Key result
PARADIGM-HF eligibility shows no link to one-year mortality differences in real-world HFrEF patients.
Why the study?
Because randomized trial populations often differ from routine care, the authors assessed the proportion and characteristics of patients meeting PARADIGM-HF eligibility criteria in historical German HFrEF datasets.
What proportion of historical German HFrEF patients fulfill PARADIGM-HF eligibility criteria, and how do their clinical characteristics and 1-year mortality compare to non-eligible patients?
Observational (n=7,605)
Yes
What proportion of historical German HFrEF patients fulfill PARADIGM-HF eligibility criteria, and how do their clinical characteristics and 1-year mortality compare to non-eligible patients?
In historical German HFrEF datasets, 41.2% of patients with complete data met PARADIGM-HF eligibility criteria, indicating the trial enrolled a high proportion of patients seen in routine care, though PARADIGM-like patients exhibited a more advanced clinical profile.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No mortality difference by PARADIGM-HF eligibility; leaves open generalizability of trial benefits to ineligible real-world HFrEF patients.
Background In the PARADIGM-HF trial, sacubitril/valsartan improved outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Because patients enrolled in randomized trials often differ from those in routine care, we assessed the proportion and characteristics of patients fulfilling PARADIGM-HF eligibility criteria in historical German HFrEF datasets and used the PARADIGM-HF enalapril arm as descriptive clinical context. Methods and results We analyzed 7605 HFrEF patients enrolled between 1994 and 2013 in three German datasets (EVITA-HF, HeLuMa, INH). Full eligibility, including natriuretic peptide (NP) criteria, was assessable in 4442 patients and confirmed in 1828 (41.2%). Mean age was 63.8 ± 13.3 years, 23.1% were female, and ischemic heart disease was the predominant etiology (51.7%). Compared with non-PARADIGM patients, PARADIGM-like patients were older, had lower LVEF, higher NP concentrations, and more comorbidities. In an exploratory pooled Cox analysis, the unadjusted HR of the PARADIGM-like patients for one-year all-cause mortality was 1.17 (95% CI 0.97–1.40) and was attenuated to 1.08 (95% CI 0.90–1.30) after adjustment for age, sex, NYHA functional class III/IV, LVEF, and renal function. Descriptive contextualization against the PARADIGM-HF enalapril arm showed overlap in clinical characteristics but also differences in disease severity, biomarker concentrations, and ascertainment conditions. Conclusions In these historical German HFrEF datasets, full PARADIGM-HF eligibility including NP criteria was confirmed in 41.2% of patients with completely assessable eligibility information, indicating that PARADIGM-HF included a high rate of patients seen in routine care. PARADIGM-like compared to non-PARADIGM-like patients exhibited a more advanced clinical profile.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hobbach et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (n=7,605). PARADIGM-HF eligibility criteria fulfillment vs. Non-PARADIGM-like patients was evaluated on One-year all-cause mortality (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.90-1.30, p=0.088). Full PARADIGM-HF eligibility was confirmed in 41.2% of historical German HFrEF patients, and one-year mortality did not differ significantly between PARADIGM-like and non-PARADIGM-like patients (adjusted HR 1.08).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: