-
1.
Clinical Effectiveness of Sacubitril/Valsartan Among Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.
Greene, SJ, Choi, S, Lippmann, SJ, Mentz, RJ, Greiner, MA, Hardy, NC, Hammill, BG, Luo, N, Samsky, MD, Heidenreich, PA, et al
Journal of the American Heart Association. 2021;(16):e021459
Abstract
Background Sacubitril/Valsartan has been highly efficacious in randomized trials of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, the effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan in older patients hospitalized for HFrEF in real-world US practice is unclear. Methods and Results This study included Medicare beneficiaries age ≥65 years who were hospitalized for HFrEF ≤40% in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry between October 2015 and December 2018, and eligible for sacubitril/valsartan. Associations between discharge prescription of sacubitril/valsartan and clinical outcomes were assessed after inverse probability of treatment weighting and adjustment for other HFrEF medications. Overall, 1551 (10.9%) patients were discharged on sacubitril/valsartan. Of those not prescribed sacubitril/valsartan, 7857 (62.0%) were prescribed an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker. Over 12-month follow-up, compared with a discharge prescription of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker, sacubitril/valsartan was independently associated with lower all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.94; P=0.004) but not all-cause hospitalization (adjusted HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.89-1.07; P=0.55) or heart failure hospitalization (adjusted HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.91-1.18; P=0.59). Patients prescribed sacubitril/valsartan versus those without a prescription had lower risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.60-0.79; P<0.001), all-cause hospitalization (adjusted HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82-0.98; P=0.02), but not heart failure hospitalization (adjusted HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.82-1.08; P=0.40). Conclusions Among patients hospitalized for HFrEF, prescription of sacubitril/valsartan at discharge was independently associated with reduced postdischarge mortality compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker, and reduced mortality and all-cause hospitalization compared with no sacubitril/valsartan. These findings support the use of sacubitril/valsartan to improve postdischarge outcomes among older patients hospitalized for HFrEF in routine US clinical practice.
-
2.
Comparison of the Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan on Left Ventricular Systolic Function in Patients with Non-ischaemic and Ischaemic Cardiomyopathy.
Ioannou, A, Metaxa, S, Simon, S, Mandal, AKJ, Missouris, CG
Cardiovascular drugs and therapy. 2020;(6):755-762
Abstract
PURPOSE Sacubitril/valsartan has been demonstrated to improve prognosis and outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients. We sought to compare the improvement in cardiac function between non-ischaemic and ischaemic cardiomyopathy for patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan. METHODS We conducted a single centre prospective cohort survey of patients reviewed in the Heart Function Clinic between February 2017 and January 2018. Functional evaluation and measurement of biochemical and echocardiographic parameters occurred before the initiation of sacubitril/valsartan, and after 3 months of treatment. RESULTS We identified 52 patients (26 non-ischaemic and 26 ischaemic cardiomyopathy) suitable for treatment with sacubitril/valsartan. Treatment was followed by a significant decrease in a New York Heart Association (NYHA) class in both patients with non-ischaemic (2.3 ± 0.6 vs. 1.6 ± 0.7, P < 0.001) and ischaemic cardiomyopathy (2.3 ± 0.5 vs. 1.5 ± 0.6, P < 0.001), along with an increase in ejection fraction in both patients with non-ischaemic (26.2% ± 6.5% vs. 37.2% ± 13.8%, P < 0.001) and ischaemic cardiomyopathy (28.1% ± 5.7% vs. 31.5% ± 8.4%, P = 0.007). The improvement in ejection fraction was significantly greater in the patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy compared to those with ischaemic cardiomyopathy (10.7% ± 13.0% vs. 3.9% ± 6.0%, P = 0.023). CONCLUSION Our study suggests that treatment with sacubitril/valsartan in patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy is followed by a greater improvement in ejection fraction than in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy.
-
3.
Prognostic Value of Lactate Dehydrogenase for Mid-Term Mortality in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure: A Comparison to Established Biomarkers and Brain Natriuretic Peptide.
Yamaguchi, S, Abe, M, Arakaki, T, Arasaki, O, Shimabukuro, M
Heart, lung & circulation. 2020;(9):1318-1327
Abstract
BACKGROUND Enzyme biomarkers-such as creatine phosphokinase, aspartate aminotransferase, and alanine aminotransferase-are associated with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) severity and, therefore, have a prognostic value in ADHF. However, the prognostic value of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) is unclear. This study aimed to investigate the prognostic value of LDH in ADHF. METHODS This single-centre observational retrospective study enrolled 396 patients with ADHF between June 2014 and July 2016. The patients were categorised into groups based on the tertile values of serum LDH (LDH-low [<196 U/L], LDH-intermediate [196≤ LDH <239 U/L] and LDH-high [LDH ≥239 U/L]). Survival analysis for all-cause mortality was performed. This study also examined the ability of adding log-transformed LDH (LogLDH) on Get With The Guideline score, which is an established risk score to predict 90-day, 180-day and 365-day mortality using time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS During the follow-up (median, 204 days), 100 (25%) patients died. The LDH-intermediate and LDH-high groups had worse survival (LDH-low vs LDH-intermediate, log-rank p=0.019; LDH-low vs LDH-high, log-rank p<0.001). Log LDH improved the ability to predict 90-day, 180-day and 365-day all-cause mortality, which was statistically significant (90 days, area under curve [AUC] = 0.79, p=0.012; 180 days, AUC = 0.79, p=0.017; and 365 days, AUC = 0.79, p=0.025). CONCLUSIONS Lactate dehydrogenase may be an important predictor of 90-day, 180-day and 365-day all-cause mortality in ADHF patients; however, further studies are needed to confirm these findings.
-
4.
Assessment of left ventricular function by CMR versus MUGA scans in breast cancer patients receiving trastuzumab: a prospective observational study.
Dhir, V, Yan, AT, Nisenbaum, R, Sloninko, J, Connelly, KA, Barfett, J, Haq, R, Kirpalani, A, Chan, KKW, Petrella, TM, et al
The international journal of cardiovascular imaging. 2019;(11):2085-2093
Abstract
Little is known about the comparison of multiple-gated acquisition (MUGA) scanning with cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) for serial monitoring of HER2+ breast cancer patients receiving trastuzumab. The association of cardiac biomarkers with CMR left ventricular (LV) function and volume is also not well studied. Our objectives were to compare CMR and MUGA for left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) assessment, and to examine the association between changes in brain natriuretic peptide (NT-BNP) and troponin-I and changes in CMR LV function and volume. This prospective longitudinal two-centre cohort study recruited HER2+ breast cancer patients between January 2010 and December 2013. MUGA, CMR, NT-BNP and troponin-I were performed at baseline, 6, 12, and 18 months after trastuzumab initiation. In total, 41 patients (age 51.7 ± 10.8 years) were enrolled. LVEF comparison between MUGA and CMR demonstrated weak agreement (Lin's correlation coefficient r = 0.46, baseline; r = 0.29, 6 months; r = 0.42, 12 months; r = 0.39, 18 months; all p < 0.05). Bland-Altman plots demonstrated wide LVEF agreement limits (pooled agreement limits 3.0 ± 6.2). Both modalities demonstrated significant LVEF decline at 6 and 12 months from baseline, concomitant with increased LV volumes on CMR. Changes in NT-BNP correlated with changes in LV diastolic volume at 12 and 18 months (p < 0.05), and LV systolic volume at 18 months (p < 0.05). Changes in troponin-I did not correlate with changes in LV function or volume at any timepoint. In conclusion, CMR and MUGA LVEF are not interchangeable, warranting selection and utility of one modality for serial monitoring. CMR is useful due to less radiation exposure and accuracy of LV volume measurements. Changes in NT-BNP correlated with changes in LV volumes.
-
5.
Effects of Canagliflozin on Heart Failure Outcomes Associated With Preserved and Reduced Ejection Fraction in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.
Figtree, GA, Rådholm, K, Barrett, TD, Perkovic, V, Mahaffey, KW, de Zeeuw, D, Fulcher, G, Matthews, DR, Shaw, W, Neal, B
Circulation. 2019;(22):2591-2593
-
6.
Combined Effect of Aerobic and Resistance Interval Training on Ejection Fraction in Myocardial Infarction.
Farheen, H, Khalid, Z, Tariq, MI, Sadiq, T, Amjad, I, Ramzan, T
Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons--Pakistan : JCPSP. 2019;(3):290-292
Abstract
This study was conducted to determine whether combination of aerobic and resistance interval training had superior effects than aerobic interval training alone on ejection fraction, cholesterol, and triglycerides in myocardial infarction patients, at Pakistan Railway General Hospital Rawalpindi from July to December 2016. Patients were randomly allocated in interventional (n=13) and control group (n=13) using toss and trial method. Aerobic interval training at 65%-85% of target heart rate was performed in three intervals in both groups; whereas, resistance training at 30-50% of one repetition maximum was added in experimental group. The outcomes were measured before and after six weeks. Ejection fraction was significantly (p=0.029) improved in interventional group 55 (10) as compared to control group 50 (5). Cholesterol levels also showed significant decrease (p=0.021) in control group. The study concluded that combined training has superior effect in improving ejection fraction; whereas, aerobic interval training alone is more effective than combine training in improving cholesterol.
-
7.
Characteristics and Treatments of Patients Enrolled in the CHAMP-HF Registry Compared With Patients Enrolled in the PARADIGM-HF Trial.
DeVore, AD, Mi, X, Thomas, L, Sharma, PP, Albert, NM, Butler, J, Hernandez, AF, Patterson, JH, Spertus, JA, Williams, FB, et al
Journal of the American Heart Association. 2018;(12)
Abstract
BACKGROUND The US Food and Drug Administration approved sacubitril/valsartan for patients with chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction in 2015 on the basis of the results of the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI [Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor] With ACEI [Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor] to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial. There are limited data assessing the generalizability of PARADIGM-HF trial participants to a broader population of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction routinely encountered in outpatient clinical practice. METHODS AND RESULTS We compared the baseline characteristics of patients in the PARADIGM-HF trial with those in the CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients With Heart Failure) study a large US outpatient registry of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. Patients in the PARADIGM-HF trial (n=8442) were similar to those in the CHAMP-HF registry (n=3497) in terms of age (mean, 64 versus 66 years), sex (22% versus 29% women), New York Heart Association class III to IV (25% versus 32%), systolic blood pressure (mean, 121 versus 121 mm Hg), left ventricular ejection fraction (mean, 29% versus 29%), and other key baseline characteristics. The median (25th-75th percentile) Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure risk scores were similar for the 2 studies (20 [16-24] versus 22 [8-27]). Despite this, only 13% of patients in the CHAMP-HF registry were prescribed sacubitril/valsartan at baseline. CONCLUSIONS These data suggest participants randomized in the PARADIGM-HF trial have similar baseline characteristics to those encountered in routine outpatient clinical practice, but there is a substantial lag in the adoption of sacubitril/valsartan for patients with chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction.
-
8.
Cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan in the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.
McMurray, JJV, Trueman, D, Hancock, E, Cowie, MR, Briggs, A, Taylor, M, Mumby-Croft, J, Woodcock, F, Lacey, M, Haroun, R, et al
Heart (British Cardiac Society). 2018;(12):1006-1013
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF) represents a major public health issue and is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan (formerly LCZ696) compared with an ACE inhibitor (ACEI) (enalapril) in the treatment of HF-REF from the perspective of healthcare providers in the UK, Denmark and Colombia. METHODS A cost-utility analysis was performed based on data from a multinational, Phase III randomised controlled trial. A decision-analytic model was developed based on a series of regression models, which extrapolated health-related quality of life, hospitalisation rates and survival over a lifetime horizon. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS In the UK, the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for sacubitril/valsartan (using cardiovascular mortality) was £17 100 (€20 400) versus enalapril. In Denmark, the ICER for sacubitril/valsartan was Kr 174 000 (€22 600). In Colombia, the ICER was COP$39.5 million (€11 200) per QALY gained. Deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that results were most sensitive to the extrapolation of mortality, duration of treatment effect and time horizon, but were robust to other structural changes, with most scenarios associated with ICERs below the willingness-to-pay threshold for all three country settings. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested the probability that sacubitril/valsartan was cost-effective at conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds was 68%-94% in the UK, 84% in Denmark and 95% in Colombia. CONCLUSIONS Our analysis suggests that, in all three countries, sacubitril/valsartan is likely to be cost-effective compared with an ACEI (the current standard of care) in patients with HF-REF.
-
9.
Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Irbesartan in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease.
Haynes, R, Judge, PK, Staplin, N, Herrington, WG, Storey, BC, Bethel, A, Bowman, L, Brunskill, N, Cockwell, P, Hill, M, et al
Circulation. 2018;(15):1505-1514
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Sacubitril/valsartan reduces the risk of cardiovascular mortality among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, but its effects on kidney function and cardiac biomarkers in people with moderate to severe chronic kidney disease are unknown. METHODS The UK HARP-III trial (United Kingdom Heart and Renal Protection-III), a randomized double-blind trial, included 414 participants with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) 20 to 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 who were randomly assigned to sacubitril/valsartan 97/103 mg twice daily versus irbesartan 300 mg once daily. The primary outcome was measured GFR at 12 months using ANCOVA with adjustment for each individual's baseline measured GFR. All analyses were by intention to treat. RESULTS In total, 207 participants were assigned to sacubitril/valsartan and 207 to irbesartan. Baseline measured GFR was 34.0 (SE, 0.8) and 34.7 (SE, 0.8) mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively. At 12 months, there was no difference in measured GFR: 29.8 (SE 0.5) among those assigned sacubitril/valsartan versus 29.9 (SE, 0.5) mL/min/1.73 m2 among those assigned irbesartan; difference, -0.1 (0.7) mL/min/1.73 m2. Effects were similar in all prespecified subgroups. There was also no significant difference in estimated GFR at 3, 6, 9, or 12 months and no clear difference in urinary albumin:creatinine ratio between treatment arms (study average difference, -9%; 95% CI, -18 to 1). However, compared with irbesartan, allocation to sacubitril/valsartan reduced study average systolic and diastolic blood pressure by 5.4 (95% CI, 3.4-7.4) and 2.1 (95% CI, 1.0-3.3) mm Hg and levels of troponin I and N terminal of prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (tertiary end points) by 16% (95% CI, 8-23) and 18% (95% CI, 11-25), respectively. The incidence of serious adverse events (29.5% versus 28.5%; rate ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.75-1.53), nonserious adverse reactions (36.7% versus 28.0%; rate ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.96-1.90), and potassium ≥5.5 mmol/L (32% versus 24%, P=0.10) was not significantly different between randomized groups. CONCLUSIONS Over 12 months, sacubitril/valsartan has similar effects on kidney function and albuminuria to irbesartan, but it has the additional effect of lowering blood pressure and cardiac biomarkers in people with chronic kidney disease. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.isrctn.com . Unique identifier: ISRCTN11958993.
-
10.
Influence of Ejection Fraction on Outcomes and Efficacy of Sacubitril/Valsartan (LCZ696) in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: The Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) Trial.
Solomon, SD, Claggett, B, Desai, AS, Packer, M, Zile, M, Swedberg, K, Rouleau, JL, Shi, VC, Starling, RC, Kozan, Ö, et al
Circulation. Heart failure. 2016;(3):e002744
Abstract
BACKGROUND The angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) reduced cardiovascular morbidity and mortality compared with enalapril in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (EF) in the Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial. We evaluated the influence of EF on clinical outcomes and on the effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril. METHODS AND RESULTS Eight thousand three hundred ninety-nine patients with New York Heart Association class II to IV HF with reduced EF [left ventricular EF (LVEF) ≤40%] were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan 97/103 mg twice daily versus enalapril 10 mg twice daily and followed for a median of 27 months. The primary study end point was cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. LVEF was assessed at the sites and recorded on case report forms. We related LVEF to study outcomes and assessed the effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan across the LVEF spectrum. The mean LVEF in PARADIGM-HF, reported by sites, was 29.5 (interquartile range, 25-34). The risk of all outcomes increased with decreasing LVEF. Each 5-point reduction in LVEF was associated with a 9% increased risk of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.13; P<0.001), a 9% increased risk for CV death (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.14), a 9% increased risk in HF hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.14) and a 7% increased risk in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.12) in adjusted analyses. Sacubitril/valsartan was effective across the LVEF spectrum, with no evidence of heterogeneity, when modeled either in tertiles (P interaction=0.87) or continuously (P interaction=0.95). CONCLUSIONS In patients with HF and reduced EF enrolled in PARADIGM-HF, LVEF was a significant and independent predictor of all outcomes. Sacubitril/valsartan was effective at reducing cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization throughout the LVEF spectrum. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255.