Citations

Introduction: Phase I trials are designed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of new treatments. Review of adverse events (AEs) experienced by trial participants is a critical aspect of these early phase trials. Current practice for safety and tolerability data collection is for clinicians to evaluate AEs using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Past work has demonstrated that clinicians may miss or underreport symptomatic AEs. The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the CTCAE (PRO-CTCAE) is an item library of questions for patients to self-report symptomatic AEs in clinical trials that is complementary to the CTCAE. PRO-CTCAE offers a patient-centric method for capturing symptomatic AEs, which may be missed or underreported by clinicians. The PRO-CTCAE library includes questions using patient friendly terms to assess frequency, severity, and interference of symptomatic AEs on 0-4 verbal descriptor scales (e.g., severity is rated by patients as none, mild, moderate, severe, or very severe). The goal of the current work was to demonstrate how to incorporate AE information from PRO-CTCAE and CTCAE into a Phase I dose review report. Methods: We used data from a Phase I clinical trial of patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia. Therapy was administered on 28-day cycles. Patients completed questionnaires on an electronic device on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of the first cycle of treatment. Through iterative feedback from clinicians and statisticians, we developed an example dose review report. The report summarized data for one dose level in which 4 patients were treated. These 4 patients comprised the first patient cohort enrolled in the available Phase I clinical trial. The report was intended to be representative of the type of report that would be reviewed to make a decision about the next dose level for a new cohort of patients. Results: The final dose review report included narratives for each patient generated by the statistical team based on patient-reported and physician-graded AEs in cycle 1, tabular summaries integrating CTCAE and PRO-CTCAE, and novel graphical presentation of PRO-CTCAE and CTCAE, including swimmer plots and butterfly plots for symptoms listed as dose limiting toxicity criteria. In this cohort, 3/4 (75%) patients had at least one grade 3+ AE, as assessed by CTCAE, and 4/4 (100%) patients had at least one score 3 symptomatic AE, as assessed by PRO-CTCAE. All 4/4 (100%) patients had at least one reported symptom on the PRO-CTCAE that was not captured by CTCAE or was reported at a lower grade by CTCAE. Multiple versions of the example dose review report were presented to the study team and iterative feedback was solicited from clinicians and statisticians. Feedback highlighted the usefulness of narratives and patient-level graphical displays. Narratives within the dose review report were refined to focus on treatment emergent AEs, minimizing text and succinctly presenting baseline symptoms where relevant. Symptom-level graphics of combined PRO-CTCAE scores and CTCAE grades were preferred over graphics consolidating data for multiple symptoms. Final graphics and report will be presented. Conclusions: We demonstrated that PRO-CTCAE, which captures patient-reported symptoms, complements traditional AE reporting and that reporting PRO-CTCAE and CTCAE jointly in a Phase I dose level report can provide a more complete picture of safety and tolerability in the Phase I setting.

In 2023, Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN, cared for over 20,000 patients with hematologic malignancies, roughly 42% of whom were rural. Patients residing in rural areas can face challenges in access to care, financial and time burdens due to treatment-related travel, and limited opportunities to participate in clinical trials. In 2021, The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society launched its IMPACT (Influential Medicine Providing Access to Clinical Trials) grant with Mayo Clinic being among its first recipients. The program provides funding to major cancer centers, in partnership with local community oncology centers, to help increase participation of patients traditionally underrepresented in clinical trials, including those who are rural, minority and/or economically disadvantaged. The award allowed significant changes to be made to clinical trial selection and facilitation models increasing access to trials within the rural setting and reducing the socioeconomic barriers noted above. This program included Rochester (IMPACT Hub) and Mayo Clinic Health System (MCHS) sites in Albert Lea, MN (65 miles to Hub), Eau Claire, WI (96 miles to hub), La Crosse, WI (73 miles to Hub), and Mankato, MN (84 miles to Hub). Methods: Two models were deployed; the full activation model where clinical trials were fully opened at MCHS sites, and the hybrid model where clinical trial participants are consented at the Hub and portions of participant care are conducted at MCHS sites. Initial barriers included limitations in clinical trials support staff, insufficient specimen processing equipment, medication storage and shipping limitations, MCHS catchment population unalignment with the Hub trials portfolio, and reduced bandwidth of providers due to patient care responsibilities. To address barriers to trial conduct, community center site champions were identified to streamline trial review and increase collaboration to better define site catchment areas, trial constraints, and site needs. A feasibility specialist was hired to support the program in trial design/implementation, barrier tracking, and to serve as a liaison between community site providers, study staff, and the program. Results: Since 2021, 20 clinical studies including 14 interventional treatment trials have been activated demonstrating 108 total patients accrued with 42 interventional accruals; 5 within the full activation model (13 accruals) and 15 in the hybrid model (29 accruals). Patients showed an average of 216 miles, with an estimated mileage cost of $142/trip based on the 2023 IRS mileage rate of $0.655/mile to the hub location. Nine of those patients traveled over 260 miles, with an estimated mileage cost of $170/visit to access clinical trials. Under the hybrid model, 8 patients transitioned portions of their care to their home city resulting in reduction of an average of 155 miles/visit, and 7 patients were able to reduce their travel time an average of 216 miles/visit. By estimating at least 10 study visits, the travel burden was reduced by 2,160 miles (4320 driving hours) and $1,420 in driving costs alone for participants. Using participant averages the 108 patients would spend a total of $15,336 in travel costs for just the initial visit, but when factoring in the 10-visit estimate, travel reduction could result in a net savings of $153,360. Based on travel data, it is estimated 11 of these patients would have required overnight accommodation using an average of $149/night hotel stay, a savings of $1,490/patient is estimated for the lifecycle of trial participation or $16,390 for the 11-patient cohort requiring accommodation. These results do not include travel companion and time off work costs. Efforts have been made to further develop the full activation model and 5 clinical trials are in activation. Data gathered from the program is being used to design strategies to reduce the administrative burden of clinical trial participation for community providers and launch screening programs. Conclusion: The Mayo Clinic LLS IMPACT program has demonstrated success in addressing barriers to opening clinical trials in the community-center setting and reduced the travel burden and financial impact to clinical trial participation in a cohort of trial participants. Centralized hub support of study activation and conduct and decentralized care to support treatment of patients in proximity of their home can be extended to other hospital systems and settings.

Introduction: Ibrutinib, a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi), changed the treatment landscape by demonstrating improved overall survival (OS) compared with chemotherapy/chemoimmunotherapy across multiple phase 3 trials in patients (pts) with CLL, including those with high-risk genomic features. Recently, data were reported for pts treated with ibrutinib in the phase 3 RESONATE-2 trial with up to 10 years of follow-up, representing the longest follow-up of any BTKi used in first-line treatment of CLL. With the most robust long-term follow-up data among BTKis, ibrutinib therapy trials are uniquely positioned to assess the long-term OS benefit of first-line BTKi treatment in pts with CLL across pt subgroups. We previously demonstrated that first-line ibrutinib is associated with OS rates that are similar to those in the age-matched general population, with a median follow-up of 5.9 years since initial diagnosis (Ghia P et al. HemaSphere 2024), but it remains unclear whether this holds true for pts with high-risk genomic features. This updated analysis evaluated long-term OS outcomes with a median follow-up of 8 years since randomization and 10 years since initial diagnosis in a pooled population of pts with previously untreated CLL, including those with high-risk features, who received first-line ibrutinib treatment in 2 phase 3 trials with comparison of survival estimates to the US age-matched general population. Methods: Data were pooled for pts who received first-line treatment with single-agent ibrutinib or ibrutinib + rituximab in the RESONATE-2 (NCT01722487) and ECOG-ACRIN E1912 (NCT02048813) trials, respectively. OS probabilities from the time of randomization and from the time of initial diagnosis for ibrutinib-treated pts were compared with an age-matched general population using 2021 life tables for the total US population published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention using the Kaplan-Meier method. Subgroup analyses were performed for high-risk pts, defined as those with del(11q), del(17p), mutated TP53, and/or unmutated IGHV (uIGHV). Results: A total of490 pts were pooled across the 2 studies: 352 pts (71.8%) were treated with ibrutinib + rituximab, and 135 pts (27.6%) were treated with single-agent ibrutinib; 3 pts did not receive study treatment. The median age at time of randomization was 61 years; 36.5% (179/490) were aged ≥65 years, 21.8% had del(11q), 7.8% had del(17p) and/or mutated TP53, and 54.7% had uIGHV. The median time from initial CLL diagnosis to randomization was 20.9 months (range, 0.0-341.8); the median follow-up was 123.5 months (10.3 years) from initial diagnosis and 99.2 months (8.3 years) from the time of randomization. From the time of randomization, estimated 9-year OS rates were 81.2% (95% CI, 76.8-84.9) in all ibrutinib-treated pts versus 82.0% (95% CI, 78.3-85.2) in the age-matched population (hazard ratio [HR] 1.17; 95% CI, 0.86-1.58). In high-risk pts, estimated 9-year OS rates were 79.5% (95% CI, 73.5-84.3) for ibrutinib-treated pts versus 83.2% (95% CI, 78.5-86.9) in the age-matched general population (HR 1.24; 95% CI, 0.84-1.84). In pts aged ≥65 years, estimated 9-year OS rates were 68.7% (95% CI, 60.5-75.6) for ibrutinib-treated pts and 68.7% (95% CI, 61.4-75.0) in the age-matched general population (HR 1.12; 95% CI, 0.77-1.63). In pts aged <65 years, estimated 9-year OS rates were 89.3% (95% CI, 84.6-92.7) for ibrutinib-treated pts and 90.0% (95% CI, 86.1-92.9) in the age-matched general population (HR 1.15; 95% CI, 0.68-1.94). From the time of initial diagnosis, estimated 15-year OS rates were 78.4% (95% CI, 72.8-83.0) in all ibrutinib-treated pts versus 72.0% (95% CI, 67.8-75.7) in the age-matched general population (HR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.62-1.11). Study treatment had been discontinued in 59.8% (293/490) of pooled ibrutinib-treated pts; the most frequent reasons for discontinuation were adverse events (43.0%; 126/293) and progressive disease (20.5%; 60/293). Study treatment was ongoing in 31.8% of pooled pts (156/490). Conclusions: With the longest follow-up time for any commercially available targeted therapy, this pooled analysis demonstrates that, regardless of evaluation from randomization or initial diagnosis, and irrespective of age or high-risk features, first-line treatment with ibrutinib provides long-term OS benefit with survival estimates that appear similar to those of a US age-matched cohort.

Background: CDCP1 has been associated with reverse remodeling in human dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) mediating its effect by reducing cardiac fibrosis which has been demonstrated in-vitro using human cardiac fibroblasts (CF) and in-vivo histologically in mice. However, the role of and the molecular mechanisms by which CDCP1 attenuates cardiac fibrosis in-vivo is unknown. Methods: To characterize the transcriptomic profiles of CDCP1 in cardiac fibrosis, Cdcp1 KO FVB/NJ mice were generated, and implanted with osmotic minipumps containing angiotensin II and phenylephrine (Ang II/PE) or saline at age of 10 weeks. There were 4 experimental groups (6 mice each), Saline_WT, Saline_KO, AngII/PE_WT, and AngII/PE_KO. After 4 weeks of AngII/PE induction, mice were euthanized, RNA was extracted from their heart tissue followed by RNA-seq to explore transcriptomic profiles. Fibrosis was histologically determined using picosirius (PSR) staining and was quantified by percentage of fibrosis area. Results: Histological analysis demonstrated that Cdcp1 KO attenuated severe cardiac fibrosis by 32.7% determined by quantification of percentage of fibrosis area. When comparing the transcriptome-wide gene expression in WT mice hearts from Saline to AngII/PE induction, a total of 316 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were identified ( Fig. 1A ). Expression of Nppb (encodes ProBNP), a marker for heart failure, was significantly upregulated. The most significantly upregulated DEG after AngII/PE induction was Crlf1 ( Fig. 1A ), a gene predominantly expressed in CF, consistent with previous findings. We next compared transcriptomic profiles of AngII/PE induction WT and Cdcp1 KO mice hearts, to explore the role of CDCP1 in cardiac fibrosis. A total of 163 DEGs were identified ( Fig. 1B ). Notably, Cdcp1 -mediated DEGs enriched GO Pathways associated with extracellular matrix organization (Biological Process) and collagen-containing extracellular matrix (Cellular Component) ( Figs. 1C, 1D ), pivotal processes in cardiac fibrosis. In addition, Cdcp1 KO resulted in several “top” DEGs (including Rnase1, Ccl7, Ccl12 Il21r , and Il6 ) which have known function in inflammation, suggesting that CDCP1 might attenuate cardiac fibrosis through immune regulation . Conclusion: Our findings underscore the pivotal role of CDCP1 in modulating cardiac fibrosis in-vivo, potentially through immune regulation. Targeting CDCP1 may offer promising therapeutic avenues for mitigating myocardial fibrosis.

