Guidelines and beyond new drug therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

Guidelines and Beyond: New Drug
Therapy for Heart Failure with
Reduced Ejection Fraction
Dr Chuang Hsuan-Hung
FRCP, FAMS, FESC, FAHA, FCCP, FASE, FACC, FAsCC
Cardiologist, Asian Heart & Vascular Centre

Heart Failure Patients Are Difficult To Manage
50% of heart failure patients die
within 5 years from diagnosis
20% of all cardiac admissions in
Singapore
Most common cause of
hospitalization and
readmissions in patients > 65
years old
1 in 3 readmitted within 1 year
The vast majority of HF patients
has 3 or more comorbidities

Effect of Vasodilator Therapy on Mortality in Chronic CHF
Results of a Veterans Administration Cooperative Study (V-HEFT I)
 Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled
trial
 642 men followed for an average of 2.3 years
 Patient History:
– Men with impaired cardiac function and reduced exercise
tolerance
– All patients were taking digoxin and diuretics
 In addition to mortality, the follow-up data included EF,
exercise tolerance and echocardiography
N Engl J Med 1986;314:1547-52

What’s New In The 2016 Guideline?
 New term for patients with HF and a left ventricular ejection fraction
(LVEF) that ranges from 40 to 49% — ‘HF with mid-range EF
(HFmrEF)’
 Clear recommendations on the diagnostic criteria for HF with reduced
EF (HFrEF), HFmrEF and HF with preserved EF (HFpEF);
 New algorithm for the diagnosis of HF in the non-acute setting
 Indications for the class of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors
(ARNIs)
 Modified indications for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)
 Recommendations aimed at prevention/delay of the development of
overt HF
 New algorithm for diagnosis & treatment approach of acute HF based
on the presence/absence of congestion/hypoperfusion

Definition of Heart Failure in 2016
HF is a clinical syndrome characterized by typical
symptoms (e.g. breathlessness, ankle swelling and fatigue)
that may be accompanied by signs (e.g. elevated
jugular venous pressure, pulmonary crackles and peripheral
oedema) caused by a structural and/or functional
cardiac abnormality, resulting in a reduced cardiac output
and/or elevated intracardiac pressures at rest or during stress.

Before: The 2 Faces of Heart Failure
Systolic Heart Failure Diastolic Heart Failure

N Engl J Med 2006; 355; 251
Increased prevalence of heart failure with normal EF
A. A large study of patients (n=4596) hospitalized with HF at a single
institution over a 15 year period demonstrated that the percentage of
patients who have a normal EF has increased over time
B. This was the result of an increased number of admissions for HF with a
normal EF; the number of admissions for HF with reduced EF remained
stable

HFpEF and HFrEF are associated with
similarly high levels of mortality
• Survival rate among patients with a discharge diagnosis of HF in the USA was
slightly higher among patients with HFpEF than those with HFrEF between
1987–20011
– respective mortality rates were 29% and 32% at 1 year and 65% and 68% at 5 years
Survival
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Year
HFrEF (LVEF <50%)
HFpEF (LVEF ≥50%)
p=0.03
• HFpEF is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, despite having a
slightly higher survival rate compared with HFrEF2,3
1. Owan et al. N Engl J Med 2006;355:251–9; 2. Blanche et al. Swiss Med Wkly 2010;140:66–72;
3. Meta-analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure (MAGGIC). Eur Heart J 2012;33:1750–7
HF: heart failure; HFpEF: heart failure with preserved ejection fraction; HFrEF: heart failure with reduced
ejection fraction; LVEF: left ventricular ejection fraction; USA: United States of America

Euroheart Failure
Distribution of LVEF in Hospital-
diagnosed cases of HF across Europe
Cleland et al. Euroheart Survey EHJ 2003
11,015 pts in 115 hospitals in 24 countries

Current: HFpEF, HFmrEF & HFrEF
Type of HF HFrEF HFmrEF HFpEF
Criteria Symptoms + Signs Symptoms + Signs Symptoms + Signs
LVEF <40% LVEF 40-49% LVEF >50%
- 1. Elevated levels of
natriuretic peptides
(BNP >35 pg/ml and/or
NT-proBNP >15 pg/ml)
2. At least one
additional criterion:
• Relevant structural
heart disease (LVH
and/or LAE)
• Diastolic
dysfunction
1. Elevated levels of
natriuretic peptides
(BNP >35 pg/ml and/or
NT-proBNP >15 pg/ml)
2. At least one
additional criterion:
• Relevant structural
heart disease (LVH
and/or LAE)
• Diastolic
dysfunction
* Signs may not be present in the early stages of HF (esp in HFpEF) and in patients treated with diuretics.

The Middle Child Syndrome
HFrEF HFmrEF HFpEF

Obiectives of Pharmacological
Therapy in HFrEF
• Reduce mortality
• Improve
– clinical status
– functional capacity
– quality of life, prevent hospital admission
• Preventing HF hospitalization and improving
functional capacity are important benefits to
be considered in chronic heart failure

SOLVD-T1 (1991)
2,569 patients
Key benefits of enalapril (ACEI)
vs placebo:
• 16%  all-cause mortality
1990s 2000s 2010s
ACEIs
ARBs
MRAs
β-blockers
Ivabradine
LCZ696
Landmark trials in patients with HFrEF
CIBIS-II2 (1999)
2,647 patients
Key benefits of bisoprolol
(BB) vs placebo:
• 34%  all-cause mortality
CHARM-Alternative3 (2003)
2,028 patients
Key benefits of candesartan
(ARB) vs placebo:
• 23%  CV mortality or HF
hospitalization
CHARM-Added4 (2003)
2,548 patients
Key benefits of candesartan (ARB)
vs placebo:
hospitalization
SHIFT5 (2010)
6,558 patients
Key benefits of ivabradine
(If inhibitor) vs placebo:
hospitalization
EMPHASIS-HF6 (2014)
2,737 patients
Key benefits of eplerenone (MRA) vs
placebo:
hospitalization
PARADIGM-HF7 (2014)
8,442 patients
Key benefits of LCZ696 (ARNI) vs
enalapril:
hospitalization
1. SOLVD Investigators. N Engl J Med 1991;325:293–302; 2. CIBIS-II Investigators. Lancet 1999;353:9–13; 3. Granger et al. Lancet 2003;362:772−6;
4. McMurray et al. Lancet 2003;362:767–71; 5. Swedberg et al. Lancet 2010;376:875–85; 6. Zannad et al. N Engl J Med 2011;364:11–21;
7. McMurray et al. N Engl J Med 2014;371:993–1004
Percentages are relative risk reductions vs comparator
ACEI: angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor; ARB: angiotensin receptor blocker;
ARNI: angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor; BB: beta blocker; CV: cardiovascular; HF:
heart failure; HFrEF: heart failure with reduced ejection fraction; MRA: mineralocorticoid
receptor antagonist. See notes for definitions of study names

Pharmacological Therapy in HFrEF
Recommendations Class Level
An ACE-Id is recommended, in addition to a beta-
blocker, for symptomatic patients with HFrEF to
reduce the risk of HF hospitalization and death.
1 A
A beta-blocker is recommended, in addition an ACE-
Id, for patients with stable, symptomatic HFrEF to
reduce the risk of HF hospitalization and death.
1 A
An MRA is recommended for patients with HFrEF, who
remain symptomatic despite treatment with an ACE-I
and a beta-blocker, to reduce the risk of HF
hospitalization and death.
1 A

Pharmacological Therapy in HFrEF
• ACEIs, MRAs and beta-blockers have been shown to
improve survival and are recommended for the
treatment of every patient
• The use of diuretics should be modulated according
to the patient’s clinical status
• Beta-blockers and ACEIs are complementary, and can
be started together as soon as the diagnosis of
HFrEF is made.
• There is no evidence favouring the initiation of
treatment with a beta-blocker before an ACEI has
been started

Mortality in HFrEF remains high despite new therapies
that improve survival
 Survival rates in chronic HF have improved with the introduction of new therapies1
16%
(4.5% ARR; mean
follow up of 41.4
months)
SOLVD-T1,2
34%
(5.5% ARR;
mean follow up
of 1.3 years)
CIBIS-II3
Reductioninrelativerisk
of
mortalityvsplacebo
30%
(11.0% ARR;
mean follow up
of 24 months)
RALES4
17%
(3.0% ARR;
median follow-up
of 33.7 months)
CHARM-
Alternative5
ACEI* β-blocker* MRA* ARB*
*On top of standard therapy at the time of study (except in CHARM-Alternative where background ACEI therapy was excluded). Patient populations varied between trials and as such
relative risk reductions cannot be directly compared. SOLVD (Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction), CIBIS-II (Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study II) and RALES (Randomized
Aldactone Evaluation Study) enrolled chronic HF patients with LVEF≤35%. CHARM-Alternative (Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity)
enrolled chronic HF patients with LVEF≤40%
1. McMurray et al. Eur Heart J 2012;33:1787–847; 2. SOLVD Investigators. N Engl J Med 1991;325:293–302;
3. CIBIS-II Investigators. Lancet 1999;353:9–13; 4. Pitt et al. N Engl J Med 1999;341:709-17;–50;
5. Granger et al. Lancet 2003;362:772–6; 6. Go et al. Circulation 2014;129:e28-e292;
7. Yancy et al. Circulation 2013;128:e240–327; 8. Levy et al. N Engl J Med 2002;347:1397–402
 However, significant mortality remains: ~50% of patients die within 5 years of diagnosis6–8
Drugs that inhibit the renin-angiotensin system have modest effects on survival

NO !
Are Existing Neurohormonal
Strategies Adequate?

SCD DEATH 6-9 TIMES RATE IN
GENERAL POPULATION
HF + LVEF <30% ~ 5-12% ANNUAL
RISK OF SCD
Despite improvements in medical therapy,
symptomatic HF still confers a 20-25% risk of pre-
mature death in the first 2.5 yrs after diagnosis, and
50% of these premature deaths are SCD (VT/VF)

CHF Severity & Modes of Death
MERIT-HF Study Group. Effect of Metoprolol CR/XL in chronic heart failure: Metoprolol CR/XL randomized intervention trial in congestive
heart failure (MERIT-HF). LANCET. 1999;353:2001-07.
12%
24%
64%
CHF
Other
Sudden
Death
n = 103
NYHA II
26%
15%
59%
CHF
Other
Sudden
Death
n = 103
NYHA III
56%
11%
33%
CHF
Other
Sudden
Death
n = 27
NYHA IV
Although it can be said that a heart failure patient in NYHA class II may have a higher risk of
SCD, their relative annual risk of dying is less than the other NYHA classes.

Overactivation of the RAAS and SNS is detrimental in
HFrEF and underpins the basis of therapy
1. McMurray et al. Eur Heart J 2012;33:1787–847; Levin et al. N Engl J Med 1998;339:321–8; Nathisuwan & Talbert. Pharmacotherapy
2002;22:27–42; Kemp & Conte. Cardiovascular Pathology 2012;365–71; Schrier & Abraham. N Engl J Med 2009;341:577–85

Levin et al. New EnglJ Med 1998;339;321–8; Gardneret al. Hypertension2007;49:419–26
Pandey. J Am SocHypertens2008;2:210–26
Natriuretic peptides have potential
beneficial actions in heart failure

Hemodynamic Effects of Nesiritide in HF Patients
A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
HR RAP PCWP SVR CI SVI
Placebo (n = 4)
Nesiritide (n = 10)
Changefrombaseline(%)
*
*
+
+
* p <0.01 vs baseline
+ p<0.05 vs baseline
# p < 0.05 vs placebo
#
Abraham WT et al. J Cardiac Failure 1998;4:37-44

