Search

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 modification by LVEF on the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan in both men and women with respect to composite total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death, although women derived benefit to higher ejection fractions., Conclusions: The therapeutic effects of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system inhibitor alone, vary by LVEF with treatment benefits, particularly for heart failure hospitalization, that appear to extend to patients with heart failure and mildly reduced ejection fraction. These therapeutic benefits appeared to extend to a higher LVEF range in women compared with men., Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT01920711 (PARAGON-HF), NCT01035255 (PARADIGM-HF).

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes (and the effect of sacubitril/valsartan) according to etiology in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective comparison of angiotensin-receptor-neprilysin inhibitor [ARNI] with angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor [ACEI] to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure) trial., Background: Etiology of heart failure (HF) has changed over time in more developed countries and is also evolving in non-Western societies. Outcomes may vary according to etiology, as may the effects of therapy., Methods: We examined outcomes and the effect of sacubtril/valsartan according to investigator-reported etiology in PARADIGM-HF. The outcomes analyzed were the primary composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization, and components, and death from any cause. Outcomes were adjusted for known prognostic variables including N terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide., Results: Among the 8,399 patients randomized, 5,036 patients (60.0%) had an ischemic etiology. Among the 3,363 patients (40.0%) with a nonischemic etiology, 1,595 (19.0% of all patients; 47% of nonischemic patients) had idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy, 968 (11.5% of all patients; 28.8% of nonischemic patients) had a hypertensive cause, and 800 (9.5% of all patients, 23.8% of nonischemic patients) another cause (185 infective/viral, 158 alcoholic, 110 valvular, 66 diabetes, 30 drug-related, 14 peripartum-related, and 237 other). Whereas the unadjusted rates of all outcomes were highest in patients with an ischemic etiology, the adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were not different from patients in the 2 major nonischemic etiology categories; for example, for the primary outcome, compared with ischemic (HR: 1.00), hypertensive 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75 to 1.02), idiopathic 0.92 (95% CI: 0.82 to 1.04) and other 1.00 (95% CI: 0.85 to 1.17). The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril was consistent across etiologic categories (interaction for primary outcome; p = 0.11)., Conclusions: Just under one-half of patients in this global trial had nonischemic HF with reduced ejection fraction, with idiopathic and hypertensive the most commonly ascribed etiologies. Adjusted outcomes were similar across etiologic categories, as was the benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril. (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Enalapril on Morbidity and Mortality of Patients With Chronic Heart Failure; NCT01035255)., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Natriuretic peptides are substrates of neprilysin; hence, B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) concentrations rise with neprilysin inhibition. Thus, the clinical validity of measuring BNP in sacubitril/valsartan-treated patients has been questioned, and use of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptides (NT-proBNP) has been preferred and recommended., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine the prognostic performance of BNP measurements before and during treatment with sacubitril/valsartan., Methods: BNP and NT-proBNP were measured before and after 4 to 6 weeks, 8 to 10 weeks, and 9 months of treatment with sacubitril/valsartan in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial. We assessed the association of levels of these natriuretic peptides with the subsequent risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for HF., Results: Median BNP concentration (before treatment: 202 ng/l [Q1 to Q3: 126 to 335 ng/l]) increased to 235 ng/l (Q1 to Q3: 128 to 422 ng/l) after 8 to 10 weeks of treatment. BNP concentrations doubled in 141 (18%) patients and tripled in 49 (6%) patients during the first 8 to 10 weeks of sacubitril/valsartan. In contrast, such striking increases in NT-proBNP following the use of the neprilysin inhibitor were extremely rare. Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan caused a rightward shift in the distribution of BNP when compared with NT-proBNP, but both peptides retained their prognostic accuracy (C-statistics of 63% to 67% for BNP and C-statistics of 64% to 70% for NT-proBNP) with no difference between the 2 biomarkers. Increases in both BNP and NT-proBNP during 8 to 10 weeks of sacubitril/valsartan were associated with worse outcomes (p = 0.003 and p = 0.005, respectively)., Conclusions: Circulating levels of BNP may increase meaningfully early after initiation of sacubitril/valsartan. In comparison, NT-proBNP is not a substrate of neprilysin inhibition, and thus may lead to less clinical confusion when measured within 8 to 10 weeks of drug initiation. However, during treatment, either biomarker predicts the risk of major adverse outcomes in patients treated with angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors. (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF]; NCT01035255)., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (© 2019 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Myocardial fibrosis is an important pathophysiological mechanism underlying the development of heart failure (HF). Given the biochemical targets of sacubitril/valsartan, we hypothesized that circulating biomarkers reflecting the mechanisms that determine extracellular matrix (ECM) homeostasis, including collagen synthesis, processing, and degradation, are altered by sacubitril/valsartan in comparison to enalapril., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on biomarkers of ECM homeostasis and the association between the rate of primary composite outcome (cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization) and these biomarkers., Methods: Biomarkers at baseline (n = 2,067) and both baseline and 8 months after randomization (n = 1,776) included aldosterone, soluble ST2 (sST2), tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase (TIMP)-1, matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-2, MMP-9, Galectin-3 (Gal-3), N-terminal propeptide of collagen I (PINP), and N-terminal propeptide of collagen III (PIIINP). The effects of sacubitril/valsartan on biomarkers were compared with enalapril. Baseline biomarker values and changes from baseline to 8 months were related to primary outcome., Results: At baseline, the profibrotic biomarkers aldosterone, sST2, TIMP-1, Gal-3, PINP, and PIIINP were higher, and biomarkers associated with collagen degradation, MMP-2 and -9, were lower than published referent control values. Eight months after randomization, aldosterone, sST2, TIMP-1, MMP-9, PINP, and PIIINP had decreased more in the sacubitril/valsartan than enalapril group. At baseline, higher values of sST-2, TIMP-1, and PIIINP were associated with higher primary outcome rates. Changes from baseline to 8 months in sST-2 and TIMP-1 were associated with change in outcomes., Conclusions: Biomarkers associated with profibrotic signaling are altered in HF with reduced ejection fraction, sacubitril/valsartan significantly decreased many of these biomarkers, and these biomarkers have important prognostic value. These findings suggest that sacubitril/valsartan may reduce profibrotic signaling, which may contribute to the improved outcomes. (This Study Will Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Enalapril on Morbidity and Mortality of Patients With Chronic Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF]; NCT01035255)., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: PARADIGM-HF demonstrated significant clinical benefits for sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696, an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor) versus the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) enalapril in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. As inhibition of ACE, and co-inhibition of ACE and neprilysin, may increase the risk of angioedema, this was an adverse event of special interest., Methods: Following sequential enalapril and sacubitril/valsartan run-ins, patients were randomized to twice-daily sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg or enalapril 10 mg. The study design incorporated two wash-out periods (~36 h each) to minimize any potential risk of angioedema due to overlapping ACE and neprilysin inhibition. Suspected cases of angioedema were reported to, and blindly adjudicated by, an independent angioedema adjudication committee (AAC)., Results: Of the 10,513 patients entering the enalapril run-in, 9419 entered the sacubitril/valsartan run-in and 8432 received double-blind treatment. Overall, 148 suspected angioedema events occurring in 144 patients were reported to AAC, with one event reported during screening period. Of the remaining 147 events, 54 were confirmed as angioedema by AAC. A confirmed event was experienced by 15 (0.14%) and 10 (0.11%) patients, during the enalapril and sacubitril/valsartan run-ins, respectively, and by 10 (0.24%) and 19 (0.45%) patients in the corresponding randomized arms during the double-blind phase. The frequency of confirmed angioedema was higher in black patients. Most events were mild. Only five patients required hospitalization and none required mechanical airway support., Conclusion: The number of confirmed angioedema events in PARADIGM-HF was low and there was no-marked excess risk of angioedema with sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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., (© 2017 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2017 European Society of Cardiology.)

It has been known since the 1990s that long-term morbidity and mortality is improved in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) by treatments that target the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS). It has also long been thought that enhancement of the activity of natriuretic peptides (NPs) could potentially benefit patients with HFrEF, but multiple attempts to realize this benefit had failed over the years - until 2014, when a large, phase III, randomized, controlled clinical trial (PARADIGM-HF) was completed comparing sacubitril/valsartan with enalapril, a well-established treatment for HFrEF. Sacubitril/valsartan (formerly known as LCZ696) is a first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) that simultaneously suppresses RAAS activation through blockade of angiotensin II type 1 receptors and enhances vasoactive peptides including NPs through inhibition of neprilysin, the enzyme responsible for their degradation. In PARADIGM-HF, patients with HFrEF treated with sacubitril/valsartan had 20% less risk for cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure (the primary endpoint), 20% less risk for cardiovascular death, 21% less risk for first hospitalization for heart failure, and 16% less risk for death from any cause, compared with enalapril (all p < 0.001). Concerning tolerability, the sacubitril/valsartan group had higher proportions of patients with hypotension and nonserious angioedema but lower proportions with renal impairment, hyperkalemia, and cough, compared with the enalapril group. The use of sacubitril/valsartan has been endorsed by the latest heart failure treatment guidelines in Europe and the USA. This chapter reviews the discoveries, scientific reasoning, and clinical evidence that led to the development of sacubitril/valsartan, the first novel therapy in a new drug class to improve survival in HFrEF in the last 15 years.

Importance: Consensus guidelines recommend the use of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) for selected patients with symptomatic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) to reduce morbidity and mortality; however, the use of MRAs in combination with other inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system increases the risk of hyperkalemia., Objective: To determine whether the risk of hyperkalemia associated with use of MRAs for patients with HFrEF is reduced by sacubitril/valsartan in comparison with enalapril., Design, Setting, and Participants: The PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With an ACE-Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial randomly assigned 8399 patients with chronic HF, New York Heart Association class II to IV symptoms, and a left ventricular EF of 40% or less to treatment with enalapril 10 mg twice daily or sacubitril/valsartan 97/103 mg twice daily (previously known as LCZ696 [200 mg twice daily]) in addition to guideline-directed medical therapy. Use of MRAs was encouraged but left to the discretion of study investigators. Serum potassium level was measured at every study visit. The incidence of hyperkalemia (potassium level >5.5 mEq/L) and severe hyperkalemia (potassium level >6.0 mEq/L) among patients treated or not treated with an MRA at baseline and the risk of subsequent hyperkalemia for those newly treated with an MRA during study follow-up were defined in time-updated Cox proportional hazards models. Analyses were conducted between August 1 and October 15, 2016., Main Outcomes and Measures: Incident hyperkalemia and severe hyperkalemia., Results: In comparison with the 3728 patients (44.4% of enrolled participants [21.6% female]) not taking an MRA at baseline, the 4671 patients (55.6% [22.0% female]) taking an MRA tended to be younger, with a lower EF, lower systolic blood pressure, and more advanced HF symptoms. Among those taking an MRA at baseline, the overall rates of hyperkalemia were similar between treatment groups, but severe hyperkalemia was more common in patients randomly assigned to enalapril than to sacubitril/valsartan (3.1 vs 2.2 per 100 patient-years; HR, 1.37 [95% CI, 1.06-1.76]; P = .02). In analyses including patients who newly started taking MRAs during the PARADIGM-HF trial, severe hyperkalemia remained more common in those randomly assigned to enalapril than to those randomly assigned to sacubitril/valsartan (3.3 vs 2.3 per 100 patient-years; HR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.13-1.81]; P = .003)., Conclusions and Relevance: Among MRA-treated patients with symptomatic HFrEF, severe hyperkalemia is more likely during treatment with enalapril than with sacubitril/valsartan. These data suggest that neprilysin inhibition attenuates the risk of hyperkalemia when MRAs are combined with other inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in patients with HF., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01035255.

Objectives: This study assessed whether the benefit of sacubtril/valsartan therapy varied with clinical stability., Background: Despite the benefit of sacubitril/valsartan therapy shown in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial, it has been suggested that switching from an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker should be delayed until occurrence of clinical decompensation., Methods: Outcomes were compared among patients who had prior hospitalization within 3 months of screening (n = 1,611 [19%]), between 3 and 6 months (n = 1,009 [12%]), between 6 and 12 months (n = 886 [11%]), >12 months (n = 1,746 [21%]), or who had never been hospitalized (n = 3,125 [37%])., Results: Twenty percent of patients without prior HF hospitalization experienced a primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization during the course of the trial. Despite the increased risk associated with more recent hospitalization, the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan therapy did not differ from that of enalapril according to the occurrence of or time from hospitalization for HF before screening, with respect to the primary endpoint or with respect to cardiovascular or all-cause mortality., Conclusions: Patients with recent HF decompensation requiring hospitalization were more likely to experience cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization than those who had never been hospitalized. Patients who were clinically stable, as shown by a remote HF hospitalization (>3 months prior to screening) or by lack of any prior HF hospitalization, were as likely to benefit from sacubitril/valsartan therapy as more recently hospitalized patients. (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF]; NCT01035255)., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: In this analysis, we utilized data from PARADIGM-HF to test the hypothesis that participants who exhibited any dose reduction during the trial would have similar benefits from lower doses of sacubitril/valsartan relative to lower doses of enalapril., Methods and Results: In a post-hoc analysis from PARADIGM-HF, we characterized patients by whether they received the maximal dose (200 mg sacubitril/valsartan or 10 mg enalapril twice daily) throughout the trial or had any dose reduction to lower doses (100/50/0 mg sacubitril/valsartan or 5/2.5/0 mg enalapril twice daily). The treatment effect for the primary outcome was estimated, stratified by dose level using time-updated Cox regression models. In the two treatment arms, participants with a dose reduction (43% of those randomized to enalapril and 42% of those randomized to sacubitril/valsartan) had similar baseline characteristics and similar baseline predictors of the need for dose reduction. In a time-updated analysis, any dose reduction was associated with a higher subsequent risk of the primary event [hazard ratio (HR) 2.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2-2.7]. However, the treatment benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril following a dose reduction was similar (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70-0.93, P < 0.001) to that observed in patients who had not experienced any dose reduction (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.71-0.88, P < 0.001)., Conclusions: In PARADIGM-HF, study medication dose reduction identified patients at higher risk of a major cardiovascular event. The magnitude of benefit for patients on lower doses of sacubitril/valsartan relative to those on lower doses of enalapril was similar to that of patients who remained on target doses of both drugs., (© 2016 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Patients with heart failure (HF) are at high risk for hospital readmission in the first 30 days following HF hospitalization., Objectives: This study sought to determine if treatment with sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) reduces rates of hospital readmission at 30-days following HF hospitalization compared with enalapril., Methods: We assessed the risk of 30-day readmission for any cause following investigator-reported hospitalizations for HF in the PARADIGM-HF trial, which randomized 8,399 participants with HF and reduced ejection fraction to treatment with LCZ696 or enalapril., Results: Accounting for multiple hospitalizations per patient, there were 2,383 investigator-reported HF hospitalizations, of which 1,076 (45.2%) occurred in subjects assigned to LCZ696 and 1,307 (54.8%) occurred in subjects assigned to enalapril. Rates of readmission for any cause at 30 days were 17.8% in LCZ696-assigned subjects and 21.0% in enalapril-assigned subjects (odds ratio: 0.74; 95% confidence interval: 0.56 to 0.97; p = 0.031). Rates of readmission for HF at 30-days were also lower in subjects assigned to LCZ696 (9.7% vs. 13.4%; odds ratio: 0.62; 95% confidence interval: 0.45 to 0.87; p = 0.006). The reduction in both all-cause and HF readmissions with LCZ696 was maintained when the time window from discharge was extended to 60 days and in sensitivity analyses restricted to adjudicated HF hospitalizations., Conclusions: Compared with enalapril, treatment with LCZ696 reduces 30-day readmissions for any cause following discharge from HF hospitalization., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The 8442 patients randomized in the Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor With an Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial, in which sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) reduced both death and HF hospitalization more than enalapril, were a subset of 10 521 patients entering sequential, single-blind run-in periods (enalapril 10 mg twice daily for 2 weeks followed by LCZ696 200 mg twice daily for 4 to 6 weeks) to ensure short-term tolerability of the 2 study medications. We identified the predictors of run-in noncompletion and estimated the implications of noncompletion for the overall study result., Methods and Results: Patient factors associated with run-in noncompletion were defined in multivariable logistic regression models. The effectiveness of LCZ696 in a broader cohort approximating the full run-in population was estimated by weighting randomized patients according to the inverse probability of run-in completion; 2079 (19.8%) subjects discontinued the study during the run-in period, including 1102 (10.5%) during the enalapril phase and 977 (9.3%) during the LCZ696 phase. In multivariable models, lower systolic blood pressure, lower estimated glomerular filtration rate, higher N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, and ischemic cause of heart failure were associated with higher risk for run-in noncompletion. Repeat analysis of the effect of randomized treatment giving greater weight to randomized patients resembling those who did not complete the run-in did not alter the hazard ratio favoring LCZ696 over enalapril for the primary end point of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization, or the additional key end points of cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality., Conclusions: Patients with lower blood pressure, lower glomerular filtration rate, and more severe heart failure were at higher risk for noncompletion during the run-in period of PARADIGM-HF. Weighted analysis of key study outcomes accounting for the effect of run-in noncompletion did not alter the benefit of LCZ696 over enalapril., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255., (© 2016 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is a clinical syndrome that has been associated with changes in the extracellular matrix. The purpose of this study was to determine whether profibrotic biomarkers accurately reflect the presence and severity of disease and underlying pathophysiology and modify response to therapy in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction., Methods and Results: Four biomarkers, soluble form of ST2 (an interleukin-1 receptor family member), galectin-3, matrix metalloproteinase-2, and collagen III N-terminal propeptide were measured in the Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB on Management of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (PARAMOUNT) trial at baseline, 12 and 36 weeks after randomization to valsartan or LCZ696. We examined the relationship between baseline biomarkers, demographic and echocardiographic characteristics, change in primary (change in N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide) and secondary (change in left atrial volume) end points. The median (interquartile range) value for soluble form of ST2 (33 [24.6-48.1] ng/mL) and galectin 3 (17.8 [14.1-22.8] ng/mL) were higher, and for matrix metalloproteinase-2 (188 [155.5-230.6] ng/mL) lower, than in previously published referent controls; collagen III N-terminal propeptide (5.6 [4.3-6.9] ng/mL) was similar to referent control values. All 4 biomarkers correlated with severity of disease as indicated by N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide, E/E', and left atrial volume. Baseline biomarkers did not modify the response to LCZ696 for lowering N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide; however, left atrial volume reduction varied by baseline level of soluble form of ST2 and galectin 3; patients with values less than the observed median (<33 ng/mL soluble form of ST2 and <17.8 ng/mL galectin 3) had reduction in left atrial volume, those above median did not. Although LCZ696 reduced N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide, levels of the other 4 biomarkers were not affected over time., Conclusions: In patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, biomarkers that reflect collagen homeostasis correlated with the presence and severity of disease and underlying pathophysiology, and may modify the structural response to treatment., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00887588., (© 2016 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Aims: The angiotensin-receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) LCZ696 reduced cardiovascular deaths and all-cause mortality compared with enalapril in patients with chronic heart failure in the prospective comparison of ARNI with an Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial. To more completely understand the components of this mortality benefit, we examined the effect of LCZ696 on mode of death., Methods and Results: PARADIGM-HF was a prospective, double-blind, randomized trial in 8399 patients with chronic heart failure, New York Heart Association Class II-IV symptoms, and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% receiving guideline-recommended medical therapy and followed for a median of 27 months. Mode of death was adjudicated by a blinded clinical endpoints committee. The majority of deaths were cardiovascular (80.9%), and the risk of cardiovascular death was significantly reduced by treatment with LCZ (hazard ratio, HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72-0.89, P < 0.001). Among cardiovascular deaths, both sudden cardiac death (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68-0.94, P = 0.008) and death due to worsening heart failure (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64-0.98, P = 0.034) were reduced by treatment with LCZ696 compared with enalapril. Deaths attributed to other cardiovascular causes, including myocardial infarction and stroke, were infrequent and distributed evenly between treatment groups, as were non-cardiovascular deaths., Conclusions: LCZ696 was superior to enalapril in reducing both sudden cardiac deaths and deaths from worsening heart failure, which accounted for the majority of cardiovascular deaths., Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/, NCT01035255., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2015. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Increases in serum creatinine with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors can lead to unnecessary discontinuation of these agents. The dual-acting angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 improves clinical outcome patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and pilot data suggest potential benefit in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The effects of LCZ696 on renal function have not been assessed., Methods and Results: A total of 301 HFpEF patients were randomly assigned to LCZ696 or valsartan in the PARAMOUNT trial. We studied renal function [creatinine, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), cystatin C, and urinary albumin to creatinine ratio (UACR)] at baseline, 12 weeks, and after 36 weeks of treatment. Worsening renal function (WRF) was determined as an serum creatinine increase of >0.3 mg/dL and/or >25% between two time-points. Mean eGFR at baseline was 65.4 ± 20.4 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) . The eGFR declined less in the LCZ696 group than in the valsartan group (-1.5 vs. -5.2 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) ; P = 0.002). The incidence of WRF was lower in the LCZ696 group (12%) than in the valsartan group (18%) at any time-point, but this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.18). Over 36 weeks, the geometric mean of UACR increased in the LCZ696 group (2.4-2.9 mg/mmol), whereas it remained stable in the valsartan group (2.1-2.0 mg/mmol; P for difference between groups = 0.016)., Conclusion: In patients with HFpEF, therapy with LCZ696 for 36 weeks was associated with preservation of eGFR compared with valsartan therapy, but an increase in UACR., (© 2015 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2015 European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: 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-arm of the Studies Of Left Ventricular Dysfunction (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 LCZ696 vs. a putative placebo was estimated through the product of the hazard ratio of LCZ696 vs. 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 compared with a putative placebo was 28% (95%CI 15–39%; P < 0.0001). Putative placebo analyses based on CHARM-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 neprilysin inhibition led to striking reductions in cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, as well as heart failure hospitalization. These benefits were obtained even though LCZ696 was added to comprehensive background beta-blocker and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist therapy.

Background: Elevated high-sensitivity troponin is associated with increasing disease severity in patients with stable heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, but less is known about the association in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction., Methods and Results: We examined the prevalence of elevated high-sensitivity troponin T (hs-TnT) in 298 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction enrolled in the Prospective comparison of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor with angiotensin receptor blocker on Management Of heart failUre with preserved ejectioN fracTion (PARAMOUNT) trial, in which the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 reduced markers of heart failure severity compared with valsartan. We assessed the association between hs-TnT and cardiac structure and function, and the effect of LCZ696, compared with valsartan, on hs-TnT over 36 weeks. Elevated hs-TnT in the myocardial injury range (>0.014 μg/L) was found in 55% of patients and was associated with older age, history of diabetes mellitus, higher N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, lower estimated glomerular filtration rate, and larger left atrial size, left ventricular volume, and mass. LCZ696 treatment reduced hs-TnT to a greater extent at 12 weeks (12% reduction; P=0.05) and at 36 weeks (14% reduction; P=0.03) compared with valsartan., Conclusions: Troponin T was elevated in a substantial number of patients enrolled in a heart failure with preserved ejection fraction clinical trial and was associated with abnormalities of cardiac structure, function, and elevated baseline N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide. Decreases in hs-TnT with LCZ696 in parallel with improvement in N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide and left atrial size suggest that the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 may reduce this measure of myocardial injury in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction., Clinical Trial Registration Url: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00887588., (© 2014 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Aims: The first in class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, LCZ696 has been shown to reduce levels of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), reduce left atrial size and improve New York Heart Association (NYHA) class in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). We examined whether the effects of LCZ696 were independent of systolic blood pressure (SBP) lowering., Methods and Results: In the Prospective comparison of ARNi (angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor) with ARB (angiotensin receptor blocker) on Management Of heart failUre with preserved ejectioN fracTion (PARAMOUNT) trial 301 patients were randomly assigned to LCZ696 or valsartan. We examined the relationship between SBP lowering and LCZ696 on NT-proBNP level, left atrial size, NYHA class and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). By 12 weeks blood pressure was reduced by 9 mmHg (SD 15)/5 mmHg (SD 11) in patients receiving LCZ696 in comparison with 3 mmHg (SD 17)/2 mmHg (SD 12) in those receiving valsartan. The change in NT-proBNP was poorly correlated with change in SBP (LCZ696, r = 0.17, P = 0.06; valsartan, r = 0.05, P = 0.58) After adjustment for change in SBP, the ratio of change in NT-proBNP at 12 weeks for LCZ696 vs. valsartan was 0.76 (95% CI 0.63-0.93, P = 0.008), and similar to the ratio not adjusting for SBP (0.76, 95% CI 0.63-0.92, P = 0.006); P for interaction was 0.38). Similarly, reduction in left atrial volume index at 36 weeks, improvement in NYHA class and eGFR were all independent of the change in SBP., Conclusion: In patients with HFpEF, the effect of the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 on NT-proBNP, left atrial volume, functional class, and eGFR was independent of reduction in SBP., (© 2014 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2014 European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality, but effective treatments are lacking. We assessed the efficacy and safety of LCZ696, a first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), in patients with this disorder., Methods: PARAMOUNT was a phase 2, randomised, parallel-group, double-blind multicentre trial in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-III heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction 45% or higher, and NT-proBNP greater than 400 pg/mL. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) by central interactive voice response system to LCZ696 titrated to 200 mg twice daily or valsartan titrated to 160 mg twice daily, and treated for 36 weeks. Investigators and participants were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was change in NT-proBNP, a marker of left ventricular wall stress, from baseline to 12 weeks; analysis included all patients randomly assigned to treatment groups who had a baseline and at least one postbaseline assessment. This trial is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT00887588., Findings: 149 patients were randomly assigned to LCZ696 and 152 to valsartan; 134 in the LCZ696 group and 132 in the valsartan group were included in analysis of the primary endpoint. NT-proBNP was significantly reduced at 12 weeks in the LCZ696 group compared with the valsartan group (LCZ696: baseline, 783 pg/mL [95% CI 670-914], 12 weeks, 605 pg/mL [512-714]; valsartan: baseline, 862 pg/mL [733-1012], 12 weeks, 835 [710-981]; ratio LCZ696/valsartan, 0·77, 95% CI 0·64-0·92, p=0·005). LCZ696 was well tolerated with adverse effects similar to those of valsartan; 22 patients (15%) on LCZ696 and 30 (20%) on valsartan had one or more serious adverse event., Interpretation: In patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, LCZ696 reduced NT-proBNP to a greater extent than did valsartan at 12 weeks and was well tolerated. Whether these effects would translate into improved outcomes needs to be tested prospectively., Funding: Novartis., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This post hoc analysis assessed the efficacy and tolerability of valsartan for the treatment of hypertension in obese vs non-obese children and adolescents. After a 1-week antihypertensive washout period, 142 obese and 119 non-obese hypertensive children and adolescents aged 6 to 16 years were randomized to 2 weeks of once-daily treatment with valsartan 10 to 20 mg, 40 to 80 mg, or 80 to 160 mg, followed by re-randomization to either valsartan or placebo for an additional 2 weeks. Patients could continue to receive valsartan during an optional 52-week, open-label extension. Valsartan resulted in statistically significant (P<.05) and clinically relevant reductions in mean sitting blood pressure (BP), ranging from approximately 7/4 mm Hg (valsartan 10-20 mg) to 13/9 mm Hg (valsartan 80-160 mg) in both obese and non-obese patients. BP control was achieved in 44% of obese and 56% of non-obese patients. Following re-randomization, non-obese patients experienced an increase in BP during placebo treatment, albeit levels remained below baseline, whereas BP reductions were maintained in valsartan recipients (P<.05). The most frequent adverse events during the open-label phase were headache and fever. Valsartan provides similar antihypertensive efficacy in obese and non-obese hypertensive children and adolescents, with good tolerability in both patient populations., (© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

The effectiveness and safety of valsartan have not been assessed in hypertensive children. Therefore, hypertensive patients aged 6 to 16 years (n=261) were randomized to receive weight-stratified low- (10/20 mg), medium- (40/80 mg), or high-dose (80/160 mg) valsartan for 2 weeks. After 2 weeks, patients were randomized to a 2-week placebo-controlled withdrawal phase. Dose-dependent reductions in sitting systolic blood pressure (SSBP) and sitting diastolic blood pressure (SDBP) were observed after 2 weeks (low dose, -7.9/-4.6 mm Hg; medium dose, -9.6/-5.8 mm Hg; high dose, -11.5/-7.4 mm Hg [P<.0001 for all groups]). During the withdrawal phase, SSBP and SDBP were both lower in the pooled valsartan group than in the pooled placebo group (SSBP, -2.7 mm Hg [P=.0368]; SDBP, -3.0 mm Hg [P=.0047]). Similar efficacy was observed in all subgroups. Valsartan was well tolerated and headache was the most commonly observed adverse event during both the double-blind and 52-week open-label phases., (© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

An open-label, single-dose study is conducted in 26 children with hypertension to characterize the pharmacokinetics of valsartan. Valsartan is administered as an oral suspension (dose of 2 mg/kg), with the maximum single dose being 80 mg. Subjects are stratified into 4 age categories: group 1, 1 to less than 4 years; group 2, 4 to less than 6 years; group 3, 6 to less than 12 years; group 4, 12 to 16 years. Blood samples are collected before and for 24 hours after dosing to quantitate valsartan. Because the body weight of most children in groups 3 and 4 exceeds 40 kg and they received a dose of less than 2 mg/kg, major pharmacokinetic parameters are dose normalized for comparison across the age groups. Dose-normalized maximum plasma concentration and area under the plasma-concentration curve and body weight-normalized apparent oral clearance are comparable for the 4 groups (P > or = .1011). Body weight-normalized apparent oral clearance ranges from 0.061 to 0.089 L/h/kg.

The efficacy and safety of valsartan were studied in 90 children (mean age: 3.2 years; 60% male; 30% black) with systolic blood pressure (SBP) > or =95th percentile. Nineteen percent received valsartan in addition to previous antihypertensive therapy. Subjects were randomly assigned to low-, medium-, or high-dose valsartan for 2 weeks (phase 1) and then reassigned randomly to placebo or to remain on the same valsartan dose for 2 additional weeks (phase 2). After this, subjects were enrolled into a 52-week, open-label phase during which valsartan was dosed to achieve SBP <95th percentile. Statistically significant reductions in SBP and diastolic blood pressure of approximately 8.5 mm Hg and 5.7 mm Hg, respectively, were observed at the end of phase 1 in all of the valsartan dose groups. SBP and diastolic blood pressure were also significantly lower during phase 2 in valsartan recipients compared with placebo recipients. SBP <95th percentile was achieved in 77.3% of subjects during the open-label phase. Adverse events were minor and occurred at similar frequencies in each of the 3 dose groups in phase 1 and at equal frequencies in the valsartan and placebo arms in phase 2. Serious adverse events and drug-related adverse events occurred infrequently during both the double-blind (2.2% and 5.6%, respectively) and open-label (14.8% and 6.8%, respectively) portions of the study. Valsartan treatment had no demonstrable negative effects on growth and development. In this study, the first trial of an antihypertensive agent conducted in children <6 years of age, valsartan effectively lowered SBP and diastolic blood pressure compared with placebo.