Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30834056›Full record

ArticleCardiology research2019

Anti-Hypertensive Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Renato De Vecchis, Silvia Soreca, Carmelina Ariano

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cardiology research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Network meta-analysis of sacubitril/valsartan for the treatment of essential hypertension.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2023
    Review
  7. Novel antihypertensive agents for resistant hypertension: what does the future hold?Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2022
    Review
  8. Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors for hypertension-hemodynamic effects and relevance to hypertensive heart disease.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2022
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors: Comprehensive review and implications in hypertension treatment.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2021
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. RETRACTED ARTICLE: Vasodilatory Properties of Sacubitril/Valsartan Explored in Hypertensives Aged Over 55 Years: A Meta-Analysis.High blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension · 2020
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Renato De VecchisPreventive Cardiology and Rehabilitation Unit, DSB 29 "S. Gennaro dei Poveri Hospital", via S.Gennaro dei Poveri 25, 80136 Napoli, Italy.
Silvia SorecaPreventive Cardiology and Rehabilitation Unit, DSB 29 "S. Gennaro dei Poveri Hospital", via S.Gennaro dei Poveri 25, 80136 Napoli, Italy.
Carmelina ArianoPreventive Cardiology and Rehabilitation Unit, DSB 29 "S. Gennaro dei Poveri Hospital", via S.Gennaro dei Poveri 25, 80136 Napoli, Italy.
Ospedale S.Gennaro · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFor elderly patients suffering from arterial hypertension, a complete assessment of the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan used as an anti-hypertensive agent is not available yet. Therefore, we decided to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to explore some endpoints concerning anti-hypertensive efficacy as well as safety of sacubitril/valsartan in elderly hypertensive patients.

methodsPubMed and Scopus have been extensively investigated with the help of some key words until June 15, 2018. The meta-analysis incorporated exclusively RCTs in which the anti-hypertensive efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan were compared with those of a reference drug (comparator) that could be an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi), an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), a calcium channel blocker (CCB) or a beta-blocker. Continuous ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was required as an inclusion criterion in the studies to be included in the meta-analysis. The mean reductions in systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure in the sitting position (msSBP and msDBP, respectively), as well as the mean reductions in ambulatory systolic blood pressure (maSBP) and ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (maDBP), were assumed as efficacy endpoints. Adverse events (AEs) were taken as safety outcomes.

resultsFive RCTs were included with a total of 1,513 patients for analysis. In all studies, the comparator drug was an ARB (valsartan in two cases and olmesartan in the remaining three cases). Compared with ARBs, after 12 weeks there was a significant reduction in msSBP (weight mean difference (WMD) = - 5.41 mm Hg, 95% confidence interval (CI): -7.0 to -3.8; P < 0.01), msDBP (WMD = -1.22 mm Hg, 95% CI : -2.15 to -0.3; P < 0.01), maSBP (WMD = -4.58 mm Hg, 95% CI: -5.62 to -3.54; P < 0.01) and maDBP (WMD = -2.17 mm Hg, 95% CI: - 2.78 to -1.56; P < 0.01) in elderly hypertensive patients at 12 weeks.

conclusionsSacubitril/valsartan may reduce arterial pressure more efficaciously than ARBs in elderly hypertensive patients. These results have to be confirmed by further RCTs with a good methodological quality, possibly with a greater sample size.

Indexed as

HypertensionSacubitril/ValsartanTherapy

Identifiers

PMID30834056
PMCPMC6396804
OpenAlexW2918006074

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.