Rationale, Design and Baseline Characteristics of the PARAGLIDE-HF Trial: Sacubitril/Valsartan vs Valsartan in HFmrEF and HFpEF With a Worsening Heart Failure Event

Association of Sacubitril/Valsartan versus Valsartan with Blood Pressure Changes, and Symptomatic Hypotension: The PARAGLIDE-HF Trial

BACKGROUND

In PARAGLIDE-HF, among patients with ejection fraction (EF) >40%, stabilized after worsening heart failure (WHF), sacubitril/valsartan led to greater reduction in plasma NT-proBNP levels and was associated with clinical benefit compared to valsartan alone, despite more symptomatic hypotension (SH). Concern over SH may be limiting use of sacubitril/valsartan in appropriate patients.

METHODS

We characterized patients by the occurrence of SH (investigator-reported) after randomization to either sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan. A key trial inclusion criterion was systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥100 mmHg for the preceding 6 hours and no SH. We also compared outcomes based on baseline SBP stratified by the median blood pressure. The primary endpoint was time-averaged proportional change in NT-proBNP from baseline through Weeks 4 and 8. A secondary hierarchical outcome (win ratio) consisted of: a) cardiovascular death, b) HF hospitalizations, c) urgent HF visits, and d) change in NT-proBNP.

RESULTS

Among 466 randomized patients, 92 (19.7%) experienced SH (sacubitril/valsartan, N=56 [24.0%]; valsartan, N=36 [15.5%], p=0.020). The median time to the first SH event was similar between treatment arms (18 days vs. 15 days, respectively, p=0.42) as was the proportion of first SH events classified as "serious" by investigators. Patients who experienced SH with sacubitril/valsartan were more likely to be White (OR 1.87 [95%CI: 0.31, 11.15]), to have a lower baseline SBP (per 10mmHg increase OR 0.68 [95%CI: 0.55, 0.85]), or to have a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of >60% (OR 2.21 [95%CI: 1.05, 4.65]). Time-averaged change in NT-proBNP did not differ between patients with baseline SBP ≥128 mmHg vs. SBP<128mmHg (interaction p=0.43). The composite hierarchical outcome for sacubitril/valsartan in patients with baseline SBP≥128mmHg had a win ratio of 1.34 ([95%CI: 0.91, 1.99], p=0.096) vs SBP<128mmHg with a win ratio of 1.09 ([95%CI: 0.73, 1.66], p=0.62; interaction p value=0.42).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with LVEF>40% stabilized after WHF, incident SH was more common with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan. SH was associated with lower baseline SBP, White race, and higher LVEF. Treatment benefits with sacubitril/valsartan may be more pronounced in patients with higher baseline SBP and lower LVEF (≤ 60%). (Funded by Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03988634.) ABBREVIATIONS: : HFpEF, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction; HFmrEF, heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction; HFrEF, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; NT-proBNP, amino terminal-pro b-type natriuretic peptide; SBP, systolic blood pressure; WHF, worsening heart failure.

Latest pharmaceutical approaches across the spectrum of heart failure

Despite major advances in prevention and medical therapy, heart failure (HF) remains associated with high morbidity and mortality, especially in older and frailer patients. Therefore, a complete, guideline-based treatment is essential, even in HF patients with conditions traditionally associated with a problematic initiation and escalation of the medical HF therapy, such as chronic kidney disease and arterial hypotension, as the potential adverse effects are overcome by the overall decrease of the absolute risk. Furthermore, since the latest data suggest that the benefit of a combined medical therapy (MRA, ARNI, SGLT2i, beta-blocker) may extend up to a LVEF of 65%, further trials on these subgroups of patients (HFmrEF, HFpEF) are needed to re-evaluate the guideline-directed medical therapy across the HF spectrum. In particular, the use of SGLT2i was recently extended to HFpEF patients, as evidenced by the DELIVER and EMPEROR-preserved trials. Moreover, the indication for other conservative treatments in HF patients, such as the intravenous iron supplementation, was accordingly strengthened in the latest guidelines. Finally, the possible implementation of newer substances, such as finerenone, in guideline-directed medical practice for HF is anticipated with great interest.

Representativeness of the PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF in patients hospitalized with acute heart failure

AIMS

The PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF trials aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of the in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in patients hospitalized for AHF. However, whether the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the trials apply to patients encountered in real-world routine care is unclear. This study aimed to investigate the applicability of the PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF trials to real-world AHF patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We identified 28 293 AHF hospitalized patients between August 2008 to August 2017 from the Chang Gung Research Database and classified them into four groups based on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and trial criteria. Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare the risk of HF hospitalization and cardiovascular (CV) death. We defined PIONEER-HF eligible (n = 3683) and non-eligible (n = 3502) patients with an LVEF ≤40%, and PARAGLIDE-HF eligible (n = 5191) and non-eligible (n = 5832) patients with an LVEF >40%. Over a mean follow-up of 3.5 years, the PIONEER-HF non-eligible and eligible groups exhibited similar rates of HF hospitalization and CV death (41.1% vs. 41.8%, adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.88-1.04). No significant difference was found in the composite outcome between PARAGLIDE-HF non-eligible and eligible groups (36.7% vs. 38.6%; aHR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.90-1.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Using trial criteria, only 31.3% of AHF patients were eligible for sacubitril-valsartan. Yet, non-eligible patients demonstrated similar outcomes to eligible patients, indicating a need for further evaluation of sacubitril-valsartan benefits in non-eligible AHF patients.

Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients Hospitalized With Decompensated Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) has not been described.

OBJECTIVES

Data from randomized trials of sacubitril/valsartan in HF patients with EF ≤40% (PIONEER-HF [Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect of NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode] trial) and >40% (PARAGLIDE-HF [Prospective comparison of ARNI with ARB Given following stabiLization In DEcompensated HFpEF] trial) following recent worsening heart failure (WHF) were pooled to examine treatment effect across the EF spectrum.

METHODS

The PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF trials were double-blind, randomized trials of sacubitril/valsartan vs control therapy (enalapril or valsartan, respectively). All participants in the PIONEER-HF trial and 69.5% in the PARAGLIDE-HF trial were enrolled during hospitalization for HF after stabilization. The remainder in the PARAGLIDE-HF trial were enrolled ≤30 days after a WHF event. The primary endpoint of both trials was time-averaged proportional change in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) from baseline through weeks 4 and 8. Adjudicated clinical endpoints were analyzed through the end of follow-up, adjusting for trial.

RESULTS

The pooled analysis included 1,347 patients (881 from PIONEER-HF, 466 from PARAGLIDE-HF). Baseline characteristics included median age 66 years, 36% women, 31% Black, 34% de novo HF, and median EF 30%. The reduction in NT-proBNP was 24% greater with sacubitril/valsartan vs control therapy (n = 1,130; ratio of change = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.69-0.83; P < 0.0001). Cardiovascular death or hospitalization for HF was reduced by 30% with sacubitril/valsartan vs control therapy (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.54-0.91; P = 0.0077). This effect was consistent across the spectrum of EF ≤60%. Sacubitril/valsartan increased symptomatic hypotension (risk ratio: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.05-1.72).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients stabilized after WHF, sacubitril/valsartan led to a greater reduction in plasma NT-proBNP and improved clinical outcome compared with control therapy, in particular across the spectrum of EF ≤60%. (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect of NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode [PIONEER-HF]; NCT02554890; Changes in NT-proBNP, Safety, and Tolerability in HFpEF Patients With a WHF Event [HFpEF Decompensation] Who Have Been Stabilized and Initiated at the Time of or Within 30 Days Post-decompensation [PARAGLIDE-HF]; NCT03988634).

Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: How to Deal with This Chameleon

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is characterized by a notable heterogeneity in both phenotypic and pathophysiological features, with a growing incidence due to the increase in median age and comorbidities such as obesity, arterial hypertension, and cardiometabolic disease. In recent decades, the development of new pharmacological and non-pharmacological options has significantly impacted outcomes, improving clinical status and reducing mortality. Moreover, a more personalized and accurate therapeutic management has been demonstrated to enhance the quality of life, diminish hospitalizations, and improve overall survival. Therefore, assessing the peculiarities of patients with HFpEF is crucial in order to obtain a better understanding of this disorder. Importantly, comorbidities have been shown to influence symptoms and prognosis, and, consequently, they should be carefully addressed. In this sense, it is mandatory to join forces with a multidisciplinary team in order to achieve high-quality care. However, HFpEF remains largely under-recognized and under-treated in clinical practice, and the diagnostic and therapeutic management of these patients remains challenging. The aim of this paper is to articulate a pragmatic approach for patients with HFpEF focusing on the etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of HFpEF.

[Sacubitril/valsartan in patients with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction and worsening heart failure: A review]

Heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction are associated with significant morbidity and mortality, as well as growing economic burden. This review describes recent studies on the use of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure patients with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction.

Sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction: a pre-specified participant-level pooled analysis of PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF

AIMS

The PARAGLIDE-HF trial demonstrated reductions in natriuretic peptides with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in patients with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction who had a recent worsening HF event, but was not adequately powered to examine clinical outcomes. PARAGON-HF included a subset of PARAGLIDE-HF-like patients who were recently hospitalized for HF. Participant-level data from PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF were pooled to better estimate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in reducing cardiovascular and renal events in HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Both PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF were multicentre, double-blind, randomized, active-controlled trials of sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan in patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF >40% in PARAGLIDE-HF and ≥45% in PARAGON-HF). In the pre-specified primary analysis, we pooled participants in PARAGLIDE-HF (all of whom were enrolled during or within 30 days of a worsening HF event) with a 'PARAGLIDE-like' subset of PARAGON-HF (those hospitalized for HF within 30 days). We also pooled the entire PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF populations for a broader context. The primary endpoint for this analysis was the composite of total worsening HF events (including first and recurrent HF hospitalizations and urgent visits) and cardiovascular death. The secondary endpoint was the pre-specified renal composite endpoint for both studies (≥50% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate from baseline, end-stage renal disease, or renal death). Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced total worsening HF events and cardiovascular death in both the primary pooled analysis of participants with recent worsening HF [n = 1088; rate ratio (RR) 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.99; P = 0.042] and in the pooled analysis of all participants (n = 5262; RR 0.86; 95% CI: 0.75-0.98; P = 0.027). In the pooled analysis of all participants, first nominal statistical significance was reached by Day 9 after randomization, and treatment benefits were larger in those with LVEF ≤60% (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.66-0.91) compared with those with LVEF >60% (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.86-1.40; Pinteraction = 0.021). Sacubitril/valsartan was also associated with lower rates of the renal composite endpoint in the primary pooled analysis [hazard ratio (HR) 0.67; 95% CI 0.43-1.05; P = 0.080] and the pooled analysis of all participants (HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.44-0.83; P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

In pooled analyses of PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF, sacubitril/valsartan reduced cardiovascular and renal events among patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. These data provide support for use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction, particularly among those with an LVEF below normal, regardless of care setting.

Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibition in Patients With Mildly Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction and Worsening Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

U.S. guidelines recommend consideration of sacubitril/valsartan in chronic heart failure (HF) and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (EF). Whether initiation is safe and effective in EF >40% after a worsening heart failure (WHF) event is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

PARAGLIDE-HF (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ARB Given following stabiLization In DEcompensated HFpEF) assessed sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan in EF >40% following a recent WHF event.

METHODS

PARAGLIDE-HF is a double-blind, randomized controlled trial of sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan in patients with EF >40% enrolled within 30 days of a WHF event. The primary endpoint was time-averaged proportional change in amino terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) from baseline through Weeks 4 and 8. A secondary hierarchical outcome (win ratio) consisted of: 1) cardiovascular death; 2) HF hospitalizations; 3) urgent HF visits; and 4) change in NT-proBNP.

RESULTS

In 466 patients (233 sacubitril/valsartan; 233 valsartan), time-averaged reduction in the NT-proBNP was greater with sacubitril/valsartan (ratio of change: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.73-0.999; P = 0.049). The hierarchical outcome favored sacubitril/valsartan but was not significant (unmatched win ratio: 1.19; 95% CI: 0.93-1.52; P = 0.16). Sacubitril/valsartan reduced worsening renal function (OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.40-0.93) but increased symptomatic hypotension (OR: 1.73; 95% CI: 1.09-2.76). There was evidence of a larger treatment effect in the subgroup with EF ≤60% for NT-proBNP change (0.78; 95% CI: 0.61-0.98) and the hierarchical outcome (win ratio: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.09-1.95).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with EF >40% stabilized after WHF, sacubitril/valsartan led to greater reduction in plasma NT-proBNP levels and was associated with clinical benefit compared with valsartan alone, despite more symptomatic hypotension. (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ARB Given following stabiLization In DEcompensated HFpEF; NCT03988634).