Search

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

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

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

Background: In a randomized trial, baroreflex activation therapy (BAT) improved exercise capacity, quality of life and NT-proBNP in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In view of different mechanisms underlying HFrEF, we performed a post-hoc subgroup analysis of efficacy and safety of BAT in patients with and without coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods and results: Patients with left ventricular ejection fraction [removed] 0.05). Conclusion: No major differences were found in BAT efficacy or safety between patients with and without CAD, indicating that BAT improves exercise capacity, quality of life and NTproBNP in patients with ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01471860 and NCT01720160.

The purpose of this publication is to describe the intraoperative experience along with long-term safety and efficacy of the second-generation baroreflex activation therapy (BAT) system in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction HF (HFrEF). In a randomized trial of New York Heart Association Class III HFrEF, 140 patients were assigned 1:1 to receive BAT plus medical therapy or medical therapy alone. Procedural information along with safety and efficacy data were collected and analyzed over 12 months. Within the cohort of 71 patients randomized to BAT, implant procedure time decreased with experience, from 106 ± 37 minutes on the first case to 83 ± 32 minutes on the third case. The rate of freedom from system- and procedure-related complications was 86% through 12 months, with the percentage of days alive without a complication related to system, procedure, or underlying cardiovascular condition identical to the control group. The complications that did occur were generally mild and short-lived. Overall, 12 months therapeutic benefit from BAT was consistent with previously reported efficacy through 6 months: there was a significant and sustained beneficial treatment effect on New York Heart Association functional Class, quality of life, 6-minute hall walk distance, plasma N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, and systolic blood pressure. This was true for the full trial cohort and a predefined subset not receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy. There is a rapid learning curve for the specialized procedures entailed in a BAT system implant. BAT system implantation is safe with the therapeutic benefits of BAT in patients with HFrEF being substantial and maintained for at least 1 year.

The epidemiological, clinical, and societal implications of the heart failure (HF) epidemic cannot be overemphasized. Approximately half of all HF patients have HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). HFpEF is largely a syndrome of the elderly, and with aging of the population, the proportion of patients with HFpEF is expected to grow. Currently, there is no drug known to improve mortality or hospitalization risk for these patients. Besides mortality and hospitalization, it is imperative to realize that patients with HFpEF have significant impairment in their functional capacity and their quality of life on a daily basis, underscoring the need for these parameters to ideally be incorporated within a regulatory pathway for drug approval. Although attempts should continue to explore therapies to reduce the risk of mortality or hospitalization for these patients, efforts should also be directed to improve other patient-centric concerns, such as functional capacity and quality of life. To initiate a dialogue about the compelling need for and the challenges in developing such alternative endpoints for patients with HFpEF, the US Food and Drug Administration on November 12, 2015, facilitated a meeting represented by clinicians, academia, industry, and regulatory agencies. This document summarizes the discussion from this meeting.

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 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.

Aims Increased sympathetic and decreased parasympathetic activity contribute to heart failure (HF) symptoms and disease progression. Carotid baroreceptor stimulation (baroreflex activation therapy, BAT) results in centrally mediated reduction of sympathetic and increase in parasympathetic activity. Because patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) may have less sympathetic/parasympathetic imbalance, we hypothesized that there would be differences in the response to BAT in patients with CRT vs. those without CRT. Methods and results New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class III patients with an ejection fraction (EF) ≤35% were randomized (1: 1) to ongoing guideline-directed medical and device therapy (GDMT, control) or ongoing GDMT plus BAT. Safety endpoint was system-/procedure-related major adverse neurological and cardiovascular events (MANCE). Efficacy endpoints were Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Quality of Life (QoL), 6-min hall walk distance (6MHWD), N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and HF hospitalization rate. In this sample, 146 patients were randomized (70 control; 76 BAT) and were 140 activated (45 with CRT and 95 without CRT). MANCE-free rate at 6 months was 100% in CRT and 96% in no-CRT group. At 6 months, in the no-CRT group, QoL score, 6MHWD, LVEF, NT-proBNP and HF hospitalizations were significantly improved in BAT patients compared with controls. Changes in efficacy endpoints in the CRT group favoured BAT; however, the improvements were less than in the no-CRT group and were not statistically different from control. Conclusions BAT is safe and significantly improved QoL, exercise capacity, NTpro-BNP, EF, and rate of HF hospitalizations in GDMT-treated NYHA Class III HF patients. These effects were most pronounced in patients not treated with CRT.

Objectives: The objective of this clinical trial was to assess the safety and efficacy of carotid BAT in advanced HF. Background: Increased sympathetic and decreased parasympathetic activity contribute to heart failure (HF) symptoms and disease progression. Baroreflex activation therapy (BAT) results in centrally mediated reduction of sympathetic outflow and increased parasympathetic activity. Methods: Patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class III HF and ejection fractions≤35% on chronic stable guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) were enrolled at 45 centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe. They were randomly assigned to receive ongoing GDMT alone (control group) or ongoing GDMT plus BAT (treatment group) for 6 months. The primary safety end point was system- and procedure-related major adverse neurological and cardiovascular events. The primary efficacy end points were changes in NYHA functional class, quality-of-life score, and 6-minute hall walk distance. Results: One hundred forty-six patients were randomized, 70 to control and 76 to treatment. The major adverse neurological and cardiovascular event-free rate was 97.2% (lower 95% confidence bound 91.4%). Patients assigned to BAT, compared with control group patients, experienced improvements in the distance walked in 6 min (59.6 ± 14 m vs. 1.5± 13.2 m; p= 0.004), quality-of-life score (-17.4 ± 2.8 points vs. 2.1 ± 3.1 points; p< 0.001), and NYHA functional class ranking (p=0.002 for change in distribution). BAT significantly reduced N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (p= 0.02) and was associated with a trend toward fewer days hospitalized for HF (p= 0.08). Conclusions: BAT is safe and improves functional status, quality of life, exercise capacity, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, and possibly the burden of heart failure hospitalizations in patients with GDMT-treated NYHA functional class III HF. (Barostim Neo System in the Treatment of Heart Failure; NCT0147

Aims Although active-controlled trials with renin-angiotensin inhibitors are ethically mandated in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, clinicians and regulators often want to know how the experimental therapy would perform compared with placebo. The angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 was compared with enalapril in PARADIGM-HF. We made indirect comparisons of the effects of LCZ696 with putative placebos. Methods and results We used the treatment-armof the Studies OfLeftVentricularDysfunction(SOLVD-T) as the reference trial for comparison of an ACE inhibitor to placebo and the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity-Alternative trial (CHARM-Alternative) as the reference trial for comparison of an ARB to placebo. The hazard ratio of LCZ696vs. aputativeplacebowasestimatedthroughtheproductof the hazardratioofLCZ696vs. enalapril (active-control) and that of the historical active-control (enalapril or candesartan) vs. placebo. For the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization in PARADIGM-HF, the relative risk reduction with LCZ696 vs. a putative placebo from SOLVD-T was 43% (95%CI 34-50%; P< 0.0001) with similarly large effects on cardiovascular death (34%, 21-44%; P< 0.0001) and heart failure hospitalization (49%, 39-58%; P< 0.0001). For all-cause mortality, the reduction comparedwith a putative placebowas 28% (95%CI 15-39%; P< 0.0001). Putative placebo analyses based onCHARM-Alternative gave relative risk reductions of 39% (95%CI 27-48%; P< 0.0001) for the composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization, 32% (95%CI 16-45%; P< 0.0001) for cardiovascular death, 46% (33-56%; P< 0.0001) for heart failure hospitalization, and 26% (95%CI 11-39%; P< 0.0001) for all-cause mortality. Conclusion These indirect comparisons of LCZ696 with a putative placebo show that the strategy of combined angiotensin receptor blockade and nep

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.