Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibition compared with enalapril on the risk of clinical progression in surviving patients with heart failure

Milton Packer*, John J.V. McMurray, Akshay S. Desai, Jianjian Gong, Martin P. Lefkowitz, Adel R. Rizkala, Jean L. Rouleau, Victor C. Shi, Scott D. Solomon, Karl Swedberg, Michael Zile, Karl Andersen, Juan Luis Arango, J. Malcolm Arnold, Jan Belohlávek, Michael Böhm, Sergey Boytsov, Lesley J. Burgess, Walter Cabrera, Carlos CalvoChen Huan Chen, Andrej Dukat, Yan Carlos Duarte, Andrejs Erglis, Michael Fu, Efrain Gomez, Angel Gonzàlez-Medina, Albert A. Hagège, Jun Huang, Tzvetana Katova, Songsak Kiatchoosakun, Kee Sik Kim, Ömer Kozan, Edmundo Bayram Llamas, Felipe Martinez, Bela Merkely, Iván Mendoza, Arend Mosterd, Marta Negrusz-Kawecka, Keijo Peuhkurinen, Felix J.A. Ramires, Jens Refsgaard, Arvo Rosenthal, Michele Senni, Antonio S. Sibulo, José Silva-Cardoso, Iain B. Squire, Randall C. Starling, John R. Teerlink, Johan Vanhaecke, Dragos Vinereanu, Raymond Ching Chiew Wong

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

546 Scopus citations


Background-Clinical trials in heart failure have focused on the improvement in symptoms or decreases in the risk of death and other cardiovascular events. Little is known about the effect of drugs on the risk of clinical deterioration in surviving patients. Methods and Results-We compared the angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 (400 mg daily) with the angiotensinconverting enzyme inhibitor enalapril (20 mg daily) in 8399 patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction in a double-blind trial. The analyses focused on prespecified measures of nonfatal clinical deterioration. In comparison with the enalapril group, fewer LCZ696-treated patients required intensification of medical treatment for heart failure (520 versus 604; hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.94; P=0.003) or an emergency department visit for worsening heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.85; P=0.001). The patients in the LCZ696 group had 23% fewer hospitalizations for worsening heart failure (851 versus 1079; P<0.001) and were less likely to require intensive care (768 versus 879; 18% rate reduction, P=0.005), to receive intravenous positive inotropic agents (31% risk reduction, P<0.001), and to have implantation of a heart failure device or cardiac transplantation (22% risk reduction, P=0.07). The reduction in heart failure hospitalization with LCZ696 was evident within the first 30 days after randomization. Worsening of symptom scores in surviving patients was consistently more common in the enalapril group. LCZ696 led to an early and sustained reduction in biomarkers of myocardial wall stress and injury (N-terminal pro-Btype natriuretic peptide and troponin) versus enalapril. Conclusions-Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition prevents the clinical progression of surviving patients with heart failure more effectively than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)54-61
Number of pages8
Issue number1
StatePublished - 2015


  • Angiotensin
  • Heart failure
  • Neprilysin
  • Receptors


Dive into the research topics of 'Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibition compared with enalapril on the risk of clinical progression in surviving patients with heart failure'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this