Search

Background Optimal medical treatment can lead to improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with heart failure with reduced EF (HFrEF). We investigated the characteristics, predictors, and outcomes of HFrEF according to the 1‐year LVEF following angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors therapy (ARNI). Methods and Results Using the STRATS‐HF‐ARNI (Strain for Risk Assessment and Therapeutic Strategies in Patients With Heart Failure Treated With Angiotensin Receptor‐Neprilysin Inhibitor) registry, we identified 1074 patients with HFrEF who took ARNI and underwent baseline and 1‐year echocardiography. Patients were classified as HF with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) and persistent HFrEF (perHFrEF) (1‐year LVEF >40% and ≤40%). The primary and secondary outcomes were all‐cause and cardiac mortality from the 1‐year follow‐up. Among 1074 included patients, 498 (46.4%) had HFimpEF, and 576 (53.6%) had perHFrEF. Older age, male sex, and large LV end‐diastolic volumes were positive predictors of perHFrEF, whereas atrial fibrillation and high systolic blood pressure were identified as inverse predictors. Patients with HFimpEF showed lower all‐cause and cardiac mortality rates (both log‐rank P

Abstract Aims Recent updates of international treatment guidelines for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) differ regarding the use of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) as first‐line treatment. The American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Failure Society of America (AHA/ACC/HFSA) 2022 guidelines gives ARNI a Class IA recommendation for HFrEF patients while the European Society of Cardiology's guidelines are less clear when ARNI could be considered as first line treatment option in de novo patients. This study aimed to model the clinical and budgetary outcomes of implementing these guidelines, comparing conservative ARNI prescription patterns with less conservative in Sweden and in the United Kingdom. Methods and results A health economic model was developed to compare different treatment patterns for HFrEF. Incident cohorts were included on an annual basis and followed over 10 years. The model included treatment specific all‐cause mortality and hospitalization rates, as well as drug acquisition, monitoring, and hospitalization costs. Increasing the use of ARNI could lead to about 7000–12 300 life years gained and 2600–4600 hospitalizations prevented in Sweden. These health benefits come with an additional cost of 112–195 million euros. Similar results were estimated for the United Kingdom, albeit on a larger population. Conclusions Increasing the proportion of patients receiving ARNI instead of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors as first‐line treatment of HFrEF will lead to a considerable number of additional life years gained and prevented hospitalizations but with additional cost in terms of health care expenditure in Sweden and in the United Kingdom.

Background Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction is associated with potentially deleterious imbalance of the cardiac autonomic nervous system. Sacubitril/valsartan (angiotensin receptor‐neprilysin inhibitor [ARNI]) reduces cardiovascular mortality and hospitalization for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Whether ARNI affects the cardiac autonomic nervous system has not been studied. Methods and Results This investigator‐initiated, prospective, single‐center cohort study compared heart rate (HR) variability, HR, deceleration capacity, and periodic repolarization dynamics as noninvasive measures of the cardiac autonomic nervous system before and after initiation of ARNI therapy. Patients underwent standardized 12‐lead Holter‐ECG, echocardiography and laboratory testing before and 3 months after start of therapy. End points were changes in HR variability (SD of normal‐to‐normal intervals, mean square of differences between consecutive R‐R intervals), HR, deceleration capacity, and periodic repolarization dynamics as well as ventricular function and NT‐proBNP (N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide). Of 63 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction enrolled, 48 (76.2%) patients were still on ARNI at follow‐up. SD of normal‐to‐normal intervals increased from 25 to 36 milliseconds (P

Abstract Aims ARIADNE aimed to assess the association between effects of sacubitril/valsartan and no sacubitril/valsartan treatment and clinical characteristics, functional capacity, and clinical outcomes (cause‐specific mortality and hospitalizations) in outpatients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods ARIADNE was a prospective European registry of 9069 patients with HFrEF treated by office‐based cardiologists or selected primary care physicians. Of the 8787 eligible for analysis, 4173 patients were on conventional HF treatment (non‐S/V group), whereas 4614 patients were either on sacubitril/valsartan treatment at enrolment or started sacubitril/valsartan within 1 month of enrolment (S/V group). We also generated a restricted analysis set (rS/V) including only those 2108 patients who started sacubitril/valsartan treatment within the month prior to or after enrolment. Results At the baseline, average age of patients enrolled in the study was 68 years, and 23.9% (2099/8787) were female. At the baseline, the proportions of patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class III symptoms were 30.9 (1288/4173), 42.8 (1974/4614), and 48.2% (1015/2108), in non‐S/V, S/V, and rS/V groups, respectively. After 12 months of treatment, the proportion of patients with NYHA Class III at baseline who improved to Class II was 32.0% (290/907) in the non‐S/V group vs. 46.3% (648/1399) in S/V group and 48.7% (349/717) in rS/V group. The overall mortality rate was 5.0 per 100 patient‐years. Rates of HF hospitalizations were high (20.9, 20.3, and 21.2 per 100 patient‐years in the non‐S/V, S/V, and rS/V groups, respectively). Emergency room visits without hospitalization occurred in 3.9, 3.2, and 3.9% of patients in the non‐S/V, S/V, and rS/V groups, respectively. Conclusions This large HFrEF European registry provides a contemporary outcome profile of outpatients with HFrEF treated with or without sacubitril/valsartan. In a real‐world setting, sacubitril/valsartan was associated with an improvement of symptoms in patients with HFrEF compared with the conventional HFrEF treatment.

Abstract Aims The angiotensin receptor‐neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) demonstrated to be superior to enalapril in reducing hospitalizations, cardiovascular and all‐cause mortality in patients with ambulatory heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), in particular when it is maximally up‐titrated. Unfortunately, the target dose is achieved in less than 50% of HFrEF patients, thus undermining the beneficial effects on the outcomes. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the role of Sac/Val and its titration dose on reverse cardiac remodelling and determine which echocardiographic index best predicts the up‐titration success. Methods and results From January 2020 to June 2021, we retrospectively identified 95 patients (65.6 [59.1–72.8] years; 15.8% females) with chronic HFrEF who were prescribed Sac/Val from the HF Clinics of 5 Italian University Hospitals and evaluated the tolerability of Sac/Val high dose (the ability of the patient to achieve and stably tolerate the maximum dose) as the primary endpoint in the cohort. We used a multivariable logistic regression analysis, with a stepwise backward selection method, to determine the independent predictors of Sac/Val maximum dose tolerability, using, as candidate predictors, only variables with a P‐value < 0.1 in the univariate analyses. Candidate predictors identified for the multivariable backward logistic regression analysis were age, sex, body mass index (BMI), chronic kidney disease (CKD), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), dyslipidaemia, atrial fibrillation, systolic blood pressure (SBP), baseline tolerability of ACEi/ARBs maximum dose, left ventricle global longitudinal strain (LVgLS), LV ejection fraction (EF), tricuspid annulus plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), right ventricle (RV) fractional area change (FAC), RV global and free wall longitudinal strain (RVgLS and RV‐FW‐LS). After the multivariable analysis, only one categorical (ACEi/ARBs maximum dose at baseline) and three continuous (younger age, higher SBP, and higher TAPSE), resulted significantly associated with the study outcome variable with a strong discriminatory capacity (area under the curve 0.874, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.794–0.954) to predict maximum Sac/Val dose tolerability. Conclusions Our study is the first to analyse the potential role of echocardiography and, in particular, of RV dysfunction, measured by TAPSE, in predicting Sac/Val maximum dose tolerability. Therefore, patients with RV dysfunction (baseline TAPSE

Abstract Aims Prior studies have not fully characterized the haemodynamic effects of the angiotensin receptor‐neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and pulmonary hypertension (HFpEF–PH). The aim of the Treatment of PH With Angiotensin II Receptor Blocker and Neprilysin Inhibitor in HFpEF Patients With CardioMEMS Device (ARNIMEMS‐HFpEF) study is to assess pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) dynamics by means of implanted PAP monitors in patients with HFpEF–PH treated with sacubitril/valsartan. Methods and results This single‐arm, investigator‐initiated, interventional study included 14 consecutive ambulatory symptomatic HFpEF–PH patients who underwent CardioMEMS implantation prior to enrolment [mean ejection fraction 60.4 ± 7.2%, baseline mean PAP (mPAP) 33.9 ± 7.6 mmHg]. Daily PAP values were examined during three periods: a 6 week period after CardioMEMS implantation and before sacubitril/valsartan treatment (pre‐ARNI), a 6 week period with sacubitril/valsartan treatment (ARNI ON), and a 6 week period of sacubitril/valsartan withdrawal (ARNI OFF). The primary endpoint was change in mPAP with and without sacubitril/valsartan. Secondary endpoints included changes in 6 min walking distance, B‐line sum in lung ultrasound, and quality of life (QoL). During the study period, 1717 mPAP measurements were recorded. Between pre‐ARNI vs. ARNI ON, mPAP significantly declined by −4.99 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI) −5.55 to −4.43]. Between ARNI ON vs. ARNI OFF, mPAP significantly increased by +2.84 mmHg [95% CI +2.26 to +3.42]. Between pre‐ARNI vs. ARNI ON, we found an improvement in 6 min walking distance, B‐lines, and QoL. Mean loop diuretic management did not differ between periods. Conclusions Sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced mPAP in patients with HFpEF–PH, independent of loop diuretic management, together with improvement in functional capacity, lung congestion, and QoL. Sacubitril/valsartan may be a therapeutic alternative in HFpEF–PH.

