Search

Aim: To estimate the lifetime benefit of a combination treatment of sodium‐glucose co‐transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and mineralocorticoid‐receptor antagonists (MRA) in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD). Materials and Methods: The cumulative effect of combination treatment was derived from trial‐level estimates of the effect of an SGLT2 inhibitor (canagliflozin) and MRA (finerenone) from the CREDENCE (N = 4401) and FIDELIO (N = 5734) trials, respectively. The cumulative effect was applied to the control group of patients with type 2 diabetes in the DAPA‐CKD trial (N = 1451) to estimate long‐term gains in event‐free and overall survival. The analysis was repeated in an observational study. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of doubling of serum creatinine, end‐stage kidney disease or death because of kidney failure. Results: The hazard ratio of combination treatment for the primary outcome was 0.50 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.44, 0.57]. At age 50 years, the estimated event‐free survival from the primary outcome was 16.7 years (95% CI: 18.1, 21.0) with combination treatment versus 10.0 years (95% CI: 6.8, 12.3) with angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers resulting in an incremental gain of 6.7 years (95% CI: 5.5, 7.9). In an observational study, the estimated gain in event‐free survival regarding primary outcome was 6.3 years (95% CI: 5.2, 7.3). In a conservative scenario, assuming low adherence (70% of the observed adherence) and less pronounced efficacy (70% of the observed efficacy with 2% yearly decline) of combination therapy, gain in event‐free survival regarding primary outcome was 2.5 years (95% CI: 2.0, 2.9). Conclusions: Combined disease‐modifying treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor and MRA in patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD may substantially increase the number of years free from kidney failure and mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: We tested the hypothesis that candesartan improves outcomes in heart failure (HF) with mid-range ejection fraction [HFmrEF; ejection fraction (EF) 40-49%].Methods and Results: In 7598 patients enrolled in the CHARM Programme (HF across the spectrum of EF), we assessed characteristics, outcomes and treatment effect of candesartan according to EF. Patients with HFmrEF (n = 1322, 17%) were similar to those with HF with reduced EF (HFrEF; n = 4323, 57%) with respect to some characteristics, and intermediate between HFrEF and HF with preserved EF (HFpEF; n = 1953, 26%) with respect to others. Over a mean follow-up of 2.9 years, the incidence rates for the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization were 15.9, 8.5 and 8.9 per 100 patient-years in HFrEF, HFmrEF and HFpEF. In adjusted analyses, the rates of the primary outcome declined with increasing EF up to 50%. For treatment effect, the incidence rates for the primary outcome for candesartan vs. placebo were 14.4 vs. 17.5 per 100 patient-years in HFrEF [hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-0.91; P < 0.001], 7.4 vs. 9.7 per 100 patient-years in HFmrEF (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61-0.96; P = 0.02), and 8.6 vs. 9.1 per 100 patient-years in HFpEF (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.79-1.14; P = 0.57). For recurrent HF hospitalization, the incidence rate ratios were 0.68 in HFrEF (95% CI 0.58-0.80; P < 0.001), 0.48 in HFmrEF (95% CI 0.33-0.70; P < 0.001), and 0.78 in HFpEF (95% CI 0.59-1.03; P = 0.08). With EF as a continuous spline variable, candesartan significantly reduced the primary outcome until EF well over 50% and recurrent HF hospitalizations until EF well over 60%.Conclusion: Candesartan improved outcomes in HFmrEF to a similar degree as in HFrEF. ClinicalTrials.gov: CHARM Alternative NCT00634400, CHARM Added NCT00634309, CHARM Preserved NCT00634712. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Recurrent hospitalizations are a major part of the disease burden in heart failure (HF), but conventional analyses consider only the first event. We compared the effect of sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril on recurrent events, incorporating all HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular (CV) deaths in PARADIGM-HF, using a variety of statistical approaches advocated for this type of analysis.Methods and Results: In PARADIGM-HF, a total of 8399 patients were randomized and followed for a median of 27 months. We applied various recurrent event analyses, including a negative binomial model, the Wei, Lin and Weissfeld (WLW), and Lin, Wei, Ying and Yang (LWYY) methods, and a joint frailty model, all adjusted for treatment and region. Among a total of 3181 primary endpoint events (including 1251 CV deaths) during the trial, only 2031 (63.8%) were first events (836 CV deaths). Among a total of 1195 patients with at least one HF hospitalization, 410 (34%) had at least one further HF hospitalization. Sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril reduced the risk of recurrent HF hospitalization using the negative binomial model [rate ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67-0.89], the WLW method [hazard ratio (HR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.71-0.89], the LWYY method (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68-0.90), and the joint frailty model (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.66-0.86) (all P < 0.001). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril on recurrent HF hospitalizations/CV death was similar.Conclusions: In PARADIGM-HF, approximately one third of patients with a primary endpoint (time-to-first) experienced a further event. Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan reduced both first and recurrent events. The treatment effect size was similar, regardless of the statistical approach applied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Investigation of variations in provider performance and its determinants may help inform strategies for improving patient outcomes.Methods: We used the National Heart Failure Audit comprising 68 772 patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFREF), admitted to 185 hospitals in England and Wales (2007-2013). We investigated hospital adherence to three recommended key performance measures (KPMs) for inhospital care (ACE inhibitors (ACE-Is) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) on discharge, β-blockers on discharge and referral to specialist follow-up) individually and as a composite performance score. Hierarchical regression models were used to investigate hospital-level variation.Results: Hospital-level variation in adherence to composite KPM ranged from 50% to 97% (median 79%), but after adjustments for patient characteristics and year of admission, only 8% (95% CI 7% to 10%) of this variation was attributable to variations in hospital features. Similarly, hospital prescription rates for ACE-I/ARB and β-blocker showed low adjusted hospital-attributable variations (7% CI 6% to 9% and 6% CI 5% to 8%, for ACE-I/ARB and β-blocker, respectively). Referral to specialist follow-up, however, showed larger variations (median 81%; range; 20%, 100%) with 26% of this being attributable to hospital-level differences (CI 22% to 31%).Conclusion: Only a small proportion of hospital variation in medication prescription after discharge was attributable to hospital-level features. This suggests that differences in hospital practices are not a major determinant of observed variations in prescription of investigated medications and outcomes. Future healthcare delivery efforts should consider evaluation and improvement of more ambitious KPMs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims We investigated the association between worsening renal function (WRF) that occurs during renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibition initation and outcome in heart failure (HF) patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF) and compared this with HF patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFREF). Methods and results We examined changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and the relationship between WRF (defined as ≥26.5 µmol/L and ≥25% increase in serum creatinine from baseline to 6 weeks) and outcome, according to randomized treatment, in patients with HFREF (EF <45%; n = 1569) and HFPEF (EF ≥45%; n = 836) in the CHARM programme. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. Estimated GFR decreased 9.0±21 vs. 4.0±21 mL/min/1.73m2 with candesartan and placebo, respectively, and this was similar in HFREF and HFPEF. WRF developed more frequently with candesartan, 16% vs. 7%, P < 0.001, with similar findings in patients with HFREF and HFPEF. WRF was associated with a higher risk of the primary outcome: multivariable hazard ratio (HR) 1.26, 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.54, P = 0.022, in both treatment groups, and in both HFREF and HFPEF (P for interaction 0.98). In HFREF, WRF was mostly related to HF hospitalization, while in HFPEF, WRF seemed more associated with mortality. Conclusions GFR decreased more and WRF was more common with candesartan compared with placebo, and this was similar in HFREF and HFPEF. WRF was associated with worse outcomes in HFREF and HFPEF. Although no formal interaction was present, the association between candesartan treatment, WRF, and type of clinical outcome was slightly different between HFREF and HFPEF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Inhibition of neurohumoural pathways such as the renin angiotensin aldosterone and sympathetic nervous systems is central to the understanding and treatment of heart failure (HF). Conversely, until recently, potentially beneficial augmentation of neurohumoural systems such as the natriuretic peptides has had limited therapeutic success. Administration of synthetic natriuretic peptides has not improved outcomes in acute HF but modulation of the natriuretic system through inhibition of the enzyme that degrades natriuretic (and other vasoactive) peptides, neprilysin, has proven to be successful. After initial failures with neprilysin inhibition alone or dual neprilysin-angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition, the Prospective comparison of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure trial (PARADIGM-HF) trial demonstrated that morbidity and mortality can be improved with the angiotensin receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan (formerly LCZ696). In comparison to the ACE inhibitor enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the occurrence of the primary end point (cardiovascular death or hospitalisation for HF) by 20% with a 16% reduction in all-cause mortality. These findings suggest that sacubitril/valsartan should replace an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker as the foundation of treatment of symptomatic patients (NYHA II-IV) with HF and a reduced ejection fraction. This review will explore the background to neprilysin inhibition in HF, the results of the PARADIGM-HF trial and offer guidance on how to use sacubitril/valsartan in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background--Clinical trials in heart failure have focused on the improvement in symptoms or decreases in the risk of death and other cardiovascular events. Little is known about the effect of drugs on the risk of clinical deterioration in surviving patients. Methods and Results--We compared the angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 (400 mg daily) with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril (20 mg daily) in 8399 patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction in a double-blind trial. The analyses focused on prespecified measures of nonfatal clinical deterioration. In comparison with the enalapril group, fewer LCZ696-treated patients required intensification of medical treatment for heart failure (520 versus 604; hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.94; P=0.003) or an emergency department visit for worsening heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.85; P=0.001). The patients in the LCZ696 group had 23% fewer hospitalizations for worsening heart failure (851 versus 1079; P<0.001) and were less likely to require intensive care (768 versus 879; 18% rate reduction, P=0.005), to receive intravenous positive inotropic agents (31% risk reduction, P<0.001), and to have implantation of a heart failure device or cardiac transplantation (22% risk reduction, P=0.07). The reduction in heart failure hospitalization with LCZ696 was evident within the first 30 days after randomization. Worsening of symptom scores in surviving patients was consistently more common in the enalapril group. LCZ696 led to an early and sustained reduction in biomarkers of myocardial wall stress and injury (N-terminal pro-B- type natriuretic peptide and troponin) versus enalapril. Conclusions--Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition prevents the clinical progression of surviving patients with heart failure more effectively than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports on a trial on using angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 (L) with enalapril (E) in heart-failure patients with a reduced ejection fraction in 2014. Based on results, L, like E, reduced hospitalization risk by 21% and lessened heart failure symptoms and physical limitation, with the Lgroup having more patients with hypotension and less patients with renal impairment than the E group. L was found to be superior to E in reducing death and hospitalization risks.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Although the focus of therapeutic intervention has been on neurohormonal pathways thought to be harmful in heart failure (HF), such as the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS), potentially beneficial counter-regulatory systems are also active in HF. These promote vasodilatation and natriuresis, inhibit abnormal growth, suppress the RAAS and sympathetic nervous system, and augment parasympathetic activity. The best understood of these mediators are the natriuretic peptides which are metabolized by the enzyme neprilysin. LCZ696 belongs to a new class of drugs, the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), which both block the RAAS and augment natriuretic peptides. Methods Patients with chronic HF, NYHA class II–IV symptoms, an elevated plasma BNP or NT-proBNP level, and an LVEF of ≤40% were enrolled in the Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortailty and morbidity in Heart Failure trial (PARADIGM-HF). Patients entered a single-blind enalapril run-in period (titrated to 10 mg b.i.d.), followed by an LCZ696 run-in period (100 mg titrated to 200 mg b.i.d.). A total of 8436 patients tolerating both periods were randomized 1:1 to either enalapril 10 mg b.i.d. or LCZ696 200 mg b.i.d. The primary outcome is the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization, although the trial is powered to detect a 15% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death. Perspectives PARADIGM-HF will determine the place of the ARNI LCZ696 as an alternative to enalapril in patients with systolic HF. PARADIGM-HF may change our approach to neurohormonal modulation in HF. Trial registration NCT01035255 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article provides information on the study "The Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor LCZ696 in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction," by Scott D. Solomon et al. The pharmacologic therapies that have been tested in clinical trials includes beta-blockers, calcium-channel blockers and angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. The key inclusion and exclusion criteria for the clinical trial are mentioned.

Background: Myocardial fibrosis may contribute to the pathophysiology of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Given the biochemical targets of sacubitril/valsartan, this study hypothesized that circulating biomarkers reflecting the mechanisms that determine extracellular matrix homeostasis are altered by sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan alone.Objectives: This study investigated the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on biomarkers of extracellular matrix homeostasis and the association between biomarkers and the primary endpoint (total heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular death).Methods: N-terminal propeptide of collagen I and III, tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase 1, carboxyl-terminal telopeptide of collagen type I, and soluble ST2 were measured at baseline (n = 1,135) and 16 (n = 1,113) and 48 weeks (n = 1,016) after randomization. The effects of sacubitril/valsartan on these biomarkers were compared with those of valsartan alone. Baseline biomarker values and changes from baseline to 16 weeks were related to primary endpoint.Results: At baseline, all 5 biomarkers were higher than published referent control values. Sixteen weeks after randomization, sacubitril/valsartan decreased tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase 1 by 8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6% to 10%; p < 0.001), soluble ST2 by 4% (95% CI: 1% to 7%; p = 0.002), and N-terminal propeptide of collagen III by 3% (95% CI: 0% to 6%; p = 0.04) and increased carboxyl-terminal telopeptide of collagen type I by 4% (95% CI: 1% to 8%; p = 0.02) compared with valsartan alone, consistently in men and women and patients with left ventricular ejection fraction above or below the median of 57%. Higher levels of tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase 1 and soluble ST2 at baseline and increases in these markers at 16 weeks were associated with higher primary endpoint event rates.Conclusions: Biomarkers reflecting extracellular matrix homeostasis are elevated in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, favorably altered by sacubitril/valsartan, and have important prognostic value. (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Three drug classes (mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists [MRAs], angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors [ARNIs], and sodium/glucose cotransporter 2 [SGLT2] inhibitors) reduce mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) beyond conventional therapy consisting of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and β blockers. Each class was previously studied with different background therapies and the expected treatment benefits with their combined use are not known. Here, we used data from three previously reported randomised controlled trials to estimate lifetime gains in event-free survival and overall survival with comprehensive therapy versus conventional therapy in patients with chronic HFrEF.Methods: In this cross-trial analysis, we estimated treatment effects of comprehensive disease-modifying pharmacological therapy (ARNI, β blocker, MRA, and SGLT2 inhibitor) versus conventional therapy (ACE inhibitor or ARB and β blocker) in patients with chronic HFrEF by making indirect comparisons of three pivotal trials, EMPHASIS-HF (n=2737), PARADIGM-HF (n=8399), and DAPA-HF (n=4744). Our primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death or first hospital admission for heart failure; we also assessed these endpoints individually and assessed all-cause mortality. Assuming these relative treatment effects are consistent over time, we then projected incremental long-term gains in event-free survival and overall survival with comprehensive disease-modifying therapy in the control group of the EMPHASIS-HF trial (ACE inhibitor or ARB and β blocker).Findings: The hazard ratio (HR) for the imputed aggregate treatment effects of comprehensive disease-modifying therapy versus conventional therapy on the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospital admission for heart failure was 0·38 (95% CI 0·30-0·47). HRs were also favourable for cardiovascular death alone (HR 0·50 [95% CI 0·37-0·67]), hospital admission for heart failure alone (0·32 [0·24-0·43]), and all-cause mortality (0·53 [0·40-0·70]). Treatment with comprehensive disease-modifying pharmacological therapy was estimated to afford 2·7 additional years (for an 80-year-old) to 8·3 additional years (for a 55-year-old) free from cardiovascular death or first hospital admission for heart failure and 1·4 additional years (for an 80-year-old) to 6·3 additional years (for a 55-year-old) of survival compared with conventional therapy.Interpretation: Among patients with HFrEF, the anticipated aggregate treatment effects of early comprehensive disease-modifying pharmacological therapy are substantial and support the combination use of an ARNI, β blocker, MRA, and SGLT2 inhibitor as a new therapeutic standard.Funding: None. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article the author talks about the study of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) which is an elegant cascade of vasoactive peptides that orchestrate key processes in human physiology. Topics discussed Tissue-specific and circulating components of RAAS make up complex intersecting network of regulatory, and switching from a RAAS inhibitor to another antihypertensive therapy in a stable ambulatory patient require careful follow-up to avoid rebound increases in blood pressure.

Background: Many episodes of worsening of heart failure (HF) are treated by increasing oral therapy or temporary intravenous treatment in the community or emergency department (ED), without hospital admission. We studied the frequency and prognostic importance of these episodes of worsening in the Prospective Comparison of ARNI (angiotensin-receptor-neprilysin inhibitor) with ACEI (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor) to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure Trial (PARADIGM-HF).Methods and Results: Outpatient intensification of HF therapy was added to an expanded composite outcome with ED visits, HF hospitalizations, and cardiovascular deaths. In an examination of first nonfatal events, 361 of 8399 patients (4.3%) had outpatient intensification of HF therapy without a subsequent event (ie, ED visit/HF hospitalizations) within 30 days; 78 of 8399 (1.0%) had an ED visit without previous outpatient intensification of HF therapy or a subsequent event within 30 days; and 1107 of 8399 (13.2%) had HF hospitalizations without a preceding event. The risk of death (in comparison with no-event patients) was similar after each manifestation of worsening: outpatient intensification of HF therapy (hazard ratio, 4.8; 95% confidence interval, 3.9-5.9); ED visit (hazard ratio, 4.5; 95% confidence interval, 3.0-6.7); HF hospitalizations (hazard ratio, 5.9; 95% confidence interval, 5.2-6.6). The expanded composite added 14% more events and shortened time to accrual of a fixed number of events. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril was similar to the primary outcome for the expanded composite (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.86) and was consistent across the components of the latter.Conclusions: Focusing only on HF hospitalizations underestimates the frequency of worsening and the serious implications of all manifestations of worsening. For clinical trials conducted in an era of heightened efforts to avoid HF hospitalizations, inclusion of episodes of outpatient treatment intensification (and ED visits) in a composite outcome adds an important number of events and shortens the time taken to accrue a target number of end points in an event-driven trial.Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]