Search

Sacubitril-Valsartan in Acute Myocardial Infarction In a randomized trial, 5661 patients with acute myocardial infarction and a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, pulmonary congestion, or both were assigned to receive either sacubitril-valsartan or ramipril. At a median of 22 months, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the incidence of death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure. Background In patients with symptomatic heart failure, sacubitril-valsartan has been found to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death from cardiovascular causes more effectively than an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor. Trials comparing the effects of these drugs in patients with acute myocardial infarction have been lacking. Methods We randomly assigned patients with myocardial infarction complicated by a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, pulmonary congestion, or both to receive either sacubitril-valsartan (97 mg of sacubitril and 103 mg of valsartan twice daily) or ramipril (5 mg twice daily) in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure (outpatient symptomatic heart failure or heart failure leading to hospitalization), whichever occurred first. Results A total of 5661 patients underwent randomization; 2830 were assigned to receive sacubitril-valsartan and 2831 to receive ramipril. Over a median of 22 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 338 patients (11.9%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 373 patients (13.2%) in the ramipril group (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 1.04; P=0.17). Death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 308 patients (10.9%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 335 patients (11.8%) in the ramipril group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.07); death from cardiovascular causes in 168 (5.9%) and 191 (6.7%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.08); and death from any cause in 213 (7.5%) and 242 (8.5%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.05). Treatment was discontinued because of an adverse event in 357 patients (12.6%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 379 patients (13.4%) in the ramipril group. Conclusions Sacubitril-valsartan was not associated with a significantly lower incidence of death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure than ramipril among patients with acute myocardial infarction. (Funded by Novartis; PARADISE-MI ClinicalTrials.gov number, .)

Background—Excessive alcohol consumption is associated with cardiomyopathy, but the influence of moderate alcohol use on cardiac structure and function is largely unknown.\ud \ud Methods and Results—We studied 4466 participants from visit 5 of the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study (76±5 years and 60% women) who underwent transthoracic echocardiography, excluding former drinkers and those with significant valvular disease. Participants were classified into 4 categories based on self-reported alcohol intake: nondrinkers, drinkers of ≤7, ≥7 to 14, and ≥14 drinks per week. We related alcohol intake to measures of cardiac structure and function, stratified by sex, and fully adjusted for covariates. In both genders, increasing alcohol intake was associated with larger left ventricular diastolic and systolic diameters and larger left atrial diameter (P

Background: \ud The angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril–valsartan led to a reduced risk of hospitalization for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes among patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. The effect of angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibition in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is unclear.\ud \ud Methods: \ud We randomly assigned 4822 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II to IV heart failure, ejection fraction of 45% or higher, elevated level of natriuretic peptides, and structural heart disease to receive sacubitril–valsartan (target dose, 97 mg of sacubitril with 103 mg of valsartan twice daily) or valsartan (target dose, 160 mg twice daily). The primary outcome was a composite of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. Primary outcome components, secondary outcomes (including NYHA class change, worsening renal function, and change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire [KCCQ] clinical summary score [scale, 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating fewer symptoms and physical limitations]), and safety were also assessed.\ud \ud Results: \ud There were 894 primary events in 526 patients in the sacubitril–valsartan group and 1009 primary events in 557 patients in the valsartan group (rate ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 1.01; P=0.06). The incidence of death from cardiovascular causes was 8.5% in the sacubitril–valsartan group and 8.9% in the valsartan group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.16); there were 690 and 797 total hospitalizations for heart failure, respectively (rate ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.00). NYHA class improved in 15.0% of the patients in the sacubitril–valsartan group and in 12.6% of those in the valsartan group (odds ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.86); renal function worsened in 1.4% and 2.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.77). The mean change in the KCCQ clinical summary score at 8 months was 1.0 point (95% CI, 0.0 to 2.1) higher in the sacubitril–valsartan group. Patients in the sacubitril–valsartan group had a higher incidence of hypotension and angioedema and a lower incidence of hyperkalemia. Among 12 prespecified subgroups, there was suggestion of heterogeneity with possible benefit with sacubitril–valsartan in patients with lower ejection fraction and in women.\ud \ud Conclusions: \ud Sacubitril–valsartan did not result in a significantly lower rate of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes among patients with heart failure and an ejection fraction of 45% or higher. (Funded by Novartis; PARAGON-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01920711.)

