RESUMO
PURPOSE: The objective of this meta-analysis is to determine how sacubitril/valsartan (SV) compares to equivalent and sub-equivalent angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS: The databases of PubMed and EMBASE were used to identify those randomized controlled trials which compared SV to ARB/ACEI in patients with HFrEF. Only those trials that reported outcomes regarding total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and worsening heart failure were considered. Meta-analysis was performed separately in those patients receiving equivalent doses of ARB/ACEI and those receiving sub-equivalent doses. Equivalent doses were SV 97/103 = valsartan 160 mg twice daily = enalapril 20 mg twice daily = ramipril 5 mg twice daily. Meta-analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.4. RESULTS: Twelve randomized trials were identified involving 17,484 patients: 11,291 in the sub-equivalent group (8 trials) and 6193 in the equivalent group (4 trials). Meta-analyses showed there were no statistical differences regarding the outcomes of total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and worsening heart failure in the equivalent dosing group. However, SV reduced total mortality (risk ratio (RR) = 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.78-0.93, p < 0.001), cardiovascular mortality (RR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.73-0.90, p ≤ 0.001) and worsening heart failure (RR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.64-0.92, p = 0.005) in the sub-equivalent group. CONCLUSION: When compared to equivalent doses of ARB/ACEI, SV is not superior in reducing mortality and worsening heart failure. SV is superior when compared to sub-equivalent doses of ACEI.
Assuntos
Aminobutiratos , Antagonistas de Receptores de Angiotensina , Inibidores da Enzima Conversora de Angiotensina , Compostos de Bifenilo , Insuficiência Cardíaca , Tetrazóis , Valsartana , Humanos , Aminobutiratos/administração & dosagem , Aminobutiratos/uso terapêutico , Aminobutiratos/efeitos adversos , Antagonistas de Receptores de Angiotensina/administração & dosagem , Antagonistas de Receptores de Angiotensina/uso terapêutico , Inibidores da Enzima Conversora de Angiotensina/administração & dosagem , Inibidores da Enzima Conversora de Angiotensina/uso terapêutico , Compostos de Bifenilo/administração & dosagem , Compostos de Bifenilo/uso terapêutico , Combinação de Medicamentos , Insuficiência Cardíaca/tratamento farmacológico , Insuficiência Cardíaca/mortalidade , Insuficiência Cardíaca/fisiopatologia , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Volume Sistólico/efeitos dos fármacos , Tetrazóis/administração & dosagem , Tetrazóis/uso terapêutico , Valsartana/administração & dosagemRESUMO
Background: The PARADIGM HF trial showed sacubitril/valsartan (SV) to be superior to enalapril in patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Since its publication, several other randomized trials have compared SV to either an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) in HFrEF which showed conflicting results regarding mortality, hospitalizations, and quality of life scoring. Objective: To review randomized comparative trials of SV to either ACEI or ARB in patients with HFrEF. Methods: PubMed and Embase databases were used to identify randomized comparative trials. The text terms sacubitril, angiotensin neprilysin, and LCZ696 were used for both searches. Meta-analysis, retrospective, adhoc, and cohort studies were excluded. Results: 1476 and 3983 citations were reviewed on PubMed and Embase, respectively. Of these, 11 randomized comparative trials to either ACEI or ARB were included for analysis. The mortality/quality of life benefits of SV over enalapril in the PARADIGM HF were not corroborated in any of the other trials. The effect of hospitalizations for heart failure was inconsistent among trials. Exercise tolerance was not improved with SV versus enalapril. Conclusion: The results of the PARADIGM HF trial have largely not been confirmed in subsequent randomized comparative trials.