Search

Aims Methods and results Conclusions Renin–angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) have been shown to lower haemoglobin levels, potentially related to reductions in erythropoietin levels and haematopoiesis. We examined whether sacubitril/valsartan might attenuate this effect of RASi alone on incident anaemia in patients with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF/HFpEF).PARAGON‐HF was a global, multicentre randomized clinical trial of sacubitril/valsartan versus the RASi valsartan in patients with HF and left ventricular ejection fraction ≥45%. We evaluated haemoglobin trajectory and risks of incident anaemia and new iron therapy initiation during follow‐up. Among 4795 participants, 1111 (23.2%) had anaemia at randomization and 5.6% were treated with iron at baseline. Over a median follow‐up of 2.9 years, patients with anaemia were at significantly higher risk for total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death, compared with those without anaemia (21.6 vs. 11.5 per 100 patient‐years; adjusted rate ratio 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12–1.54; p = 0.001). Sacubitril/valsartan slightly slowed the decline in haemoglobin levels by 0.1 g/dl (95% CI 0.0–0.2 g/dl; p = 0.005). Participants treated with sacubitril/valsartan were at significantly lower risk of developing anaemia (30.3% vs. 37.6%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.76; 95% CI 0.68–0.85; p < 0.001) and starting iron therapy (8.1% vs. 10.0%; HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.67–0.97; p = 0.026). Treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan on total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death were consistent among patients across the haemoglobin spectrum (pinteraction = 0.60).Among patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan resulted in modestly smaller declines in haemoglobin, lower rates of incident anaemia, and fewer new initiations of iron therapy compared with RASi.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01920711. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Cardiovascular‐kidney‐metabolic (CKM) multimorbidity is prevalent among individuals with heart failure (HF), but whether cardiac structure and function, clinical outcomes, and treatment response to sacubitril/valsartan vary in relation to CKM status is unknown. Methods and results: In this PARAGON‐HF post‐hoc analysis, we evaluated the impact of CKM multimorbidity (atherosclerotic cardiovascular [CV] disease, chronic kidney disease, and type 2 diabetes) on cardiac structure and function, clinical outcomes, and treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan. The primary outcome was a composite of total HF hospitalizations and CV death. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary outcome and a composite kidney outcome (sustained estimated glomerular filtration rate reduction of ≥50%, end‐stage kidney disease, or kidney‐related death). At baseline, 35.2% had one CKM condition, 33.3% had two, 15.9% had three, and only 15.6% had HF alone. CKM multimorbidity was associated with higher septal and posterior wall thickness, lower global longitudinal strain, higher E/e', and worse right ventricular function. Total HF hospitalizations or CV death increased with greater CKM multimorbidity, with the highest relative risk observed with three CKM conditions (rate ratio 3.06, 95% confidence interval 2.33–4.03), compared with HF alone. Treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan were consistent irrespective of the number of CKM conditions for the primary endpoint (pinteraction = 0.75), CV death (pinteraction = 0.82), total HF hospitalizations (pinteraction = 0.67), and the composite kidney endpoint (pinteraction = 0.99). Conclusions: Cardiovascular‐kidney‐metabolic multimorbidity was common in PARAGON‐HF and associated with adverse changes in cardiac structure and function and with a stepwise increase in risk of clinical outcomes. Treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan were consistent irrespective of CKM burden. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01920711. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The effects of initiating sacubitril/valsartan in patients with stable heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) on response to fluid and sodium expansion are unknown. Methods and results: We have explored changes in natriuresis, diuresis, and congestion in response to the administration of intravenous fluid/sodium load in patients with HFrEF before as compared to after the initiation of sacubitril/valsartan. At baseline (before sacubitril/valsartan initiation) and 2 and 3 months after the initiation, patients underwent an evaluation that consisted of three phases of 3 h: the rest phase (0–3 h), the load phase (3–6 h) in which 1 L of intravenous Ringer solution was administered, and the diuretic phase (6–9 h) at the beginning of which furosemide was administered. Overall, 216 patients completed the study. In comparison to baseline values, at 2 and 3 months after sacubitril/valsartan initiation, patients' diuresis and natriuresis in response to Ringer administration significantly increased (mean difference: 38.8 [17.38] ml, p = 0.0040, and 9.6 [2.02] mmol, p < 0.0001, respectively). Symptoms and signs of congestion after the fluid/sodium challenge were significantly decreased at months 2 and 3 compared to baseline. Compared to baseline, there was also an increment of natriuresis after furosemide administration on sacubitril/valsartan (9.8 [5.13] mmol, p = 0.0167). There was a significant decrease in body weight in subsequent visits when compared to baseline values (−0.50 [−12.7, 7.4] kg at 2 months, and −0.75 [−15.9, 7.5] kg at 3 months; both p < 0.0001). Conclusions: The initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in HFrEF patients was associated with improvements in natriuresis, diuresis, and weight loss and better clinical adaptation to potentially decongestive stressors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Sacubitril/valsartan treatment reduces mortality and hospitalizations in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction but has limited application in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on peak oxygen consumption (VO2) in patients with non‐obstructive HCM. Methods and results: This is a phase II, randomized, open‐label multicentre study that enrolled adult patients with symptomatic non‐obstructive HCM (New York Heart Association class I–III) who were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive sacubitril/valsartan (target dose 97/103 mg) or control for 16 weeks. The primary endpoint was a change in peak VO2. Secondary endpoints included echocardiographic measures of cardiac structure and function, natriuretic peptides and other cardiac biomarkers, and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure quality of life. Between May 2018 and October 2021, 354 patients were screened for eligibility, 115 patients (mean age 58 years, 37% female) met the study inclusion criteria and were randomly assigned to sacubitril/valsartan (n = 79) or control (n = 36). At 16 weeks, there was no significant change in peak VO2 from baseline in the sacubitril/valsartan (15.3 [4.3] vs. 15.9 [4.3] ml/kg/min, p = 0.13) or control group (p = 0.47). No clinically significant changes were found in blood pressure, cardiac structure and function, plasma biomarkers, or quality of life. Conclusion: In patients with HCM, a 16‐week treatment with sacubitril/valsartan was well tolerated but had no effect on exercise capacity, cardiac structure, or function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The PARACOR‐19 randomized controlled trial (RCT) was designed to examine the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on markers of cardiac injury, inflammation, structure, and function among patients who have recovered from acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) infection. Methods and results: PARACOR‐19 was a single‐centre, double‐blind RCT of patients with cardiovascular risk factors and a history of COVID‐19 infection 4–16 weeks prior to enrolment. Patients were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan (titrated to the maximum dose of 97/103 mg twice daily) versus matching placebo. Co‐primary endpoints were change from baseline to 12 weeks in high‐sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs‐cTnT) and soluble ST2 (sST2). Exploratory endpoints included change from baseline to 12 weeks in additional circulating biomarkers. Overall, 42 patients were randomized between August 2021 and March 2023 (n = 20 sacubitril/valsartan, n = 22 placebo). Median (25th–75th) time from COVID‐19 diagnosis to enrolment was 67 (48–80) days. Median age was 67 (62–71) years, 48% were female, and 91% were White. Compared with placebo, sacubitril/valsartan did not have a significant effect on the co‐primary endpoints of change from baseline in hs‐TnT and sST2 (all p ≥ 0.29). In exploratory analyses, sacubitril/valsartan led to a 46% greater reduction in N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP) and 51% greater reduction in C‐terminal telopeptide of collagen type I (CITP). Permanent drug discontinuation occurred in four patients in the sacubitril/valsartan group and three patients in the placebo group. There were no deaths and one patient was hospitalized in each group. Conclusion: In this pilot RCT of patients who recovered from acute COVID‐19, sacubitril/valsartan did not lower hs‐cTnT or sST2 compared with placebo. Exploratory analyses suggested potential benefits of sacubitril/valsartan on cardiac wall stress and collagen turnover as measured by NT‐proBNP and CITP. Sacubitril/valsartan was well tolerated. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04883528. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Patients with heart failure (HF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have a particularly high prevalence of comorbidities, often necessitating treatment with many medications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between polypharmacy status and outcomes in PARAGON‐HF. Methods and results: In this post hoc analysis, baseline medication status was available in 4793 of 4796 patients included in the primary analysis of PARAGON‐HF. The effects of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with valsartan, were assessed according to the number of medications at baseline: 683 non‐polypharmacy (<5 medications); 2750 polypharmacy (5–9 medications), and 1360 hyper‐polypharmacy (≥10 medications). The primary outcome was total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular deaths. Patients with hyper‐polypharmacy were older, had more severe limitations due to HF (worse New York Heart Association class and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores), and had greater comorbidity. The non‐adjusted risk of the primary outcome was significantly higher in patients taking more medications, and similar trends were seen for HF hospitalization and cardiovascular and all‐cause death. The effect of sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan on the primary outcome from the lowest to highest polypharmacy category was (as a rate ratio): 1.19 (0.76–1.85), 0.94 (0.77–1.15), and 0.77 (0.61–0.96) (pinteraction = 0.16). Treatment‐related adverse events were more common in patients in the higher polypharmacy categories but not more common with sacubitril/valsartan, versus valsartan, in any polypharmacy category. Conclusions: Polypharmacy is very common in patients with HFpEF, and those with polypharmacy have worse clinical status and a higher rate of non‐fatal and fatal outcomes. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was not diminished in patients taking a larger number of medications at baseline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: It is unknown whether safety and clinical endpoints by use of sacubitril/valsartan (an angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor [ARNI]) are affected by mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) in high‐risk myocardial infarction (MI) patients. The aim of this study was to examine whether MRA modifies safety and clinical endpoints by use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with a MI and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and/or pulmonary congestion. Methods and results: Patients (n = 5661) included in the PARADISE MI trial (Prospective ARNI vs. ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI) were stratified according to MRA. Primary outcomes in this substudy were worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death. Safety was defined as symptomatic hypotension, hyperkalaemia >5.5 mmol/L, or permanent drug discontinuation. A total of 2338 patients (41%) were treated with MRA. Safety of ARNI compared to ramipril was not altered significantly by ± MRA, and both groups had similar increase in symptomatic hypotension with ARNI. In patients taking MRA, the risk of hyperkalaemia or permanent drug discontinuation was not significantly altered by ARNI (p > 0.05 for all comparisons). The effect of ARNI compared with ramipril was similar in those who were and were not taking MRA (hazard ratio [HR]MRA 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77–1.19 and HRMRA– 0.87, 95% CI 0.71–1.05, for the primary endpoint; p = 0.51 for interaction [Clinical Endpoint Committee adjudicated]); similar findings were observed if investigator‐reported endpoints were evaluated (p = 0.61 for interaction). Conclusions: Use of a MRA did not modify safety or clinical endpoints related to initiation of ARNI compared to ramipril in the post‐MI setting in patients with LVSD and/or congestion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: We sought to evaluate the mechanism of angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan therapy and compare it with a valsartan‐only control group in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods and results: The study was a phase IV, prospective, randomized, double‐blind, parallel‐group study in patients with New York Heart Association class II–III heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35%. During a 6‐week run‐in period, all patients received valsartan therapy, which was up‐titrated to the highest tolerated dose level (80 mg bid or 160 mg bid) and then randomized to either valsartan or sacubitril/valsartan. Myocardial oxygen consumption, energetic efficiency of cardiac work, cardiac and systemic haemodynamics were quantified using echocardiography and 11C‐acetate positron emission tomography before and after 6 weeks of therapy (on stable dose) in 55 patients (ARNI group: n = 27, mean age 63 ± 10 years, LVEF 29.2 ± 10.4%; and valsartan‐only control group: n = 28, mean age 64 ± 8 years, LVEF 29.0 ± 7.3%; all p = NS). The energetic efficiency of cardiac work remained unchanged in both treatment arms. However, both diastolic (−4.5 mmHg; p = 0.026) and systolic blood pressure (−9.8 mmHg; p = 0.0007), myocardial perfusion (−0.054 ml/g/min; p = 0.045), and left ventricular mechanical work (−296; p = 0.038) decreased significantly in the ARNI group compared to the control group. Although myocardial oxygen consumption decreased in the ARNI group (−5.4%) compared with the run‐in period and remained unchanged in the control group (+0.5%), the between‐treatment group difference was not significant (p = 0.088). Conclusions: We found no differences in the energetic efficiency of cardiac work between ARNI and valsartan‐only groups in HFrEF patients. However, ARNI appears to have haemodynamic and cardiac mechanical effects over valsartan in heart failure patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A study published in the European Journal of Heart Failure compared the effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEi/ARB) in patients with newly diagnosed heart failure (HF) and preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction. The study used a large real-world dataset from the United States and found that patients initiated on sacubitril/valsartan had significantly lower rates of all-cause and cardiovascular hospitalizations compared to those initiated on ACEi/ARB. These findings support the potential benefit of early initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in a diverse and high-risk HF population. However, the study acknowledges limitations, including its retrospective nature and the possibility of unmeasured confounding. The study was funded by Novartis AG, and some of the authors reported conflicts of interest. [Extracted from the article]

This article discusses the use of sacubitril/valsartan, a medication that inhibits the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and increases the level of vasodilatory peptides, in the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The article highlights the uncertainty surrounding the underlying mechanisms of sacubitril/valsartan and the limited studies on its effects on myocardial performance and oxygen metabolism. A recent study conducted on stable patients with HFrEF found that sacubitril/valsartan had a myocardial oxygen-sparing effect compared to valsartan, although it did not significantly improve cardiac efficiency. The article concludes that further investigations are needed to fully understand the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on ventricular remodeling and clinical outcomes. [Extracted from the article]

Aims: Adrenomedullin is a vasodilatory peptide with a role in microcirculatory and endothelial homeostasis. Adrenomedullin is a substrate for neprilysin and may therefore play a role in beneficial effects of sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) treatment. Methods and results: Mid‐regional pro‐adrenomedullin (MR‐proADM) was measured in 156 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) treated with Sac/Val and 264 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) randomized to treatment with Sac/Val or valsartan. Echocardiography and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire results were collected at baseline and after 6 and 12 months in the HFrEF cohort. Median (Q1–Q3) baseline MR‐proADM concentrations were 0.80 (0.59–0.99) nmol/L in HFrEF and 0.88 (0.68–1.20) nmol/L in HFpEF. After 12 weeks of treatment with Sac/Val, MR‐proADM increased by median 49% in HFrEF and 60% in HFpEF, while there were no significant changes in valsartan‐treated patients (median 2%). Greater increases in MR‐proADM were associated with higher Sac/Val doses. Changes in MR‐proADM correlated weakly with changes in N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide, cardiac troponin T and urinary cyclic guanosine monophosphate. Increases in MR‐proADM were associated with decreases in blood pressure, but not significantly associated with changes in echocardiographic parameters or health status. Conclusions: MR‐proAD concentrations rise substantially following treatment with Sac/Val, in contrast to no change from valsartan. Change in MR‐proADM from neprilysin inhibition did not correlate with improvements in cardiac structure and function or health status. More data are needed regarding the role of adrenomedullin and its related peptides in the treatment of heart failure. Clinical Trial Registration: PROVE‐HF ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02887183, PARAMOUNT ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00887588. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: As sacubitril/valsartan may potentiate early natriuresis, expert consensus documents recommend diuretic dose reduction on first initiation. However, there are limited data on the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on the background of varying diuretic regimens or on diuretic requirements over time in heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods and results: In this post hoc analysis of PARAGON‐HF, of the 4796 patients, background diuretic therapy was distributed as follows: 341 (7%) on no diuretic, 698 (15%) on non‐loop diuretic, and 3757 (78%) were on loop diuretics (1255, 1589, and 913 were on <40, 40 and >40 mg furosemide equivalent doses, respectively). The primary composite outcome of total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death was analysed using semiparametric proportional rates methods. The cumulative incidence of the primary composite outcome (first events) was lowest in patients on no diuretic and highest in those on >40 mg of loop diuretic (p < 0.001). The effects of sacubitril/valsartan (vs. valsartan) on the primary composite outcome (recurrent events) did not significantly vary by baseline diuretic use (pinteraction = 0.65). Treatment effects on safety outcomes were similar across diuretic categories. Sacubitril/valsartan reduced new loop diuretic initiations over the course of the trial (hazard ratio 0.83; 95% confidence interval 0.68–1.00, p = 0.055), with similar mean loop diuretic dose and rates of diuretic discontinuation between treatment groups in follow‐up. Patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan experienced a slight early reduction in diuretic initiation or dose escalation at 30 days after initiation (net reduction 1.7%, p = 0.02), but these differences were not sustained beyond this timepoint. Conclusions: Patients with HFpEF on higher baseline diuretic doses were at heightened risk of HF events, but similarly benefited from sacubitril/valsartan with a consistent safety profile across a range of diuretic doses. Initiation of sacubitril/valsartan was associated with modestly lower new loop diuretic requirement in follow‐up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The effects of adding a sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor to a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) or an angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) in patients with heart failure (HF) and mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are uncertain, even though the use of all three drugs is recommended in recent guidelines. Methods and results: The efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin added to background MRA or ARNI therapy was examined in patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF enrolled in the DELIVER trial. The primary outcome was the composite of worsening HF or cardiovascular death. Of 6263 patients, 2667 (42.6%) were treated with an MRA and 301 (4.8%) with an ARNI at baseline. Patients taking either were younger, more often men and had lower systolic blood pressure and ejection fraction; they were also more likely to have prior HF hospitalization. The benefit of dapagliflozin was similar whether patients were receiving these therapies. The hazard ratio for the effect of dapagliflozin compared to placebo on the primary outcome was 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74–1.01) for MRA non‐users versus 0.76 (95% CI 0.64–0.91) for MRA users (pinteraction = 0.30). The corresponding values for ARNI non‐users and users were 0.82 (95% CI 0.73–0.92) and 0.74 (95% CI 0.45–1.22), respectively (pinteraction = 0.75). None of the adverse events examined was more common with dapagliflozin compared to placebo overall or in the MRA and ARNI subgroups. Conclusions: The efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin were similar, regardless of background treatment with an MRA or ARNI. SGLT2 inhibitors may be added to other treatments recommended in recent guidelines for HFmrEF/HFpEF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The 4822 patients randomized in the PARAGON‐HF trial were a subset of 5746 initially eligible patients who entered sequential run‐in periods. We identified patient factors associated with study discontinuation during the run‐in period and estimated the implications of these discontinuations for the overall study result. Methods and results: We utilized multivariable logistic regression models to identify patient factors associated with study discontinuation during the run‐in period. The efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan in a broader cohort approximating the full run‐in population was estimated by weighting randomized patients according to the inverse probability of run‐in completion. A total of 924 (16.1%) subjects failed to complete the run‐in period. In multivariable models, non‐completion was associated with region other than Central Europe, lower systolic blood pressure, lower serum sodium, lower haemoglobin, lower estimated glomerular filtration rate, higher N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide, higher New York Heart Association functional class, prior heart failure (HF) hospitalization, and lack of prior use of renin–angiotensin system inhibitors or beta‐blocker. In repeat analysis of the effect of randomized treatment in PARAGON‐HF giving greater weight to participants resembling those who failed to complete the run‐in period, the incidence of HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death was higher, and sacubitril/valsartan treatment reduced the composite of total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death compared with valsartan (rate ratio 0.86; 95% confidence interval 0.74–1.00). Conclusion: Patients with more advanced HF were at higher risk for non‐completion of the run‐in period in PARAGON‐HF. Re‐analysis of study outcomes accounting for the effect of run‐in non‐completion did not alter the estimated treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: ACTIVITY‐HF was a randomized, double‐blind, active‐controlled study, which assessed the short‐term effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with the active comparator enalapril on improving maximal exercise capacity in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods and results: A total of 201 ambulatory patients with HFrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40%, New York Heart Association class III) across 34 centres in Germany were randomized (1:1) to receive sacubitril/valsartan 97/103 mg bid (n = 103) or enalapril 10 mg bid (n = 98). The primary endpoint of the study was the change from baseline in peak oxygen consumption (VO2; adjusted to body weight) after 12 weeks, and the key secondary endpoint was change from baseline in peak VO2 after 6 weeks. The study population was predominantly male (81.1%) with a mean age of 66.9 years and a body mass index of 29.4 kg/m2. Change in peak VO2 from baseline to Week 12 was similar between sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril groups [least squares mean difference: 0.32 mL/min/kg; 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.21, 0.85; P = 0.2327]. Similarly, no significant differences were observed between the two treatment groups in minute ventilation to carbon dioxide production slope, exercise capacity at first ventilatory threshold or Borg scale at either Week 6 or Week 12. Change in heart rate at first ventilatory threshold was lower in the sacubitril/valsartan group compared with the enalapril group at Week 12 (mean −3.75 bpm; 95% CI −7.03, −0.48; P = 0.0248). The safety of sacubitril/valsartan was comparable to enalapril. Conclusion: In patients with HFrEF, short‐term treatment with sacubitril/valsartan for 12 weeks did not result in significant benefits on peak VO2 when compared with enalapril. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: We sought to determine sex‐based differences in biomarkers, self‐reported health status, and magnitude of longitudinal changes in measures of reverse cardiac remodelling among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%) treated with sacubitril/valsartan (S/V). Methods and results: This was a subgroup analysis of patients initiated on S/V in the Prospective Study of Biomarkers, Symptom Improvement and Ventricular Remodeling During Entresto Therapy for Heart Failure (PROVE‐HF) study. There were 226 (28.5%) women in the study. Though women had lower baseline N‐terminal pro B‐type natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP), they had more rapid early reduction in the biomarker after initiation of S/V. Compared to men, women had lower average baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ)‐23 Total Symptom score (67.6 vs. 71.9; P = 0.003) but showed greater linear improvement (7.4 vs. 5.5 points; P < 0.001) and faster pace of KCCQ change (P < 0.001) over the course of the trial. Women and men demonstrated similar degrees of reverse left ventricular remodelling following S/V initiation; however, women did so earlier than men with more consistent changes. These results remained unchanged with adjustment for relevant covariates. Reduction in NT‐proBNP was associated with reverse cardiac remodelling in both women and men. Treatment with S/V was well tolerated in all. Conclusions: In women with HFrEF, treatment with S/V was associated with significant NT‐proBNP reduction, health status improvement and reverse cardiac remodelling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: This study aimed to determine the prognostic value of serum uric acid (SUA) on outcomes in heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and whether sacubitril–valsartan reduces SUA and use of SUA‐related therapies. Methods and results: We analysed 4795 participants from the Prospective Comparison of ARNI [angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor] with ARB [angiotensin‐receptor blockers] Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction (PARAGON‐HF) trial. We related baseline hyperuricaemia (using age and gender adjusted assay definitions) to the primary outcome [cardiovascular (CV) death and total HF hospitalizations]. We assessed the associations between changes in SUA and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Score (KCCQ‐OSS) and other cardiac biomarkers from baseline to 4 months. We simultaneously adjusted for baseline and time‐updated SUA to determine whether lowering SUA was associated with clinical benefit. The mean (± standard deviation) age of patients was 73 ± 8 years and 52% were women. After multivariable adjustment, hyperuricaemia was associated with increased risk for the primary outcome [rate ratio 1.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.37–1.90]. The treatment effect of sacubitril–valsartan for the primary endpoint was not significantly modified by hyperuricaemia (P‐value for interaction = 0.14). Sacubitril–valsartan reduced SUA by 0.38 mg/dL (95% CI 0.31−0.45) compared with valsartan at 4 months, with greater effect in those with elevated SUA vs. normal SUA (−0.51 mg/dL vs. −0.32 mg/dL) (P‐value for interaction = 0.031). Sacubitril–valsartan reduced the odds of initiating SUA‐related treatments by 32% during follow‐up (P < 0.001). After multivariable adjustment, change in SUA was inversely associated with change in KCCQ‐OSS and directly associated with high‐sensitivity troponin T (P < 0.05). Time‐updated SUA was a stronger predictor of adverse outcomes than baseline SUA. Conclusions: Serum uric acid independently predicted adverse outcomes in HFpEF. Sacubitril–valsartan reduced SUA and the initiation of related therapy compared with valsartan. Reductions in SUA were associated with improved outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: In PARADIGM‐HF, sacubitril/valsartan demonstrated superiority to enalapril in reducing mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Several patient‐centred outcomes like improved physical activity and quality of life have been emphasised as important treatment goals in HF management. OUTSTEP‐HF has been designed to evaluate the effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril on non‐sedentary daytime physical activity in patients with HFrEF. Methods: OUTSTEP‐HF is a randomised, actively controlled, double‐blind, double‐dummy study that plans to enrol 600 ambulatory patients with symptomatic HFrEF in 19 European countries. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to receive sacubitril/valsartan 97/103 mg bid or enalapril 10 mg bid. The primary objective of the study is to assess changes from baseline (Week 0) to Week 12 in exercise capacity measured by the 6‐min walk test and in daily non‐sedentary daytime activity. Physical activity and objective sleep parameters will be measured by accelerometry using a wrist‐worn device, worn continuously from screening (Week −2) until the end of study (Week 12). As a co‐primary outcome, changes from baseline in sub‐maximal exercise capacity will be assessed by the 6‐min walk test. Patient‐ and physician‐reported questionnaires will be used to assess quality of life, changes in signs and symptoms of HF and sleep parameters. Conclusion: OUTSTEP‐HF will be the largest randomised trial in HF to date to use non‐invasive accelerometry to assess whether treatment with sacubitril/valsartan improves patients' daily physical activity and exercise capacity compared with enalapril. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Sacubitril/valsartan has shown efficacy and tolerability in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in the ambulatory setting (PARADIGM-HF), and following stabilisation of acutely decompensated HF (ADHF) (PIONEER-HF and TRANSITION). However, data are lacking for the initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in newly diagnosed (de novo) HFrEF. Here, we assess the tolerability of initiating sacubitril/valsartan following ADHF in TRANSITION subgroups of patients with a de novo vs. prior diagnosis of HFrEF.Methods and Results: TRANSITION randomised 1002 patients to pre- and post-discharge initiation of sacubitril/valsartan (analysis set n = 991, following exclusions for mis-randomisation). In this post-hoc analysis, tolerability to sacubitril/valsartan [proportion of patients achieving target dose (97/103 mg b.i.d.) at 10 weeks post-randomisation], adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs) were compared in de novo (n = 286) and prior HFrEF (n = 705) subgroups. More de novo than prior HFrEF patients achieved target dose at Week 10 (56% vs. 45%; relative risk ratio 1.30, 95% confidence interval 1.12-1.52, P < 0.001), and fewer had SAEs and permanent treatment discontinuations. Initiation of sacubitril/valsartan did not prevent the concomitant initiation and up-titration of guideline-directed HF therapies. De novo patients showed faster and greater decreases in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and high-sensitivity troponin-T, and lower rates of HF and all-cause rehospitalisation vs. prior HFrEF.Conclusions: After ADHF, first-line initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in de novo HFrEF, alongside the initiation of other guideline-directed therapies, is feasible and is associated with a better risk-benefit profile than in patients with prior HFrEF. Early intervention with sacubitril/valsartan may be considered to delay disease progression in patients with de novo HFrEF.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02661217. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To analyse real-world treatment patterns of sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) using data from a pharmacy database in Germany.Methods and Results: A retrospective cohort study of 26 191 adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) in the IMS® longitudinal prescriptions database in Germany who were dispensed sac/val from January 2016 to June 2017 was conducted. The analysis included sac/val dose titration assessed in the 6 months from first sac/val prescription; prescriptions of concomitant cardiovascular medications in the 6 months pre- and post-index and compliance and persistence during 12 months post-index. Two-thirds of patients were prescribed the lowest sac/val dose of 50 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) at index and up-titration during the first 6 months was attempted in 41% of these patients. Ten percent of patients prescribed 200 mg b.i.d. at index had to be stably down-titrated; among patients prescribed 50 or 100 mg b.i.d. at index that were up-titrated, > 80% remained on the higher dose. Overall, the mean daily diuretic dose decreased by 25% after initiation of sac/val. High compliance and persistence rates were observed across sac/val doses, increasing with higher sac/val dose at index. Prior dose of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker had only minor impact on first sac/val dose, compliance and persistence.Conclusions: Most patients prescribed sac/val are not initiated on the recommended dose nor up-titrated as recommended by the EU Summary of Product Characteristics. Initiation of sac/val was associated with high persistence and compliance and a dose reduction of diuretics. Barriers to up-titration must be explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: This study aimed at evaluating the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on neprilysin (NEP), and the metabolism of natriuretic peptides in heart failure (HF) and providing additional mechanistic information on the mode of action of the drug.Methods and Results: We enrolled 73 chronic HF patients who were switched from angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker to sacubitril/valsartan. In addition to clinical and echocardiographic assessment, plasma biomarkers were measured at baseline, day 30 and day 90 after initiation of treatment. Sacubitril/valsartan led to decrease in New York Heart Association class and improvement of echocardiographic parameters, as well as a dose-dependent decrease in soluble NEP (sNEP) activity, while sNEP concentration remained unchanged. Neprilysin inhibition translated into an increase in its substrates such as atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP), substance P, and glucagon-like peptide 1, the latter translating into a decrease in fructosamine. Cardiac troponin and soluble ST2 levels, biomarkers of HF severity unrelated to NEP metabolism also decreased. While there was a ∼4-fold increase in ANP, we observed no change in plasma brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and plasma BNP activity, and a mild decrease in N-terminal proBNP (NT-proBNP) concentrations. Finally, we found a progressive increase in the relationship between BNP and NT-proBNP, which strongly correlated with an increase in T71 proBNP glycosylation (R2 = 0.94).Conclusion: Sacubitril/valsartan rapidly and strongly reduced sNEP activity, leading to an increase in levels of NEP substrates. These data suggest a pleiotropic favourable impact of sacubitril/valsartan on the metabolism of HF patients with ANP rather than BNP as major effectors amongst natriuretic peptides. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Elevated serum uric acid concentration (SUA) has been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, but this may be due to unmeasured confounders. We examined the association between SUA and outcomes as well as the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on SUA in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in PARADIGM-HF.Methods and Results: The association between SUA and the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization, its components, and all-cause mortality was examined using Cox regression analyses among 8213 patients using quintiles (Q1-Q5) of SUA adjusted for baseline prognostic variables including estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), diuretic dose, and log N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide. Change in SUA from baseline over 12 months was also evaluated in each treatment group. Patients in Q5 (SUA ≥8.6 mg/dL) compared with Q1 (<5.4 mg/dL) were younger (62.8 vs. 64.2 years), more often male (88.7% vs. 63.1%), had lower systolic blood pressure (119 vs. 123 mmHg), lower eGFR (57.4 vs. 76.6 mL/min/1.73 m2 ), and greater diuretic use. Higher SUA was associated with a higher risk of the primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratios) Q5 vs. Q1 = 1.28 [95% confidence intervals (1.09-1.50), P = 0.003], cardiovascular death [1.44 (1.11-1.77), P = 0.001], HF hospitalization [1.37 (1.11-1.70), P = 0.004], and all-cause mortality [1.36 (1.13-1.64), P = 0.001]. Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan reduced SUA by 0.24 (0.17-0.32) mg/dL over 12 months (P < 0.0001). Sacubitril/valsartan improved outcomes, irrespective of SUA concentration.Conclusion: Serum uric acid concentration was an independent predictor of worse outcomes after multivariable adjustment in patients with HFrEF. Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan reduced SUA and improved outcomes irrespective of SUA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The TITRATION trial investigated two strategies to initiate and up-titrate sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) to the same target dose, over a condensed (3-week) or conservative (6-week) period, in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) of ≥100 mmHg. This post hoc analysis examined the relationship between baseline SBP at screening and achievement of the target dose of sacubitril/valsartan of 97 mg/103 mg (also termed 'LCZ696 200 mg') twice per day during the study.Methods and Results: Patients (n = 498) were categorized in four groups based on SBP at screening: 100-110 mmHg (n = 70); 111-120 mmHg (n = 93); 121-139 mmHg (n = 168) and ≥140 mmHg (n = 167). Overall, 72.7%, 76.1%, 85.6% and 82.9%, respectively, of patients in these SBP categories achieved and maintained the target dose of sacubitril/valsartan without down-titration/dose interruption over 12 weeks ('treatment success'). Compared with patients with SBP of 100-110 mmHg, rates of treatment success among patients in the higher SBP groups [111-120 mmHg (P = 0.96); 121-139 mmHg (P = 0.06) and ≥140 mmHg (P = 0.25)] did not differ significantly. A higher percentage of patients with lower SBP (100-110 mmHg) achieved treatment success with gradual up-titration (6 weeks) (∼80%) than with rapid up-titration (∼69%). Similar findings were observed with regard to 'tolerability success' (maintenance of the target dose for at least the final 2 weeks prior to study completion). Hypotension occurred more frequently in patients with lower SBP.Conclusions: The majority of patients (>80%) with SBP of ≥100 mmHg achieved and maintained the target dose of sacubitril/valsartan if the treatment was titrated gradually. These findings suggest that low SBP should not prevent clinicians from considering the initiation of sacubitril/valsartan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]