Key result
Sacubitril/valsartan showed no significant difference in the composite risk of heart failure hospitalization and all-cause mortality between the highest and lowest dosage tertiles (HR 0.88).
Why the study?
Because only a minority of heart failure patients receive maximal-dose sacubitril/valsartan, the real-world effectiveness of submaximal doses remains an important clinical question.
Does a higher average daily dose of sacubitril/valsartan improve the composite of HF hospitalization and all-cause mortality compared to a lower dose in patients with HFrEF?
Cohort (n=3,953)
Yes
Does a higher average daily dose of sacubitril/valsartan improve the composite of HF hospitalization and all-cause mortality compared to a lower dose in patients with HFrEF?
Effect estimate: HR 0.88 (95% CI 0.74-1.06)
Absolute Event Rate: 99.3% vs 112.6%
p-value: p=0.384
Submaximal doses of sacubitril/valsartan may offer comparable clinical benefits to higher doses in real-world HFrEF patients, suggesting that benefits are not strictly dose-dependent.
Submaximal sacubitril/valsartan doses were associated with similar outcomes to higher doses in HFrEF; leaves open dose-response effects in randomized trials.
Aims A minority of patients with heart failure (HF) are prescribed the maximal dose of the angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan. We investigated the effectiveness of submaximal doses of sacubitril/valsartan in a real-world cohort. Methods and results Patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction prescribed sacubitril/valsartan for ≥ 180 days between 2016 and 2020 were included from a nationwide database, and categorized into tertiles based on the average daily sacubitril/valsartan dosage. Baseline characteristics were balanced using inverse probability of treatment weighting with propensity scores. The primary outcome was a composite of HF hospitalization and all-cause mortality. The study included 3,953 patients (age 62.6 ± 12.4 years, 73.0% men). Patients on lower sacubitril/valsartan doses were older, more likely to be women, and had more comorbidities, with lower blood pressure, reduced kidney function, and lower body mass index; however, baseline characteristics were well balanced across the groups after weighting. During a mean follow-up of 2.0 ± 0.7 years, there were 808 events (20.4%). The risk of the primary outcome in the middle (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78–1.10) and the highest dosage tertiles (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74–1.06) did not significantly differ compared with the lowest dosage tertile ( p -value = 0.384). Regarding individual outcomes, there was no significant difference in HF hospitalization; however, there was a trend toward lower mortality with higher sacubitril/valsartan dose ( p -value = 0.047). Conclusions No significant difference was observed in the composite risk of HF hospitalization and all-cause mortality across different sacubitril/valsartan dosage groups. This suggests that the benefits of sacubitril/valsartan treatment may not necessarily be dose-dependent. Graphical Abstract Clinical characteristics of patients according to sacubitril/valsartan dosage tertiles and their clinical outcomes. Patients in the lowest dosage tertile were more likely to be women and had unfavourable clinical characteristics. However, after inverse probability of treatment weighting, the Kaplan–Meier curves revealed no significant differences with regard to heart failure hospitalization, all-cause mortality, and the combination of these.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lim et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (n=3,953). Sacubitril/valsartan vs. Sacubitril/valsartan <100 mg/day (lowest tertile) was evaluated on Composite of hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause mortality (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74-1.06, p=0.384). Sacubitril/valsartan showed no significant difference in the composite risk of heart failure hospitalization and all-cause mortality between the highest and lowest dosage tertiles (HR 0.88).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: