Search

Aims: We explored timing, settings and predictors of angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) initiation in a large, nationwide cohort of patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods and results: Patients with HFrEF (ejection fraction <40%) registered in the Swedish HF Registry in 2017–2021 and naïve to ARNI were evaluated for timing and location of, and their characteristics at ARNI initiation. ARNI use increased from 8.3% in 2017 to 26.7% in 2021. Among 3892 hospitalized patients, 8% initiated ARNI in‐hospital or ≤14 days after discharge, 4% between 15 and 90 days, and 88% >90 days after discharge or never initiated. Factors associated with earlier initiation included follow‐up in specialized HF care, more severe HF, previous HF treatment use and higher income, whereas older age, higher comorbidity burden and living alone were associated with later/no initiation. Of 16 486 HFrEF patients, 8.1% inpatients and 5.9% outpatients initiated an ARNI at the index date. Factors associated with initiation in outpatients were overall consistent with those linked with an in‐hospital/earlier ARNI initiation; 4.9% of 10 209 with HF duration <6 months and 9.1% of 5877 with HF duration ≥6 months initiated ARNI. Predictors of ARNI initiation in HF duration <6 months were inpatient status, lower ejection fraction, hypertension, whereas previous angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker use was associated with less likely initiation. Discontinuation at 1 year ranged between 13% and 20% across the above‐reported analyses. Conclusions: In‐hospital and early initiation of ARNI are limited in real‐world care but still slightly more likely than in outpatients. ARNI were more likely initiated in patients with more severe HF, which might suggest its use as a second‐line treatment and only following worsening of clinical status. One‐year discontinuation rates were consistent regardless of the timing/setting of ARNI initiation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Methods and results Conclusions The incidence of heart failure hospitalization is higher in women than in men after myocardial infarction (MI). Sex‐related differences in left ventricular (LV) remodelling may contribute to the differences in post‐MI outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess sex differences in echocardiographic parameters post‐MI, and whether the relationship between echocardiographic parameters and clinical outcomes differs by sex.In the PARADISE‐MI trial, patients were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan or ramipril within 0.5 to 7 days of high‐risk MI. In the pre‐specified echocardiographic substudy, 544 patients underwent echocardiography at the time of randomization and after 8 months. We compared key echocardiographic parameters in men and women and their association with primary composite outcome (cardiovascular death or incident heart failure). At baseline, women had higher LV ejection fraction (LVEF), lower LV end‐diastolic volume (LVEDV) index, LV end‐systolic volume (LVESV) index, and LV mass index. After adjusting for baseline clinical differences, changes in these echocardiographic parameters from baseline to 8 months were not significantly different in women versus men. Lower LVEF, higher LVEDV, LVESV, left atrial volume index, and average E/e' were associated with a higher risk of the primary composite outcome. Sex did not modify the relationship between echocardiographic parameters and clinical outcome.Despite baseline differences in measures of cardiac function between men and women following acute high‐risk MI, there were no significant sex‐related changes in chamber size or LV function. Sex did not modify the association between echocardiographic parameters and clinical outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Methods and results Conclusion Angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) has played an increasingly important role in the management of heart failure (HF). However, the evidence on the benefits of ARNI in HF patients with end‐stage kidney disease (ESKD) undergoing dialysis is limited. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of ARNI in patients with concomitant HF and ESKD on maintenance dialysis.We systematically searched the MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for studies reporting outcomes after ARNI treatment in HF patients with ESKD on dialysis. All meta‐analyses were performed using the random effects model. Twenty‐six studies comprising 2494 patients with concomitant HF and ESKD undergoing dialysis were included. Our synthesis showed a significant improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) between before and after ARNI treatment (mean change: 8.05%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.57–10.54). Compared to the conventional group, the ARNI group showed a greater improvement in LVEF (mean difference: 4.03%; 95% CI 2.90–5.16). This effect was more pronounced in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (pinteraction < 0.0001). Patients treated with ARNI had a lower risk of all‐cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.64; 95% CI 0.45–0.92; p = 0.01) but had a similar rate of HF hospitalization (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.43–1.18; p = 0.19). ARNI treatment showed benefits in the improvement of left ventricular end‐systolic diameter, left ventricular mass index, left atrial diameter, and E/e′ ratio (p < 0.05), while it did not significantly increase the risk of severe hyperkalaemia (p = 0.33) or symptomatic hypotension (p = 0.53).This meta‐analysis provided insights into the benefits of ARNI in HF patients with ESKD undergoing dialysis by improving left ventricular function, reversing left ventricular remodelling, and reducing the risk of all‐cause mortality, without increasing the risk of HF hospitalizations, severe hyperkalaemia, and symptomatic hypotension. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Pharmacologic blockade of neurohormonal pathways in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) can result in acute changes in biomarkers of kidney function. We evaluated the effect of sacubitril/valsartan versus ramipril on initial changes in serum creatinine and the association of these changes with longer‐term outcomes among participants in PARADISE‐MI. Methods and results: In this randomized, double‐blind, active‐controlled, event‐driven trial, 5661 patients with an acute MI were assigned to receive sacubitril/valsartan or ramipril, with no run‐in. The frequency of an initial pre‐specified increase in serum creatinine (≥26.5 or ≥44 μmol/L) from baseline to week 1 was compared between arms. Multivariable Cox regression models were fit to examine the association of acute changes in serum creatinine with the primary cardiovascular composite outcome (cardiovascular death, first heart failure hospitalization, or outpatient heart failure), all‐cause mortality, and longer‐term changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). An initial increase in serum creatinine ≥26.5 μmol/L occurred in 155 of 2604 (6.0%) patients assigned to sacubitril/valsartan and 120 of 2603 (4.6%) patients assigned to ramipril (odds ratio [OR] 1.32; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03–1.68). The corresponding numbers for an increase ≥44 μmol/L were 57 (2.2%) and 42 (1.6%), respectively (OR 1.37; 95% CI 0.92–2.05). A higher odds of increased serum creatinine ≥26.5 and ≥44 μmol/L for sacubitril/valsartan versus ramipril appeared to be restricted to patients who had a greater decline in systolic blood pressure over the same period (p‐interaction = 0.05 and 0.001, respectively). In multivariable analyses, neither an acute increase in serum creatinine ≥26.5 or ≥44 μmol/L was associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular outcomes, all‐cause mortality, or differences in longer‐term eGFR slope. Findings were similar across the randomized treatment arms (p‐interaction >0.6 for all). Conclusions: Following acute MI, patients assigned to sacubitril/valsartan had a higher frequency of initial increases in serum creatinine at 1 week, compared with ramipril. In adjusted models, initial increases in serum creatinine with either treatment were not associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes or changes in longer‐term kidney function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Methods and results Conclusions Renin–angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) have been shown to lower haemoglobin levels, potentially related to reductions in erythropoietin levels and haematopoiesis. We examined whether sacubitril/valsartan might attenuate this effect of RASi alone on incident anaemia in patients with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF/HFpEF).PARAGON‐HF was a global, multicentre randomized clinical trial of sacubitril/valsartan versus the RASi valsartan in patients with HF and left ventricular ejection fraction ≥45%. We evaluated haemoglobin trajectory and risks of incident anaemia and new iron therapy initiation during follow‐up. Among 4795 participants, 1111 (23.2%) had anaemia at randomization and 5.6% were treated with iron at baseline. Over a median follow‐up of 2.9 years, patients with anaemia were at significantly higher risk for total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death, compared with those without anaemia (21.6 vs. 11.5 per 100 patient‐years; adjusted rate ratio 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12–1.54; p = 0.001). Sacubitril/valsartan slightly slowed the decline in haemoglobin levels by 0.1 g/dl (95% CI 0.0–0.2 g/dl; p = 0.005). Participants treated with sacubitril/valsartan were at significantly lower risk of developing anaemia (30.3% vs. 37.6%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.76; 95% CI 0.68–0.85; p < 0.001) and starting iron therapy (8.1% vs. 10.0%; HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.67–0.97; p = 0.026). Treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan on total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death were consistent among patients across the haemoglobin spectrum (pinteraction = 0.60).Among patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan resulted in modestly smaller declines in haemoglobin, lower rates of incident anaemia, and fewer new initiations of iron therapy compared with RASi.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01920711. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Cardiovascular‐kidney‐metabolic (CKM) multimorbidity is prevalent among individuals with heart failure (HF), but whether cardiac structure and function, clinical outcomes, and treatment response to sacubitril/valsartan vary in relation to CKM status is unknown. Methods and results: In this PARAGON‐HF post‐hoc analysis, we evaluated the impact of CKM multimorbidity (atherosclerotic cardiovascular [CV] disease, chronic kidney disease, and type 2 diabetes) on cardiac structure and function, clinical outcomes, and treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan. The primary outcome was a composite of total HF hospitalizations and CV death. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary outcome and a composite kidney outcome (sustained estimated glomerular filtration rate reduction of ≥50%, end‐stage kidney disease, or kidney‐related death). At baseline, 35.2% had one CKM condition, 33.3% had two, 15.9% had three, and only 15.6% had HF alone. CKM multimorbidity was associated with higher septal and posterior wall thickness, lower global longitudinal strain, higher E/e', and worse right ventricular function. Total HF hospitalizations or CV death increased with greater CKM multimorbidity, with the highest relative risk observed with three CKM conditions (rate ratio 3.06, 95% confidence interval 2.33–4.03), compared with HF alone. Treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan were consistent irrespective of the number of CKM conditions for the primary endpoint (pinteraction = 0.75), CV death (pinteraction = 0.82), total HF hospitalizations (pinteraction = 0.67), and the composite kidney endpoint (pinteraction = 0.99). Conclusions: Cardiovascular‐kidney‐metabolic multimorbidity was common in PARAGON‐HF and associated with adverse changes in cardiac structure and function and with a stepwise increase in risk of clinical outcomes. Treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan were consistent irrespective of CKM burden. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01920711. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Sacubitril/valsartan treatment reduces mortality and hospitalizations in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction but has limited application in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on peak oxygen consumption (VO2) in patients with non‐obstructive HCM. Methods and results: This is a phase II, randomized, open‐label multicentre study that enrolled adult patients with symptomatic non‐obstructive HCM (New York Heart Association class I–III) who were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive sacubitril/valsartan (target dose 97/103 mg) or control for 16 weeks. The primary endpoint was a change in peak VO2. Secondary endpoints included echocardiographic measures of cardiac structure and function, natriuretic peptides and other cardiac biomarkers, and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure quality of life. Between May 2018 and October 2021, 354 patients were screened for eligibility, 115 patients (mean age 58 years, 37% female) met the study inclusion criteria and were randomly assigned to sacubitril/valsartan (n = 79) or control (n = 36). At 16 weeks, there was no significant change in peak VO2 from baseline in the sacubitril/valsartan (15.3 [4.3] vs. 15.9 [4.3] ml/kg/min, p = 0.13) or control group (p = 0.47). No clinically significant changes were found in blood pressure, cardiac structure and function, plasma biomarkers, or quality of life. Conclusion: In patients with HCM, a 16‐week treatment with sacubitril/valsartan was well tolerated but had no effect on exercise capacity, cardiac structure, or function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The PARACOR‐19 randomized controlled trial (RCT) was designed to examine the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on markers of cardiac injury, inflammation, structure, and function among patients who have recovered from acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) infection. Methods and results: PARACOR‐19 was a single‐centre, double‐blind RCT of patients with cardiovascular risk factors and a history of COVID‐19 infection 4–16 weeks prior to enrolment. Patients were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan (titrated to the maximum dose of 97/103 mg twice daily) versus matching placebo. Co‐primary endpoints were change from baseline to 12 weeks in high‐sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs‐cTnT) and soluble ST2 (sST2). Exploratory endpoints included change from baseline to 12 weeks in additional circulating biomarkers. Overall, 42 patients were randomized between August 2021 and March 2023 (n = 20 sacubitril/valsartan, n = 22 placebo). Median (25th–75th) time from COVID‐19 diagnosis to enrolment was 67 (48–80) days. Median age was 67 (62–71) years, 48% were female, and 91% were White. Compared with placebo, sacubitril/valsartan did not have a significant effect on the co‐primary endpoints of change from baseline in hs‐TnT and sST2 (all p ≥ 0.29). In exploratory analyses, sacubitril/valsartan led to a 46% greater reduction in N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP) and 51% greater reduction in C‐terminal telopeptide of collagen type I (CITP). Permanent drug discontinuation occurred in four patients in the sacubitril/valsartan group and three patients in the placebo group. There were no deaths and one patient was hospitalized in each group. Conclusion: In this pilot RCT of patients who recovered from acute COVID‐19, sacubitril/valsartan did not lower hs‐cTnT or sST2 compared with placebo. Exploratory analyses suggested potential benefits of sacubitril/valsartan on cardiac wall stress and collagen turnover as measured by NT‐proBNP and CITP. Sacubitril/valsartan was well tolerated. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04883528. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Patients with heart failure (HF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have a particularly high prevalence of comorbidities, often necessitating treatment with many medications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between polypharmacy status and outcomes in PARAGON‐HF. Methods and results: In this post hoc analysis, baseline medication status was available in 4793 of 4796 patients included in the primary analysis of PARAGON‐HF. The effects of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with valsartan, were assessed according to the number of medications at baseline: 683 non‐polypharmacy (<5 medications); 2750 polypharmacy (5–9 medications), and 1360 hyper‐polypharmacy (≥10 medications). The primary outcome was total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular deaths. Patients with hyper‐polypharmacy were older, had more severe limitations due to HF (worse New York Heart Association class and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores), and had greater comorbidity. The non‐adjusted risk of the primary outcome was significantly higher in patients taking more medications, and similar trends were seen for HF hospitalization and cardiovascular and all‐cause death. The effect of sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan on the primary outcome from the lowest to highest polypharmacy category was (as a rate ratio): 1.19 (0.76–1.85), 0.94 (0.77–1.15), and 0.77 (0.61–0.96) (pinteraction = 0.16). Treatment‐related adverse events were more common in patients in the higher polypharmacy categories but not more common with sacubitril/valsartan, versus valsartan, in any polypharmacy category. Conclusions: Polypharmacy is very common in patients with HFpEF, and those with polypharmacy have worse clinical status and a higher rate of non‐fatal and fatal outcomes. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was not diminished in patients taking a larger number of medications at baseline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: It is unknown whether safety and clinical endpoints by use of sacubitril/valsartan (an angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor [ARNI]) are affected by mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) in high‐risk myocardial infarction (MI) patients. The aim of this study was to examine whether MRA modifies safety and clinical endpoints by use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with a MI and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and/or pulmonary congestion. Methods and results: Patients (n = 5661) included in the PARADISE MI trial (Prospective ARNI vs. ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI) were stratified according to MRA. Primary outcomes in this substudy were worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death. Safety was defined as symptomatic hypotension, hyperkalaemia >5.5 mmol/L, or permanent drug discontinuation. A total of 2338 patients (41%) were treated with MRA. Safety of ARNI compared to ramipril was not altered significantly by ± MRA, and both groups had similar increase in symptomatic hypotension with ARNI. In patients taking MRA, the risk of hyperkalaemia or permanent drug discontinuation was not significantly altered by ARNI (p > 0.05 for all comparisons). The effect of ARNI compared with ramipril was similar in those who were and were not taking MRA (hazard ratio [HR]MRA 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77–1.19 and HRMRA– 0.87, 95% CI 0.71–1.05, for the primary endpoint; p = 0.51 for interaction [Clinical Endpoint Committee adjudicated]); similar findings were observed if investigator‐reported endpoints were evaluated (p = 0.61 for interaction). Conclusions: Use of a MRA did not modify safety or clinical endpoints related to initiation of ARNI compared to ramipril in the post‐MI setting in patients with LVSD and/or congestion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Adrenomedullin is a vasodilatory peptide with a role in microcirculatory and endothelial homeostasis. Adrenomedullin is a substrate for neprilysin and may therefore play a role in beneficial effects of sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) treatment. Methods and results: Mid‐regional pro‐adrenomedullin (MR‐proADM) was measured in 156 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) treated with Sac/Val and 264 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) randomized to treatment with Sac/Val or valsartan. Echocardiography and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire results were collected at baseline and after 6 and 12 months in the HFrEF cohort. Median (Q1–Q3) baseline MR‐proADM concentrations were 0.80 (0.59–0.99) nmol/L in HFrEF and 0.88 (0.68–1.20) nmol/L in HFpEF. After 12 weeks of treatment with Sac/Val, MR‐proADM increased by median 49% in HFrEF and 60% in HFpEF, while there were no significant changes in valsartan‐treated patients (median 2%). Greater increases in MR‐proADM were associated with higher Sac/Val doses. Changes in MR‐proADM correlated weakly with changes in N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide, cardiac troponin T and urinary cyclic guanosine monophosphate. Increases in MR‐proADM were associated with decreases in blood pressure, but not significantly associated with changes in echocardiographic parameters or health status. Conclusions: MR‐proAD concentrations rise substantially following treatment with Sac/Val, in contrast to no change from valsartan. Change in MR‐proADM from neprilysin inhibition did not correlate with improvements in cardiac structure and function or health status. More data are needed regarding the role of adrenomedullin and its related peptides in the treatment of heart failure. Clinical Trial Registration: PROVE‐HF ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02887183, PARAMOUNT ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00887588. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: As sacubitril/valsartan may potentiate early natriuresis, expert consensus documents recommend diuretic dose reduction on first initiation. However, there are limited data on the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on the background of varying diuretic regimens or on diuretic requirements over time in heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods and results: In this post hoc analysis of PARAGON‐HF, of the 4796 patients, background diuretic therapy was distributed as follows: 341 (7%) on no diuretic, 698 (15%) on non‐loop diuretic, and 3757 (78%) were on loop diuretics (1255, 1589, and 913 were on <40, 40 and >40 mg furosemide equivalent doses, respectively). The primary composite outcome of total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death was analysed using semiparametric proportional rates methods. The cumulative incidence of the primary composite outcome (first events) was lowest in patients on no diuretic and highest in those on >40 mg of loop diuretic (p < 0.001). The effects of sacubitril/valsartan (vs. valsartan) on the primary composite outcome (recurrent events) did not significantly vary by baseline diuretic use (pinteraction = 0.65). Treatment effects on safety outcomes were similar across diuretic categories. Sacubitril/valsartan reduced new loop diuretic initiations over the course of the trial (hazard ratio 0.83; 95% confidence interval 0.68–1.00, p = 0.055), with similar mean loop diuretic dose and rates of diuretic discontinuation between treatment groups in follow‐up. Patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan experienced a slight early reduction in diuretic initiation or dose escalation at 30 days after initiation (net reduction 1.7%, p = 0.02), but these differences were not sustained beyond this timepoint. Conclusions: Patients with HFpEF on higher baseline diuretic doses were at heightened risk of HF events, but similarly benefited from sacubitril/valsartan with a consistent safety profile across a range of diuretic doses. Initiation of sacubitril/valsartan was associated with modestly lower new loop diuretic requirement in follow‐up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Heart failure (HF) is associated with poor health‐related quality of life (HRQL). Patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have similar HRQL impairment as those with reduced ejection fraction. This study describes the impact of sacubitril/valsartan on HRQL in patients with HFpEF enrolled in the PARAGON‐HF trial. Methods and results: Patients completed the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and EuroQol (EQ‐5D) at randomization, 4, 8 months, and annually thereafter. Changes in HRQL scores were evaluated using repeated measures models adjusted for treatment, baseline values and region. The pre‐specified principal efficacy assessment was at 8 months at which time patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan had borderline higher KCCQ clinical summary score (CSS) with least squares mean (LSM) adjusted difference of 1.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.0, 2.1; p = 0.051). Including all visits up to 36 months, the LSM difference in KCCQ‐CSS favoured sacubitril/valsartan with average adjusted difference of 1.1 (95% CI 0.1, 2.0; p = 0.034). Patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan had greater odds of clinically meaningful improvement (≥5‐point increase) in KCCQ‐CSS (odds ratio 1.31; 95% CI 1.06, 1.61) at 8 months. At 8 months, there was no significant difference in the EQ visual analogue scale between the treatment arms, but sacubitril/valsartan was associated with higher EQ‐5D utility score (US‐based) with LSM adjusted difference of 0.01 (95% CI 0.00, 0.02; p = 0.019). Conclusion: Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan had a borderline benefit on KCCQ‐CSS at 8 months in patients with HFpEF. This benefit became more significant when data from all visits up to 36 months were included. This modest overall benefit was also supported by greater odds of patients reporting a clinically meaningful improvement in HRQL with sacubitril/valsartan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The effects of adding a sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor to a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) or an angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) in patients with heart failure (HF) and mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are uncertain, even though the use of all three drugs is recommended in recent guidelines. Methods and results: The efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin added to background MRA or ARNI therapy was examined in patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF enrolled in the DELIVER trial. The primary outcome was the composite of worsening HF or cardiovascular death. Of 6263 patients, 2667 (42.6%) were treated with an MRA and 301 (4.8%) with an ARNI at baseline. Patients taking either were younger, more often men and had lower systolic blood pressure and ejection fraction; they were also more likely to have prior HF hospitalization. The benefit of dapagliflozin was similar whether patients were receiving these therapies. The hazard ratio for the effect of dapagliflozin compared to placebo on the primary outcome was 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74–1.01) for MRA non‐users versus 0.76 (95% CI 0.64–0.91) for MRA users (pinteraction = 0.30). The corresponding values for ARNI non‐users and users were 0.82 (95% CI 0.73–0.92) and 0.74 (95% CI 0.45–1.22), respectively (pinteraction = 0.75). None of the adverse events examined was more common with dapagliflozin compared to placebo overall or in the MRA and ARNI subgroups. Conclusions: The efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin were similar, regardless of background treatment with an MRA or ARNI. SGLT2 inhibitors may be added to other treatments recommended in recent guidelines for HFmrEF/HFpEF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The win ratio can incorporate different types of outcomes and enhance statistical power, making it a useful method for analysing composite outcomes in cardiovascular trials. The application of this approach to the PARADISE‐MI trial provides an additional perspective into understanding the effects of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Methods and results: We conducted a post‐hoc analysis of the PARADISE‐MI trial, which randomly assigned patients with acute 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 guideline‐recommended therapy. The principal composite outcome was analysed in the hierarchical order of death due to cardiovascular causes, first hospitalization for heart failure, and first outpatient episode of symptomatic heart failure. We included events confirmed by the clinical events classification (CEC) committee as well as events identified by investigators that did not meet study definitions. Results were analysed by the unmatched win‐ratio method. A win ratio that exceeds 1.00 reflects a better outcome. A total of 5661 patients underwent randomization; 2830 were assigned to receive sacubitril/valsartan and 2831 to receive ramipril. The hierarchical analysis of the principal composite outcome demonstrated a larger number of wins (1 265 767 [15.7%]) than losses (1 079 502 [13.4%]) in the sacubitril/valsartan group (win ratio of 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03–1.33; p = 0.015). Sensitivity analyses using alternative definitions of the composite outcome showed results similar to those of the principal analysis, except for analysis restricted to events that met CEC definitions (win ratio of 1.11, 95% CI 0.96–1.30; p = 0.16). Conclusion: In this post‐hoc analysis of the PARADISE‐MI trial using the win ratio and including investigator‐identified events not having CEC confirmation, sacubitril/valsartan was superior to ramipril among high‐risk survivors of acute myocardial infarction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Worsening renal function may impact long-term outcomes in heart failure (HF). However, little is known about the longitudinal trajectories in renal function in relation to HF hospitalization or how this high-risk clinical event impacts renal outcomes.Methods and Results: In PARAGON-HF, we evaluated the association between recency of prior HF hospitalization (occurring pre-randomization) and subsequent first renal composite outcome: (i) time to ≥50% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR); (ii) development of end-stage renal disease; or (iii) death attributable to renal causes. A total of 2306 (48.1%) patients had a history of prior HF hospitalization. Incident rates of the renal outcome were highest in those most recently hospitalized and decreased with longer time from last hospitalization. Treatment effect on the renal outcome of sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan was similar between patients with (hazard ratio [HR] 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.24-0.76) and without (HR 0.63; 95% CI: 0.33-1.18; pinteraction  = 0.39) a prior history of HF hospitalization and appeared consistent regardless of timing of prior hospitalization for HF (pinteraction  = 0.39). Serial eGFR measurements leading up to and after a HF hospitalization (occurring during the study period) and estimated eGFR trajectories using repeated measures regression models with restricted cubic splines were also examined. Patients experiencing a post-randomization HF hospitalization had a significant decline in eGFR prior to hospitalization while patients without HF hospitalization experienced a relatively stable eGFR trajectory (p < 0.001). A change in the rate of decline of eGFR trajectory was observed 12 months preceding a HF hospitalization, and continued in the post-discharge window to 12 months following hospitalization.Conclusions: Heart failure hospitalization denotes increased risk for kidney disease progression which continues following recovery from HF decompensation in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction.Clinical Trial Registration: PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction), ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01920711. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: We assessed a subset of the 5040 patients in VICTORIA receiving sacubitril/valsartan, either at randomization (n = 731) or post-randomization drop-in use (n = 425), to evaluate the relationship between the efficacy and safety of combination therapy with vericiguat.Methods and Results: The efficacy of vericiguat on the primary composite endpoint, heart failure (HF) hospitalization, and all-cause mortality was assessed. Safety outcomes included symptomatic hypotension, syncope, worsening renal function, and hyperkalaemia. At randomization, 731 patients received sacubitril/valsartan; they were more frequently from Western Europe or North America, had lower ejection fraction and systolic blood pressure, and more use of triple background HF therapy (65.9% vs. 58.6%), biventricular pacemakers (17.9% vs. 14.1%), or implantable cardioverter defibrillators (42.3% vs. 25.3%). For patients on versus not on sacubitril/valsartan at randomization, adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for vericiguat's treatment effect on the primary composite outcome, cardiovascular death, and HF hospitalization were 0.92 (0.71-1.19) versus 0.89 (0.80-0.98), 0.71 (0.45-1.12) versus 0.95 (0.82-1.11), and 0.98 (0.74-1.29) versus 0.87 (0.78-0.98), respectively. No significant interaction existed between sacubitril/valsartan and vericiguat's treatment effect (p-values for interaction: 0.81, 0.23 and 0.47, respectively). Post-randomization, more drop-in sacubitril/valsartan use occurred in those assigned to placebo (n = 238) versus vericiguat (n = 187) (p = 0.007). Symptomatic hypotension (21.0% vs. 23.1%; p = 0.41), renal dysfunction (29.9% vs. 31.9%; p = 0.50), and hyperkalaemia (10.3% vs. 7.9%; p = 0.20) in patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan (n = 992) for ≥3 months were not different by treatment arm.Conclusions: Concomitant use of sacubitril/valsartan for at least 3 months did not alter the efficacy of vericiguat and was similarly safe and tolerated in both study arms. Sacubitril/valsartan was initiated more frequently after randomization in patients assigned to placebo versus vericiguat.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02861534. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Sacubitril/valsartan is strongly supported in guidelines for the management of heart failure, but suboptimal adherence and treatment non‐persistence may limit the population‐level benefit that this therapy might otherwise offer. Methods and results: We identified a cohort of Medicare beneficiaries (2014–2017) initiating sacubitril/valsartan after ≥6 months of continuous enrolment. We assessed adherence as the proportion of days covered (PDC) and proportion of patients non‐persistent (having no prescription available) at 180 days after initiation. We fit a multivariable negative binomial model with a count of adherent days to evaluate independent factors associated with of sacubitril/valsartan adherence. Among 27 063 new sacubitril/valsartan users, most (n = 17 663, 65%) were prescribed low‐dose at 24 mg/26 mg and most (n = 19 984, 74%) were switched from prior angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ACEi/ARB) rather than being RASi treatment naïve. Median 180‐day PDC was 86% (25th–75th percentiles 58–98%). Black patients, those with high comorbid disease burden (≥8 comorbidities), and patients with recent hospitalization within 30 days had fewer adherent days, while those treated with preceding ACEi/ARB had more adherent days. Thirty‐four percent of patients did not have an active sacubitril/valsartan prescription at day 180. Among these, few had preceding dose down‐titrations (6% among patients on 49 mg/51 mg and 9% among patients on 97 mg/103 mg) and 68% did not have a subsequent ACEi/ARB prescription. Among patients who remained persistent, dose up‐titrations occurred in 29% of patients who started on 24 mg/26 mg and 27% of patients on 49 mg/51 mg. Conclusions: Overall adherence to sacubitril/valsartan among Medicare beneficiaries is acceptable, but is lower in Black patients, those with higher comorbidities or those who started therapy after recent hospitalization. While broad implementation of guideline‐directed medical therapy is a key priority, additional focused efforts to improve adherence early after hospitalization and among at‐risk patients are needed in parallel. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The present study sought to examine the effect of the COVID‐19 pandemic and lockdown measures on the prescription of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure (HF) in Italy. Methods and results: Data from Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) monitoring registries were analysed. The sacubitril/valsartan monitoring registry is based on 6‐month prescriptions. A monthly aggregation on new activations throughout the observational period was computed. From March to December 2020, the initiation of new HF patients on sacubitril/valsartan decreased by nearly 40% with prescriptions dropping to values similar to 2018 when the registry was still operated off‐line. A slight increase in prescriptions was observed after the lockdown measures were lifted, but prescriptions remained constantly below the pre‐lockdown period. Conclusion: A marked and worrisome decline during the COVID‐19 pandemic in the activation of a life‐saving treatment such as sacubitril/valsartan was observed. This decline was clearly linked to the lockdown measures instated to counteract the COVID‐19 pandemic. Upcoming studies should analyse the occurrence of new cases of HF as well as the severity of patients admitted to hospitals and their mortality compared to pre‐pandemic levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Diabetes is associated with a faster rate of renal function decline in patients with heart failure (HF). Sacubitril/valsartan attenuates the deterioration of renal function to a greater extent in patients with diabetes and HF with reduced ejection fraction compared with renin–angiotensin system inhibitors alone. We assessed whether the same may be true in HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods and results: In the PARAGON‐HF trial in patients with HF and left ventricular ejection fraction of ≥45% (n = 4796), we characterized the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) over a period of 192 weeks, and on the pre‐specified renal composite outcome (eGFR reduction of ≥50%, end‐stage renal disease, or death attributable to renal causes) in patients with (n = 2388) and without diabetes (n = 2408). The decline in eGFR was greater in patients with diabetes than in those without (−2.6 vs. −1.7 ml/min/1.73 m2 per year, p < 0.001), regardless of treatment assignment. Sacubitril/valsartan attenuated decline in eGFR similarly in patients with (−2.2 vs. −2.9 ml/min/1.73 m2 per year, p = 0.001) and without diabetes (−1.5 vs. −2.0 ml/min/1.73 m2 per year, p = 0.006) (pinteraction for difference in eGFR slopes = 0.40). Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the renal composite outcome similarly in patients without diabetes (hazard ratio [HR] 0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.19–0.91) and those with diabetes (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33–0.89; pinteraction = 0.59), as well as across a range of baseline glycated haemoglobin (pinteraction = 0.71). Conclusion: Sacubitril/valsartan, compared with valsartan, attenuates the decline of eGFR and reduces clinically relevant kidney events similarly among patients with HFpEF with and without diabetes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: ACTIVITY‐HF was a randomized, double‐blind, active‐controlled study, which assessed the short‐term effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with the active comparator enalapril on improving maximal exercise capacity in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods and results: A total of 201 ambulatory patients with HFrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40%, New York Heart Association class III) across 34 centres in Germany were randomized (1:1) to receive sacubitril/valsartan 97/103 mg bid (n = 103) or enalapril 10 mg bid (n = 98). The primary endpoint of the study was the change from baseline in peak oxygen consumption (VO2; adjusted to body weight) after 12 weeks, and the key secondary endpoint was change from baseline in peak VO2 after 6 weeks. The study population was predominantly male (81.1%) with a mean age of 66.9 years and a body mass index of 29.4 kg/m2. Change in peak VO2 from baseline to Week 12 was similar between sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril groups [least squares mean difference: 0.32 mL/min/kg; 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.21, 0.85; P = 0.2327]. Similarly, no significant differences were observed between the two treatment groups in minute ventilation to carbon dioxide production slope, exercise capacity at first ventilatory threshold or Borg scale at either Week 6 or Week 12. Change in heart rate at first ventilatory threshold was lower in the sacubitril/valsartan group compared with the enalapril group at Week 12 (mean −3.75 bpm; 95% CI −7.03, −0.48; P = 0.0248). The safety of sacubitril/valsartan was comparable to enalapril. Conclusion: In patients with HFrEF, short‐term treatment with sacubitril/valsartan for 12 weeks did not result in significant benefits on peak VO2 when compared with enalapril. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Sacubitril/valsartan improves morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Whether initiation of sacubitril/valsartan limits the use and dosing of other elements of guideline‐directed medical therapy for HFrEF is unknown. We examined the effects of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, on β‐blocker and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) use and dosing in a large randomized clinical trial. Methods and results: Patients with full data on medication use were included. We examined β‐blocker and MRA use in patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril through 12‐month follow‐up. New initiations and discontinuations of β‐blocker and MRA were compared between treatment groups. Overall, 8398 (99.9%) had full medication and dose data at baseline. Baseline use of β‐blocker and MRA at any dose was 87% and 56%, respectively. Mean doses of β‐blocker and MRA were similar between treatment groups at baseline and at 6‐month and 12‐month follow‐up. New initiations through 12‐month follow‐up were infrequent and similar in the sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril groups for β‐blockers [37 (9.0%) vs. 42 (10.2%), P = 0.56] and MRA [127 (7.6%) vs. 143 (9.2%), P = 0.10]. Among patients on MRA therapy at baseline, there were fewer MRA discontinuations in patients on sacubitril/valsartan as compared with enalapril at 12 months [125 (6.2%) vs. 187 (9.0%), P = 0.001]. Discontinuations of β‐blockers were not significantly different between groups in follow‐up (2.2% vs. 2.6%, P = 0.26). Conclusions: Initiation of sacubitril/valsartan, even when titrated to target dose, did not appear to lead to greater discontinuation or dose down‐titration of other key guideline‐directed medical therapies, and was associated with fewer discontinuations of MRA. Use of sacubitril/valsartan (when compared with enalapril) may promote sustained MRA use in follow‐up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Aims: The relationship between serum potassium concentration and outcomes in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is not well‐established. The aim of this study was to explore the association between serum potassium and clinical outcomes in the PARAGON‐HF trial in which 4822 patients with HFpEF were randomised to treatment with sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan. Methods and results: The relationship between serum potassium concentrations and the primary study composite outcome of total (first and recurrent) heart failure hospitalisations and cardiovascular death was analysed. Hypo‐, normo‐, and hyperkalaemia were defined as serum potassium <4 mmol/L, 4–5 mmol/L and >5 mmol/L, respectively. Both screening and time‐updated potassium (categorical and continuous spline‐transformed) were studied. Patient mean age was 73 years and 52% were women. Patients with higher baseline potassium more often had an ischaemic aetiology and diabetes and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist treatment. Compared with normokalaemia, both time‐updated (but not screening) hypo‐ and hyperkalaemia were associated with a higher risk of the primary outcome [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for hypokalaemia 1.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.30–1.85; P < 0.001, and for hyperkalaemia HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02–1.44; P = 0.025]. Hypokalaemia had a stronger association with a higher risk of all‐cause, cardiovascular and non‐cardiovascular death than hyperkalaemia. The association of hypokalaemia with increased risk of all‐cause and cardiovascular death was most marked in participants with impaired kidney function (interaction P < 0.05). Serum potassium did not significantly differ between sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan throughout the follow‐up. Conclusions: Both hypo‐ and hyperkalaemia were associated with heart failure hospitalisation but only hypokalaemia was associated with mortality, especially in the context of renal impairment. Hypokalaemia was as strongly associated with death from non‐cardiovascular causes as with cardiovascular death. Collectively, these findings suggest that potassium disturbances are a more of a marker of HFpEF severity rather than a direct cause of death. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: OUTSTEP‐HF compared the effect of sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril on 6‐min walk test (6MWT) distance, non‐sedentary daytime physical activity and heart failure (HF) symptoms in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods and results: Ambulatory patients (n = 621) with stable symptomatic HFrEF were randomised 1:1 to sacubitril/valsartan (n = 310) or enalapril (n = 311). Changes in physical activity and mean daily non‐sedentary daytime activity from baseline to Week 12 were measured using 6MWT and a wrist‐worn accelerometer device, respectively. After 12 weeks, 6MWT improved by 35.09 m with sacubitril/valsartan [97.5% confidence interval (CI) 27.85, 42.32] and by 26.11 m with enalapril (97.5% CI 18.78, 33.43); however, there was no significant difference between groups [least squares means treatment difference: 8.98 m (97.5% CI −1.31, 19.27); P = 0.0503]. Mean daily non‐sedentary daytime activity decreased by 27 min with sacubitril/valsartan and by 21 min with enalapril [least squares means treatment difference: −6 min (97.5% CI −25.7, 13.4), P = 0.4769] after 12 weeks. 6MWT improved by ≥30 m in 51% of patients in the sacubitril/valsartan group vs. 44% of patients treated with enalapril (odds ratio 1.251, 95% CI 0.895, 1.748). At Week 4, non‐sedentary daytime activity increased by ≥10% in 58% of patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan vs. 64% with enalapril; 58% of patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan reported improved HF symptoms as assessed by patient global assessment vs. 43% with enalapril. However, these differences did not persist at Week 12. Conclusion: After 12 weeks of treatment, there was no significant benefit of sacubitril/valsartan on either 6MWT or daytime physical activity measured by actigraphy compared with enalapril. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: We sought to determine sex‐based differences in biomarkers, self‐reported health status, and magnitude of longitudinal changes in measures of reverse cardiac remodelling among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%) treated with sacubitril/valsartan (S/V). Methods and results: This was a subgroup analysis of patients initiated on S/V in the Prospective Study of Biomarkers, Symptom Improvement and Ventricular Remodeling During Entresto Therapy for Heart Failure (PROVE‐HF) study. There were 226 (28.5%) women in the study. Though women had lower baseline N‐terminal pro B‐type natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP), they had more rapid early reduction in the biomarker after initiation of S/V. Compared to men, women had lower average baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ)‐23 Total Symptom score (67.6 vs. 71.9; P = 0.003) but showed greater linear improvement (7.4 vs. 5.5 points; P < 0.001) and faster pace of KCCQ change (P < 0.001) over the course of the trial. Women and men demonstrated similar degrees of reverse left ventricular remodelling following S/V initiation; however, women did so earlier than men with more consistent changes. These results remained unchanged with adjustment for relevant covariates. Reduction in NT‐proBNP was associated with reverse cardiac remodelling in both women and men. Treatment with S/V was well tolerated in all. Conclusions: In women with HFrEF, treatment with S/V was associated with significant NT‐proBNP reduction, health status improvement and reverse cardiac remodelling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: In PARADIGM‐HF, sacubitril/valsartan demonstrated superiority to enalapril in reducing mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Several patient‐centred outcomes like improved physical activity and quality of life have been emphasised as important treatment goals in HF management. OUTSTEP‐HF has been designed to evaluate the effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril on non‐sedentary daytime physical activity in patients with HFrEF. Methods: OUTSTEP‐HF is a randomised, actively controlled, double‐blind, double‐dummy study that plans to enrol 600 ambulatory patients with symptomatic HFrEF in 19 European countries. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to receive sacubitril/valsartan 97/103 mg bid or enalapril 10 mg bid. The primary objective of the study is to assess changes from baseline (Week 0) to Week 12 in exercise capacity measured by the 6‐min walk test and in daily non‐sedentary daytime activity. Physical activity and objective sleep parameters will be measured by accelerometry using a wrist‐worn device, worn continuously from screening (Week −2) until the end of study (Week 12). As a co‐primary outcome, changes from baseline in sub‐maximal exercise capacity will be assessed by the 6‐min walk test. Patient‐ and physician‐reported questionnaires will be used to assess quality of life, changes in signs and symptoms of HF and sleep parameters. Conclusion: OUTSTEP‐HF will be the largest randomised trial in HF to date to use non‐invasive accelerometry to assess whether treatment with sacubitril/valsartan improves patients' daily physical activity and exercise capacity compared with enalapril. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Sacubitril/valsartan has shown efficacy and tolerability in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in the ambulatory setting (PARADIGM-HF), and following stabilisation of acutely decompensated HF (ADHF) (PIONEER-HF and TRANSITION). However, data are lacking for the initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in newly diagnosed (de novo) HFrEF. Here, we assess the tolerability of initiating sacubitril/valsartan following ADHF in TRANSITION subgroups of patients with a de novo vs. prior diagnosis of HFrEF.Methods and Results: TRANSITION randomised 1002 patients to pre- and post-discharge initiation of sacubitril/valsartan (analysis set n = 991, following exclusions for mis-randomisation). In this post-hoc analysis, tolerability to sacubitril/valsartan [proportion of patients achieving target dose (97/103 mg b.i.d.) at 10 weeks post-randomisation], adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs) were compared in de novo (n = 286) and prior HFrEF (n = 705) subgroups. More de novo than prior HFrEF patients achieved target dose at Week 10 (56% vs. 45%; relative risk ratio 1.30, 95% confidence interval 1.12-1.52, P < 0.001), and fewer had SAEs and permanent treatment discontinuations. Initiation of sacubitril/valsartan did not prevent the concomitant initiation and up-titration of guideline-directed HF therapies. De novo patients showed faster and greater decreases in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and high-sensitivity troponin-T, and lower rates of HF and all-cause rehospitalisation vs. prior HFrEF.Conclusions: After ADHF, first-line initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in de novo HFrEF, alongside the initiation of other guideline-directed therapies, is feasible and is associated with a better risk-benefit profile than in patients with prior HFrEF. Early intervention with sacubitril/valsartan may be considered to delay disease progression in patients with de novo HFrEF.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02661217. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To assess the proportion of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who are eligible for sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) based on the European Medicines Agency/Food and Drug Administration (EMA/FDA) label, the PARADIGM-HF trial and the 2016 ESC guidelines, and the association between eligibility and outcomes.Methods and Results: Outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC-EORP-HFA Long-Term Heart Failure (HF-LT) Registry between March 2011 and November 2013 were considered. Criteria for LCZ696 based on EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM-HF and ESC guidelines were applied. Of 5443 patients, 2197 and 2373 had complete information for trial and guideline eligibility assessment, and 84%, 12% and 12% met EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM-HF and guideline criteria, respectively. Absent PARADIGM-HF criteria were low natriuretic peptides (21%), hyperkalemia (4%), hypotension (7%) and sub-optimal pharmacotherapy (74%); absent Guidelines criteria were LVEF>35% (23%), insufficient NP levels (30%) and sub-optimal pharmacotherapy (82%); absent label criteria were absence of symptoms (New York Heart Association class I). When a daily requirement of ACEi/ARB ≥ 10 mg enalapril (instead of ≥ 20 mg) was used, eligibility rose from 12% to 28% based on both PARADIGM-HF and guidelines. One-year heart failure hospitalization was higher (12% and 17% vs. 12%) and all-cause mortality lower (5.3% and 6.5% vs. 7.7%) in registry eligible patients compared to the enalapril arm of PARADIGM-HF.Conclusions: Among outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC-EORP-HFA HF-LT Registry, 84% met label criteria, while only 12% and 28% met PARADIGM-HF and guideline criteria for LCZ696 if requiring ≥ 20 mg and ≥ 10 mg enalapril, respectively. Registry patients eligible for LCZ696 had greater heart failure hospitalization but lower mortality rates than the PARADIGM-HF enalapril group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To assess tolerability and optimal time point for initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in patients stabilised after acute heart failure (AHF).Methods and Results: TRANSITION was a randomised, multicentre, open-label study comparing two treatment initiation modalities of sacubitril/valsartan. Patients aged ≥ 18 years, hospitalised for AHF were stratified according to pre-admission use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and randomised (n = 1002) after stabilisation to initiate sacubitril/valsartan either ≥ 12-h pre-discharge or between Days 1-14 post-discharge. Starting dose (as per label) was 24/26 mg or 49/51 mg bid with up- or down-titration based on tolerability. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients attaining 97/103 mg bid target dose after 10 weeks. Median time of first dose of sacubitril/valsartan from the day of discharge was Day -1 and Day +1 in the pre-discharge group and the post-discharge group, respectively. Comparable proportions of patients in the pre- and post-discharge initiation groups met the primary endpoint [45.4% vs. 50.7%; risk ratio (RR) 0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79-1.02]. The proportion of patients who achieved and maintained for ≥ 2 weeks leading to Week 10, either 49/51 or 97/103 mg bid was 62.1% vs. 68.5% (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.83-0.99); or any dose was 86.0% vs. 89.6% (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.92-1.01). Discontinuation due to adverse events occurred in 7.3% vs. 4.9% of patients (RR 1.49; 95% CI 0.90-2.46).Conclusions: Initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in a wide range of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients stabilised after an AHF event, either in hospital or shortly after discharge, is feasible with about half of the patients achieving target dose within 10 weeks.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02661217. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: This study aimed at evaluating the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on neprilysin (NEP), and the metabolism of natriuretic peptides in heart failure (HF) and providing additional mechanistic information on the mode of action of the drug.Methods and Results: We enrolled 73 chronic HF patients who were switched from angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker to sacubitril/valsartan. In addition to clinical and echocardiographic assessment, plasma biomarkers were measured at baseline, day 30 and day 90 after initiation of treatment. Sacubitril/valsartan led to decrease in New York Heart Association class and improvement of echocardiographic parameters, as well as a dose-dependent decrease in soluble NEP (sNEP) activity, while sNEP concentration remained unchanged. Neprilysin inhibition translated into an increase in its substrates such as atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP), substance P, and glucagon-like peptide 1, the latter translating into a decrease in fructosamine. Cardiac troponin and soluble ST2 levels, biomarkers of HF severity unrelated to NEP metabolism also decreased. While there was a ∼4-fold increase in ANP, we observed no change in plasma brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and plasma BNP activity, and a mild decrease in N-terminal proBNP (NT-proBNP) concentrations. Finally, we found a progressive increase in the relationship between BNP and NT-proBNP, which strongly correlated with an increase in T71 proBNP glycosylation (R2 = 0.94).Conclusion: Sacubitril/valsartan rapidly and strongly reduced sNEP activity, leading to an increase in levels of NEP substrates. These data suggest a pleiotropic favourable impact of sacubitril/valsartan on the metabolism of HF patients with ANP rather than BNP as major effectors amongst natriuretic peptides. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To assess differences in diuretic dose requirements in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril in the Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial.Methods and Results: Overall, 8399 patients with New York Heart Association class II-IV heart failure and reduced LVEF were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg bid or enalapril 10 mg twice daily. Loop diuretic doses were assessed at baseline, 6, 12, and 24 months, and furosemide dose equivalents were calculated via multiplication factors (2x for torsemide and 40x for bumetanide). Percentages of participants with reductions or increases in loop diuretic dose were determined. At baseline, 80.8% of participants were taking any diuretics (n = 6290 for loop diuretics, n = 496 for other diuretics); of those, recorded dosage data for loop diuretics were available on 5487 participants. Mean baseline furosemide equivalent doses were 48.2 mg for sacubitril/valsartan and 49.6 mg for enalapril (P = 0.25). Patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan were more likely to reduce diuretic dose and less likely to increase diuretic dose relative to those randomized to enalapril at 6, 12, 24 months post-randomization, with an overall decreased diuretic use of 2.0% (P = 0.02), 4.1% (P < 0.001), and 6.1% (P < 0.001) at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively, with similar findings in an on-treatment analysis.Conclusion: Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan was associated with more loop diuretic dose reductions and fewer dose increases compared with enalapril, suggesting that treatment with sacubitril/valsartan may reduce the requirement for loop diuretics relative to enalapril in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Growth differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15) is associated with adverse prognosis in cardiovascular (CV) and non-CV diseases. We evaluated the association of GDF-15 with CV and non-CV outcomes in the PARADIGM-HF trial.Methods and Results: In 1935 patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in PARADIGM-HF, median GDF-15 values were elevated and similar in sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril patients (1626 ng/L and 1690 ng/L, respectively). Diabetes, age, creatinine, high-sensitive troponin T, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, and New York Heart Association class III/IV were most strongly associated with elevated GDF-15 values (all P < 0.001) (adjusted R2 = 0.3857). Baseline GDF-15 and changes in GDF-15 at both 1 month and 8 months (log-transformed) were associated with subsequent mortality and CV events. Each 20% increment in baseline GDF-15 value was associated with a higher risk of mortality [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-1.18, P < 0.001], the combined endpoint of CV death or hospitalization for heart failure (adjusted HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.05-1.14, P < 0.001) and heart failure death (adjusted HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.05-1.28, P < 0.001). Changes in GDF-15 were not influenced by assigned therapy (all P-values ≥ 0.1).Conclusion: In patients with ambulatory HFrEF, GDF-15 is not modified by sacubitril/valsartan and is strongly associated with mortality and CV outcomes, suggesting that GDF-15 is a marker of poor outcomes in these patients.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01035255. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although traditional renin-angiotensin system antagonists including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers have revolutionized the treatment of cardiovascular disease (CVD), the pivotal PARADIGM-HF trial demonstrated that sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), was superior to an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. However, despite international regulatory approval and strong recommendations in the guidelines, uptake of sacubitril/valsartan has been disappointing. Sacubitril/valsartan is now the focus of a large programme of clinical trials testing the hypothesis that ARNIs may supplant conventional renin-angiotensin system inhibitors across the spectrum of CVD, including hypertension, secondary prevention after myocardial infarction, and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. This review summarizes the existing evidence, knowledge gaps, and future directions of ARNIs in CVD based on discussions between clinical trialists, industry representatives, and regulatory authorities at the 2016 Global CardioVascular Clinical Trialists Forum in Washington, D.C. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The TITRATION trial investigated two strategies to initiate and up-titrate sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) to the same target dose, over a condensed (3-week) or conservative (6-week) period, in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) of ≥100 mmHg. This post hoc analysis examined the relationship between baseline SBP at screening and achievement of the target dose of sacubitril/valsartan of 97 mg/103 mg (also termed 'LCZ696 200 mg') twice per day during the study.Methods and Results: Patients (n = 498) were categorized in four groups based on SBP at screening: 100-110 mmHg (n = 70); 111-120 mmHg (n = 93); 121-139 mmHg (n = 168) and ≥140 mmHg (n = 167). Overall, 72.7%, 76.1%, 85.6% and 82.9%, respectively, of patients in these SBP categories achieved and maintained the target dose of sacubitril/valsartan without down-titration/dose interruption over 12 weeks ('treatment success'). Compared with patients with SBP of 100-110 mmHg, rates of treatment success among patients in the higher SBP groups [111-120 mmHg (P = 0.96); 121-139 mmHg (P = 0.06) and ≥140 mmHg (P = 0.25)] did not differ significantly. A higher percentage of patients with lower SBP (100-110 mmHg) achieved treatment success with gradual up-titration (6 weeks) (∼80%) than with rapid up-titration (∼69%). Similar findings were observed with regard to 'tolerability success' (maintenance of the target dose for at least the final 2 weeks prior to study completion). Hypotension occurred more frequently in patients with lower SBP.Conclusions: The majority of patients (>80%) with SBP of ≥100 mmHg achieved and maintained the target dose of sacubitril/valsartan if the treatment was titrated gradually. These findings suggest that low SBP should not prevent clinicians from considering the initiation of sacubitril/valsartan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibition has been shown to be superior to target doses of an ACE inhibitor in reducing the risk of cardiovascular death and clinical disease progression in patients with chronic heart failure and a reduced EF. Nevertheless, although sacubitril/valsartan has been available in the USA for a year, uptake of the drug by practitioners has been slow, in part because of misconceptions about the pivotal trial that demonstrated its efficacy in heart failure (PARADIGM-HF). This review addresses questions that have been raised in the USA about the design of the trial as well as the patients who were studied, the replicability and applicability of the results, and the safety of neprilysin inhibition. The totality of evidence indicates that the PARADIGM-HF trial used an appropriate comparator; enrolled patients typical of those seen in the community with mild to moderate symptoms; yielded highly persuasive and replicable results; and demonstrated benefits that are applicable to patients taking subtarget doses of ACE inhibitors and ARBs. Regulatory review in the USA concluded that the established advantages of sacubitril/valsartan on cardiovascular death and disease progression outweighed hypothetical uncertainties about the long-term effects of neprilysin inhibition in patients who might not have survived without the drug. Accordingly, both the new US and European Society of Cardiology heart failure guidelines recommend sacubitril/valsartan as the preferred approach to inhibiting the renin-angiotensin system in patients with chronic heart failure who are currently receiving an ACE inhibitor or ARB. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]