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality are higher among patients with type 2 diabetes, particularly those with concomitant cardiovascular diseases, than in most other populations. We assessed the effects of lixisenatide, a glucagon-like peptide 1-receptor agonist, on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes who had had a recent acute coronary event.METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes who had had a myocardial infarction or who had been hospitalized for unstable angina within the previous 180 days to receive lixisenatide or placebo in addition to locally determined standards of care. The trial was designed with adequate statistical power to assess whether lixisenatide was noninferior as well as superior to placebo, as defined by an upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio of less than 1.3 and 1.0, respectively, for the primary composite end point of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina.RESULTS: The 6068 patients who underwent randomization were followed for a median of 25 months. A primary end-point event occurred in 406 patients (13.4%) in the lixisenatide group and in 399 (13.2%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89 to 1.17), which showed the noninferiority of lixisenatide to placebo (PCONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes and a recent acute coronary syndrome, the addition of lixisenatide to usual care did not significantly alter the rate of major cardiovascular events or other serious adverse events. (Funded by Sanofi; ELIXA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01147250.).

Background: In patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease is common and associated with a higher risk of renal events than in patients without chronic kidney disease. We assessed the renal effects of angiotensin/neprilysin inhibition in patients who have heart failure with preserved ejection fraction enrolled in the PARAGON-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction). Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, event-driven trial, we assigned 4822 patients who had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction to receive sacubitril/valsartan (n=2419) or valsartan (n=2403). Herein, we present the results of the prespecified renal composite outcome (time to first occurrence of either: ≥50% reduction in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), end-stage renal disease, or death from renal causes), the individual components of this composite, and the influence of therapy on eGFR slope. Results: At randomization, eGFR was 63±19 mL·min –1 ·1.73 m – 2. At study closure, the composite renal outcome occurred in 33 patients (1.4%) assigned to sacubitril/valsartan and 64 patients (2.7%) assigned to valsartan (hazard ratio, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.33–0.77]; P =0.001). The treatment effect on the composite renal end point did not differ according to the baseline eGFR (–1 ·1.73 m –2 ( P -interaction=0.92). The decline in eGFR was less for sacubitril/valsartan than for valsartan (–2.0 [95% CI, –2.2 to –1.9] versus –2.7 [95% CI, –2.8 to –2.5] mL·min –1 ·1.73 m –2 per year). Conclusions: In patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the risk of renal events, and slowed decline in eGFR, in comparison with valsartan. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01920711.

Ovo istraživačko pismo prikazuje detaljniju analizu kliničkih ishoda u kliničkom ispitivanju PARADISE- MI.

Background Little is known about the impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods and Results We examined outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, according to COPD status, in the PARAGON‐HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial. The primary outcome was a composite of first and recurrent hospitalizations for heart failure and cardiovascular death. Of 4791 patients, 670 (14%) had COPD. Patients with COPD were more likely to be men (58% versus 47%; P P P Conclusions Approximately 1 in 7 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction had concomitant COPD, which was associated with greater functional limitation and a higher risk of heart failure hospitalization and death. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01920711 .

Aims: Patients with heart failure are at higher risk of progression to end-stage renal disease (ESRD), regardless of ejection fraction (EF). We assessed the renal effects of angiotensin–neprilysin inhibition in a pooled analysis of 13 195 patients with heart failure with reduced and preserved EF. Methods and results: We combined data from PARADIGM-HF (EF ≤40%; n = 8399) and PARAGON-HF (EF ≥45%; n = 4796) in a pre-specified pooled analysis. We assessed the effect of treatment (sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril or valsartan) on a composite of either ≥50% reduction in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), ESRD, or death from renal causes, in addition to changes in eGFR slope. We assessed whether baseline renal function or EF modified the effect of therapy on renal outcomes. At randomization, eGFR was 68 ± 20 ml/min/1.73 m2 in PARADIGM-HF and 63 ± 19 ml/min/1.73 m2 in PARAGON-HF. The composite renal outcome occurred in 70 of 6594 patients (1.1%) in the sacubitril/valsartan group and in 123 of 6601 patients (1.9%) in the valsartan or enalapril group (hazard ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42–0.75; p < 0.001). The mean eGFR change was −1.8 (95% CI −1.9 to −1.7) ml/min/1.73 m2/year for the sacubitril/valsartan group, compared with −2.4 (95% CI −2.5 to −2.2) ml/min/1.73 m2/year for the valsartan or enalapril group. The treatment effect on the composite renal endpoint was not modified by categories of baseline eGFR (p-interaction = 0.64), but was most pronounced in those with baseline EF between 30% and 60% (p-interaction = 0.001). Conclusions: In patients with heart failure, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the risk of serious adverse renal outcomes and slowed decline in eGFR, compared with valsartan or enalapril, independent of baseline renal function.

