Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition versus enalapril in heart failure

Background: we compared the angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 with enalapril in patients who had heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction. In previous studies, enalapril improved survival in such patients. Methods: in this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 8442 patients with class II, III, or IV heart failure and an ejection fraction of 40% or less to receive either LCZ696 (at a dose of 200 mg twice daily) or enalapril (at a dose of 10 mg twice daily), in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure, but the trial was designed to detect a difference in the rates of death from cardiovascular causes. Results: the trial was stopped early, according to prespecified rules, after a median follow-up of 27 months, because the boundary for an overwhelming benefit with LCZ696 had been crossed. At the time of study closure, the primary outcome had occurred in 914 patients (21.8%) in the LCZ696 group and 1117 patients (26.5%) in the enalapril group (hazard ratio in the LCZ696 group, 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 0.87; P<0.001). A total of 711 patients (17.0%) receiving LCZ696 and 835 patients (19.8%) receiving enalapril died (hazard ratio for death from any cause, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.93; P<0.001); of these patients, 558 (13.3%) and 693 (16.5%), respectively, died from cardiovascular causes (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.89; P<0.001). As compared with enalapril, LCZ696 also reduced the risk of hospitalization for heart failure by 21% (P<0.001) and decreased the symptoms and physical limitations of heart failure (P=0.001). The LCZ696 group had higher proportions of patients with hypotension and nonserious angioedema but lower proportions with renal impairment, hyperkalemia, and cough than the enalapril group. Conclusions: LCZ696 was superior to enalapril in reducing the risks of death and of hospitalization for heart failure. (Funded by Novartis; PARADIGM-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01035255)

Growth differentiation factor-15 is not modified by sacubitril/valsartan and is an independent marker of risk in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: the PARADIGM-HF trial

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 /= 0.1). 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

Effects of sacubitril/valsartan according to background beta-blocker therapy in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: Insights from PARADIGM-HF

Aims: Beta-blockers may inhibit neprilysin activity and conversely, neprilysin inhibition may have a sympatho-inhibitory action. Consequently, sacubitril/valsartan may have a greater effect in patients not receiving a beta-blocker compared to those treated with a beta-blocker. Methods and results: We examined the effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared to enalapril on outcomes according to background beta-blocker treatment in the 8399 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction enrolled in PARADIGM-HF. The primary outcome was time to first heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death. Compared to the 7811 patients taking a beta-blocker, the 588 patients not receiving a beta-blocker were older, more frequently female, but had a similar mean left ventricular ejection fraction and New York Heart Association class distribution, with little difference in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide. Patients not taking beta-blockers had a higher rate of the primary endpoint than those taking beta-blockers. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan on the primary endpoint was evident in both the no beta-blocker subgroup (hazard ratio [HR] 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45–0.82) and the beta-blocker subgroup (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.75–0.90; p-interaction = 0.06). The respective HRs for cardiovascular death were 0.47 (95% CI 0.32–0.69) versus 0.84 (95% CI 0.75–0.95; p-interaction &lt;0.01) and for HF hospitalization 0.76 (95% CI 0.51–1.12) versus 0.80 (95% CI 0.71–0.90; p-interaction = 0.73). For all-cause death, the HR in the no beta-blocker group was 0.50 (95% CI 0.36–0.71) compared to 0.89 (95% CI 0.80–0.99) in the beta-blocker group (p-interaction &lt;0.01). Safety outcomes related to sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril did not differ according to background beta-blocker use. Conclusion: Sacubitril/valsartan may be more effective than enalapril in reducing the risk of death in patients not treated with a beta-blocker compared to those treated with a beta-blocker, but is effective regardless of beta-blocker use