Impact of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Ramipril on Total Heart Failure Events in the PARADISE-MI Trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Pfeffer MA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8716414 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Impact of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Ramipril on Total Heart Failure Events in the PARADISE-MI Trial.
Pfeffer Marc A MA Claggett Brian B Lewis Eldrin F EF Granger Christopher B CB Køber Lars L Maggioni Aldo P AP Mann Douglas L DL McMurray John J V JJV Rouleau Jean-Lucien JL Solomon Scott D SD Steg Philippe Gabriel PG Berwanger Otavio O Cikes Maja M De Pasquale Carmine G CG Fernandez Alberto A Filippatos Gerasimos G Jering Karola K Landmesser Ulf U Menon Venugopal V Merkely Béla B Petrie Mark C MC Petrov Ivo I Schou Morten M Senni Michele M Sim David D van der Meer Peter P Lefkowitz Martin M Zhou Yinong Y Wang Yi Y Braunwald Eugene E
Circulation 20211119 1
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundAngiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors attenuate left ventricular (LV) enlargement after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Preclinical data suggest similar benefits with combined angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibition, but human data are conflicting. The PARADISE-MI Echo Study (Prospective ARNI Versus ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After Myocardial Infarction) tested the effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with ramipril on LV function and adverse remodeling after high risk-AMI.MethodsIn a prespecified substudy, 544 PARADISE-MI participants were enrolled in the Echo Study to undergo protocol echocardiography at randomization and after 8 months. Patients were randomized within 0.5 to 7 days of presentation with their index AMI to receive a target dose of sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg or ramipril 5 mg twice daily. Echocardiographic measures were performed at a core laboratory by investigators blinded to treatment assignment. The effect of treatment on change in echo measures was assessed with ANCOVA with adjustment for baseline value and enrollment region. The primary end points were change in LV ejection fraction (LVEF) and left atrial volume (LAV), and prespecified secondary end points included changes in LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes.ResultsMean age was 64±12 years; 26% were women; mean LVEF was 42±12%; and LAV was 49±17 mL. Of 544 enrolled patients, 457 (84%) had a follow-up echo at 8 months (228 taking sacubitril/valsartan, 229 taking ramipril). There was no significant difference in change in LVEF (P=0.79) or LAV (P =0.62) by treatment group. Patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan demonstrated less increase in LV end-diastolic volume (P=0.025) and greater decline in LV mass index (P=0.037), increase in tissue Doppler e'lat (P=0.005), decrease in E/e'lat (P=0.045), and decrease in tricuspid regurgitation peak velocity (P=0.024) than patients randomized to ramipril. These differences remained significant after adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics. Baseline LVEF, LV end-diastolic volume, LV end-systolic volume, LV mass index, LAV, and Doppler-based diastolic indices were associated with risk of cardiovascular death or incident heart failure.ConclusionsTreatment with sacubitril/valsartan compared with ramipril after AMI did not result in changes in LVEF or LAV at 8 months. Patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan had less LV enlargement and greater improvement in filling pressure. Measures of LV size, systolic function, and diastolic properties were predictive of cardiovascular death and incident heart failure after AMI in this contemporary, well-treated cohort.RegistrationURL: https://www.Clinicaltrialsgov; Unique identifier: NCT02924727.
| S-EPMC9529950 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBased on previous research, both dapagliflozin (DAPA) and sacubitril-valsartan (S/V) improve the prognosis of patients with heart failure (HF). Our study aims to investigate whether the early initiation of DAPA or the combination of DAPA with S/V in different orders would exert a greater protective effect on heart function than that of S/V alone in post-myocardial infarction HF (post-MI HF).MethodsRats were randomized into six groups: (A) Sham; (B) MI; (C) MI + S/V (1st d); (D) MI + DAPA (1st d); (E) MI + S/V (1st d) + DAPA (14th d); (F) MI + DAPA (1st d) + S/V (14th d). The MI model was established in rats via surgical ligation of the left anterior descending coronary artery. Histology, Western blotting, RNA-seq, and other approaches were used to explore the optimal treatment to preserve the heart function in post-MI HF. A daily dose of 1 mg/kg DAPA and 68 mg/kg S/V was administered.ResultsThe results of our study revealed that DAPA or S/V substantially improved the cardiac structure and function. DAPA and S/V monotherapy resulted in comparable reduction in infarct size, fibrosis, myocardium hypertrophy, and apoptosis. The administration of DAPA followed by S/V results in a superior improvement in heart function in rats with post-MI HF than those in other treatment groups. The administration of DAPA following S/V did not result in any additional improvement in heart function as compared to S/V monotherapy in rats with post-MI HF. Our findings further suggest that the combination of DAPA and S/V should not be administered within 3 days after acute myocardial infarction (AMI), as it resulted in a considerable increase in mortality. Our RNA-Seq data revealed that DAPA treatment after AMI altered the expression of genes related to myocardial mitochondrial biogenesis and oxidative phosphorylation.ConclusionsOur study revealed no notable difference in the cardioprotective effects of singular DAPA or S/V in rats with post-MI HF. Based on our preclinical investigation, the most effective treatment strategy for post-MI HF is the administration of DAPA during the 2 weeks, followed by the addition of S/V to DAPA later. Conversely, adopting a therapeutic scheme whereby S/V was administered first, followed by later addition of DAPA, failed to further improve the cardiac function compared to S/V monotherapy.