Abstract Aims To assess the effect of angiotensin receptor blockers/neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) on left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF) and LV dimensions in a real‐life cohort of heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients, while analysing patient characteristics that may predict reverse LV remodelling. Methods and results The ARNI‐treated HFrEF patients followed at a single tertiary medical centre HF‐outpatient clinic were included in the study. Clinical and echocardiographic parameters were evaluated prior to ARNI initiation, and while on ARNI therapy, assessing patient characteristics associated with reverse LV remodelling. The cohort included 91 patients (mean age 60.5 years, 90% male) and 47 (52%) patients exhibited ARNI responsiveness, defined as an increase in LVEF during therapy. Overall, LVEF increased by 19% post‐ARNI (23.8 to 28.4%, P

Abstract Aims We systematically reviewed the European real‐world evidence (RWE) about sacubitril‐valsartan for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Methods and results Twenty‐one articles, including 16 952 subjects, were identified until 31 October 2020. Taking as reference the PARADIGM‐HF cohort, few baseline characteristics were presented in >80% of these studies, most often with high heterogeneity. In random‐effects model meta‐analysis, age was higher (mean difference +3.84, 95% CI 1.92–5.76), ischaemic aetiology (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64–0.91), hypertension (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.37–0.82), and diabetes (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64–0.92) were less common, and the use of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists was more frequent (OR 3.54, 95% CI 2.27–5.53) in real‐life than in PARADIGM‐HF. Other clinical and medical features were presented in 19–76% of the selected publications and suggested more severe heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Sacubitril‐valsartan was titrated to 97/103 mg b.i.d. in 35% (95% CI 23–47) and discontinued in 12.8% (95% CI 7.4–18.3) patients. When reported, the incidence of hyperkalaemia (six studies, no. 1076), all‐cause mortality (five studies, no. 684), and any hospitalization (three studies, no. 390) was 12 (95% CI 5–19)/100 person‐year, 8 (95% CI 4–12)/100 person‐year, and 24 (95% CI 5–42)/100 person‐year, respectively. Knowledge contribution, a metric measuring the proportion of RWE provided by each article based on the number of reported variables and the sample size, was 58.8% and 13.6% for the two biggest investigations (12 082 and 2037 patients), and

Background Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a chronic disease with substantial mortality. Management of HFrEF has seen significant breakthrough after the launch of neprilysin inhibitor. The PARADIGM‐HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impacton Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial showed that sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduces HFrEF mortality and the heart failure hospitalization rate. However, in patients with advanced kidney disease, who have the highest prevalence of heart failure, the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan remains uncertain. We aim to study the efficiency of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with end‐stage kidney disease. Methods and Results Heart function was screened by echocardiogram among all patients with end‐stage kidney disease in 2 hospitals. Patients with HFrEF received either sacubitril/valsartan or conventional treatment. Fifteen echocardiographic parameters were compared before and after treatment. After 1‐year sacubitril/valsartan treatment, parameters of systolic (left ventricular ejection fraction 31.3% to 45.1%, P

Abstract Aims As NEP degrades many substrates, the specific therapeutic mechanism of NEP inhibition with angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNi) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is not entirely evident. The aim of this study was to investigate the response of two substrates of NEP—the tachykinin and enkephalin systems—to the initiation of ARNi therapy in HFrEF. Methods and results Between 2016 and 2018, 141 consecutive patients with stable HFrEF [74 with initiation of ARNi and 67 controls on continuous angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) therapy] were prospectively enrolled. Plasma proenkephalin‐A 119‐159 (PENK) and pro‐substance P (pro‐SP) were serially determined. Proenkephalin‐A 119‐159 and pro‐SP correlated strongly with each other (rs = 0.67, P 0.05 between groups). Conclusions Although enkephalins and SP are known substrates of NEP, NEP inhibition by ARNi does not clearly affect the circulating precursors PENK and pro‐SP in HFrEF.

Abstract Sacubitril/valsartan has been shown to reduce cardiovascular mortality and hospitalizations in patients with HFrEF when compared to enalapril. There are also some evidences of its potential antiarrhythmic effects. We present a report where we found a relation between reverse ventricular remodeling and arrhythmic reduction in a patient treated with sacubitril/valsartan.

