Observational studyHerz2024
Use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure in primary care in Germany: the AURORA-HF noninterventional study.
Observational study in Herz, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) is the first angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor indicated for symptomatic chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Given most patients with HF in Germany are managed by general practitioners, AURORA-HF investigated the baseline characteristics and 1‑year follow-up of patients starting Sac/Val in primary care in Germany.
methodsThis was a prospective, multicenter, observational study, with all treatment decisions independent of participation. The only inclusion criteria were adults (age ≥ 18 years) with symptomatic HFrEF. The study comprised four groups, depending on therapy on entry: initiation of (1) Sac/Val or (2) other HF therapy; and no change in HF regimen that (3) included or (4) did not include Sac/Val. Baseline data were captured for all groups; 1‑year follow-up was recorded in groups 1 and 2.
resultsOf 1278 patients in the baseline analyses, 513 (40.1%) had newly started Sac/Val (449 [87.5%] completing the 1‑year follow-up), 265 (20.7%) had newly started other HF regimens (245, 92.5%) with 1‑year follow-up, while 249 with Sac/Val (19.5%) and 251 without Sac/Val (19.6%) patients had unchanged therapies. Patients treated with Sac/Val had a higher New York Heart Association (NYHA) class at baseline and more often a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 35%. The only baseline parameter significantly correlating with Sac/Val discontinuation during the 1‑year follow-up was diabetes mellitus (odds ratio: 2.44; 95% confidence interval: 1.14-5.24). In the Sac/Val group, 30.7% of patients were in NYHA class I/II on study entry, improving to 51.0% at 1‑year follow-up. In the no Sac/Val group, the corresponding rates of NYHA I and II classes were 49.8% and 58.2%, respectively. The overall adverse event profile of Sac/Val was good, with only 6.0% patients experiencing serious adverse events leading to permanent discontinuation.
conclusionIn patients with symptomatic HFrEF treated in primary care, the group in whom Sac/Val was initiated was characterized by a higher NYHA class and lower LVEF compared to patients in whom Sac/Val was not initiated. Sac/Val was well tolerated, with a high proportion completing 1 year of therapy.
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.