Search

Background: A hypothetical concern has been raised that sacubitril/valsartan might cause cognitive impairment because neprilysin is one of several enzymes degrading amyloid-β peptides in the brain, some of which are neurotoxic and linked to Alzheimer-type dementia. To address this, we examined the effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan on cognitive function in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in a prespecified substudy of PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction)., Methods: In PARAGON-HF, serial assessment of cognitive function was conducted in a subset of patients with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE; score range, 0-30, with lower scores reflecting worse cognitive function). The prespecified primary analysis of this substudy was the change from baseline in MMSE score at 96 weeks. Other post hoc analyses included cognitive decline (fall in MMSE score of ≥3 points), cognitive impairment (MMSE score <24), or the occurrence of dementia-related adverse events., Results: Among 2895 patients included in the MMSE substudy with baseline MMSE score measured, 1453 patients were assigned to sacubitril/valsartan and 1442 to valsartan. Their mean age was 73 years, and the median follow-up was 32 months. The mean±SD MMSE score at randomization was 27.4±3.0 in the sacubitril/valsartan group, with 10% having an MMSE score <24; the corresponding numbers were nearly identical in the valsartan group. The mean change from baseline to 96 weeks in the sacubitril/valsartan group was -0.05 (SE, 0.07); the corresponding change in the valsartan group was -0.04 (0.07). The mean between-treatment difference at week 96 was -0.01 (95% CI, -0.20 to 0.19; P =0.95). Analyses of a ≥3-point decline in MMSE, decrease to a score <24, dementia-related adverse events, and combinations of these showed no difference between sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan. No difference was found in the subgroup of patients tested for apolipoprotein E ε4 allele genotype., Conclusions: Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in PARAGON-HF had relatively low baseline MMSE scores. Cognitive change, measured by MMSE, did not differ between treatment with sacubitril/valsartan and treatment with valsartan in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction., Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01920711., Competing Interests: Dr Jhund reports receiving grant support from Boehringer Ingelheim and fees for serving on an advisory board from Cytokinetics. Dr Anand reports receiving fees for serving on a steering committee from AstraZeneca, ARCA biopharma, Amgen, and LivaNova; fees for serving as chair of a data and safety monitoring board from Boston Scientific; fees for serving on an end-point committee from Boehringer Ingelheim; and fees for serving on an advisory board from Zensun. Dr Claggett received consulting fees from AOBiome, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corvia Medical, Gilead Sciences, and MyoKardia. Dr Desai received consulting fees from Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, DalCor Pharmaceuticals, and Regeneron; grant support, paid to Brigham and Women’s Hospital, consulting fees, and fees for serving on an advisory board from Alnylam Pharmaceuticals and AstraZeneca; consulting fees and fees for serving on a steering committee from Biofourmis; consulting fees and fees for serving on a data and safety monitoring committee from Boston Scientific; fees for serving on an advisory board from Corvidia; and fees for serving on an advisory board and consulting fees from Relypsa. Drs Chiang, Gong, and Lefkowitz are employed by Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Dr Lam received grant support and fees for serving on an advisory board from Boston Scientific and Roche Diagnostics; grant support, fees for serving on an advisory board, and fees for serving on steering committees from Bayer; grant support from Medtronics; grant support and fees for serving on a steering committee from Vifor Pharma; fees for serving on an advisory board and fees for serving on steering committees from AstraZeneca and Novartis; fees for serving on an advisory board from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Abbott Diagnostics; consulting fees from Merck and Stealth BioTherapeutics; fees for serving on a steering committee from Janssen Research and Development; lecture fees and consulting fees from Menarini; and fees for serving on a scientific committee from Corvia Medical and holding a pending patent (PCT/SG2016/050217) on a method regarding diagnosis and prognosis of chronic heart failure. Dr Maggioni received fees for serving on a study committee from Bayer and Fresenius. Dr Packer received consulting fees from AbbVie, Akcea Therapeutics, Actavis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardiorentis, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead Sciences, Johnson & Johnson, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Relypsa, Sanofi, Synthetic Biologics, and Theravance Biopharma. Dr Rouleau received consulting fees from AstraZeneca. Dr van Veldhuisen received fees for serving on a steering committee and travel support from ARCA Biopharma and Corvia Medical. Dr Zannad received fees for serving on a steering committee from Janssen, Bayer, Boston Scientific, CVRx, and Boehringer Ingelheim; consulting fees from Amgen, Vifor Pharma–Fresenius, Cardior, Cereno Pharmaceutical, Applied Therapeutics, and Merck; and consulting fees and fees for serving on a steering committee from AstraZeneca and serving as founder of cardiorenal and CVCT. Dr Zile received fees for serving on a steering committee from Abbott and Ironwood Pharma; consulting fees from Boston Scientific and MyoKardia; grant support and fees for serving on a steering committee from CVRx and Medtronic; fees for serving on an eligibility committee from EBR Systems and V-Wave; fees for serving on a clinical-events committee from Endotronics; and fees for serving on a data and safety monitoring board from Merck. Dr Solomon received grant support, paid to Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and consulting fees from Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, MyoKardia, Novartis, Theracos, Bayer, and Cytokinetics; grant support, paid to Brigham and Women’s Hospital, from Bellerophon Therapeutics, Celladon, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Lonestar Heart, Mesoblast, Sanofi Pasteur, and Eidos Therapeutics; consulting fees from Akros Pharma, Corvia Medical, Ironwood Pharma, Merck, Roche, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Quantum Genomics, AOBiome, Cardiac Dimensions, Tenaya Therapeutics, and Daiichi Sankyo; and fees for serving on a data and safety monitoring board from Janssen. Dr McMurray reports that his employer, Glasgow University, has been paid by Novartis for serving as an executive committee member and coprincipal investigator of ATMOSPHERE, PARADIGM-HF, and PARAGON-HF trials and executive/steering committee member of the PARADISE-MI and PERSPECTIVE trials (with sacubitril/valsartan) and for meetings/presentations related to these trials, aliskiren, and sacubitril-valsartan. Novartis has also paid for his travel and accommodation for some of these meetings. Glasgow University has also been paid by Novartis for advisory board; by Bayer for serving as a steering committee member of the PANACHE trial using neladenoson bialanate (BAY 1067197); by Cardiorentis for serving as a steering committee member and end-point committee chair for the TRUE-AHF trial and attending meetings related to this trial; by Cardiorentis for travel and accommodation to attend some of these meetings; by Amgen for serving as steering committee member for the ATOMIC-HF and COSMIC-HF trials and attending meetings related to this trial; by Amgen for travel and accommodation for some of these meetings; by Oxford University (which received a grant from Bayer, which manufactures acarbose) for serving as a steering committee member for the ACE trial (using acarbose) and attending meetings related to this trial; by Theracos for serving as principal investigator for the BEST trial and attending meetings related to this trial; by Theracos for travel and accommodation to attend some of these meetings; by Abbvie (which manufactures atrasentan) for serving as steering committee member for the SONAR trial (using atrasentan) and to attend meetings related to this trial; by Abbvie for his travel and accommodation to attend some of these meetings; by DalCor Pharmaceuticals for serving as steering committee member for the Dal-GenE trial and to attend meetings related to this trial; by Pfizer for serving on the data safety monitoring committee for the SPIRE trial and to attend meetings related to this trial; by Merck for serving on the data safety monitoring committee for the MK-3102 program, for the VICTORIA trial, and to attend meetings related to these trials; by AstraZeneca (which markets dapagliflozin) for serving as principal investigator of DAPA-HF and coprincipal investigator of DELIVER (trials using dapagliflozin on heart failure) and to attend meetings related trial; by AstraZeneca for his travel and accommodation to attend meetings; by GSK for serving as coprincipal investigator and steering committee member for the Harmony-Outcomes trial (albiglutide) and the trials ASCEND-D and ASCEND-ND, using daprodustat, respectively, and to attend meetings related to these trials; by GSK for his travel and accommodation to attend some of the meetings; by BMS for serving as a steering committee member for the STAND-UP clinical trial (using an HNO donor) on heart failure and to attend meetings related to this trial; and by Kings College Hospital (which has received a grant from KRUK and Vifor-Fresenius, which manufactures intravenous iron) for serving as steering committee member for the PIVOTAL trial (using intravenous iron) and for running the end-point adjudication committee for this trial, to attend meetings related to PIVOTAL, and for his travel and accommodation for to attend some of the meetings. All payments were made through consultancies with Glasgow University, and Dr McMurray has not received any personal payments in relation to the trials or drugs. The other authors report no conflicts. The study supporters had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

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.)., (Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Arterial stiffness is increased with increasing age, and pulse pressure (PP), a marker of arterial stiffness, is a predictor of incident cardiovascular disease and mortality. However, the prognostic relevance of PP in heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction has not been fully understood. We studied 4796 patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction from the PARAGON-HF trial. All patients underwent sequential run-in phases of valsartan and sacubitril/valsartan before randomization. We categorized patients by PP quartile and evaluated the influence of baseline PP on the PARAGON-HF primary end point (total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death). At screening, the median PP was 58 mm Hg (interquartile range, 50-69 mm Hg). There was a nonlinear, J-shaped association between PP and outcomes. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models showed that patients in the highest PP quartile had a higher risk of the primary end point (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.14-1.69]; P =0.001), total HF hospitalizations (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.15-1.79]; P =0.001), and myocardial infarction (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.06-2.23]; P =0.022) compared with those in the second (lowest risk) PP quartile. Reductions in PP during sacubitril/valsartan run-in were associated with a decreased risk of the primary end point and total HF hospitalizations. One year after randomization, PP was significantly lower in the sacubitril/valsartan group compared with the valsartan group (3.0 mm Hg decrease [95% CI, 2.4-3.5]; P <0.001). In conclusion, PP was an independent predictor of cardiovascular events in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction enrolled in PARAGON-HF. Sacubitril/valsartan lowered PP compared with valsartan.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of sacubitril/valsartan therapy on sudden cardiac death (SCD) according to the use of and eligibility for an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), stratified by heart failure cause., Background: SCD still accounts for a significant proportion of overall mortality in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)., Methods: Patients enrolled in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with an ACE-Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial (n = 8,399) were evaluated to assess patterns of ICD implantation and eligibility according to clinical guidelines. The impact of ICD (adjusted for propensity of ICD implantation) and sacubitril/valsartan therapy on SCD was evaluated by using cause-specific Cox models and competing risk analysis., Results: At baseline, of the 7,145 patients (85%) eligible for ICD implantation, only 1,243 (15%) had an ICD. Use of ICD varied by region with the highest rates in North America (56%) and lowest in Asia-Pacific (1.7%). In a propensity score-adjusted analysis, use of an ICD was associated with a 56% lower risk of SCD in ICD-eligible patients, in both patients with ischemic (p < 0.001) and nonischemic cardiomyopathy (p = 0.02). Sacubitril/valsartan reduced SCD risk in patients with an ICD (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.25 to 0.99) and in those who were eligible for but did not receive an ICD (HR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.67 to 0.98). This effect was particularly evident in nonischemic cardiomyopathy (p < 0.05), although interaction with the cause of HF was not significant (p = 0.11 in subjects using an ICD and p = 0.25 in eligible nonusers)., Conclusions: Use of an ICD was associated with lower rates of SCD, regardless of HF cause but was underused in most regions of the world in the PARADIGM-HF study. Sacubitril/valsartan reduced SCD risk regardless of use of an ICD or eligibility, particularly in ICD users and nonischemic cardiomyopathy., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

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 (<60 versus ≥60 mL·min -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.

Background: Unlike heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, there is no approved treatment for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, the predominant phenotype in women. Therefore, there is a greater heart failure therapeutic deficit in women compared with men., Methods: In a prespecified subgroup analysis, we examined outcomes according to sex in the PARAGON-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction), which compared sacubitril-valsartan and valsartan in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. The primary outcome was a composite of first and recurrent hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. We also report secondary efficacy and safety outcomes., Results: Overall, 2479 women (51.7%) and 2317 men (48.3%) were randomized. Women were older and had more obesity, less coronary disease, and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate and NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) levels than men. For the primary outcome, the rate ratio for sacubitril-valsartan versus valsartan was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.59-0.90) in women and 1.03 (95% CI, 0.84-1.25) in men ( P interaction = 0.017). The benefit from sacubitril-valsartan was attributable to reduction in heart failure hospitalization. The improvement in New York Heart Association class and renal function with sacubitril-valsartan was similar in women and men, whereas the improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score was less in women than in men. The difference in adverse events between sacubitril-valsartan and valsartan was similar in women and men., Conclusions: As compared with valsartan, sacubitril-valsartan seemed to reduce the risk of heart failure hospitalization more in women than in men. Whereas the possible sex-related modification of the effect of treatment has several potential explanations, the present study does not provide a definite mechanistic basis for this finding., Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01920711.

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).

Background: The PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial tested the efficacy of sacubitril-valsartan in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Existing data on cardiac structure and function in patients with HFpEF suggest significant heterogeneity., Objectives: The aim of this study was to characterize cardiac structure and function, quantify their associations with clinical outcomes, and contextualize these findings with other HFpEF studies., Methods: Echocardiography was performed in 1,097 of 4,822 PARAGON-HF patients within 6 months of enrollment. Associations with incident first heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death were assessed using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for age, sex, region of enrollment, randomized treatment, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, and clinical risk factors., Results: Average age was 74 ± 8 years, 53% of patients were women, median N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide level was 918 pg/ml (interquartile range: 485 to 1,578 pg/ml), 94% had hypertension, and 35% had atrial fibrillation. The mean left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction was 58.6 ± 9.8%, prevalence of LV hypertrophy was 21%, prevalence of left atrial enlargement was 83%, prevalence of elevated E/e' ratio was 53%, and prevalence of pulmonary hypertension was 31%. Heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death occurred in 288 patients at 2.8-year median follow-up. In fully adjusted models, higher LV mass index (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.05 per 10 g/m 2 ; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.00 to 1.10; p = 0.03), E/e' ratio (HR: 1.04 per unit; 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.06; p < 0.001), pulmonary artery systolic pressure (HR: 1.51 per 10 mm Hg; 95% CI: 1.29 to 1.76; p < 0.001), and right ventricular end-diastolic area (HR: 1.04 per cm 2 ; 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.07; p = 0.003) were each associated with this composite, while LV ejection fraction and left atrial size were not (p > 0.05 for all). Appreciable differences were observed in cardiac structure compared with other HFpEF clinical trials, despite similar E/e' ratio, pulmonary artery systolic pressure, and event rates., Conclusions: Diastolic dysfunction, left atrial enlargement, and pulmonary hypertension were common in PARAGON-HF. LV hypertrophy, elevated left- and right-sided pressures, and right ventricular enlargement were independently predictive of incident heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death. Echocardiographic differences among HFpEF trials despite similar clinical event rates highlight the heterogeneity of this syndrome. (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711)., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: 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., Methods: 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., Results: 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., Conclusions: 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.)., (Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: The contemporary prognostic value of the physical examination- beyond traditional risk factors including natriuretic peptides, risk scores, and symptoms-in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction is unknown. We aimed to determine the association between physical signs of congestion at baseline and during study follow-up with quality of life and clinical outcomes and to assess the treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan on congestion., Methods: We analyzed participants from PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in HF) with an available physical examination at baseline. We examined the association of the number of signs of congestion (jugular venous distention, edema, rales, and third heart sound) with the primary outcome (cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization), its individual components, and all-cause mortality using time-updated, multivariable-adjusted Cox regression. We further evaluated whether sacubitril/valsartan reduced congestion during follow-up and whether improvement in congestion is related to changes in clinical outcomes and quality of life, assessed by Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary scores., Results: Among 8380 participants, 0, 1, 2, and 3+ signs of congestion were present in 70%, 21%, 7%, and 2% of patients, respectively. Patients with baseline congestion were older, more often female, had higher MAGGIC risk scores (Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure) and lower Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary scores ( P <0.05). After adjusting for baseline natriuretic peptides, time-updated Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure score, and time-updated New York Heart Association class, increasing time-updated congestion was associated with all outcomes ( P <0.001). Sacubitril/valsartan reduced the risk of the primary outcome irrespective of clinical signs of congestion at baseline ( P =0.16 for interaction), and treatment with the drug improved congestion to a greater extent than did enalapril ( P =0.011). Each 1-sign reduction was independently associated with a 5.1 (95% CI, 4.7-5.5) point improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary scores. Change in congestion strongly predicted outcomes even after adjusting for baseline congestion ( P <0.001)., Conclusions: In HF with reduced ejection fraction, the physical exam continues to provide significant independent prognostic value even beyond symptoms, natriuretic peptides, and Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure risk score. Sacubitril/valsartan improved congestion to a greater extent than did enalapril. Reducing congestion in the outpatient setting is independently associated with improved quality of life and reduced cardiovascular events, including mortality., Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255.

Background: Natriuretic peptides are substrates of neprilysin; hence, B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) concentrations rise with neprilysin inhibition. Thus, the clinical validity of measuring BNP in sacubitril/valsartan-treated patients has been questioned, and use of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptides (NT-proBNP) has been preferred and recommended., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine the prognostic performance of BNP measurements before and during treatment with sacubitril/valsartan., Methods: BNP and NT-proBNP were measured before and after 4 to 6 weeks, 8 to 10 weeks, and 9 months of treatment with sacubitril/valsartan in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial. We assessed the association of levels of these natriuretic peptides with the subsequent risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for HF., Results: Median BNP concentration (before treatment: 202 ng/l [Q1 to Q3: 126 to 335 ng/l]) increased to 235 ng/l (Q1 to Q3: 128 to 422 ng/l) after 8 to 10 weeks of treatment. BNP concentrations doubled in 141 (18%) patients and tripled in 49 (6%) patients during the first 8 to 10 weeks of sacubitril/valsartan. In contrast, such striking increases in NT-proBNP following the use of the neprilysin inhibitor were extremely rare. Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan caused a rightward shift in the distribution of BNP when compared with NT-proBNP, but both peptides retained their prognostic accuracy (C-statistics of 63% to 67% for BNP and C-statistics of 64% to 70% for NT-proBNP) with no difference between the 2 biomarkers. Increases in both BNP and NT-proBNP during 8 to 10 weeks of sacubitril/valsartan were associated with worse outcomes (p = 0.003 and p = 0.005, respectively)., Conclusions: Circulating levels of BNP may increase meaningfully early after initiation of sacubitril/valsartan. In comparison, NT-proBNP is not a substrate of neprilysin inhibition, and thus may lead to less clinical confusion when measured within 8 to 10 weeks of drug initiation. However, during treatment, either biomarker predicts the risk of major adverse outcomes in patients treated with angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors. (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF]; NCT01035255)., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: To assess differences in diuretic dose requirements in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril in the Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial., Methods and Results: Overall, 8399 patients with New York Heart Association class II-IV heart failure and reduced LVEF were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg bid or enalapril 10 mg twice daily. Loop diuretic doses were assessed at baseline, 6, 12, and 24 months, and furosemide dose equivalents were calculated via multiplication factors (2x for torsemide and 40x for bumetanide). Percentages of participants with reductions or increases in loop diuretic dose were determined. At baseline, 80.8% of participants were taking any diuretics (n = 6290 for loop diuretics, n = 496 for other diuretics); of those, recorded dosage data for loop diuretics were available on 5487 participants. Mean baseline furosemide equivalent doses were 48.2 mg for sacubitril/valsartan and 49.6 mg for enalapril (P = 0.25). Patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan were more likely to reduce diuretic dose and less likely to increase diuretic dose relative to those randomized to enalapril at 6, 12, 24 months post-randomization, with an overall decreased diuretic use of 2.0% (P = 0.02), 4.1% (P < 0.001), and 6.1% (P < 0.001) at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively, with similar findings in an on-treatment analysis., Conclusion: Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan was associated with more loop diuretic dose reductions and fewer dose increases compared with enalapril, suggesting that treatment with sacubitril/valsartan may reduce the requirement for loop diuretics relative to enalapril in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction., (© 2019 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Myocardial fibrosis is an important pathophysiological mechanism underlying the development of heart failure (HF). Given the biochemical targets of sacubitril/valsartan, we hypothesized that circulating biomarkers reflecting the mechanisms that determine extracellular matrix (ECM) homeostasis, including collagen synthesis, processing, and degradation, are altered by sacubitril/valsartan in comparison to enalapril., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on biomarkers of ECM homeostasis and the association between the rate of primary composite outcome (cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization) and these biomarkers., Methods: Biomarkers at baseline (n = 2,067) and both baseline and 8 months after randomization (n = 1,776) included aldosterone, soluble ST2 (sST2), tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase (TIMP)-1, matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-2, MMP-9, Galectin-3 (Gal-3), N-terminal propeptide of collagen I (PINP), and N-terminal propeptide of collagen III (PIIINP). The effects of sacubitril/valsartan on biomarkers were compared with enalapril. Baseline biomarker values and changes from baseline to 8 months were related to primary outcome., Results: At baseline, the profibrotic biomarkers aldosterone, sST2, TIMP-1, Gal-3, PINP, and PIIINP were higher, and biomarkers associated with collagen degradation, MMP-2 and -9, were lower than published referent control values. Eight months after randomization, aldosterone, sST2, TIMP-1, MMP-9, PINP, and PIIINP had decreased more in the sacubitril/valsartan than enalapril group. At baseline, higher values of sST-2, TIMP-1, and PIIINP were associated with higher primary outcome rates. Changes from baseline to 8 months in sST-2 and TIMP-1 were associated with change in outcomes., Conclusions: Biomarkers associated with profibrotic signaling are altered in HF with reduced ejection fraction, sacubitril/valsartan significantly decreased many of these biomarkers, and these biomarkers have important prognostic value. These findings suggest that sacubitril/valsartan may reduce profibrotic signaling, which may contribute to the improved outcomes. (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)., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Growth differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15) is associated with adverse prognosis in cardiovascular (CV) and non-CV diseases. We evaluated the association of GDF-15 with CV and non-CV outcomes in the PARADIGM-HF trial., Methods and Results: In 1935 patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in PARADIGM-HF, median GDF-15 values were elevated and similar in sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril patients (1626 ng/L and 1690 ng/L, respectively). Diabetes, age, creatinine, high-sensitive troponin T, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, and New York Heart Association class III/IV were most strongly associated with elevated GDF-15 values (all P < 0.001) (adjusted R 2 = 0.3857). Baseline GDF-15 and changes in GDF-15 at both 1 month and 8 months (log-transformed) were associated with subsequent mortality and CV events. Each 20% increment in baseline GDF-15 value was associated with a higher risk of mortality [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-1.18, P < 0.001], the combined endpoint of CV death or hospitalization for heart failure (adjusted HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.05-1.14, P < 0.001) and heart failure death (adjusted HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.05-1.28, P < 0.001). Changes in GDF-15 were not influenced by assigned therapy (all P-values ≥ 0.1)., Conclusion: In patients with ambulatory HFrEF, GDF-15 is not modified by sacubitril/valsartan and is strongly associated with mortality and CV outcomes, suggesting that GDF-15 is a marker of poor outcomes in these patients., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01035255., (© 2018 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2018 European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Diabetes is an independent risk factor for heart failure progression. Sacubitril/valsartan, a combination angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, improves morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), compared with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril, and improves peripheral insulin sensitivity in obese hypertensive patients. We aimed to investigate the effect of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril on HbA 1c and time to first-time initiation of insulin or oral antihyperglycaemic drugs in patients with diabetes and HFrEF., Methods: In a post-hoc analysis of the PARADIGM-HF trial, we included 3778 patients with known diabetes or an HbA 1c ≥6·5% at screening out of 8399 patients with HFrEF who were randomly assigned to treatment with sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril. Of these patients, most (98%) had type 2 diabetes. We assessed changes in HbA 1c , triglycerides, HDL cholesterol and BMI in a mixed effects longitudinal analysis model. Time to initiation of oral antihyperglycaemic drugs or insulin in subjects previously not treated with these agents were compared between treatment groups., Findings: There were no significant differences in HbA 1c concentrations between randomised groups at screening. During the first year of follow-up, HbA 1c concentrations decreased by 0·16% (SD 1·40) in the enalapril group and 0·26% (SD 1·25) in the sacubitril/valsartan group (between-group reduction 0·13%, 95% CI 0·05-0·22, p=0·0023). HbA 1c concentrations were persistently lower in the sacubitril/valsartan group than in the enalapril group over the 3-year follow-up (between-group reduction 0·14%, 95% CI 0·06-0·23, p=0·0055). New use of insulin was 29% lower in patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan (114 [7%] patients) compared with patients receiving enalapril (153 [10%]; hazard ratio 0·71, 95% CI 0·56-0·90, p=0·0052). Similarly, fewer patients were started on oral antihyperglycaemic therapy (0·77, 0·58-1·02, p=0·073) in the sacubitril/valsartan group., Interpretation: Patients with diabetes and HFrEF enrolled in PARADIGM-HF who received sacubitril/valsartan had a greater long-term reduction in HbA 1c than those receiving enalapril. These data suggest that sacubitril/valsartan might enhance glycaemic control in patients with diabetes and HFrEF., Funding: Novartis., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Consensus guidelines recommend the use of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) for selected patients with symptomatic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) to reduce morbidity and mortality; however, the use of MRAs in combination with other inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system increases the risk of hyperkalemia., Objective: To determine whether the risk of hyperkalemia associated with use of MRAs for patients with HFrEF is reduced by sacubitril/valsartan in comparison with enalapril., Design, Setting, and Participants: The PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With an ACE-Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial randomly assigned 8399 patients with chronic HF, New York Heart Association class II to IV symptoms, and a left ventricular EF of 40% or less to treatment with enalapril 10 mg twice daily or sacubitril/valsartan 97/103 mg twice daily (previously known as LCZ696 [200 mg twice daily]) in addition to guideline-directed medical therapy. Use of MRAs was encouraged but left to the discretion of study investigators. Serum potassium level was measured at every study visit. The incidence of hyperkalemia (potassium level >5.5 mEq/L) and severe hyperkalemia (potassium level >6.0 mEq/L) among patients treated or not treated with an MRA at baseline and the risk of subsequent hyperkalemia for those newly treated with an MRA during study follow-up were defined in time-updated Cox proportional hazards models. Analyses were conducted between August 1 and October 15, 2016., Main Outcomes and Measures: Incident hyperkalemia and severe hyperkalemia., Results: In comparison with the 3728 patients (44.4% of enrolled participants [21.6% female]) not taking an MRA at baseline, the 4671 patients (55.6% [22.0% female]) taking an MRA tended to be younger, with a lower EF, lower systolic blood pressure, and more advanced HF symptoms. Among those taking an MRA at baseline, the overall rates of hyperkalemia were similar between treatment groups, but severe hyperkalemia was more common in patients randomly assigned to enalapril than to sacubitril/valsartan (3.1 vs 2.2 per 100 patient-years; HR, 1.37 [95% CI, 1.06-1.76]; P = .02). In analyses including patients who newly started taking MRAs during the PARADIGM-HF trial, severe hyperkalemia remained more common in those randomly assigned to enalapril than to those randomly assigned to sacubitril/valsartan (3.3 vs 2.3 per 100 patient-years; HR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.13-1.81]; P = .003)., Conclusions and Relevance: Among MRA-treated patients with symptomatic HFrEF, severe hyperkalemia is more likely during treatment with enalapril than with sacubitril/valsartan. These data suggest that neprilysin inhibition attenuates the risk of hyperkalemia when MRAs are combined with other inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in patients with HF., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01035255.

Aims: The combined neprilysin/renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan reduced cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization, cardiovascular death, and all-cause mortality in a large outcomes trial. While sacubitril/valsartan is the only currently available drug in its class, there are two prior clinical trials in heart failure with omapatrilat, another combined neprilysin/RAS inhibitor. Using all available evidence can inform clinicians and policy-makers., Methods and Results: We performed a meta-analysis using data from three trials in heart failure with reduced EF that compared combined neprilysin/RAS inhibition with RAS inhibition alone and reported clinical outcomes: IMPRESS (n = 573), OVERTURE (n = 5770), and PARADIGM-HF (n = 8399). We assessed the pooled hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause death or heart failure hospitalization, and for all-cause mortality in random-effects models, comparing combined neprilysin/RAS inhibition with ACE inhibition alone. The composite outcome of death or heart failure hospitalization was reduced numerically in patients receiving combined neprilysin/RAS inhibition in all three trials, with a pooled HR of 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76-0.97, P = 0.013. For the endpoint of all-cause mortality, the pooled HR was 0.88, 95% CI 0.80-0.98, P = 0.021. Combined neprilysin/RAS inhibition compared with ACE inhibition was associated with more hypotension, but less renal dysfunction and hyperkalaemia in all three trials., Conclusions: Pooled estimates from three trials with two separate drugs of combined neprilysin/RAS inhibition support the use of combined neprilysin/RAS inhibition in heart failure with reduced EF., (© 2016 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2016 European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: In this analysis, we utilized data from PARADIGM-HF to test the hypothesis that participants who exhibited any dose reduction during the trial would have similar benefits from lower doses of sacubitril/valsartan relative to lower doses of enalapril., Methods and Results: In a post-hoc analysis from PARADIGM-HF, we characterized patients by whether they received the maximal dose (200 mg sacubitril/valsartan or 10 mg enalapril twice daily) throughout the trial or had any dose reduction to lower doses (100/50/0 mg sacubitril/valsartan or 5/2.5/0 mg enalapril twice daily). The treatment effect for the primary outcome was estimated, stratified by dose level using time-updated Cox regression models. In the two treatment arms, participants with a dose reduction (43% of those randomized to enalapril and 42% of those randomized to sacubitril/valsartan) had similar baseline characteristics and similar baseline predictors of the need for dose reduction. In a time-updated analysis, any dose reduction was associated with a higher subsequent risk of the primary event [hazard ratio (HR) 2.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2-2.7]. However, the treatment benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril following a dose reduction was similar (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70-0.93, P < 0.001) to that observed in patients who had not experienced any dose reduction (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.71-0.88, P < 0.001)., Conclusions: In PARADIGM-HF, study medication dose reduction identified patients at higher risk of a major cardiovascular event. The magnitude of benefit for patients on lower doses of sacubitril/valsartan relative to those on lower doses of enalapril was similar to that of patients who remained on target doses of both drugs., (© 2016 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Objectives: This study assessed whether the benefit of sacubtril/valsartan therapy varied with clinical stability., Background: Despite the benefit of sacubitril/valsartan therapy shown in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial, it has been suggested that switching from an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker should be delayed until occurrence of clinical decompensation., Methods: Outcomes were compared among patients who had prior hospitalization within 3 months of screening (n = 1,611 [19%]), between 3 and 6 months (n = 1,009 [12%]), between 6 and 12 months (n = 886 [11%]), >12 months (n = 1,746 [21%]), or who had never been hospitalized (n = 3,125 [37%])., Results: Twenty percent of patients without prior HF hospitalization experienced a primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization during the course of the trial. Despite the