SynthesisIrish journal of medical science2026
Is Mirabegron-the novel beta 3 agonist-effective in patients with heart failure? A systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety.
Synthesis in Irish journal of medical science, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveOur goal is to conduct an investigation into the safety and efficacy of 𝛽3 agonist (Mirabegron) in patients with heart failure (HF) comparing it to placebo.
methodsWe searched internet databases for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to April 1st, 2024. Heart rate, stroke volume, systolic blood pressure, cardiac index, and adverse events were the primary outcomes that were analyzed. Inverse variance was used to compute the risk ratio (RR) and pooled mean differences (MD), along with their 95% CI.
resultsFour studies were included in our paper with a total of 454 patients. The mirabegron group showed a statistically significant improvement compared to the placebo group in Cardiac index (MD: 0.28, [95% CI: 0.02 , 0.53], P = 0.03), but pooled analysis did not favor either of the two arms in heart rate, ejection fraction, stroke volume and systolic blood pressure (MD: 2.54, [95% CI: -1.05 , 6.13]), (MD: 2.40, [95% CI: -2.51 , 7.3]), (MD: 0.56, [95% CI: -2.45 , 3.56]), and (MD: 0.11, [95% CI:-0.15 , 0.38]) respectively. Furthermore, there were not significant variations between the two groups in adverse events, and serious adverse events (RR: 1.06, [95% CI: 0.87, 1.29]), and (RR: 1.06, [95% CI: 0.70, 1.60], p = 0.80) respectively.
conclusionThe Cardiac index was considerably enhanced with Mirabegron, but all other effectiveness and safety outcomes were unchanged. Further RCTs for longer durations and on more diverse populations still need to be conducted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41491862What 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.