Key result
ML phenomapping identifies HFpEF subgroup with ~18% risk reduction from sacubitril/valsartan.
Why the study?
Sacubitril/valsartan may exert heterogeneous treatment effects in HFpEF, motivating a machine learning-based model to individualize its cardiovascular benefits.
Does sacubitril/valsartan reduce cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalizations in individualized subgroups of patients with HFpEF?
Does sacubitril/valsartan reduce cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalizations in individualized subgroups of patients with HFpEF?
A machine learning-derived phenomapping tool identified that approximately 70% of patients with HFpEF may derive clinical benefit from sacubitril/valsartan, including subgroups traditionally considered less responsive.
May identify sacubitril/valsartan responders among HFpEF patients; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before clinical use.
Sacubitril/valsartan may exert heterogeneous treatment effect in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). We aimed to develop a machine learning (ML)-based model to individualize the cardiovascular benefits of sacubitril/valsartan. Using data from 4161 patients in the PARAGON-HF trial, we constructed a phenomap based on 53 baseline characteristics, utilizing the Gower distance metric. A semiparametric proportional rates method was applied within each patient’s 20% phenotypic neighborhood to calculate individualized rate ratios (RRs) for treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan on the composite outcome of cardiovascular death or total hospitalizations for heart failure. This metric, the phenotype-specific response score (PRS), quantifies treatment benefit, with negative PRS values indicating greater benefit. The median PRS was −0.62 (interquartile range: −1.21 to 0.05), without significant overall treatment benefit observed in the whole population (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.77–1.06). However, 70.8% of patients had a PRS ≤ 0, showing an 18% risk reduction with sacubitril/valsartan (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69–0.98). Notably, 57.6% of men and 70.2% of patients with LVEF > 57% had a PRS ≤ 0, suggesting benefit in subgroups typically considered less responsive. To aid clinical use, we developed the PARAGUIDE precision tool using 16 readily available variables. The model was internally validated via repeated 4-fold cross-validation and externally validated in patients from the PARADIGM-HF trial. We developed an ML-driven model to predict the individualized treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan in patients with HFpEF. By identifying potential responders, the PARAGUIDE precision tool advances precision medicine beyond traditional subgroup analyses.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yoon et al. (2026) studied Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (n=4,161). Sacubitril/valsartan vs. Valsartan was evaluated on Composite of cardiovascular death or total hospitalizations for heart failure (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77-1.06, p=0.15). A machine learning-based phenomapping tool identified that 70.8% of patients with HFpEF had a phenotype-specific response score ≤0, demonstrating an 18% risk reduction (RR 0.82) with sacubitril/valsartan.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: