ArticlePloS one2021
Circulating neprilysin hypothesis: A new opportunity for sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction?
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic effect of polypharmacy in ambulatory patients with heart failure: a machine learning-based analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- Biomarkers in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction.Cardiac failure review · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCirculating Neprilysin (sNEP) has emerged as a potential prognostic biomarker in heart failure (HF). In PARAGON-HF benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was only observed in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤57%. We aimed to assess the prognostic value of sNEP in outpatients with HF and LVEF >57%, in comparison with patients with LVEF ≤57%.
methodsConsecutive HF outpatients were included from May-2006 to February-2016. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death or HF hospitalization and the main secondary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. For the later competing risk methods were used.
resultssNEP was measured in 1428 patients (age 67.7±12.7, 70.3% men, LVEF 35.8% ±14), 144 of which had a LVEF >57%. sNEP levels did not significantly differ between LVEF groups (p = 0.31). During a mean follow-up of 6±3.9 years, the primary endpoint occurred in 979 patients and the secondary composite endpoint in 714 (in 111 and 84 of the 144 patients with LVEF >57%, respectively). sNEP was significantly associated with both composite endpoints. Age- and sex- adjusted Cox regression analyses showed higher hazard ratios for sNEP in patients with LVEF >57%, both for the primary (HR 1.37 [1.16-1.61] vs. 1.04 [0.97-1.11]) and the secondary (HR 1.38 [1.21-1.55] vs. 1.11 [1.04-1.18]) composite endpoints.
conclusionssNEP prognostic value in patients with HF and LVEF >57% outperforms that observed in patients with lower LVEF. Precision medicine using sNEP may identify HF patients with preserved LVEF that may benefit from treatment with sacubitril/valsartan.
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.