Dataset Information

Effect of Treatment With Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients With Advanced Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

The use of sacubitril/valsartan is not endorsed by practice guidelines for use in patients with New York Heart Association class IV heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction because of limited clinical experience in this population.

Objective

To compare treatment with sacubitril/valsartan treatment with valsartan in patients with advanced heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction and recent New York Heart Association class IV symptoms.

Design, setting, and participants

A double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted; a total of 335 patients with advanced heart failure were included. The trial began on March 2, 2017, and was stopped early on March 23, 2020, owing to COVID-19 risk.

Intervention

Patients were randomized to receive sacubitril/valsartan (target dose, 200 mg twice daily) or valsartan (target dose, 160 mg twice daily) in addition to recommended therapy.

Main outcomes and measures

The area under the curve (AUC) for the ratio of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) compared with baseline measured through 24 weeks of therapy.

Results

Of the 335 patients included in the analysis, 245 were men (73%); mean (SD) age was 59.4 (13.5) years. Seventy-two eligible patients (18%) were not able to tolerate sacubitril/valsartan, 100 mg/d, during the short run-in period, and 49 patients (29%) discontinued sacubitril/valsartan during the 24 weeks of the trial. The median NT-proBNP AUC for the valsartan treatment arm (n = 168) was 1.19 (IQR, 0.91-1.64), whereas the AUC for the sacubitril/valsartan treatment arm (n = 167) was 1.08 (IQR, 0.75-1.60). The estimated ratio of change in the NT-proBNP AUC was 0.95 (95% CI 0.84-1.08; P = .45). Compared with valsartan, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan did not improve the clinical composite of number of days alive, out of hospital, and free from heart failure events. Aside from a statistically significant increase in non-life-threatening hyperkalemia in the sacubitril/valsartan arm (28 [17%] vs 15 [9%]; P = .04), there were no observed safety concerns.

Conclusions and relevance

The findings of this trial showed that, in patients with chronic advanced heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction, there was no statistically significant difference between sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan with respect to reducing NT-proBNP levels.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02816736.

SUBMITTER: Mann DL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8567189 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of Treatment With Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients With Advanced Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Mann Douglas L DL Givertz Michael M MM Vader Justin M JM Starling Randall C RC Shah Palak P McNulty Steven E SE Anstrom Kevin J KJ Margulies Kenneth B KB Kiernan Michael S MS Mahr Claudius C Gupta Divya D Redfield Margaret M MM Lala Anuradha A Lewis Gregory D GD DeVore Adam D AD Desvigne-Nickens Patrice P Hernandez Adrian F AF Braunwald Eugene E

JAMA cardiology 20220101 1

<h4>Importance</h4>The use of sacubitril/valsartan is not endorsed by practice guidelines for use in patients with New York Heart Association class IV heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction because of limited clinical experience in this population.<h4>Objective</h4>To compare treatment with sacubitril/valsartan treatment with valsartan in patients with advanced heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction and recent New York Heart Association class IV symptoms.<h4>Design, setting, and p ...[more]

PMID: 34730769

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe mechanism of how sacubitril/valsartan improves outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is still incompletely understood.ObjectivesThe aim of this trial was to delineate the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on endothelial function, retinal microvascular function, and arterial stiffness in HFrEF.MethodsThis double-blind controlled trial randomized 79 stable HFrEF patients with NYHA class II-IV on guideline-recommended therapy (mean age: 59.4 ± 12 years, left ventricular ejection fraction: 30% ± 7%) to sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan alone for 3 months. The primary endpoint was flow-mediated vasodilation (FMD). Secondary outcomes included flicker-induced dilatation of retinal arterioles and venules (FIDv), retinal arteriovenous ratio, and surrogate markers of arterial stiffness (pulse wave velocity and augmentation index).ResultsThe primary outcome FMD did not significantly differ between sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan alone (FMD 6.6% ± 3.9% vs 6.7% ± 2.8%; ANCOVA coefficient adjusted for baseline values 0.36, 95% CI: -0.78 to 1.51, P = 0.53). The secondary outcomes flicker-induced dilatation of retinal arterioles, arteriovenous ratio, pulse wave velocity, and augmentation index showed no significant differences. FIDv was lower after sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan alone (FIDv 2.4% ± 1.3% vs 3.1% ± 2.1%; ANCOVA coefficient -0.7, 95% CI: -1.4 to -0.02, P = 0.04). Systolic blood pressure was lower after sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan alone (ANCOVA coefficient -6.5 mm Hg, 95% CI: -12.7 to -0.3 mm Hg, P = 0.04). There were numerically fewer serious adverse events with sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan alone.ConclusionsIn this randomized double-blind clinical trial addressing mechanisms, sacubitril/valsartan lowered blood pressure and flicker-induced dilatation of retinal venules in patients with symptomatic HFrEF but did not improve endothelial function, retinal microvascular function, or arterial stiffness compared to valsartan monotherapy. (Differential Vascular and Endocrine Effects of Valsartan/Sacubitril in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction [VASCEND]; NCT03168568).

Project description:The PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin II Receptor Blocker Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial reported that sacubitril/valsartan (S/V), an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, significantly reduced mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, fewer than 1% of patients in the PARADIGM-HF study had New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class IV symptoms. Accordingly, data that informed the use of S/V among patients with advanced HF were limited. The LIFE (LCZ696 in Hospitalized Advanced Heart Failure) study was a 24-week prospective, multicenter, double-blinded, double-dummy, active comparator trial that compared the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of S/V with those of valsartan in patients with advanced HFrEF. The trial planned to randomize 400 patients ≥18 years of age with advanced HF, defined as an EF ≤35%, New York Heart Association functional class IV symptoms, elevated natriuretic peptide concentration (B-type natriuretic peptide [BNP] ≥250 pg/ml or N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP] ≥800 pg/ml), and ≥1 objective finding of advanced HF. Following a 3- to 7-day open label run-in period with S/V (24 mg/26 mg twice daily), patients were randomized 1:1 to S/V titrated to 97 mg/103 mg twice daily versus 160 mg of V twice daily. The primary endpoint was the proportional change from baseline in the area under the curve for NT-proBNP levels measured through week 24. Secondary and tertiary endpoints included clinical outcomes and safety and tolerability. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, enrollment in the LIFE trial was stopped prematurely to ensure patient safety and data integrity. The primary analysis consists of the first 335 randomized patients whose clinical follow-up examination results were not severely impacted by COVID-19. (Entresto [LCZ696] in Advanced Heart Failure [LIFE STUDY] [HFN-LIFE]; NCT02816736).

Project description:Background Sacubitril/Valsartan has been highly efficacious in randomized trials of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, the effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan in older patients hospitalized for HFrEF in real-world US practice is unclear. Methods and Results This study included Medicare beneficiaries age ≥65 years who were hospitalized for HFrEF ≤40% in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry between October 2015 and December 2018, and eligible for sacubitril/valsartan. Associations between discharge prescription of sacubitril/valsartan and clinical outcomes were assessed after inverse probability of treatment weighting and adjustment for other HFrEF medications. Overall, 1551 (10.9%) patients were discharged on sacubitril/valsartan. Of those not prescribed sacubitril/valsartan, 7857 (62.0%) were prescribed an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker. Over 12-month follow-up, compared with a discharge prescription of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker, sacubitril/valsartan was independently associated with lower all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.94; P=0.004) but not all-cause hospitalization (adjusted HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.89-1.07; P=0.55) or heart failure hospitalization (adjusted HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.91-1.18; P=0.59). Patients prescribed sacubitril/valsartan versus those without a prescription had lower risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.60-0.79; P<0.001), all-cause hospitalization (adjusted HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82-0.98; P=0.02), but not heart failure hospitalization (adjusted HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.82-1.08; P=0.40). Conclusions Among patients hospitalized for HFrEF, prescription of sacubitril/valsartan at discharge was independently associated with reduced postdischarge mortality compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker, and reduced mortality and all-cause hospitalization compared with no sacubitril/valsartan. These findings support the use of sacubitril/valsartan to improve postdischarge outcomes among older patients hospitalized for HFrEF in routine US clinical practice.

Project description:AimsIvabradine and sacubitril/valsartan are second-line therapies for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) based on guideline recommendations. We aimed to evaluate the synergistic effects of these two medications.Methods and resultsPatients' data were extracted from a multicentre database between 2016 and 2018. Patients were classified into (1) Simultaneous group: simultaneous prescription of ivabradine and sacubitril/valsartan within 6 weeks; (2A) Sequential group, ivabradine-first: ivabradine was prescribed first, followed by sacubitril/valsartan; and (2B) Sequential group, sacubitril/valsartan-first: sacubitril/valsartan was prescribed first, followed by ivabradine. A total of 464 patients with HFrEF were enrolled. Cardiovascular death and/or unplanned re-hospitalizations for HF were less frequent (28.6% vs. 44.8%, P = 0.01), and the improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was significantly greater in patients from the Simultaneous group than those from the Sequential group (∆LVEF 12.8 ± 12.9% vs. 9.3 ± 12.6%, P = 0.007). Among Sequential subgroups, the ivabradine-first treatment decreased heart rate and increased systolic blood pressure (SBP) compared with sacubitril/valsartan-first treatment (∆heart rate -9.1 ± 12.9 b.p.m. vs. 2.6 ± 16.0 b.p.m., P < 0.001; ∆SBP 4.6 ± 16.5 mmHg vs. -4.8 ± 17.2 mmHg, P < 0.001), whereas sacubitril/valsartan-first treatment showed a higher degree of LVEF improvement (∆LVEF 3.6 ± 7.8% vs. 0.7 ± 7.7%, P = 0.002) than ivabradine-first treatment. At the end of follow-up, SBP, LVEF, and left ventricular volume were comparable between two Sequential subgroups.ConclusionsAmong patients with HFrEF, simultaneous rather than sequential treatment with sacubitril/valsartan and ivabradine was a better strategy to reduce adverse events and achieve left ventricular reverse remodelling. Ivabradine treatment had a more significant benefit on improving haemodynamic stability, whereas sacubitril/valsartan treatment showed a more significant effect on improving LVEF.

Project description:ImportanceCompared with enalapril, sacubitril-valsartan reduces cardiovascular mortality and heart failure hospitalization in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). These benefits may be related to effects on hemodynamics and cardiac remodeling.ObjectiveTo determine whether treatment of HFrEF with sacubitril-valsartan improves central aortic stiffness and cardiac remodeling compared with enalapril.Design, setting, and participantsRandomized, double-blind clinical trial of 464 participants with heart failure and ejection fraction of 40% or less enrolled across 85 US sites between August 17, 2016, and June 28, 2018. Follow-up was completed on January 26, 2019.InterventionsRandomization (1:1) to sacubitril-valsartan (n = 231; target dosage, 97/103 mg twice daily) vs enalapril (n = 233; target dosage, 10 mg twice daily) for 12 weeks.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was change from baseline to week 12 in aortic characteristic impedance (Zc), a measure of central aortic stiffness. Prespecified secondary outcomes included change from baseline to week 12 in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, ejection fraction, global longitudinal strain, mitral annular relaxation velocity, mitral E/e' ratio, left ventricular end-systolic and end-diastolic volume indexes (LVESVI and LVEDVI), left atrial volume index, and ventricular-vascular coupling ratio.ResultsOf 464 validly randomized participants (mean age, 67.3 [SD, 9.1] years; 23.5% women), 427 completed the study. At 12 weeks, Zc decreased from 223.8 to 218.9 dyne × s/cm5 in the sacubitril-valsartan group and increased from 213.2 to 214.4 dyne × s/cm5 in the enalapril group (treatment difference, -2.2 [95% CI, -17.6 to 13.2] dyne × s/cm5; P = .78). Of 9 prespecified secondary end points, no significant between-group difference in change from baseline was seen in 4, including left ventricular ejection fraction (34%-36% with sacubitril-valsartan vs 33 to 35% with enalapril; treatment difference, 0.6% [95% CI, -0.4% to 1.7%]; P = .24). However, greater reductions from baseline were seen with sacubitril-valsartan than with enalapril in all others, including left atrial volume (from 30.4 mL/m2 to 28.2 mL/m2 vs from 29.8 mL/m2 to 30.5 mL/m2; treatment difference, -2.8 mL/m2 [95% CI, -4.0 to -1.6 mL/m2]; P < .001), LVEDVI (from 75.1 mL/m2 to 70.3 mL/m2 vs from 79.1 mL/m2 to 75.6 mL/m2; treatment difference, -2.0 mL/m2 [95% CI, -3.7 to 0.3 mL/m2]; P = .02), LVESVI (from 50.8 mL/m2 to 46.3 mL/m2 vs from 54.1 to 50.6 mL/m2; treatment difference, -1.6 mL/m2 [95% CI, -3.1 to -0.03 mL/m2]; P = .045), and mitral E/e' ratio (from 13.8 to 12.3 vs from 13.4 to 13.8; treatment difference, -1.8 [95% CI, -2.8 to -0.8]; P = .001). Rates of adverse events including hypotension (1.7% vs 3.9%) were similar in both groups.Conclusions and relevanceTreatment of HFrEF with sacubitril-valsartan, compared with enalapril, did not significantly reduce central aortic stiffness. The study findings may provide insight into mechanisms underlying the effects of sacubitril-valsartan in HFrEF.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02874794.

Dataset Information

Effect of Treatment With Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients With Advanced Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Intervention

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Trial registration

Publications

Effect of Treatment With Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients With Advanced Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets