outcome and 197 died. Added individually, only four biomarkers were independently associated with all outcomes: hs-TnT, GDF-15, cystatin C and TIMP-1. When all biomarkers were added simultaneously to the PREDICT-HF models, only hs-TnT remained an independent predictor of all three endpoints. GDF-15 also remained predictive of the primary endpoint; TIMP-1 was the only other predictor of both cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. Individually or in combination, these biomarkers did not lead to significant improvements in discrimination or reclassification.

CONCLUSIONS

None of the biomarkers studied individually or collectively led to a meaningful improvement in the prediction of outcomes over what is provided by clinical, routine laboratory, and natriuretic peptide variables.

Prevalent and Incident Anemia in PARADIGM-HF and the Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan

BACKGROUND

Anemia is common in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Renin-angiotensin system blockers lower hemoglobin and may induce anemia.

OBJECTIVES

The authors investigated whether concomitant neprilysin inhibition might ameliorate this effect of renin-angiotensin system blockers in PARADIGM-HF (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure).

METHODS

Anemia was defined as hemoglobin <120 g/L in women and <130 g/L in men at screening. The authors investigated the effect of randomized treatment on clinical outcomes according to anemia status, change in hemoglobin from baseline, and the incidence of anemia.

RESULTS

Of 8,239 participants with a baseline hemoglobin measurement, 1,677 (20.4%) were anemic. Patients with anemia had a more severe heart failure profile, worse kidney function, greater neurohormonal derangement, and worse clinical outcomes. Sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, decreased the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization similarly in patients with (HR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.71-1.00) and without anemia (HR: 0.78 [95% CI: 0.71-0.87]; P value for interaction = 0.478). Between baseline and 12 months, hemoglobin decreased by 1.5 g/L (95% CI: 1.2-1.7 g/L) with sacubitril/valsartan compared with 2.3 g/L (95% CI: 2.0-2.6 g/L) with enalapril: mean difference 0.8 g/L (95% CI: 0.5-1.2 g/L; P < 0.001). Patients assigned to sacubitril/valsartan were less likely to develop anemia at 12 months (321 of 2,806 [11.4%]) compared with patients randomized to enalapril (440 of 2,824 [15.6%]) (OR: 0.70 [95% CI: 0.60-0.81]; P < 0.001). These findings were similar in PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction) (sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan). There was biomarker evidence of increased iron utilization with sacubitril/valsartan.

CONCLUSIONS

Irrespective of anemia status, sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril, decreased mortality and hospitalization. Hemoglobin decreased less with sacubitril/valsartan and the incidence of new anemia was lower with sacubitril/valsartan. (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF] trial; NCT01035255).

Importance of cystatin C in estimating glomerular filtration rate: the PARADIGM-HF trial

AIMS

The 2021 Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation combining creatinine and cystatin C provides a better estimation of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) compared to the creatinine-only equation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

CKD-EPI creatinine-cystatin C equation (creatinine-cystatin) was compared to creatinine-only (creatinine) equation in a subpopulation of Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF). Patients were categorized according to difference in eGFR using the two equations: Group 1 (<-10 mL/min/1.73 m2, i.e. creatinine-cystatin more than 10 mL/min lower than creatinine), Group 2 (>-10 and <10 mL/min/1.73 m2), and Group 3 (>10 mL/min/1.73 m2, i.e. creatinine-cystatin more than 10 mL/min higher than creatinine). Cystatin C and creatinine were available in 1966 patients at randomization. Median (interquartile range) eGFR difference was -0.7 (-6.4-4.8) mL/min/1.73 m2. Compared to creatinine, creatinine-cystatin led to a substantial reclassification of chronic kidney disease stages. Overall, 212 (11%) and 355 (18%) patients were reallocated to a better and worse eGFR category, respectively. Compared to patients in Group 2, those in Group 1 (lower eGFR with creatinine-cystatin) had higher mortality and those in Group 3 (higher eGFR with creatinine-cystatin) had lower mortality. Increasing difference in eGFR (due to lower eGFR with creatinine-cystatin compared to creatinine) was associated with increasing elevation of biomarkers (including N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and troponin) and worsening Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score. The reason why the equations diverged with increasing severity of heart failure was that creatinine did not rise as steeply as cystatin C.

CONCLUSION

The CKD-EPI creatinine-only equation may overestimate GFR in sicker patients.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifier: NCT01035255.

