MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408357303 · doi:10.1016/j.jchf.2024.12.010

Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan According to Natriuretic Peptide Levels in Patients Enrolled in PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF

2025· article· en· W4408357303 on OpenAlexaff
Toru Kondo, Pardeep S. Jhund, Inder S. Anand, Brian Claggett, Akshay S. Desai, Kieran F. Docherty, Carolyn Lam, Martin Lefkowitz, Aldo P. Maggioni, Felipe A. Martínez, Margaret M. Redfield, Jean L. Rouleau, Dirk Jan van Veldhuisen, Faı̈ez Zannad, Michael R. Zile, Milton Packer, Scott Solomon, John J.V. McMurray

Bibliographic record

VenueJACC Heart Failure · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
FundersRelypsaNovartis PharmaOno PharmaceuticalUniversity of GlasgowGreat Britain Sasakawa FoundationBritish Heart FoundationKowa CompanyRegeneron PharmaceuticalsNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationAbbott JapanLivaNovaBoston Scientific CorporationBayerIntas PharmaceuticalsAstraZenecaAlnylam PharmaceuticalsAmgen
KeywordsSacubitril, ValsartanMedicineSacubitrilHeart failureValsartanInternal medicineNatriuretic peptideCardiologyEjection fractionBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Recent trials of new heart failure (HF) treatments suggest the effect of therapy may vary by N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level. OBJECTIVES: The authors examined the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan according to NT-proBNP levels in patients with reduced, mildly reduced, and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) enrolled in PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor with Angiotensin-Converting-Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure Trial) and PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor with Angiotensin-Receptor Blockers Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction). METHODS: Individual patient data from PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF were pooled and participants were divided into categories defined by quintiles of NT-proBNP level. The primary outcome examined was the composite of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death. RESULTS: Among the 13,195 patients enrolled in both trials, 13,142 (99.6%) had a baseline NT-proBNP level measured. The rate of the primary outcome (per 100 person-years) increased with NT-proBNP levels: 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). The relative risk reduction in the primary outcome with sacubitril/valsartan was consistent across NT-proBNP levels: the HR in 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 for interaction = 0.86). The absolute risk reduction was greatest in NT-proBNP quintile 5; the number needed to treat for the primary outcome over the median follow-up of 31 months was 16 in quintile 5 vs 37 in quintile 1. CONCLUSIONS: The relative risk reductions with sacubitril/valsartan were consistent irrespective of NT-proBNP level in HF patients across the range of LVEF. Consequently, the absolute risk reductions were greatest in patients with higher NT-proBNP levels. (PARADIGM-HF [Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor with Angiotensin-Converting-Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure Trial]; NCT01035255; and PARAGON-HF [Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor with Angiotensin-Receptor Blockers Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction]; NCT01920711).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJACC Heart FailureSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207