One Enzyme — Neprilysin — Degrades
Many Endogenous Vasoactive Peptides
Endogenous
vasoactive peptides
(natriuretic peptides, adrenomedullin,
bradykinin, substance P,
calcitonin gene-related peptide)
Inactive metabolites
Neprilysin

Neprilysin Inhibition Potentiates Actions of
Endogenous Vasoactive Peptides That Counter
Maladaptive Mechanisms in Heart Failure
Endogenous
vasoactive peptides
(natriuretic peptides, adrenomedullin,
bradykinin, substance P,
calcitonin gene-related peptide)
Inactive metabolites
Neurohormonal
activation
Vascular tone
Cardiac fibrosis,
hypertrophy
Sodium retention
Neprilysin
Neprilysin
inhibition

The “Story” of augmentation of natriuretic
peptides as a therapeutic strategy in HF
• Tested enhancing the effects of natriuretic peptides by
reducing their breakdown through neprilysin inhibition
• E.g. candoxatril, thiorphan
• Ultimately not developed for clinical use in heart failure
• Omapatrilat developed to both inhibit neprilysin and
suppress the RAAS, via ACE inhibition
• Demonstrated a trend towards reduced morbidity and
mortality in HFrEF
• Development was halted due to increased frequency of
angioedema
Stand-alone
Neprilysin
inhibition
Omapatrilat
(Neprilysin
& ACE
inhibition)
1981, 1988, 1990, 2002, 2009, 2014

Inactive
fragments
ANP, BNP, CNP, other
vasoactive peptides*
AT1 receptor
Angiotensinogen
(liver secretion)
Ang I
Ang II
RAAS
LCZ696: Enhances natriuretic and other vasoactive peptides, &
Suppress RAAS simultaneously
*Neprilysin substrates listed in order of relative affinity for neprilysin:
ANP, CNP, Ang II, Ang I, adrenomedullin, substance P, bradykinin,
Endothelin-1, BNP
Levin et al. N Engl J Med 1998;339:321–8
Nathisuwan & Talbert. Pharmacotherapy 2002;22:27–42 Schrier &
Abraham. N Engl J Med 2009;341:577–85
Langenickel & Dole. Drug Discov Today: Ther Strateg 2012;9:e131–9
Feng et al. Tetrahedron Letters 2012;53:275–6
LCZ696
Sacubitril
(AHU377; pro-drug)
Inhibiting
Vasoconstriction
 Blood pressure
 Sympathetic tone
 Aldosterone
 Fibrosis
 Hypertrophy
Enhancing
Vasorelaxation
 Blood pressure
 Sympathetic tone
 Aldosterone levels
 Fibrosis
 Hypertrophy
 Natriuresis/diuresis
LBQ657
(NEP inhibitor)
OH
O
HN
O
HO
O
Valsartan
N
N NH
N
N
O
OH
O

Natriuretic peptides have potential
beneficial actions in HF

Randomization
n=8442
PARADIGM-HF: Studydesign
*Enalapril 5 mg BID (10 mg TDD) for 1–2 weeks followed by enalapril 10 mg BID (20 mg TDD) as an
optional starting run-in dose for those patients who are treated with ARBs or with a low
dose of ACEI; †200 mg TDD; ‡400 mg TDD; §20 mg TDD. McMurray et al. Eur J Heart
Fail. 2013;15:1062–73; McMurray et al. Eur J Heart Fail. 2014;16:817–25;
2 Weeks 1–2 Weeks 2–4 Weeks
Double-blind
Treatment period
On top of standard HFrEF therapy (excludingACEIs andARBs)
Median of 27 months’ follow-up
LCZ696
200 mg BID‡
LCZ696
100 mg BID†
Enalapril
10 mg BID*
Enalapril 10 mg BID§
Single-blind active run-in period
LCZ696 200 mg BID‡
McMurray, et al. N Engl J Med 2014;
(1:1 randomization)

