Martin Lefkowitz

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.).

The angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a phase 2 double-blind randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality, but effective treatments are lacking. We assessed the efficacy and safety of LCZ696, a first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), in patients with this disorder. METHODS PARAMOUNT was a phase 2, randomised, parallel-group, double-blind multicentre trial in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-III heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction 45% or higher, and NT-proBNP greater than 400 pg/mL. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) by central interactive voice response system to LCZ696 titrated to 200 mg twice daily or valsartan titrated to 160 mg twice daily, and treated for 36 weeks. Investigators and participants were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was change in NT-proBNP, a marker of left ventricular wall stress, from baseline to 12 weeks; analysis included all patients randomly assigned to treatment groups who had a baseline and at least one postbaseline assessment. This trial is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT00887588. FINDINGS 149 patients were randomly assigned to LCZ696 and 152 to valsartan; 134 in the LCZ696 group and 132 in the valsartan group were included in analysis of the primary endpoint. NT-proBNP was significantly reduced at 12 weeks in the LCZ696 group compared with the valsartan group (LCZ696: baseline, 783 pg/mL [95% CI 670-914], 12 weeks, 605 pg/mL [512-714]; valsartan: baseline, 862 pg/mL [733-1012], 12 weeks, 835 [710-981]; ratio LCZ696/valsartan, 0·77, 95% CI 0·64-0·92, p=0·005). LCZ696 was well tolerated with adverse effects similar to those of valsartan; 22 patients (15%) on LCZ696 and 30 (20%) on valsartan had one or more serious adverse event. INTERPRETATION In patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, LCZ696 reduced NT-proBNP to a greater extent than did valsartan at 12 weeks and was well tolerated. Whether these effects would translate into improved outcomes needs to be tested prospectively. FUNDING Novartis.

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.

Developing Therapies for Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: Current State and Future Directions

The burden of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is considerable and is projected to worsen. To date, there are no approved therapies available for reducing mortality or hospitalizations for these patients. The pathophysiology of HFpEF is complex and includes alterations in cardiac structure and function, systemic and pulmonary vascular abnormalities, end-organ involvement, and comorbidities. There remain major gaps in our understanding of HFpEF pathophysiology. To facilitate a discussion of how to proceed effectively in future with development of therapies for HFpEF, a meeting was facilitated by the Food and Drug Administration and included representatives from academia, industry, and regulatory agencies. This document summarizes the proceedings from this meeting.

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.

Effects of a Novel Aldosterone Synthase Inhibitor for Treatment of Primary Hypertension Results of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo- and Active-Controlled Phase 2 Trial

Background— LCI699, a novel inhibitor of aldosterone synthase, reduces serum aldosterone, and may have benefit in the treatment of hypertension. Methods and Results— We performed the first double-blind, randomized trial with LCI699 in patients with primary hypertension. We randomized 524 patients to LCI699 0.25 mg once daily (n=92), 0.5 mg once daily (n=88), 1.0 mg once daily (n=86), and 0.5 mg twice daily (n=97); eplerenone 50 mg twice daily (n=84); or placebo (n=77) for 8 weeks. Adrenocorticotropic hormone (250 &mgr;g IV) stimulation testing was performed in a subset of patients to quantify the selectivity of LCI699 for aldosterone synthase compared with 11-&bgr;-hydroxylase. Reductions in clinic diastolic blood pressure were significant for LCI699 1.0 mg (−7.1 mm Hg; P=0.0012) and eplerenone 50 mg twice daily (−7.9 mm Hg; P<0.0001) compared with placebo (−2.6 mm Hg) but not other doses of LCI699. Significant reductions in clinic systolic blood pressure were observed with all doses of LCI699 (P<0.005 or better) and eplerenone (P<0.0001). All doses of LCI699 significantly reduced 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure compared with placebo (P<0.01). Adrenocorticotropic hormone stimulation of cortisol was suppressed in ≈20% of subjects receiving LCI699 at a total daily dose of 1.0 mg. Safety and tolerability were similar among LCI699, placebo, and eplerenone. Conclusions— Aldosterone synthase inhibition with LCI699 significantly lowered clinic and ambulatory blood pressure. A minority of subjects developed blunted adrenocorticotropic hormone–stimulated release of cortisol. These results support additional research to evaluate use of aldosterone synthase inhibition in primary hypertension and/or patients characterized by aldosterone excess. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00758524.Background— LCI699, a novel inhibitor of aldosterone synthase, reduces serum aldosterone, and may have benefit in the treatment of hypertension. Methods and Results— We performed the first double-blind, randomized trial with LCI699 in patients with primary hypertension. We randomized 524 patients to LCI699 0.25 mg once daily (n=92), 0.5 mg once daily (n=88), 1.0 mg once daily (n=86), and 0.5 mg twice daily (n=97); eplerenone 50 mg twice daily (n=84); or placebo (n=77) for 8 weeks. Adrenocorticotropic hormone (250 μg IV) stimulation testing was performed in a subset of patients to quantify the selectivity of LCI699 for aldosterone synthase compared with 11-β-hydroxylase. Reductions in clinic diastolic blood pressure were significant for LCI699 1.0 mg (−7.1 mm Hg; P =0.0012) and eplerenone 50 mg twice daily (−7.9 mm Hg; P <0.0001) compared with placebo (−2.6 mm Hg) but not other doses of LCI699. Significant reductions in clinic systolic blood pressure were observed with all doses of LCI699 ( P <0.005 or better) and eplerenone ( P <0.0001). All doses of LCI699 significantly reduced 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure compared with placebo ( P <0.01). Adrenocorticotropic hormone stimulation of cortisol was suppressed in ≈20% of subjects receiving LCI699 at a total daily dose of 1.0 mg. Safety and tolerability were similar among LCI699, placebo, and eplerenone. Conclusions— Aldosterone synthase inhibition with LCI699 significantly lowered clinic and ambulatory blood pressure. A minority of subjects developed blunted adrenocorticotropic hormone–stimulated release of cortisol. These results support additional research to evaluate use of aldosterone synthase inhibition in primary hypertension and/or patients characterized by aldosterone excess. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: . Unique identifier: [NCT00758524][1]. # Clinical Perspective {#article-title-35} [1]: /lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT00758524&atom=%2Fcirculationaha%2F124%2F18%2F1945.atom

Exceptional early blood pressure control rates: The ACCOMPLISH trial

Background. ACCOMPLISH is a “new‐generation” hypertension trial assessing single‐tablet combination therapy for initial treatment of high‐risk hypertension. At baseline, 97% of subjects were treated with anti‐hypertensive medication at entry, but only 37% of participants had blood pressure (BP) control (<140/90 mmHg). Single‐tablet combination therapy may improve control rates. Methods. The mean BP change from baseline at the end of 6 months (the time point when subjects should have had all of the drug titrations to achieve BP control) was examined for 10,704 randomized patients. Within‐group changes were examined using t‐tests. Comparisons between subgroups were made using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and covariance (ANCOVA). Results. Mean (±SD) BP fell from 145±18/80±11 mmHg at randomization to 132±16/74±10 mmHg. The 6‐month BP control rate was 73% in the overall trial (78% in the US), 43% in diabetics and 40% in patients with renal disease. Of the patients uncontrolled, 61% were not on maximal medications, suggesting potential increases in control rates. Serious hypotensive events occurred in 1.8% of participants. Conclusion. ACCOMPLISH BP control rates are the highest of any multi‐national trial to date. Whereas current guidelines recommend combination therapy only for stage 2 hypertension, in this trial it is expedient and safe for both stage 1 and 2 hypertension.

Baseline characteristics and treatment of patients in Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure trial (PARADIGM-HF)

To describe the baseline characteristics and treatment of the patients randomized in the PARADIGM‐HF (Prospective comparison of ARNi with ACEi to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure) trial, testing the hypothesis that the strategy of simultaneously blocking the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system and augmenting natriuretic peptides with LCZ696 200 mg b.i.d. is superior to enalapril 10 mg b.i.d. in reducing mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.

Low-dose drug combination therapy: An alternative first-line approach to hypertension treatment

To investigate the concept that the initial treatment of hypertension with low doses of two antihypertensives that have different modes of action and additive effects may achieve control of blood pressure and minimize the dose-dependent adverse effects seen with conventional monotherapy, a randomized, double-blind parallel group dose-escalation study was conducted. After a 4 to 5 week placebo washout period, 218 men and women with diastolic blood pressure between 95 and 114 mm Hg were randomly allocated to take: amlodipine (2.5 to 10 mg), enalapril (5 to 20 mg), and the low-dose combination of bisoprolol (2.5 to 10 mg) with 6.25 mg of hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ). All drugs were administered once daily, titrated to optimal response, and taken for a total of 12 weeks. Blood pressure was measured 24 hours after dose. The response rates (either a diastolic blood pressure < or = 90 mm Hg or a decrease of diastolic pressure > or = 10 mm Hg) were 71% for bisoprolol-6.25 mg HCTZ, 69% for amlodipine, and 45% for enalapril. The mean decreases in systolic/diastolic blood pressure from baseline were 13.4/10.7, 12.8/10.2, and 7.3/6.6 mm Hg for bisoprolol-6.25 mg HCTZ, amlodipine, and enalapril, respectively. The mean change with enalapril was less than the other drugs (p < 0.01), although the once-daily dosing of enalapril and the maximum dose of 20 mg might not have been optimal for this agent.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Efficacy and safety of LCZ696 (sacubitril-valsartan) according to age: insights from PARADIGM-HF

Background The age at which heart failure develops varies widely between countries and drug tolerance and outcomes also vary by age. We have examined the efficacy and safety of LCZ696 according to age in the Prospective comparison of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure trial (PARADIGM-HF). Methods In PARADIGM-HF, 8399 patients aged 18–96 years and in New York Heart Association functional class II–IV with an LVEF ≤40% were randomized to either enalapril or LCZ696. We examined the pre-specified efficacy and safety outcomes according to age category (years): <55 (n = 1624), 55–64 (n = 2655), 65–74 (n = 2557), and ≥75 (n = 1563). Findings The rate (per 100 patient-years) of the primary outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH) increased from 13.4 to 14.8 across the age categories. The LCZ696:enalapril hazard ratio (HR) was <1.0 in all categories (P for interaction between age category and treatment = 0.94) with an overall HR of 0.80 (0.73, 0.87), P < 0.001. The findings for HFH were similar for CV and all-cause mortality and the age category by treatment interactions were not significant. The pre-specified safety outcomes of hypotension, renal impairment and hyperkalaemia increased in both treatment groups with age, although the differences between treatment (more hypotension but less renal impairment and hyperkalaemia with LCZ696) were consistent across age categories. Interpretation LCZ696 was more beneficial than enalapril across the spectrum of age in PARADIGM-HF with a favourable benefit–risk profile in all age groups.