Search

Aims Sudden death is a leading cause of mortality in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In PARADIGM-HF, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the incidence of sudden death. The purpose of this post hoc study was to analyse the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, compared to enalapril, on the incidence of ventricular arrhythmias. Methods and results Adverse event reports related to ventricular arrhythmias were examined in PARADIGM-HF. The effect of randomized treatment on two arrhythmia outcomes was analysed: ventricular arrhythmias and the composite of a ventricular arrhythmia, implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shock or resuscitated cardiac arrest. The risk of death related to a ventricular arrhythmia was examined in time-updated models. The interaction between heart failure aetiology, or baseline ICD/cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D) use, and the effect of sacubitril/valsartan was analysed. Of the 8399 participants, 333 (4.0%) reported a ventricular arrhythmia and 372 (4.4%) the composite arrhythmia outcome. Ventricular arrhythmias were associated with higher mortality. Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the risk of a ventricular arrhythmia (hazard ratio [HR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-0.95; p = 0.015) and the composite arrhythmia outcome (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65-0.97; p = 0.025). The treatment effect was maintained after adjustment and accounting for the competing risk of death. Baseline ICD/CRT-D use did not modify the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, but aetiology did: HR in patients with an ischaemic aetiology 0.93 (95% CI 0.71-1.21) versus 0.53 (95% CI 0.37-0.78) in those without an ischaemic aetiology (p for interaction = 0.020). Conclusions Sacubitril/valsartan reduced the incidence of investigator-reported ventricular arrhythmias in patients with HFrEF. This effect may have been greater in patients with a non-ischaemic aetiology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) lacks effective treatments. Based on preclinical studies, neladenoson bialanate, a first-in-class partial adenosine A1 receptor agonist, has the potential to improve several heart failure-related cardiac and noncardiac abnormalities but has not been evaluated to treat HFpEF.Objectives: To determine whether neladenoson improves exercise capacity, physical activity, cardiac biomarkers, and quality of life in patients with HFpEF and to find the optimal dose.Design, Setting, and Participants: Phase 2b randomized clinical trial conducted at 76 centers in the United States, Europe, and Japan. Patients (N = 305) with New York Heart Association class II or III HFpEF with elevated natriuretic peptide levels were enrolled between May 10, 2017, and December 7, 2017 (date of final follow-up: June 20, 2018).Interventions: Participants were randomized (1:2:2:2:2:3) to neladenoson (n = 27 [5 mg], n = 50 [10 mg], n = 51 [20 mg], n = 50 [30 mg], and n = 51 [40 mg]) or matching placebo (n = 76) for 20 weeks of treatment.Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was change in 6-minute walk test distance from baseline to 20 weeks (minimal clinically important difference, 40 m). Key safety measures included bradyarrhythmias and adverse events. To evaluate the effects of varying doses of neladenoson, a multiple comparison procedure with 5 modeling techniques (linear, Emax, 2 variations of sigmoidal Emax, and quadratic) was used to evaluate diverse dose-response profiles.Results: Among 305 patients who were randomized (mean age, 74 years; 160 [53%] women; mean 6-minute walk test distance, 321.5 m), 261 (86%) completed the trial and were included in the primary analysis. After 20 weeks of treatment, the mean absolute changes from baseline in 6-minute walk test distance were 0.2 m (95% CI, -12.1 to 12.4 m) for the placebo group; 19.4 m (95% CI, -10.8 to 49.7 m) for the 5 mg of neladenoson group; 29.4 m (95% CI, 3.0 to 55.8 m) for 10 mg of neladenoson group; 13.8 m (95% CI, -2.3 to 29.8 m) for 20 mg of neladenoson group; 16.3 m (95% CI, -1.1 to 33.6 m) for 30 mg of neladenoson group; and 13.0 m (95% CI, -5.9 to 31.9 m) for 40 mg of neladenoson group. Because none of the neladenoson groups achieved the clinically relevant 40-m increase in 6-minute walk test distance from baseline, an optimal dose of neladenoson was not identified. There was no significant dose-response relationship for the change in 6-minute walk test distance among the 5 different dose-response models (P = .05 for Emax; P = .18 for quadratic; P = .21 for sigmoidal Emax 1; P = .39 for linear; and P = .52 for sigmoidal Emax 2). Serious adverse events were similar among the neladenoson groups (61/229 [26.6%]) and the placebo group (21/76 [27.6%]).Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with HFpEF, there was no significant dose-response relationship detected for neladenoson with regard to the change in exercise capacity from baseline to 20 weeks. In light of these findings, novel approaches will be needed if further development of neladenoson for the treatment of patients with HFpEF is pursued.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03098979. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: We tested the hypothesis that candesartan improves outcomes in heart failure (HF) with mid-range ejection fraction [HFmrEF; ejection fraction (EF) 40-49%].Methods and Results: In 7598 patients enrolled in the CHARM Programme (HF across the spectrum of EF), we assessed characteristics, outcomes and treatment effect of candesartan according to EF. Patients with HFmrEF (n = 1322, 17%) were similar to those with HF with reduced EF (HFrEF; n = 4323, 57%) with respect to some characteristics, and intermediate between HFrEF and HF with preserved EF (HFpEF; n = 1953, 26%) with respect to others. Over a mean follow-up of 2.9 years, the incidence rates for the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization were 15.9, 8.5 and 8.9 per 100 patient-years in HFrEF, HFmrEF and HFpEF. In adjusted analyses, the rates of the primary outcome declined with increasing EF up to 50%. For treatment effect, the incidence rates for the primary outcome for candesartan vs. placebo were 14.4 vs. 17.5 per 100 patient-years in HFrEF [hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-0.91; P < 0.001], 7.4 vs. 9.7 per 100 patient-years in HFmrEF (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61-0.96; P = 0.02), and 8.6 vs. 9.1 per 100 patient-years in HFpEF (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.79-1.14; P = 0.57). For recurrent HF hospitalization, the incidence rate ratios were 0.68 in HFrEF (95% CI 0.58-0.80; P < 0.001), 0.48 in HFmrEF (95% CI 0.33-0.70; P < 0.001), and 0.78 in HFpEF (95% CI 0.59-1.03; P = 0.08). With EF as a continuous spline variable, candesartan significantly reduced the primary outcome until EF well over 50% and recurrent HF hospitalizations until EF well over 60%.Conclusion: Candesartan improved outcomes in HFmrEF to a similar degree as in HFrEF. ClinicalTrials.gov: CHARM Alternative NCT00634400, CHARM Added NCT00634309, CHARM Preserved NCT00634712. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Recurrent hospitalizations are a major part of the disease burden in heart failure (HF), but conventional analyses consider only the first event. We compared the effect of sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril on recurrent events, incorporating all HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular (CV) deaths in PARADIGM-HF, using a variety of statistical approaches advocated for this type of analysis.Methods and Results: In PARADIGM-HF, a total of 8399 patients were randomized and followed for a median of 27 months. We applied various recurrent event analyses, including a negative binomial model, the Wei, Lin and Weissfeld (WLW), and Lin, Wei, Ying and Yang (LWYY) methods, and a joint frailty model, all adjusted for treatment and region. Among a total of 3181 primary endpoint events (including 1251 CV deaths) during the trial, only 2031 (63.8%) were first events (836 CV deaths). Among a total of 1195 patients with at least one HF hospitalization, 410 (34%) had at least one further HF hospitalization. Sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril reduced the risk of recurrent HF hospitalization using the negative binomial model [rate ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67-0.89], the WLW method [hazard ratio (HR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.71-0.89], the LWYY method (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68-0.90), and the joint frailty model (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.66-0.86) (all P < 0.001). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril on recurrent HF hospitalizations/CV death was similar.Conclusions: In PARADIGM-HF, approximately one third of patients with a primary endpoint (time-to-first) experienced a further event. Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan reduced both first and recurrent events. The treatment effect size was similar, regardless of the statistical approach applied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]