ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2020
BNP and NT-proBNP Interpretation in the Neprilysin Inhibitor Era.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advances and controversies in acute decompensated heart failure treatment: beta-blocker roles, emerging devices, and future directions.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Efficacy and Dosage Pattern of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Chinese Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction Patients.Journal of cardiovascular translational research · 2022Article
- Therapeutic Effect of Continuous Blood Purification Combined with Humanized Nursing in Patients with Severe Sepsis.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022Article
- Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors: Comprehensive review and implications in hypertension treatment.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2021Review
- Angiotensin receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitors.World journal of cardiology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewDescribe the mechanisms that may influence change in measured natriuretic peptide levels when using the neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril to treat a patient with heart failure. RECENT
findingsPrior to the introduction of the neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril as part of a chemical combination with the angiotensin receptor blocker valsartan shown to reduce mortality and heart failure hospitalizations in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, the natriuretic peptide assays for B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and the amino-terminal proBNP (NT-proBNP) assays were shown to have similar diagnostic accuracy to differentiate heart failure from other etiologies of shortness of breath. Sacubitril/valsartan use has been shown to result in a modest and chronic elevation of BNP while reducing levels of NT-prBNP. This review explores the potential impact of these findings on interpreting natriuretic peptide results for diagnosis and prognosis, as well as explore the challenges associated with the heterogeneity of this finding, highlighting the impact of inhibiting neprilysin, a non-specific endopeptidase with multiple target sites within BNP and other proteins. With increased uptake of sacubitril/valsartan expected in patients with heart failure, interpretation of natriuretic peptide assays becomes somewhat more complex, particularly for BNP. However, knowing a baseline steady-state concentration and using the same assay can assist with BNP interpretation for diagnosis and prognosis.
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.