Content of review 1, reviewed on July 23, 2018

Title: Angiotensin–Neprilysin Inhibition versus Enalapril in Heart Failure

DOI: 10.1056/nejmoa1409077

Findings

There is no doubt that LCZ696 has potential exists for an impact on HF treatment. My patients are adult with NYHA type NYHA class II-IV symptoms. Most of my patients are LVEF <35. So, the results can be applied to my practice. Regarding Race, White account for 66%, B, Asian for 18%. Regarding Region Wise, Europe account for 57%, Asia-Pacific 18% of the population studies. So, it can also be applied to my Asian patients and White patient. Moreover, the primary and secondary outcomes are statiscially significant. So, it has more likely to have clinically significance. However, Insurance status is not mentioned in this study. cost will be another issue. Patients with past history of angioedema are excluded in this study as well. Patient with diastolic HF or HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), which are mainly half of the total HF population and in whom no evidence-based therapy is yet defined.

Source

    © 2018 the Reviewer.

References

    V., M. J. J., Milton, P., S., D. A., Jianjian, G., P., L. M., R., R. A., L., R. J., C., S. V., D., S. S., Karl, S., R., Z. M. 2014. Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibition versus Enalapril in Heart Failure. New England Journal of Medicine.