ReviewCureus2025
Comparing High- Versus Low-Dose Entresto in Heart Failure Patients: A 2025 Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. 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.
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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Entresto (sacubitril/valsartan) is widely used for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) due to its ability to enhance natriuretic peptide activity and inhibit the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS). However, its effects on various cardiovascular outcomes require further evaluation. Therefore, a meta-analysis of existing clinical studies was conducted to compare the effectiveness of high-dose vs. low-dose Entresto in treating chronic heart failure. A systematic search was performed using three databases: PubMed, ClinicalTrials, and Cochrane. The meta-analysis included nine randomized controlled trials comprising 4,011 patients with HFrEF. The inclusion criteria were: studies that evaluated patients (>18 years of age) with heart failure (these doses were generally divided into high (97/103 mg) and low (24/26 mg), with four studies using different dosing ranges relative to these categories); studies with relevant primary outcome; and studies written in English. The primary outcomes include: heart failure hospitalization, all-cause mortality, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, and systolic blood pressure over a minimum follow-up period of three months. We excluded studies with no quantitative outcome data, follow-up period (of at least three months), and dose-group comparisons. Additionally, studies were excluded if they were: case reports; meta-analyses; systematic reviews; conference abstracts; non-human studies or publications in any other language than English. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Robvis tool and classified into low, moderate, serious, and critical risk of bias categories. The results of this assessment were illustrated via a traffic light plot. A random effects statistical model was used in this study. Heterogeneity for LVEF was found to be substantial (I
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.