Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril in the Management of Heart Failure

Sacubitril/valsartan compared to equivalent/sub-equivalent dose angiotensin receptor blocker or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

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.

Efficacy and safety profile of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors in the management of heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Several guidelines have recommended the use of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) as replacement for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in the management of heart failure. Till date, there are no reviews done that comprehensively cover different aspects of efficacy and safety parameters. Hence, we have performed a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis on role of ARNIs for the management of heart failure patients. Searches were done in Embase, Scopus, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, PubMed Central, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect and Clinicaltrials.gov until June 2022. Risk of bias assessment was done with Cochrane's risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis was carried out using random-effects model. Pooled standardized mean difference (SMD)/mean difference (MD) and/or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was reported. In total, we analysed 34 studies, with almost all of them had a high risk of bias. Pooled RR was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.82-0.95) for all-cause mortality, 0.84 (95% CI: 0.77-0.92) for cardiovascular mortality and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.70-0.87) for hospitalization. Pooled MD was 3.74 (95% CI: 1.93-5.55) for left ventricular ejection fraction, -2.16 (95% CI: -3.58 to -0.74) for left atrial volume index, -3.80 (95% CI: -6.60 to -1.00) for left ventricular end-diastolic dimension and -1.16 (95% CI: -1.98 to -0.35) for E/E' ratio. Regarding adverse events, pooled RR was 1.55 (95% CI: 1.31-1.85) for symptomatic hypotension, 0.93 (95% CI: 0.78-1.11) for worsening renal function, 1.09 (95% CI: 0.94-1.26) for hyperkalaemia and 1.29 (95% CI: 0.67-2.50) for angioedema. ARNIs had beneficial efficacy and safety profile on the management of heart failure especially patients with reduced ejection fraction.