ReviewCureus2023
Antihypertensive Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Olmesartan: An Updated Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Blood pressure lowering efficacy of sacubitril/allisartan versus olmesartan in elderly Chinese hypertensive patients.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sacubitril/valsartan is a drug commonly prescribed for the management of hypertension. However, the complete understanding of its efficacy and safety as an antihypertensive agent remains a subject of ongoing investigation. To address this gap, a meta-analysis was conducted to assess and compare the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in relation to olmesartan, an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB). A thorough search of PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases was performed to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that could contribute to this meta-analysis. The selected studies were evaluated for their efficacy and safety parameters, including mean sitting and ambulatory blood pressure measurements, common side effects, adverse events, and drug discontinuation rates. A total of eight studies, involving 4488 hypertensive patients, were included in this analysis. Among the participants, 63.5% were administered sacubitril/valsartan, while 36.5% received olmesartan. The analysis revealed significant changes in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MsSBP), mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (MsDBP), and mean sitting pulse pressure (MsPP) favoring sacubitril/valsartan, with p-values <0.00001, 0.07, and <0.00001, respectively. Additionally, sacubitril/valsartan demonstrated a significant reduction in mean ambulatory systolic blood pressure (MaSBP), mean ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (MaDBP), and mean ambulatory pulse pressure (MaPP) with p-values of 0.001, 0.001, and 0.02, respectively. However, it is important to note that safety outcomes indicated that sacubitril/valsartan was associated with slightly less favorable results compared to olmesartan. This meta-analysis highlights that sacubitril/valsartan exhibits superior efficacy in reducing blood pressure parameters compared to olmesartan in hypertensive patients. Nevertheless, its safety profile appears to be slightly less favorable. To reinforce these findings and provide more robust evidence, further studies with larger sample sizes should be conducted in the future. This comprehensive review serves as a valuable resource for healthcare professionals and researchers seeking to make informed decisions regarding antihypertensive treatment options.
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.