Abstract 12470: Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients With Heart Failure and Deterioration of Kidney Function to Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate Less Than 30ml/min/1.73m <sup>2</sup> : Insights From PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Sacubitril/valsartan is a foundational therapy for patients with heart failure (HF). Although current US FDA labeling does not identify threshold kidney function below which initiation or continuation of sacubitril/valsartan is precluded, guidelines generally identify eGFR<30mL/min/1.73m 2 as a contraindication to therapy. Methods: The RCTs PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF assessed sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan or enalapril in patients with HF. Patients with eGFR <30 (PARADIGM) or <25 mL/min/1.73 m 2 (PARAGON) at randomization were excluded. Discontinuation below this eGFR during follow-up was not mandated. We examined the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on efficacy and safety in patients experiencing progression of CKD to eGFR<30mL/min/1.73m 2 in follow-up. Results: Among 4,746 patients in PARAGON-HF and 8,346 patients in PARADIGM-HF (with eGFR>30ml/min/1.73m 2 at randomization), 613 (12.9%) and 691 (8.3%), respectively, had an eGFR<30mL/min/1.73m 2 at least once in follow-up. Patients with CKD progression had higher rates of study drug discontinuation and hyperkalemia (>5.5 mmol/L); however, rates remained similar between treatment groups. Patients with deterioration in kidney function to eGFR<30ml/min/1.73m 2 were at a higher risk of the primary composite outcome in both PARAGON-HF (RR 2.08; 95% CI: 1.72-2.52) and PARADIGM-HF (HR 2.32; 95% CI: 1.94-2.76). The incidence of the primary composite outcome was lower in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan irrespective of deterioration in kidney function to eGFR<30mL/min/1.73m 2 in both PARAGON-HF (P int =0.74) and PARADIGM-HF (P int =0.50); Figure 1 . Conclusion: HF patients with progression of CKD to eGFR<30ml/min/1.73m 2 experience high risk of CV outcomes and continuation of sacubitril/valsartan was associated with persistent benefit. These data support potential continuation of sacubitril/valsartan, even among patients experiencing progression to advanced CKD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".