Key result
High-dose sacubitril/valsartan cuts HF hospitalization ~60% and lowers all-cause mortality vs low-dose therapy.
Why the study?
Controversy has persisted regarding the clinical benefits of low-dose sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure.
Does low-dose sacubitril/valsartan improve clinical outcomes compared to high-dose sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure?
Meta-Analysis (n=1,697)
Does low-dose sacubitril/valsartan improve clinical outcomes compared to high-dose sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure?
Effect estimate: OR 0.4 (95% CI 0.27-0.61)
p-value: p=< .0001
High-dose sacubitril/valsartan is associated with significantly lower risks of heart failure hospitalization and all-cause mortality compared to low-dose therapy, reinforcing the importance of titrating guideline-directed medical therapy to target doses.
Supports uptitration to high-dose sacubitril/valsartan in HF; reinforces target-dose GDMT optimization in guidelines.
BACKGROUND: Controversy has persisted over the clinical benefits of low-dose sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure (HF). HYPOTHESIS: Low-dose sacubitril/valsartan might also be effective and safe in HF patients. METHODS: Electronic databases including PubMed, Ovid, and Cochrane Library were systematically retrieved from inception to August 5, 2021. Review manager 5.4 and Stata 15.1 were employed in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Key efficacy outcomes of interest included HF hospitalization, all-cause mortality, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), together with New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class. The safety outcome was systolic blood pressure (SBP). The grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation approach was conducted to evaluate the quality of evidence for each outcome. RESULTS: A total of 1269 studies were screened and 9 real-world studies met the inclusion criteria were included in the meta-analysis, with 1697 participants. Compared with low-dose sacubitril/valsartan, high-dose sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced the risk of HF hospitalization (odds ratio [OR]: 0.4, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.27-0.61, p < .0001) and the risk of all-cause mortality (OR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.11-0.47, p < .0001). However, there were no appreciable differences in improvements of NYHA (OR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.15-2.35, p = .45), changes of LVEF (mean difference [MD]: 2.73%, 95% CI: -2.24% to 7.7%, p = .28), changes of NT-proBNP (MD: 43.09, 95% CI: -28.41 to 114.59, p = .24) and changes of SBP (MD: 3.01, 95% CI: -4.62 to 10.64, p = .44) between groups with low-dose and high-dose sacubitril/valsartan. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with high-dose sacubitril/valsartan, low-dose sacubitril/valsartan was associated with increased risks of HF hospitalization and all-cause mortality. However, no distinct between-group differences in improvements of NYHA, changes of LVEF, changes of NT-proBNP and changes of SBP were observed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2023) conducted a meta-analysis in Heart failure (n=1,697). Sacubitril/valsartan vs. High-dose sacubitril/valsartan was evaluated on Heart failure hospitalization (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.27-0.61, p=< .0001). High-dose sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced the risk of HF hospitalization (OR 0.4; 95% CI 0.27-0.61; p<0.0001) and all-cause mortality compared with low-dose therapy in heart failure.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: