John J V McMurray1, Milton Packer, Akshay S Desai, Jianjian Gong, Martin P Lefkowitz, Adel R Rizkala, Jean L Rouleau, Victor C Shi, Scott D Solomon, Karl Swedberg, Michael R Zile. 1. From the British Heart Foundation (BHF) Cardiovascular Research Centre, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom (J.J.V.M.); the Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas (M.P.); the Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston (A.S.D., S.D.S.); Novartis Pharmaceuticals, East Hanover, NJ (J.G., M.P.L., A.R.R., V.C.S.); Institut de Cardiologie de Montréal, Université de Montréal, Montreal (J.L.R.); the Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden (K.S.); National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London (K.S.); and the Medical University of South Carolina and Ralph H. Johnson Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Charleston (M.R.Z.).
Abstract
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 eitherLCZ696 (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.).
RCT Entities:
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.).
Authors: Brian A Bergmark; Benjamin M Scirica; Ph Gabriel Steg; Christina L Fanola; Yared Gurmu; Ofri Mosenzon; Avivit Cahn; Itamar Raz; Deepak L Bhatt Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2018-06-21 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Kelly Tam; Daniel A Richards; Mark J Aronovitz; Gregory L Martin; Suchita Pande; Iris Z Jaffe; Robert M Blanton Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2020-05-25 Impact factor: 5.712
Authors: Sven Persoon; Michael Paulus; Stephan Hirt; Carsten Jungbauer; Alexander Dietl; Andreas Luchner; Christof Schmid; Lars S Maier; Christoph Birner Journal: Heart Vessels Date: 2018-03-15 Impact factor: 2.037