Outcomes and effects of sacubitril/valsartan according to NT-proBNP level in patients with heart failure: a patient-level pooled analysis of the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background NT-proBNP levels are associated with disease severity and outcomes in patients with HF across the spectrum of LVEF. Recently, it has been suggested that the effectiveness of certain treatments may vary by NT-proBNP level with greater benefit from omecamtiv mecarbil, and smaller benefit from vericiguat, in patients with higher NT-proBNP levels. We examined the benefit of sacubitril/valsartan on outcomes across the range of NT-proBNP levels in patients with HFrEF/HFmrEF/HFpEF. Purpose To evaluate clinical outcomes, and the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan, according to NT-proBNP levels, in patients with HFrEF/HFmrEF/HFpEF, using the pooled dataset of participants in the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials. Methods The PARADIGM-HF (n=8399) and PARAGON-HF (n=4822) trials enrolled patients with HF, functional limitation, and elevated NT-proBNP levels. Patients with LVEF ≤40% were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg twice daily or enalapril 10mg twice daily in PARADIGM-HF, and those with LVEF ≥45% to sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg twice daily or valsartan 160mg twice daily in PARAGON-HF. Patients were categorized by quintiles of NT-proBNP level and using NT-proBNP as a continuous variable, analysed using restricted cubic splines. The primary outcome in the present study was the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. Results Among the 13195 patients in the pooled PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF dataset, 13142 (99.6%) patients with baseline NT-proBNP were analysed. Patients with higher NT-proBNP levels were more often male, had lower body mass index and LVEF, worse New York Heart Association functional class, worse kidney function, and more atrial fibrillation, while age was similar across NT-proBNP levels. The rate of the primary outcome (per 100 person-years) increased with NT-proBNP level: quintile 1, 5.9 (95%CI 5.3-6.5); quintile 2, 7.5 (95%CI 6.9-8.2); quintile 3, 9.0 (95%CI 8.2-9.7); quintile 4, 12.0 (95%CI 11.1-12.9); and quintile 5, 20.8 (95%CI 19.6-22.2) (Figure 1). Similar trends were observed for other outcomes. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was consistent across NT-proBNP levels: the hazard ratio for the primary outcome in NT-proBNP quintile 1 was 0.79 (95%CI 0.65-0.96); quintile 2, 0.87 (95%CI 0.72-1.04); quintile 3, 0.79 (95%CI 0.66-0.93); quintile 4, 0.85 (95%CI 0.73-0.99); and quintile 5, 0.86 (95%CI 0.76-0.97), P-interaction=0.86. The consistent benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was also seen when NT-proBNP was analysed as a continuous variable (Figure 2). The absolute benefit was greatest in quintile 5 of NT-proBNP; the number needed to treat for quintile 5 was 16 versus 37 for the quintile 1 for the primary endpoint. Conclusions Patients with higher NT-proBNP had worse outcomes, but the benefits of sacubitril valsartan were consistent across the range of NT-proBNP levels of participants in PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF.Kaplan-Meier curvesEffect of sac/val across NT-proBNP range
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 | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".