Trajectory and correlates of pulmonary congestion by lung ultrasound in patients with acute myocardial infarction: insights from PARADISE-MI

AIM

PARADISE-MI examined the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), pulmonary congestion, or both. We sought to assess the trajectory of pulmonary congestion using lung ultrasound (LUS) and its association with cardiac structure and function in a pre-specified substudy.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients without prior heart failure (HF) underwent eight-zone LUS and echocardiography at baseline (±2 days of randomization) and after 8 months. B-lines were quantified offline, blinded to treatment, clinical findings, time point, and outcomes. Among 152 patients (median age 65, 32% women, mean LVEF 41%), B-lines were detectable in 87% at baseline [median B-line count: 4 (interquartile range 2-8)]. Among 115 patients with LUS data at baseline and follow-up, B-lines decreased significantly from baseline (mean ± standard deviation: -1.6 ± 7.3; P = 0.018). The proportion of patients without pulmonary congestion at follow-up was significantly higher in those with fewer B-lines at baseline. Adjusted for baseline, B-lines at follow-up were on average 6 (95% confidence interval: 3-9) higher in patients who experienced an intercurrent HF event vs. those who did not (P = 0.001). A greater number of B-lines at baseline was associated with larger left atrial size, higher E/e' and E/A ratios, greater degree of mitral regurgitation, worse right ventricular systolic function, and higher tricuspid regurgitation velocity (P-trend <0.05 for all).

CONCLUSION

In this AMI cohort, B-lines, indicating pulmonary congestion, were common at baseline and, on average, decreased significantly from baseline to follow-up. Worse pulmonary congestion was associated with prognostically important echocardiographic markers.

Urinary cGMP (Cyclic Guanosine Monophosphate)/BNP (B-Type Natriuretic Peptide) Ratio, Sacubitril/Valsartan, and Outcomes in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: An Analysis of the PARADIGM-HF Trial

BACKGROUND

The ratio of ucGMP (urinary cyclic guanosine monophosphate) to BNP (B-type natriuretic peptide) is thought to reflect the responsiveness of tissues to natriuretic peptides.

METHODS

We examined the relationship between ucGMP/BNP ratio and clinical outcomes, the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, on the ucGMP/BNP ratio, and the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan on clinical outcomes according to baseline ucGMP/BNP ratio in PARADIGM-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure). ucGMP/BNP ratio was available at baseline (N=2031), 1 month (N=1959), and 8 months after randomization (N=1746). The primary outcome was a composite of heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death.

RESULTS

Compared with the lowest tertile of baseline ucGMP/BNP ratio, patients in the higher tertiles had a lower risk of the primary outcome (tertile 1, reference; tertile 2, hazard ratio 0.57 [95% CI, 0.45-0.71]; tertile 3, hazard ratio, 0.54 [0.43-0.67]). Compared with baseline, the ucGMP/BNP ratio at 1 month and 8 months after randomization was higher with sacubitril/valsartan than with enalapril: ratio of geometric mean ratios at 1 month, 1.38 (95% CI, 1.27-1.51) and 8 months, 1.32 (95% CI, 1.20-1.45), and this difference was consistent across tertiles of ucGMP/BNP ratio at baseline (P_interaction=0.19 and 0.91, respectively). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, was consistent across tertiles of ucGMP/BNP ratio at baseline for all outcomes (P_interaction ≥0.31).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, higher ucGMP/BNP ratio was associated with better outcomes. Sacubitril/valsartan increased the ucGMP/BNP ratio, compared with enalapril, and the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on clinical outcomes was not modified by baseline ucGMP/BNP ratio.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique Identifier: NCT01035255.

Investigator-reported ventricular arrhythmias and mortality in heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction

AIMS

Few reports have examined the incidence of ventricular tachycardia (VT) and ventricular fibrillation (VF) or their relationship with mortality in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) or heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data from the PARAGON-HF, TOPCAT, I-Preserve, and CHARM-Preserved trials were merged. VT/VF, reported as adverse events, were identified. Patients who experienced VT/VF were compared with patients who did not. The relationship between VT/VF and mortality was examined in time-updated Cox proportional hazard regression models. Variables associated with VT/VF were examined in Cox proportional hazard regression models. The rate of VT/VF in patients with HFmrEF compared with patients with HFpEF was examined in a Cox proportional hazards regression model. Of 13 609 patients, over a median follow-up of 1170 days (interquartile range: 966-1451), 146 (1.1%) experienced an investigator-reported VT/VF (incidence rate 0.3 per 100 person-years). Patients who experienced VT/VF were more likely to be male, have had a myocardial infarction, poorer renal function, more adverse left ventricular remodelling, and higher N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) than patients who did not. Occurrence of VT/VF was associated with NT-proBNP, history of atrial fibrillation/flutter, male sex, lower ejection fraction, and history of hypertension. VT/VF was associated with all-cause death [adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 3.95, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.80-5.57; P < 0.001] and cardiovascular death, driven by death from heart failure and not sudden death. Patients with HFmrEF had a higher rate of VT/VF than patients with HFpEF (adjusted HR: 2.19, 95% CI: 1.77-2.71).

CONCLUSION

VT/VF was uncommon in patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF. However, such events were strongly associated with mortality and appear to be a marker of disease severity rather than risk of sudden death.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov unique identifier: NCT01920711(PARAGON-HF); NCT00094302 (TOPCAT); NCT00095238 (I-Preserve); NCT00634712 (CHARM-Preserved).

Health-related quality of life outcomes in PARAGON-HF

AIMS

Heart failure (HF) is associated with poor health-related quality of life (HRQL). Patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have similar HRQL impairment as those with reduced ejection fraction. This study describes the impact of sacubitril/valsartan on HRQL in patients with HFpEF enrolled in the PARAGON-HF trial.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients completed the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and EuroQol (EQ-5D) at randomization, 4, 8 months, and annually thereafter. Changes in HRQL scores were evaluated using repeated measures models adjusted for treatment, baseline values and region. The pre-specified principal efficacy assessment was at 8 months at which time patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan had borderline higher KCCQ clinical summary score (CSS) with least squares mean (LSM) adjusted difference of 1.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.0, 2.1; p = 0.051). Including all visits up to 36 months, the LSM difference in KCCQ-CSS favoured sacubitril/valsartan with average adjusted difference of 1.1 (95% CI 0.1, 2.0; p = 0.034). Patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan had greater odds of clinically meaningful improvement (≥5-point increase) in KCCQ-CSS (odds ratio 1.31; 95% CI 1.06, 1.61) at 8 months. At 8 months, there was no significant difference in the EQ visual analogue scale between the treatment arms, but sacubitril/valsartan was associated with higher EQ-5D utility score (US-based) with LSM adjusted difference of 0.01 (95% CI 0.00, 0.02; p = 0.019).

CONCLUSION

Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan had a borderline benefit on KCCQ-CSS at 8 months in patients with HFpEF. This benefit became more significant when data from all visits up to 36 months were included. This modest overall benefit was also supported by greater odds of patients reporting a clinically meaningful improvement in HRQL with sacubitril/valsartan.

Alkaline phosphatase and bilirubin combined are a powerful predictor of outcome in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: an analysis of the ATMOSPHERE and PARADIGM-HF trials

Introduction

Bilirubin is a recognized predictor of adverse outcomes in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), possibly because it is a marker of congestion. Alkaline phosphatase (ALP) is an enzyme produced in many tissues including the biliary ducts and elevated levels are also associated with congestion.

Purpose

To examine the prognostic value of ALP alone and in combination with bilirubin in patients with HFrEF.

Methods

The study population was ambulatory patients with HFrEF enrolled in 2 recent clinical trials with similar inclusion and exclusion criteria: ATMOSPHERE (derivation cohort) and PARADIGM-HF (validation). Cut points to define elevated bilirubin and alkaline phosphatase were &gt;17mg/dL and &gt;120 U/L respectively. The composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization, its components, and all-cause death related to elevation of one, other or both of bilirubin and ALP was examined using Cox regression. Univariable and multivariable models with adjustment for other recognized prognostic variables including NT-proBNP were analyzed.

