| 1. |
- Packer, M., et al.
(författare)
-
Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibition Compared With Enalapril on the Risk of Clinical Progression in Surviving Patients With Heart Failure
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Circulation. - 0009-7322. ; 131, s. 54-61
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: -Clinical trials in heart failure have focused on the improvement in symptoms or decreases in the risk of death and other cardiovascular events. Little is known about the effect of drugs on the risk of clinical deterioration in surviving patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: -We compared the angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 (400 mg daily) with the angiotensinconverting enzyme inhibitor enalapril (20 mg daily) in 8399 patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction in a double-blind trial. The analyses focused on prespecified measures of nonfatal clinical deterioration. In comparison with the enalapril group, fewer LCZ696-treated patients required intensification of medical treatment for heart failure (520 versus 604; hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.94; P=0.003) or an emergency department visit for worsening heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.85; P=0.001). The patients in the LCZ696 group had 23% fewer hospitalizations for worsening heart failure (851 versus 1079; P<0.001) and were less likely to require intensive care (768 versus 879; 18% rate reduction, P=0.005), to receive intravenous positive inotropic agents (31% risk reduction, P<0.001), and to have implantation of a heart failure device or cardiac transplantation (22% risk reduction, P=0.07). The reduction in heart failure hospitalization with LCZ696 was evident within the first 30 days after randomization. Worsening of symptom scores in surviving patients was consistently more common in the enalapril group. LCZ696 led to an early and sustained reduction in biomarkers of myocardial wall stress and injury (N-terminal pro-Btype natriuretic peptide and troponin) versus enalapril. CONCLUSIONS: -Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition prevents the clinical progression of surviving patients with heart failure more effectively than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition. Clinical Trial Registration-URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255.
|
|
| 2. |
- McMurray, J., et al.
(författare)
-
A putative placebo analysis of the effects of LCZ696 on clinical outcomes in heart failure
- 2015
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 36:7, s. 434-439
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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.
|
|
| 3. |
- Cleland, J. G. F., et al.
(författare)
-
Beta-blockers for heart failure with reduced, mid-range, and preserved ejection fraction: an individual patient-level analysis of double-blind randomized trials
- 2018
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 39:1, s. 26-35
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims Recent guidelines recommend that patients with heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 40-49% should be managed similar to LVEF >= 50%. We investigated the effect of beta-blockers according to LVEF in double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Methods and results Individual patient data meta-analysis of 11 trials, stratified by baseline LVEF and heart rhythm (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT0083244; PROSPERO: CRD42014010012). Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death over 1.3 years median follow-up, with an intention-to-treat analysis. For 14 262 patients in sinus rhythm, median LVEF was 27% (interquartile range 21-33%), including 575 patients with LVEF 40-49% and 244 >= 50%. Beta-blockers reduced all-cause and cardiovascular mortality compared to placebo in sinus rhythm, an effect that was consistent across LVEF strata, except for those in the small subgroup with LVEF >= 50%. For LVEF 40-49%, death occurred in 21/292 [7.2%] randomized to beta-blockers compared to 35/283 [12.4%] with placebo; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.59 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-1.03]. Cardiovascular death occurred in 13/292 [4.5%] with beta-blockers and 26/283 [9.2%] with placebo; adjusted HR 0.48 (95% CI 0.24-0.97). Over a median of 1.0 years following randomization (n = 4601), LVEF increased with beta-blockers in all groups in sinus rhythm except LVEF >= 50%. For patients in atrial fibrillation at baseline (n = 3050), beta-blockers increased LVEF when < 50% at baseline, but did not improve prognosis. Conculations Beta-blockers improve LVEF and prognosis for patients with heart failure in sinus rhythm with a reduced LVEF. The data are most robust for LVEF < 40%, but similar benefit was observed in the subgroup of patients with LVEF 40-49%.
|
|
| 4. |
- Kristensen, S. L., et al.
(författare)
-
Geographic variations in the PARADIGM-HF heart failure trial
- 2016
-
Ingår i: European heart journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 37:41, s. 3167-3174
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255.
|
|
| 5. |
- Simpson, J., et al.
(författare)
-
Comparing LCZ696 With Enalapril According to Baseline Risk Using the MAGGIC and EMPHASIS-HF Risk Scores
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0735-1097. ; 66:19, s. 2059-2071
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND Although most patients in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial had mild symptoms, there is a poor correlation between reported functional limitation and prognosis in heart failure. OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to examine the spectrum of risk in PARADIGM-HF and the effect of LCZ696 across that spectrum. METHODS This study analyzed rates of the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization, its components, and all-cause mortality using the MAGGIC (Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure) and EMPHASIS-HF (Eplerenone in Mild Patients Hospitalization and Survival Study in Heart Failure) risk scores to categorizepatients. The authors determined whether risk, on the basis of these scores, modified the treatment effect of LCZ696. RESULTS The complete MAGGIC risk score was available for 8,375 of the 8,399 patients in PARADIGM-HF. The median MAGGIC score was 20 (IQR: 16 to 24). An increase of 1 point was associated with a 6% increased risk for the primary endpoint (p < 0.001) and a 7% increased risk for cardiovascular death (p < 0.001). The benefit of LCZ696 over enalapril for the primary endpoint was similar across the spectrum of risk (p = 0.159). Treating 100 patients for 2 years with LCZ696 instead of enalapril led to 7 fewer patients in the highest quintile of risk experiencing primary outcomes, compared with 3 in the lowest quintile. Analyses using the EMPHASIS-HF risk score gave similar findings. CONCLUSIONS Although most PARADIGM-HF patients had mild symptoms, many were at high risk for adverse outcomes and obtained a large absolute benefit from LCZ696, compared with enalapril, over a relatively short treatment period. LCZ696's benefit was consistent across the spectrum of risk. (PARADIGM-HF trial [Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure]; NCT01035255)
|
|
| 6. |
- Desai, A. S., et al.
(författare)
-
Effect of the angiotensin-receptor-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 compared with enalapril on mode of death in heart failure patients
- 2015
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 36:30, s. 1990-1997
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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.
|
|
| 7. |
- Cannon, J. A., et al.
(författare)
-
Dementia-related adverse events in PARADIGM-HF and other trials in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction
- 2017
-
Ingår i: European journal of heart failure. - : Wiley. - 1388-9842 .- 1879-0844. ; 19:1, s. 129-137
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- AIMS: Inhibition of neprilysin, an enzyme degrading natriuretic and other vasoactive peptides, is beneficial in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), as shown in PARADIGM-HF which compared the angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan with enalapril. As neprilysin is also one of many enzymes clearing amyloid-beta peptides from the brain, there is a theoretical concern about the long-term effects of sacubitril/valsartan on cognition. Therefore, we have examined dementia-related adverse effects (AEs) in PARADIGM-HF and placed these findings in the context of other recently conducted HFrEF trials. METHODS AND RESULTS: In PARADIGM-HF, patients with symptomatic HFrEF were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan 97/103 mg b.i.d. or enalapril 10 mg b.i.d. in a 1:1 ratio. We systematically searched AE reports, coded using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA), using Standardized MedDRA Queries (SMQs) with 'broad' and 'narrow' preferred terms related to dementia. In PARADIGM-HF, 8399 patients aged 18-96 years were randomized and followed for a median of 2.25 years (up to 4.3 years). The narrow SMQ search identified 27 dementia-related AEs: 15 (0.36%) on enalapril and 12 (0.29%) on sacubitril/valsartan [hazard ratio (HR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33-1.59]. The broad search identified 97 (2.30%) and 104 (2.48%) AEs (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.75-1.37), respectively. The rates of dementia-related AEs in both treatment groups in PARADIGM-HF were similar to those in three other recent trials in HFrEF. CONCLUSION: We found no evidence that sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, increased dementia-related AEs, although longer follow-up may be necessary to detect such a signal and more sensitive tools are needed to detect lesser degrees of cognitive impairment. Further studies to address this question are warranted.
|
|
| 8. |
- Mann, D. L., et al.
(författare)
-
Targeted anticytokine therapy in patients with chronic heart failure: results of the Randomized Etanercept Worldwide Evaluation (RENEWAL)
- 2004
-
Ingår i: Circulation. - 1524-4539. ; 109:13, s. 1594-602
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Studies in experimental models and preliminary clinical experience suggested a possible therapeutic role for the soluble tumor necrosis factor antagonist etanercept in heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with New York Heart Association class II to IV chronic heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction < or =0.30 were enrolled in 2 clinical trials that differed only in the doses of etanercept used. In RECOVER, patients received placebo (n=373) or subcutaneous etanercept in doses of 25 mg every week (n=375) or 25 mg twice per week (n=375). In RENAISSANCE, patients received placebo (n=309), etanercept 25 mg twice per week (n=308), or etanercept 25 mg 3 times per week (n=308). The primary end point of each individual trial was clinical status at 24 weeks. Analysis of the effect of the 2 higher doses of etanercept on the combined outcome of death or hospitalization due to chronic heart failure from the 2 studies was also planned (RENEWAL). On the basis of prespecified stopping rules, both trials were terminated prematurely owing to lack of benefit. Etanercept had no effect on clinical status in RENAISSANCE (P=0.17) or RECOVER (P=0.34) and had no effect on the death or chronic heart failure hospitalization end point in RENEWAL (etanercept to placebo relative risk=1.1, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.33, P=0.33). CONCLUSIONS: The results of RENEWAL rule out a clinically relevant benefit of etanercept on the rate of death or hospitalization due to chronic heart failure.
|
|
| 9. |
- McDowell, K., et al.
(författare)
-
Incremental prognostic value of biomarkers in PARADIGM-HF
- 2023
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Heart Failure. - 1388-9842. ; 25:8, s. 1406-1414
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims It is uncertain how much candidate biomarkers improve risk prediction when added to comprehensive models including routinely collected clinical and laboratory variables in heart failure. Methods and results Aldosterone, cystatin C, high-sensitivity troponin T (hs-TnT), galectin-3, growth differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15), kidney injury molecule-1, matrix metalloproteinase-2 and -9, soluble suppression of tumourigenicity-2, tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-1 (TIMP-1) and urinary albumin to creatinine ratio were measured in 1559 of PARADIGM-HF participants. We tested whether these biomarkers, individually or collectively, improved the performance of the PREDICT-HF prognostic model, which includes clinical, routine laboratory, and natriuretic peptide data, for the primary endpoint and cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. The mean age of participants was 67.3 +/- 9.9 years, 1254 (80.4%) were men and 1103 (71%) were in New York Heart Association class II. During a mean follow-up of 30.7 months, 300 patients experienced the primary outcome and 197 died. Added individually, only four biomarkers were independently associated with all outcomes: hs-TnT, GDF-15, cystatin C and TIMP-1. When all biomarkers were added simultaneously to the PREDICT-HF models, only hs-TnT remained an independent predictor of all three endpoints. GDF-15 also remained predictive of the primary endpoint; TIMP-1 was the only other predictor of both cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. Individually or in combination, these biomarkers did not lead to significant improvements in discrimination or reclassification. Conclusions None of the biomarkers studied individually or collectively led to a meaningful improvement in the prediction of outcomes over what is provided by clinical, routine laboratory, and natriuretic peptide variables.
|
|
| 10. |
- McMurray, J. J. V., et al.
(författare)
-
Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibition versus Enalapril in Heart Failure
- 2014
-
Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793. ; 371:11, s. 993-1004
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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. 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. 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. LCZ696 was superior to enalapril in reducing the risks of death and of hospitalization for heart failure.
|
|
