Michael Böhm1, Robin Young2, Pardeep S Jhund3, Scott D Solomon4, Jianjian Gong5, Martin P Lefkowitz5, Adel R Rizkala5, Jean L Rouleau6, Victor C Shi5, Karl Swedberg7, Michael R Zile8, Milton Packer9, John J V McMurray3. 1. Klinik für Innere Medizin III, Universität des Saarlandes, Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes, Homburg, Saar, Germany. 2. Robertson Centre for Biostatistics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK. 3. British Heart Foundation Cardiovascular Research Centre, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK. 4. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Novartis Pharmaceuticals, East Hanover, NJ, USA. 6. Institut de Cardiologie de Montréal, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada. 7. Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Göteborg, Sweden. 8. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. 9. Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Abstract
Background: Compared to heart failure patients with higher systolic blood pressure (SBP), those with lower SBP have a worse prognosis. To make matters worse, the latter patients often do not receive treatment with life-saving therapies that might lower blood pressure further. We examined the association between SBP and outcomes in the Prospective Comparison of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) with an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure trial (PARADIGM-HF), as well as the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, according to baseline SBP. Methods: We analysed the effect of treatment on SBP and on the primary composite outcome (cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization), its components and all-cause death. We examined baseline SBP as a categorical (<110, 110 to < 120, 120 to < 130, 130 to < 140 and ≥140 mmHg) and continuous variable, as well as average in-trial SBP and time-updated SBP. Findings: All-cause and cardiovascular mortality rates were highest in patients with the lowest SBP whereas there was a U-shaped relationship between SBP and the rate of heart failure hospitalization. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril was consistent across all baseline SBP categories for all outcomes. For example, the sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril hazard ratio for the primary endpoint was 0.88 (95%CI 0.74-1.06) in patients with a baseline SBP <110 mmHg and 0.81 (0.65-1.02) for those with a SBP ≥140 mmHg (P for interaction = 0.55). Symptomatic hypotension, study drug dose-reduction and discontinuation were more frequent in patients with a lower SBP. Interpretation: In PARADIGM-HF, patients with lower SBP at randomization, notably after tolerating full doses of both study drugs during a run-in period, were at higher risk but generally tolerated sacubitril/valsartan and had the same relative benefit over enalapril as patients with higher baseline SBP. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
RCT Entities:
Background: Compared to heart failurepatients with higher systolic blood pressure (SBP), those with lower SBP have a worse prognosis. To make matters worse, the latter patients often do not receive treatment with life-saving therapies that might lower blood pressure further. We examined the association between SBP and outcomes in the Prospective Comparison of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) with an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure trial (PARADIGM-HF), as well as the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, according to baseline SBP. Methods: We analysed the effect of treatment on SBP and on the primary composite outcome (cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization), its components and all-cause death. We examined baseline SBP as a categorical (<110, 110 to < 120, 120 to < 130, 130 to < 140 and ≥140 mmHg) and continuous variable, as well as average in-trial SBP and time-updated SBP. Findings: All-cause and cardiovascular mortality rates were highest in patients with the lowest SBP whereas there was a U-shaped relationship between SBP and the rate of heart failure hospitalization. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril was consistent across all baseline SBP categories for all outcomes. For example, the sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril hazard ratio for the primary endpoint was 0.88 (95%CI 0.74-1.06) in patients with a baseline SBP <110 mmHg and 0.81 (0.65-1.02) for those with a SBP ≥140 mmHg (P for interaction = 0.55). Symptomatic hypotension, study drug dose-reduction and discontinuation were more frequent in patients with a lower SBP. Interpretation: In PARADIGM-HF, patients with lower SBP at randomization, notably after tolerating full doses of both study drugs during a run-in period, were at higher risk but generally tolerated sacubitril/valsartan and had the same relative benefit over enalapril as patients with higher baseline SBP. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Authors: Anne L Taylor; Susan Ziesche; Clyde Yancy; Peter Carson; Ralph D'Agostino; Keith Ferdinand; Malcolm Taylor; Kirkwood Adams; Michael Sabolinski; Manuel Worcel; Jay N Cohn Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-11-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: John J V McMurray; Stamatis Adamopoulos; Stefan D Anker; Angelo Auricchio; Michael Böhm; Kenneth Dickstein; Volkmar Falk; Gerasimos Filippatos; Cândida Fonseca; Miguel Angel Gomez-Sanchez; Tiny Jaarsma; Lars Køber; Gregory Y H Lip; Aldo Pietro Maggioni; Alexander Parkhomenko; Burkert M Pieske; Bogdan A Popescu; Per K Rønnevik; Frans H Rutten; Juerg Schwitter; Petar Seferovic; Janina Stepinska; Pedro T Trindade; Adriaan A Voors; Faiez Zannad; Andreas Zeiher; Jeroen J Bax; Helmut Baumgartner; Claudio Ceconi; Veronica Dean; Christi Deaton; Robert Fagard; Christian Funck-Brentano; David Hasdai; Arno Hoes; Paulus Kirchhof; Juhani Knuuti; Philippe Kolh; Theresa McDonagh; Cyril Moulin; Bogdan A Popescu; Zeljko Reiner; Udo Sechtem; Per Anton Sirnes; Michal Tendera; Adam Torbicki; Alec Vahanian; Stephan Windecker; Theresa McDonagh; Udo Sechtem; Luis Almenar Bonet; Panayiotis Avraamides; Hisham A Ben Lamin; Michele Brignole; Antonio Coca; Peter Cowburn; Henry Dargie; Perry Elliott; Frank Arnold Flachskampf; Guido Francesco Guida; Suzanna Hardman; Bernard Iung; Bela Merkely; Christian Mueller; John N Nanas; Olav Wendelboe Nielsen; Stein Orn; John T Parissis; Piotr Ponikowski Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Michel Komajda; Michael Böhm; Jeffrey S Borer; Ian Ford; Michele Robertson; Athanasios J Manolis; Luigi Tavazzi; Karl Swedberg Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2014-06-24 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Andrew P Ambrosy; Muthiah Vaduganathan; Robert J Mentz; Stephen J Greene; Haris Subačius; Marvin A Konstam; Aldo P Maggioni; Karl Swedberg; Mihai Gheorghiade Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2012-12-29 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: John J V McMurray; 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 Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-08-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: John J V McMurray; Jan Ostergren; Karl Swedberg; Christopher B Granger; Peter Held; Eric L Michelson; Bertil Olofsson; Salim Yusuf; Marc A Pfeffer Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-09-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Akshay S Desai; Scott Solomon; Brian Claggett; John J V McMurray; Jean Rouleau; Karl Swedberg; Michael Zile; Martin Lefkowitz; Victor Shi; Milton Packer Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Milton Packer; John J V McMurray; Akshay S Desai; Jianjian Gong; Martin P Lefkowitz; Adel R Rizkala; Jean L Rouleau; Victor C Shi; Scott D Solomon; Karl Swedberg; Michael Zile; Karl Andersen; Juan Luis Arango; J Malcolm Arnold; Jan Bělohlávek; Michael Böhm; Sergey Boytsov; Lesley J Burgess; Walter Cabrera; Carlos Calvo; Chen-Huan Chen; Andrej Dukat; Yan Carlos Duarte; Andrejs Erglis; Michael Fu; Efrain Gomez; Angel Gonzàlez-Medina; Albert A Hagège; Jun Huang; Tzvetana Katova; Songsak Kiatchoosakun; Kee-Sik Kim; Ömer Kozan; Edmundo Bayram Llamas; Felipe Martinez; Bela Merkely; Iván Mendoza; Arend Mosterd; Marta Negrusz-Kawecka; Keijo Peuhkurinen; Felix J A Ramires; Jens Refsgaard; Arvo Rosenthal; Michele Senni; Antonio S Sibulo; José Silva-Cardoso; Iain B Squire; Randall C Starling; John R Teerlink; Johan Vanhaecke; Dragos Vinereanu; Raymond Ching-Chiew Wong Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-11-17 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: John J V McMurray; Milton Packer; Akshay S Desai; Jim Gong; Martin P Lefkowitz; Adel R Rizkala; Jean Rouleau; Victor C Shi; Scott D Solomon; Karl Swedberg; Michael R Zile Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2013-04-05 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Přemysl Mladěnka; Lenka Applová; Jiří Patočka; Vera Marisa Costa; Fernando Remiao; Jana Pourová; Aleš Mladěnka; Jana Karlíčková; Luděk Jahodář; Marie Vopršalová; Kurt J Varner; Martin Štěrba Journal: Med Res Rev Date: 2018-01-05 Impact factor: 12.944
Authors: Poghni A Peri-Okonny; Xiaojuan Mi; Yevgeniy Khariton; Krishna K Patel; Laine Thomas; Gregg C Fonarow; Puza P Sharma; Carol I Duffy; Nancy M Albert; Javed Butler; Adrian F Hernandez; Kevin McCague; Fredonia B Williams; Adam D DeVore; J Herbert Patterson; John A Spertus Journal: JACC Heart Fail Date: 2019-02-06 Impact factor: 12.035
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