Background and aims The PARAGLIDE-HF trial demonstrated reductions in natriuretic peptides with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in patients with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction who had a recent worsening HF event, but was not adequately powered to examine clinical outcomes. PARAGON-HF included a subset of PARAGLIDE-HF-like patients who were recently hospitalized for HF. Participant-level data from PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF were pooled to better estimate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in reducing cardiovascular and renal events in HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. Methods Both PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF were multicenter, double-blind, randomized, active-controlled trials of sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan in patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF >40% in PARAGLIDE-HF and ≥45% in PARAGON-HF). In the pre-specified primary analysis, we pooled participants in PARAGLIDE-HF (all of whom were enrolled during or within 30 days of a worsening HF event) with a ‘PARAGLIDE-like’ subset of PARAGON-HF (those hospitalized for HF within 30 days). We also pooled the entire PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF populations for a broader context. The primary endpoint for this analysis was the composite of total worsening HF events (including first and recurrent HF hospitalizations and urgent visits) and cardiovascular death. The secondary endpoint was the pre-specified renal composite endpoint for both studies (≥50% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate from baseline, end-stage renal disease, or renal death). Results Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced total worsening HF events and cardiovascular death in both the primary pooled analysis of participants with recent worsening HF (n=1,088; rate ratio [RR] 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61-0.99; P=0.042) and in the pooled analysis of all participants (n=5,262; RR 0.86; 95% CI: 0.75-0.98; P=0.027). In the pooled analysis of all participants, first nominal statistical significance was reached by day 9 after randomization and treatment benefits were larger in those with LVEF ≤60% (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.66-0.91) compared with those with LVEF >60% (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.86-1.40; Pinteraction=0.021). Sacubitril/valsartan was also associated with lower rates of the renal composite endpoint in the primary pooled analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 0.67; 95% CI 0.43-1.05; P=0.080) and the pooled analysis of all participants (HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.44-0.83; P=0.002). Conclusions In pooled analyses of PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF, sacubitril/valsartan reduced cardiovascular and renal events among patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. These data provide support for use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction, particularly among those with an LVEF below normal, regardless of care setting.

Aim Patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and low systolic blood pressure (SBP) have high mortality, hospitalizations, and poorly tolerate evidence-based medical treatment. Omecamtiv mecarbil may be particularly helpful in such patients. This study examined its efficacy and tolerability in patients with SBP ≤100 mmHg enrolled in the Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC-HF). Methods and results The GALACTIC-HF enrolled patients with baseline SBP ≥85 mmHg with a primary outcome of time to cardiovascular death or first heart failure event. In this analysis, patients were divided according to their baseline SBP (≤100 vs. >100 mmHg). Among the 8232 analysed patients, 1473 (17.9%) had baseline SBP ≤100 mmHg and 6759 (82.1%) had SBP >100 mmHg. The primary outcome occurred in 715 (48.5%) and 2415 (35.7%) patients with SBP ≤100 and >100 mmHg, respectively. Patients with lower SBP were at higher risk of adverse outcomes. Omecamtiv mecarbil, compared with placebo, appeared to be more effective in reducing the primary composite endpoint in patients with SBP ≤100 mmHg [hazard ratio (HR), 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.70–0.94] compared with those with SBP >100 mmHg (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.88–1.03; P-value for interaction = 0.051). In both groups, omecamtiv mecarbil did not change SBP values over time and did not increase the risk of adverse events, when compared with placebo. Conclusion In GALACTIC-HF, risk reduction of heart failure outcomes with omecamtiv mecarbil compared with placebo was large and significant in patients with low SBP. Omecamtiv mecarbil did not affect SBP and was well tolerated independent of SBP values.

ImportanceIn 2 trials enrolling patients with heart failure (HF) across the spectrum of ejection fraction (EF), dapagliflozin has been shown to reduce the rate of the composite of worsening HF events or death from cardiovascular (CV) causes.ObjectiveTo examine the effects of dapagliflozin on cause-specific CV and non-CV mortality across the spectrum of EF.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis was a participant-level, pooled, prespecified secondary analysis of data from the Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure, or DAPA-HF trial (participant left ventricular EF [LVEF] ≤40%), and Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure, or DELIVER trial (participant LVEF >40%), to assess the effects of randomized treatment on cause-specific mortality. The trials assigned adjacent populations of patients with chronic HF, New York Heart Association class II-IV symptoms, and elevated natriuretic peptides to treatment with dapagliflozin (10 mg, once daily) or placebo. The primary outcome for each study was a composite of worsening HF events (hospitalization or urgent heart failure visits) or CV death. Clinical outcomes, including all deaths, were adjudicated as to cause by clinical end points committees blinded to treatment assignment.InterventionDapagliflozin vs placebo.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe mode of death in relation to baseline EF was examined, as well as the effect of randomized treatment on cause-specific death in Cox regression models. Relationships with continuous EF were modeled using Poisson regression.ResultsOf 11 007 patients in the pooled data set, there were 1628 deaths during follow-up (mean [SD] age, 71.7 [10.3] years; 1139 male [70.0%]). Of those who died, 872 (53.5%) were ascribed to CV deaths, 487 (29.9%) to non-CV deaths, and 269 (16.5%) to undetermined causes. Of CV deaths, 289 (33.1%; this represented 17.8% of total deaths) were due to HF, 441 (50.6%; 27.1% of total deaths) were sudden, 69 (7.9%; 4.2% of total deaths) were due to stroke, 47 (5.4%; 2.9% of total deaths) to myocardial infarction, and 26 (3.0%; 1.6% of total deaths) were due to other CV causes. The proportion of non-CV deaths was higher in those with higher EF. In the pooled population, across the spectrum of EF, treatment with dapagliflozin was associated with lower rates of CV death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-0.98; P = .02), principally due to lower rates of sudden death (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70-1.01; P = .07) and HF death (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.70-1.11; P = .30), with little difference in rates of death from stroke or MI.Conclusions and RelevanceIn a pooled analysis of patients with HF in the DAPA-HF and DELIVER randomized clinical trials, across the full spectrum of LVEF, dapagliflozin significantly reduced risks of CV death with contributions from lower rates of sudden death and death from progressive HF.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03036124, NCT03619213