increased risk associated with more recent hospitalization, the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan therapy did not differ from that of enalapril according to the occurrence of or time from hospitalization for HF before screening, with respect to the primary endpoint or with respect to cardiovascular or all-cause mortality., Conclusions: Patients with recent HF decompensation requiring hospitalization were more likely to experience cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization than those who had never been hospitalized. Patients who were clinically stable, as shown by a remote HF hospitalization (>3 months prior to screening) or by lack of any prior HF hospitalization, were as likely to benefit from sacubitril/valsartan therapy as more recently hospitalized patients. (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF]; NCT01035255)., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: The angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan was associated with a reduction in cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and hospitalizations compared with enalapril. Sacubitril/valsartan has been approved for use in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction in the United States and cost has been suggested as 1 factor that will influence the use of this agent., Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril in the United States., Design, Setting, and Participants: Data from US adults (mean [SD] age, 63.8 [11.5] years) with HF with reduced ejection fraction and characteristics similar to those in the PARADIGM-HF trial were used as inputs for a 2-state Markov model simulated HF. Risks of all-cause mortality and hospitalization from HF or other reasons were estimated with a 30-year time horizon. Quality of life was based on trial EQ-5D scores. Hospital costs combined Medicare and private insurance reimbursement rates; medication costs included the wholesale acquisition cost for sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril. A discount rate of 3% was used. Sensitivity analyses were performed on key inputs including: hospital costs, mortality benefit, hazard ratio for hospitalization reduction, drug costs, and quality-of-life estimates., Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospitalizations, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental costs per QALY gained., Results: The 2-state Markov model of US adult patients (mean age, 63.8 years) calculated that there would be 220 fewer hospital admissions per 1000 patients with HF treated with sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril over 30 years. The incremental costs and QALYs gained with sacubitril/valsartan treatment were estimated at $35 512 and 0.78, respectively, compared with enalapril, equating to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $45 017 per QALY for the base-case. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated ICERs ranging from $35 357 to $75 301 per QALY., Conclusions and Relevance: For eligible patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction, the Markov model calculated that sacubitril/valsartan would increase life expectancy at an ICER consistent with other high-value accepted cardiovascular interventions. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated sacubitril/valsartan would remain cost-effective vs enalapril.

Background: The 8442 patients randomized in the Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor With an Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial, in which sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) reduced both death and HF hospitalization more than enalapril, were a subset of 10 521 patients entering sequential, single-blind run-in periods (enalapril 10 mg twice daily for 2 weeks followed by LCZ696 200 mg twice daily for 4 to 6 weeks) to ensure short-term tolerability of the 2 study medications. We identified the predictors of run-in noncompletion and estimated the implications of noncompletion for the overall study result., Methods and Results: Patient factors associated with run-in noncompletion were defined in multivariable logistic regression models. The effectiveness of LCZ696 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; 2079 (19.8%) subjects discontinued the study during the run-in period, including 1102 (10.5%) during the enalapril phase and 977 (9.3%) during the LCZ696 phase. In multivariable models, lower systolic blood pressure, lower estimated glomerular filtration rate, higher N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, and ischemic cause of heart failure were associated with higher risk for run-in noncompletion. Repeat analysis of the effect of randomized treatment giving greater weight to randomized patients resembling those who did not complete the run-in did not alter the hazard ratio favoring LCZ696 over enalapril for the primary end point of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization, or the additional key end points of cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality., Conclusions: Patients with lower blood pressure, lower glomerular filtration rate, and more severe heart failure were at higher risk for noncompletion during the run-in period of PARADIGM-HF. Weighted analysis of key study outcomes accounting for the effect of run-in noncompletion did not alter the benefit of LCZ696 over enalapril., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255., (© 2016 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: The angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) reduced cardiovascular morbidity and mortality compared with enalapril in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (EF) in the Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial. We evaluated the influence of EF on clinical outcomes and on the effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril., Methods and Results: Eight thousand three hundred ninety-nine patients with New York Heart Association class II to IV HF with reduced EF [left ventricular EF (LVEF) ≤40%] were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan 97/103 mg twice daily versus enalapril 10 mg twice daily and followed for a median of 27 months. The primary study end point was cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. LVEF was assessed at the sites and recorded on case report forms. We related LVEF to study outcomes and assessed the effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan across the LVEF spectrum. The mean LVEF in PARADIGM-HF, reported by sites, was 29.5 (interquartile range, 25-34). The risk of all outcomes increased with decreasing LVEF. Each 5-point reduction in LVEF was associated with a 9% increased risk of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.13; P<0.001), a 9% increased risk for CV death (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.14), a 9% increased risk in HF hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.14) and a 7% increased risk in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.12) in adjusted analyses. Sacubitril/valsartan was effective across the LVEF spectrum, with no evidence of heterogeneity, when modeled either in tertiles (P interaction=0.87) or continuously (P interaction=0.95)., Conclusions: In patients with HF and reduced EF enrolled in PARADIGM-HF, LVEF was a significant and independent predictor of all outcomes. Sacubitril/valsartan was effective at reducing cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization throughout the LVEF spectrum., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255., (© 2016 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Aims: The angiotensin-receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) LCZ696 reduced cardiovascular deaths and all-cause mortality compared with enalapril in patients with chronic heart failure in the prospective comparison of ARNI with an Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial. To more completely understand the components of this mortality benefit, we examined the effect of LCZ696 on mode of death., Methods and Results: PARADIGM-HF was a prospective, double-blind, randomized trial in 8399 patients with chronic heart failure, New York Heart Association Class II-IV symptoms, and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% receiving guideline-recommended medical therapy and followed for a median of 27 months. Mode of death was adjudicated by a blinded clinical endpoints committee. The majority of deaths were cardiovascular (80.9%), and the risk of cardiovascular death was significantly reduced by treatment with LCZ (hazard ratio, HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72-0.89, P < 0.001). Among cardiovascular deaths, both sudden cardiac death (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68-0.94, P = 0.008) and death due to worsening heart failure (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64-0.98, P = 0.034) were reduced by treatment with LCZ696 compared with enalapril. Deaths attributed to other cardiovascular causes, including myocardial infarction and stroke, were infrequent and distributed evenly between treatment groups, as were non-cardiovascular deaths., Conclusions: LCZ696 was superior to enalapril in reducing both sudden cardiac deaths and deaths from worsening heart failure, which accounted for the majority of cardiovascular deaths., Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/, NCT01035255., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2015. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Increases in serum creatinine with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors can lead to unnecessary discontinuation of these agents. The dual-acting angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 improves clinical outcome patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and pilot data suggest potential benefit in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The effects of LCZ696 on renal function have not been assessed., Methods and Results: A total of 301 HFpEF patients were randomly assigned to LCZ696 or valsartan in the PARAMOUNT trial. We studied renal function [creatinine, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), cystatin C, and urinary albumin to creatinine ratio (UACR)] at baseline, 12 weeks, and after 36 weeks of treatment. Worsening renal function (WRF) was determined as an serum creatinine increase of >0.3 mg/dL and/or >25% between two time-points. Mean eGFR at baseline was 65.4 ± 20.4 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) . The eGFR declined less in the LCZ696 group than in the valsartan group (-1.5 vs. -5.2 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) ; P = 0.002). The incidence of WRF was lower in the LCZ696 group (12%) than in the valsartan group (18%) at any time-point, but this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.18). Over 36 weeks, the geometric mean of UACR increased in the LCZ696 group (2.4-2.9 mg/mmol), whereas it remained stable in the valsartan group (2.1-2.0 mg/mmol; P for difference between groups = 0.016)., Conclusion: In patients with HFpEF, therapy with LCZ696 for 36 weeks was associated with preservation of eGFR compared with valsartan therapy, but an increase in UACR., (© 2015 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2015 European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: The first in class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, LCZ696 has been shown to reduce levels of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), reduce left atrial size and improve New York Heart Association (NYHA) class in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). We examined whether the effects of LCZ696 were independent of systolic blood pressure (SBP) lowering., Methods and Results: In the Prospective comparison of ARNi (angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor) with ARB (angiotensin receptor blocker) on Management Of heart failUre with preserved ejectioN fracTion (PARAMOUNT) trial 301 patients were randomly assigned to LCZ696 or valsartan. We examined the relationship between SBP lowering and LCZ696 on NT-proBNP level, left atrial size, NYHA class and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). By 12 weeks blood pressure was reduced by 9 mmHg (SD 15)/5 mmHg (SD 11) in patients receiving LCZ696 in comparison with 3 mmHg (SD 17)/2 mmHg (SD 12) in those receiving valsartan. The change in NT-proBNP was poorly correlated with change in SBP (LCZ696, r = 0.17, P = 0.06; valsartan, r = 0.05, P = 0.58) After adjustment for change in SBP, the ratio of change in NT-proBNP at 12 weeks for LCZ696 vs. valsartan was 0.76 (95% CI 0.63-0.93, P = 0.008), and similar to the ratio not adjusting for SBP (0.76, 95% CI 0.63-0.92, P = 0.006); P for interaction was 0.38). Similarly, reduction in left atrial volume index at 36 weeks, improvement in NYHA class and eGFR were all independent of the change in SBP., Conclusion: In patients with HFpEF, the effect of the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 on NT-proBNP, left atrial volume, functional class, and eGFR was independent of reduction in SBP., (© 2014 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2014 European Society of Cardiology.)