PofoliaShared via Pofolia

New England Journal of Medicine· 2014Q1

Angiotensin–Neprilysin Inhibition versus Enalapril in Heart Failure

John J.V. McMurray, Milton Packer, Akshay S. Desai, Jianjian Gong et al.

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 ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

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 web

Sign 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