Annals of Pharmacotherapy, Ahead of Print.
Objective:The current meta-analysis reviews the different randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of sacubitril-valsartan (SV) thoroughly and assesses its effectiveness and safety as a drug for heart failure.Data Sources:Relevant articles for meta-analysis were searched from PubMed, MEDLINE, and Central databases using appropriate keywords.Study Selection and data extraction:Studies were included as per the predefined PICOS criteria. Demographic summary and event data change in heart conditions after drug intake and adverse effects of drugs under both the SV and control arms were determined. The risk of bias and comparative drug efficiency in terms of diagnostic odds ratio (OR) and risk ratio (RR) were determined using RevMan software.Data Synthesis:Ten RCTs with total 18 164 heart patients were included according to the inclusion criteria from the year 2015 to 2022. Included studies have patients of different age groups treated with either SV or control. For the change in number of patients with heart conditions after drug intake, we obtained the pooled OR of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.71-0.91) and pooled RR of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.88-0.96). The OR value less than 1 is indicative of high efficiency of SV in lowering the number of heart patients. All these values are statistically significant (P < 0.05) and suggested better recovery of patients with SV as compared with the control drugs with minimal risk and side effects.Conclusions:Data of included studies prove the efficacy and safety of SV for curing heart conditions. Therefore, the present evidence shows that SV is effective in the treatment of heart failure, reducing hospitalization and cardiovascular mortality, and that the adverse effects are comparable or fewer than those associated with other drugs used for this indication.
Objective:The current meta-analysis reviews the different randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of sacubitril-valsartan (SV) thoroughly and assesses its effectiveness and safety as a drug for heart failure.Data Sources:Relevant articles for meta-analysis were searched from PubMed, MEDLINE, and Central databases using appropriate keywords.Study Selection and data extraction:Studies were included as per the predefined PICOS criteria. Demographic summary and event data change in heart conditions after drug intake and adverse effects of drugs under both the SV and control arms were determined. The risk of bias and comparative drug efficiency in terms of diagnostic odds ratio (OR) and risk ratio (RR) were determined using RevMan software.Data Synthesis:Ten RCTs with total 18 164 heart patients were included according to the inclusion criteria from the year 2015 to 2022. Included studies have patients of different age groups treated with either SV or control. For the change in number of patients with heart conditions after drug intake, we obtained the pooled OR of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.71-0.91) and pooled RR of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.88-0.96). The OR value less than 1 is indicative of high efficiency of SV in lowering the number of heart patients. All these values are statistically significant (P < 0.05) and suggested better recovery of patients with SV as compared with the control drugs with minimal risk and side effects.Conclusions:Data of included studies prove the efficacy and safety of SV for curing heart conditions. Therefore, the present evidence shows that SV is effective in the treatment of heart failure, reducing hospitalization and cardiovascular mortality, and that the adverse effects are comparable or fewer than those associated with other drugs used for this indication.
