Effects of sacubitril/valsartan on both metabolic parameters and insulin resistance in prediabetic non-obese patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction

The steady-state basal plasma glucose and insulin concentrations are determined by their interaction in a feedback loop. A computer-solved model has been used to predict the homeostatic concentrations which arise from varying degrees beta-cell deficiency and insulin resistance. Comparison of a patient's fasting values with the model's predictions allows a quantitative assessment of the contributions of insulin resistance and deficient beta-cell function to the fasting hyperglycaemia (homeostasis model assessment, HOMA). The accuracy and precision of the estimate have been determined by comparison with independent measures of insulin resistance and beta-cell function using hyperglycaemic and euglycaemic clamps and an intravenous glucose tolerance test. The estimate of insulin resistance obtained by homeostasis model assessment correlated with estimates obtained by use of the euglycaemic clamp (Rs = 0.88, p less than 0.0001), the fasting insulin concentration (Rs = 0.81, p less than 0.0001), and the hyperglycaemic clamp, (Rs = 0.69, p less than 0.01). There was no correlation with any aspect of insulin-receptor binding. The estimate of deficient beta-cell function obtained by homeostasis model assessment correlated with that derived using the hyperglycaemic clamp (Rs = 0.61, p less than 0.01) and with the estimate from the intravenous glucose tolerance test (Rs = 0.64, p less than 0.05). The low precision of the estimates from the model (coefficients of variation: 31% for insulin resistance and 32% for beta-cell deficit) limits its use, but the correlation of the model's estimates with patient data accords with the hypothesis that basal glucose and insulin interactions are largely determined by a simple feed back loop.

The rapid technological developments of the past decade and the changes in echocardiographic practice brought about by these developments have resulted in the need for updated recommendations to the previously published guidelines for cardiac chamber quantification, which was the goal of the joint writing group assembled by the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. This document provides updated normal values for all four cardiac chambers, including three-dimensional echocardiography and myocardial deformation, when possible, on the basis of considerably larger numbers of normal subjects, compiled from multiple databases. In addition, this document attempts to eliminate several minor discrepancies that existed between previously published guidelines. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2015. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

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.).