Search

The Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) classification integrates both estimated glomerular filtration rate and urine-albumin-creatinine ratio to stratify risk more comprehensively in patients with chronic kidney disease. There are limited data assessing whether this classification system is associated with prognosis and treatment response in heart failure populations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relative treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan across the KDIGO risk categories in patients with HFrEF. PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) was a global randomized controlled trial evaluating sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Patients were classified according to low, moderate, and high/very high KDIGO risk. Treatment responses were assessed according to baseline KDIGO risk. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death or heart failure hospitalization. A renal composite outcome was defined as sustained decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate by ≥40% or end-stage kidney disease. Among 1,910 (23% of total) participants with available data, 42%, 32%, and 26% were classified as low, moderate, and high/very high KDIGO risk, respectively. Patients in the highest KDIGO risk categories experienced the highest rates of the primary composite outcome (7.6 per 100 person-years [95% CI: 6.5-9.0 per 100 person-years], 9.4 per 100 person-years [95% CI: 7.9-11.2 per 100 person-years], and 14.9 per 100 person-years [95% CI: 12.7-17.6 per 100 person-years]; P < 0.001). Sacubitril/valsartan had a similar safety profile and demonstrated consistent effects on the risk of both the primary outcome (P Interaction = 0.31) and the renal composite outcome (P Interaction = 0.50) across the spectrum of KDIGO risk. One in 4 patients with HFrEF were classified as at least high KDIGO kidney risk; these individuals faced concordantly the highest risks of CV events. Sacubitril/valsartan exhibited consistent CV and kidney protective benefits as well as safety across the spectrum of baseline kidney risk. These data further support initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in HFrEF across a broad range of kidney risk. (This Study Will Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Enalapril on Morbidity and Mortality of Patients With Chronic Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF]; NCT01035255) [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) has not been described. Data from randomized trials of sacubitril/valsartan in HF patients with EF ≤40% (PIONEER-HF [Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect of NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode] trial) and >40% (PARAGLIDE-HF [Prospective comparison of ARNI with ARB Given following stabiLization In DEcompensated HFpEF] trial) following recent worsening heart failure (WHF) were pooled to examine treatment effect across the EF spectrum. The PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF trials were double-blind, randomized trials of sacubitril/valsartan vs control therapy (enalapril or valsartan, respectively). All participants in the PIONEER-HF trial and 69.5% in the PARAGLIDE-HF trial were enrolled during hospitalization for HF after stabilization. The remainder in the PARAGLIDE-HF trial were enrolled ≤30 days after a WHF event. The primary endpoint of both trials was time-averaged proportional change in N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) from baseline through weeks 4 and 8. Adjudicated clinical endpoints were analyzed through the end of follow-up, adjusting for trial. The pooled analysis included 1,347 patients (881 from PIONEER-HF, 466 from PARAGLIDE-HF). Baseline characteristics included median age 66 years, 36% women, 31% Black, 34% de novo HF, and median EF 30%. The reduction in NT-proBNP was 24% greater with sacubitril/valsartan vs control therapy (n = 1,130; ratio of change = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.69-0.83; P < 0.0001). Cardiovascular death or hospitalization for HF was reduced by 30% with sacubitril/valsartan vs control therapy (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.54-0.91; P = 0.0077). This effect was consistent across the spectrum of EF ≤60%. Sacubitril/valsartan increased symptomatic hypotension (risk ratio: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.05-1.72). In patients stabilized after WHF, sacubitril/valsartan led to a greater reduction in plasma NT-proBNP and improved clinical outcome compared with control therapy, in particular across the spectrum of EF ≤60%. (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect of NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode [PIONEER-HF]; NCT02554890 ; Changes in NT-proBNP, Safety, and Tolerability in HFpEF Patients With a WHF Event [HFpEF Decompensation] Who Have Been Stabilized and Initiated at the Time of or Within 30 Days Post-decompensation [PARAGLIDE-HF]; NCT03988634) [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

U.S. guidelines recommend consideration of sacubitril/valsartan in chronic heart failure (HF) and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (EF). Whether initiation is safe and effective in EF >40% after a worsening heart failure (WHF) event is unknown. PARAGLIDE-HF (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ARB Given following stabiLization In DEcompensated HFpEF) assessed sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan in EF >40% following a recent WHF event. PARAGLIDE-HF is a double-blind, randomized controlled trial of sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan in patients with EF >40% enrolled within 30 days of a WHF event. The primary endpoint was time-averaged proportional change in amino terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) from baseline through Weeks 4 and 8. A secondary hierarchical outcome (win ratio) consisted of: 1) cardiovascular death; 2) HF hospitalizations; 3) urgent HF visits; and 4) change in NT-proBNP. In 466 patients (233 sacubitril/valsartan; 233 valsartan), time-averaged reduction in the NT-proBNP was greater with sacubitril/valsartan (ratio of change: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.73-0.999; P = 0.049). The hierarchical outcome favored sacubitril/valsartan but was not significant (unmatched win ratio: 1.19; 95% CI: 0.93-1.52; P = 0.16). Sacubitril/valsartan reduced worsening renal function (OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.40-0.93) but increased symptomatic hypotension (OR: 1.73; 95% CI: 1.09-2.76). There was evidence of a larger treatment effect in the subgroup with EF ≤60% for NT-proBNP change (0.78; 95% CI: 0.61-0.98) and the hierarchical outcome (win ratio: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.09-1.95). Among patients with EF >40% stabilized after WHF, sacubitril/valsartan led to greater reduction in plasma NT-proBNP levels and was associated with clinical benefit compared with valsartan alone, despite more symptomatic hypotension. (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ARB Given following stabiLization In DEcompensated HFpEF; NCT03988634) [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some patients with heart failure may experience transient changes in kidney function upon transition to sacubitril/valsartan. Whether such changes portend adverse outcomes or influence long-term treatment benefits with sacubitril/valsartan continuation is unknown. This investigation aimed to evaluate the association between the occurrence of moderate estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline (>15%) after initial exposure to sacubitril/valsartan and subsequent cardiovascular outcomes and its treatment benefits in PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF. In sequential run-in phases, patients were titrated to enalapril 10 mg twice daily and then sacubitril/valsartan 97 mg/103 mg twice daily (in PARADIGM-HF) or valsartan 80 mg twice daily and then sacubitril/valsartan 49 mg/51 mg twice daily (in PARAGON-HF). Among randomized participants, 11% in PARADIGM-HF and 10% in PARAGON-HF experienced eGFR decline (>15%) during sacubitril/valsartan run-in. eGFR partially recovered (from nadir to postrandomization week 16) regardless of sacubitril/valsartan continuation or switch to renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi) postrandomization. Initial eGFR decline was not consistently associated with clinical outcomes in either trial. Treatment benefits of sacubitril/valsartan vs RASi on primary outcomes were similar irrespective of run-in eGFR decline in PARADIGM-HF (eGFR decline, HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.53-0.90; and no eGFR decline, HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.73-0.88; P interaction = 0.32) and PARAGON-HF (eGFR decline, rate ratio [RR]: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.52-1.36 and no eGFR decline, RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.75-1.02, P interaction = 0.92). The treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan remained consistent across a range of eGFR declines. Moderate eGFR decline when transitioning from RASi to sacubitril/valsartan is not consistently associated with adverse outcomes, and its long-term benefits are retained in heart failure across a broad range of eGFR declines. Early eGFR changes should not deter continuation of sacubitril/valsartan or stall uptitration. (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711 ; Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitors with Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF]; NCT01035255) [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Data on angioedema risk among sacubitril-valsartan (SV) users in real-world settings are limited. We sought to evaluate the risk of angioedema among SV new users compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and angiotensin-receptor-blocker (ARB) new users separately. We conducted a propensity score–matched cohort study, comparing SV new users (no use of SV, ACE inhibitor, ARB 6 months before) and SV new users with prior use (within 183 or 14 days) of ACE inhibitor or ARB (ACE inhibitor–SV and ARB-SV users; recent ACE inhibitor–SV and recent ARB-SV users, respectively) vs ACE inhibitor and ARB new users separately. Compared with ACE inhibitor, SV new (HR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.11-0.29) and ACE inhibitor–SV users (HR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.23-0.43) showed lower risk of angioedema. On the other hand, there was no difference in angioedema risk when SV new users (HR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.35-1.01) or ARB-SV users (HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.58-1.26) were compared with ARB new users. Compared with SV new users, ACE inhibitor–SV users (HR: 1.62; 95% CI: 0.91-2.89) trended toward higher angioedema risk, which intensified when the ACE inhibitor to SV switch occurred within 14 days (recent ACE inhibitor–SV) (HR: 1.98; 95% CI: 1.11-3.53). Similarly, ARB-SV users (HR: 2.03; 95% CI: 1.16-3.54) experienced an increased risk compared with SV new users, which intensified for the more recent switchers (recent ARB-SV) (HR: 2.45; 95% CI: 1.36-4.43). We did not observe an increased risk of angioedema among SV new users compared with ACE inhibitor or ARB users. However, there was an increased risk of angioedema among SV users who recently switched from ACE inhibitor or ARB compared with SV new users. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Doses of sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) achieved in clinical trials of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are often not reached in clinical practice.Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate associations among Sac/Val doses and changes in prognostic biomarkers, health status, and cardiac remodeling among individuals with HFrEF through 12 months of treatment with Sac/Val administered per usual care.Methods: A total of 794 persons with HFrEF (ejection fraction [EF] ≤40%) were categorized according to average daily doses of Sac/Val divided into tertiles. Change from baseline to 12 months in biomarkers (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T, soluble ST2, atrial natriuretic peptide, urinary cyclic guanosine monophosphate), Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-23 scores, and parameters of cardiac reverse remodeling (left ventricular EF, indexed left atrial and ventricular volumes, and E/e') were assessed.Results: The average daily dose was 112 mg in Tertile 1 (low dose), 342 mg in Tertile 2 (moderate dose), and 379 mg in Tertile 3 (high dose). Similar changes in prognostic biomarkers were observed in all dose tertiles. Gains in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-23 scores were comparable regardless of dose category. Consistent reverse cardiac remodeling in all dose categories occurred; the median absolute left ventricular EF improvement across HF dose groups was 9.3%, 8.7%, and 10.2%, for low, moderate, and high doses, respectively; similar improvements in left atrial and ventricular volumes and E/e' were also observed across dose categories.Conclusions: Among patients with HFrEF, similar improvement in prognostic biomarkers, health status, and cardiac remodeling were observed across various Sac/Val doses. (Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan Therapy on Biomarkers, Myocardial Remodeling and Outcomes [PROVE-HF]; NCT02887183. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Frailty is an increasingly common problem, and frail patients are less likely to receive new pharmacologic therapies because the risk-benefit profile is perceived to be less favorable than in nonfrail patients.Objectives: This study investigated the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan according to frailty status in 4,796 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction randomized in the PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial.Methods: Frailty was measured by using the Rockwood cumulative deficit approach. The primary endpoint was total heart failure hospitalizations or cardiovascular death.Results: A frailty index (FI) was calculable in 4,795 patients. In total, 45.2% had class 1 frailty (FI ≤0.210, not frail), 43.5% had class 2 frailty (FI 0.211-0.310, more frail), and 11.4% had class 3 frailty (FI ≥0.311, most frail). There was a graded relationship between FI class and the primary endpoint, with a significantly higher risk associated with greater frailty (class 1: reference; class 2 rate ratio: 2.19 [95% CI: 1.85-2.60]; class 3 rate ratio: 3.29 [95% CI: 2.65-4.09]). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan on the primary endpoint from lowest to highest FI class (as a rate ratio) was: 0.98 [95% CI: 0.76-1.27], 0.92 [95% CI: 0.76-1.12], and 0.69 [95% CI: 0.51-0.95]), respectively (Pinteraction = 0.23). When FI was examined as a continuous variable, the interaction with treatment was significant for the primary outcome (Pinteraction = 0.002) and total heart failure hospitalizations (Pinteraction < 0.001), with those most frail deriving greater benefit.Conclusions: Frailty was common in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and associated with worse outcomes. Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan seemed to show a greater reduction in the primary endpoint with increasing frailty, although this was not significant when FI was examined as a categorical variable. (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recent U.S. Food and Drug Administration expanded indication for sacubitril/valsartan introduces a new potential taxonomy for heart failure, with no reference to "preserved" ejection fraction but referring to "below normal" ejection fraction as those most likely to benefit. This review summarizes the evolution of nomenclature in heart failure and examines evidence showing that patients with ejection fraction in the "mid range" may benefit from neurohormonal blockade similar to those with more severely reduced (<40%) ejection fraction. Furthermore, prominent sex differences have been observed wherein the benefit of neurohormonal blockade appears to extend to a higher ejection fraction range in women compared to men. Based on emerging evidence, revised nomenclature is proposed defining heart failure with "reduced" (<40%), "mildly reduced," and "normal" (≥55% in men, ≥60% in women) ejection fraction. Such nomenclature signals consideration of potentially beneficial therapies in the largest group of patients with reduced or mildly reduced ejection fraction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Guidelines recommend targeting systolic blood pressure (SBP) <130 mm Hg in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) with limited data.Objectives: This study sought to determine the optimal achieved SBP and whether the treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan on outcomes are related to BP lowering, particularly among women who derive greater benefit from sacubitril/valsartan.Methods: Using 4,795 trial participants, this study related baseline and time-updated mean achieved SBP quartiles (<120, 120 to 129, 130 to 139, ≥140 mm Hg) to the primary outcome (cardiovascular death and total heart failure hospitalization), its components, myocardial infarction or stroke, and a renal composite outcome. At the 16-week visit, the study assessed the relationship between SBP change and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score (KCCQ-OSS) and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). The study analyzed whether the BP-lowering effects of sacubitril/valsartan accounted for its treatment effects.Results: Average age was 73 ± 8 years, and 52% of participants were women. After multivariable adjustment, baseline and mean achieved SBP of 120 to 129 mm Hg demonstrated the lowest risk for all outcomes. Sacubitril/valsartan reduced SBP by 5.2 mm Hg (95% confidence interval: 4.4 to 6.0) compared with valsartan at 4 weeks, which was not modified by baseline SBP. However, sacubitril/valsartan reduced SBP more in women (6.3 mm Hg) than men (4.0 mm Hg) (interaction p = 0.005). Change in SBP was directly associated with change in NT-proBNP (p < 0.001) but not KCCQ-OSS (p = 0.40). The association between sacubitril/valsartan and the primary outcome was not modified by baseline SBP (interaction p = 0.50) and was similar when adjusting for time-updated SBP, regardless of sex.Conclusions: Baseline and mean achieved SBP of 120 to 129 mm Hg identified the lowest risk patients with HFpEF. Baseline SBP did not modify the treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan, and the BP-lowering effects of sacubitril/valsartan did not account for its effects on outcomes, regardless of sex. (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The period shortly after hospitalization for heart failure (HF) represents a high-risk window for recurrent clinical events, including rehospitalization or death.Objectives: This study sought to determine whether the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan varies in relation to the proximity to hospitalization for HF among patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).Methods: In this post hoc analysis of PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI [Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor] with ARB [Angiotensin Receptor Blocker] Global Outcomes in HFpEF), we assessed the risk of clinical events and response to sacubitril/valsartan in relation to time from last HF hospitalization among patients with HFpEF (≥45%). The primary outcome was composite total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death, analyzed by using a semiparametric proportional rates method, stratified by geographic region.Results: Of 4,796 validly randomized patients in PARAGON-HF, 622 (13%) were screened during hospitalization or within 30 days of prior hospitalization, 555 (12%) within 31 to 90 days, 435 (9%) within 91 to 180 days, and 694 (14%) after 180 days; 2,490 (52%) were never previously hospitalized. Over a median follow-up of 35 months, risk of total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death was inversely and nonlinearly associated with timing from prior HF hospitalization (p < 0.001). There was a gradient in relative risk reduction in primary events with sacubitril/valsartan from patients hospitalized within 30 days (rate ratio: 0.73; 95% confidence interval: 0.53 to 0.99) to patients never hospitalized (rate ratio: 1.00; 95% confidence interval: 0.80 to 1.24; trend in relative risk reduction: pinteraction = 0.15). With valsartan alone, the rate of total primary events was 26.7 (≤30 days), 24.2 (31 to 90 days), 20.7 (91 to 180 days), 15.7 (>180 days), and 7.9 (not previously hospitalized) per 100 patient-years. Compared with valsartan, absolute risk reductions with sacubitril/valsartan were more prominent in patients enrolled early after hospitalization: 6.4% (≤30 days), 4.6% (31 to 90 days), and 3.4% (91 to 180 days), whereas no risk reduction was observed in patients screened >180 days or who were never hospitalized (trend in absolute risk reduction: pinteraction = 0.050).Conclusions: Recent hospitalization for HFpEF identifies patients at high risk for near-term clinical progression. In the PARAGON-HF trial, the relative and absolute benefits of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in HFpEF appear to be amplified when initiated in the high-risk window after hospitalization and warrant prospective validation. (PARAGON-HF; NCT01920711). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]