SynthesisMedicine2019
Effect and safety of LCZ696 in the treatment of hypertension: A meta-analysis of 9 RCT studies.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- The efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International urology and nephrology · 2024Pooled it
- Effect of leisure-time physical activity on blood pressure in people with hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2023Pooled it
- Walking for hypertension.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Novel Antihypertensive Medications to Target the Renin-Angiotensin System: Mechanisms and Research.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- Cross talk on therapeutic strategies: natriuretic peptides and inhibiting neprilysin in hypertension management.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2025Review
- Sacubitril/Valsartan for Blood Pressure Lowering in Non-Dialysis-Dependent Chronic Kidney Disease Stage 3-5 Patients With Hypertension: A Multicenter Clinical Study.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2025Observational
- Efficacy and safety of sacubitril-valsartan in Maintenance Hemodialysis patients with hypertension:A retrospective study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors for hypertension-hemodynamic effects and relevance to hypertensive heart disease.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2022Review
- Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors: Comprehensive review and implications in hypertension treatment.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2021Review
- Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor as a novel antihypertensive drug: Evidence from Asia and around the globe.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2021Review
- Effectiveness and Efficiency of Non-drug Therapy Among Community-Dwelling Adults With Hypertension in China: A Protocol for Network Meta-Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- Comparative efficacy of different types of antihypertensive drugs in reversing left ventricular hypertrophy as determined with echocardiography in hypertensive patients: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2020Review
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 at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLCZ696 has been introduced in patients with hypertension in several trials. Here, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect and safety of LCZ696 in hypertensive patients.
methodsPubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched to identify the available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effect and safety of LCZ696 in hypertension patients. The last search date was October 31, 2018.
resultsNine RCTs with 6765 subjects were finally included, in which 8 trials compared the effect and safety between LCZ696 and angiotensin receptor antagonists (ARBs). Evidences showed LCZ696, compared with ARBs, achieved a better blood pressure control rate (OR 1.24, 95% CI: 1.14-1.35), specifically, LCZ696 were better at reducing systolic blood pressure [WMD -4.11 mmHg, 95% CI: (-5.13, -3.08) mmHg], diastolic blood pressure [WMD -1.79 mmHg, 95% CI: (-2.22, -1.37) mmHg], mean 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure [WMD -3.24 mmHg, 95% CI: (-4.48, -1.99) mmHg] and mean 24-hour ambulatory diastolic blood pressure [WMD -1.25 mmHg, 95% CI: (-1.81, -0.69) mmHg]. There was no difference in the events of adverse events (risk ratio [RR] 1.01, 95% CI: 0.39-1.09), serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI: 0.52-1.22) and discontinuation of treatment for any adverse events (RR 0.79, 95% CI: 0.56-1.11) between LCZ696 group and ARB/placebo group, except LCZ696 reduced the rate of headaches (RR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.48-0.99) while increased cough (RR 2.12, 95% CI: 1.11-4.04; P = .02; I = 25%).
conclusionOur finding provides evidence that LCZ 696 was more effective than ARB on blood pressure control and was safe enough in patients with hypertension.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.