| S-EPMC10296765 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Abstract This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess benefits and harms of first‐in‐class angiotensin receptor‐neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) as compared to angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) in chronic heart failure (HF) patients with either reduced, mid‐range, or preserved ejection fraction.
| S-EPMC6984414 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAngiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) therapy has been associated with improved survival for patients with symptomatic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).ObjectivesWe performed a meta-analysis of arrhythmia endpoints from studies comparing ARNI with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for patients with HFrEF to assess for incremental benefit.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Baseline study characteristics were collected and outcomes were sustained ventricular arrhythmias, atrial arrhythmias, appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy, sudden cardiac death (SCD), and biventricular (BiV) pacing rate.ResultsWe included 9 studies, 4 randomized trials, and 5 observational studies (5589 patients on ARNI vs 5615 on ACEIs/ARBs). Follow-up ranged from 2 to 51 months. The mean age was 65.4 ± 9.8 years, with 77.3% male patients and a mean ejection fraction of 29.0% ± 7.6%. Ischemic cardiomyopathy was present in 62% of patients. In the ARNI group, there were less SCD (odds ratio [OR] 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-0.96; P = .02), ventricular arrhythmias (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.25-0.79; P = .005), and appropriate ICD therapy (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.21-0.74; P = .004). Higher rates of BiV pacing were seen (mean difference 3.13, 95% CI 2.58-3.68; P < .00001) when compared with ACEIs/ARBs. No difference in atrial arrhythmias was seen.ConclusionARNI therapy provides incremental benefit with respect to ventricular tachyarrhythmias/SCD, which may, in part, explain improved outcomes in patients with HFrEF compared to ACEIs/ARBs. There was increased BiV pacing and decreased ICD therapy in the ARNI group.
| S-EPMC8710618 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThis paper aims to compare the effectiveness of sacubitril-valsartan and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) in systolic heart failure (HF).BackgroundSacubitril-valsartan reduced risks of death and hospitalization for HF versus enalapril in ambulatory patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction in 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 HF) trial. However, the comparative effectiveness of sacubitril-valsartan and ACE/ARB in patients treated in routine clinical practice is unclear.MethodsWe identified patients with systolic HF in a U.S. administrative claims database treated with sacubitril-valsartan or ACE/ARB from July 1, 2015, to February 2, 2018. One-to-one propensity score matching was used to balance patients on 29 clinical variables. Cox models were used to compare outcomes between treatment groups.ResultsA total of 7,893 matched pairs were included; mean (SD) follow-up was 6.3 (5.4) months. Sacubitril-valsartan was associated with lower risks of all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.81 to 0.91; p < 0.001), all-cause mortality (HR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.66 to 0.97; p = 0.027), and all-cause hospitalization (HR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.80 to 0.91; p < 0.001), but not HF hospitalization (HR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.96 to 1.19; p = 0.26). A lower risk of the primary outcome with sacubitril-valsartan was observed in white patients (HR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.76 to 0.90) but not black patients (21% of population, HR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.15; interaction p = 0.032). No statistically significant differences in treatment response by sex or age were observed.ConclusionsSacubitril-valsartan was associated with lower risks of death and hospitalization compared with ACE/ARB in a heterogeneous cohort of patients with systolic HF. However, our finding that outcomes with sacubitril-valsartan and ACE/ARBs were similar in black patients warrants further evaluation.
| S-EPMC8356205 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNi), improves heart failure (HF) outcomes, yet real-world adherence patterns are not well understood.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to analyze longitudinal patterns of adherence to ARNis in patients with HF and to identify factors associated with adherence patterns.MethodsUsing Medicare beneficiaries from 2015 to 2018, we included patients diagnosed with HF who initiated an ARNi. A group-based trajectory model was constructed to identify adherence patterns during follow-up. We used multivariable logistic regression to investigate factors associated with membership in each adherence trajectory group.ResultsAmong 9,475 eligible beneficiaries (age 77 ± 7 years, 34% female), we identified 5 distinct ARNi adherence trajectories, characterized as: immediate discontinuers, who discontinued treatment within the first 3 months (12%); early discontinuers, who discontinued treatment in months 4 to 7 (10%); late discontinuers, who discontinued treatment in months 7 to 10 (12%); intermittently adherent patients (12%); and consistently adherent patients (54%). The first 4 groups were collectively categorized as nonconsistent adherents. Living in a socioeconomically disadvantaged area, ie, a county with the top 20% of Area Deprivation Index (adjusted OR [aOR]: 1.12 [95% CI: 1.00-1.24]) and Black race (aOR: 1.36, [95% CI: 1.18-1.56]) were associated with a higher likelihood of being nonconsistently adherent. Receiving prescriptions from a cardiologist (aOR: 0.64 [95% CI: 0.57-0.73]) was associated with a lower likelihood of suboptimal ARNi adherence.ConclusionsHalf of ARNi users were not consistently adherent to the drug in the first year after treatment initiation. There exist significant racial and socioeconomic inequities in longitudinal adherence to ARNi.
| S-EPMC11312759 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe US Food and Drug Administration expanded labeling of sacubitril-valsartan from the treatment of patients with chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF) to all patients with HF, noting the greatest benefits in those with below-normal EF. However, the upper bound of below normal is not clearly defined, and value determinations across a broader EF range are unknown.ObjectiveTo estimate the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril-valsartan vs renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASis) across various upper-level cutoffs of EF.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation included participant-level data from the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) and the PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNi with ARB Global Outcomes in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trials. PARADIGM-HF was conducted between 2009 and 2014, PARAGON-HF was conducted between 2014 and 2019, and this analysis was conducted between 2021 and 2023.Main outcomes and measuresA 5-state Markov model used risk reductions for all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization from PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF. Quality-of-life differences were estimated from EuroQol-5D scores. Hospitalization and medication costs were obtained from published national sources; the wholesale acquisition cost of sacubitril-valsartan was $7092 per year. Risk estimates and treatment effects were generated in consecutive 5% EF increments up to 60% and applied to an EF distribution of US patients with HF from the Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure registry. The base case included a lifetime horizon from a health care sector perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated at EFs of 60% or less (base case) and at various upper-level EF cutoffs.ResultsAmong 13 264 total patients whose data were analyzed, for those with EFs of 60% or less, sacubitril-valsartan was projected to add 0.53 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental lifetime cost of $40 892 compared with RASi, yielding an ICER of $76 852 per QALY. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 95% of the values of the ICER occurred between $71 516 and $82 970 per QALY. Among patients with chronic HF and an EF of 60% or less, treatment with sacubitril-valsartan vs RASis would be at least of economic intermediate value (ICER <$180 000 per QALY) at a sacubitril-valsartan cost of $10 242 or less per year, of high economic value (ICER <$60 000 per QALY) at a cost of $3673 or less per year, and cost-saving at a cost of $338 or less per year. The ICERs were $67 331 per QALY, $59 614 per QALY, and $56 786 per QALY at EFs of 55% or less, 50% or less, and 45% or less, respectively. Treatment with sacubitril-valsartan in only those with EFs of 45% or greater (up to ≤60%) yielded an ICER of $127 172 per QALY gained; treatment was more cost-effective in those at the lower end of this range (ICER of $100 388 per QALY gained for those with EFs of 45%-55%; ICER of $84 291 per QALY gained for those with EFs of 45%-50%).Conclusions and relevanceCost-effectiveness modeling provided an ICER for treatment with sacubitril-valsartan vs RASis consistent with high economic value for patients with reduced and mildly reduced EFs (≤50%) and at least intermediate value at the current undiscounted wholesale acquisition cost price at an EF of 60% or less. Treatment was more cost-effective at lower EF ranges. These findings may have implications for coverage decisions and value assessments in contemporary clinical practice guidelines.
