Dataset Information

Initiating sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) in heart failure: results of TITRATION, a double-blind, randomized comparison of two uptitration regimens.

ABSTRACT: To assess the tolerability of initiating/uptitrating sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) from 50 to 200 mg twice daily (target dose) over 3 and 6 weeks in heart failure (HF) patients (ejection fraction ?35%).A 5-day open-label run-in (sacubitril/valsartan 50 mg twice daily) preceded an 11-week, double-blind, randomization period [100 mg twice daily for 2 weeks followed by 200 mg twice daily ('condensed' regimen) vs. 50 mg twice daily for 2 weeks, 100 mg twice daily for 3 weeks, followed by 200 mg twice daily ('conservative' regimen)]. Patients were stratified by pre-study dose of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin-receptor blocker (ACEI/ARB; low-dose stratum included ACEI/ARB-naïve patients). Of 540 patients entering run-in, 498 (92%) were randomized and 429 (86.1% of randomized) completed the study. Pre-defined tolerability criteria were hypotension, renal dysfunction and hyperkalaemia; and adjudicated angioedema, which occurred in ('condensed' vs. 'conservative') 9.7% vs. 8.4% (P = 0.570), 7.3% vs. 7.6% (P = 0.990), 7.7% vs. 4.4% (P = 0.114), and 0.0% vs. 0.8% of patients, respectively. Corresponding proportions for pre-defined systolic blood pressure <95 mmHg, serum potassium >5.5 mmol/L, and serum creatinine >3.0 mg/dL were 8.9% vs. 5.2% (P = 0.102), 7.3% vs. 4.0% (P = 0.097), and 0.4% vs. 0%, respectively. In total, 378 (76%) patients achieved and maintained sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg twice daily without dose interruption/down-titration over 12 weeks (77.8% vs. 84.3% for 'condensed' vs. 'conservative'; P = 0.078). Rates by ACEI/ARB pre-study dose stratification were 82.6% vs. 83.8% (P = 0.783) for high-dose/'condensed' vs. high-dose/'conservative' and 84.9% vs. 73.6% (P = 0.030) for low-dose/'conservative' vs. low-dose/'condensed'.Initiation/uptitration of sacubitril/valsartan from 50 to 200 mg twice daily over 3 or 6 weeks had a tolerability profile in line with other HF treatments. More gradual initiation/uptitration maximized attainment of target dose in the low-dose ACEI/ARB group.

SUBMITTER: Senni M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5084812 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Initiating sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) in heart failure: results of TITRATION, a double-blind, randomized comparison of two uptitration regimens.

Senni Michele M McMurray John J V JJ Wachter Rolf R McIntyre Hugh F HF Reyes Antonio A Majercak Ivan I Andreka Peter P Shehova-Yankova Nina N Anand Inder I Yilmaz Mehmet B MB Gogia Harinder H Martinez-Selles Manuel M Fischer Steffen S Zilahi Zsolt Z Cosmi Franco F Gelev Valeri V Galve Enrique E Gómez-Doblas Juanjo J JJ Nociar Jan J Radomska Maria M Sokolova Beata B Volterrani Maurizio M Sarkar Arnab A Reimund Bernard B Chen Fabian F Charney Alan A

European journal of heart failure 20160512 9

<h4>Aims</h4>To assess the tolerability of initiating/uptitrating sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) from 50 to 200 mg twice daily (target dose) over 3 and 6 weeks in heart failure (HF) patients (ejection fraction ≤35%).<h4>Methods and results</h4>A 5-day open-label run-in (sacubitril/valsartan 50 mg twice daily) preceded an 11-week, double-blind, randomization period [100 mg twice daily for 2 weeks followed by 200 mg twice daily ('condensed' regimen) vs. 50 mg twice daily for 2 weeks, 100 mg twice d ...[more]

PMID: 27170530

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeSacubitril/valsartan is a mainstay of the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF); however, its effects on exercise performance yielded conflicting results. Aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of sacubitril/valsartan on exercise parameters and echocardiographic and biomarker changes at different drug doses.MethodsWe prospectively enrolled consecutive HFrEF outpatients eligible to start sacubitril/valsartan. Patients underwent clinical assessment, cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET), blood sampling, echocardiography, and completed the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ-12). Sacubitril/valsartan was introduced at 24/26 mg b.i.d. dose and progressively uptitrated in a standard monthly-based fashion to 97/103 mg b.i.d. or maximum tolerated dose. Study procedures were repeated at each titration visit and 6 months after reaching the maximum tolerated dose.ResultsNinety-six patients completed the study, 73 (75%) reached maximum sacubitril/valsartan dose. We observed a significant improvement in functional capacity across all study steps: oxygen intake increased, at peak exercise (from 15.6 ± 4.5 to 16.5 ± 4.9 mL/min/kg; p trend = 0.001), while minute ventilation/carbon dioxide production relationship reduced in patients with an abnormal value at baseline. Sacubitril/valsartan induced positive left ventricle reverse remodeling (EF from 31 ± 5 to 37 ± 8%; p trend < 0.001), while NT-proBNP reduced from 1179 [610-2757] to 780 [372-1344] pg/ml (p trend < 0.0001). NYHA functional class and the subjective perception of limitation in daily life at KCCQ-12 significantly improved. The Metabolic Exercise Cardiac Kidney Index (MECKI) score progressively improved from 4.35 [2.42-7.71] to 2.35% [1.24-4.96], p = 0.003.ConclusionsA holistic and progressive HF improvement was observed with sacubitril/valsartan in parallel with quality of life. Likewise, a prognostic enhancement was observed.

Project description:BackgroundCompared to heart failure patients with higher systolic blood pressure (SBP), those with lower SBP have a worse prognosis. To make matters worse, the latter patients often do not receive treatment with life-saving therapies that might lower blood pressure further. We examined the association between SBP and outcomes in the Prospective Comparison of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) with an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure trial (PARADIGM-HF), as well as the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, according to baseline SBP.MethodsWe analysed the effect of treatment on SBP and on the primary composite outcome (cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization), its components and all-cause death. We examined baseline SBP as a categorical (<110, 110 to < 120, 120 to < 130, 130 to < 140 and ≥140 mmHg) and continuous variable, as well as average in-trial SBP and time-updated SBP.FindingsAll-cause and cardiovascular mortality rates were highest in patients with the lowest SBP whereas there was a U-shaped relationship between SBP and the rate of heart failure hospitalization. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril was consistent across all baseline SBP categories for all outcomes. For example, the sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril hazard ratio for the primary endpoint was 0.88 (95%CI 0.74-1.06) in patients with a baseline SBP <110 mmHg and 0.81 (0.65-1.02) for those with a SBP ≥140 mmHg (P for interaction = 0.55). Symptomatic hypotension, study drug dose-reduction and discontinuation were more frequent in patients with a lower SBP.InterpretationIn PARADIGM-HF, patients with lower SBP at randomization, notably after tolerating full doses of both study drugs during a run-in period, were at higher risk but generally tolerated sacubitril/valsartan and had the same relative benefit over enalapril as patients with higher baseline SBP.

Dataset Information

Initiating sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) in heart failure: results of TITRATION, a double-blind, randomized comparison of two uptitration regimens.

Publications

Initiating sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) in heart failure: results of TITRATION, a double-blind, randomized comparison of two uptitration regimens.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets