Abstract:Benefits and harms of the use of LCZ696 (sacubitril/valsartan, S/V), a combination of a neprilysin inhibitor and an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), in heart failure (HF) are unknown. To systematically assess benefits and harms of S/V as compared to angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) or ARB in patients with HF. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating S/V vs. ACEI or ARB in acute or chronic HF adult patients. Primary outcomes were HF hospitalisation and cardiovascular [CV] mortality; secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, decline in renal function, myocardial dysfunction, quality of life (QoL), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood [DBP], and adverse events (AEs) including worsening renal function (SCr≥2 mg/dL), hyperkalaemia (K+≥5.5 mmol/L), symptomatic hypotension (SBP<100 mmHg), and angio-oedema. Inverse variance random-effects meta-analyses were conducted and effects expressed as hazard ratios (HR), relative risks (RR) or mean difference (MD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). GRADE methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence (CoE). We selected 11 RCTs (n=18766). Follow-up times ranged between 2 and 48 months; the average age of participants was 61 to 73 years-old. Five RCTs had ACEIs as control, five RCTs had ARBs as control, and one RCT had both ACEI and ARB as control. Six RCTs had low risk of bias; five RCTs had unclear risk of bias. S/V reduced the hazard of HF hospitalisations by 20% (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68–0.94; 3 RCTs; I 2 =65%; high CoE), CV mortality by 14% (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.01; 2 RCTs; I 2 =57%; high CoE) and all-cause mortality by 11% (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78–1.00; 3 RCTs; I 2 =36%; high CoE) compared to ACEI or ARB control (Figure 1). S/V slightly improved KCCQ-QoL scores (MD 1.36 points, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.24; 6 RCTs; I 2 =54%). S/V did not affect LVEF and E/E' but reduced NTproBNP (SMD −0.34, 95% CI −0.52 to −0.16; 3 RCTs; I 2 =62%), and hs-TNT (Ratio of differences 0.84, 95% CI 0.79–0.88; 2 RCTs; I 2 =0%). SBP and DBP were reduced by 4 mmHg and 3 mmHg, respectively, and hypotension was increased (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.33–2.15; 9 RCTs; I 2 =65%; high CoE) with S/V. Also, S/V reduced the hazard of decline in renal function by 33% (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.39–1.14; 2RCTs; I 2 =78%; high CoE); hyperkalaemia and angioedema events were similar between S/V and controls. Sacubitril/valsartan had better clinical and intermediate outcomes in HF in comparison to ACEI or ARB. Decline of renal function was less frequent with S/V in comparison to controls, and there was no difference in decline of renal function or angioedema and hyperkalaemia events. However, sacubitril/valsartan was associated with more symptomatic hypotension events vs. controls. Type of funding sources: None. Figure 1. S/V effects on primary outcomes

Sacubitril/valsartan improves the prognosis of acute myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis

Assessment of Ultra-Early Administration of Sacubitril Valsartan to Improve Cardiac Remodeling in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Following Primary PCI: Rational and Design of a Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial

The efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared with ACEI/ARB in the treatment of heart failure following acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

The Benefits of Sacubitril–valsartan in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction: a Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis

The Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/valsartan Compared with ACEI/ARB in the Treatment of Heart Failure Following Acute Myocardial Infarction: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Sacubitril/Valsartan in the Treatment of Right Ventricular Dysfunction in Patients with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Real-world Study

Effect of sacubitril–valsartan on left ventricular remodeling in patients with acute myocardial infarction after primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis

A clinical randomized trial: Effects of early application of sacubitril/valsartan on ventricular remodeling and prognosis in acute myocardial infarction patients

Efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan in patients with acute myocardial infarction: A meta-analysis

A meta-analysis investigating the efficacy and adverse events linked to sacubitril-valsartan in various heart failure subtypes

Efficacy and safety of sacubitril-valsartan in heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Effects of sacubitril-valsartan in Patients with Various Types of Heart Failure: A Meta-Analysis

Efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure compared to renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Effects of sacubitril/valsartan on life quality in chronic heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

A Retrospective Study of Whether Sacubitril–Valsartan Improves Cardiac Function in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome and Hypertension after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Efficacy and safety of sacubitril valsartan in heart failure compared to renin angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitors: a systematic review and meta analysis of randomised controlled trials

Effect on the Quality of Life of Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced/Preserved Ejection Fraction Using Sacubitril/Valsartan

Evaluating the impact of Sacubitril/valsartan on diastolic function in patients with heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Effectiveness and Safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan on Survival in Patients with Heart Failure and Significant Valvular Heart Disease

Benefits and adverse effects of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with chronic heart failure: A systematic review and meta‐analysis