Race in heart failure: a pooled participant-level analysis of the global PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Mechanisms of disease pathobiology, prognosis, and potentially treatment responses might vary by race in patients with heart failure (HF). Early experiences with neprilysin inhibition suggested possible increased risks of angioedema, especially among Black individuals. We aimed to examine the safety and efficacy profile of sacubitril/valsartan in a pooled participant-level dataset of 2 large cohorts of patients with HF by self-reported race. Methods PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF were multicenter, randomized clinical trials testing sacubitril/valsartan against a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi, enalapril or valsartan, respectively) in patients with HF and LVEF ≤40% (PARADIGM-HF) or LVEF ≥45% (PARAGON-HF). We included all patients with available data on self-reported race and categorized patients as White, Asian, or Black. We assessed adjudicated outcomes including the composite of first HF hospitalization (HFH) or cardiovascular (CV) death, its components, and angioedema by racial group. Results Among 12,097 included participants, 9,451 (78.1%) were White, 2,116 (17.5%) were Asian, and 530 (4.4%) were Black. Asian participants were from 19 countries, with highest enrollment from India, China, and the Philippines. Black participants were from 18 countries, with highest enrollment from the US, South Africa, and Brazil. Black patients had the worst baseline health status (adjusted KCCQ-OSS mean 70.3), while White (71.4) and Asian patients (76.4) had better health status; P<0.001. Over 2.4-years of median follow-up, Black (adjusted HR 1.67; 95% CI 1.37-1.89; P<0.001) and Asian patients (adjusted HR 1.32; 95% CI 1.16-1.50; P<0.001) experienced higher risks of the primary outcome compared with White patients (Figure 1). The treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan vs. RASi on the primary endpoint were consistent among White (HR 0.84; 95% CI: 0.77-0.91), Asian (HR 0.92; 95% CI: 0.78-1.10), and Black patients (HR 0.79; 95% CI: 0.58-1.07; Pinteraction = 0.39). In light of higher baseline risks, Black patients accrued the greatest absolute risk reduction with sacubitril/valsartan (Figure 2). Consistent treatment benefits by race were also observed for the individual components (CV death alone and first HFH alone). Rates of any adjudicated angioedema were numerically higher with sacubitril/valsartan vs. RASi across race groups (White 0.4% vs. 0.2%; Asian 0.6% vs. 0.2%; Black 2.3% vs. 0.8%), however no patient in either trial experienced airway compromise or required mechanical airway protection. Conclusions In a pooled experience of over 12,000 participants enrolled in 2 trials conducted across 56 countries, Black and Asian patients exhibited a higher risk of CV events than White patients. Rates of non-serious angioedema were numerically higher with sacubitril/valsartan across race groups. The relative CV benefits of sacubitril/valsartan were consistent across races, with greatest absolute benefits observed in Black patients.
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 | 0.019 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".