ReviewCureus2026
Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril in the Treatment of Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remains a leading cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality worldwide. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan compared to enalapril in patients with HFrEF. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, Ovid, Cochrane Library, and ProQuest databases from inception to December 23, 2024. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or observational studies published in English, comparing sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril among adult patients diagnosed with HFrEF. The risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were computed, and p < 0.05 was considered as a level of significance. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan (Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK). This study included 10 RCTs and two prospective cohort studies with 11,765 patients (5,879 in the sacubitril/valsartan group and 5,886 in the enalapril group, 45.26 to 69.0 years of age). Sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced all-cause mortality (RR = 0.85, P = 0.0006), cardiovascular mortality (RR = 0.81, P < 0.0001), and heart failure rehospitalization (RR = 0.68, P = 0.006) compared to enalapril. Hypotension was more frequent with sacubitril/valsartan (RR = 1.54, P < 0.00001), while no significant differences were found for hyperkalemia, angioedema, worsening renal function, or left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Sacubitril/valsartan was associated with lower N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels (MD = -427.50, P = 0.009) and better Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) scores (MD = 1.64, P < 0.00001). Sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness and resolved heterogeneity in several outcomes. Publication bias could not be assessed due to the small number of studies (<10), as funnel plot asymmetry and related tests are unreliable with limited studies. This limitation should be considered when interpreting the results, as undetected publication bias remains possible. Sacubitril/valsartan demonstrates superior efficacy over enalapril in key clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Further research is needed to investigate its long-term safety and effectiveness across diverse patient populations.
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.