Search

Importance: Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction is a progressive clinical syndrome, and many patients' condition worsen over time despite treatment. Patients with more severe disease are often intolerant of available medical therapies. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of omecamtiv mecarbil for the treatment of patients with severe heart failure (HF) enrolled in the Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac Outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC-HF) randomized clinical trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: The GALACTIC-HF study was a global double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 randomized clinical trial that was conducted at multiple centers between January 2017 and August 2020. A total of 8232 patients with symptomatic HF (defined as New York Heart Association symptom class II-IV) and left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less were randomized to receive omecamtiv mecarbil or placebo and followed up for a median of 21.8 months (range, 15.4-28.6 months). The current post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of omecamtiv mecarbil therapy among patients classified as having severe HF compared with patients without severe HF. Severe HF was defined as the presence of all of the following criteria: New York Heart Association symptom class III to IV, left ventricular ejection fraction of 30% or less, and hospitalization for HF within the previous 6 months. Interventions: Participants were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive either omecamtiv mecarbil or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was time to first HF event or cardiovascular (CV) death. Secondary end points included time to CV death and safety and tolerability. Results: Among 8232 patients enrolled in the GALACTIC-HF clinical trial, 2258 patients (27.4%; mean [SD] age, 64.5 [11.6] years; 1781 men [78.9%]) met the specified criteria for severe HF. Of those, 1106 patients were randomized to the omecamtiv mecarbil group

Objectives: This study examined the relationship among high-sensitivity troponin-T (hs-TnT), outcomes, and treatment with sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure (HF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Background: hs-TnT is a marker of myocardial injury in HF. Methods: The PARAGON-HF trial randomized 4,796 patients with HFpEF to sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan. We compared the risk of the composite outcome of cardiovascular death (CVD) and total HF hospitalization (HHF) according to hs-TnT. We also assessed the effect of allocated treatment on hs-TnT. Results: hs-TnT was available in 1,141 patients (24%) at run-in (median value: 17 ng/L) and 1,260 (26%) at randomization, with 58.3% having hs-TnT >14 ng/L (upper limit of normal). During a median follow-up of 34 months, there were 393 outcome events (82 CVD, 311 HHF). Adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), log-hs-TnT at randomization was an independent predictor of the composite outcome (HR: 1.38; 95% CI: 1.19-1.59; P < 0.001). Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced hs-TnT by 9% at week 16 (P < 0.001). Patients whose hs-TnT decreased from randomization to 16 weeks to at or below the median value of 17 ng/L subsequently had a lower risk of CVD/HHF compared with those with persistently elevated hs-TnT (P = 0.046). Patients with higher baseline hs-TnT (>17 ng/L) appeared to have a greater benefit from sacubitril/valsartan treatment when accounting for other potential effect modifiers (P interaction = 0.07). Conclusions: Higher baseline hs-TnT was associated with increased risk of CVD/HHF, whereas hs-TnT decrease at 16 weeks led to lower subsequent risk of CVD/HHF compared with those who had persistently elevated values. Sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced hs-TnT compared with valsartan. hs-TnT may be helpful in identifying patients with HFpEF who are

Aims: Patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) frequently have difficult-to-control hypertension. We examined the effect of neprilysin inhibition on 'apparent resistant hypertension' in patients with HFpEF in the PARAGON-HF trial, which compared the effect of sacubitril-valsartan with valsartan. Methods and results: In this post hoc analysis, patients were categorized according to systolic blood pressure at the end of the valsartan run-in (n = 4795). 'Apparent resistant hypertension' was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥140 mmHg (≥135 mmHg if diabetes) despite treatment with valsartan, a calcium channel blocker, and a diuretic. 'Apparent mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA)-resistant' hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥140 mmHg (≥135 mmHg if diabetes) despite the above treatments and an MRA. The primary outcome in the PARAGON-HF trial was a composite of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. We examined clinical endpoints and the safety of sacubitril-valsartan according to the hypertension category. We also examined reductions in blood pressure from the end of valsartan run-in to Weeks 4 and 16 after randomization. Overall, 731 patients (15.2%) had apparent resistant hypertension and 135 (2.8%) had apparent MRA-resistant hypertension. The rate of the primary outcome was higher in patients with apparent resistant hypertension [17.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 15.6-19.1 per 100 person-years] compared to those with a controlled systolic blood pressure (13.4; 12.7-14.3 per 100 person-years), with an adjusted rate ratio of 1.28 (95% CI 1.05-1.57). The reduction in systolic blood pressure at Weeks 4 and 16, respectively, was greater with sacubitril-valsartan vs. valsartan in patients with apparent resistant hypertension [-4.8 (-7.0 to -2.5) and 3.9 (-6.6 to -1.3) mmHg] and apparent MRA-resistant hypertension [-8.8 (-14.0 to -3.5) and -6.3 (-12.5 to -0.1) mmHg]. The proportion

Background: The net clinical benefit of cardiac disease-modifying drugs might be influenced by the interaction of different domains of disease burden. We assessed the relative contribution of cardiac, comorbid, and demographic factors in heart failure (HF) and how their interplay might influence HF prognosis and efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction. Methods: We combined data from 2 global trials that evaluated the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan compared with a renin-Angiotensin antagonist in symptomatic HF patients (PARADIGM-HF [Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With an Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure; n=8399] and PARAGON-HF [Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptors Blockers Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction; n=4796]). We decomposed the previously validated Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure risk score into cardiac (left ventricular ejection fraction, New York Heart Association class, blood pressure, time since HF diagnosis, HF medications), noncardiac comorbid (body mass index, creatinine, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, smoking), and demographic (age, gender) categories. Based on these domains, an index representing the balance of cardiac to noncardiac comorbid burden was created (cardiac-comorbid index). Clinical outcomes were time to first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular deaths and all-cause mortality. Results: Higher scores of the cardiac domain were observed in PARADIGM-HF (10 [7-13] versus 5 [3-6], P<0.001) and higher scores of the demographic domain in PARAGON-HF (10 [8-13] versus 5 [2-9], P<0.001). In PARADIGM-HF, the contribution of the cardiac domain to clinical outcomes was greater than the noncardiac domain (P<0.001), while in PARAGON-HF the attributable ris

Background: Diastolic dysfunction (DD) might help to risk stratify patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Nonetheless, HF guidelines/risk scores don't consider DD. We aimed to show the independent prognostic value of DD for nonfatal HF/death in patients with HFrEF on top of natriuretic peptides (NP). Methods: We analyzed 1155 baseline echocardiograms of the MADIT-CRT study (LVEF≤30%, QRS ≥ 130 ms, NYHA class I/II), classifying DD according to 2016 ASE/EACVI classification. Results: Patients were 64 ± 11 years-old, 24% females, LVEF was 24 ± 5%, 58% had abnormal BNP (≥100 pg/ml). While 45% had impaired relaxation, 33% had pseudonormal filling, 12% restrictive pattern, 6% indeterminate diastolic function, 4% were not classifiable due to missing data. During a follow-up of 2.1 ± 1.0 years, there were 233 HF/death. Compared to patients without pseudonormal/restrictive filling and with normal NP (23%), patients with pseudonormal/restrictive filling, alone (15%) or combined to elevated NP (30%), were at higher risk of events (respectively padj = 0.025 and padj < 0.001), as opposed to those with abnormal NP alone (22%; padj = 0.55). Adding DD to conventional markers of risk and NP improved prediction (C-statistic 0.733 versus 0.708, p = 0.024). DD was the first parameter to be considered to risk stratify MADIT-CRT population, according to Classification-And-Regression-Tree analysis. Conclusions: Among HFrEF patients with mild symptoms, pseudonormal/restrictive filling, either alone or combined with elevated NP, was associated with high risk of events, as opposed to isolated elevation of NP. DD provided incremental risk prediction for death/HF beyond commonly used markers. These data might suggest to integrate DD into HF guidelines/risk scores.

