PARADIGM-HF Trial Research Articles

Outcomes and effects of sacubitril/valsartan according to NT-proBNP level in patients with heart failure: a patient-level pooled analysis of the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials

Abstract Background NT-proBNP levels are associated with disease severity and outcomes in patients with HF across the spectrum of LVEF. Recently, it has been suggested that the effectiveness of certain treatments may vary by NT-proBNP level with greater benefit from omecamtiv mecarbil, and smaller benefit from vericiguat, in patients with higher NT-proBNP levels. We examined the benefit of sacubitril/valsartan on outcomes across the range of NT-proBNP levels in patients with HFrEF/HFmrEF/HFpEF. Purpose To evaluate clinical outcomes, and the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan, according to NT-proBNP levels, in patients with HFrEF/HFmrEF/HFpEF, using the pooled dataset of participants in the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials. Methods The PARADIGM-HF (n=8399) and PARAGON-HF (n=4822) trials enrolled patients with HF, functional limitation, and elevated NT-proBNP levels. Patients with LVEF ≤40% were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg twice daily or enalapril 10mg twice daily in PARADIGM-HF, and those with LVEF ≥45% to sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg twice daily or valsartan 160mg twice daily in PARAGON-HF. Patients were categorized by quintiles of NT-proBNP level and using NT-proBNP as a continuous variable, analysed using restricted cubic splines. The primary outcome in the present study was the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. Results Among the 13195 patients in the pooled PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF dataset, 13142 (99.6%) patients with baseline NT-proBNP were analysed. Patients with higher NT-proBNP levels were more often male, had lower body mass index and LVEF, worse New York Heart Association functional class, worse kidney function, and more atrial fibrillation, while age was similar across NT-proBNP levels. The rate of the primary outcome (per 100 person-years) increased with NT-proBNP level: quintile 1, 5.9 (95%CI 5.3-6.5); quintile 2, 7.5 (95%CI 6.9-8.2); quintile 3, 9.0 (95%CI 8.2-9.7); quintile 4, 12.0 (95%CI 11.1-12.9); and quintile 5, 20.8 (95%CI 19.6-22.2) (Figure 1). Similar trends were observed for other outcomes. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was consistent across NT-proBNP levels: the hazard ratio for the primary outcome in NT-proBNP quintile 1 was 0.79 (95%CI 0.65-0.96); quintile 2, 0.87 (95%CI 0.72-1.04); quintile 3, 0.79 (95%CI 0.66-0.93); quintile 4, 0.85 (95%CI 0.73-0.99); and quintile 5, 0.86 (95%CI 0.76-0.97), P-interaction=0.86. The consistent benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was also seen when NT-proBNP was analysed as a continuous variable (Figure 2). The absolute benefit was greatest in quintile 5 of NT-proBNP; the number needed to treat for quintile 5 was 16 versus 37 for the quintile 1 for the primary endpoint. Conclusions Patients with higher NT-proBNP had worse outcomes, but the benefits of sacubitril valsartan were consistent across the range of NT-proBNP levels of participants in PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF.Kaplan-Meier curvesEffect of sac/val across NT-proBNP range

Race in heart failure: a pooled participant-level analysis of the global PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials

Abstract Background Mechanisms of disease pathobiology, prognosis, and potentially treatment responses might vary by race in patients with heart failure (HF). Early experiences with neprilysin inhibition suggested possible increased risks of angioedema, especially among Black individuals. We aimed to examine the safety and efficacy profile of sacubitril/valsartan in a pooled participant-level dataset of 2 large cohorts of patients with HF by self-reported race. Methods PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF were multicenter, randomized clinical trials testing sacubitril/valsartan against a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi, enalapril or valsartan, respectively) in patients with HF and LVEF ≤40% (PARADIGM-HF) or LVEF ≥45% (PARAGON-HF). We included all patients with available data on self-reported race and categorized patients as White, Asian, or Black. We assessed adjudicated outcomes including the composite of first HF hospitalization (HFH) or cardiovascular (CV) death, its components, and angioedema by racial group. Results Among 12,097 included participants, 9,451 (78.1%) were White, 2,116 (17.5%) were Asian, and 530 (4.4%) were Black. Asian participants were from 19 countries, with highest enrollment from India, China, and the Philippines. Black participants were from 18 countries, with highest enrollment from the US, South Africa, and Brazil. Black patients had the worst baseline health status (adjusted KCCQ-OSS mean 70.3), while White (71.4) and Asian patients (76.4) had better health status; P<0.001. Over 2.4-years of median follow-up, Black (adjusted HR 1.67; 95% CI 1.37-1.89; P<0.001) and Asian patients (adjusted HR 1.32; 95% CI 1.16-1.50; P<0.001) experienced higher risks of the primary outcome compared with White patients (Figure 1). The treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan vs. RASi on the primary endpoint were consistent among White (HR 0.84; 95% CI: 0.77-0.91), Asian (HR 0.92; 95% CI: 0.78-1.10), and Black patients (HR 0.79; 95% CI: 0.58-1.07; Pinteraction = 0.39). In light of higher baseline risks, Black patients accrued the greatest absolute risk reduction with sacubitril/valsartan (Figure 2). Consistent treatment benefits by race were also observed for the individual components (CV death alone and first HFH alone). Rates of any adjudicated angioedema were numerically higher with sacubitril/valsartan vs. RASi across race groups (White 0.4% vs. 0.2%; Asian 0.6% vs. 0.2%; Black 2.3% vs. 0.8%), however no patient in either trial experienced airway compromise or required mechanical airway protection. Conclusions In a pooled experience of over 12,000 participants enrolled in 2 trials conducted across 56 countries, Black and Asian patients exhibited a higher risk of CV events than White patients. Rates of non-serious angioedema were numerically higher with sacubitril/valsartan across race groups. The relative CV benefits of sacubitril/valsartan were consistent across races, with greatest absolute benefits observed in Black patients.

Elegibility for Sacubitril/Valsartan in italian clinical practice: insights from the OPTIMA-HF registry

Abstract Background/Introduction Guidelines strongly recommend patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) be treated with multiple medications proven to improve clinical outcomes, as tolerated. Among them, angiotensin receptor blocker/neprylisin inhibitor (ARNi) are the foundation of neuro-hormonal blockade in patients with HFrEF, however the degree to which gaps in this medication use and dosing persist in outpatient practice is unclear. Purpose To assess the proportion of patients with HFrEF who are eligible for ARNi based on the PARADIGM-HF trial criteria and the association between eligibility and baseline characteristics. Methods The OPTIMA-HF (Optimization of Therapy in the Italian Management of Heart Failure) registry included outpatients in Italy with chronic HFrEF receiving at least 1 oral medication for management of HF. Patients were characterized by baseline use and dose of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI)/angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB)/ARNI, beta-blocker, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) and sodium glucose co-transporter II inhibitor (SGLT2i). Patient-level factors associated with medication use were examined. Results Outpatients with HFrEF from 29 ambulatory cardiology practices and university hospitals in the OPTIMA-HF registry recruited between January 2022 and September 2023 were included. Of 1291 patients, 1018 (79%) met the PARADIGM-HF criteria and 949 of them (93%) were on ARNi. Of the enrolled patients, 342 (27%) were not on ARNi, however only 129 (38%) did not met the PARADIGM-HF inclusion criteria for ARNi prescription. Reasons for not meeting PARADIGM-HF criteria were no beta-blocker background therapy (22%), hyperkalemia (4%), hypotension (15%), chronic kidney disease (65%) and hyperkalemia (79%). In a logistic regression model not being on ARNi was associated with older age, chronic kidney disease, not being on cardiac resynchronization therapy, lower systolic blood pressure, lower BMI, and higher PAPs (Figure), representing the picture of a more fragile patient net of compliance with the PARADIGM-HF criteria. Conclusions Among outpatients with HFrEF in the OPTIMA-HF Registry, 79% met the PARADIGM-HF criteria. Strategies to improve guideline-directed use of HFrEF medications remain urgently needed, and these findings may inform targeted approaches to optimize outpatient medical therapy.

Obesity and renal impairment in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: another obesity paradox?

Abstract Background Obesity is associated with poor cardiovascular outcomes in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, whether obesity is associated with worse kidney outcomes in HFrEF has not been evaluated. Purpose To estimate the association between obesity and change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) over time in patients with HFrEF. Methods In this post hoc analysis of the PARADIGM-HF trial, body mass index (BMI) and eGFR was collected in 8,389 patients. Change in eGFR over time was assessed according to baseline BMI (normal weight: BMI <25.0, overweight: BMI 25-29.9, and obesity: BMI ≥30). Results The number of patients in each BMI category was: 2,421 (BMI <25.0), 3,249 (BMI 25-29.9), and 2,719 (BMI ≥30), respectively. Patients with obesity were younger but had worse health status (worse NYHA class and KCCQ scores) and had more comorbidities including diabetes mellitus and hypertension. At baseline, eGFR was lower in patients who were overweight (BMI 25-29.9) and obese (BMI ≥30), compared to those with normal weight. Urine albumin-creatinine ratio (UACR) and kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1) were also higher in patients with obesity. However, the rate of change in eGFR per year (eGFR "slope") in the overall cohort did not differ according to BMI: change in eGFR per year was -1.8 [-2.1, -1.6] mL/min/1.73m2 for the normal weight category, -1.6 [-1.8, -1.3] mL/min/1.73m2 for those who were overweight, and -1.5 [-1.8, -1.3] mL/min/1.73m2 for those with obesity; P=0.21) (Figure 1). Among those without diabetes at baseline, those who were obese had a significantly less steep eGFR slope compared to patients in the other BMI categories. In those with diabetes at baseline, the eGFR slope was steeper than in patients without diabetes but was similar across all three BMI categories (Figure 2). Conclusions Although baseline kidney function was more impaired in HFrEF patients with obesity, high BMI was not associated with a more rapid subsequent rate of decline in eGFR. Figure 1. eGFR slope over time according to BMI at baseline in patients with HFrEF in PARADIGM-HF Figure 2. eGFR slope over time according to BMI at baseline in patients with HFrEF in PARADIGM-HF with and without diabetes at baselineFigure 1Figure 2-A and 2-B

Visit-to-visit changes in heart rate in heart failure: A pooled participant-level analysis of the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials.

Resting heart rate (HR) is a strong risk marker in patients with heart failure (HF), but the clinical implications of visit-to-visit changes in HR (ΔHR) are less well established. We aimed to explore the association between ΔHR and subsequent outcomes in a pooled dataset of two well-characterized cohorts of patients with HF across the full range of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF were randomized trials testing sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril or valsartan, respectively, in patients with HF and LVEF ≤40% (PARADIGM-HF) or LVEF ≥45% (PARAGON-HF). We analysed the association between ΔHR from the preceding visit with the primary endpoint of HF hospitalization (HFH) or cardiovascular death using covariate-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models. A total of 13 194 patients (mean age 67 ± 11 years, 67% men, mean LVEF 40 ± 15%) were included. Over a median follow-up of 2.5 years, 3114 patients experienced a first HFH or cardiovascular death event (10.4 events per 100 patient-years). An increase in HR from the preceding visit, compared with no change, was associated with a higher risk (hazard ratio 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-1.15; p < 0.001 per 5 bpm increase). Conversely, a drop in HR was associated with a lower risk (hazard ratio 0.97; 95% CI 0.94-1.00; p = 0.044 per 5 bpm drop). The prognostic implications of ΔHR were consistent across the range of LVEF and observed regardless of β-blocker use or presence of a permanent pacemaker. Visit-to-visit increases in HR were especially prognostic in patients without atrial fibrillation (pinteraction = 0.006). Across a broad spectrum of patients with chronic HF, increases in HR from a preceding visit independently predicted clinical outcomes. The detection of notable increases in HR between outpatient visits may help identify patients at heightened risk of adverse events. Clinical Trial Registration; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01035255 (PARADIGM-HF), NCT01920711 (PARAGON-HF).

Projecting the benefit of vericiguat in PARADIGM-HF and DAPA-HF populations: Insights from the VICTORIA trial.

The VICTORIA trial demonstrated a significant reduction in the primary composite outcome of heart failure (HF) hospitalization or cardiovascular death with vericiguat relative to placebo in high-risk HF. This study aimed to contextualize treatment effects of vericiguat in populations with varying risk profiles simulated from the PARADIGM-HF and DAPA-HF trials. Subgroups of VICTORIA participants (n=5050) were generated to simulate PARADIGM-HF and DAPA-HF trial populations. The PARADIGM-HF-eligible population excluded participants not meeting left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and minimal dose criteria and those with high predicted probability of run-in failure. The DAPA-HF-eligible population excluded those not meeting LVEF and eGFR criteria or with recent (<30days) HF hospitalization. The time-to-first-event analysis was performed using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazards model. A total of 1982 (39.2%) and 2543 (50.4%) VICTORIA participants were respectively deemed eligible for PARADIGM-HF and DAPA-HF. Vericiguat was associated with numerically larger reductions in the primary outcome of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death in populations simulated from PARADIGM-HF [hazard ratio (HR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72-0.99] and DAPA-HF (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71-0.94) compared with the overall VICTORIA trial (HR 0.90). Significant reduction in HF hospitalization with vericiguat was also observed in the DAPA-HF-eligible population (HR 0.83, 95%CI 0.73-0.95) and with a nominal reduction in the PARADIGM-HF-eligible population (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74-1.01). A trend towards enhanced efficacy of vericiguat in populations simulated from PARADIGM-HF and DAPA-HF was observed. These findings support further exploration of vericiguat in lower-risk HF populations as is being investigated in the ongoing VICTOR (a study of vericiguat in participants with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction) trial.

Cardiometabolic effects of sacubitril/valsartan in a rat model of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

The promising results obtained in the PARADIGM-HF trial prompted the approval of sacubitril/valsartan (SAC/VAL) as a first-in-class treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients. The effect of SAC/VAL treatment was also studied in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and, although improvements in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, HF hospitalizations, and cardiovascular deaths were observed, these results were not so promising. However, the demand for HFpEF therapies led to the approval of SAC/VAL as an alternative treatment, although further studies are needed. We aimed to elucidate the effects of a 9-week SAC/VAL treatment in cardiac function and metabolism using a preclinical model of HFpEF, the Zucker Fatty and Spontaneously Hypertensive (ZSF1) rats. We found that SAC/VAL significantly improved diastolic function parameters and modulated respiratory quotient during exercise. Ex-vivo studies showed that SAC/VAL treatment significantly decreased heart, liver, spleen, and visceral fat weights; cardiac hypertrophy and percentage of fibrosis; lipid infiltration in liver and circulating levels of cholesterol and sodium. Moreover, SAC/VAL reduced glycerophospholipids, cholesterol, and cholesteryl esters while increasing triglyceride levels in cardiac tissue. In conclusion, SAC/VAL treatment improved diastolic and hepatic function, respiratory metabolism, reduced hypercholesterolemia and cardiac fibrosis and hypertrophy, and was able to modulate cardiac metabolic profile. Our findings might provide further insight into the therapeutic benefits of SAC/VAL treatment in obese patients with HFpEF

Aptamer Proteomics for Biomarker Discovery in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: The PARAGON-HF Proteomic Substudy.

Prognostic markers and biological pathways linked to detrimental clinical outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remain incompletely defined. We measured serum levels of 4123 unique proteins in 1117 patients with HFpEF enrolled in the PARAGON-HF (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial using a modified aptamer proteomic assay. Baseline circulating protein concentrations significantly associated with the primary end point and the timing and occurrence of total heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death were identified by recurrent events regression, accounting for multiple testing, adjusted for age, sex, treatment, and anticoagulant use, and compared with published analyses in 2515 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction from the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) and ATMOSPHERE (Efficacy and Safety of Aliskiren and Aliskiren/Enalapril Combination on Morbidity-Mortality in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure) clinical trials. We identified 288 proteins that were robustly associated with the risk of heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death in patients with HFpEF. The baseline proteins most strongly related to outcomes included B2M (β-2 microglobulin), TIMP1 (tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase 1), SERPINA4 (serpin family A member 4), and SVEP1 (sushi, von Willebrand factor type A, EGF, and pentraxin domain containing 1). Overall, the protein-outcome associations in patients with HFpEF did not markedly differ as compared with patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. A proteomic risk score derived in patients with HFpEF was not superior to a previous proteomic score derived in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction nor to clinical risk factors, NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide), or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin. Numerous serum proteins linked to metabolic, coagulation, and extracellular matrix regulatory pathways were associated with worse HFpEF prognosis in the PARAGON-HF proteomic substudy. Our results demonstrate substantial similarities among serum proteomic risk markers for heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death when comparing clinical trial participants with heart failure across the ejection fraction spectrum. URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifiers: NCT01920711, NCT01035255, NCT00853658.

Real-life effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan in older Belgians with heart failure, reduced ejection fraction and most severe symptoms

We assessed the real-world effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with chronic heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) with an emphasis on those with older age (≥ 75 years) or with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class IV, for whom greater uncertainty existed regarding clinical outcomes. We conducted a retrospective cohort study based on patient-level linkage of electronic healthcare datasets. Data from all adults with HFrEF in Belgium receiving a prescription for sacubitril/valsartan between 01-November-2016 and 31-December-2018 were collected, with a follow-up of > 6 years. The total study population comprised 5446 patients, older than the PARADIGM-HF trial participants, and with higher NYHA class (all P < 0.0001). NYHA class improved following sacubitril/valsartan initiation (P < 0.0001 baseline vs. reassessment). Most concomitant medications were reduced. Remarkably, the risk of hospitalization for a cardiovascular reason and for HF was reduced by > 26% in the overall cohort, and in subgroups of patients ≥ 75 years, with NYHA class III/IV (all P < 0.0001) or with NYHA class IV (P < 0.05), vs. baseline. All-cause mortality did not increase in real-world patients with NYHA class III/IV. The results support the long-term beneficial effects of sacubitril/valsartan in older patients and in those experiencing the most severe symptoms.

Is Sacubitril/Valsartan a Superior Agent in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction? A Review of Randomized Comparative Trials.

Background: The PARADIGM HF trial showed sacubitril/valsartan (SV) to be superior to enalapril in patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Since its publication, several other randomized trials have compared SV to either an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) in HFrEF which showed conflicting results regarding mortality, hospitalizations, and quality of life scoring. Objective: To review randomized comparative trials of SV to either ACEI or ARB in patients with HFrEF. Methods: PubMed and Embase databases were used to identify randomized comparative trials. The text terms sacubitril, angiotensin neprilysin, and LCZ696 were used for both searches. Meta-analysis, retrospective, adhoc, and cohort studies were excluded. Results: 1476 and 3983 citations were reviewed on PubMed and Embase, respectively. Of these, 11 randomized comparative trials to either ACEI or ARB were included for analysis. The mortality/quality of life benefits of SV over enalapril in the PARADIGM HF were not corroborated in any of the other trials. The effect of hospitalizations for heart failure was inconsistent among trials. Exercise tolerance was not improved with SV versus enalapril. Conclusion: The results of the PARADIGM HF trial have largely not been confirmed in subsequent randomized comparative trials.

Abstract 13828: Aptamer Proteomics for Biomarker Discovery in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: The PARADIGM-HF Proteomic Sub-Study

Introduction: Prognostic markers and biological pathways linked to detrimental clinical outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remain incompletely defined. Goal: To identify serum proteins associated with risk for HF hospitalization (HFH) and cardiovascular (CV) death in patients with HFpEF, including proteins with differential associations with clinical outcomes in HFpEF compared to HFrEF. Methods: We measured serum levels of 4123 unique proteins in 1117 patients with HFpEF in the PARAGON-HF trial using a modified aptamer proteomic assay. Baseline protein concentrations significantly associated with total HFH and CV death were identified by recurrent events regression, accounting for multiple testing, adjusted for age, sex, treatment, and anticoagulant use, and compared to 2515 patients with HFrEF from the PARADIGM-HF and ATMOSPHERE trials. Results: We identified 288 proteins to be robustly associated with the risk of HFH and CV death (335 events over an average of 2.7 years of follow-up) in a HFpEF trial population. Proteins most strongly related to HFpEF outcomes included B2M, TIMP1, SERPINA4, and SVEP1 ( Figure ). Protein-outcome associations in patients with HFpEF did not markedly differ compared to HFrEF. Just 3 proteins (APOE, RTF1, and VWF) were differentially associated with outcomes between the HF subtypes (FDR &lt;0.05). A proteomic risk score derived in HFpEF patients was not superior to a previous proteomic score derived in HFrEF nor to clinical risk factors, NT-proBNP, or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin. Conclusions: Numerous serum proteins linked to metabolic, coagulation, and extracellular matrix regulatory pathways were associated with worse HFpEF prognosis. SVEP1, a cell adhesion protein recently identified as a HFrEF prognosis biomarker, also strongly predicted risk in HFpEF. Our results demonstrate substantial similarities in serum proteomic risk markers across the EF spectrum.

Personalized lifetime prediction of survival and treatment benefit in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: The LIFE-HF model.

Although trials have proven the group-level effectiveness of various therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), important differences in absolute effectiveness exist between individuals. We developed and validated the LIFEtime-perspective for Heart Failure (LIFE-HF) model for the prediction of individual (lifetime) risk and treatment benefit in patients with HFrEF. Cox proportional hazards functions with age as the time scale were developed in the PARADIGM-HF and ATMOSPHERE trials (n = 15 415). Outcomes were cardiovascular death, heart failure (HF) hospitalization or cardiovascular death, and non-cardiovascular mortality. Predictors were age, sex, New York Heart Association class, prior HF hospitalization, diabetes mellitus, extracardiac vascular disease, systolic blood pressure, left ventricular ejection fraction, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, and glomerular filtration rate. The functions were combined in life-tables to predict individual overall and HF hospitalization-free survival. External validation was performed in the SwedeHF registry, ASIAN-HF registry, and DAPA-HF trial (n = 51 286). Calibration of 2- to 10-year risk was adequate, and c-statistics were 0.65-0.74. An interactive tool was developed combining the model with hazard ratios from trials to allow estimation of an individual's (lifetime) risk and treatment benefit in clinical practice. Applying the tool to the development cohort, combined treatment with a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor was estimated to afford a median of 2.5 (interquartile range [IQR] 1.7-3.7) and 3.7 (IQR 2.4-5.5) additional years of overall and HF hospitalization-free survival, respectively. The LIFE-HF model enables estimation of lifelong overall and HF hospitalization-free survival, and (lifetime) treatment benefit for individual patients with HFrEF. It could serve as a tool to improve the management of HFrEF by facilitating personalized medicine and shared decision-making.

A review of stem cell therapy in ischemic heart disease, where are we now?

Background: Regenerative therapies to rejuvenate the heart have a significant appeal for researchers. Preliminary findings from pre-clinical studies suggest that bone marrow cells may have reparative and regenerative effects on heart muscles, creating a ripe area for research. Many generations of stem cells used in pre-clinical and early clinical studies have shown promising but variable results. Objective: The current review article discusses the dilemmas in applying stem cell therapy to cardiovascular diseases and possible strategies to make it feasible. Methods: The field of regenerative therapies continued to progress with second-generation cells, third-generation cells, combination cell therapy, and the use of cell products alone. Research showed promising positive results in multiple randomized phases 1, 2, and 3 clinical trials in addition to numerous meta-analyses. The gaps in knowledge included stem-cell sources, their delivery routes, dosing, types of cells, and the indicated cardiac conditions. Results: The results from the latest randomized clinical trials, namely the Dream-HF, showed improved left ventricle function, symptoms, and overall survival. Studied patient populations include post-myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic/non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, intractable/microvascular angina, and cardiac surgery for congenital and valvular heart disease. The phase 3 DREAM-HF trial did not meet the primary heart failure endpoint of reducing hospital admission. Still, it showed a clinically significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including recurrent MI and stroke, by 60%. A 60% reduction in cardiovascular mortality and a 79% reduction in cardiovascular mortality in patients with evidence of inflammation (high CRP). The latter finding suggests a more anti-inflammatory effect. This effect was much higher than that observed in the PARADIGM-HF trial, which showed a 20% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular mortality. By combining the results of the DREAM-HF trial with MSC-HF, ixCELL-DCM, CONCERT-HF, and REGENERATE-DCM, the potential for clinical applications of cell therapy is promising. Conclusion: There is a promising role for cell therapy in the management of cardiovascular diseases. Results of trials in the setting of heart failure are more encouraging in both ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. This is in contrast with acute myocardial infarction, where the results have been variable. Amongst all the various cell types tested MSCs show the most significant promise for treating HF.

Clinical characteristics of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients with rare pathogenic variants in dilated cardiomyopathy-associated genes: A subgroup analysis of the PARADIGM-HF trial.

To evaluate the prevalence of pathogenic variants in genes associated with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) in a clinical trial population with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and describe the baseline characteristics by variant carrier status. This was a post hoc analysis of the Phase 3 PARADIGM-HF trial. Forty-four genes, divided into three tiers, based on definitive, moderate or limited evidence of association with DCM, were assessed for rare predicted loss-of-function (pLoF) variants, which were prioritized using ClinVar annotations, measures of gene transcriptional output and evolutionary constraint, and pLoF confidence predictions. Prevalence was reported for pLoF variant carriers based on DCM-associated gene tiers. Clinical features were compared between carriers and non-carriers. Of the 1412 HFrEF participants with whole-exome sequence data, 68 (4.8%) had at least one pLoF variant in the 8 tier-1 genes (definitive/strong association with DCM), with Titin being most commonly affected. The prevalence increased to 7.5% when considering all 44 genes. Among patients with idiopathic aetiology, 10.0% (23/229) had tier-1 variants only and 12.6% (29/229) had tier-1, -2 or -3 variants. Compared to non-carriers, tier-1 carriers were younger (4 years; adjusted p-value [padj ] = 4 × 10-3 ), leaner (27.8 kg/m2 vs. 29.4 kg/m2 ; padj = 3.2 × 10-3 ), had lower ejection fraction (27.3% vs. 29.8%; padj = 5.8 × 10-3 ), and less likely to have ischaemic aetiology (37.3% vs. 67.4%; padj = 4 × 10-4 ). Deleterious pLoF variants in genes with definitive/strong association with DCM were identified in ∼5% of HFrEF patients from a PARADIGM-HF trial subset, who were younger, had lower ejection fraction and were less likely to have had an ischaemic aetiology.

SACUBITRIL/VALSARTAN ON CLINICAL, LABORATORY, AND ECHOCARDIOGRAPHIC VARIABLES IN HONDURANS WITH HEART FAILURE WITH REDUCED LEFT VENTRICULAR EJECTION FRACTION. FIVE YEARS EXPERIENCE

Objective: This study aimed to describe the response to sacubitril/valsartan in a group of Hondurans with heart failure and reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (LVEF) between January 2018 and December 2022. Design and method: This observational, descriptive, retrospective cohort study was conducted on 216 adult patients with heart failure and reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (LVEF) who received treatment with angiotensin-receptor antagonist/neprilysin inhibitors (sacubitril/valsartan) in two medical center in Honduras. The study participants included the patients with LVEF &lt; 40% treated with sacubitril/valsartan for at least one year. The patients also received optimal medical therapy for HFrEF according to the American Heart Association -guidelines. Results: This study was conducted on 216 patients with HFrEF treated with SAC/VAL. The median age of the patients was 71 years. The sociodemographic and clinical variables have been presented in Table 1. Treatment with SAC/VAL was done at three dosages (24/26 mg, 49/51 mg, and 97/103 mg) twice a day. For most of the patients, the treatment was started with 24/26 mg and the dose was progressively titrated to the maximum tolerated dose. 60% completed the follow-up at the optimal dose of 97/103 mg. All the patients had at least one underlying comorbidity. The main comorbidity was hypertension (92.4%) followed by dyslipidemia (61.9%) At the beginning of the study, 64.8%, 29.5% and 5.7% of the patients were in NYHA functional classes IV, III, and II, respectively. Following six months of treatment with SAC/VAL, 58.1% of the patients were in the functional class II, 28.6% were in class III, 9.5% were in class IV and 3.8% were in class I. Based on the results, 82.9% of the patients (n = 180) presented improvement, 16.2% (n = 34) had unchanged functional classes, and 1% showed worse baseline conditions (Figure 1). The results revealed the improvement of LVEF in 94.3% of the cases after treatment with SAC/VAL, while 3.8% presented no changes in this regard. Conclusions: The study population had sociodemographic and clinical similarities with the Latin American Cohort in the PARADIGM-HF trial with the significant improvement of the LVEF and functional class.

Cost-Effectiveness of Comprehensive Quadruple Therapy for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

BackgroundHeart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is one of the most costly and deadly chronic disease states. The cost effectiveness of a comprehensive quadruple therapy regimen for HFrEF has not been studied. ObjectivesThe authors sought to determine the cost-effectiveness of quadruple therapy comprised of beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, and sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors vs regimens composed of only beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (triple therapy), and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and beta-blockers (double therapy). MethodsUsing a 2-state Markov model, the authors performed a cost-effectiveness study using simulated populations of 1,000 patients with HFrEF based on the participants in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure) trial and compared them by treatment strategy (quadruple therapy vs triple and double therapy) from a United States health care system perspective. The authors also performed 10,000 probabilistic simulations. ResultsTreatment with quadruple therapy resulted in an increase of 1.73 and 2.87 life-years compared with triple therapy and double therapy, respectively, and an increase in quality-adjusted life-years of 1.12 and 1.85 years, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of quadruple therapy vs triple therapy and double therapy were $81,000 and $51,081, respectively. In 91.7% and 99.9% of probabilistic simulations quadruple therapy had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of <$150,000 compared with triple therapy and double therapy, respectively. ConclusionsAt current pricing, the use of quadruple therapy in patients with HFrEF was cost effective compared with triple therapy and double therapy. These findings highlight the need for improved access and optimal implementation of comprehensive quadruple therapy in eligible patients with HFrEF.

Cost-effectiveness in unstable economies: the case of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in Argentina

BackgroundSacubitril/valsartan (an Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor—ARNI) is one of the cornerstones in the management of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) having demonstrated significant reductions in both mortality and hospitalisations as compared with enalapril. It proved to be a cost-effective treatment in many countries with stable economies. In Argentina, a country with chronic financial instability and a fragmented health care system, the estimation of its cost-effectiveness requires to consider local financial data.ObjectivesTo estimate the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan in HFrEF in Argentina.MethodsWe populated an Excel-based cost-effectiveness model, previously validated, using inputs from the pivotal phase-3 PARADIGM-HF trial and from local sources. As the main problem to consider was the financial instability, we adopted a differential approach to cost discounting based on the opportunity cost of capital. Thus, a discount rate for costs were set at 31.6%, using the BADLAR rate published by the Central Bank of Argentina. Discount for effects were set at 5% as is the current practice. Costs were expressed in Argentinian pesos (ARS). We used the perspective for both the social security and private payers at a 30-year horizon. The primary analysis was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) versus enalapril, the previous standard of care. Alternative scenarios performed included a 5% cost discount rate and 3 a 5-year horizon (as is usually used).ResultsIn Argentina the cost-per quality adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril was 391,158 ARS and 376,665 ARS for a social security and a private payer, respectively, at a 30- year horizon. These ICERs were under the cost- effectiveness threshold of 520,405.79 ARS (1 Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita) suggested by Argentinian health technology assessment bodies. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed an acceptability of sacubitril/valsartan as a cost-effective alternative of 86.40% and 88.25% for social security and private payers, respectively.ConclusionSacubitril/valsartan is a cost-effective treatment in HFrEF using local inputs that considered the financial instability. For both payers considered the cost per QALY gained are under the cost-effectiveness threshold considered.

A comparison of heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction in the Moravian Midlands Registry with the LCZ696 patients in the Paradigm-HF trial.

There are limited data on real clinical practice in heart failure patients in the Czech Republic. We analysed the clinical parameters from the Moravian Midlands Registry (MMR) and compared them to LCZ696 patients in the Paradigm-HF trial. The Moravian Midlands Registry is a retrospective patient database from two outpatient cardiology centres in the Czech Republic. The Paradigm-HF is a large-scale prospective randomized multicentre trial with more than 8000 individuals with stabilized chronic heart failure. A retrospective analysis of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients from two outpatient cardiology centres in the Czech Republic from October 2016 to December 2019. Patients in the MMR were younger (60.5 ± 10.7 vs 63.8 ± 11.5 years, P<0.05), had a higher body mass index (30.3 ± 5.0 vs 28.1 ± 5.5, P<0.05) and higher serum creatinine level (101.9 ± 36.0 vs 99.9 ± 26.5 µmol/L, P<0.05). MMR patients had lower left ventricular ejection fraction (27.8 ± 6.9 vs 29.6 ± 6.1%, P<0.05). The serum N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, [2563.5 (377-3536) vs 1631 (885-3154), was non significantly higher P=0.07]. Pharmacotherapy use differed for mineralocorticoid antagonist (91.4% in MMR vs 54.2% in Paradigm-HF), and digoxin (13.5% vs 29.2%). Beta-blocker use was similar (96.2% vs 93.1%) as was angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors - (71.2% vs 78.0%) and angiotensin-receptor blockers - ARB (27.9% vs 22.2%). Dosages of the commonly used ACE inhibitors at the screening visit (Paradigm-HF) / before angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor administration (MMR) differed significantly only for ramipril (7.0 ± 3.1 mg vs 4.8 ± 2.9 mg, P<0.05), dosages of ARB were - losartan (67.1 ± 30.2 vs 39.6 ± 32.0 mg, P=0.09) and valsartan (181.5 ± 71.1 vs 130.9 ± 82.2 mg, P=0.07). There was a substantial difference in device-based therapy (ICD in 60.6%, CRT 25.9% in MMR vs 14.9% and 7.0% in Paradigm-HF). The differences between the groups for the majority of clinical parameters compared were minimal, except for younger age, higher body mass index and serum creatinine level and lower left ventricular ejection fraction and substantially lower dosage of administered ramipril prior to commencing sacubitril/valsartan therapy. There was a higher prevalence of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in the MMR group.

The Effect of Sacubitril-Valsartan on Ventricular Arrhythmia Burden in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

Introduction Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients are prone to developing ventricular arrhythmias. In the PARADIGM-HF trial, sacubitril-valsartan (SV) showed a reduction in the composite endpoint of death and HF hospitalization in HFrEF patients; subgroup analysis of this trial revealed a reduction in both sudden death and deaths from worsening HF. The mechanism by which SV may affect the incidence of ventricular arrhythmias is currently under debate, and the literature provides conflicting results. The aim of our study was to evaluate the potential antiarrhythmic effect of this drug in patients with HFrEF carrying an implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) or a cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT-D). Methods This was a single-center, observational and retrospective study. Inclusion criteria were implantation of an ICD or CRT-D device between 2009 and 2019, age ≥18 years, left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class ≥II, and treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker for at least 12 months, followed by replacement with SV. Exclusion criteria were NYHA class IV, frequent alterations in chronic medication for HFrEF, and implantation of an ICD or CRT-D after the introduction of SV. The primary outcome was the occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias in the form of appropriate device shocks, ventricular fibrillation, or ventricular tachycardia. The comparisons were performed between two periods of time (12 months before and 12 months after SV) in the same group of patients. Results Fifty-four patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 69.5 ± 1.65 years, and 74.1% of patients were male. The number of patients experiencing appropriate shocks was significantly lower after SV initiation (2% vs. 18%; p=0.016). The percentage of VT (13 vs. 20%; p=0.549) and VF episodes (4% vs. 13% for VF; p=0.289) were also lower, but these differences were not statistically significant. There were no significant differences in the value of NT-proBNP (1128 vs. 775 pg/mL; p=0.858), LVEF (28.4 vs. 29.6%; p=0.315), and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (65.0 vs. 66.0 mm; p=0.5492). Conclusion SV seems to reduce the risk of arrhythmic events requiring appropriate shock therapy.

Urinary cGMP (Cyclic Guanosine Monophosphate)/BNP (B-Type Natriuretic Peptide) Ratio, Sacubitril/Valsartan, and Outcomes in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: An Analysis of the PARADIGM-HF Trial.

The ratio of ucGMP (urinary cyclic guanosine monophosphate) to BNP (B-type natriuretic peptide) is thought to reflect the responsiveness of tissues to natriuretic peptides. We examined the relationship between ucGMP/BNP ratio and clinical outcomes, the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, on the ucGMP/BNP ratio, and the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan on clinical outcomes according to baseline ucGMP/BNP ratio in PARADIGM-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure). ucGMP/BNP ratio was available at baseline (N=2031), 1 month (N=1959), and 8 months after randomization (N=1746). The primary outcome was a composite of heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death. Compared with the lowest tertile of baseline ucGMP/BNP ratio, patients in the higher tertiles had a lower risk of the primary outcome (tertile 1, reference; tertile 2, hazard ratio 0.57 [95% CI, 0.45-0.71]; tertile 3, hazard ratio, 0.54 [0.43-0.67]). Compared with baseline, the ucGMP/BNP ratio at 1 month and 8 months after randomization was higher with sacubitril/valsartan than with enalapril: ratio of geometric mean ratios at 1 month, 1.38 (95% CI, 1.27-1.51) and 8 months, 1.32 (95% CI, 1.20-1.45), and this difference was consistent across tertiles of ucGMP/BNP ratio at baseline (Pinteraction=0.19 and 0.91, respectively). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, was consistent across tertiles of ucGMP/BNP ratio at baseline for all outcomes (Pinteraction ≥0.31). In patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, higher ucGMP/BNP ratio was associated with better outcomes. Sacubitril/valsartan increased the ucGMP/BNP ratio, compared with enalapril, and the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on clinical outcomes was not modified by baseline ucGMP/BNP ratio. URL: https://www. gov; Unique Identifier: NCT01035255.