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.

Aims: The 4822 patients randomized in the PARAGON-HF trial were a subset of 5746 initially eligible patients who entered sequential run-in periods. We identified patient factors associated with study discontinuation during the run-in period and estimated the implications of these discontinuations for the overall study result., Methods and Results: We utilized multivariable logistic regression models to identify patient factors associated with study discontinuation during the run-in period. The efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan 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. A total of 924 (16.1%) subjects failed to complete the run-in period. In multivariable models, non-completion was associated with region other than Central Europe, lower systolic blood pressure, lower serum sodium, lower haemoglobin, lower estimated glomerular filtration rate, higher N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, higher New York Heart Association functional class, prior heart failure (HF) hospitalization, and lack of prior use of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors or beta-blocker. In repeat analysis of the effect of randomized treatment in PARAGON-HF giving greater weight to participants resembling those who failed to complete the run-in period, the incidence of HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death was higher, and sacubitril/valsartan treatment reduced the composite of total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death compared with valsartan (rate ratio 0.86; 95% confidence interval 0.74-1.00)., Conclusion: Patients with more advanced HF were at higher risk for non-completion of the run-in period in PARAGON-HF. Re-analysis of study outcomes accounting for the effect of run-in non-completion did not alter the estimated treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan., (© 2021 European Society of Cardiology.)

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.

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., (© 2020 European Society of Cardiology.)

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: 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.)

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.)

Background: Increased activity of IGFBP7 (insulin-like growth factor-binding protein-7) is associated with cellular senescence, tissue aging, and obesity. IGFBP7 may be related to heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, a disease of elderly obese people., Methods and Results: In a subset of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (N=228) randomized to receive sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan, IGFBP7 concentrations were measured at baseline, 12 weeks, and 36 weeks. Patient characteristics and echocardiographic measures including left atrial (LA) size and volume, ratio of early mitral inflow velocity/annular diastolic velocity, and ratio of early diastole/peak late diastolic velocity were assessed as a function of IGFBP7 concentration. Effect of sacubitril/valsartan on IGFBP7 concentrations was analyzed. With increasing baseline IGFBP7 quartiles, LA size and LA volume index (LAVi) were higher (both P<0.001); modest association between IGFBP7 and higher early mitral inflow velocity/annular diastolic velocity ( P=0.03) and early diastole/peak late diastolic velocity ratio ( P=0.04) was also seen. IGFBP7 concentrations were higher in those with LAVi ≥34 mL/m 2 compared with lower LAVi at all time points (all P<0.01). IGFBP7 independently predicted LAVi at baseline even in the presence of NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) concentrations; highest LAVi was seen in those with elevation in both biomarkers. Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan resulted in lower IGFBP7 concentrations over 36 weeks compared with valsartan (adjusted treatment effect, -7%; P<0.001)., Conclusions: Among patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, concentrations of the cellular senescence biomarker IGFBP7 were associated with abnormalities in diastolic filling and LA dilation. Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan resulted in lower IGFBP7 concentrations compared with valsartan., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00887588.

Background: Neprilysin inhibition has favourable effects on experimental diabetic nephropathy. We sought to assess the effects of neprilysin inhibition on the course of renal function in patients with type 2 diabetes., Methods: In the randomised, double-blind PARADIGM-HF trial, the effects of sacubitril/valsartan (97 mg/103 mg twice daily) were compared with enalapril (10 mg twice daily) in 8399 patients with mild-to-moderate chronic heart failure and systolic dysfunction. In this secondary intention-to-treat analysis, we assessed the change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) over a 44-month follow-up period in patients with (n=3784) and those without (n=4615) diabetes. PARADIGM-HF is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01035255., Findings: eGFR decreased by 1·1 mL/min per 1·73 m 2 per year (95% CI 1·0-1·2) in patients without diabetes, but by 2·0 mL/min per 1·73 m 2 per year (1·9-2·1) in those with diabetes (p<0·0001). Compared with patients treated with enalapril, those treated with sacubitril/valsartan had a slower rate of decline in eGFR (-1·3 vs -1·8 mL/min per 1·73 m 2 per year; p<0·0001), and the magnitude of the benefit was larger in patients with versus those without diabetes (difference 0·6 mL/min per 1·73 m 2 per year [95% CI 0·4-0·8] in patients with vs 0·3 mL/min per 1·73 m 2 per year [0·2-0·5] in those without diabetes; p interaction =0·038). The greater effect of neprilysin inhibition in patients with diabetes could not be explained by the effects of treatment on the course of heart failure or on HbA 1c . The incremental benefit of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with diabetes was no longer apparent when changes in eGFR were adjusted for urinary cyclic guanosine monophosphate (p=0·41)., Interpretation: In patients in whom the renin-angiotensin system is already maximally blocked, the addition of neprilysin inhibition attenuates the effect of diabetes to accelerate the deterioration of renal function that occurs in patients with chronic heart failure., Funding: Novartis., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure), heart failure treatment with sacubitril/valsartan reduced the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization compared with enalapril but resulted in more symptomatic hypotension. Concern on hypotension may be limiting use of sacubitril/valsartan in appropriate patients., Methods and Results: We characterized patients in PARADIGM-HF by whether they reported hypotension during study run-in periods (enalapril, followed by sacubitril/valsartan) and after randomization and assessed whether hypotension modified the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan. Of the 10 513 patients entering the enalapril run-in, 136 (1.3%) experienced hypotension and 93 (68%) were unable to continue to the next phase; of 9419 patients entering the sacubitril/valsartan run-in period, 228 (2.4%) patients experienced hypotension and 51% were unable to successfully complete the run-in. After randomization, 388 (9.2%) participants had 501 hypotensive events with enalapril, and 588 (14.0%) participants had 803 hypotensive events with sacubitril/valsartan ( P <0.001). There was no difference between randomized treatment groups in the number of participants who discontinued therapy because of hypotension. Individuals with a hypotensive event in either group were older, had lower blood pressure at randomization, and were more likely to have an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Participants with hypotensive events during run-in who were ultimately randomized derived similar efficacy from sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril as those without hypotensive events ( P interaction>0.90)., Conclusions: Hypotension was more common with sacubitril/valsartan relative to enalapril in PARADIGM-HF but did not differentially affect permanent discontinuations. Patients with hypotension during run-in derived similar benefit from sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril as those who did not experience hypotension., (© 2018 American Heart Association, Inc.)

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.)

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.)