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 (Pinteraction=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.

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–neprily-sin 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 wa

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

© 2018 The Authors. Background: Canagliflozin is a sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor that reduces the risk of cardiovascular events. We report the effects on heart failure (HF) and cardiovascular death overall, in those with and without a baseline history of HF, and in other participant subgroups. Methods: The CANVAS Program (Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study) enrolled 10 142 participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus and high cardiovascular risk. Participants were randomly assigned to canagliflozin or placebo and followed for a mean of 188 weeks. The primary end point for these analyses was adjudicated cardiovascular death or hospitalized HF. Results: Participants with a history of HF at baseline (14.4%) were more frequently women, white, and hypertensive and had a history of prior cardiovascular disease (all P<0.001). Greater proportions of these patients were using therapies such as blockers of the renin angiotensin aldosterone system, diuretics, and β-blockers at baseline (all P<0.001). Overall, cardiovascular death or hospitalized HF was reduced in those treated with canagliflozin compared with placebo (16.3 versus 20.8 per 1000 patientyears; hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-0.91), as was fatal or hospitalized HF (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55-0.89) and hospitalized HF alone (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.87). The benefit on cardiovascular death or hospitalized HF may be greater in patients with a prior history of HF (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.46-0.80) compared with those without HF at baseline (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.72-1.06; P interaction =0.021). The effects of canagliflozin compared with placebo on other cardiovascular outcomes and key safety outcomes were similar in participants with and without HF at baseline (all interaction P values >0.130), except for a possibly reduced absolute rate of events attributable to osmotic diuresis among those with a prior history of HF (P=0.03). Conclusions: In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Aims: Elevated serum uric acid concentration (SUA) has been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, but this may be due to unmeasured confounders. We examined the association between SUA and outcomes as well as the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on SUA in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in PARADIGM-HF. Methods and results: The association between SUA and the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization, its components, and all-cause mortality was examined using Cox regression analyses among 8213 patients using quintiles (Q1–Q5) of SUA adjusted for baseline prognostic variables including estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), diuretic dose, and log N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide. Change in SUA from baseline over 12 months was also evaluated in each treatment group. Patients in Q5 (SUA ≥8.6 mg/dL) compared with Q1 (<5.4 mg/dL) were younger (62.8 vs. 64.2 years), more often male (88.7% vs. 63.1%), had lower systolic blood pressure (119 vs. 123 mmHg), lower eGFR (57.4 vs. 76.6 mL/min/1.73 m2), and greater diuretic use. Higher SUA was associated with a higher risk of the primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratios) Q5 vs. Q1 = 1.28 [95% confidence intervals (1.09–1.50), P = 0.003], cardiovascular death [1.44 (1.11–1.77), P = 0.001], HF hospitalization [1.37 (1.11–1.70), P = 0.004], and all-cause mortality [1.36 (1.13–1.64), P = 0.001]. Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan reduced SUA by 0.24 (0.17–0.32) mg/dL over 12 months (P < 0.0001). Sacubitril/valsartan improved outcomes, irrespective of SUA concentration. Conclusion: Serum uric acid concentration was an independent predictor of worse outcomes after multivariable adjustment in patients with HFrEF. Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan reduced SUA and improved outcomes irrespective of SUA.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the renal effects of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. Background: Renal function is frequently impaired in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and may deteriorate further after blockade of the renin–angiotensin system. Methods: In the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACE inhibition to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial, 8,399 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction were randomized to treatment with sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril. The estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was available for all patients, and the urinary albumin/creatinine ratio (UACR) was available in 1872 patients, at screening, randomization, and at fixed time intervals during follow-up. We evaluated the effect of study treatment on change in eGFR and UACR, and on renal and cardiovascular outcomes, according to eGFR and UACR. Results: At screening, the eGFR was 70 ± 20 ml/min/1.73 m2 and 2,745 patients (33%) had chronic kidney disease; the median UACR was 1.0 mg/mmol (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.4 to 3.2 mg/mmol) and 24% had an increased UACR. The decrease in eGFR during follow-up was less with sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril (−1.61 ml/min/1.73 m2/year; [95% confidence interval: −1.77 to −1.44 ml/min/1.73 m2/year] vs. −2.04 ml/min/1.73 m2/year [95% CI: −2.21 to −1.88 ml/min/1.73 m2/year]; p < 0.001) despite a greater increase in UACR with sacubitril/valsartan than with enalapril (1.20 mg/mmol [95% CI: 1.04 to 1.36 mg/mmol] vs. 0.90 mg/mmol [95% CI: 0.77 to 1.03 mg/mmol]; p < 0.001). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan on cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization was not modified by eGFR, UACR (p interaction = 0.70 and 0.34, respectively), or by change in UACR (p interaction = 0.38). Conclusions: Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan led to a slower rate

Aims: Troponin levels are commonly elevated among patients hospitalized for heart failure (HF), but the prevalence and prognostic significance of early post-discharge troponin elevation are unclear. This study sought to describe the frequency and prognostic value of pre-discharge and post-discharge troponin elevation, including persistent troponin elevation from the inpatient to outpatient settings. Methods and results: The ASTRONAUT trial (NCT00894387; http://www.clinicaltrials.gov) enrolled hospitalized HF patients with ejection fraction ≤40% and measured troponin I prior to discharge (i.e. study baseline) and at 1-month follow-up in a core laboratory (elevation defined as >0.04 ng/mL). This analysis included 1469 (91.0%) patients with pre-discharge troponin data. Overall, 41.5% and 29.9% of patients had elevated pre-discharge [median: 0.09 ng/mL; interquartile range (IQR): 0.06–0.19 ng/mL] and 1-month (median: 0.09 ng/mL; IQR: 0.06–0.15 ng/mL) troponin levels, respectively. Among patients with pre-discharge troponin elevation, 60.4% had persistent elevation at 1 month. After adjustment, pre-discharge troponin elevation was not associated with 12-month clinical outcomes. In contrast, 1-month troponin elevation was independently predictive of increased all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 1.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18–2.13] and cardiovascular mortality or HF hospitalization (HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.03–1.58) at 12 months. Associations between 1-month troponin elevation and outcomes were similar among patients with newly elevated (i.e. normal pre-discharge) and persistently elevated levels (interaction P ≥ 0.16). The prognostic value of 1-month troponin elevation for 12-month mortality was driven by a pronounced association among patients with coronary artery disease (interaction P = 0.009). Conclusions: In this hospitalized HF population, troponin I elevation was common during index hospitalization and at 1-month follow-up. Elevated troponin I level at 1 mo

Aims The globalization of clinical trials has highlighted geographic variations in patient characteristics, event rates, and treatment effects. We investigated these further in PARADIGM-HF, the largest and most globally representative trial in heart failure (HF) to date. Methods and results We looked at five regions: North America (NA) 602 (8%), Western Europe (WE) 1680 (20%), Central/Eastern Europe/ Russia (CEER) 2762 (33%), Latin America (LA) 1433 (17%), and Asia-Pacific (AP) 1487 (18%). Notable differences included: WE patients (mean age 68 years) and NA (65 years) were older than AP (58 years) and LA (63 years) and had more coronary disease; NA and CEER patients had the worst signs, symptoms, and functional status. North American patients were the most likely to have a defibrillating-device (54 vs. 2% AP) and least likely prescribed a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (36 vs. 65% LA). Other evidence-based therapies were used most frequently in NA and WE. Rates of the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death or HF hospitalization (per 100 patient-years) varied among regions: NA 13.6 (95% CI 11.7-15.7) WE 9.6 (8.6-10.6), CEER 12.3 (11.4-13.2), LA 11.2 (10.0-12.5), and AP 12.5 (11.3-13.8). After adjustment for prognostic variables, relative to NA, the risk of CV death was higher in LA and AP and the risk of HF hospitalization lower in WE. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was consistent across regions. Conclusion There were many regional differences in PARADIGM-HF, including in age, symptoms, comorbidity, background therapy, and event-rates, although these did not modify the benefit of sacubitril/valsartan. Clinical trial registration URL http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255.

BACKGROUND Among patients with chronic heart failure, angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors reduce mortality and hospitalization, but the role of a renin inhibitor in such patients is unknown. We compared the ACE inhibitor enalapril with the renin inhibitor aliskiren (to test superiority or at least noninferiority) and with the combination of the two treatments (to test superiority) in patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction. METHODS After a single-blind run-in period, we assigned patients, in a double-blind fashion, to one of three groups: 2336 patients were assigned to receive enalapril at a dose of 5 or 10 mg twice daily, 2340 to receive aliskiren at a dose of 300 mg once daily, and 2340 to receive both treatments (combination therapy). The primary composite outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure. RESULTS After a median follow-up of 36.6 months, the primary outcome occurred in 770 patients (32.9%) in the combination-therapy group and in 808 (34.6%) in the enalapril group (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.03). The primary outcome occurred in 791 patients (33.8%) in the aliskiren group (hazard ratio vs. enalapril, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.10); the prespecified test for noninferiority was not met. There was a higher risk of hypotensive symptoms in the combination-therapy group than in the enalapril group (13.8% vs. 11.0%, P = 0.005), as well as higher risks of an elevated serum creatinine level (4.1% vs. 2.7%, P = 0.009) and an elevated potassium level (17.1% vs. 12.5%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS In patients with chronic heart failure, the addition of aliskiren to enalapril led to more adverse events without an increase in benefit. Noninferiority was not shown for aliskiren as c

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 angiotensinconverting 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-Btype 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.

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.

The management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF) has improved significantly over the last two decades. In contrast, little or no progress has been made in identifying evidence-based, effective treatments for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HF-PEF). Despite the high prevalence, mortality, and cost of HF-PEF, large phase III international clinical trials investigating interventions to improve outcomes in HF-PEF have yielded disappointing results. Therefore, treatment of HF-PEF remains largely empiric, and almost no acknowledged standards exist. There is no single explanation for the negative results of past HF-PEF trials. Potential contributors include an incomplete understanding of HF-PEF pathophysiology, the heterogeneity of the patient population, inadequate diagnostic criteria, recruitment of patients without true heart failure or at early stages of the syndrome, poor matching of therapeutic mechanisms and primary pathophysiological processes, suboptimal study designs, or inadequate statistical power. Many novel agents are in various stages of research and development for potential use in patients with HF-PEF. To maximize the likelihood of identifying effective therapeutics for HF-PEF, lessons learned from the past decade of research should be applied to the design, conduct, and interpretation of future trials. This paper represents a synthesis of a workshop held in Bergamo, Italy, and it examines new and emerging therapies in the context of specific, targeted HF-PEF phenotypes where positive clinical benefit may be detected in clinical trials. Specific considerations related to patient and endpoint selection for future clinical trials design are also discussed.

Aim Renal dysfunction is a common comorbidity in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). We sought to determine whether renal dysfunction was associated with measures of cardiovascular structure/function in patients with HFpEF. Methods We studied 217 participants from the PARAMOUNT study with HFpEF who had echocardiography and measures of kidney function. We evaluated the relationships between renal dysfunction [estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) >30 and <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 and/or albuminuria] and cardiovascular structure/function. Results The mean age of the study population was 71 years, 55% were women, 94% hypertensive, and 40% diabetic. Impairment of at least one parameter of kidney function was present in 62% of patients (16% only albuminuria, 23% only low eGFR, 23% both). Renal dysfunction was associated with abnormal LV geometry (defined as concentric hypertrophy, or eccentric hypertrophy, or concentric remodelling) (adjusted P = 0.048), lower midwall fractional shortening (MWFS) (P = 0.009), and higher NT-proBNP (P = 0.006). Compared with patients without renal dysfunction, those with low eGFR and no albuminuria had a higher prevalence of abnormal LV geometry (P = 0.032) and lower MWFS (P < 0.01), as opposed to those with only albuminuria. Conversely, albuminuria alone was associated with greater LV dimensions (P < 0.05). Patients with combined renal impairment had mixed abnormalities (higher LV wall thicknesses, NT-proBNP; lower MWFS). Conclusion Renal dysfunction, as determined by both eGFR and albuminuria, is highly prevalent in HFpEF, and associated with cardiac remodelling and subtle systolic dysfunction. The observed differences in cardiac structure/function between each type of renal damage suggest that both parameters of kidney function might play a distinct role in HFpEF.

