Explore the vast range of titles available.

Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction were assigned to receive sacubitril–valsartan or valsartan. At a median of 35 months, there was no significant between-group difference in the composite outcome of total hospitalizations for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes.

Sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) is an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor approved for the treatment of adult heart failure (HF); however, the benefit of sacubitril/valsartan in pediatric HF patients is unknown. This global multi-center study will use an adaptive, seamless two-part design. Part 1 will assess the pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of single ascending doses of sacubitril/valsartan in pediatric (1 month to <18 years) HF patients with systemic left ventricle and reduced left ventricular systolic function stratified into 3 age groups (Group 1: 6 to <18 years; Group 2: 1 to <6 years; Group 3: 1 month to <1 year). Part 2 is a 52-week, efficacy and safety study where 360 eligible patients will be randomized to sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril. A novel global rank primary endpoint derived by ranking patients (worst-to-best outcome) based on clinical events such as death, initiation of mechanical life support, listing for urgent heart transplant, worsening HF, measures of functional capacity (NYHA/Ross scores), and patient-reported HF symptoms will be used to assess efficacy. The PANORAMA-HF study, which will be the largest prospective pediatric HF trial conducted to date and the first to use a global rank primary endpoint, will determine whether sacubitril/valsartan is superior to enalapril for treatment of pediatric HF patients with reduced systemic left ventricular systolic function. Design of the two-stage, seamless, adaptive PANORAMA-HF study assessing the PK/PD, safety, and efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril in pediatric heart failure patients with systemic left ventricle and reduced left ventricular systolic function. bid, twice-weekly; m, month; mg, milligram; kg, kilogram; PD, pharmacodynamics; PK, pharmacokinetics. [Display omitted]

Diffuse interstitial fibrosis is associated with adverse outcomes in hypertensive heart disease and may be reversible. Sacubitril/valsartan could offer greater anti-fibrotic effects than valsartan alone. In the REVERSE-LVH phase 2 open-labelled trial (clinicaltrials.gov NCT: 03553810; funded by the National Medical Research Council of Singapore), 78 patients with essential hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) were randomized 1:1 to sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan for 52 weeks. Primary endpoint was a change in interstitial volume, assessed using cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Despite similar 24-hour systolic blood pressure at 52 weeks (125 ± 11 vs. 126 ± 11 mmHg; P  = 0.762), sacubitril/valsartan resulted in a greater absolute reduction in interstitial volume compared to valsartan (−5.2 ± 5.4 vs. −2.5 ± 3.1 mL; P  = 0.006). Secondary endpoints showed significant differences favoring sacubitril/valsartan in LV mass, left atrial volume, estimated LV filling pressure, and improved cardiac circulating biomarkers (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and high-sensitivity troponin T). Other markers of cardiac volumes, function and mechanics were similar between the two treatment arms. Here we show the potential myocardial benefits of sacubitril/valsartan beyond blood pressure control, though larger studies are needed to confirm their clinical relevance. Here the authors compare the efficacy between sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan in improving diffuse myocardial fibrosis in patients with hypertensive heart disease, assessed as change in interstitial volume with cardiovascular magnetic resonance. The results show potential myocardial benefits of sacubitril/valsartan beyond blood pressure control.

•Subanalyses of key HFpEF trials suggest a preferential benefit for specific heart failure therapies in women.•In PARAGLIDE-HF, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan led to a greater reduction in NT-proBNP levels and was associated with clinical benefit compared to valsartan alone.•In this prespecified subgroup analysis of PARAGLIDE-HF, the efficacy, safety and tolerability of sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan were similar in both women and men with an ejection fraction >40% and a recent worsening heart failure event.•Future prospective studies are needed to evaluate sex-specific differences in treatment response of HFpEF therapies. Sub-analyses of key trials suggest a preferential benefit for specific heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) therapies in women. This work investigated treatment effects between women and men in the PARAGLIDE-HF (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ARB Given following stabiLization In DEcompensated HFpEF) trial. In this prespecified subgroup analysis, we examined outcomes according to sex in the PARAGLIDE-HF trial. The primary endpoint was time-average proportional change in amino terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) from baseline through Weeks 4 and 8. We also examined secondary outcomes and tolerability. Overall, 242 women (52%) and 224 men (48%) were randomized. Women had significantly higher LVEF, worse renal function, and less comorbidities than men. In the overall population, the time-averaged reduction in NT-proBNP was significantly greater for sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) than valsartan (ratio of change 0.85, 95% CI, 0.73-0.999). When examined according to sex, the time-averaged reduction in NT-proBNP was numerically greater with sac/val in both women (ratio of change = 0.86, 95% CI, 0.69-1.070) and men (ratio of change 0.84, 95% CI, 0.67-1.05) with no differential treatment effect (P interaction = .91). Similarly, the secondary hierarchical endpoint favored sac/val over valsartan in both women and men but was not statistically significant. Study drug dosage levels were similar across women and men and there were no sex-specific differences in the incidence of adverse events. In patients with mildly reduced or preserved EF >40% and a recent worsening HF event, the efficacy, safety and tolerability of sac/val vs valsartan were similar in both women and men, suggesting consistent effects across appropriately selected patients regardless of sex. Future prospective studies are needed to further evaluate sex-specific differences in treatment response of HFpEF therapies. Prospective comparison of ARNI with ARB Given following stabiLization In DEcompensated HFpEF; NCT03988634; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03988634. [Display omitted]

•While structural abnormalities are common, approximately three-quarters of the PARAGLIDE-HF population exhibited such abnormalities, as evidenced by left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) and left atrial enlargement (LAE).•There was no difference in either baseline NT-proBNP or changes in NT-proBNP over time, nor was there a difference in the time to the first cardiovascular composite event across varying degrees of structural abnormalities.•A greater reduction in NT-proBNP with sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan was consistent across all structural abnormality groups.•There was no significant interaction between treatment and degree of structural abnormalities for other efficacy endpoints, but patients with both LVH and LAE had significantly higher odds of hyperkalemia with sacubitril/valsartan. PARAGLIDE-HF showed significantly greater reduction in NT-proBNP in patients with LVEF>40% and worsening HF with sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) vs valsartan (val). The impact of structural abnormalities on the effects of sac/val in this context is unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) and left atrial enlargement (LAE) on sac/val in patients with LVEF>40% and worsening HF. PARAGLIDE-HF patients were classified into 3 groups according the degree of structural abnormalities using LVH and LAE. The primary endpoint was time-averaged proportional change in NT-proBNP from baseline to Weeks 4 and 8. Secondary endpoints were recurrent cardiovascular composite events (HF hospitalizations, urgent HF visits, cardiovascular death) and adverse events (symptomatic hypotension, hyperkalemia, worsening renal function). Of 454 (97.4%) patients with LVH and LAE data, 157 (34.5%) had both LVH and LAE, 178 (39.2%) had either LVH or LAE, and 119 (26.2%) had neither LVH nor LAE. Greater reduction in NT-proBNP with sac/val vs val was consistent across groups (P interaction = 0.705). There was no significant interaction between treatment and degree of structural abnormalities for other efficacy endpoints. Patients with both LVH and LAE had significantly higher odds of hyperkalemia with sac/val (OR 2.41, P interaction = 0.024). Patients with LVEF>40% and recent WHF had greater reduction in NT-proBNP with sac/val vs val, regardless of the degree of structural abnormalities. There was no difference in the effects of sac/val on efficacy endpoints across structural abnormality group. Patients with both LVH and LAE had higher odds for hyperkalemia with sac/val. Prevalence and impact of structural abnormalities on the effects of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with LVEF >40% and a recent worsening heart failure event [Display omitted]

Sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor‐neprilysin inhibitor, has demonstrated a superior blood pressure‐lowering effect compared with renin‐angiotensin system inhibitors in several clinical trials. However, there has been no available evidence on the comparison between sacubitril/valsartan and calcium channel blockers (CCBs), a well‐established class of antihypertensive drugs. In this open‐label, multicenter study, we aimed to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan versus amlodipine, one of the most widely used CCBs, after 8 weeks of treatment. A total of 359 Japanese patients with essential hypertension (office systolic blood pressure [SBP] ≥ 150 to < 180 mmHg), aged 18–79, were randomly assigned to receive either once‐daily sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg or once‐daily amlodipine 5 mg in a 1:1 allocation ratio. The primary endpoint was the noninferiority of sacubitril/valsartan compared with amlodipine in mean change in 24‐h SBP from baseline to Week 8, followed by a significance test as a secondary endpoint analysis. The mean change in 24‐h SBP in sacubitril/valsartan was noninferior to that in amlodipine (between‐treatment difference −0.62 mmHg [95% confidential interval: −3.23 to 1.98; p = 0.003 for noninferiority; independent t‐test with noninferiority margin 3.0 mmHg]), with no significant difference observed (p = 0.637). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events (AEs). These results suggested that the blood pressure‐lowering effect of sacubitril/valsartan is comparable to that of amlodipine, with no marked differences in tolerability between the two groups. Sacubitril/valsartan, a potent antihypertensive drug comparable to amlodipine, is expected to improve blood pressure control in clinical practice.

In the PARAGLIDE-HF trial, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) was associated with greater reduction in NT-proBNP than valsartan (Val) alone in patients stabilized after an episode of worsening heart failure (HF) with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >40%. Treatment effects were most apparent in the subgroup with LVEF below normal (≤60%). This prespecified analysis sought to compare the detailed treatment effects and adverse event profiles of Sac/Val vs Val in patients with LVEF ≤60% vs >60%. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were compared between patients with baseline LVEF ≤60% vs >60%. Rates of recurrent composite events (adjudicated CV death, HF hospitalizations, and urgent HF visits) were compared between groups using a semi-parametric proportional rates model. These recurrent composite events were also analyzed across the continuous LVEF spectrum using restricted cubic splines. Incidence of adverse events were analyzed using a logistic regression model with LVEF ≤60% vs >60%, treatment arm, and in-hospital/out-of-hospital randomization as covariates. The interaction of LVEF category and treatment arm was assessed for all models Compared to those with LVEF >60%, patients with LVEF ≤60% were younger with lower NYHA class, but similar NT-proBNP values at baseline and similar co-morbidity burden. Among patients with LVEF ≤60%, those treated with Sac/Val experienced fewer recurrent composite events compared to those treated with Val (rate ratio 0.60 [95% CI: 0.37-0.99], P = .046); predominantly driven by HF hospitalizations. Patients with LVEF >60% treated with Sac/Val vs Val demonstrated similar rates of recurrent composite events (RR 1.46 [0.77-2.79], P = .24) (interaction P-value = .032). This was consistent with the continuous analysis in which patients treated with Sac/Val were significantly less likely to have events compared with patients with Val at LVEF values below 58%. Patients with LVEF >60% treated with Sac/Val experienced more symptomatic hypotension (OR 3.55 [95% CI: 1.35-9.37], P = .01) compared to those treated with Val, whereas rates of symptomatic hypotension were comparable across treatment groups in patients with LVEF ≤60% (OR 1.36 [0.79-2.32], P = .27, interaction P-value .09). Compared to treatment with Val in patients with worsening HF and LVEF >40%, treatment with Sac/Val is associated with greater clinical benefit in those with LVEF ≤60% than in those with LVEF >60%. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier, NCT03988634.

LCZ696 is a first-in-class inhibitor of the angiotensin II receptor and neprilysin. We aimed to establish whether the dual actions of LCZ696 lead to further lowering of blood pressure, compared with the angiotensin-receptor blocker valsartan. 1328 patients aged 18–75 years with mild-to-moderate hypertension were randomly assigned (double-blind) to 8 weeks' treatment in one of eight groups: 100 mg (n=156 patients), 200 mg (n=169), or 400 mg (n=172) LCZ696; 80 mg (n=163), 160 mg (n=166), or 320 mg (n=164) valsartan; 200 mg AHU377 (n=165); or placebo (n=173). The primary endpoint was the mean difference across the three single-dose pairwise comparisons of LCZ696 versus valsartan (100 mg vs 80 mg, 200 mg vs 160 mg, and 400 mg vs 320 mg) in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure during the 8-week treatment period. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00549770. 1215 patients completed the 8-week treatment period. The average reduction in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure across the doses of LCZ696 versus the appropriate comparator dose of valsartan showed significantly greater reductions with LCZ696 (mean reduction: −2·17 mm Hg, 95% CI −3·28 to −1·06; p<0·0001). The reduction in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure was significantly different for 200 mg LCZ696 versus 160 mg valsartan (−2·97 mm Hg, 95% CI −4·88 to −1·07, p=0·0023) and for 400 mg LCZ696 versus 320 mg valsartan (−2·70 mm Hg, −4·61 to −0·80, p=0·0055). LCZ696 was well tolerated and no cases of angio-oedema were reported; only three serious adverse events occurred during the 8-week treatment period, of which none was judged to be related to the study drug, and no patients died. Compared with valsartan, dual-acting LCZ696 provides complementary and fully additive reduction of blood pressure, which suggests that the drug holds promise for treatment of hypertension and cardiovascular disease. Novartis.

Sacubitril/valsartan is an angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor indicated for the treatment of patients with chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction; however, its mechanism of benefit remains unclear. Biomarkers that are linked to ventricular remodeling, myocardial injury, and fibrosis may provide mechanistic insight and important clinical guidance regarding sacubitril/valsartan use. This 52-week, multicenter, open-label, single-arm study is designed to (1) correlate biomarker changes with cardiac remodeling parameters, cardiovascular outcomes, and patient-reported outcome data and (2) determine short- and long-term changes in concentrations of biomarkers related to potential mechanisms of action and effects of sacubitril/valsartan therapy. Approximately 830 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction will be initiated and titrated on sacubitril/valsartan according to United States prescribing information. Primary efficacy end points include the changes in N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide concentrations and cardiac remodeling from baseline to 1 year. Secondary end points include changes in concentrations of N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide and remodeling to 6 months, and changes in patient-reported outcomes using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-23 from baseline to 1 year. In addition, several other relevant biomarkers will be measured. Biomarker changes relative to the number of cardiovascular events in 12 months will also be assessed as exploratory end points. Results from the Prospective Study of Biomarkers, Symptom Improvement, and Ventricular Remodeling During Sacubitril/Valsartan Therapy for Heart Failure (PROVE-HF) will help establish a mechanistic understanding of angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor therapeutic benefits and provide clinicians with clarity on how to interpret information on biomarkers during treatment (PROVE-HF ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02887183). X = vital status/events (CV death, HF hospitalization, worsening HF), physical examination, blood sampling, urine sampling, HF symptom assessment, KCCQ-23. *Standard HF therapy is continued throughout the study. †At day 45, KCCQ-23 was not administered. At selected sites, samples will be collected in protease inhibitor tubes at each timepoint (n = 180). [Display omitted]

Purpose Sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) is a first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) indicated to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure in patients with chronic heart failure (NYHA class II–IV) and reduced ejection fraction. This study was aimed to evaluate the effect of single oral therapeutic (400 mg) and supratherapeutic (1200 mg) doses of LCZ696 on cardiac repolarization. Method This randomized double-blind crossover study in healthy male subjects compared the effect of therapeutic and supratherapeutic doses of LCZ696 with placebo and moxifloxacin 400 mg (open-label treatment) as positive control. The primary assessment was mean baseline- and placebo-corrected QTcF (∆∆QTcF; Fridericia correction). Additional assessments included the ∆∆QTcB (Bazett’s correction), PR interval, QRS duration, heart rate (HR), LCZ696 pharmacokinetics, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationships, and safety. Results Of the 84 subjects enrolled, 81 completed the study. The maximum upper bound of the two-sided 90 % confidence interval for ∆∆QTcF for LCZ696 400 mg and 1200 mg were <10 ms, and assay sensitivity was confirmed with moxifloxacin. No relevant treatment-emergent changes were observed in any of the ECG-derived parameters with LCZ696 or placebo, and the incidence of adverse events was comparable among the treatment groups. Conclusion Single therapeutic and supratherapeutic doses of LCZ696 did not affect cardiac repolarization as defined by the E14 ICH guidelines.