Key result
Higher circulating neprilysin linked to ~37% higher risk of death or HF hospitalization when LVEF >57%.
Why the study?
Sacubitril/valsartan only demonstrated benefit in patients with LVEF ≤57% in PARAGON-HF, motivating evaluation of the prognostic value of circulating neprilysin in outpatients with LVEF >57% versus LVEF ≤57%.
Does circulating neprilysin (sNEP) level predict adverse outcomes differently in heart failure patients with LVEF >57% compared to those with LVEF ≤57%?
Cohort (n=1,428)
No
Does circulating neprilysin (sNEP) level predict adverse outcomes differently in heart failure patients with LVEF >57% compared to those with LVEF ≤57%?
Hazard Ratio: 1.37 (95% CI 1.16–1.61)
Circulating neprilysin has stronger prognostic value in heart failure patients with LVEF >57% compared to those with lower LVEF, suggesting it could help identify HFpEF patients who might benefit from sacubitril/valsartan.
sNEP may flag higher risk in HF with LVEF >57%; leaves open whether it guides sacubitril/valsartan selection.
BACKGROUND: Circulating Neprilysin (sNEP) has emerged as a potential prognostic biomarker in heart failure (HF). In PARAGON-HF benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was only observed in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤57%. We aimed to assess the prognostic value of sNEP in outpatients with HF and LVEF >57%, in comparison with patients with LVEF ≤57%. METHODS: Consecutive HF outpatients were included from May-2006 to February-2016. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death or HF hospitalization and the main secondary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. For the later competing risk methods were used. RESULTS: sNEP was measured in 1428 patients (age 67.7±12.7, 70.3% men, LVEF 35.8% ±14), 144 of which had a LVEF >57%. sNEP levels did not significantly differ between LVEF groups (p = 0.31). During a mean follow-up of 6±3.9 years, the primary endpoint occurred in 979 patients and the secondary composite endpoint in 714 (in 111 and 84 of the 144 patients with LVEF >57%, respectively). sNEP was significantly associated with both composite endpoints. Age- and sex- adjusted Cox regression analyses showed higher hazard ratios for sNEP in patients with LVEF >57%, both for the primary (HR 1.37 [1.16-1.61] vs. 1.04 [0.97-1.11]) and the secondary (HR 1.38 [1.21-1.55] vs. 1.11 [1.04-1.18]) composite endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: sNEP prognostic value in patients with HF and LVEF >57% outperforms that observed in patients with lower LVEF. Precision medicine using sNEP may identify HF patients with preserved LVEF that may benefit from treatment with sacubitril/valsartan.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lupón et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Heart Failure (n=1,428). Circulating neprilysin (sNEP) vs. Lower sNEP levels / LVEF ≤57% was evaluated on Composite of all-cause death or heart failure hospitalization (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.16-1.61). Higher circulating neprilysin levels were significantly associated with an increased risk of all-cause death or heart failure hospitalization in heart failure patients with LVEF >57% (HR 1.37).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: