Search

Aim:\ud There is an association between heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and insulin resistance, but less is known about the diabetic continuum, and in particular about pre-diabetes, in HFpEF. We examined characteristics and outcomes of participants with diabetes or pre-diabetes in PARAGON-HF.\ud \ud Methods and results:\ud Patients aged ≥50 years with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥45%, structural heart disease and elevated N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) were eligible. Patients were classified according to glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c): (i) normal HbA1c

Background:\ud Sudden death is a leading cause of mortality in HFrEF. In PARADIGM-HF, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the incidence of sudden death. The purpose of this post hoc study was to analyze the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, compared to enalapril, on the incidence of ventricular arrhythmias.\ud \ud Methods:\ud Adverse event reports related to ventricular arrhythmias were examined in PARADIGM-HF. The effect of randomized treatment on two arrhythmia outcomes was analyzed: ventricular arrhythmias and the composite of a ventricular arrhythmia, ICD shock or resuscitated cardiac arrest. The risk of death related to a ventricular arrhythmia was examined in time-updated models. The interaction between heart failure aetiology, or baseline ICD/CRT-D use, and the effect of sacubitril/valsartan was analyzed.\ud \ud Results:\ud Of the 8399 participants, 333 (4.0%) reported a ventricular arrhythmia and 372 (4.4%) the composite arrhythmia outcome. Ventricular arrhythmias were associated with higher mortality. Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the risk of a ventricular arrhythmia [HR 0.76 (0.62–0.95); p = 0.015] and the composite arrhythmia outcome [HR 0.79 (0.65–0.97); p = 0.025]. The treatment effect was maintained after adjustment and accounting for the competing risk of death. Baseline ICD/CRT-D use did not modify effect of sacubitril/valsartan, but aetiology did: HR in patients with an ischaemic aetiology 0.93 (0.71–1.21) versus 0.53 (0.37–0.78) in those without an ischaemic aetiology (p for interaction = 0.020).\ud \ud Conclusions:\ud Sacubitril/valsartan reduced the incidence of investigator-reported ventricular arrhythmias in patients with HFrEF. This effect may have been greater in patients with a non-ischaemic aetiology.

Aims:\ud Patients with heart failure are at higher risk of progression to end-stage renal disease (ESRD), regardless of ejection fraction (EF). We assessed the renal effects of angiotensin–neprilysin inhibition in a pooled analysis of 13 195 patients with heart failure with reduced and preserved EF.\ud \ud Methods and results:\ud We combined data from PARADIGM-HF (EF ≤40%; n = 8399) and PARAGON-HF (EF ≥45%; n = 4796) in a pre-specified pooled analysis. We assessed the effect of treatment (sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril or valsartan) on a composite of either ≥50% reduction in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), ESRD, or death from renal causes, in addition to changes in eGFR slope. We assessed whether baseline renal function or EF modified the effect of therapy on renal outcomes. At randomization, eGFR was 68 ± 20 ml/min/1.73 m2 in PARADIGM-HF and 63 ± 19 ml/min/1.73 m2 in PARAGON-HF. The composite renal outcome occurred in 70 of 6594 patients (1.1%) in the sacubitril/valsartan group and in 123 of 6601 patients (1.9%) in the valsartan or enalapril group (hazard ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42–0.75; p

Additional file 1: Figure S1. Numbers of PARAGON-HF participants fulfilling the three criteria used to define diabetes at baseline. Table S1. Baseline characteristics of PARAGON-HF participants by diabetes status. Table S2. Distribution of first investigator-reported hypoglycemic adverse events (AE) in PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF participants with diabetes. Table S3. Average body weight and triglyceride levels at randomization and at follow-up in PARAGON-HF participants with diabetes, by treatment groups. Figure S2. Average body weight and triglyceride levels at randomization and at follow-up, in PARAGON-HF participants with diabetes, by treatment groups. Figure S3. Cumulative incidence of different outcomes in PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF participants with diabetes.

Aims: \ud The 4822 patients randomized in the PARAGON-HF trial were a subset of 5746 initially eligible patients who entered sequential run-in periods. We identified patient factors associated with study discontinuation during the run-in period and estimated the implications of these discontinuations for the overall study result.\ud \ud Methods and Results: \ud We utilized multivariable logistic regression models to identify patient factors associated with study discontinuation during the run-in. The efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan 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. A total of 924 (16.1%) subjects failed to complete the run-in period. In multivariable models, noncompletion was associated with region other than Central Europe, lower systolic blood pressure, lower serum sodium, lower hemoglobin, lower estimated glomerular filtration rate, higher NT-proBNP, higher NYHA functional class, prior HF hospitalization, and lack of prior use of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors or beta-blocker. In repeat analysis of the effect of randomized treatment in PARAGON-HF giving greater weight to participants resembling those who failed to complete the run-in period, the incidence of HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death was higher, and sacubitril/valsartan treatment reduced the composite of total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death compared with valsartan (rate ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.74–1.00).\ud \ud Conclusion: \ud Patients with more advanced heart failure were at higher risk for noncompletion of the run-in period in PARAGON-HF. Reanalysis of study outcomes accounting for the effect of run-in noncompletion did not alter the estimated treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan.

No abstract available.

Background: \ud 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 (GDMT) for HFrEF is unknown. We examined the effects of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, on β-blocker and MRA use and dosing in a large randomized clinical trial.\ud \ud Methods: \ud Patients with full data on medication/dose use were included. We examined β-blocker and MRA use/dose in patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril through 12-month follow-up. New initiations and discontinuations of β-blocker and MRA were compared between treatment groups.\ud \ud Results: \ud Overall, 8398 (99.9%) had full medication and dose data at baseline. Baseline use of β-blocker and MRA at any dose was 87.1% and 55%, respectively. Mean doses of β-blocker and MRA were similar between treatment groups at baseline and at 6-months and 12-months follow-up. New initiations through 12-months 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 (n = 4634), 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).\ud \ud Conclusions: \ud Initiation of sacubitril/valsartan, even when titrated to target dose, did not appear to lead to greater discontinuation or dose downtitrations 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.