New England Journal of Medicine· 2014Q1
Angiotensin–Neprilysin Inhibition versus Enalapril in Heart Failure
- 6,869citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2014year
Short summary
The angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 significantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization by 21.8% compared to enalapril (26.5%) in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- LCZ696 reduced the composite primary outcome (cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization) by 21.8% compared to 26.5% for enalapril (hazard ratio 0.80; P<0.001).
- LCZ696 resulted in a 16% relative risk reduction in death from any cause (17.0% vs. 19.8%) and a 20% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death (13.3% vs. 16.5%).
- The risk of hospitalization for heart failure was reduced by 21% with LCZ696 compared to enalapril (P<0.001).
- LCZ696 showed a more favorable safety profile, with lower rates of renal impairment, hyperkalemia, and cough, though higher rates of hypotension and nonserious angioedema.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
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 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.).
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. New England Journal of Medicine, 2014 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
Cardiology and Cardiovascular MedicineMedicine