Background: While disease-modifying therapies exist for heart failure (HF) with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), few options are available for patients in the higher range of LVEF (>40%). Sacubitril/valsartan has been compared with a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone–system inhibitor alone in 2 similarly designed clinical trials of patients with reduced and preserved LVEF, permitting examination of its effects across the full spectrum of LVEF. Methods: We combined data from PARADIGM-HF (LVEF eligibility≤40%; n=8399) and PARAGON-HF (LVEF eligibility≥45%; n=4796) in a prespecified pooled analysis. We divided randomized patients into LVEF categories: ≤22.5% (n=1269), >22.5% to 32.5% (n=3987), >32.5% to 42.5% (n=3143), > 42.5% to 52.5% (n=1427), > 52.5% to 62.5% (n=2166), and >62.5% (n=1202). We assessed time to first cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization, its components, and total heart failure hospitlizations, all-cause mortality, and noncardiovascular mortality. Incidence rates and treatment effects were examined across categories of LVEF. Results: Among 13 195 randomized patients, we observed lower rates of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization, but similar rates of noncardiovascular death, among patients in the highest versus the lowest groups. Overall sacubitril/valsartan was superior to renin-angiotensin-aldosterone–system inhibition for first cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization (Hazard Ratio [HR] 0.84 [95% CI, 0.78–0.90]), cardiovascular death (HR 0.84 [95% CI, 0.76–0.92]), heart failure hospitalization (HR 0.84 [95% CI, 0.77–0.91]), and all-cause mortality (HR 0.88 [95% CI, 0.81–0.96]). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan was modified by LVEF (treatment-by-continuous LVEF interaction P =0.02), and benefit appeared to be present for individuals with EF primarily below the normal range, although the treatment benefit for cardiovascular death diminished at a lower ejection fraction. We observed effect modification by LVEF on the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan in both men and women with respect to composite total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death, although women derived benefit to higher ejection fractions. Conclusions: The therapeutic effects of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone–system inhibitor alone, vary by LVEF with treatment benefits, particularly for heart failure hospitalization, that appear to extend to patients with heart failure and mildly reduced ejection fraction. These therapeutic benefits appeared to extend to a higher LVEF range in women compared with men. Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifiers: NCT01920711 (PARAGON-HF), NCT01035255 (PARADIGM-HF).

Sacubitril-Valsartan in Acute Myocardial Infarction In a randomized trial, 5661 patients with acute myocardial infarction and a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, pulmonary congestion, or both were assigned to receive either sacubitril-valsartan or ramipril. At a median of 22 months, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the incidence of death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure. Background In patients with symptomatic heart failure, sacubitril-valsartan has been found to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death from cardiovascular causes more effectively than an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor. Trials comparing the effects of these drugs in patients with acute myocardial infarction have been lacking. Methods We randomly assigned patients with myocardial infarction complicated by a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, pulmonary congestion, or both to receive either sacubitril-valsartan (97 mg of sacubitril and 103 mg of valsartan twice daily) or ramipril (5 mg twice daily) in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure (outpatient symptomatic heart failure or heart failure leading to hospitalization), whichever occurred first. Results A total of 5661 patients underwent randomization ; 2830 were assigned to receive sacubitril-valsartan and 2831 to receive ramipril. Over a median of 22 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 338 patients (11.9%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 373 patients (13.2%) in the ramipril group (hazard ratio, 0.90 ; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 1.04 ; P=0.17). Death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 308 patients (10.9%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 335 patients (11.8%) in the ramipril group (hazard ratio, 0.91 ; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.07) ; death from cardiovascular causes in 168 (5.9%) and 191 (6.7%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.87 ; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.08) ; and death from any cause in 213 (7.5%) and 242 (8.5%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88 ; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.05). Treatment was discontinued because of an adverse event in 357 patients (12.6%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 379 patients (13.4%) in the ramipril group. Conclusions Sacubitril- valsartan was not associated with a significantly lower incidence of death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure than ramipril among patients with acute myocardial infarction. (Funded by Novartis ; PARADISE-MI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02924727.)