Abstract Aims The introduction of sacubitril/valsartan (an angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor) is likely to change the approach to the management of patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The Assessment of Real Life Care–Describing European Heart Failure Management (ARIADNE) registry will evaluate patient characteristics, practice patterns, outcomes, and healthcare resource utilization in the outpatient setting across Europe, with the main focus on factors that guide physicians' decisions to start and continue sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFrEF. Methods and results ARIADNE, a prospective, observational registry will enrol 9000 ambulatory patients with HFrEF in 23 European countries Supplement 1. The study will describe 4500 patients treated with conventional treatment (including an angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker), and 4500 patients started on sacubitril/valsartan. In each country, patients will be enrolled consecutively over an expected period of 12 months, and followed‐up for 12 months. The primary objective is to describe the baseline clinical and demographic characteristics of patients with chronic HFrEF, which guide the decision of the treating physician to initiate sacubitril/valsartan or to continue conventional treatment. A co‐primary objective is to identify the baseline characteristics that are associated with the likelihood of reaching the target dose of sacubitril/valsartan 97/103 mg twice daily during follow‐up. Conclusions The ARIADNE registry will provide a comprehensive profile of patients with chronic HFrEF in Europe, will elucidate how management varies between countries, and will help clarify the usage and outcomes associated with use of sacubitril/valsartan in real life.

Abstract The mechanisms for the benefits of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibition (ARNi) in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are likely beyond blood pressure reduction. Measures of vascular function such as arterial stiffness and endothelial function are strong prognostic markers of cardiovascular outcomes in HFrEF, yet the impact of ARNi on vascular health remains to be explored. We hypothesized that arterial stiffness and endothelial function would improve after 12 weeks of ARNi in HFrEF. We tested 10 stable HFrEF patients at baseline and following 12 weeks of ARNi [64 ± 9 years, Men/Women: 9/1, left ventricular ejection fraction (EF): 28 ± 6%] as well as 10 stable HFrEF patients that remained on conventional treatment (CON: 60 ± 7 years, Men/Women: 6/4, EF: 31 ± 5%; all p = NS). Arterial stiffness was assessed via carotid‐femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) and endothelial function was assessed via brachial artery flow‐mediated dilation (FMD). PWV decreased after 12 weeks of ARNi (9.0 ± 2.1 vs. 7.1 ± 1.2 m/s; p

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., (© 2024 European Society of Cardiology.)

Abstract The aim of this report is to describe the feasibility and tolerability of medical treatment with sacubitril/valsartan in a patient treated with hemodialysis. We describe the case of a 67‐year‐old man with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction due to an ischemic cardiomyopathy and renal insufficiency undergoing hemodialysis. Because of worsening heart failure with no other therapeutic options, a treatment with sacubitril/valsartan was started. Although this patient had a very low systolic blood pressure, he could tolerate a moderate dose of 49/51 mg twice daily. After initiation of sacubitril/valsartan, there was a symptomatic improvement with a clear reduction NT‐proBNP, accompanied by a decrease in filling pressures. In conclusion, in this patient with severe heart failure undergoing hemodialysis, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan was feasible, safe, and improved heart failure symptoms.

Aim: We assessed a subset of the 5040 patients in VICTORIA receiving sacubitril/valsartan, either at randomization (n = 731) or post-randomization drop-in use (n = 425), to evaluate the relationship between the efficacy and safety of combination therapy with vericiguat., Methods and Results: The efficacy of vericiguat on the primary composite endpoint, heart failure (HF) hospitalization, and all-cause mortality was assessed. Safety outcomes included symptomatic hypotension, syncope, worsening renal function, and hyperkalaemia. At randomization, 731 patients received sacubitril/valsartan; they were more frequently from Western Europe or North America, had lower ejection fraction and systolic blood pressure, and more use of triple background HF therapy (65.9% vs. 58.6%), biventricular pacemakers (17.9% vs. 14.1%), or implantable cardioverter defibrillators (42.3% vs. 25.3%). For patients on versus not on sacubitril/valsartan at randomization, adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for vericiguat's treatment effect on the primary composite outcome, cardiovascular death, and HF hospitalization were 0.92 (0.71-1.19) versus 0.89 (0.80-0.98), 0.71 (0.45-1.12) versus 0.95 (0.82-1.11), and 0.98 (0.74-1.29) versus 0.87 (0.78-0.98), respectively. No significant interaction existed between sacubitril/valsartan and vericiguat's treatment effect (p-values for interaction: 0.81, 0.23 and 0.47, respectively). Post-randomization, more drop-in sacubitril/valsartan use occurred in those assigned to placebo (n = 238) versus vericiguat (n = 187) (p = 0.007). Symptomatic hypotension (21.0% vs. 23.1%; p = 0.41), renal dysfunction (29.9% vs. 31.9%; p = 0.50), and hyperkalaemia (10.3% vs. 7.9%; p = 0.20) in patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan (n = 992) for ≥3 months were not different by treatment arm., Conclusions: Concomitant use of sacubitril/valsartan for at least 3 months did not alter the efficacy of vericiguat and was similarly safe and tolerated in both study arms. Sacubitril/valsartan was initiated more frequently after randomization in patients assigned to placebo versus vericiguat., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02861534., (© 2022 European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Inhibition of neprilysin, an enzyme degrading natriuretic and other vasoactive peptides, is beneficial in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), as shown in PARADIGM-HF which compared the angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan with enalapril. As neprilysin is also one of many enzymes clearing amyloid-β peptides from the brain, there is a theoretical concern about the long-term effects of sacubitril/valsartan on cognition. Therefore, we have examined dementia-related adverse effects (AEs) in PARADIGM-HF and placed these findings in the context of other recently conducted HFrEF trials., Methods and Results: In PARADIGM-HF, patients with symptomatic HFrEF were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan 97/103 mg b.i.d. or enalapril 10 mg b.i.d. in a 1:1 ratio. We systematically searched AE reports, coded using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA), using Standardized MedDRA Queries (SMQs) with 'broad' and 'narrow' preferred terms related to dementia. In PARADIGM-HF, 8399 patients aged 18-96 years were randomized and followed for a median of 2.25 years (up to 4.3 years). The narrow SMQ search identified 27 dementia-related AEs: 15 (0.36%) on enalapril and 12 (0.29%) on sacubitril/valsartan [hazard ratio (HR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33-1.59]. The broad search identified 97 (2.30%) and 104 (2.48%) AEs (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.75-1.37), respectively. The rates of dementia-related AEs in both treatment groups in PARADIGM-HF were similar to those in three other recent trials in HFrEF., Conclusion: We found no evidence that sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, increased dementia-related AEs, although longer follow-up may be necessary to detect such a signal and more sensitive tools are needed to detect lesser degrees of cognitive impairment. Further studies to address this question are warranted., (© 2016 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: To assess the tolerability of initiating/uptitrating sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) from 50 to 200 mg twice daily (target dose) over 3 and 6 weeks in heart failure (HF) patients (ejection fraction ≤35%)., Methods and Results: A 5-day open-label run-in (sacubitril/valsartan 50 mg twice daily) preceded an 11-week, double-blind, randomization period [100 mg twice daily for 2 weeks followed by 200 mg twice daily ('condensed' regimen) vs. 50 mg twice daily for 2 weeks, 100 mg twice daily for 3 weeks, followed by 200 mg twice daily ('conservative' regimen)]. Patients were stratified by pre-study dose of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin-receptor blocker (ACEI/ARB; low-dose stratum included ACEI/ARB-naïve patients). Of 540 patients entering run-in, 498 (92%) were randomized and 429 (86.1% of randomized) completed the study. Pre-defined tolerability criteria were hypotension, renal dysfunction and hyperkalaemia; and adjudicated angioedema, which occurred in ('condensed' vs. 'conservative') 9.7% vs. 8.4% (P = 0.570), 7.3% vs. 7.6% (P = 0.990), 7.7% vs. 4.4% (P = 0.114), and 0.0% vs. 0.8% of patients, respectively. Corresponding proportions for pre-defined systolic blood pressure <95 mmHg, serum potassium >5.5 mmol/L, and serum creatinine >3.0 mg/dL were 8.9% vs. 5.2% (P = 0.102), 7.3% vs. 4.0% (P = 0.097), and 0.4% vs. 0%, respectively. In total, 378 (76%) patients achieved and maintained sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg twice daily without dose interruption/down-titration over 12 weeks (77.8% vs. 84.3% for 'condensed' vs. 'conservative'; P = 0.078). Rates by ACEI/ARB pre-study dose stratification were 82.6% vs. 83.8% (P = 0.783) for high-dose/'condensed' vs. high-dose/'conservative' and 84.9% vs. 73.6% (P = 0.030) for low-dose/'conservative' vs. low-dose/'condensed'., Conclusions: Initiation/uptitration of sacubitril/valsartan from 50 to 200 mg twice daily over 3 or 6 weeks had a tolerability profile in line with other HF treatments. More gradual initiation/uptitration maximized attainment of target dose in the low-dose ACEI/ARB group., (© 2016 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)