The burden of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is considerable and is projected to worsen. To date, there are no approved therapies available for reducing mortality or hospitalizations for these patients. The pathophysiology of HFpEF is complex and includes alterations in cardiac structure and function, systemic and pulmonary vascular abnormalities, end-organ involvement, and comorbidities. There remain major gaps in our understanding of HFpEF pathophysiology. To facilitate a discussion of how to proceed effectively in future with development of therapies for HFpEF, a meeting was facilitated by the Food and Drug Administration and included representatives from academia, industry, and regulatory agencies. This document summarizes the proceedings from this meeting.

AIMS: This report describes the baseline characteristics of patients in the Reduction of Events with Darbepoetin alfa in Heart Failure trial (RED-HF) which is testing the hypothesis that anaemia correction with darbepoetin alfa will reduce the composite endpoint of death from any cause or hospital admission for worsening heart failure, and improve other outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Key demographic, clinical, and laboratory findings, along with baseline treatment, are reported and compared with those of patients in other recent clinical trials in heart failure. Compared with other recent trials, RED-HF enrolled more elderly [mean age 70 (SD 11.4) years], female (41%), and black (9%) patients. RED-HF patients more often had diabetes (46%) and renal impairment (72% had an estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2). Patients in RED-HF had heart failure of longer duration [5.3 (5.4) years], worse NYHA class (35% II, 63% III, and 2% IV), and more signs of congestion. Mean EF was 30% (6.8%). RED-HF patients were well treated at randomization, and pharmacological therapy at baseline was broadly similar to that of other recent trials, taking account of study-specific inclusion/exclusion criteria. Median (interquartile range) haemoglobin at baseline was 112 (106-117) g/L. CONCLUSION: The anaemic patients enrolled in RED-HF were older, moderately to markedly symptomatic, and had extensive co-morbidity.

Objectives: To examine the prevalence of peripheral artery disease (PAD) and the relationship between PAD and cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in subjects with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, heart failure or both after acute myocardial infarction (MI). Background: PAD is associated with poorer prognosis in patients with stable and unstable coronary heart disease but whether PAD is associated with worse outcomes following substantial acute MI is unknown. Methods: Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards modelling was used to compare clinical outcomes in an individual-patient meta-analysis of 4 trials (CAPRICORN, EPHESUS, OPTIMAAL and VALIANT). Results: Of the 28,771 patients randomized, 2357 (8.2%) had PAD. These patients were older and had more co-morbidity and were less likely to be prescribed aspirin or a beta-blocker compared to patients without PAD. Over a mean follow-up of 2.7 years, 5121 (17.8%) patients died and 15,055 (52.3%) experienced CV death or hospitalization. PAD was an independent predictor of all individual and composite CV outcomes examined (including heart failure), with the exception of stroke. In patients with PAD (compared to those without PAD), the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality was 1.25 (95% CI 1.15-1.37; p<0.001) and the HR for CV death, non-fatal MI, non-fatal stroke or heart failure hospitalization was 1.24 (1.16-1.33; p<0.001). Conclusions: PAD is common and is an independent predictor of worse outcomes in patients already at high risk after MI because of left ventricular systolic dysfunction, heart failure or both. These patients represent an important group for intensive application of secondary preventive therapies. © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

In some randomized trials comparing revascularization strategies for patients with diabetes, coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) has had a better outcome than percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We sought to discover whether aggressive medical therapy and the use of drug-eluting stents could alter the revascularization approach for patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary artery disease.