| S-EPMC10534998 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsLarge-scale clinical trials have demonstrated clinical benefits of sacubitril-valsartan in symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients (PARADIGM-HF), with potential benefits in patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) (PIONEER-HF) and fewer benefits in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (PARAGON-HF). The aim of this study was to evaluate eligibility for sacubitril-valsartan using criteria described in PIONNER-HF in non-selected patients hospitalized for ADHF.Methods and resultsBetween November 2014 and May 2019, 799 patients were recruited in a prospective registry of acute heart failure at the University Hospitals of Geneva (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02444416). The cohort consists of consecutive patients admitted to the Department of Medicine with ADHF. Eligibility for sacubitril-valsartan was determined using criteria described in PIONEER-HF, including left ventricular ejection fraction, clinical parameters, and co-morbidities. Of 799 patients, 123 (15.39%) were eligible for sacubitril-valsartan treatment. Clinical outcomes including all-cause mortality and readmission were similar in eligible and non-eligible groups, hazard ratio 1.02 (95% confidence interval 0.81-1.29, P = 083).ConclusionsUsing current criteria from randomized controlled trials, only 15% of non-selected patients admitted for ADHF are theoretically eligible for sacubitril-valsartan. Eligibility for sacubitril-valsartan using published criteria is not associated with worse outcome, suggesting that further evaluation of benefits of sacubitril-valsartan in heart failure patients based on parameters other than left ventricular ejection fraction may be of interest.
| S-EPMC7261587 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite significant therapeutic advances, patients with chronic heart failure (HF) remain at high risk for HF progression and death. Sacubitril/valsartan (previously known as LCZ696) is a first-in-class medicine that contains a neprilysin (NEP) inhibitor (sacubitril) and an angiotensin II (Ang-II) receptor blocker (valsartan). NEP is an endopeptidase that metabolizes different vasoactive peptides including natriuretic peptides, bradykinin and Ang-II. In consequence, its inhibition increases mainly the levels of both, natriuretic peptides (promoting diuresis, natriuresis and vasodilatation) and Ang-II whose effects are blocked by the angiotensin receptor blocker, valsartan (reducing vasoconstriction and aldosterone release). Results from the 8442 patient PARADIGM-HF study showed in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-IV and reduced ejection fraction treated with LCZ696 (versus enalapril), the following benefits: reduction of the risk of death from cardiovascular causes by 20%; reduction of HF hospitalizations by 21%; reduction of the risk of all-cause mortality by 16%. Overall there was a 20% risk reduction on the primary endpoint, composite measure of cardiovascular (CV) death or time to first HF hospitalization. PARADIGM-HF was stopped early after a median follow up of 27 months. Post hoc analyses of PARADIGM-HF as well as the place in therapy of sacubitril/valsartan, including future directions, are included in the present review.
| S-EPMC5076745 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Sacubitril/valsartan is a combined neprilysin inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker designed for treatment of heart failure (HF). Nonetheless, its renal protective effect remained an issue of debate. This retrospective cohort study investigated the renal protective effect of sacubitril/valsartan in HF patients. HF patients on sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan for > 30 days were matched for gender, age, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) to be enrolled into analysis. The follow-up period was 18 months. The outcomes included end eGFR, renal function decline defined as 20% reduction of eGFR, mortality, and HF-related hospitalization. Each group had 137 patients after matching. The mean age was 72.7 years and 65.7% were male. Mean eGFR was 70.9 mL/min/1.73 m2 and LVEF was 54.0% at baseline. Overall, the eGFR of sacubitril/valsartan groups was significantly higher than valsartan group at the end (P < 0.01). Subgroup analysis showed that the difference in eGFR was significant in subgroups with LVEF ≥ 40% or eGFR ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Multivariate Cox regression model showed that sacubitril/valsartan group had significantly reduced risk for renal function decline (hazard ratio: 0.5, 95% confidence interval: 0.3-0.9). Kaplan-Meier curve showed no difference in the risk for cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality or HF-related hospitalization. We showed renal protective effect of neprilysin inhibition in HF patients and specified that subgroups with LVEF ≥ 40% or eGFR ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 were sensitive to this effect, suggesting an optimal subgroup of this treatment.
| S-EPMC7907094 | biostudies-literature