Initiating sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) in heart failure: results of TITRATION, a double-blind, randomized comparison of two uptitration regimens

The aim is tassess the tolerability of initiating/uptitrating sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) from 50 to 200 mg twice daily (target dose) over 3 and 6 weeks in heart failure (HF) patients (ejection fraction ≤35%). A 5-day open-label run-in (sacubitril/valsartan 50 mg twice daily) preceded an 11-week, double-blind, randomization period [100 mg twice daily for 2 weeks followed by 200 mg twice daily (‘condensed’ regimen) vs. 50 mg twice daily for 2 weeks, 100 mg twice daily for 3 weeks, followed by 200 mg twice daily (‘conservative’ regimen)]. Patients were stratified by pre-study dose of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin-receptor blocker (ACEI/ARB; low-dose stratum included ACEI/ARB-naïve patients). Of 540 patients entering run-in, 498 (92%) were randomized and 429 (86.1% of randomized) completed the study. Pre-defined tolerability criteria were hypotension, renal dysfunction and hyperkalaemia; and adjudicated angioedema, which occurred in (‘condensed’ vs. ‘conservative’) 9.7% vs. 8.4% (P = 0.570), 7.3% vs. 7.6% (P = 0.990), 7.7% vs. 4.4% (P = 0.114), and 0.0% vs. 0.8% of patients, respectively. Corresponding proportions for pre-defined systolic blood pressure <95 mmHg, serum potassium >5.5 mmol/L, and serum creatinine >3.0 mg/dL were 8.9% vs. 5.2% (P = 0.102), 7.3% vs. 4.0% (P = 0.097), and 0.4% vs. 0%, respectively. In total, 378 (76%) patients achieved and maintained sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg twice daily without dose interruption/down-titration over 12 weeks (77.8% vs. 84.3% for ‘condensed’ vs. ‘conservative’; P = 0.078). Rates by ACEI/ARB pre-study dose stratification were 82.6% vs. 83.8% (P = 0.783) for high-dose/‘condensed’ vs. high-dose/‘conservative’ and 84.9% vs. 73.6% (P = 0.030) for low-dose/‘conservative’ vs. low-dose/‘condensed’. Initiation/uptitration of sacubitril/valsartan from 50 to 200 mg twice daily over 3 or 6 weeks had a tolerability profile in line with other HF treatments. More gradual initiation/uptitration maximized attainment of target dose in the low-dose ACEI/ARB group.

Prediction of 30-day mortality in older patients with a first acute myocardial infarction

This study sought predictors of mortality in patients aged >or=75 years with a first ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and evaluated the validity of the GUSTO-I and TIMI risk models. Clinical variables, treatment and mortality data from 433 consecutive patients were collected. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were applied to identify baseline factors associated with 30-day mortality. Subsequently a model predicting 30-day mortality was created and compared with the performance of the GUSTO-I and TIMI models. After adjustment, a higher Killip class was the most important predictor (OR 16.1; 95% CI 5.7-45.6). Elevated heart rate, longer time delay to admission, hyperglycemia and older age were also associated with increased risk. Patients with hypercholesterolemia had a significantly lower risk (OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.24-0.86). Discrimination (c-statistic 0.79, 95% CI 0.75-0.84) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow 6, p = 0.5) of our model were good. The GUSTO-I and TIMI risk scores produced adequate discrimination within our dataset (c-statistic 0.76, 95% CI 0.71-0.81, and c-statistic 0.77, 95% CI 0.72-0.82, respectively), but calibration was not satisfactory (HL 21.8, p = 0.005 for GUSTO-I, and HL 20.6, p = 0.008 for TIMI). In conclusion, short-term mortality in elderly patients with a first STEMI depends most importantly on initial clinical and hemodynamic status. The GUSTO-I and TIMI models are insufficiently adequate for providing an exact estimate of 30-day mortality risk.