Abstract STUDY QUESTION How should premature/primary ovarian insufficiency (POI) be diagnosed and managed based on the best available evidence from published literature? SUMMARY ANSWER The current guideline provides 145 recommendations on symptoms, diagnosis, causation, sequelae, and treatment of POI. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) presents a significant challenge to women’s health, with far-reaching implications, both physically and emotionally. The potential implications include adverse effects on quality of life; fertility; and bone, cardiovascular, and cognitive health. Although hormone therapy (HT) can mitigate some of these effects, many questions still remain regarding the optimal management of POI. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for development of ESHRE guidelines. Key questions were determined by a group of experts and informed by a scoping survey of women and health care professionals. Literature searches and assessments were then performed. Papers published up to 30 January 2024 and written in English were included in the guideline. An integrity review was conducted for the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on POI included in the guideline. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed within the guideline development group until consensus was reached. Women with lived experience of POI informed the recommendations in general, and particularly on those on provision of care. A stakeholder review was organized after finalization of the draft. The final version was approved by the guideline development group and the ESHRE Executive Committee. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE New data indicate a higher prevalence of POI, 3.5%, than was previously thought. This guideline aims to help health care professionals to apply best practice care for women with POI. The recent update of the POI guideline covers 40 clinical questions on diagnosis of the condition, the different sequelae, including bone, cardiovascular, neurological and sexual function, fertility and general well-being, and treatment options, including HT. The list of clinical questions was expanded from the previous iteration of the guideline (2015) based on the scoping survey and appreciation of emerging knowledge of POI. Questions were added on the role of anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) in the diagnosis of POI, fertility preservation, muscle health, and specific considerations for HT in iatrogenic POI. Additionally, the topic on complementary treatments was extended with specific focus on non-hormonal treatments and lifestyle management options. Significant changes from the previous 2015 guideline include the recommendations that only one elevated FSH >25 IU is required for diagnosis of POI, and guidance that AMH testing, repeat FSH measurement, and/or AMH may be required where there is diagnostic uncertainty. Recommendations were also updated regarding genetic testing, estrogen doses and regimens, use of the combined oral contraceptive and testosterone therapy. Women with lived experience of POI informed the recommendations on provision of care. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The guideline describes different management options, but it must be acknowledged that for most of these options, supporting evidence is limited for POI. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The guideline provides health care professionals with clear advice on best practice in POI care, based on the best evidence currently available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to guide further studies in POI. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), Centre for Research Excellence in Women's Health in Reproduction Life (CRE-WHiRL), and International Menopause Society (IMS), covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, literature searches, and dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payments. N.P. declared grants from Bayer Pharma (research and consultancy) and NIHR—research POISE; consulting fees from Abbott, Astellas, Bayer, Besins, Lawley, Mithra, Theramex, Viatris; honoraria from Astellas, Bayer, Besins, Gedeon Richter, Theramex, Viatris; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Astellas, Bayer, Theramex, Viatris; President, International Menopause Society, Medical Advisory Committee member, British Menopause Society, Patron Daisy Network. A.J.V. declared grants from Amgen Australia, Australian NHMRC, and Australian MRFF; consulting fees from IQ Fertility; honoraria from the Australasian Menopause Society; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board of Astellas; Board Member of the International Menopause Society (2020 to current) and Past president of the Australasian Menopause Society (2017–2019); R.A.A. declared grants from Roche (Research support, to institution), and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board of Bayer. M.C. declared grants from NHI; payments or honoraria from Up-to-Date (as editor/reviewer); Board Member of American Society of Reproductive Medicine, and of American Gynecological and Obstetrical Society. M.D. declared (NIHR—HTA Reference Number: NIHR133461; NIHR—HTA Reference Number: NIHR128757; Action Medical Research and Borne: GN2818) consulting fees from a small personal medical practice, support for attending meetings and/or travel from ESHRE, Bayer and UCLH special Trustees; Participation on the Advisory Board of the British Menopause Society, UKSTORE project, the Progress Educational Trust, and the Turner Syndrome Support Society UK; Leadership or fiduciary roles in the British Fertility Society (Trustee), Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital Charity (chair of Trustees), and the Essex Wynter charitable trust (Trustee). C.E. declared being Chair of a SIG from the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners Integrative Medicine Specific Interest Group and Program Lead for Next Practice Western Sydney Integrative Health. C.H.G. declared grants from Novo Nordisk Foundation (Nos. NNF15OC0016474 and NNF20OC0060610), sygesikringen danmark (No 2022-0189), and the Independent Research Fund Denmark (Nos. 0134-00406 and 0134-00130B); consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, Merck, and Astra Zeneca. S.K. declared grants from Roche diagnostics. A.K. declared grants from NIH R01 5R01HD101475; consulting fees as Medical Reviewer for Flo and for Healthline; honoraria as Medical Consultant for Summus; support for attending meetings from the Reproductive Scientist Development Program; Society for Reproductive Investigation Council Member and Society for Assisted Reproduction Registry/Validation Chair; R.E.N. declared consulting fees from Astellas, Bayer Pharma, Besins Healthcare, Fidia, Theramex; honoraria from Abbott, Astellas, Exeltis, Fidia, Gedeon Richter, Merck & Co, Novo Nordisk, Shionogi Limited, Theramex, Viatris; payment for expert testimony from Vichy Laboratories; Participation in Data Safety Monitoring Board of Advisory board from Astellas and Bayer Healthcare; President elect of the International Menopause Society (IMS). H.T. declared a grant from NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence for women’s health in reproductive life. A.B. declared being chair of the Daisy Network Charity. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. DISCLAIMER This guideline represents the views of ESHRE, ASRM, CRE-WHiRL, and IMS, which were achieved after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the relevant stakeholders has been obtained. Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. The collaborating societies make no warranty, expressed or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically exclude any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose. (Full disclaimer available at www.eshre.eu/guidelines.)

Objective To identify primary care structures and processes that have the highest and lowest impact on chronic disease management and screening and prevention outcomes as well as to assess the feasibility of implementing these structures and processes into practice. Design A two-round Delphi study was conducted to establish consensus on the impact and feasibility of 258 primary care structures and processes. Participants 29 primary care providers, health system leaders and health services researchers in the USA. Outcomes Primary outcomes were (1) consensus on the impact of each structure and process on chronic disease management and screening and prevention outcomes, separately and (2) consensus on feasibility of implementation by primary care practices. Results Consensus on high impact and feasibility of implementation was reached on four items for chronic disease management: ‘Providers use motivational interviewing to help patients set goals’, ‘Practice has designated staff to manage patient panel’, ‘Practice has onsite providers or staff that speak the most dominant, non-English language spoken by patients’ and ‘Practice includes mental health providers and/or behavioural health specialists in care team’ and seven items for screening and prevention: ‘Practice utilizes standing protocols and orders’, ‘Practice generates reports to alert clinicians to missed targets and to identify gaps in care, such as overdue visits, needed vaccinations, screenings or other preventive services’, ‘Practice has designated staff to manage patient panel’, ‘Practice sets performance goals and uses benchmarking to track quality of care’, ‘Practice uses performance feedback to identify practice-specific areas of improvement’, ‘Practice builds quality improvement activities into practice operations’ and ‘Pre-visit planning data are reviewed during daily huddles’. Only ‘Practice has designated staff to manage patient panel’ appeared on both lists. Conclusion Findings suggest that practices need to focus on implementing mostly distinct, rather than common, structures and processes to optimise chronic disease and preventive care.

Abstract Aims In the VICTORIA (Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction) trial, the soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator vericiguat reduced the risk of hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) or cardiovascular death in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) with recent worsening HF. The effect of vericiguat in patients with HFrEF without recent worsening HF remains unknown. The VICTOR (Vericiguat Global Study in Participants with Chronic Heart Failure) trial was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of vericiguat in patients with ejection fraction ≤40% without recent worsening HF on a background of current foundational HFrEF therapy. Methods The primary endpoint for VICTOR is time to first event for the composite of HHF or cardiovascular death. The trial will also assess the effect of vericiguat on time to cardiovascular death, time to HHF, total HHF, and all-cause death. As an event-driven trial, at least 1080 primary events are expected, but follow-up will continue until the targeted number of at least 590 cardiovascular deaths has been reached. Approximately 6000 participants will be randomized to vericiguat or placebo. Conclusion VICTOR is the first large event-driven HFrEF trial performed in the contemporary era of quadruple foundational guideline-directed medical therapy, in a compensated ambulatory HF population. VICTOR will add important information to the evidence of the effects of vericiguat across the spectrum of patients with HFrEF.

Abstract Background NT-proBNP levels are associated with disease severity and outcomes in patients with HF across the spectrum of LVEF. Recently, it has been suggested that the effectiveness of certain treatments may vary by NT-proBNP level with greater benefit from omecamtiv mecarbil, and smaller benefit from vericiguat, in patients with higher NT-proBNP levels. We examined the benefit of sacubitril/valsartan on outcomes across the range of NT-proBNP levels in patients with HFrEF/HFmrEF/HFpEF. Purpose To evaluate clinical outcomes, and the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan, according to NT-proBNP levels, in patients with HFrEF/HFmrEF/HFpEF, using the pooled dataset of participants in the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials. Methods The PARADIGM-HF (n=8399) and PARAGON-HF (n=4822) trials enrolled patients with HF, functional limitation, and elevated NT-proBNP levels. Patients with LVEF ≤40% were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg twice daily or enalapril 10mg twice daily in PARADIGM-HF, and those with LVEF ≥45% to sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg twice daily or valsartan 160mg twice daily in PARAGON-HF. Patients were categorized by quintiles of NT-proBNP level and using NT-proBNP as a continuous variable, analysed using restricted cubic splines. The primary outcome in the present study was the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. Results Among the 13195 patients in the pooled PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF dataset, 13142 (99.6%) patients with baseline NT-proBNP were analysed. Patients with higher NT-proBNP levels were more often male, had lower body mass index and LVEF, worse New York Heart Association functional class, worse kidney function, and more atrial fibrillation, while age was similar across NT-proBNP levels. The rate of the primary outcome (per 100 person-years) increased with NT-proBNP level: quintile 1, 5.9 (95%CI 5.3-6.5); quintile 2, 7.5 (95%CI 6.9-8.2); quintile 3, 9.0 (95%CI 8.2-9.7); quintile 4, 12.0 (95%CI 11.1-12.9); and quintile 5, 20.8 (95%CI 19.6-22.2) (Figure 1). Similar trends were observed for other outcomes. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was consistent across NT-proBNP levels: the hazard ratio for the primary outcome in NT-proBNP quintile 1 was 0.79 (95%CI 0.65-0.96); quintile 2, 0.87 (95%CI 0.72-1.04); quintile 3, 0.79 (95%CI 0.66-0.93); quintile 4, 0.85 (95%CI 0.73-0.99); and quintile 5, 0.86 (95%CI 0.76-0.97), P-interaction=0.86. The consistent benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was also seen when NT-proBNP was analysed as a continuous variable (Figure 2). The absolute benefit was greatest in quintile 5 of NT-proBNP; the number needed to treat for quintile 5 was 16 versus 37 for the quintile 1 for the primary endpoint. Conclusions Patients with higher NT-proBNP had worse outcomes, but the benefits of sacubitril valsartan were consistent across the range of NT-proBNP levels of participants in PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF.Kaplan-Meier curvesEffect of sac/val across NT-proBNP range