Skip to main content
The Egyptian Heart Journal
Download PDF

Soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators for heart failure: a network meta-analysis and subgroup analyses of reduced and preserved ejection fraction

The Egyptian Heart Journal volume 76, Article number: 6 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) stimulators have been investigated for heart failure (HF) in several randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, its place in the management guidelines of either HFrEF or HfpEF is still inconclusive.

Methods

We conducted a network meta-analysis synthesizing RCTs investigating sGC for HF management, which were retrieved by systematically searching five databases until January 24th, 2023. Dichotomous outcomes were pooled using risk ratio (RR) along with confidence interval (CI).

Results

Eight RCTs with a total of 7307 patients were included. Vericiguat 10 mg significantly reduced the composite cardiovascular (CVS) mortality and HF hospitalization in HF (RR: 0.88, 95% CI [0.79; 0.98]) and in HFrEF (RR: 0.87, 95% CI [0.78; 0.97]); however, it was not effective in HFpEF (RR: 0.69, 95% CI [0.15; 3.05]). Also, vericiguat 10 mg showed no difference compared to placebo regarding the incidence of all-cause mortality (RR: 0.96, 95% CI [0.84; 1.10]), any adverse events (AEs) (RR: 0.94, 95% CI [0.83; 1.07]), any serious AEs (RR: 0.91, 95% CI [0.81; 1.01]), and any AEs leading to drug discontinuation (RR: 1.14, 95% CI [0.92; 1.40]).

Conclusion

Vericiguat 10 mg was effective in reducing the composite CVS mortality and HF hospitalization, with an acceptable safety profile. This was only observed in HFrEF patients, but not in HFpEF patients. However, our data regarding other agents (riociguat and praliciguat) and HFpEF can be underpowered, warranting further RCTs to clarify vericiguat 10 mg place in HFrEF management guidelines and to investigate sGC stimulators for HFpEF in large-scale trials.

Background

Heart failure (HF) is characterized by the inability of the heart to pump sufficient blood to meet the body's demands, leading to symptoms such as shortness of breath, fatigue, and swelling in the legs. It is a growing public health problem, affecting millions of people worldwide, and is associated with high rates of hospitalization and death [1, 2]. Soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) stimulators are a class of drugs that increase the activity of sGC, an enzyme involved in nitric oxide signaling. sGC stimulators have been studied for their potential therapeutic benefits in several cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases, including HF and pulmonary arterial hypertension [3]. sGC stimulators work by increasing the levels of cyclic guanosine monophosphate in the body, leading to vasodilation and improved blood flow. This mechanism of action differs from traditional HF drugs, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), istaroxime, and beta-blockers (BBs), which target different pathways in the body [4, 5].

The efficacy of sGC stimulators in HF has been demonstrated in several clinical trials [2, 6,7,8,9,10,11,12]. For example, it was shown that the sGC stimulator vericiguat improved exercise capacity and reduced the risk of hospitalization for HF in patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) [2]. Another study found that vericiguat improved quality of life and reduced the risk of death and hospitalization in patients with HFrEF [13]. On the other hand, it was recently revealed that the sGC stimulator riociguat did not significantly improve exercise capacity or reduce the risk of hospitalization in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) [9].

However, more research is needed to fully understand the potential benefits and risks of sGC stimulators in HF and to determine the best ways to use these drugs in combination with other treatments. Further studies are also needed to determine the long-term effects of sGC stimulators on heart function and overall health outcomes. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of sGC stimulators in patients HF, either with reduced or preserved ejection fraction. Also, we aim to conduct a thorough quality assessment of the current evidence and present a comprehensive network meta-analysis to guide clinical practice to the most effective sGC stimulator agent and dosage in HF.

Methods

Protocol registration

Our meta-analysis adheres to the recommended guidelines provided in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement [14] and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [15]. The plan for conducting this study has been officially registered in The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42023398846).

Data sources and search strategy

Our search strategy comprised a comprehensive search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, via The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, SCOPUS, and Web of Science from inception till 24th January 2023 for any RCTs comparing sGC stimulators in HF with placebo or another sGC stimulators. The MeSH terms and relevant keywords for ("heart failure" OR "cardiac failure" OR HFrEF OR HFpEF) AND ("guanylate cyclase stimulator" OR riociguat OR vericiguat OR praliciguat) were used. The detailed search strategy can be found in the (Additional file 1: Table S1).

Eligibility criteria

RCTs comparing sGC stimulators in HF with placebo or other sGC stimulators were included. Our primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular mortality/HF hospitalization. The secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, any adverse event, any serious adverse event, any adverse event leading to drug discontinuation, syncope, hypotension, and acute kidney injury (AKI).

We excluded the following types of studies from our analysis: research involving animals, preliminary studies, case reports, case series, clinical trials with only one treatment group, laboratory studies conducted in vitro, book chapters, editorial pieces, press articles, and conference abstracts.

Study selection

All the eligible references were imported into the Covidence online software, and the duplicates were removed. U.J., O.A., M.A.E., and A.M. independently assessed the titles and abstracts of these articles, removing those not fulfilling our inclusion criteria. The full texts of the remaining articles were also screened independently. The discrepancies were resolved by B.A.

Data extraction

Data from included studies were extracted by four authors (U.J., O.A., M.A.E., and A.M.) independently into a pre-piloted Excel sheet. B.A. rechecked the completed sheet and resolved any conflicts to ensure data accuracy. The following data items were extracted: study characteristics, including the study design, year of publication, study location, total participants, interventions (co-interventions, types, dosages, and treatment duration), and follow-up duration; population baseline data, including age, gender, and comorbidities; and outcome data.

Risk of bias assessment

Four separate authors (U.J., O.A., M.A.E., and A.M.) evaluated the risk for bias in the studies included in our analysis using The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias, known as RoB 2.0 [16]. RoB 2.0 considers five specific areas: (1) bias resulting from the randomization process, (2) bias arising from deviations in the intended intervention, (3) bias related to missing outcome data, (4) bias in the measurement of outcomes, and (5) bias in the selection of reported results. In case of any disagreements, a consensus was reached among the authors after discussion.

Statistical analysis

To analyze and combine the data, we utilized network analysis in the R software, employing the meta and net meta-packages. For dichotomous outcomes, we employed the risk ratio (RR) along with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The heterogeneity among the studies included in the analysis was assessed using the Chi-square and I-square (I2) tests. Data was considered heterogeneous if the Chi-square P-value was less than 0.1 and the I2 value exceeded 50%. Homogeneous data were pooled using a fixed-effect model, while heterogeneous data were pooled using a random-effect model. Furthermore, we conducted a subgroup analysis based on the type of HF, distinguishing between HFrEF and HFpEF.

Results

Search results and study selection

After searching databases, a total of 1764 studies were retrieved for screening. Following the elimination of 804 duplicate studies and 919 studies that did not fulfill the inclusion criteria after the title and abstract screening, forty-one complete articles were thoroughly evaluated. Out of these, thirty-three records were determined to be ineligible and were subsequently excluded. This resulted in a final selection of eight RCTs that were eligible for both qualitative and quantitative analysis (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow chart of the screening process

Full size image

Characteristics of included studies

We included eight RCTs [2, 6,7,8,9,10,11,12] with a total of 7307 patients; 4086 in the sGC stimulator group and 3221 in the placebo group. Four trials used vericiguat as an intervention, three used riociguat, and only one used praliciguat. Five RCTs investigated HFpEF patients, and three investigated HFrEF patients. Detailed information about the summary and baseline characteristics of the included studies are found in (Tables 1 and 2).

Table 1 Summary characteristics of the included RCTs
Full size table
Table 2 baseline characteristics of the participants
Full size table

Risk of bias

All included RCTs showed an overall low risk of bias, except for Dilate-1 [7], which showed some concerns due to concerns about deviation from the intended intervention. More details can be obtained from (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Quality assessment of the risk of bias in the included trials. The upper panel presents a schematic representation of risks (low = red, unclear = yellow, and high = red) for specific types of biases of each of the studies in the review. The lower panel presents risks (low = red, unclear = yellow, and high = red) for the subtypes of biases of the combination of studies included in this review

Full size image

Efficacy outcome (the composite of cardiovascular mortality/HF hospitalization)

Vericiguat 10 mg significantly decreased the risk of cardiovascular mortality/HF hospitalization (RR = 0.88 with 95% CI [0.79; 0.98], P = 0.02). However, the remining comparisons showed no significant difference (Fig. 3). Pooled studies were homogenous (I2 = 23.4%, p = 0.25).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Network meta-analysis of the composite of cardiovascular mortality/HF hospitalization for the general HF population (A forest plot, B network plot, C rank table), RR risk ratio, CI confidence interval

Full size image

In HFrEF patients, vericiguat 10 mg significantly decreased the risk of cardiovascular mortality/HF hospitalization (RR = 0.87 with 95% CI [0.78; 0.97], P = 0.02). However, the remining comparisons showed no significant difference (Fig. 4). Pooled studies were homogenous (I2 = 38.8%, p = 0.21). In HFpEF patients, all comparisons showed non-significant differences (Additional file 1: Fig. S1).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Network meta-analysis of the composite of cardiovascular mortality/HF hospitalization for HFrEF (A forest plot, B network plot, C rank table), RR risk ratio, CI confidence interval

Full size image

Safety outcomes

Riociguat (0.5 mg, 1 mg, and up-titrated to 1.5 mg), praliciguat 40 mg, and vericiguat (1.25 mg, 2.5 mg, 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg) showed no difference compared to placebo regarding all-cause mortality (Additional file 1: Fig. S2), any adverse event (Additional file 1: Fig. S3), any serious adverse event (Additional file 1: Fig. S4), any adverse event leading to drug discontinuation (Additional file 1: Fig. S5), syncope (Additional file 1: Fig. S6), and AKI (Additional file 1: Fig. S7). However, praliciguat 40 mg showed a higher risk of hypotension than placebo (RR: 18.43 with 95% CI [1.05; 324.20], P = 0.05) (Additional file 1: Fig. S8). Also, praliciguat 40 mg has higher risk of hypotension than vericiguat 5 mg, vericiguat 2.5 mg, vericiguat 1.25 mg, vericiguat 15 mg as shown in rank table (Additional file 1: Fig. S8).

Pooled studies were homogenous in all-cause mortality (I2 = 23%, p = 0.23), any adverse event (I2 = 0%, p = 0.95), any serious adverse event (I2 = 0%, p = 0.94), any adverse event leading to drug discontinuation (I2 =  = 0%, p = 0.95), hypotension (I2 = 20%, p = 0.27), syncope (I2 = 0%, p = 0.96), and AKI (I2 = 0%, p = 0.7).

Subgroup analysis showed similar findings with no difference between s GC stimulators and placebo in any adverse event (Additional file 1: Figs. S9, S10), any serious adverse event (Additional file 1: Figs. S11, S12), any adverse event leading to drug discontinuation (Additional file 1: Figs. S13, S14), syncope (Additional file 1: Figs. S15, S16), and AKI (Additional file 1: Figs. S17, S18). However, among patients with HFpEF, vericiguat 5 mg increased the risk of all-cause mortality in comparison with placebo (RR: 6.12 with 95% CI [1.60; 23.48], P < 0.01) (Fig. 5), with no difference in patients with HFrEF (Additional file 1: Fig. S19). Also, praliciguat 40 mg increased the risk of hypotension in comparison with placebo in patients with HFpEF (RR: 18.43 with 95% CI [1.05; 324.20]) (Additional file 1: Fig. S20), with no difference in patients with HFrEF (Additional file 1: Fig. S21).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Network meta-analysis of the composite of all-cause mortality for the general HF population (A forest plot, B network plot, C rank table), RR risk ratio, CI confidence interval

Full size image

Discussion

sGC stimulators have emerged as a potential treatment for HF due to their ability to stimulate the production of cyclic guanosine monophosphate, which is an impaired pathway in those patients [17, 18]. Despite being tested for safety and efficacy in several clinical trials, only a few studies have reviewed and analyzed the reported data. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we synthesized evidence from eight RCTs conducted between 2013 and 2022 with a total of 7307 HF patients. Our analysis shows that only vericiguat at a dose of 10 mg significantly reduced the risk of composite cardiovascular mortality and HF hospitalization in patients with HF, which was only sustained in the HFrEF subgroup, with no effect in HFpEF patients. Vericiguat also showed to be relatively safe, with only an increased risk of all-cause mortality in HFpEF patients at 5 mg. However, riociguat and praliciguat did not show different effects from placebo on the composite cardiovascular mortality and HF hospitalization, but an increased risk of hypotension in general HF and HFpEF patients was observed in the praliciguat group at the dose of 40 mg.

Vericiguat showed to have the best outcomes despite the variations in the follow-up duration and HF type between the included trials. Among the tested range of doses (1.25–15 mg), 10 mg was only effective when administered once per day. Furthermore, our subgroup analysis showed that vericiguat 10 mg had positive outcomes mainly in HFrEF, a type of HF that represents approximately 50% of all HF cases and has a high mortality rate of approximately 75% [19, 20]. Conversely, HFpEF patients did not seem to benefit from vericiguat. Our findings may have been influenced by the large subgroup population of HFrEF patients included in the VICTORIA trial [2]. Therefore, further research with a larger population of HFpEF patients is recommended to confirm our findings. However, a recent network meta-analysis showed that other pharmacotherapies such as sodium-glucose transporter sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) significantly reduced HF hospitalization in HFpEF, which could help this particular patient population unlike sGC stimulators [21].

In HF, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNB) is released from the cardiac myocytes in response to the increased stretching/stress of the cardiac wall, and therefore it is considered a gold standard biomarker of HF [22,23,24]. NT-proBNB levels in the blood are also used to monitor the effectiveness of certain HF medications such as beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors, and diuretics [23, 25]. Pieske et al. in the SOCRATES-PRESERVED trial and Gheorghiade et al. in the SOCRATES-REDUCED trial [6, 12] investigated the effect of vericiguat on the baseline change of log-transformed NT-proBNB and found no statistically significant reduction (improvement) in the log-transformed NT-proBNB levels at 12 weeks post-treatment. Dachs et al. [9] also reported no improvement in NT-proBNB levels in HFpEF patients 26 weeks after treatment with riociguat. Left atrial volume (LAV) was another outcome measured by Pieske et al. [12] through echocardiography as an indicator of left ventricular filling pressure (LVFP). Vericiguat did not show a significant effect on LAV compared with placebo.

Moreover, Udelson et al., Dachs et al., Bonderman et al., and Armstrong et al. [7,8,9, 11] utilized the 6-min-walk test (6MWT) to assess the HF patients’ exercise tolerance and monitor their response to sGC stimulators treatment. They reported no statistically significant change in 6MWT from baseline after treatment with praliciguat (40 mg), riociguat (0.5 mg (up-titrated to 1.0 or 1.5 mg)), riociguat (0.5, 1 and 2 mg), and vericiguat (10 or 15 mg), respectively. Additionally, Pieske et al. and Bonderman et al. [7, 12] evaluated the effects of vericiguat and riociguat, respectively, on the quality of life of HF patients using the 5-dimension EuroQol questionnaire (EQ-5D) and the scores did not show significant improvement compared with placebo.

Regarding the safety of sGC stimulators use in HF patients, when compared with a placebo, sGC stimulators were safe and well-tolerable with no reported serious adverse events, adverse events leading to drug discontinuation, or any adverse events, including syncope and AKI. However, hypotension was a common adverse event with praliciguat use in HFpEF patients. Also, while all sGC stimulators did not show an increase in the incidence of all-cause mortality, vericiguat 5 mg showed a higher risk than placebo in HFpEF patients. Similarly, BBs, MRAs, ACEIs, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), ARNIs, and SGLT2 inhibitors were not effective on all-cause mortality in a recent network meta-analysis evaluating pharmacotherapies in HFpEF patients [21]. Conversely, in another recent meta-analysis, vericiguat showed to significantly reduce all-cause-mortality in HFrEF patients when combined with ARNIs, BBs, and MRAs, despite being not significantly different from SGLT2 inhibitors and omecamtiv-mecarbil [26].

Moreover, The PARADIGM-HF and DAPA-HF trials; on the other hand, have neprilysin inhibition (sacubitril/valsartan) and SGLT2 inhibition (Dapagliflozin), respectively [27, 28]. These trials have shown significant benefits in reducing mortality, hospitalizations, and improving symptoms in patients with HF, providing additional therapeutic options beyond traditional therapies. The differential outcomes between trials of sGC stimulators and those like PARADIGM-HF and DAPA-HF underscore the complex pathophysiology of HF and the need for a multifaceted approach to its management [27, 28].

Therefore, further research to investigate the effect of sGC stimulators on both HFrEF and HFpEF outcomes when combined with other HF medications is still warranted, which may allow for a more reliable conclusion regarding the position of sGC stimulators in HF management guidelines.

Strengths and limitations

This a network meta-analysis of double-blinded, multinational/centric RCTs, which strengthens the quality of our evidence and increases the generalizability of our study, with no identified heterogeneity of the data. However, our analysis has a few limitations. First, the population size of HFpEF patients, was small, which made it challenging to draw strong conclusions. Second, only one trial in our analysis evaluated the safety and efficacy of praliciguat in HF patients limiting the power of our data regarding its true effect. Third, we could not include some efficacy outcomes, such as NT-proBNB, 6MWT, LAV, and EQ-5D questionnaire in our analysis due to the lack of or the significant variation in the reported data. Finally, the follow-up duration among the included trials was not long enough to determine the long-term safety and efficacy of sGC stimulators in HF patients.

Conclusions

In this network meta-analysis investigating sGC stimulators for HF management, only vericiguat 10 mg was effective in reducing the incidence of the composite cardiovascular mortality and HF hospitalization, with an acceptable safety profile. Also, this was only observed in patients with HFrEF, but not in patients with HFpEF. However, this observation is mainly weighted by the VICTORIA trial, constituting 69.2% of our analyzed sample size, which investigated vericiguat 10 mg in patients with HFrEF. Therefore, our data regarding other agents (riociguat and praliciguat) and HFpEF analysis can be underpowered. This warrants further RCTs to clarify vericiguat 10 mg place in HFrEF management guidelines by conducting head-to-head comparisons or combinations with other approved HF drugs and to investigate sGC stimulators for HFpEF in large-scale adequately designed trials.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

HF:

Heart failure

sGC:

Soluble guanylate cyclase

ACEIs:

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors

BBs:

Beta-blockers

HFrEF:

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

HFpEF:

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

RCTs:

Randomized controlled trials

AKI:

Acute kidney injury

RR:

Risk ratio

CI:

Confidence interval

I2 :

I-square

SGLT2:

Sodium-glucose transporter sodium-glucose cotransporter-2

ARNIs:

Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors

MRAs:

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists

NT-proBNB:

N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide

LAV:

Left atrial volume

LVFP:

Left ventricular filling pressure

6MWT:

6-Minutes’ walk test

EQ-5D:

EuroQol questionnaire

ARBs:

Angiotensin receptor blockers

References

  1. Abuelazm M, Badr A, Turkmani M, Amin MA, Amin AM, Aboutaleb A et al (2023) The efficacy and safety of new potassium binders on renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitor optimization in heart failure patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. ESC Hear Fail 6:66

    Google Scholar 

  2. Armstrong PW, Pieske B, Anstrom KJ, Ezekowitz J, Hernandez AF, Butler J, Lam CSP, Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Jia G, McNulty SE, Patel MJ, Roessig L, Koglin J, O’Connor CM, Group* for the VS (2020) Vericiguat in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1915928

  3. Humbert M, Kovacs G, Hoeper MM, Badagliacca R, Berger RMF, Brida M et al (2022) ESC/ERS Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary hypertension: developed by the task force for the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Respiratory Society (ERS). Eur Heart J. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehac237

  4. Dasgupta A, Bowman L, D’Arsigny CL, Archer SL (2015) Soluble guanylate cyclase: a new therapeutic target for pulmonary arterial hypertension and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. Clin Pharmacol Ther 97:88–102. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.10

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Abuelazm M, Ali S, AlBarakat MM, Mahmoud A, Tanashat M, Suilik HA et al (2023) Istaroxime for patients with acute heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Diseases 11:183

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Gheorghiade M, Greene SJ, Butler J, Filippatos G, Lam CSP, Maggioni AP et al (2015) Effect of vericiguat, a soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator, on natriuretic peptide levels in patients withworsening chronic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction the socrates-reduced randomized trial. J Am Med Assoc 314:2251–2262

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bonderman D, Pretsch I, Steringer-Mascherbauer R, Jansa P, Rosenkranz S, Tufaro C et al (2014) Acute hemodynamic effects of riociguat in patients with pulmonary hypertension associated with diastolic heart failure (DILATE-1): a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-dose study. Chest 146:1274–1285. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.14-0106

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Armstrong PW, Lam CSP, Anstrom KJ, Ezekowitz J, Hernandez AF, O’Connor CM et al (2020) Effect of vericiguat vs placebo on quality of life in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction: the VITALITY-HFpEF randomized clinical trial. J Am Med Assoc 324:1512–1521

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Dachs TM, Duca F, Rettl R, Binder-Rodriguez C, Dalos D, Ligios LC et al (2022) Riociguat in pulmonary hypertension and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: the haemoDYNAMIC trial. Eur Heart J 43:3402–3413

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Bonderman D, Ghio S, Felix SB, Ghofrani HA, Michelakis E, Mitrovic V et al (2013) Riociguat for patients with pulmonary hypertension caused by systolic left ventricular dysfunction: a phase IIb double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging hemodynamic study. Circulation 128:502–511

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Udelson JE, Lewis GD, Shah SJ, Zile MR, Redfield MM, Burnett J et al (2020) Effect of praliciguat on peak rate of oxygen consumption in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: the CAPACITY HFpEF randomized clinical trial. J Am Med Assoc 324:1522–1531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pieske B, Maggioni AP, Lam CSP, Pieske-Kraigher E, Filippatos G, Butler J et al (2017) Vericiguat in patients with worsening chronic heart failure and preserved ejection fraction: results of the SOluble guanylate Cyclase stimulatoR in heArT failurE patientS with PRESERVED EF (SOCRATES-PRESERVED) study. Eur Heart J 38:1119–1127

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Kassis-George H, Verlinden NJ, Fu S, Kanwar M (2022) Vericiguat in heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction: patient selection and special considerations. Ther Clin Risk Manag 18:315–322

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:66

    Google Scholar 

  15. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ et al (2019) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Cochrane Handb Syst Rev Interv 66:1–694

    Google Scholar 

  16. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I et al (2019) RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 366:66

    Google Scholar 

  17. Butler J, Usman MS, Anstrom KJ, Blaustein RO, Bonaca MP, Ezekowitz JA et al (2022) Soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction across the risk spectrum. Eur J Heart Fail 24:2029–2036

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cordwin DJ, Berei TJ, Pogue KT (2021) The Role of sGC stimulators and activators in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther 26:593–600

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Shah KS, Xu H, Matsouaka RA, Bhatt DL, Heidenreich PA, Hernandez AF et al (2017) Heart failure with preserved, borderline, and reduced ejection fraction: 5-year outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol 70:2476–2486

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Escobar C, Palacios B, Varela L, Gutiérrez M, Duong M, Chen H et al (2022) Prevalence, characteristics, management and outcomes of patients with heart failure with preserved, mildly reduced, and reduced ejection fraction in Spain. J Clin Med 11:66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sreenivasan J, Malik A, Khan MS, Lloji A, Hooda U, Aronow WS et al (2022) Pharmacotherapies in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Cardiol Rev 6:66

    Google Scholar 

  22. Panagopoulou V, Deftereos S, Kossyvakis C, Raisakis K, Giannopoulos G, Bouras G et al (2013) NTproBNP: an important biomarker in cardiac diseases. Curr Top Med Chem 13:82–94. https://doi.org/10.2174/1568026611313020002

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Maisel A, Mueller C, Adams K, Anker SD, Aspromonte N, Cleland JGF et al (2008) State of the art: using natriuretic peptide levels in clinical practice. Eur J Heart Fail 10:824–839

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Januzzi JL, Chen-Tournoux AA, Moe G (2008) Amino-terminal Pro-B-type natriuretic peptide testing for the diagnosis or exclusion of heart failure in patients with acute symptoms. Am J Cardiol 101:66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Al-Meslmani BM, Fahoum SK, Shamia MG (2007) NT-proBNP in monitoring treatment of patients with congestive heart failure. Clin Lab 53:35–39

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tromp J, Ouwerkerk W, van Veldhuisen DJ, Hillege HL, Richards AM, van der Meer P et al (2022) A systematic review and network meta-analysis of pharmacological treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. JACC Hear Fail 10:73–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. McMurray JJV, Solomon SD, Inzucchi SE, Køber L, Kosiborod MN, Martinez FA et al (2019) DAPA-HF Trial Committees and Investigators. Dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. N Engl J Med 381:1995–2008

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. McMurray JJ et al (2014) PARADIGM-HF Investigators and Committees. Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition versus enalapril in heart failure. N Engl J Med 66:993–1004

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

We received no funding for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt

    Mohamed T. Abuelazm & Mohamed A. Elzeftawy

  2. Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt

    Abdelrahman Attia

  3. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Mohamed Abdelnabi

  4. Department of Medicine, King Edward Medical University, Lahore, Pakistan

    Uzair Jafar

  5. Department of Internal Medicine, MedStar Health, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Omar Almaadawy

  6. Faculty of Medicine, Minia University, Minia, Egypt

    Abdelrahman Mahmoud

  7. Faculty of Medicine, Hashemite University, Zarqa, Jordan

    Khaled Albakri

  8. Department of Cardiology, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA

    Basel Abdelazeem

Authors
  1. Mohamed T. Abuelazm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abdelrahman Attia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohamed Abdelnabi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Uzair Jafar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Omar Almaadawy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mohamed A. Elzeftawy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Abdelrahman Mahmoud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Khaled Albakri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Basel Abdelazeem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M.T. conceived the idea. B.A. and M.T. designed the research workflow. B.A. and M.T. searched the databases. U.J., O.A., M.A.E., and A.M. screened the retrieved records, extracted relevant data, assessed the quality of evidence, and B.A. resolved the conflicts. A.A. performed the analysis. M.T., M.A., A.M., and K.A. wrote the final manuscript. B.A. supervised the project. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohamed T. Abuelazm.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

 Supplementary tables and figures.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abuelazm, M.T., Attia, A., Abdelnabi, M. et al. Soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators for heart failure: a network meta-analysis and subgroup analyses of reduced and preserved ejection fraction. Egypt Heart J 76, 6 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43044-024-00437-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43044-024-00437-x

Keywords