Key result
Sacubitril-valsartan linked to ~26% lower risk of death or readmission vs ACEIs or ARBs in HF.
Why the study?
PARAGON-HF suggested potential sacubitril-valsartan benefit in women with HFpEF, prompting investigation into whether its effectiveness versus ACEI/ARB monotherapy differs by sex across preserved and reduced ejection fraction.
Does sacubitril-valsartan reduce readmissions or deaths compared to ACEI/ARB monotherapy in men and women with heart failure?
Cohort (n=48,766)
Does sacubitril-valsartan reduce readmissions or deaths compared to ACEI/ARB monotherapy in men and women with heart failure?
In a real-world cohort, sacubitril-valsartan was more effective than ACEI/ARB monotherapy at reducing death and hospital readmissions similarly among men and women with systolic heart failure.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support sacubitril-valsartan preference in HF; extends trial data to real-world cohorts but leaves causality and practice change open.
Background PARAGON‐HF (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction) suggested a potential benefit of sacubitril–valsartan in women with preserved ejection fraction. Among patients with heart failure previously treated with angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), we studied whether effectiveness of treatment with sacubitril–valsartan compared with ACEI/ARB monotherapy differed between men and women for both preserved and reduced ejection fraction. Methods and Results Data were derived from the Truven Health MarketScan Databases between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2018. We included patients with a primary diagnosis of heart failure on treatment with ACEIs, ARBs, or sacubitril–valsartan on the basis of the first prescription after diagnosis. A total of 7181 patients treated with sacubitril–valsartan, 25 408 patients using an ACEI, and 16 177 patients treated with ARBs were included. A total of 790 readmissions or deaths occurred among 7181 patients in the sacubitril–valsartan group and 11 901 events in 41 585 patients treated with an ACEI/ARB. Adjusted for covariates, the hazard ratio (HR) for treatment with sacubitril–valsartan compared with an ACEI or ARB was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.68–0.80). The protective effect of sacubitril–valsartan was evident for men and women (women: HR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.66–0.86]; P <0.01; men: HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.64–0.79]; P <0.01; P interaction 0.03). A protective effect for both sexes was seen only among those with systolic dysfunction. Conclusions Treatment with sacubitril–valsartan is more effective at reducing death and admission to the hospital for heart failure compared with ACEIs/ARBs similarly among men and women with systolic dysfunction; sex differences in the effectiveness of sacubitril–valsartan in diastolic dysfunction requires further investigation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sohani et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Heart failure (n=48,766). Sacubitril-valsartan vs. ACEI or ARB was evaluated on Readmissions or deaths (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.68-0.80). Sacubitril-valsartan reduced the risk of death or hospital readmission compared with ACEIs or ARBs in heart failure patients (HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.68-0.80), with a protective effect seen in both sexes.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: