The angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 was compared with the ACE inhibitor enalapril in patients with advanced heart failure. LCZ696 was superior to enalapril in all outcomes. ...Neprilysin inhibition may replace ACE inhibition for the treatment of heart failure.
Angiotensin-converting–enzyme (ACE) inhibitors have been the cornerstone of the treatment for heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction for nearly 25 years, since enalapril was shown to reduce the risk of death in two trials.
1
,
2
Long-term treatment with enalapril decreased the relative risk of death by 16% among patients with mild-to-moderate symptoms.
2
The effect of angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) on mortality has been inconsistent,
3
,
4
and thus, these drugs are recommended primarily for patients who have unacceptable side effects (primarily cough) while receiving ACE inhibitors. Subsequent studies showed that the use of beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists, when added to ACE . . .
Summary 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.
In a randomized trial, 5661 patients with acute myocardial infarction and a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, pulmonary congestion, or both were assigned to receive either ...sacubitril–valsartan or ramipril. At a median of 22 months, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the incidence of death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure.
Summary Background Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality, but effective treatments are lacking. We assessed the efficacy and safety of ...LCZ696, a first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), in patients with this disorder. Methods PARAMOUNT was a phase 2, randomised, parallel-group, double-blind multicentre trial in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II–III heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction 45% or higher, and NT-proBNP greater than 400 pg/mL. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) by central interactive voice response system to LCZ696 titrated to 200 mg twice daily or valsartan titrated to 160 mg twice daily, and treated for 36 weeks. Investigators and participants were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was change in NT-proBNP, a marker of left ventricular wall stress, from baseline to 12 weeks; analysis included all patients randomly assigned to treatment groups who had a baseline and at least one postbaseline assessment. This trial is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov , number NCT00887588. Findings 149 patients were randomly assigned to LCZ696 and 152 to valsartan; 134 in the LCZ696 group and 132 in the valsartan group were included in analysis of the primary endpoint. NT-proBNP was significantly reduced at 12 weeks in the LCZ696 group compared with the valsartan group (LCZ696: baseline, 783 pg/mL 95% CI 670–914, 12 weeks, 605 pg/mL 512–714; valsartan: baseline, 862 pg/mL 733–1012, 12 weeks, 835 710–981; ratio LCZ696/valsartan, 0·77, 95% CI 0·64–0·92, p=0·005). LCZ696 was well tolerated with adverse effects similar to those of valsartan; 22 patients (15%) on LCZ696 and 30 (20%) on valsartan had one or more serious adverse event. Interpretation In patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, LCZ696 reduced NT-proBNP to a greater extent than did valsartan at 12 weeks and was well tolerated. Whether these effects would translate into improved outcomes needs to be tested prospectively. Funding Novartis.
Abstract Background Natriuretic peptides (NP) have prognostic value in heart failure (HF), although the clinical importance of changes in NP from baseline is unclear. Objectives The authors assessed ...whether a reduction in N-terminal pro–B-type NP (NT-proBNP) was associated with a decrease in HF hospitalization and cardiovascular mortality (primary endpoint) in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction, whether treatment with sacubitril/valsartan reduced NT-proBNP below specific partition values more than enalapril, and whether the relationship between changes in NT-proBNP and changes in the primary endpoint were dependent on assigned treatment. Methods In PARADIGM-HF (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), baseline NT-proBNP was measured in 2,080 patients; 1,292 had baseline values >1,000 pg/ml and were reassessed at 1 and 8 months. We related change in NT-proBNP to outcomes. Results One month after randomization, 24% of the baseline NT-proBNP levels >1,000 pg/ml had fallen to ≤1,000 pg/ml. Risk of the primary endpoint was 59% lower in patients with a fall in NT-proBNP to ≤1,000 pg/ml than in those without such a fall. In sacubitril/valsartan-treated patients, median NT-proBNP was significantly lower 1 month after randomization than in enalapril-treated patients, and it fell to ≤1,000 pg/ml in 31% versus 17% of patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril, respectively. There was no significant interaction between treatment and the relationship between change in NT-proBNP and the subsequent risk of the primary endpoint. Conclusions Patients who attained a significant reduction in NT-proBNP had a lower subsequent rate of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization independent of the treatment group. Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan was nearly twice as likely as enalapril to reduce NT-proBNP to values ≤1,000 pg/ml. (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; NCT01035255 .)
PICO Question In dogs with chronic pain, is acupuncture alone, compared to a placebo, more efficacious in alleviating pain and pain-related dysfunction? Clinical bottom line Category of research ...Treatment. Number and type of study designs reviewed Four randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trials were critically appraised. Strength of evidence Weak. Outcomes reported A single study evaluating the efficacy of gold bead implantation, a form of permanent acupuncture, on pain associated with canine hip dysplasia (CHD) endorsed acupuncture’s superior pain alleviation and locomotion improvement through owner and veterinarian subjective outcome evaluation. Three studies concluded that, overall, acupuncture was not efficacious regarding pain reduction or dysfunction improvement compared with placebo treatment. Conclusion Based on the limited current evidence, acupuncture could have analgesic effects as perceived by owners, but acupuncture, as a sole analgesic, is unlikely to be effective in alleviating pain and pain-related dysfunction in canine chronic pain associated with musculoskeletal causes. Evidence is lacking on chronic pain due to neurological and oncological causes. Further studies need to focus on researching various acupuncture modalities’ effects on chronic pain with musculoskeletal, neuropathic and oncological causes when utilised as a component of multimodal therapy. Currently, for canine patients with chronic pain, there is insufficient evidence for a veterinarian to recommend that a client utilise acupuncture as the sole method for pain management. How to apply this evidence in practice The application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources. Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care.
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.
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.
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.
Abstract 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 )
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.
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.
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.
URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255.
Aims
Although the effect of the angiotensin receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan on heart failure (HF) hospitalizations and cardiovascular death has been evaluated, its ...effects on functional capacity in patients with HF and ejection fraction (EF) >40% has yet to be determined. In addition, no prior studies have compared sacubitril/valsartan with angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor therapy. We sought to compare the effect of ARNI to background‐medication‐based individualized comparators (BMICs) on N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP), functional capacity 6 min walk distance (6MWD), symptoms, and quality of life Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) in patients with HF and EF >40% in a randomized clinical trial.
Methods
PARALLAX is a prospective, randomized, controlled, double‐blind multicentre clinical trial in patients with chronic symptomatic HF with EF >40%, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II–IV symptoms, elevated natriuretic peptides, and evidence of structural heart disease. Eligible patients are randomized to sacubitril/valsartan vs. BMIC for cardiovascular and related co‐morbidities. BMIC includes (i) enalapril, (ii) valsartan, and (iii) placebo depending on the type of medical therapy prior to enrolment. The primary endpoints are the change in plasma NT‐proBNP concentration from baseline to 12 weeks and the change from baseline in 6MWD distance at 24 weeks. The secondary endpoints assess quality of life and symptom burden.
Conclusions
PARALLAX will determine if sacubitril/valsartan compared with standard medical therapy for co‐morbidities improves NT‐proBNP levels, exercise capacity, quality of life, and symptom burden in HF patients with EF >40%.
PDF
