Milton Packer M.D.

Desai, A. S., B. L. Claggett, M. Packer, M. R. Zile, J. L. Rouleau, K. Swedberg, V. Shi, M. Lefkowitz, R. Starling, J. Teerlink, J. J. McMurray and S. D. Solomon (2016). “Influence of sacubitril/valsartan (lcz696) on 30-day readmission after heart failure hospitalization.” J Am Coll Cardiol 68(3): 241-248.

Full text of this article.

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.

Packer, M. (2016). “The room where it happens: A skeptic’s analysis of the new heart failure guidelines.” J Card Fail: 2016 Jul [Epub ahead of print].

Full text of this article.

New heart failure guidelines have been issued during the past several months, both in the US and in Europe, in response to recent advances in and the approval of new drugs for the treatment of heart failure. Although guidelines documents are often viewed as authoritative and purely evidence-based, there are replete with meaningful (and inexplicable) inconsistencies, which derive from a review of the same body of scientific data by different groups. This satirical review highlights several examples of the entertaining foolishness of recent guideline documents in the good-natured hope that physicians will understand what the guidelines are, and more importantly, what they are not. Specifically, this paper describes the emergence of a new non-existent disease; the strange battle between two bradycardic drugs (digoxin and ivabradine); the confusion that reigns over the positioning and dosing of inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system; and the special recommendations that have been issued for certain special populations. As Otto von Bismarck remarked, guideline deliberations are like sausages; it is better not to see them being made. Yet, even after they are ready for public view, we should be cautious. Practitioners who rely on them for clinical decision-making engage in an unnecessary form of self-deception; those who read them literally and adhere to them strictly do not practice evidence-based medicine; and those who delve into them in a search for the truth are destined to be disappointed.

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.