Results

Of 7016 patients with HFrEF enrolled in ATMOSPHERE, 6870 had a measurement of both bilirubin and ALP at baseline: mean age 63 years, 22% women, mean LVEF 28% and proportion NYHA class III/IV 37%. Bilirubin and ALP were both normal in 4810 (70.0%) patients, bilirubin was elevated in 1393 (20.3%), ALP was elevated in 360 (5.2%) and both were elevated in 307 (4.5%) patients. Patients with elevation of both ALP and bilirubin were older, had lower systolic blood pressure, higher heart rate, higher NT-pro BNP, more clinical features of congestion, more atrial fibrillation and a greater proportion were treated with diuretics and digoxin. The primary endpoint rates (per 100 person-years) were 10.4 (95% CI 9.9–11.0) when both markers were normal, 15.1 (13.9–16.4) when bilirubin was elevated, 12.4 (10.4–14.9) when alkaline phosphatase was elevated, and 25.6 (22.0–29.9) when both markers were elevated (Figure 1). The adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI) were (both biomarkers normal = reference): elevated bilirubin 1.19 (1.07–1.31), P=0.001; elevated ALP 1.03 (0.84–1.26), P=0.81; both elevated 1.45 (1.21–1.73), P&lt;0.001. Elevation of both bilirubin and ALP was a significant independent predictor of the components of the primary outcome and all-cause death, the corresponding hazard ratios for all cause death were 1.12 (0.99–1.25), p=0.06; 1.19 (0.96–1.47), p=0.12; and 1.51 (1.25–1.82), p&lt;0.001. These findings were validated in PARADIGM-HF (Table 1).

Conclusions

Elevation of ALP in combination with elevated bilirubin identifies a small group of patients at very high risk of adverse outcomes. This may reflect more significant congestion. ALP and bilirubin, inexpensive and routinely measured biochemical tests, are useful prognostic markers in patients with HFrEF.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: Private grant(s) and/or Sponsorship.

Prevalent and incident anaemia in PARADIGM-HF and effect of sacubitril/valsartan

Background

Anaemia is common in patients with HFrEF and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Although they reduce rates of mortality and heart failure hospitalization, renin-angiotensin (RAS) blockers lower haemoglobin and may induce anaemia. Concomitant neprilysin inhibition might ameliorate this effect of RAS blockers.

Purpose

We investigated the effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril on clinical outcomes, according to anaemia status, and on haemoglobin levels in PARADIGM-HF.

Methods

Patient characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared between patients with and without anaemia (defined as haemoglobin &lt;120 g/L in women and &lt;130 g/L in men) at baseline. We investigated the effect of randomized treatment (sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril) on clinical outcomes according to anaemia status at screening. We also examined the effect of treatment on change in haemoglobin from baseline and on the incidence of anaemia. The primary endpoint in PARADIGM-HF was the composite of heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death.

Results

Of 8239 participants with a baseline haemoglobin measurement, 1677 (20.4%) were anaemic. Compared to those without anaemia, patients with anaemia had a more severe heart failure profile, worse kidney function, greater neurohormonal derangement and worse clinical outcomes. Sacubitril/valsartan, compared to enalapril, reduced the risk of the primary endpoint similarly in patients with anaemia (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71–1.00) and without anaemia (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.71–0.87), p-value for interaction=0.478. Between baseline and 12 months, haemoglobin decreased by 1.5 (95% CI 1.7 to 1.2) g/L with sacubitril/valsartan compared with 2.3 (2.6 to 2.0) g/L with enalapril group: mean difference 0.8 (95% CI 0.5 to 1.2) g/L, p&lt;0.001. The between-treatment difference apparent by 12 months, persisted up to 36 months. Patients assigned to sacubitril/valsartan were less likely to develop new anaemia at 12 months [321 of 2806 (11.4%)] compared to patients randomized to enalapril [440 of 2384 (15.6%)], odds ratio 0.70 (95% CI 0.60–0.81), p&lt;0.001.

Conclusions

Compared to enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan reduced mortality and hospitalization in HFrEF patients with and without anaemia. Haemoglobin decreased less with sacubitril/valsartan and the incidence of new anaemia was lower in the sacubitril/valsartan group compared with the enalapril group.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): PARADIGM-HF was funded by Novartis.

Implications of the 2021 CKD-EPI cystatin C/creatinine eGFR equation for eligibility for therapy in HFrEF: insights from PARADIGM-HF

Background

Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is a key determinant of eligibility for many life-saving therapies in HFrEF. Recently, the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) provided new equations based on creatinine (CKD-EPIcr), cystatin C (CKD-EPIcys) or both (CKD-EPIcyscr) that do not include race. These new equations may reclassify individuals, irrespective of race, from one eGFR category to another, with implications for eligibility for HFrEF treatments.

Purpose

To assess the difference between eGFR estimation using the 2021 CKD-EPIcyscr equation and the 2009 CKD-EPIcr and Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study (MDRD)-4 equations which are still standard in many European laboratories.

Methods

We included patients from PARADIGM-HF with cystatin C and creatinine values available at the time of randomization. For each patient, baseline eGFRs were calculated using the 3 equations described. Our focus was on patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages III–V.

Results

Overall, 1910 patients were eligible. Mean age was 67.3 (10.1) year and 385 (18.7%) were female. Using 2009 CKD-EPIcr, 779 patients were in CKD stages 3–5, of which 233 (30%) were reclassified to a better CKD stage (higher eGFR) with the 2021 CKD-EPIcyscr equation (Table 1). Similar reclassification was seen when comparing MDRD-4 with the 2021 CKD-EPIcyscr equation: 277 (33%) of 831 patients in CKD stages 3–5 were reclassified to a better CKD stage (Figure 1).

Conclusions

The 2021 CKD-EPIcyscr equation favourably reclassified CKD stage in a large percentage of patients with HFrEF and a low eGFR, potentially increasing the proportion of these patients considered eligible for guideline-recommended therapies.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: None.

Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition and renal outcomes across the spectrum of ejection fraction in heart failure

AIMS

Patients with heart failure are at higher risk of progression to end-stage renal disease (ESRD), regardless of ejection fraction (EF). We assessed the renal effects of angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition in a pooled analysis of 13 195 patients with heart failure with reduced and preserved EF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We combined data from PARADIGM-HF (EF ≤40%; n = 8399) and PARAGON-HF (EF ≥45%; n = 4796) in a pre-specified pooled analysis. We assessed the effect of treatment (sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril or valsartan) on a composite of either ≥50% reduction in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), ESRD, or death from renal causes, in addition to changes in eGFR slope. We assessed whether baseline renal function or EF modified the effect of therapy on renal outcomes. At randomization, eGFR was 68 ± 20 ml/min/1.73 m2 in PARADIGM-HF and 63 ± 19 ml/min/1.73 m2 in PARAGON-HF. The composite renal outcome occurred in 70 of 6594 patients (1.1%) in the sacubitril/valsartan group and in 123 of 6601 patients (1.9%) in the valsartan or enalapril group (hazard ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42-0.75; p < 0.001). The mean eGFR change was -1.8 (95% CI -1.9 to -1.7) ml/min/1.73 m2 /year for the sacubitril/valsartan group, compared with -2.4 (95% CI -2.5 to -2.2) ml/min/1.73 m2 /year for the valsartan or enalapril group. The treatment effect on the composite renal endpoint was not modified by categories of baseline eGFR (p-interaction = 0.64), but was most pronounced in those with baseline EF between 30% and 60% (p-interaction = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with heart failure, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the risk of serious adverse renal outcomes and slowed decline in eGFR, compared with valsartan or enalapril, independent of baseline renal function.

Sacubitril/Valsartan and Frailty in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

Frailty is an increasingly common problem, and frail patients are less likely to receive new pharmacologic therapies because the risk-benefit profile is perceived to be less favorable than in nonfrail patients.

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan according to frailty status in 4,796 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction randomized in the PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial.

METHODS

Frailty was measured by using the Rockwood cumulative deficit approach. The primary endpoint was total heart failure hospitalizations or cardiovascular death.

RESULTS

A frailty index (FI) was calculable in 4,795 patients. In total, 45.2% had class 1 frailty (FI ≤0.210, not frail), 43.5% had class 2 frailty (FI 0.211-0.310, more frail), and 11.4% had class 3 frailty (FI ≥0.311, most frail). There was a graded relationship between FI class and the primary endpoint, with a significantly higher risk associated with greater frailty (class 1: reference; class 2 rate ratio: 2.19 [95% CI: 1.85-2.60]; class 3 rate ratio: 3.29 [95% CI: 2.65-4.09]). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan on the primary endpoint from lowest to highest FI class (as a rate ratio) was: 0.98 [95% CI: 0.76-1.27], 0.92 [95% CI: 0.76-1.12], and 0.69 [95% CI: 0.51-0.95]), respectively (P_interaction = 0.23). When FI was examined as a continuous variable, the interaction with treatment was significant for the primary outcome (P_interaction = 0.002) and total heart failure hospitalizations (P_interaction < 0.001), with those most frail deriving greater benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Frailty was common in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and associated with worse outcomes. Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan seemed to show a greater reduction in the primary endpoint with increasing frailty, although this was not significant when FI was examined as a categorical variable. (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711).

Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Valsartan on Renal Function in Patients with and without Diabetes and Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: Insights From PARAGON-HF

AIMS

Diabetes is associated with a faster rate of renal function decline in patients with heart failure (HF). Sacubitril/valsartan attenuates the deterioration of renal function to a greater extent in patients with diabetes and HF with reduced ejection fraction compared with renin-angiotensin-system inhibitors alone. We assessed whether the same may be true in HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

In the PARAGON-HF trial in patients with HF and LVEF of 45% or greater (n=4,796), we characterized the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) over a period of 192 weeks, and on the prespecified renal composite outcome (eGFR reduction of ≥50%, end-stage renal disease, or death attributable to renal causes) in patients with (n=2,388) and without diabetes (n=2,408). The decline in eGFR was greater in patients with diabetes than in those without (-2.6 vs. -1.7 mL/min per 1·73 m² per year, p<0.001), regardless of treatment assignment. Sacubitril/valsartan attenuated decline in eGFR similarly in patients with (-2.2 vs. -2.9 mL/min per 1·73 m² per year, p=0.001) and without diabetes (-1.5 vs. -2.0 mL/min per 1·73 m² per year, p=0.006) (P_interaction for difference in eGFR slopes = 0.40). Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the renal composite outcome similarly in patients without diabetes (HR 0.42 (95% CI 0.19-0.91) and those with diabetes (HR 0.54 (95% CI 0.33-0.89); P_interaction =0.59), as well as across a range of baseline HbA1c (P_interaction =0.71).

CONCLUSION

Sacubitril/valsartan, compared with valsartan, attenuates the decline of eGFR and reduces clinically relevant kidney events similarly among patients with HFpEF with and without diabetes. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Effect of sacubitril/valsartan on investigator-reported ventricular arrhythmias in PARADIGM-HF

Aims

Sudden death is a leading cause of mortality in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In PARADIGM‐HF, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the incidence of sudden death. The purpose of this post hoc study was to analyse the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, compared to enalapril, on the incidence of ventricular arrhythmias.

Methods and results

Adverse event reports related to ventricular arrhythmias were examined in PARADIGM‐HF. The effect of randomized treatment on two arrhythmia outcomes was analysed: ventricular arrhythmias and the composite of a ventricular arrhythmia, implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shock or resuscitated cardiac arrest. The risk of death related to a ventricular arrhythmia was examined in time‐updated models. The interaction between heart failure aetiology, or baseline ICD/cardiac resynchronization therapy‐defibrillator (CRT‐D) use, and the effect of sacubitril/valsartan was analysed. Of the 8399 participants, 333 (4.0%) reported a ventricular arrhythmia and 372 (4.4%) the composite arrhythmia outcome. Ventricular arrhythmias were associated with higher mortality. Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the risk of a ventricular arrhythmia (hazard ratio [HR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62–0.95; p = 0.015) and the composite arrhythmia outcome (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65–0.97; p = 0.025). The treatment effect was maintained after adjustment and accounting for the competing risk of death. Baseline ICD/CRT‐D use did not modify the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, but aetiology did: HR in patients with an ischaemic aetiology 0.93 (95% CI 0.71–1.21) versus 0.53 (95% CI 0.37–0.78) in those without an ischaemic aetiology (p for interaction = 0.020).

Conclusions

Sacubitril/valsartan reduced the incidence of investigator‐reported ventricular arrhythmias in patients with HFrEF. This effect may have been greater in patients with a non‐ischaemic aetiology.

Diabetes and prediabetes in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction

Aim

There is an association between heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and insulin resistance, but less is known about the diabetic continuum, and in particular about pre‐diabetes, in HFpEF. We examined characteristics and outcomes of participants with diabetes or pre‐diabetes in PARAGON‐HF.

Methods and results

Patients aged ≥50 years with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥45%, structural heart disease and elevated N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP) were eligible. Patients were classified according to glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c): (i) normal HbA1c, <6.0%; (ii) pre‐diabetes, 6.0%–6.4%; (iii) diabetes, ≥6.5% or history of diabetes. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death and total heart failure hospitalizations (HFH). Of 4796 patients, 50% had diabetes and 18% had pre‐diabetes. Compared to patients with normal HbA1c, patients with pre‐diabetes and diabetes more often were obese, had a history of myocardial infarction and had lower Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores, while patients with diabetes had more clinical evidence of congestion, but similar NT‐proBNP concentrations. The risks of the primary composite outcome (rate ratio [RR] 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35–1.88), total HFH (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.39–2.02) and CV death (hazard ratio [HR] 1.35, 95% CI 1.07–1.71) were higher among patients with diabetes, compared to those with normal HbA1c. Patients with pre‐diabetes had a higher risk (which was intermediate between that of patients with diabetes and those with normal HbA1c) of the primary outcome (HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.00–1.60) and HFH (HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.03–1.77), but not of CV death (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.75–1.40). Patients with diabetes treated with insulin had worse outcomes than those not, and those with ‘lean diabetes’ had similar mortality rates to those with a higher body mass index, but lower rates of HFH.

Conclusion

Pre‐diabetes is common in patients with HFpEF and is associated with worse clinical status and greater risk of HFH. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01920711.

Impact of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: Insights From PARAGON-HF

Background Little is known about the impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods and Results We examined outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, according to COPD status, in the PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial. The primary outcome was a composite of first and recurrent hospitalizations for heart failure and cardiovascular death. Of 4791 patients, 670 (14%) had COPD. Patients with COPD were more likely to be men (58% versus 47%; P<0.001) and had worse New York Heart Association functional class (class III/IV 24% versus 19%), worse Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Scores (69 versus 76; P<0.001) and more frequent history of heart failure hospitalization (54% versus 47%; P<0.001). The decrement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Scores with COPD was greater than for other common comorbidities. Patients with COPD had echocardiographic right ventricular enlargement, higher serum creatinine (100 μmol/L versus 96 μmol/L) and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (2.7 versus 2.5), than those without COPD. After multivariable adjustment, COPD was associated with worse outcomes: adjusted rate ratio for the primary outcome 1.51 (95% CI, 1.25-1.83), total heart failure hospitalization 1.54 (95% CI, 1.24-1.90), cardiovascular death (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.42; 95% CI, 1.10-1.82), and all-cause death (adjusted HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.25-1.84). COPD was associated with worse outcomes than other comorbidities and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Scores declined more in patients with COPD than in those without. Conclusions Approximately 1 in 7 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction had concomitant COPD, which was associated with greater functional limitation and a higher risk of heart failure hospitalization and death. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01920711.

Effect of sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril on changes in heart failure therapies over time: the PARADIGM-HF trial

AIMS

Sacubitril/valsartan improves morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Whether initiation of sacubitril/valsartan limits the use and dosing of other elements of guideline-directed medical therapy for HFrEF is unknown. We examined the effects of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, on β-blocker and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) use and dosing in a large randomized clinical trial.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with full data on medication use were included. We examined β-blocker and MRA use in patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril through 12-month follow-up. New initiations and discontinuations of β-blocker and MRA were compared between treatment groups. Overall, 8398 (99.9%) had full medication and dose data at baseline. Baseline use of β-blocker and MRA at any dose was 87% and 56%, respectively. Mean doses of β-blocker and MRA were similar between treatment groups at baseline and at 6-month and 12-month follow-up. New initiations through 12-month follow-up were infrequent and similar in the sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril groups for β-blockers [37 (9.0%) vs. 42 (10.2%), P = 0.56] and MRA [127 (7.6%) vs. 143 (9.2%), P = 0.10]. Among patients on MRA therapy at baseline, there were fewer MRA discontinuations in patients on sacubitril/valsartan as compared with enalapril at 12 months [125 (6.2%) vs. 187 (9.0%), P = 0.001]. Discontinuations of β-blockers were not significantly different between groups in follow-up (2.2% vs. 2.6%, P = 0.26).

CONCLUSIONS

Initiation of sacubitril/valsartan, even when titrated to target dose, did not appear to lead to greater discontinuation or dose down-titration of other key guideline-directed medical therapies, and was associated with fewer discontinuations of MRA. Use of sacubitril/valsartan (when compared with enalapril) may promote sustained MRA use in follow-up.