SynthesisMedicine2018
The efficacy and safety of soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators in patients with heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety of Vericiguat in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2025Pooled it
- Analysis of research trends and development prospects of soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators/activators: using bibliometric methods.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Pooled it
- The efficacy and safety of soluble guanylate cyclase modulation in patients with heart failure: a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Scientific reports · 2024Pooled it
- Clinical practice guidelines for diagnostic and treatment of the chronic heart failure.Archivos de cardiologia de Mexico · 2024Guideline
- Safety, Pharmacokinetics, and Pharmacodynamics of TD-0714, a Novel Potent Neprilysin Inhibitor in Healthy Adult and Elderly Subjects.Clinical and translational science · 2020Trial
- Effectiveness of vericiguat in heart failure across ejection fraction phenotypes: a comprehensive meta-analytic trial sequential analysis and meta-regression analysis.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: a Pharmacotherapeutic Update.Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2023Review
- Bibliometric study of soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators in cardiovascular research based on web of science from 1992 to 2021.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been investigated the benefits of soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) stimulators in the treatment of heart failure, but a comprehensive evaluation is lacking. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral sGC stimulators (vericiguat and riociguat) in patients with heart failure.
methodsStudies were searched and screened in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Eligible RCTs were included that reported mortality, the change of EuroQol Group 5-Dmensional Self-report Questionnaire (EQ-5D) US index, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), or serious adverse events (SAEs). Relative risk or weight mean difference (WMD) was estimated using fixed effect model or random effect model. Analysis of sensitivity and publication bias was conducted.
resultsFive trials with a total of 1200 patients were included. sGC stimulators had no impact on the mortality (1.25; 95% confidence interval 0.50-3.11) and significantly improved EQ-5D US index (0.04; 95% confidence interval 0.020-0.05). Furthermore, in comparison with control group, NT-proBNP was statistically decreased in riociguat group (-0.78; 95% confidence interval -1.01 to -0.47), but not in vericiguat group (0.04, 95% confidence interval -0.18 to 0.25). There were not obverse differences in SAEs between sGC stimulators and control groups (0.90; 95% confidence interval 0.72-1.12).
conclusionOur meta-analysis suggests that sGC stimulators could improve the quality of life in patients with heart failure with good tolerance and safety, but their long-term benefits need to be observed in the future. sGC stimulators are likely to be promising add-on strategies for the treatment of heart failure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.