This page provides an independent statistical analysis and educational interpretation of publicly reported results. ClinicalTrials.gov provides the official trial registry record. Numerical trial results on this page are restricted to the results posted in the ClinicalTrials.gov record; calculations added by Clinical Biostats are labelled as such.
1. Trial at a Glance
This page covers the registry results for Assessment of LCZ696 and Valsartan in Asian Patients With Salt-sensitive Hypertension (NCT01681576), a randomized phase 2 study. The primary outcome is Cumulative Sodium Excretion (Natriuresis) at Day 1.
| Feature | Registry value |
|---|---|
| ClinicalTrials.gov identifier | NCT01681576 |
| Phase | Phase 2 |
| Condition | Salt-sensitive Hypertension |
| Allocation | Randomized |
| Design model | Crossover |
| Masking | Quadruple |
| Enrollment | 72 |
| Arms in the primary outcome | n/a |
| Lead sponsor | Novartis Pharmaceuticals |
| Results posted | Yes |
2. Clinical Question
Population
Asian patients with salt-sensitive hypertension. The registry lists an enrollment of 72, but the primary-outcome analysis population is defined separately as patients with available pharmacodynamic data who received study drug and had no protocol deviations considered relevant to those data.
Intervention
LCZ696 400 mg QD for four weeks during one treatment period. The crossover sequences then switch treatment after a washout.
Comparator
Valsartan 320 mg QD for four weeks during the other treatment period. Participants were assigned to one of the two treatment sequences: LCZ696 followed by valsartan, or valsartan followed by LCZ696.
Primary question
The planned primary outcome concerns cumulative sodium excretion (natriuresis) on Day 1, with measurements described over 0-6 and 0-24 hours. The registry record does not report numerical results or a treatment comparison for this outcome.
In a crossover design, each treatment sequence includes both study drugs, so the intended contrast concerns outcomes during the LCZ696 and valsartan treatment periods. In general, a within-participant comparison can account for stable differences between participants because each participant receives both treatments. Interpretation also depends on how the study handles period effects, treatment order, and any residual effect after switching. The registry record does not report the analysis details needed to assess those issues.
The trial also lists urine volume, seated office blood pressure, and mean sitting pulse pressure as secondary outcomes. These describe additional pharmacodynamic and blood-pressure measures, but their numerical findings are not reported in the registry record. The available information therefore establishes the clinical question and design, not the size, precision, or direction of any treatment difference.
3. Trial Design
This was a randomized, double-blind, quadruple-masked, Phase 2 crossover study sponsored by Novartis Pharmaceuticals. It enrolled 72 participants with salt-sensitive hypertension. The record lists the study start as 2012-08, primary completion as 2013-10, and status as completed.
Participants were assigned to one of two sequences. In one sequence, LCZ696 400 mg QD was given for four weeks, followed by a washout and then valsartan 320 mg QD for four weeks. In the other sequence, valsartan was given first, followed by a washout and LCZ696. The duration of the washout is not reported in the registry record. Because both treatments are given in sequence, the treatment periods are not equivalent to independent parallel groups.
Randomization helps determine treatment order, while masking is intended to limit influences of treatment knowledge on conduct and assessment. The record identifies the study as quadruple-masked but does not specify which groups of people were masked. It also does not report the randomization procedure or details of concealment.
The primary outcome is cumulative sodium excretion on Day 1, assessed over 0-6 and 0-24 hours. The description says urine was collected in fractions after dosing and samples drawn for sodium analysis. Secondary outcomes include cumulative sodium excretion at Day 28, urine volume over time, seated office systolic and diastolic blood pressure over time, and mean sitting pulse pressure over time.
Although the trial is marked completed, completion status does not establish that all outcomes were analyzed or reported. The registry record lists five outcome measures and zero analyses. Numerical outcome estimates, treatment contrasts, and their uncertainty are not reported in the registry record.
4. Participant Flow and Accounting
The registry reports how participants moved through each stage of the study. All counts below are exactly as posted; missing counts are not inferred from other stages.
Period 1
| Stage | LCZ696 Followed by Valsartan | Valsartan Followed by LCZ696 |
|---|---|---|
| STARTED | 36 | 36 |
| COMPLETED | 34 | 36 |
| NOT COMPLETED | 2 | 0 |
Reasons for not completing this period:
| Reason | LCZ696 Followed by Valsartan | Valsartan Followed by LCZ696 |
|---|---|---|
| Adverse Event | 1 | 0 |
| Protocol Deviation | 1 | 0 |
Period 2
| Stage | LCZ696 Followed by Valsartan | Valsartan Followed by LCZ696 |
|---|---|---|
| STARTED | 34 | 36 |
| COMPLETED | 30 | 35 |
| NOT COMPLETED | 4 | 1 |
Reasons for not completing this period:
| Reason | LCZ696 Followed by Valsartan | Valsartan Followed by LCZ696 |
|---|---|---|
| subject/guardian decision | 3 | 1 |
| Non-compliance with study treatment | 1 | 0 |
Analysis population for the primary outcome, as defined in the registry: Pharmacodynamic PD analysis set: Patients with any available PD data, who received any study drug and experienced no protocol deviations with relevant impact on PD data.
5. Baseline Characteristics
The table reproduces the baseline characteristics posted in the registry, which describe the participants analysed at baseline and help show whether the randomized groups were comparable.
| Characteristic | Unit | LCZ696 Followed by Valsartan | Valsartan 320mg | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Participants analysed | 36 | 36 | 72 | |
| Age, Continuous | years | 55.7 (SD 12.5) | 58.9 (SD 7.5) | 57.3 (SD 10.3) |
| Sex: Female, Male: Female | Participants | 13 | 13 | 26 |
| Sex: Female, Male: Male | Participants | 23 | 23 | 46 |
6. Primary Endpoint
The registry lists the primary outcome as Cumulative Sodium Excretion (Natriuresis) at Day 1, measured over 0-6 and 0-24 hours on Day 1.
| Element | Registry entry |
|---|---|
| Result type | Mean |
| Measure of spread | Standard Deviation |
| Unit | mmol |
| Endpoint classification | Continuous Endpoint |
The primary endpoint is cumulative sodium excretion, also called natriuresis, on Day 1. It is expressed in mmol and described for 0-6 and 0-24 hours after dosing. The record says urine was collected in fractions and that a sample from each fraction was analyzed for sodium. The planned summary is a mean, with standard deviation as the measure of dispersion.
As a general statistical concept, cumulative sodium excretion measures the amount of sodium appearing in collected urine across a stated observation interval. It is a pharmacodynamic measure: it describes a physiological response after treatment, rather than a clinical event. Measuring both a shorter and a longer interval can characterize the time course and accumulation of excretion across the first day. These intervals are related observations, not separate participant groups.
The endpoint is relevant to the study's stated focus on salt-sensitive hypertension and the effects of the two treatments on natriuresis. The record also lists urine volume and blood-pressure measures, giving context for other physiological responses assessed in the trial. Those outcomes do not substitute for the primary endpoint.
The registry entry does not provide observed means, standard deviations, sample sizes contributing to each interval, or a treatment contrast. It therefore does not permit assessment of the observed sodium-excretion pattern, its variability, or the precision of a difference between treatments. The registry also flags the primary outcome as having multiple categories or time points and does not reduce it to one comparison. The choice of a primary contrast across those intervals is not reported in the registry record.
7. Why No Re-analysis Is Shown
8. Statistical Interpretation
The registry record describes a completed, randomized crossover study and identifies cumulative sodium excretion on Day 1 as the primary outcome. It does not report numerical primary-outcome results. In particular, no treatment-specific means, standard deviations, estimated contrast, confidence interval, or test result is available in the record. No numerical conclusion about the direction or magnitude of the difference between LCZ696 and valsartan can be drawn from the posted results.
The primary endpoint is specified for 0-6 and 0-24 hours, and the registry flags the outcome as having multiple categories or time points rather than reducing it to one comparison. That matters because an interpretation depends on which interval or contrast is treated as the principal comparison and how the repeated measurements are handled. The registry record does not report those analysis details. It also lists zero analyses, so there is no recorded statistical comparison to interpret.
In general, a mean summarizes the center of continuous measurements, while a standard deviation describes their spread among participants. A treatment contrast would quantify the difference between the treatments under a specified analysis. A confidence interval, if reported, would show the range of values compatible with the data and model at its stated confidence level. None of these numerical estimates for the primary endpoint is reported in the registry record, so the precision of any treatment effect cannot be assessed.
The crossover structure is important to interpretation. Each sequence receives both treatments, but treatment order differs. General crossover analyses may account for the paired nature of observations and consider period or sequence effects. The registry does not report whether or how these factors were included in the analysis, nor whether washout or carryover was assessed. It would be inappropriate to treat the listed sequences as simple independent parallel arms or to infer an adjusted effect without the analysis results.
The listed secondary outcomes include sodium excretion at Day 28, urine volume over time, seated office systolic and diastolic blood pressure over time, and mean sitting pulse pressure over time. Their numerical results and analyses are not reported in the registry record either. The completion status and enrollment figure describe the study record, but they do not supply evidence about the observed treatment effects.
9. Statistical Methods Explained
The registry identifies the study as randomized, double-blind, quadruple-masked, and crossover. These terms describe different features of design. Randomization assigns treatment order by chance. Masking is intended to reduce the influence of knowing treatment assignment on study conduct or measurement; the registry does not identify which specific parties were masked. A crossover design gives participants both treatments in sequence, rather than assigning separate groups to receive only one treatment.
What does a crossover comparison estimate?
In general, a crossover comparison uses measurements made during different treatment periods in the same participant. This can be useful for continuous outcomes when the measurement can be made repeatedly and when the underlying condition is sufficiently stable. Because each participant serves as their own comparator, stable characteristics can be less influential in the treatment contrast than they would be in a comparison of separate groups.
That design also creates analysis requirements. Treatment period and treatment order may matter, and an effect from the first treatment could persist into the later period. A washout is included between periods in this trial, but its duration and the statistical approach to potential carryover are not reported in the registry record. Whether the analysis accounts for period, sequence, or within-participant correlation is also not reported. These are general considerations, not claims about what the investigators did.
What does the endpoint summary mean?
The primary outcome is a continuous measure reported as a mean, with standard deviation as its dispersion measure. In general, the mean describes the average observed value, while the standard deviation describes how variable individual values are around that average. The standard deviation is not the uncertainty of the estimated mean or treatment contrast; measures such as a standard error or confidence interval are used to describe inferential uncertainty. The registry does not report those outcome estimates or uncertainty measures for the primary endpoint.
The endpoint has two stated observation intervals: 0-6 and 0-24 hours on Day 1. These intervals summarize sodium excretion over different spans of time. They are not independent replications, since measurements may come from the same participants and related collection periods. A statistical analysis needs to define the contrast of interest and account appropriately for the structure of the observations. The registry flags multiple categories or time points and does not reduce the primary outcome to one comparison; the intended comparison strategy is not reported in the registry record.
Why do confidence intervals and dispersion matter?
As a general explanation, an estimated treatment difference alone does not indicate how precisely that difference has been estimated. A confidence interval communicates uncertainty under the assumptions of the analysis. A narrow interval indicates greater precision than a wide interval, while an interval that includes values on both sides of no difference may leave the direction uncertain. No confidence interval or treatment difference for the primary outcome is reported in the registry record, so this kind of precision assessment cannot be made.
Variability also affects precision. Greater variability in measurements can make a treatment contrast harder to estimate precisely, all else being equal. In general, accounting for the paired structure of a crossover study can use within-participant information, but the benefit depends on the data and analysis. The registry does not report the observed variability, correlations between periods, or model used, so no study-specific precision judgment is possible.
What can be inferred from the planning language?
The record includes general sample-size planning assumptions: a two-sided significance level of 0.05, equal allocation between two arms, a normal approximation, and planning effects defined as fractions of an observed effect. It describes these as planning illustrations rather than the trial's own design. No planning counts or observed primary effect are reported in the registry record. Such illustrations are not observed power and cannot replace the trial's actual effect estimate or its uncertainty.
More generally, a significance threshold defines a decision rule for a statistical test; it does not measure the size or clinical importance of an effect. A two-sided test allows evidence in either direction. A normal approximation is a modeling approach that can be used for some estimates under suitable conditions. Whether these assumptions apply to a specific crossover analysis cannot be judged without the data and the analysis plan, neither of which is reported in sufficient detail in the registry record.
What is missing for a full statistical appraisal?
The registry does not report primary-outcome values, treatment contrasts, uncertainty intervals, test statistics, or analysis methods. It does not describe adjustment for period or sequence, handling of missing observations, or a multiplicity strategy across outcomes and time points. The record defines a pharmacodynamic analysis set, but does not give its analyzed size or explain how excluded or unavailable measurements were handled. These omissions limit assessment of the estimand, assumptions, and precision of any treatment comparison. They do not establish that the study lacked such methods; those details are simply not reported in the registry record.
10. Multiplicity, Missing Data and Analysis Populations
The primary endpoint is described at two observation intervals, 0-6 and 0-24 hours on Day 1. The registry explicitly flags the outcome as having several categories or time points and says it was not reduced to one comparison. The choice of primary contrast, any hierarchy among intervals, and any multiplicity adjustment are not reported in the registry record. The record also lists five outcome measures, including several secondary outcomes measured over time. How testing across outcomes and time points was handled is not reported.
As a general statistical issue, examining multiple outcomes or time points can increase the chance of finding an apparently notable result by chance if each is tested independently without an appropriate plan. A prespecified hierarchy or adjustment can address some multiplicity concerns, but the registry does not describe whether either approach was used. There are no reported statistical analyses to assess.
The primary-outcome population is defined as the pharmacodynamic analysis set: patients with any available pharmacodynamic data, who received any study drug and experienced no protocol deviations with relevant impact on those data. The registry does not report how many participants met this definition, the number contributing to each time interval, or how the set was applied to the crossover periods.
Missing-data methods, reasons for unavailable outcome measurements, and sensitivity analyses are not reported in the registry record. In general, missing observations can affect a treatment estimate if their occurrence is related to participant characteristics or outcomes. The record does not provide enough information to judge the amount or possible influence of missing primary-outcome data. Nor does it describe the analysis model, treatment of period effects, or handling of within-participant correlation.
11. Safety Results
The registry reports serious adverse events as affected participants divided by participants at risk.
| Arm | Participants with serious adverse events | Participants at risk | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| LCZ696 400 mg QD | 0 | 71 | 0.0% |
| Valsartan 320 mg QD | 0 | 67 | 0.0% |
Other (non-serious) adverse events
Participants with at least one non-serious event at or above the registry's 2% reporting threshold.
| Arm | Participants affected of at risk |
|---|---|
| LCZ696 400 mg QD | 15 of 71 |
| Valsartan 320 mg QD | 15 of 67 |
Most frequent non-serious adverse event terms
| Event term | Organ system | LCZ696 400 mg QD | Valsartan 320 mg QD |
|---|---|---|---|
| DIZZINESS | Nervous system disorders | 5 of 71 | 5 of 67 |
| NASOPHARYNGITIS | Infections and infestations | 2 of 71 | 4 of 67 |
| HEADACHE | Nervous system disorders | 1 of 71 | 4 of 67 |
| HAEMATURIA | Renal and urinary disorders | 3 of 71 | 2 of 67 |
| COUGH | Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders | 4 of 71 | 0 of 67 |
| DRY MOUTH | Gastrointestinal disorders | 2 of 71 | 0 of 67 |
| BACK PAIN | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | 0 of 71 | 2 of 67 |
| FLANK PAIN | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | 0 of 71 | 2 of 67 |
| PYURIA | Renal and urinary disorders | 2 of 71 | 0 of 67 |
The registry lists serious adverse event figures separately for LCZ696 400 mg QD and valsartan 320 mg QD. For LCZ696, 0 serious events were recorded among 71 at risk; for valsartan, 0 serious events were recorded among 67 at risk. The figures for other adverse events are 15 among 71 at risk for LCZ696 and 15 among 67 at risk for valsartan. The record does not list any top serious adverse-event terms.
These are descriptive registry figures, not a reported statistical comparison. The record does not provide uncertainty intervals, a test of the difference, event-level detail, or information about severity and timing for the other adverse events. It also does not report death counts. The fields describe exposure groups within a crossover study, so the risk groups should not be interpreted as independent parallel treatment arms or added together to infer a number of distinct participants. Differences in the listed risk counts may reflect the registry's safety reporting, but their reason is not reported.
As a general principle, a zero recorded count does not establish that an event is impossible or that a treatment has no risk. The figures describe what is recorded for this study and do not, by themselves, establish comparative safety.
12. What the Result Does, and Does Not, Mean
The record establishes that a randomized crossover study was conducted to assess LCZ696 and valsartan in Asian patients with salt-sensitive hypertension. It specifies the treatment sequences, doses, duration of each treatment period, and a primary pharmacodynamic outcome focused on sodium excretion on Day 1. It also lists other planned outcomes related to sodium excretion, urine volume, and blood pressure.
However, the registry record does not report numerical results for the primary outcome, a treatment contrast, or an analysis of that contrast. It therefore does not establish whether sodium excretion differed between treatments, the direction or magnitude of any difference, or how precise an estimate might be. The same limitation applies to the secondary outcomes: numerical findings are not reported in the registry record.
The record's serious adverse-event counts are descriptive entries. They do not provide enough information for a complete safety comparison, and the registry does not report death counts. Neither the event counts nor study completion can establish that one treatment is safer or more effective than the other.
In general, interpreting a treatment comparison requires an estimate, its uncertainty, and enough detail about the analysis population and methods to understand what was compared. For this crossover study, interpretation would also depend on how the analysis handled treatment period, sequence, within-participant measurements, and missing data. Those details are not reported in the registry record.
The appropriate conclusion is limited: the registry documents the study design and planned outcomes, but does not provide the outcome results needed to quantify or evaluate a treatment difference. That is a statement about what is reported in the registry, not a conclusion about what the full study data may show.
13. Why This Trial Matters Statistically
This trial is statistically interesting because its crossover design makes the comparison depend on measurements collected from participants across two treatment periods. In general, such designs can use within-participant information, but they require analysis that reflects the paired observations and considers treatment order and period. The registry identifies the sequences and washout but does not report how these design features entered the analysis.
The primary endpoint is also measured over more than one time interval on Day 1. The short and longer observation windows address related but distinct summaries of sodium excretion. The registry flags these multiple categories or time points without identifying one reduced comparison. That leaves an important question about the target contrast unanswered in the registry record.
The record distinguishes a planned pharmacodynamic analysis set from overall enrollment. This illustrates why enrollment alone does not reveal how many observations contributed to an endpoint or how missing measurements were handled. The analysis-set definition is available, but its size and the resulting estimates are not reported.
Finally, the record includes safety counts and sample-size planning language, but neither supplies the missing treatment-effect estimates. Planning illustrations are not observed power, and descriptive event counts are not a statistical safety comparison. The main statistical lesson is that design features and endpoint definitions identify what a trial intended to study, while results and analysis details are necessary to judge the size, uncertainty, and robustness of its findings.
14. Limitations
- The posted summary statistics are the only data these results rest on; patient-level data, full protocols and statistical analysis plans are not available.
- Recalculated results are simple, unadjusted calculations from posted summaries. They do not replace the sponsor's prespecified analysis.
The central limitation for interpretation is that numerical primary-outcome results are not reported in the registry record. Treatment-specific means, standard deviations, contrasts, uncertainty intervals, and analysis results are absent. The record also lists zero analyses, so there is no reported statistical comparison to evaluate.
The primary endpoint spans 0-6 and 0-24 hours on Day 1, and the registry notes multiple categories or time points without reducing them to one comparison. The intended primary contrast and approach to multiplicity are not reported. Although secondary outcomes are listed, their estimates and analyses are not reported either.
The crossover design raises questions about within-participant correlation, treatment period, sequence, and possible carryover. The record reports that a washout occurred but not its duration, and does not describe the statistical handling of these issues. Missing-data procedures and the number of participants contributing to each endpoint interval are also not reported.
The safety entries are limited to counts and risk-group figures. They do not include uncertainty estimates, detailed event descriptions, or a reported comparative analysis; death counts are not reported in the registry record. The registry's enrollment figure does not establish the analyzed population for each outcome. These limitations concern the information available in the registry record and do not establish that the full study report contains no additional detail.
15. Related Tutorials
16. Related Statistical Calculators
17. Sources
- ClinicalTrials.gov: Assessment of LCZ696 and Valsartan in Asian Patients With Salt-sensitive Hypertension — NCT01681576.
- Registry record last updated 2015-11-10; status last verified 2015-10.
- Results first posted 2015-10-09.
- Data retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov on 2026-11-09.
- Group sizes, means, event counts and sponsor-reported p-values are reproduced as posted. Effect estimates, confidence intervals and p-values not attributed to the sponsor are independently calculated from the posted summary statistics.
Continue through the Clinical Biostats statistical pathway
Use this trial's endpoint as a starting point for deeper study of effect measures, confidence intervals, and sample-size planning.
18. Record Summary
The registry describes a completed Phase 2 randomized, double-blind, quadruple-masked crossover study sponsored by Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Enrollment was 72. Participants followed either LCZ696 400 mg QD for four weeks followed by washout and valsartan 320 mg QD for four weeks, or the reverse sequence.
The primary outcome was cumulative sodium excretion on Day 1, measured over 0-6 and 0-24 hours. The registry lists urine volume and blood-pressure outcomes as secondary measures. It defines a pharmacodynamic analysis set but does not report the number analyzed.
Numerical outcome results, statistical analyses, treatment contrasts, uncertainty estimates, multiplicity methods, and missing-data methods are not reported in the registry record. Safety entries list 0 serious adverse events for each treatment group and 15 other adverse events for each, with different risk-group counts. Death counts are not reported.