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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.).

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.

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.

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.

Antihypertensive therapy and quality of life. Influence of blood pressure reduction, adverse events, and prior antihypertensive therapy

Quality of life is an important attribute of antihypertensive therapy. Previous studies have not addressed the importance of a patient's prior pharmacotherapy on quality of life, which may serve as the basis of reference for a new therapy. Nor have previous studies compared commonly used quality of life instruments for consistency, or investigated whether improvement or worsening of quality of life correlates with adverse events or blood pressure reduction. Two hundred eighteen hypertensive patients with diastolic blood pressure (95 to 114 mm Hg) after a 4- to 5-week placebo washout period were enrolled in a randomized double-blind, parallel group dose-escalation trial to compare the effects of amlodipine (2.5 to 10 mg), bisoprolol (2.5 to 10 mg)/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 6.25, and enalapril (5 to 20 mg) on blood pressure, adverse events, and quality of life. Three quality of life instruments (General Well-Being Index, Vital Signs Quality of Life, Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale) were administered during original therapy, after placebo washout, and after 12 weeks of optimally titrated clinical trial pharmacotherapy. Our results demonstrated that removal from prior therapy had no detectable influence on subsequent evaluation of quality of life. The three quality of life instruments were consistent with the changes observed with the three therapies: a trend toward better quality of life with amlodipine and bisoprolol/HCTZ. Adverse events, but not systolic or diastolic blood pressure reduction correlated directly with changes in quality of life.

Hypertension in the elderly: 24 h ambulatory blood pressure results from a placebo-controlled trial

Calcium channel blockers are increasingly used to treat hypertension in elderly patients. To assess the effects of low-dose, long-acting verapamil on blood pressure (BP) and quality of life (QOL) in elderly patients, verapamil 120-240 mg of placebo was given once daily for 8 weeks to 76 patients aged > or = 60 years. After a 4-week placebo wash-out period, patients with a sitting DBP of 95-110 mm Hg and a mean daytime (6 am to 6 pm) ambulatory DBP > or = 90 mm Hg were entered into the study. Twenty four-hour BP monitoring as well as QOL self-assessment and digit span testing of cognitive function were performed at the end of the placebo wash-out and double-blind treatment periods. Patients treated with verapamil showed a significant decrease in mean whole-day BP, while those treated with placebo showed a small increase in BP. Treatment differences between the two groups in SBP and DBP were each statistically significant (P < 0.01). Significant differences were also seen when the 24 h period was divided into daytime and night-time readings. Both QOL and digit span testing scores were unchanged from baseline for verapamil-treated patients and were not different from the placebo-treated group. The results of this study demonstrate consistent and significant decreases in BP throughout the 24 h period with no adverse effects on QOL or cognitive function this this formulation of verapamil in elderly hypertensive patients.

Low-dose drug combination therapy: an alternative first-line approach to hypertension treatment

To investigate the concept that the initial treatment of hypertension with low doses of two antihypertensives that have different modes of action and additive effects may achieve control of blood pressure and minimize the dose-dependent adverse effects seen with conventional monotherapy, a randomized, double-blind parallel group dose-escalation study was conducted. After a 4 to 5 week placebo washout period, 218 men and women with diastolic blood pressure between 95 and 114 mm Hg were randomly allocated to take: amlodipine (2.5 to 10 mg), enalapril (5 to 20 mg), and the low-dose combination of bisoprolol (2.5 to 10 mg) with 6.25 mg of hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ). All drugs were administered once daily, titrated to optimal response, and taken for a total of 12 weeks. Blood pressure was measured 24 hours after dose. The response rates (either a diastolic blood pressure < or = 90 mm Hg or a decrease of diastolic pressure > or = 10 mm Hg) were 71% for bisoprolol-6.25 mg HCTZ, 69% for amlodipine, and 45% for enalapril. The mean decreases in systolic/diastolic blood pressure from baseline were 13.4/10.7, 12.8/10.2, and 7.3/6.6 mm Hg for bisoprolol-6.25 mg HCTZ, amlodipine, and enalapril, respectively. The mean change with enalapril was less than the other drugs (p < 0.01), although the once-daily dosing of enalapril and the maximum dose of 20 mg might not have been optimal for this agent.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Large-Scale Postmarketing Surveillance of Hypertensive Patients Treated with Verapamil

BACKGROUND: In general clinical practice, physicians prescribe calcium channel blockers to a wide range of patients with differing demographic characteristics and hypertension history. This study was undertaken to investigate the effectiveness and safety of sustained-release verapamil (Verelan((R)), verapamil HCl) in patients with essential hypertension, studied under "usual use" conditions. METHODS: In this prospective, open-label, postmarketing surveillance study, 25 089 patients with hypertension received once-daily verapamil therapy for 4 weeks, during which they were evaluated by 8106 physicians at baseline and at two follow-up visits (weeks 2 and 4). In this study, hypertension was defined as an average sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of greater-than-or-equal 90 mm Hg at baseline. Previously diagnosed hypertensive patients with a sitting DBP <90 mm Hg but experiencing untoward effects requiring discontinuation of current antihypertensive therapy were also included. RESULTS: Eighty-five percent (n = 21 446) of the total patients enrolled at baseline completed this office-based trial. Nearly 24% of patients were newly diagnosed hypertensives. At baseline, the mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure were 161 and 96 mm Hg, respectively. In evaluable patients with mild, moderate, and severe hypertension, as stratified by baseline measurements, treatment with verapamil produced DBP reductions of 12, 19, and 29 mm Hg, respectively. Verapamil treatment produced clinically similar SBP, DBP, and HR (heart rate) reductions across gender and racial groups studied (white, black, Hispanic, and Asian). Only 6.1% of patients failed to complete the study because of any reported adverse experiences (4.5% of patients discontinued because of adverse experiences considered drug related). Constipation (5.0%) and headache (1.1%) were the most commonly reported adverse events. CONCLUSION: In general clinical practice, verapamil is well tolerated and effective in a broad range of hypertensive patients.

Comparison of bisoprolol with atenolol for systemic hypertension in four population groups (young, old, black and nonblack) using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Bisoprolol Investigators Group

The antihypertensive effects of drugs are partly determined by characteristics of the patients treated. A randomized, double-blind study used 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring to compare the effects of 2 beta blockers, bisoprolol (10 to 20 mg; n = 107) and atenolol (50 to 100 mg; n = 96), administered once daily in 4 population groups. After a 4-week placebo period, patients with an office diastolic BP between 95 and 114 mm Hg were stratified according to race and age, and were randomly assigned to treatment with bisoprolol or atenolol for 8 weeks. BP averages measured by automated monitoring for the 24-hour periods were compared between groups. In elderly patients, the reductions in both average 24-hour systolic and diastolic BP were greater with bisoprolol than with atenolol (13 +/- 3/13 +/- 1 mm Hg [n = 23] vs 4 +/- 2/6 +/- 1 mm Hg [n = 30]; p < 0.01). Similarly, bisoprolol produced greater reductions in average 24-hour diastolic BP than did atenolol in nonblack patients (16 +/- 2/12 +/- 1 mm Hg [n = 85] vs 12 +/- 2/9 +/- 1 mm Hg [n = 83]; p = 0.02). Bisoprolol and atenolol were similar in the black (10 +/- 5/9 +/- 3 mm Hg [n = 22] and 10 +/- 6/6 +/- 3 mm Hg [n = 13], respectively) and young (15 +/- 1/11 +/- 1 mm Hg [n = 84] and 16 +/- 2/10 +/- 1 mm Hg [n = 66], respectively) groups.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Application of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in differentiating between antihypertensive agents

PURPOSE

This multicenter, double-blind, parallel group study assessed the usefulness of the ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) technique in differentiating between the once-daily administration of the beta blockers bisoprolol (10 to 20 mg) and atenolol (50 to 100 mg) in terms of efficacy and duration of action.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study population consisted of 659 patients with essential hypertension and an average office diastolic blood pressure (BP) between 95 and 115 mm Hg after 4 weeks of placebo treatment. Office BPs were recorded at the end of the 24-hour dosing interval (trough). ABPM was performed in 11 of the 28 institutions participating in this study in a total of 203 patients. These procedures were performed at the end of the placebo phase and again after 8 weeks of active treatment.

RESULTS

With the use of conventionally measured office BPs, the two drugs significantly (p < 0.001) decreased trough systolic and diastolic BPs to a similar extent. By 24-hour monitoring, bisoprolol demonstrated a 33% greater reduction in whole-day average diastolic BP than did atenolol (11.6 +/- 0.7 mm Hg versus 8.7 +/- 0.8 mm Hg, p < 0.01). Significant treatment differences in systolic (p < 0.05) and diastolic (p < 0.01) BPs were also noted for bisoprolol compared with atenolol during the final 4 hours of the dosing interval (-13.2 +/- 1.5/-10.9 +/- 1.0 mm Hg versus -8.9 +/- 1.6/-7.3 +/- 1.1 mm Hg, respectively), and over the time period 6:00 AM to noon (-14.2 +/- 1.3/-11.5 +/- 0.9 mm Hg versus -9.9 +/- 1.4/-7.7 +/- 0.9 mm Hg).

CONCLUSIONS

Whereas conventional BP measurements did not detect differences in the antihypertensive effects of the beta blockers bisoprolol and atenolol, ABPM revealed significant treatment differences in both the efficacy and duration of action of these two agents. These findings indicate the power of this technique to discriminate potentially important differences between apparently similar antihypertensive drugs.