Akshay S. Desai

Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition versus enalapril in heart failure.

BACKGROUND We compared the angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 with enalapril in patients who had heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction. In previous studies, enalapril improved survival in such patients. METHODS In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 8442 patients with class II, III, or IV heart failure and an ejection fraction of 40% or less to receive either LCZ696 (at a dose of 200 mg twice daily) or enalapril (at a dose of 10 mg twice daily), in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure, but the trial was designed to detect a difference in the rates of death from cardiovascular causes. RESULTS The trial was stopped early, according to prespecified rules, after a median follow-up of 27 months, because the boundary for an overwhelming benefit with LCZ696 had been crossed. At the time of study closure, the primary outcome had occurred in 914 patients (21.8%) in the LCZ696 group and 1117 patients (26.5%) in the enalapril group (hazard ratio in the LCZ696 group, 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 0.87; P<0.001). A total of 711 patients (17.0%) receiving LCZ696 and 835 patients (19.8%) receiving enalapril died (hazard ratio for death from any cause, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.93; P<0.001); of these patients, 558 (13.3%) and 693 (16.5%), respectively, died from cardiovascular causes (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.89; P<0.001). As compared with enalapril, LCZ696 also reduced the risk of hospitalization for heart failure by 21% (P<0.001) and decreased the symptoms and physical limitations of heart failure (P=0.001). The LCZ696 group had higher proportions of patients with hypotension and nonserious angioedema but lower proportions with renal impairment, hyperkalemia, and cough than the enalapril group. CONCLUSIONS LCZ696 was superior to enalapril in reducing the risks of death and of hospitalization for heart failure. (Funded by Novartis; PARADIGM-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01035255.).

Cardiorenal end points in a trial of aliskiren for type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND This study was undertaken to determine whether use of the direct renin inhibitor aliskiren would reduce cardiovascular and renal events in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, or both. METHODS In a double-blind fashion, we randomly assigned 8561 patients to aliskiren (300 mg daily) or placebo as an adjunct to an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin-receptor blocker. The primary end point was a composite of the time to cardiovascular death or a first occurrence of cardiac arrest with resuscitation; nonfatal myocardial infarction; nonfatal stroke; unplanned hospitalization for heart failure; end-stage renal disease, death attributable to kidney failure, or the need for renal-replacement therapy with no dialysis or transplantation available or initiated; or doubling of the baseline serum creatinine level. RESULTS The trial was stopped prematurely after the second interim efficacy analysis. After a median follow-up of 32.9 months, the primary end point had occurred in 783 patients (18.3%) assigned to aliskiren as compared with 732 (17.1%) assigned to placebo (hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98 to 1.20; P=0.12). Effects on secondary renal end points were similar. Systolic and diastolic blood pressures were lower with aliskiren (between-group differences, 1.3 and 0.6 mm Hg, respectively) and the mean reduction in the urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio was greater (between-group difference, 14 percentage points; 95% CI, 11 to 17). The proportion of patients with hyperkalemia (serum potassium level, ≥6 mmol per liter) was significantly higher in the aliskiren group than in the placebo group (11.2% vs. 7.2%), as was the proportion with reported hypotension (12.1% vs. 8.3%) (P<0.001 for both comparisons). CONCLUSIONS The addition of aliskiren to standard therapy with renin-angiotensin system blockade in patients with type 2 diabetes who are at high risk for cardiovascular and renal events is not supported by these data and may even be harmful. (Funded by Novartis; ALTITUDE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00549757.).

Spironolactone for Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND Mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists improve the prognosis for patients with heart failure and a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. We evaluated the effects of spironolactone in patients with heart failure and a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. METHODS In this randomized, double-blind trial, we assigned 3445 patients with symptomatic heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 45% or more to receive either spironolactone (15 to 45 mg daily) or placebo. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, aborted cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for the management of heart failure. RESULTS With a mean follow-up of 3.3 years, the primary outcome occurred in 320 of 1722 patients in the spironolactone group (18.6%) and 351 of 1723 patients in the placebo group (20.4%) (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 1.04; P=0.14). Of the components of the primary outcome, only hospitalization for heart failure had a significantly lower incidence in the spironolactone group than in the placebo group (206 patients [12.0%] vs. 245 patients [14.2%]; hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.99, P=0.04). Neither total deaths nor hospitalizations for any reason were significantly reduced by spironolactone. Treatment with spironolactone was associated with increased serum creatinine levels and a doubling of the rate of hyperkalemia (18.7%, vs. 9.1% in the placebo group) but reduced hypokalemia. With frequent monitoring, there were no significant differences in the incidence of serious adverse events, a serum creatinine level of 3.0 mg per deciliter (265 μmol per liter) or higher, or dialysis. CONCLUSIONS In patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction, treatment with spironolactone did not significantly reduce the incidence of the primary composite outcome of death from cardiovascular causes, aborted cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for the management of heart failure. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; TOPCAT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00094302.).

Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibition Compared With Enalapril on the Risk of Clinical Progression in Surviving Patients With Heart Failure

Background— Clinical trials in heart failure have focused on the improvement in symptoms or decreases in the risk of death and other cardiovascular events. Little is known about the effect of drugs on the risk of clinical deterioration in surviving patients. Methods and Results— We compared the angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 (400 mg daily) with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril (20 mg daily) in 8399 patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction in a double-blind trial. The analyses focused on prespecified measures of nonfatal clinical deterioration. In comparison with the enalapril group, fewer LCZ696-treated patients required intensification of medical treatment for heart failure (520 versus 604; hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.74–0.94; P=0.003) or an emergency department visit for worsening heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.52–0.85; P=0.001). The patients in the LCZ696 group had 23% fewer hospitalizations for worsening heart failure (851 versus 1079; P<0.001) and were less likely to require intensive care (768 versus 879; 18% rate reduction, P=0.005), to receive intravenous positive inotropic agents (31% risk reduction, P<0.001), and to have implantation of a heart failure device or cardiac transplantation (22% risk reduction, P=0.07). The reduction in heart failure hospitalization with LCZ696 was evident within the first 30 days after randomization. Worsening of symptom scores in surviving patients was consistently more common in the enalapril group. LCZ696 led to an early and sustained reduction in biomarkers of myocardial wall stress and injury (N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide and troponin) versus enalapril. Conclusions— Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition prevents the clinical progression of surviving patients with heart failure more effectively than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255.

Treatment of Anemia with Darbepoetin Alfa in Systolic Heart Failure

BACKGROUND Patients with systolic heart failure and anemia have worse symptoms, functional capacity, and outcomes than those without anemia. We evaluated the effects of darbepoetin alfa on clinical outcomes in patients with systolic heart failure and anemia. METHODS In this randomized, double-blind trial, we assigned 2278 patients with systolic heart failure and mild-to-moderate anemia (hemoglobin level, 9.0 to 12.0 g per deciliter) to receive either darbepoetin alfa (to achieve a hemoglobin target of 13 g per deciliter) or placebo. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause or hospitalization for worsening heart failure. RESULTS The primary outcome occurred in 576 of 1136 patients (50.7%) in the darbepoetin alfa group and 565 of 1142 patients (49.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the darbepoetin alfa group, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.90 to 1.13; P=0.87). There was no significant between-group difference in any of the secondary outcomes. The neutral effect of darbepoetin alfa was consistent across all prespecified subgroups. Fatal or nonfatal stroke occurred in 42 patients (3.7%) in the darbepoetin alfa group and 31 patients (2.7%) in the placebo group (P=0.23). Thromboembolic adverse events were reported in 153 patients (13.5%) in the darbepoetin alfa group and 114 patients (10.0%) in the placebo group (P=0.01). Cancer-related adverse events were similar in the two study groups. CONCLUSIONS Treatment with darbepoetin alfa did not improve clinical outcomes in patients with systolic heart failure and mild-to-moderate anemia. Our findings do not support the use of darbepoetin alfa in these patients. (Funded by Amgen; RED-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00358215.).

Regional Variation in Patients and Outcomes in the Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure With an Aldosterone Antagonist (TOPCAT) Trial

Background— Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure With an Aldosterone Antagonist (TOPCAT) patients with heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction assigned to spironolactone did not achieve a significant reduction in the primary composite outcome (time to cardiovascular death, aborted cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for management of heart failure) compared with patients receiving placebo. In a post hoc analysis, an ≈4-fold difference was identified in this composite event rate between the 1678 patients randomized from Russia and Georgia compared with the 1767 enrolled from the United States, Canada, Brazil, and Argentina (the Americas). Methods and Results— To better understand this regional difference in clinical outcomes, demographic characteristics of these populations and their responses to spironolactone were explored. Patients from Russia/Georgia were younger, had less atrial fibrillation and diabetes mellitus, but were more likely to have had prior myocardial infarction or a hospitalization for heart failure. Russia/Georgia patients also had lower left ventricular ejection fraction and creatinine but higher diastolic blood pressure (all P<0.001). Hyperkalemia and doubling of creatinine were more likely and hypokalemia was less likely in patients receiving spironolactone in the Americas with no significant treatment effects in Russia/Georgia. All clinical event rates were markedly lower in Russia/Georgia, and there was no detectable impact of spironolactone on any outcomes. In contrast, in the Americas, the rates of the primary outcome, cardiovascular death, and hospitalization for heart failure were significantly reduced by spironolactone. Conclusions— This post hoc analysis demonstrated greater potassium and creatinine changes and possible clinical benefits with spironolactone in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction from the Americas. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00094302.

Rationale and design of the Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist Trial: A randomized, controlled study of spironolactone in patients with symptomatic heart failure and preserved ejection fraction

BACKGROUND Despite increasing prevalence of heart failure (HF) in patients with preserved ejection fraction (PEF), there are no available therapies proven to reduce morbidity and mortality. Aldosterone, a potent stimulator of myocardial and vascular fibrosis, may be a key mediator of HF progression in this population and is therefore an important therapeutic target. OBJECTIVE The TOPCAT trial is designed to evaluate the effect of spironolactone, an aldosterone antagonist, on morbidity, mortality, and quality of life in patients with HF-PEF. METHODS Up to 3,515 patients with HF-PEF will be randomized in double-blind fashion to treatment with spironolactone (target dose 30 mg daily) or matching placebo. Eligible patients include those with age ≥50 years, left ventricular ejection fraction ≥45%, symptomatic HF, and either a hospitalization for HF within the prior year or an elevated natriuretic peptide level (B-type natriuretic peptide ≥100 pg/mL or N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide ≥360 pg/mL) within the 60 days before randomization. Patients with uncontrolled hypertension and those with known infiltrative or hypertrophic cardiomyopathy are excluded. The primary end point is the composite of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for HF, or aborted cardiac arrest. Key secondary end points include quality of life, nonfatal cardiovascular events, and new-onset atrial fibrillation. Ancillary studies of echocardiography, tonometry, and cardiac biomarkers will provide more insight regarding this understudied population and the effects of spironolactone therapy. CONCLUSION TOPCAT is designed to assess definitively the role of spironolactone in the management of HF-PEF.

Calcium upregulation by percutaneous administration of gene therapy in patients with cardiac disease (CUPID 2): a randomised, multinational, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b trial.

BACKGROUND Sarcoplasmic/endoplasmic reticulum Ca(2+)-ATPase (SERCA2a) activity is deficient in the failing heart. Correction of this abnormality by gene transfer might improve cardiac function. We aimed to investigate the clinical benefits and safety of gene therapy through infusion of adeno-associated virus 1 (AAV1)/SERCA2a in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. METHODS We did this randomised, multinational, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b trial at 67 clinical centres and hospitals in the USA, Europe, and Israel. High-risk ambulatory patients with New York Heart Association class II-IV symptoms of heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 0·35 or less due to an ischaemic or non-ischaemic cause were randomly assigned (1:1), via an interactive voice and web-response system, to receive a single intracoronary infusion of 1 × 10(13) DNase-resistant particles of AAV1/SERCA2a or placebo. Randomisation was stratified by country and by 6 min walk test distance. All patients, physicians, and outcome assessors were masked to treatment assignment. The primary efficacy endpoint was time to recurrent events, defined as hospital admission because of heart failure or ambulatory treatment for worsening heart failure. Primary efficacy endpoint analyses and safety analyses were done by modified intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01643330. FINDINGS Between July 9, 2012, and Feb 5, 2014, we randomly assigned 250 patients to receive either AAV1/SERCA2a (n=123) or placebo (n=127); 243 (97%) patients comprised the modified intention-to-treat population. Patients were followed up for at least 12 months; median follow-up was 17·5 months (range 1·8-29·4 months). AAV1/SERCA2a did not improve time to recurrent events compared with placebo (104 vs 128 events; hazard ratio 0·93, 95% CI 0·53-1·65; p=0·81). No safety signals were noted. 20 (16%) patients died in the placebo group and 25 (21%) patients died in the AAV1/SERCA2a group; 18 and 22 deaths, respectively, were adjudicated as being due to cardiovascular causes. INTERPRETATION CUPID 2 is the largest gene transfer study done in patients with heart failure so far. Despite promising results from previous studies, AAV1/SERCA2a at the dose tested did not improve the clinical course of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. Although we did not find evidence of improved outcomes at the dose of AAV1/SERCA2a studied, our findings should stimulate further research into the use of gene therapy to treat patients with heart failure and help inform the design of future gene therapy trials. FUNDING Celladon Corporation.

Effect of the angiotensin-receptor-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 compared with enalapril on mode of death in heart failure patients.

AIMS The angiotensin-receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) LCZ696 reduced cardiovascular deaths and all-cause mortality compared with enalapril in patients with chronic heart failure in the prospective comparison of ARNI with an Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial. To more completely understand the components of this mortality benefit, we examined the effect of LCZ696 on mode of death. METHODS AND RESULTS PARADIGM-HF was a prospective, double-blind, randomized trial in 8399 patients with chronic heart failure, New York Heart Association Class II-IV symptoms, and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% receiving guideline-recommended medical therapy and followed for a median of 27 months. Mode of death was adjudicated by a blinded clinical endpoints committee. The majority of deaths were cardiovascular (80.9%), and the risk of cardiovascular death was significantly reduced by treatment with LCZ (hazard ratio, HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72-0.89, P < 0.001). Among cardiovascular deaths, both sudden cardiac death (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68-0.94, P = 0.008) and death due to worsening heart failure (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64-0.98, P = 0.034) were reduced by treatment with LCZ696 compared with enalapril. Deaths attributed to other cardiovascular causes, including myocardial infarction and stroke, were infrequent and distributed evenly between treatment groups, as were non-cardiovascular deaths. CONCLUSIONS LCZ696 was superior to enalapril in reducing both sudden cardiac deaths and deaths from worsening heart failure, which accounted for the majority of cardiovascular deaths. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION https://clinicaltrials.gov/, NCT01035255.

Adaptive Servoventilation for Treatment of Sleep-Disordered Breathing in Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Adaptive servoventilation (ASV) has demonstrated efficacy in treating sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) in patients with heart failure (HF), but large randomized trials are lacking. We, therefore, sought to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing data. METHODS A systematic search of the PubMed database was undertaken in March 2012. Publications were independently assessed by two investigators to identify studies of ≥ 1-week duration that compared ASV to a control condition (ie, subtherapeutic ASV, continuous or bilevel pressure ventilation, oxygen therapy, or no treatment) in adult patients with SDB and HF. Mean, variability,and sample size data were extracted independently for the following outcomes: apneahypopnea index (AHI), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), quality of life (SF-36 Health Survey; Medical Outcomes Trust), 6-min walk distance, peak oxygen consumption ( VO 2 ) % predicted, and ventilatory equivalent ratio for CO 2 ( VE / Vco 2 ) slope measured during exercise. Random effects meta-analysis models were applied. RESULTS Fourteen studies were identified (N = 538). Comparing ASV to control conditions, the weighted mean difference in AHI ( -14.64 events/h; 95% CI, -21.03 to - 8.25) and LVEF (0.40;95% CI, 0.08-0.71) both significantly favored ASV. ASV also improved the 6-min walk distance,but not peak O 2 % predicted, VE / VCO 2 slope, or quality of life, compared with control conditions. CONCLUSIONS In patients with HF and SDB, ASV was more effective than control conditions in reducing the AHI and improving cardiac function and exercise capacity. These data provide a compelling rationale for large-scale randomized controlled trials to assess the clinical impact of ASV on hard outcomes in these patients.