Search

Aims: Patients surviving an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are at risk of developing symptomatic heart failure (HF) or premature death. We hypothesized that sacubitril/valsartan, effective in the treatment of chronic HF, prevents development of HF and reduces cardiovascular death following high-risk AMI compared to a proven angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor. This paper describes the study design and baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in the Prospective ARNI vs. ACE inhibitor trial to DetermIne Superiority in reducing heart failure Events after Myocardial Infarction (PARADISE-MI) trial.Methods and Results: PARADISE-MI, a multinational (41 countries), double-blind, active-controlled trial, randomized patients within 0.5-7 days of presentation with index AMI to sacubitril/valsartan or ramipril. Transient pulmonary congestion and/or left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40% and at least one additional factor augmenting risk of HF or death (age ≥70 years, estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 , diabetes, prior myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, LVEF <30%, Killip class ≥III, ST-elevation myocardial infarction without reperfusion) were required for inclusion. PARADISE-MI was event-driven targeting 708 primary endpoints (cardiovascular death, HF hospitalization or outpatient development of HF). Randomization of 5669 patients occurred 4.3 ± 1.8 days from presentation with index AMI. The mean age was 64 ± 12 years, 24% were women. The majority (76%) qualified with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction; acute percutaneous coronary intervention was performed in 88% and thrombolysis in 6%. LVEF was 37 ± 9% and 58% were in Killip class ≥II.Conclusions: Baseline therapies in PARADISE-MI reflect advances in contemporary evidence-based care. With enrollment complete PARADISE-MI is poised to determine whether sacubitril/valsartan is more effective than a proven ACE inhibitor in preventing development of HF and cardiovascular death following AMI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The prevalence of liver function abnormalities is common in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We assessed the impact of liver function on prognosis and the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on measures of liver function in patients with HFrEF.Methods and Results: The PARADIGM-HF trial was a randomized, double-blind, active treatment-controlled trial. We included 8232 HFrEF patients with available measures of liver function, including transaminases, alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and bilirubin; the primary endpoint was a composite of HF hospitalization and cardiovascular (CV) death. At screening, 11.6% of study patients had total bilirubin above the upper limit of normal (20.5 μmol/L) and 9.2% had ALP above the upper limit of normal (123 IU/L). Although ALP and albumin were associated with an increased risk of outcomes, among conventional test of liver function, total bilirubin was the strongest predictor for the primary endpoint [hazard ratio (HR) 1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04-1.15; P < 0.001], HF hospitalization (HR 1.14; 95% CI 1.07-1.22; P < 0.001); CV death (HR 1.07; 95% CI 1.00-1.14; P = 0.040), and all-cause death (HR 1.08; 95% CI 1.02-1.14; P = 0.009). All conventional measures of liver function were significantly improved in the sacubitril/valsartan group compared with the enalapril group after randomization (between-group reduction: total bilirubin 2.4%, 95% CI 0.7-4.2%, P = 0.007; aspartate aminotransferase 7.9%, 95% CI 6.7-9.0%, P < 0.001; alanine aminotransferase 7.7%; 95% CI 6.2-9.3%, P < 0.001; ALP 5.4%, 95% CI 4.4-6.4%, P < 0.001).Conclusion: Total bilirubin was a significant and independent predictor of CV death or HF hospitalization and all-cause mortality in patients with HFrEF enrolled in PARADIGM-HF. Sacubitril/valsartan improved measures of liver function compared with enalapril. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 R2 = 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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

As previously reported, PARAGON-HF narrowly missed statistical significance for its primary end point (rate ratio, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.75-1.01]; I P i =0.059).[2] It is noteworthy that 28% (566 cases) of potential HF hospitalizations identified by investigators were negatively adjudicated by the CEC. This mean probability for each event was then used in a multiple imputation procedure, creating 1000 imputed data sets with CEC-unconfirmed events included or not based on their probability (random draw from a respective Bernoulli distribution), such that an event with an average probability of 40% would be expected to be included as a HF hospitalization in 400 of 1000 data sets. Keywords: clinical trial; heart failure; hospitalization; probability; sacubitril-valsartan; valsartan EN clinical trial heart failure hospitalization probability sacubitril-valsartan valsartan 2316 2318 3 06/10/21 20210608 NES 210608 Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is a highly morbid condition with few proven treatment options. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Patients with heart failure (HF) are at high risk for hospital readmission in the first 30 days following HF hospitalization.Objectives: This study sought to determine if treatment with sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) reduces rates of hospital readmission at 30-days following HF hospitalization compared with enalapril.Methods: We assessed the risk of 30-day readmission for any cause following investigator-reported hospitalizations for HF in the PARADIGM-HF trial, which randomized 8,399 participants with HF and reduced ejection fraction to treatment with LCZ696 or enalapril.Results: Accounting for multiple hospitalizations per patient, there were 2,383 investigator-reported HF hospitalizations, of which 1,076 (45.2%) occurred in subjects assigned to LCZ696 and 1,307 (54.8%) occurred in subjects assigned to enalapril. Rates of readmission for any cause at 30 days were 17.8% in LCZ696-assigned subjects and 21.0% in enalapril-assigned subjects (odds ratio: 0.74; 95% confidence interval: 0.56 to 0.97; p = 0.031). Rates of readmission for HF at 30-days were also lower in subjects assigned to LCZ696 (9.7% vs. 13.4%; odds ratio: 0.62; 95% confidence interval: 0.45 to 0.87; p = 0.006). The reduction in both all-cause and HF readmissions with LCZ696 was maintained when the time window from discharge was extended to 60 days and in sensitivity analyses restricted to adjudicated HF hospitalizations.Conclusions: Compared with enalapril, treatment with LCZ696 reduces 30-day readmissions for any cause following discharge from HF hospitalization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although most patients in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial had mild symptoms, there is a poor correlation between reported functional limitation and prognosis in heart failure.Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine the spectrum of risk in PARADIGM-HF and the effect of LCZ696 across that spectrum.Methods: This study analyzed rates of the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization, its components, and all-cause mortality using the MAGGIC (Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure) and EMPHASIS-HF (Eplerenone in Mild Patients Hospitalization and Survival Study in Heart Failure) risk scores to categorize patients. The authors determined whether risk, on the basis of these scores, modified the treatment effect of LCZ696.Results: The complete MAGGIC risk score was available for 8,375 of the 8,399 patients in PARADIGM-HF. The median MAGGIC score was 20 (IQR: 16 to 24). An increase of 1 point was associated with a 6% increased risk for the primary endpoint (p < 0.001) and a 7% increased risk for cardiovascular death (p < 0.001). The benefit of LCZ696 over enalapril for the primary endpoint was similar across the spectrum of risk (p = 0.159). Treating 100 patients for 2 years with LCZ696 instead of enalapril led to 7 fewer patients in the highest quintile of risk experiencing primary outcomes, compared with 3 in the lowest quintile. Analyses using the EMPHASIS-HF risk score gave similar findings.Conclusions: Although most PARADIGM-HF patients had mild symptoms, many were at high risk for adverse outcomes and obtained a large absolute benefit from LCZ696, compared with enalapril, over a relatively short treatment period. LCZ696's benefit was consistent across the spectrum of risk. (PARADIGM-HF trial [Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure]; NCT01035255). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]