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 . . .
The angiotensin-receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) LCZ696 reduced cardiovascular deaths and all-cause mortality compared with enalapril in patients with chronic heart failure in the prospective ...comparison of ARNI with an Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial. To more completely understand the components of this mortality benefit, we examined the effect of LCZ696 on mode of death.
PARADIGM-HF was a prospective, double-blind, randomized trial in 8399 patients with chronic heart failure, New York Heart Association Class II-IV symptoms, and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% receiving guideline-recommended medical therapy and followed for a median of 27 months. Mode of death was adjudicated by a blinded clinical endpoints committee. The majority of deaths were cardiovascular (80.9%), and the risk of cardiovascular death was significantly reduced by treatment with LCZ (hazard ratio, HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72-0.89, P < 0.001). Among cardiovascular deaths, both sudden cardiac death (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68-0.94, P = 0.008) and death due to worsening heart failure (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64-0.98, P = 0.034) were reduced by treatment with LCZ696 compared with enalapril. Deaths attributed to other cardiovascular causes, including myocardial infarction and stroke, were infrequent and distributed evenly between treatment groups, as were non-cardiovascular deaths.
LCZ696 was superior to enalapril in reducing both sudden cardiac deaths and deaths from worsening heart failure, which accounted for the majority of cardiovascular deaths.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/, NCT01035255.
Myocardial fibrosis may contribute to the pathophysiology of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Given the biochemical targets of sacubitril/valsartan, this study hypothesized that ...circulating biomarkers reflecting the mechanisms that determine extracellular matrix homeostasis are altered by sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan alone.
This study investigated the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on biomarkers of extracellular matrix homeostasis and the association between biomarkers and the primary endpoint (total heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular death).
N-terminal propeptide of collagen I and III, tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase 1, carboxyl-terminal telopeptide of collagen type I, and soluble ST2 were measured at baseline (n = 1,135) and 16 (n = 1,113) and 48 weeks (n = 1,016) after randomization. The effects of sacubitril/valsartan on these biomarkers were compared with those of valsartan alone. Baseline biomarker values and changes from baseline to 16 weeks were related to primary endpoint.
At baseline, all 5 biomarkers were higher than published referent control values. Sixteen weeks after randomization, sacubitril/valsartan decreased tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase 1 by 8% (95% confidence interval CI: 6% to 10%; p < 0.001), soluble ST2 by 4% (95% CI: 1% to 7%; p = 0.002), and N-terminal propeptide of collagen III by 3% (95% CI: 0% to 6%; p = 0.04) and increased carboxyl-terminal telopeptide of collagen type I by 4% (95% CI: 1% to 8%; p = 0.02) compared with valsartan alone, consistently in men and women and patients with left ventricular ejection fraction above or below the median of 57%. Higher levels of tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase 1 and soluble ST2 at baseline and increases in these markers at 16 weeks were associated with higher primary endpoint event rates.
Biomarkers reflecting extracellular matrix homeostasis are elevated in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, favorably altered by sacubitril/valsartan, and have important prognostic value. (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction PARAGON-HF; NCT01920711)
Display omitted
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
Compared to heart failure patients with higher systolic blood pressure (SBP), those with lower SBP have a worse prognosis. To make matters worse, the latter patients often do not receive treatment ...with life-saving therapies that might lower blood pressure further. We examined the association between SBP and outcomes in the Prospective Comparison of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) with an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure trial (PARADIGM-HF), as well as the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, according to baseline SBP.
We analysed the effect of treatment on SBP and on the primary composite outcome (cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization), its components and all-cause death. We examined baseline SBP as a categorical (<110, 110 to < 120, 120 to < 130, 130 to < 140 and ≥140 mmHg) and continuous variable, as well as average in-trial SBP and time-updated SBP.
All-cause and cardiovascular mortality rates were highest in patients with the lowest SBP whereas there was a U-shaped relationship between SBP and the rate of heart failure hospitalization. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril was consistent across all baseline SBP categories for all outcomes. For example, the sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril hazard ratio for the primary endpoint was 0.88 (95%CI 0.74-1.06) in patients with a baseline SBP <110 mmHg and 0.81 (0.65-1.02) for those with a SBP ≥140 mmHg (P for interaction = 0.55). Symptomatic hypotension, study drug dose-reduction and discontinuation were more frequent in patients with a lower SBP.
In PARADIGM-HF, patients with lower SBP at randomization, notably after tolerating full doses of both study drugs during a run-in period, were at higher risk but generally tolerated sacubitril/valsartan and had the same relative benefit over enalapril as patients with higher baseline SBP.
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.
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.
Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition prevents the clinical progression of surviving patients with heart failure more effectively than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition.
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 )
BACKGROUND:Unlike heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, there is no approved treatment for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, the predominant phenotype in women. Therefore, there ...is a greater heart failure therapeutic deficit in women compared with men.
METHODS:In a prespecified subgroup analysis, we examined outcomes according to sex in the PARAGON-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction), which compared sacubitril-valsartan and valsartan in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. The primary outcome was a composite of first and recurrent hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. We also report secondary efficacy and safety outcomes.
RESULTS:Overall, 2479 women (51.7%) and 2317 men (48.3%) were randomized. Women were older and had more obesity, less coronary disease, and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate and NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide) levels than men. For the primary outcome, the rate ratio for sacubitril-valsartan versus valsartan was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.59–0.90) in women and 1.03 (95% CI, 0.84–1.25) in men (P interaction = 0.017). The benefit from sacubitril-valsartan was attributable to reduction in heart failure hospitalization. The improvement in New York Heart Association class and renal function with sacubitril-valsartan was similar in women and men, whereas the improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score was less in women than in men. The difference in adverse events between sacubitril-valsartan and valsartan was similar in women and men.
CONCLUSIONS:As compared with valsartan, sacubitril-valsartan seemed to reduce the risk of heart failure hospitalization more in women than in men. Whereas the possible sex-related modification of the effect of treatment has several potential explanations, the present study does not provide a definite mechanistic basis for this finding.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifierNCT01920711.
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 worseningoutpatient 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—URLhttp://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifierNCT01035255.
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.
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.
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.
URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255.
PDF
