Key result
LCZ696 significantly reduced all-cause mortality (HR 0.84) and hospitalizations for heart failure (HR 0.80) compared with ACE inhibitors and ARBs in patients with heart failure.
Why the study?
The advantage of LCZ696 over other neuroendocrine inhibitors, such as ACEis and ARBs, had not been fully elucidated in heart failure.
Does LCZ696 reduce mortality and heart failure hospitalizations in patients with heart failure compared to ACEis and ARBs?
Meta-Analysis (n=19,078)
Does LCZ696 reduce mortality and heart failure hospitalizations in patients with heart failure compared to ACEis and ARBs?
Hazard Ratio: 0.84 (95% CI 0.76–0.93)
p-value: p=0.0005
In a meta-analysis of 5 RCTs, LCZ696 demonstrated superiority over ACEis and ARBs in reducing all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalizations, and renal function decline in patients with heart failure.
Supports preferring LCZ696 over ACEis/ARBs in HF; confirms mortality and hospitalization benefits across RCTs.
BACKGROUND: LCZ696 is a novel neuroendocrine inhibitor that has been widely used in heart failure (HF). However, its advantage over other neuroendocrine inhibitors, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) has not been fully elucidated. This study aimed to provide the latest evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of LCZ696 as compared to other ACEis and ARBs with regards to the treatment of HF. METHODS: We systematically searched databases, including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The outcome measures included all-cause mortality, rate of hospitalizations for HF, rate of death from cardiovascular causes, change in N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels, and decline of renal function. RESULTS: Five RCTs involving 19,078 patients were identified. The meta-analysis indicated that LCZ696 was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.93; P = .0005), rate of hospitalizations for HF (HR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.87; P < .00001), reduction in NT-proBNP levels (rate ratio = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.70-0.88; P < .0001), and decline in renal function (odds ratio = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.68-0.88; P < .0001) compared with ACEis and ARBs. However, there was no statistical difference in the rate of death from cardiovascular causes (HR = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72-1.03; P = .09) between LCZ696 and ACEis and ARBs. CONCLUSION: LCZ696 is superior to ACEis and ARBs in the treatment of HF. Hence, it should be more widely used clinically.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2022) conducted a meta-analysis in Heart failure (n=19,078). LCZ696 (sacubitril/valsartan) vs. ACE inhibitors (ACEis) or Angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) was evaluated on All-cause mortality (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76-0.93, p=0.0005). LCZ696 significantly reduced all-cause mortality (HR 0.84) and hospitalizations for heart failure (HR 0.80) compared with ACE inhibitors and ARBs in patients with heart failure.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: