67
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Angiotensin–Neprilysin Inhibition versus Enalapril in Heart Failure

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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. 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. 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. 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.).

          Related collections

          Most cited references 14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Are hospitalized or ambulatory patients with heart failure treated in accordance with European Society of Cardiology guidelines? Evidence from 12,440 patients of the ESC Heart Failure Long-Term Registry.

          To evaluate how recommendations of European guidelines regarding pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for heart failure (HF) are adopted in clinical practice.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Improving evidence-based care for heart failure in outpatient cardiology practices: primary results of the Registry to Improve the Use of Evidence-Based Heart Failure Therapies in the Outpatient Setting (IMPROVE HF).

            A treatment gap exists between heart failure (HF) guidelines and the clinical care of patients. The Registry to Improve the Use of Evidence-Based Heart Failure Therapies in the Outpatient Setting (IMPROVE HF) prospectively tested a multidimensional practice-specific performance improvement intervention on the use of guideline-recommended therapies for HF in outpatient cardiology practices. Performance data were collected in a random sample of HF patients from 167 US outpatient cardiology practices at baseline, longitudinally after intervention at 12 and 24 months, and in single-point-in-time patient cohorts at 6 and 18 months. Participants included 34 810 patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (< or =35%) and chronic HF or previous myocardial infarction. To quantify guideline adherence, 7 quality measures were assessed. Interventions included clinical decision support tools, structured improvement strategies, and chart audits with feedback. The performance improvement intervention resulted in significant improvements in 5 of 7 quality measures at the 24-month assessment compared with baseline: beta-blocker (92.2% versus 86.0%, +6.2%), aldosterone antagonist (60.3% versus 34.5%, +25.1%), cardiac resynchronization therapy (66.3% versus 37.2%, +29.9%), implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (77.5% versus 50.1%, +27.4%), and HF education (72.1% versus 59.5%, +12.6%) (each P<0.001). There were no statistically significant improvements in angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker use or anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation. Sensitivity analyses at the patient level and limited to patients with both baseline and 24-month quality measure data yielded similar results. Improvements in the single-point-in-time cohorts were smaller, and there were no concurrent control practices. The Registry to Improve the Use of Evidence-Based Heart Failure Therapies in the Outpatient Setting, a defined and scalable practice-specific performance improvement intervention, was associated with substantial improvements in the use of guideline-recommended therapies in eligible patients with HF in outpatient cardiology practices. URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00303979.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Mortality and morbidity reduction with Candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction: results of the CHARM low-left ventricular ejection fraction trials.

              Patients with symptomatic chronic heart failure (CHF) and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) have a high risk of death and hospitalization for CHF deterioration despite therapies with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, beta-blockers, and even an aldosterone antagonist. To determine whether the angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) candesartan decreases cardiovascular mortality, morbidity, and all-cause mortality in patients with CHF and depressed LVEF, a prespecified analysis of the combined Candesartan in Heart Failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) low LVEF trials was performed. CHARM is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, international trial program. New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II through IV CHF patients with an LVEF of < or =40% were randomized to candesartan or placebo in 2 complementary parallel trials (CHARM-Alternative, for patients who cannot tolerate ACE inhibitors, and CHARM-Added, for patients who were receiving ACE inhibitors). Mortality and morbidity were determined in 4576 low LVEF patients (2289 candesartan and 2287 placebo), titrated as tolerated to a target dose of 32 mg once daily, and observed for 2 to 4 years (median, 40 months). The primary outcome (time to first event by intention to treat) was cardiovascular death or CHF hospitalization for each trial, with all-cause mortality a secondary end point in the pooled analysis of the low LVEF trials. Of the patients in the candesartan group, 817 (35.7%) experienced cardiovascular death or a CHF hospitalization as compared with 944 (41.3%) in the placebo group (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.90; P<0.001) with reduced risk for both cardiovascular deaths (521 [22.8%] versus 599 [26.2%]; HR 0.84 [95% CI 0.75 to 0.95]; P=0.005) and CHF hospitalizations (516 [22.5%] versus 642 [28.1%]; HR 0.76 [95% CI 0.68 to 0.85]; P<0.001). It is important to note that all-cause mortality also was significantly reduced by candesartan (642 [28.0%] versus 708 [31.0%]; HR 0.88 [95% CI 0.79 to 0.98]; P=0.018). No significant heterogeneity for the beneficial effects of candesartan was found across prespecified and subsequently identified subgroups including treatment with ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, an aldosterone antagonist, or their combinations. The study drug was discontinued because of adverse effects by 23.1% of patients in the candesartan group and 18.8% in the placebo group; the reasons included increased creatinine (7.1% versus 3.5%), hypotension (4.2% versus 2.1%), and hyperkalemia (2.8% versus 0.5%), respectively (all P<0.001). Candesartan significantly reduces all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and heart failure hospitalizations in patients with CHF and LVEF < or =40% when added to standard therapies including ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, and an aldosterone antagonist. Routine monitoring of blood pressure, serum creatinine, and serum potassium is warranted.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                New England Journal of Medicine
                N Engl J Med
                Massachusetts Medical Society
                0028-4793
                1533-4406
                September 11 2014
                September 11 2014
                : 371
                : 11
                : 993-1004
                Article
                10.1056/NEJMoa1409077
                25176015
                © 2014
                Product

                Comments

                Comment on this article