What is the purpose and treatment approach of the Paragon HF (Heart Failure) trial?

Medical Advisory BoardAll articles are reviewed for accuracy by our Medical Advisory Board
Educational purpose only • Exercise caution as content is pending human review
Article Review Status
Submitted
Under Review
Approved

Last updated: December 6, 2025View editorial policy

Personalize

Help us tailor your experience

Which best describes you? Your choice helps us use language that's most understandable for you.

PARAGON-HF Trial: Purpose and Treatment Approach

Trial Design and Primary Objective

PARAGON-HF was a randomized, double-blind trial comparing sacubitril/valsartan (angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor) to valsartan alone in 4,796 patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF, LVEF ≥45%). 1, 2

The trial enrolled patients with:

  • LVEF ≥45% (mean 57.5%) 2
  • NYHA class II-IV symptoms 1, 2
  • Elevated natriuretic peptides (median NT-proBNP 911 pg/mL) 2
  • Evidence of structural heart disease 1, 2

Primary Results and Overall Findings

The trial showed a 13% reduction in the primary composite endpoint (cardiovascular death and total HF hospitalizations) with sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan, which was of borderline statistical significance (rate ratio 0.87; 95% CI 0.75-1.01; p=0.06). 3, 4, 5

Sacubitril/valsartan did not reduce overall mortality, cardiovascular death, or sudden death compared with valsartan in the overall trial population. 6

Key Subgroup Findings That Matter Clinically

Women Benefit More Than Men

In prespecified subgroup analysis, women experienced significant benefit with sacubitril/valsartan (rate ratio 0.73; 95% CI 0.59-0.90) while men showed no benefit (rate ratio 1.03; P interaction = 0.017). 3, 4 This benefit in women was primarily driven by reduction in HF hospitalizations. 3

Lower Ejection Fraction Within HFpEF Range

Patients with LVEF in the lower range of preservation (45-57%, below the median) showed greater benefit (rate ratio 0.78; 95% CI 0.64-0.95) compared to those with higher LVEF. 3, 4, 5

Reduced Kidney Function

The treatment effect was most pronounced in patients with baseline eGFR ≤45 mL/min/1.73 m² (rate ratio 0.69; 95% CI 0.51-0.94), with the greatest benefit observed in those with both LVEF ≤57% and eGFR ≤45 mL/min/1.73 m² (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.45-0.97). 7

Current Guideline Recommendations Based on PARAGON-HF

The 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA guidelines give sacubitril/valsartan a Class 2b recommendation (may be considered) for HFpEF, specifically noting potential benefit in patients with LVEF on the lower end of the spectrum (41-57%) and in women. 3

SGLT2 inhibitors receive a stronger Class 2a recommendation (can be beneficial) for HFpEF and should be prioritized over sacubitril/valsartan in most patients. 3, 4

Clinical Algorithm for Sacubitril/Valsartan Use in HFpEF

Consider sacubitril/valsartan in HFpEF patients who meet ALL of the following:

  • LVEF 45-57% (lower range of HFpEF spectrum) 3, 4
  • Female sex OR eGFR ≤45 mL/min/1.73 m² 3, 7
  • Elevated natriuretic peptides 1, 2
  • Symptomatic despite SGLT2 inhibitor therapy 4
  • Structural heart disease on echocardiography 1

Do not use sacubitril/valsartan as first-line therapy in HFpEF; prioritize SGLT2 inhibitors, blood pressure control, and management of comorbidities (diabetes, obesity, atrial fibrillation) first. 4

Important Caveats and Pitfalls

The trial enrolled a highly selected population after sequential run-in periods with both valsartan and sacubitril/valsartan to ensure tolerability, meaning real-world patients may have higher discontinuation rates. 1

Women are at higher risk of angioedema with sacubitril/valsartan due to higher bradykinin production after neprilysin inhibition, though this was not systematically analyzed by sex in the trial. 3

The high prevalence of diabetes (43%) and chronic kidney disease (47%) in PARAGON-HF makes these results more applicable to contemporary HFpEF populations than earlier trials. 2

Professional Medical Disclaimer

This information is intended for healthcare professionals. Any medical decision-making should rely on clinical judgment and independently verified information. The content provided herein does not replace professional discretion and should be considered supplementary to established clinical guidelines. Healthcare providers should verify all information against primary literature and current practice standards before application in patient care. Dr.Oracle assumes no liability for clinical decisions based on this content.

Have a follow-up question?

Our Medical A.I. is used by practicing medical doctors at top research institutions around the world. Ask any follow up question and get world-class guideline-backed answers instantly.