Baylor Heart and Vascular Institute

Vardeny, O., B. Claggett, M. Packer, M. R. Zile, J. Rouleau, K. Swedberg, J. R. Teerlink, A. S. Desai, M. Lefkowitz, V. Shi, J. J. McMurray and S. D. Solomon (2016). “Efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril at lower than target doses in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: The paradigm-hf trial.” Eur J Heart Fail: 2016 June [Epub ahead of print].

Full text of this article.

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.

Desai, A. S., S. Solomon, B. Claggett, J. J. McMurray, J. Rouleau, K. Swedberg, M. Zile, M. Lefkowitz, V. Shi and M. Packer (2016). “Factors associated with noncompletion during the run-in period before randomization and influence on the estimated benefit of lcz696 in the paradigm-hf trial.” Circ Heart Fail 9(6).

Full text of this article.

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.

Kristensen, S. L., F. Martinez, P. S. Jhund, J. L. Arango, J. Belohlavek, S. Boytsov, W. Cabrera, E. Gomez, A. A. Hagege, J. Huang, S. Kiatchoosakun, K. S. Kim, I. Mendoza, M. Senni, I. B. Squire, D. Vinereanu, R. C. Wong, J. Gong, M. P. Lefkowitz, A. R. Rizkala, J. L. Rouleau, V. C. Shi, S. D. Solomon, K. Swedberg, M. R. Zile, M. Packer and J. J. McMurray (2016). “Geographic variations in the paradigm-hf heart failure trial.” Eur Heart J: 2016 June [Epub ahead of print].

Full text of this article.

AIMS: The globalization of clinical trials has highlighted geographic variations in patient characteristics, event rates, and treatment effects. We investigated these further in PARADIGM-HF, the largest and most globally representative trial in heart failure (HF) to date. METHODS AND RESULTS: We looked at five regions: North America (NA) 622 (8%), Western Europe (WE) 1680 (20%), Central/Eastern Europe/Russia (CEER) 2762 (33%), Latin America (LA) 1413 (17%), and Asia-Pacific (AP) 1487 (18%). Notable differences included: WE patients (mean age 68 years) and NA (65 years) were older than AP (58 years) and LA (63 years) and had more coronary disease; NA and CEER patients had the worst signs, symptoms, and functional status. North American patients were the most likely to have a defibrillating-device (53 vs. 2% AP) and least likely prescribed a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (36 vs. 61% LA). Other evidence-based therapies were used most frequently in NA and WE. Rates of the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death or HF hospitalization (per 100 patient-years) varied among regions: NA 13.5 (95% CI 11.7-15.6), WE 9.6 (8.6-10.6), CEER 12.3 (11.4-13.2), LA 11.2 (10.0-12.5), and AP 12.5 (11.3-13.8). After adjustment for prognostic variables, relative to NA, the risk of CV death was higher in LA and AP and the risk of HF hospitalization lower in WE. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was consistent across regions. CONCLUSION: There were many regional differences in PARADIGM-HF, including in age, symptoms, comorbidity, background therapy, and event-rates, although these did not modify the benefit of sacubitril/valsartan.

Okumura, N., P. S. Jhund, J. Gong, M. P. Lefkowitz, A. R. Rizkala, J. L. Rouleau, V. C. Shi, K. Swedberg, M. R. Zile, S. D. Solomon, M. Packer and J. J. McMurray (2016). “Importance of clinical worsening of heart failure treated in the outpatient setting: Evidence from the prospective comparison of arni with acei to determine impact on global mortality and morbidity in heart failure trial (paradigm-hf).” Circulation 133(23): 2254-2262.

Full text of this article.

BACKGROUND: Many episodes of worsening of heart failure (HF) are treated by increasing oral therapy or temporary intravenous treatment in the community or emergency department (ED), without hospital admission. We studied the frequency and prognostic importance of these episodes of worsening in the Prospective Comparison of ARNI (angiotensin-receptor-neprilysin inhibitor) with ACEI (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor) to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure Trial (PARADIGM-HF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Outpatient intensification of HF therapy was added to an expanded composite outcome with ED visits, HF hospitalizations, and cardiovascular deaths. In an examination of first nonfatal events, 361 of 8399 patients (4.3%) had outpatient intensification of HF therapy without a subsequent event (ie, ED visit/HF hospitalizations) within 30 days; 78 of 8399 (1.0%) had an ED visit without previous outpatient intensification of HF therapy or a subsequent event within 30 days; and 1107 of 8399 (13.2%) had HF hospitalizations without a preceding event. The risk of death (in comparison with no-event patients) was similar after each manifestation of worsening: outpatient intensification of HF therapy (hazard ratio, 4.8; 95% confidence interval, 3.9-5.9); ED visit (hazard ratio, 4.5; 95% confidence interval, 3.0-6.7); HF hospitalizations (hazard ratio, 5.9; 95% confidence interval, 5.2-6.6). The expanded composite added 14% more events and shortened time to accrual of a fixed number of events. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril was similar to the primary outcome for the expanded composite (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.86) and was consistent across the components of the latter. CONCLUSIONS: Focusing only on HF hospitalizations underestimates the frequency of worsening and the serious implications of all manifestations of worsening. For clinical trials conducted in an era of heightened efforts to avoid HF hospitalizations, inclusion of episodes of outpatient treatment intensification (and ED visits) in a composite outcome adds an important number of events and shortens the time taken to accrue a target number of end points in an event-driven trial.

Kotecha, D., L. Manzano, H. Krum, G. Rosano, J. Holmes, D. G. Altman, P. D. Collins, M. Packer, J. Wikstrand, A. J. Coats, J. G. Cleland, P. Kirchhof, T. G. von Lueder, A. S. Rigby, B. Andersson, G. Y. Lip, D. J. van Veldhuisen, M. C. Shibata, H. Wedel, M. Bohm and M. D. Flather (2016). “Effect of age and sex on efficacy and tolerability of beta blockers in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: Individual patient data meta-analysis.” Bmj 353: i1855.

Full text of this article.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and tolerability of beta blockers in a broad age range of women and men with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) by pooling individual patient data from placebo controlled randomised trials. DESIGN: Prospectively designed meta-analysis of individual patient data from patients aged 40-85 in sinus rhythm at baseline, with left ventricular ejection fraction <0.45. PARTICIPANTS: 13 833 patients from 11 trials; median age 64; 24% women. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was all cause mortality; the major secondary outcome was admission to hospital for heart failure. Analysis was by intention to treat with an adjusted one stage Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, beta blockers were effective in reducing mortality across all ages: hazard ratios were 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.53 to 0.83) for the first quarter of age distribution (median age 50); 0.71 (0.58 to 0.87) for the second quarter (median age 60); 0.65 (0.53 to 0.78) for the third quarter (median age 68); and 0.77 (0.64 to 0.92) for the fourth quarter (median age 75). There was no significant interaction when age was modelled continuously (P=0.1), and the absolute reduction in mortality was 4.3% over a median follow-up of 1.3 years (number needed to treat 23). Admission to hospital for heart failure was significantly reduced by beta blockers, although this effect was attenuated at older ages (interaction P=0.05). There was no evidence of an interaction between treatment effect and sex in any age group. Drug discontinuation was similar regardless of treatment allocation, age, or sex (14.4% in those give beta blockers, 15.6% in those receiving placebo). CONCLUSION: Irrespective of age or sex, patients with HFrEF in sinus rhythm should receive beta blockers to reduce the risk of death and admission to hospital.