Aims

In this analysis, we utilized data from PARADIGM-HF to test the hypothesis that participants who exhibited any dose reduction during the trial would have similar benefits from lower doses of sacubitril/valsartan relative to lower doses of enalapril.

Methods and results

In a post-hoc analysis from PARADIGM-HF, we characterized patients by whether they received the maximal dose (200 mg sacubitril/valsartan or 10 mg enalapril twice daily) throughout the trial or had any dose reduction to lower doses (100/50/0 mg sacubitril/valsartan or 5/2.5/0 mg enalapril twice daily). The treatment effect for the primary outcome was estimated, stratified by dose level using time-updated Cox regression models. In the two treatment arms, participants with a dose reduction (43% of those randomized to enalapril and 42% of those randomized to sacubitril/valsartan) had similar baseline characteristics and similar baseline predictors of the need for dose reduction. In a time-updated analysis, any dose reduction was associated with a higher subsequent risk of the primary event [hazard ratio (HR) 2.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2-2.7]. However, the treatment benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril following a dose reduction was similar (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70-0.93, P < 0.001) to that observed in patients who had not experienced any dose reduction (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.71-0.88, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

In PARADIGM-HF, study medication dose reduction identified patients at higher risk of a major cardiovascular event. The magnitude of benefit for patients on lower doses of sacubitril/valsartan relative to those on lower doses of enalapril was similar to that of patients who remained on target doses of both drugs.

The increasing burden and the continued suboptimal outcomes for patients with heart failure underlines the importance of continued research to develop novel therapeutics for this disorder. This can only be accomplished with successful translation of basic science discoveries into direct human application through effective clinical trial design and execution that results in a substantially improved clinical course and outcomes. In this respect, phase II clinical trials play a pivotal role in determining which of the multitude of potential basic science discoveries should move to the large and expansive registration trials in humans. A critical examination of the phase II trials in heart failure reveals multiple shortcomings in their concept, design, execution, and interpretation. To further a dialogue on the challenges and potential for improvement and the role of phase II trials in patients with heart failure, the Food and Drug Administration facilitated a meeting on October 17, 2016, represented by clinicians, researchers, industry members, and regulators. This document summarizes the discussion from this meeting and provides key recommendations for future directions.