Placebo
Enalapril
Mortalityfromall-causes(%)
0 6 12 18 24
Months
30 36 42 48
10
20
30
50
0
*On top of standard therapy for HF
1. McMurray et al. Eur J Heart Fail. 2014;16:817–25
NYHA I–IV, LVEF ≤35%, standard therapy
 SOLVD-T showed enalapril benefit in NYHA class IIV HFrEF2
 Enalapril* significantly reduced the risk of mortality vs placebo in this broad
spectrum of patients with HFrEF2
Enalapril* 2.5–
20 mg QD
n=1285
Placebo*
n=1284
Primary endpoint:
All-cause mortality at follow-up
EnalaprilwaschosenasthecomparatortoLCZ696astheonlyACEI
showntoreducemortalityinabroadspectrumofHFrEFpatients
16% relative risk reduction
over 48 months
p=0.0036
40
Randomization
SOLVD-T trial2
2. SOLVD Investigators. N Engl J Med 1991;325:293–302

 Enalapril 10 mg BID is the regulatory ‘gold-standard’ ACEI based upon
CONSENSUS and SOLVD-T trial data13
• The target dose in PARADIGM-HF was 10 mg BID, a dose comparable with that
achieved in major HF trials using enalapril3
• The mean daily dose achieved in CONSENSUS and SOLVD-T was 18.4 and 16.6 mg,
respectively1,2
Enalapril10mgBIDwaschosenastheappropriatecomparatordose
*Adapted from McMurray et al. Eur J Heart Fail. 2013;15:1062–73
1. CONSENSUS Study Group. N Engl J Med 1987;316:1429–35; 2. SOLVD Investigators. N Engl J Med 1991;325:293–3022;
Key HF trials with enalapril*
Trial N
Target dose
(mg)
Mean daily dose
(mg)
CONSENSUS 127 20 BID 18.4
SOLVD-T 1285 10 BID 16.6
SOLVD-P 2111 10 BID 16.7
V-HeFT II 403 10 BID 15.0
OVERTURE 2884 10 BID 17.7
CARMEN 190 10 BID 16.8
3. McMurray et al. Eur J Heart Fail. 2013;15:1062–73

 Chronic HF NYHA FC II–IV with LVEF ≤40%*
 BNP (or NT-proBNP) levels as follows:
• ≥150 (or ≥600 pg/mL), or
• ≥100 (or ≥400 pg/mL) and a hospitalization for HFrEF within the last
12 months
 ≥4 weeks’ stable treatment with an ACEI or an ARB#, and a β-blocker
 Aldosterone antagonist should be considered for all patients (with treatment
with a stable dose for ≥4 weeks, if given)
*The ejection fraction entry criteria was lowered to ≤35% in a protocol amendment
#Dosage equivalent to enalapril ≥10 mg/day
McMurray et al. Eur J Heart Fail. 2013;15:1062–73

PARADIGM-HF:Keyexclusioncriteria
 History of angioedema
 eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2
at screening, end of enalapril run-in or randomization,
or a >35% decrease in eGFR between screening and end of enalapril run-in or between
screening and randomization
 Serum potassium >5.2 mmol/L at screening OR >5.4 mmol/L at the end of the enalapril
run-in or end of the LCZ696 run-in
 Requirement for treatment with both ACEI and ARBs
 Symptomatic hypotension, SBP <100 mmHg at screening, OR SBP <95 mmHg at end
of enalapril run-in or at randomization
 Current acute decompensated HF
 History of severe pulmonary disease
 Acute coronary syndrome, stroke, transient ischemic attack, cardiac, carotid, or other
major CV surgery, PCI, or carotid angioplasty within the 3 months prior to screening

PARADIGM-HF: Primary&Secondaryobjectives
 To evaluate the effect of LCZ696 200 mg BID compared with enalapril 10 mg
BID, in addition to conventional HFrEF treatment, in delaying time to first
occurrence of either CV death or HF hospitalization1
 To assess whether LCZ696 was superior to enalapril in:
• Improving quality of life (assessed by KCCQ score)
• Delaying time to all-cause mortality
• Delaying time to new-onset atrial fibrillation
• Delaying time to decline of renal function as defined by:
- 50% decline in eGFR from baseline, or
- >30 mL/min/1.73 m2 decline in eGFR relative to baseline and to a value of
<60 mL/min/1.73 m2 (indicating the development of moderate renal dysfunction), or
- development of end-stage renal disease
1. McMurray et al. Eur J Heart Fail. 2013;15:1062–73 ; 2.McMurray et al. Lancet 2003;362:767–
77;
3. Swedberg et al. Lancet 2010;376:875–88; 4. Zannad et al. N Engl J Med 2011;364:11–2;
5. Cowie et al. Improving care for patients with acute heart failure. Oxford Health policy Forum
2014; 6.Hunt et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;53:e1–90; 7.Yancy et al. Circulation 2013;128:e240–

LCZ696
(n=4187)
Enalapril
(n=4212)
Age (years) 63.8 ± 11.5 63.8 ± 11.3
Women (%) 21.0% 22.6%
Ischemic cardiomyopathy (%) 59.9% 60.1%
LV ejection fraction (%) 29.6 ± 6.1 29.4 ± 6.3
NYHA functional class II / III (%) 71.6% / 23.1% 69.4% / 24.9%
Systolic blood pressure (mm Hg) 122 ± 15 121 ± 15
Heart rate (beats/min) 72 ± 12 73 ± 12
N-terminal pro-BNP (pg/ml) 1631 (885-3154) 1594 (886-3305)
B-type natriuretic peptide (pg/ml) 255 (155-474) 251 (153-465)
History of diabetes 35% 35%
Digitalis 29.3% 31.2%
Beta-adrenergic blockers 93.1% 92.9%
Mineralocorticoid antagonists 54.2% 57.0%
ICD and/or CRT 16.5% 16.3%
PARADIGM-HF: Baseline Characteristics

PARADIGM-HF (N=8442)
Val-HeFT (N=5010)
COPERNICUS (N=2289)
CORONA(N=5011)
COMET (N=1511)
CARE-HF (N=813)
0 400 800 1600 20001200
pg/mL
1608
861
1767
1497
1242
1814
Baseline NT-proBNP (median)
 NT-proBNP levels at baseline were:
• Higher compared with several recent HF
trials
• Lower than in trials with severely
symptomatic patients with low LVEF
(CARE-HF and COPERNICUS)
 May reflect:
• Enrollment criteria
• High proportion (24%) of patients with atrial
fibrillation detected by ECG at baseline
 High NT-proBNP levels will help ensure
anticipated rates of CV mortality and HF
hospitalization occur
PARADIGM-HF:BaselineNT-proBNPlevelswerehigher
comparedwithsomerecentHFrEFtrials

0
16
32
40
24
8
Enalapril
(n=4212)
360 720 10800 180 540 900 1260
Days After Randomization
4187
4212
3922
3883
3663
3579
3018
2922
2257
2123
1544
1488
896
853
249
236
LCZ696
Enalapril
Patients at Risk
1117
Kaplan-MeierEstimateof
CumulativeRates(%)
914
LCZ696
(n=4187)
HR = 0.80 (0.73-0.87)
P = 0.0000002
Number needed to treat = 21
PARADIGM-HF: Cardiovascular Death or Heart
Failure Hospitalization (Primary Endpoint)

PARADIGM-HF: All-Cause Mortality
4187
4212
4056
4051
3891
3860
3282
3231
2478
2410
1716
1726
1005
994
280
279
LCZ696
Enalapril
Enalapril
(n=4212)
LCZ696
(n=4187)
HR = 0.84 (0.76-0.93)
P<0.0001
CumulativeRates(%)
Patients at Risk
360 720 10800 180 540 900 1260
0
16
32
24
8
835
711

Enalapril
(n=4212)
LCZ696
(n=4187)
HR = 0.80 (0.71-0.89)
P = 0.00004
Number need to treat = 32
CumulativeRates(%)
4187
4212
4056
4051
3891
3860
3282
3231
2478
2410
1716
1726
1005
994
280
279
LCZ696
Enalapril
Patients at Risk
360 720 10800 180 540 900 1260
0
16
32
24
8
693
558
PARADIGM-HF: Cardiovascular Death

PARADIGM-HF:Cause/Mode of death

PARADIGM-HF: First HF and total
repeat HF hospitalization
658
537

1 death from CV causes
NNT: Number Needed to Treat to Prevent

• Fewer patients in the LCZ696 group than in the enalapril group stopped their study medication
because of an AE (10.7 vs 12.3%, p=0.03)
Event, n (%)
LCZ696
(n=4187)
Enalapril
(n=4212) p-value‡
Hypotension
Symptomatic 588 (14.0) 388 (9.2) <0.001
Symptomatic with SBP <90 mmHg 112 (2.7) 59 (1.4) <0.001
Elevated serum creatinine
≥2.5 mg/dL 139 (3.3) 188 (4.5) 0.007
≥3.0 mg/dL 63 (1.5) 83 (2.0) 0.10
Elevated serum potassium
>5.5 mmol/L 674 (16.1) 727 (17.3) 0.15
>6.0 mmol/L 181 (4.3) 236 (5.6) 0.007
Cough 474 (11.3) 601 (14.3) <0.001
Angioedema (adjudicated by a blinded expert committee)
No treatment or use of antihistamines only 10 (0.2) 5 (0.1) 0.19
Catecholamines or glucocorticoids without hospitalization 6 (0.1) 4 (0.1) 0.52
Hospitalized without airway compromise 3 (0.1) 1 (<0.1) 0.31
Airway compromise 0 0 ---
Prospectivelydefinedsafetyevents

10%
Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibition With
LCZ696 Doubles Effect on Cardiovascular Death of
Current Inhibitors of the Renin-Angiotensin System
20%
30%
40%
ACE
inhibitor
Angiotensin
receptor
blocker
0%
%DecreaseinMortality
18%
20%
Effect of ARB vs placebo derived from CHARM-Alternative trial
Effect of ACE inhibitor vs placebo derived from SOLVD-Treatment trial
Effect of LCZ696 vs ACE inhibitor derived from PARADIGM-HF trial
Angiotensin
neprilysin
inhibition
15%

For every 1000 patients switched from enalapril to
sacubitril/valsartan, over a median of 27 months, there would be:
47 less primary end points (CV death or HF hospitalisations),
33 less CV deaths,
28 less first hospitalisations for HF,
53 less total hospitalisations for HF, and
32 less deaths from any cause.

WHO SHOULD BE PRESCRIBED ARNI?
• HFrEF in NYHA class II-IV, already optimized
with Beta Blocker and MRA
• Systolic BP >100 mmHg
• eGFR >30 mL/min/1.73 m2
• Serum potassium <5.2 mmol/L
Avoid in pregnancy, severe kidney or hepatic
dysfunction, known hypersensitivity or angioedema

HOW SHOULD ARNI BE PRESCRIBED?
• Do not give in conjunction with another
ARB/ACEI/Renin inhibitor
• Discontinuation period for at least 36 hours
• Start at 50/100 mg BID  200 mg BID as
tolerated

SIR WILLIAM OSLER
Perhaps it is more important to know what
kind of patient has the disease, than what
kind of disease has the patient …

Eras of Heart Failure Therapy
2016

Remember This:
Heart Failure
Management
More Than Just
Drugs Or Clinical
Trials
It’s About The Patient
& His/Her Family

Guidelines and beyond new drug therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Guidelines and beyond new drug therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

More from ahvc0858

Recently uploaded

Guidelines and beyond new drug therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction