An "Inclisiran First" Strategy vs Usual Care in Patients With Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease fail to achieve guideline-directed low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals. Twice-yearly inclisiran lowers LDL-C by ∼50% when added to statins. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the effectiveness of an "inclisiran first" implementation strategy (adding inclisiran immediately upon failure to reach LDL-C <70 mg/dL despite receiving maximally tolerated statins) vs representative usual care in U.S. patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. METHODS: VICTORION-INITIATE, a prospective, pragmatically designed trial, randomized patients 1:1 to inclisiran (284 mg at days 0, 90, and 270) plus usual care (lipid management at treating physician's discretion) vs usual care alone. Primary endpoints were percentage change in LDL-C from baseline and statin discontinuation rates. RESULTS: We randomized 450 patients (30.9% women, 12.4% Black, 15.3% Hispanic); mean baseline LDL-C was 97.4 mg/dL. The "inclisiran first" strategy led to significantly greater reductions in LDL-C from baseline to day 330 vs usual care (60.0% vs 7.0%; P < 0.001). Statin discontinuation rates with "inclisiran first" (6.0%) were noninferior vs usual care (16.7%). More "inclisiran first" patients achieved LDL-C goals vs usual care (<70 mg/dL: 81.8% vs 22.2%; <55 mg/dL: 71.6% vs 8.9%; P < 0.001). Treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) and serious TEAE rates compared similarly between treatment strategies (62.8% vs 53.7% and 11.5% vs 13.4%, respectively). Injection-site TEAEs and TEAEs causing treatment withdrawal occurred more commonly with "inclisiran first" than usual care (10.3% vs 0.0% and 2.6% vs 0.0%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: An "inclisiran first" implementation strategy led to greater LDL-C lowering compared with usual care without discouraging statin use or raising new safety concerns. (A Randomized, Multicenter, Open-label Trial Comparing the Effectiveness of an "Inclisiran First" Implementation Strategy to Usual Care on LDL Cholesterol [LDL-C] in Patients With Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease and Elevated LDL-C [≥70 mg/dL] Despite Receiving Maximally Tolerated Statin Therapy [VICTORION-INITIATE]; NCT04929249).

Lipoprotein(a) and cardiovascular disease: sifting the evidence to guide future research.

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a genetically determined causal risk factor for cardiovascular disease including coronary heart disease, peripheral arterial disease, ischaemic stroke, and calcific aortic valve stenosis. Clinical trials of specific and potent Lp(a)-lowering drugs are currently underway. However, in clinical practice, widespread assessment of Lp(a) is still lacking despite several guideline recommendations to measure Lp(a) at least once in a lifetime in all adults to identify those at high or very high risk due to elevated levels. The present review provides an overview of key findings from observational and genetic Lp(a) studies, highlights the main challenges in observational Lp(a) studies, and proposes a minimum set of requirements to enhance the quality and harmonize the collection of Lp(a)-related data. Adherence to the recommendations set forth in the present manuscript is intended to enhance the quality of future observational Lp(a) studies, to better define thresholds for increased risk, and to better inform clinical trial design. The recommendations can also potentially assist in the interpretation and generalization of clinical trial findings, to improve care of patients with elevated Lp(a) and optimize treatment and prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Hemodynamic Effects of Sacubitril-Valsartan Versus Enalapril in Patients With Heart Failure in the EVALUATE-HF Study: Effect Modification by Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Sex.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with sacubitril-valsartan reduces mortality and heart failure (HF) events in HF with reduced ejection fraction and may reduce HF hospitalization in women with HF with preserved ejection fraction. METHODS: EVALUATE-HF randomized 464 participants (109 women) with HF with reduced ejection fraction to sacubitril-valsartan or enalapril for 12 weeks. Documented left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤0.40 within the prior 12 months was required, although core laboratory LVEF>0.40 was permitted. Assessments of aortic stiffness (pulse pressure and characteristic impedance, Zc) were performed at baseline and at trough and 4 hours postdose at weeks 4 and 12. RESULTS: In models of change from baseline adjusted for baseline value, treatment with sacubitril-valsartan produced greater overall reductions in mean arterial pressure (treatment group difference, -3.0±0.8 mm Hg, P<0.001) and pulse pressure (-3.0±0.8 mm Hg, P<0.001). Postdose reductions in Zc were greater in the sacubitril-valsartan group (-16±6 dyne×second/cm5, P=0.012). Post hoc analyses found evidence of effect modification by LVEF (interaction P=0.036). With LVEF<0.40, postdose reductions in Zc were greater in the sacubitril-valsartan group (trough, -3±8 dyne×second/cm5 versus post-dose, -17±8 dyne×second/cm5; interaction P=0.024) with no sex difference (treatment×sex interaction, P=0.3). With LVEF≥0.40, treatment with sacubitril-valsartan was associated with greater overall reductions in Zc in women (women, -80±21 dyne×second/cm5 versus men, -20±13 dyne×second/cm5; interaction P=0.019). CONCLUSIONS: In prespecified analyses that include pre- and postdose assessments at 4 and 12 weeks, treatment with sacubitril-valsartan was associated with greater postdose reductions in aortic Zc. In a post hoc analysis, sacubitril-valsartan was associated with sustained reductions in Zc in women with LVEF≥0.40. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifier: NCT02874794.

Atrial Natriuretic Peptide and Treatment With Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess associations between longitudinal change in atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP) and reverse cardiac remodeling following initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). BACKGROUND: Neprilysin inhibition results in an increase of several vasoactive peptides that may mediate the beneficial effects of sacubitril/valsartan, including ANP. METHODS: In a prospective study of initiation and titration of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFrEF, blood was collected at scheduled time points into tubes containing protease inhibitors. This pre-specified exploratory analysis included patients in whom ANP was measured at baseline and serially through 12 months of treatment. RESULTS: Among 144 participants (mean age: 64.5 years; left ventricular ejection fraction: 30.8%), following initiation of sacubitril/valsartan, there was an early and significant increase in ANP, with the majority of rise from 99 pg/ml at baseline to 156 pg/ml at day 14 (p < 0.001). There was a further trend toward a second increase from day 30 to day 45 (p = 0.07). At maximal rise, ANP had doubled. In longitudinal analyses, early rise in ANP was followed by a subsequent increase in urinary cycle guanosine monophosphate. Larger early increase in ANP was associated with larger later improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction and left atrial volume index (p < 0.001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Concentrations of ANP doubled after initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFrEF. Larger early increases in ANP were associated with a greater magnitude of subsequent reverse cardiac remodeling. (Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan Therapy on Biomarkers, Myocardial Remodeling and Outcomes [PROVE-HF]; NCT02887183).

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Biomarkers, Health Status, and Cardiac Remodeling in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Treated With Sacubitril/Valsartan.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction ≤40%), sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) treatment is associated with improved health status and reverse cardiac remodeling. Data regarding racial and ethnic differences in response to S/V are lacking. METHODS: This was an analysis from the PROVE-HF study (Prospective Study of Biomarkers, Symptom Improvement and Ventricular Remodeling During Entresto Therapy for Heart Failure). Longitudinal changes in NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide), cardiac reverse remodeling, and health status scores were compared between groups using multivariate latent growth curve modeling. RESULTS: Among the 782 patients included in this study, 22.7% were non-Hispanic Black (from here referred to as Black), 14.9% were Hispanic, and 62.4% were non-Hispanic White (from here referred to as White). At baseline, compared with White patients, Black and Hispanic patients had lower NT-proBNP (g=0.34) and differences between groups in baseline values for LV end-diastolic volume index and LV end-systolic volume index were negligible (g<0.10). Following S/V initiation, NT-proBNP decreased in all 3 groups (P<0.0001) associated with improvements in LV ejection fraction, LV end-diastolic volume index, and LV end-systolic volume index. Although total improvement in LV measures was similar between groups, Black patients averaged larger gains in the first half of the trial while White patients averaged larger gains in the second half. Improvements in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-23 Total Symptom scores were seen in all 3 groups. Treatment with S/V was well-tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Among Black, Hispanic, and White patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, treatment with S/V was associated with similar reduction in NT-proBNP, improvement in health status, and reverse remodeling. More data regarding racial and ethnic responses to heart failure and reduced ejection fraction treatment are needed. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02887183.

Sex-based differences in biomarkers, health status, and reverse cardiac remodelling in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction treated with sacubitril/valsartan.

AIMS: We sought to determine sex-based differences in biomarkers, self-reported health status, and magnitude of longitudinal changes in measures of reverse cardiac remodelling among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%) treated with sacubitril/valsartan (S/V). METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a subgroup analysis of patients initiated on S/V in the Prospective Study of Biomarkers, Symptom Improvement and Ventricular Remodeling During Entresto Therapy for Heart Failure (PROVE-HF) study. There were 226 (28.5%) women in the study. Though women had lower baseline N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), they had more rapid early reduction in the biomarker after initiation of S/V. Compared to men, women had lower average baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ)-23 Total Symptom score (67.6 vs. 71.9; P = 0.003) but showed greater linear improvement (7.4 vs. 5.5 points; P < 0.001) and faster pace of KCCQ change (P < 0.001) over the course of the trial. Women and men demonstrated similar degrees of reverse left ventricular remodelling following S/V initiation; however, women did so earlier than men with more consistent changes. These results remained unchanged with adjustment for relevant covariates. Reduction in NT-proBNP was associated with reverse cardiac remodelling in both women and men. Treatment with S/V was well tolerated in all. CONCLUSIONS: In women with HFrEF, treatment with S/V was associated with significant NT-proBNP reduction, health status improvement and reverse cardiac remodelling.

Effect of Sacubitril-Valsartan vs Enalapril on Aortic Stiffness in Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Compared with enalapril, sacubitril-valsartan reduces cardiovascular mortality and heart failure hospitalization in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). These benefits may be related to effects on hemodynamics and cardiac remodeling. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether treatment of HFrEF with sacubitril-valsartan improves central aortic stiffness and cardiac remodeling compared with enalapril. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, double-blind clinical trial of 464 participants with heart failure and ejection fraction of 40% or less enrolled across 85 US sites between August 17, 2016, and June 28, 2018. Follow-up was completed on January 26, 2019. INTERVENTIONS: Randomization (1:1) to sacubitril-valsartan (n = 231; target dosage, 97/103 mg twice daily) vs enalapril (n = 233; target dosage, 10 mg twice daily) for 12 weeks. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was change from baseline to week 12 in aortic characteristic impedance (Zc), a measure of central aortic stiffness. Prespecified secondary outcomes included change from baseline to week 12 in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, ejection fraction, global longitudinal strain, mitral annular relaxation velocity, mitral E/e' ratio, left ventricular end-systolic and end-diastolic volume indexes (LVESVI and LVEDVI), left atrial volume index, and ventricular-vascular coupling ratio. RESULTS: Of 464 validly randomized participants (mean age, 67.3 [SD, 9.1] years; 23.5% women), 427 completed the study. At 12 weeks, Zc decreased from 223.8 to 218.9 dyne × s/cm5 in the sacubitril-valsartan group and increased from 213.2 to 214.4 dyne × s/cm5 in the enalapril group (treatment difference, -2.2 [95% CI, -17.6 to 13.2] dyne × s/cm5; P = .78). Of 9 prespecified secondary end points, no significant between-group difference in change from baseline was seen in 4, including left ventricular ejection fraction (34%-36% with sacubitril-valsartan vs 33 to 35% with enalapril; treatment difference, 0.6% [95% CI, -0.4% to 1.7%]; P = .24). However, greater reductions from baseline were seen with sacubitril-valsartan than with enalapril in all others, including left atrial volume (from 30.4 mL/m2 to 28.2 mL/m2 vs from 29.8 mL/m2 to 30.5 mL/m2; treatment difference, -2.8 mL/m2 [95% CI, -4.0 to -1.6 mL/m2]; P < .001), LVEDVI (from 75.1 mL/m2 to 70.3 mL/m2 vs from 79.1 mL/m2 to 75.6 mL/m2; treatment difference, -2.0 mL/m2 [95% CI, -3.7 to 0.3 mL/m2]; P = .02), LVESVI (from 50.8 mL/m2 to 46.3 mL/m2 vs from 54.1 to 50.6 mL/m2; treatment difference, -1.6 mL/m2 [95% CI, -3.1 to -0.03 mL/m2]; P = .045), and mitral E/e' ratio (from 13.8 to 12.3 vs from 13.4 to 13.8; treatment difference, -1.8 [95% CI, -2.8 to -0.8]; P = .001). Rates of adverse events including hypotension (1.7% vs 3.9%) were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Treatment of HFrEF with sacubitril-valsartan, compared with enalapril, did not significantly reduce central aortic stiffness. The study findings may provide insight into mechanisms underlying the effects of sacubitril-valsartan in HFrEF. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02874794.