Meng Wang1
Ting Wu- 1Department of Pediatrics, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University/Key Laboratory of Birth Defects and Related Diseases of Women and Children (Sichuan University), Ministry of Education, Chengdu, China
- 2Department of Critical Care Medicine, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China
- 3Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China
Aim: The study evaluated the cardiovascular outcomes associated with pharmacological treatments in heart failure (HF) patients and explored whether the benefits/risks associated with these drugs for HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF/HFpEF) were consistent with HF with reduced EF (HFrEF).
Methods: Several online databases were searched. All studies explored the cardiovascular effects of sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i), sacubitril/valsartan, omecamtiv mecarbil and vericiguat were screened and reviewed.
Results: A total of 39 studies were included. Compared with placebo therapy, SGLT2i significantly reduced cardiovascular death and hospitalization for HF (HHF) in both HFrEF and HFmrEF/HFpEF patients (approximately 13%–27% risk reduction). SGLT2i reduced serious adverse events across all HF types. Sacubitril/valsartan demonstrated significant benefits in HFrEF patients, reducing cardiovascular death by 19%, all-cause mortality by 22%, and HHF by 22%. However, these benefits were not observed in HFmrEF/HFpEF patients. In contrast, sacubitril/valsartan substantially increased hypotension risk in HFmrEF/HFpEF patients. Omecamtiv mecarbil and vericiguat tended to improve cardiovascular outcomes in patients with HF, but the difference was not statistically significant.
Conclusion: SGLT2i represents an effective and safe treatment strategy across the HF spectrum. Sacubitril/valsartan significantly improves outcomes in HFrEF but requires careful benefit-risk evaluation in HFmrEF/HFpEF patients. Current evidence does not support routine use of omecamtiv mecarbil or vericiguat. Large-scale randomized trials are warranted to validate these findings.
Systematic review registration: CRD42023455966.
Introduction
Approximately 64 million people worldwide have heart failure (HF). In developed countries, the overall prevalence of HF is elevated and increases with age. Based on the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), HF is generally divided into HF with reduced ejection fraction (EF) defined as LVEF ≤40%, HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF) with LVEF between 41% and 49%, and HF with preserved EF (HFpEF) defined as LVEF≥50% (Cleland et al., 2018; Lund et al., 2018; Tsutsui, 2022). Despite therapeutic advances, prognosis remains poor across the HF spectrum, with persistently high mortality rates and progressive symptom burden, underscoring the urgent need for more effective treatment strategies.
Recent landmark clinical trials have demonstrated cardiovascular benefits of novel pharmacological agents, including sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) (Packer et al., 2020), sacubitril/valsartan (McMurray et al., 2014), omecamtiv mecarbil (Teerlink et al., 2021), and vericiguat (Armstrong et al., 2020a). While substantial progress has been achieved in HFrEF management, therapeutic development for HFmrEF/HFpEF has lagged considerably. Emerging evidence suggests that certain HFrEF therapies may extend benefits to patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF (Anker et al., 2021; Vaduganathan et al., 2023); however, direct comparative evidence across the HF spectrum remains limited, and the benefit-risk profiles of these agents in different HF phenotypes have not been systematically synthesized.
Therefore, this meta-analysis aims to synthesize contemporary evidence to directly compare the efficacy and safety profiles of SGLT2i, sacubitril/valsartan, omecamtiv mecarbil, and vericiguat, and firstly to evaluate whether their benefit-risk ratios are consistent across patients with HFrEF and HFmrEF/HFpEF. This comprehensive synthesis will inform evidence-based treatment decisions and guide future therapeutic development for the diverse HF population.
Methods
This study was registered in PROSPERO, with registration No. CRD42023455966.
Search strategy
A comprehensive systematic literature search was conducted in five electronic databases: Web of Science, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), from inception to 17 February 2025, without language restrictions. The complete search strategies for all databases are provided in Supplementary Material.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
The following inclusion criteria were applied: (1) type of participants: patients (≥18 years old) in each study who were diagnosed with HF (we defined HFrEF as LVEF ≤40% and HFmrEF/HFpEF >40%) and (2) type of study: clinical studies that provide information about the effectiveness and safety of the anti-HF agents mentioned above. Exclusion criteria included (1) study design: reviews, comments, letters, case reports, and abstracts; (2) type of participants: animals, patients<18 years old, and pregnant women; and (3) insufficient information concerning evaluation rates.
Outcomes
The primary outcomes evaluated in this study were cardiovascular death, hospitalization for HF (HHF), and death from any cause. The second outcome included serious adverse events, adverse events of special interest, the change in the level (relative to baseline) of N-Terminal Pro-Brain Natriuretic Peptide (NT-ProBNP), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and EF.
Study selection
After removing duplicates, the remaining identified trials were reviewed by two independent investigators to confirm that they fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The reference lists of included studies were screened and assessed in the same manner. When discrepancies occurred, all authors rechecked the data source. The final decision was made based on the agreement of all authors.
Data extraction
The extracted data included the last name of the first author, year of publication, sample size (N), mean age (years), drug names, primary outcomes, HF type, and research type. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) was employed for the quality assessment of the included retrospective studies. Score of 1–3, 4–6, and 7–9 presented low, intermediate, and high quality, respectively. For randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool to evaluate their quality. Seven domains (randomization, allocation concealment, blinding of participants, incomplete data, selective reporting, other bias) were rated as low, high, or unclear risk based on Cochrane criteria. Overall risk of bias for each trial was determined conservatively: trials with all seven domains rated as low risk were classified as low overall risk; trials with any high-risk domain or more than two unclear-risk domains were classified as high overall risk; remaining trials were classified as moderate overall risk. All authors resolved disagreements through discussion.
Statistical analysis
We employed the weighted mean difference (WMD) and risk ratio (RR) to compare continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively. The 95% confidence interval (CI) is presented in the reports of all results. Random-effect models were used to pool the effect estimates of the outcomes. Egger’s and Begg’s tests (P < 0.10) were conducted to evaluate the possible publication bias of the outcome, supplemented by visual inspection of funnel plot symmetry. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by removing one study at a time to observe the effect estimates of the outcomes. All statistical analyses were performed using STATA statistical software (version 12.0; STATA Corporation, College Station, Texas, United States).
Results
Selection of included studies and study characteristics
A total of 5581 relevant articles were identified by searching several online databases. Figure 1 presents the review and selection process for eligible trials in this study. Finally, 39 studies (Packer et al., 2020; Teerlink et al., 2021; Armstrong et al., 2020a; Anker et al., 2021; Vaduganathan et al., 2023; McMurray et al., 2019; Nassif et al., 2019; Singh et al., 2020; Nassif et al., 2021; Solomon et al., 2022; Savarese et al., 2021; Pietschner et al., 2021; Mordi et al., 2020; Omar et al., 2021; Polito et al., 2020; Greene et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2021; Rattanavipanon et al., 2021; Mirić et al., 2021; Gao et al., 2020; Solomon et al., 2019; Hsieh et al., 2021; Chang et al., 2020; He et al., 2021; Damman et al., 2018; Li et al., 2021; Solomon et al., 2012; Velazquez et al., 2019; Piepoli et al., 2021; Riaz et al., 2021; Lewis et al., 2022; Teerlink et al., 2016a; Teerlink et al., 2016b; Gheorghiade et al., 2015; Armstrong et al., 2020b; Pieske et al., 2021; Mentz et al., 2023; Kosiborod et al., 2017; Si, 2023; Dong and Yuan, 2023) were included in the meta-analysis, and their characteristics are summarized in Supplementary Table S1. Among these studies, 34 were RCTs and 5 were retrospective studies. Eleven trials focused on the effects of SGLT2i in patients with HF, while 21 evaluated the efficiency of sacubitril/valsartan. Omecamtiv mecarbil was discussed in 4 articles, while the cardiovascular outcomes of vericiguat were presented in 3 trials. Totally, 53952 patients with HFrEF were included in the study, and 33737 patients with HFpEF were included. Of the 34 RCTs included, 22 (64.7%) demonstrated low risk of bias across all domains, 5 (14.7%) had moderate risk, and 7 (20.6%) had high risk of bias, primarily related to inadequate randomization or blinding. All retrospective studies were rated as high quality (see Supplementary Tables S1, S2).
Figure 1. Flowchart depicting a systematic review process.
SGLT2i
Compared with placebo, SGLT2i significantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular death in patients with HF (RR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81–0.96). Subgroup analyses demonstrated consistent benefits across HF phenotypes: HFrEF (RR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77–0.99) and HFmrEF/HFpEF (RR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78–1.00) (Figure 2). For all-cause mortality, SGLT2i significantly reduced risk in HFrEF patients (RR = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81–0.98), while showing a non-significant trend in HFmrEF/HFpEF patients (RR = 0.96; 95% CI, 0.88–1.04). Importantly, SGLT2i significantly decreased HHF risk across the entire HF spectrum (RR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.70–0.80) (Figure 2). Notably, the SGLT2i cardiovascular death benefit in HFmrEF/HFpEF demonstrated borderline statistical significance. However, the point estimate indicates a clinically meaningful 12% risk reduction, and is corroborated by highly significant HHF reduction in the same population. Nevertheless, additional evidence may be needed to definitively establish mortality benefits in HFmrEF/HFpEF patients.
Figure 2. Meta-analysis of cardiovascular effects and adverse events of SGLT2i compared with standard treatment therapy in patients with HF. (A) Cardiovascular death, (B) Hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), (C) Death from any cause, (D) Serious adverse events, (E) Volume depletion, and (F) Major hypoglycemia.
Regarding safety, SGLT2i significantly reduced serious adverse events in both HFrEF (RR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81–0.94) and HFmrEF/HFpEF (RR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91–0.98) patients, without increasing adverse events of interest including volume depletion, major hypoglycemia, or renal adverse events (Figure 2). Additionally, SGLT2i favorably impacted NT-proBNP (WMD = −126.64 pg/mL; 95% CI, −182.37 to −70.90 pg/mL) and systolic blood pressure (WMD = −1.48 mmHg; 95% CI, −2.55 to −0.40 mmHg) in HFrEF patients (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Meta-analysis of secondary outcomes of SGLT2i compared with standard treatment therapy in patients with HF. (A) Diabetic ketoacidosis, (B) Amputation, (C) Renal adverse events, (D) Fraction, (E) NT-proBNP levels, and (F) systolic blood pressure.
Sacubitril/valsartan
In HFrEF patients, sacubitril/valsartan demonstrated significant reductions in cardiovascular death (RR = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.75–0.87), all-cause mortality (RR = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.68–0.90), and HHF (RR = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64–0.96) compared with control therapy (Figure 4). Conversely, in HFmrEF/HFpEF patients, sacubitril/valsartan reduced HHF risk (RR = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.81–0.91) but showed no significant effect on cardiovascular death (RR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.81–1.05) or all-cause mortality (RR = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.88–1.06) (Figure 4). Notably, sacubitril/valsartan substantially increased hypotension risk in HFmrEF/HFpEF patients (RR = 1.57; 95% CI, 1.26–1.96), an effect not observed in HFrEF patients (RR = 1.27; 95% CI, 0.90–1.81). For angioedema, the overall relative risk was 1.00 (95% CI: 0.54–1.84), with a lower risk observed in HFrEF patients (RR 0.17, 95% CI: 0.06–0.73) compared to HFmrEF/HFpEF patients (RR 2.17, 95% CI: 0.96–4.88) (Figure 4E). Regarding hyperkalemia, the pooled analysis demonstrated a modest reduction in risk (RR 0.88, 95% CI: 0.81–0.96), particularly pronounced in the HFmrEF/HFpEF subgroup (RR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.80–0.95) (Figure 4F). Sacubitril/valsartan showed no significant effects on NT-proBNP or LVEF in HFrEF patients (Figures 4G, H).
Figure 4. Meta-analysis of cardiovascular effects and adverse events of sacubitril/valsartan compared with standard treatment therapy in patients with HF. (A) Cardiovascular death, (B) Hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), (C) Death from any cause, (D) Hypotension, (E) Angioedema, (F) Hyperkalemia, (G) NT-proBNP levels, and (H) Ejection fraction levels.
Omecamtiv mecarbil
Four high-quality RCTs enrolling 9,019 HFrEF patients (all rated as low risk of bias) were included in this analysis. Despite trends toward cardiovascular benefit, omecamtiv mecarbil did not significantly reduce cardiovascular death (RR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.82–1.07), all-cause mortality (RR = 1.00; 95% CI, 0.93–1.07), HHF (RR = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.91–1.05), or serious adverse events (RR = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.93–1.00) compared with placebo (Figure 5). The CI for serious adverse events (0.93–1.00) approached but did not cross unity, suggesting a potential safety benefit that may require larger trials to definitively establish. No studies evaluating omecamtiv mecarbil in HFmrEF/HFpEF populations were identified.
Figure 5. Meta-analysis of cardiovascular effects and serious adverse events of omecamtiv mecarbil compared with standard treatment therapy in patients with HF. (A) Cardiovascular death, (B) Hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), (C) Death from any cause, and (D) Serious adverse events.
Vericiguat
Three RCTs comprising 5,296 patients (predominantly HFrEF) were analyzed, all demonstrating low risk of bias. Similar to omecamtiv mecarbil, vericiguat showed no significant differences compared with placebo for cardiovascular death (RR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.80–1.13), all-cause mortality (RR = 1.00; 95% CI, 0.76–1.33), serious adverse events (RR = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96–1.02), or hypotension (RR = 1.11; 95% CI, 0.97–1.26) (Figure 6). While point estimates suggested modest trends toward benefit for mortality outcomes, the wide confidence intervals and relatively limited number of trials may have constrained statistical power to detect clinically meaningful effects. Further large-scale trials, particularly in HFmrEF/HFpEF populations where data remain scarce, are warranted to clarify the therapeutic role of these agents.
Figure 6. Meta-analysis of cardiovascular effects and hypotension of vericiguat compared with standard treatment therapy in patients with HF. (A) Cardiovascular death, (B) Hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), (C) Serious adverse events, and (D) Hypotension.
Publication bias and sensitivity analysis
The Egger’s test result for angioedema (p = 0.066) suggested potential publication bias. Angioedema is a relatively rare adverse event, resulting in a limited number of studies reporting this outcome. Egger’s test has reduced statistical power with fewer than 10 studies, increasing the risk of both false-positive and false-negative results. Therefore, more trials are needed to confirm the conclusion. No significant publication bias and no obvious visual asymmetry was observed in other study (Supplementary Table S3; Supplementary Figures S1, S2). The sensitivity analysis revealed no significant differences in the outcomes.
Discussion
In this meta-analysis of 39 trials, we systematically evaluated the cardiovascular efficacy and safety of four novel HF pharmacotherapies across the ejection fraction spectrum. Our findings demonstrate that SGLT2i consistently reduced cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, and HHF in both HFrEF and HFmrEF/HFpEF patients, with favorable effects on systolic blood pressure and NT-proBNP levels without increasing adverse events. Sacubitril/valsartan significantly improved outcomes in HFrEF but showed limited mortality benefit and increased hypotension risk in HFmrEF/HFpEF. Omecamtiv mecarbil and vericiguat demonstrated no significant cardiovascular benefits in the pooled analyses. These divergent findings underscore the importance of phenotype-specific therapeutic responses in contemporary HF management.
A central finding of this meta-analysis is the contrasting efficacy profile between SGLT2i and other novel agents. SGLT2i demonstrated consistent cardiovascular benefits regardless of LVEF, whereas sacubitril/valsartan, omecamtiv mecarbil, and vericiguat exhibited phenotype-dependent or absent efficacy. The contrasting efficacy of treatments in HFrEF versus HFmrEF/HFpEF reflects fundamental pathophysiological differences between these phenotypes (Shah et al., 2012). HFrEF is characterized by systolic dysfunction with eccentric remodeling, cardiomyocyte loss, and prominent neurohormonal activation—particularly marked elevation of RAAS components and compensatory natriuretic peptide release (Hartupee and Mann, 2017; Nauta et al., 2020). In contrast, HFpEF/HFmrEF are heterogeneous syndromes dominated by diastolic dysfunction, concentric remodeling, myocardial stiffness, and microvascular endothelial dysfunction, with less consistent or pronounced neurohormonal activation. The pathophysiology involves multiple mechanisms including cardiomyocyte hypertrophy, interstitial fibrosis, impaired myocardial energetics, chronotropic incompetence, and increased ventricular-arterial stiffness (Roh et al., 2022; Paulus and Zile, 2021; Singh et al., 2019).
SGLT2i
Recent evidence has reinforced the therapeutic role of SGLT2 inhibitors across the HF spectrum. Extended DELIVER follow-up and EMPEROR-Preserved pooled analyses confirm consistent mortality benefits across all LVEF ranges (Vaduganathan et al., 2022; Ferreira et al., 2024), corroborating our findings of cardiovascular mortality reduction in both HFrEF and HFmrEF/HFpEF populations. Previous study also demonstrated SGLT2i therapy was associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular death or HHF compared to placebo, vericiguat, and omecamtiv mecarbil among patients with HFrEF (Pagnesi et al., 2022). Aimo et al. (2021) reported SGLT2i demonstrated the greatest effect on HHF over the standard therapy, as well as a significant benefit over vericiguat. The universal efficacy of SGLT2i across the HF spectrum can be attributed to its multifaceted mechanisms that address pathophysiological abnormalities common to all HF phenotypes. SGLT2i improves ventricular loading conditions through osmotic diuresis and blood pressure reduction (Milton et al., 2017; Naveed et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2022), enhances endothelial function via voltage-gated potassium channel activation, optimizes myocardial energetics by promoting fatty acid oxidation, reduces oxidative stress through Na+/H+ exchanger inhibition, and favorably modulates cardiovascular risk factors including uric acid (Yuliya et al., 2014), body weight (Mishriky et al., 2018), and lipid profiles (Wang et al., 2022; Bechmann et al., 2024). SGLT2i also demonstrate important pleiotropic cardiovascular actions. A 2025 meta-analysis of 58,569 participants showed that SGLT2i reduce adjudicated sudden cardiac death by 18% (Matteucci et al., 2025), mediated through ventricular remodeling attenuation, anti-fibrotic effects, and improved cardiac energetics (Qu et al., 2025; Philippaert et al., 2021). Importantly, these mechanisms operate independently of neurohormonal activation status or systolic function, explaining the consistent benefit observed in both preserved and reduced EF populations. Our findings reinforce that SGLT2i represents a foundational therapy for the entire HF spectrum, with a favorable benefit-risk profile characterized by significant reductions in serious adverse events across all phenotypes. The 2023 guidelines now provide Class I, Level of Evidence A recommendations for SGLT2 inhibitors in both HFmrEF and HFpEF patients (McDonagh et al., 2023).
Sacubitril/valsartan
In contrast, sacubitril/valsartan’s mechanism—dual inhibition of angiotensin receptors and neprilysin to promote natriuresis, vasodilation, and reverse remodeling through modulation of RAAS and natriuretic peptide pathways—appears most effective in HFrEF, where neurohormonal activation is prominent (Julio and Nancy, 2017; Hai-Ping et al., 2018; Je et al., 2017). Our meta-analysis confirmed substantial mortality and morbidity reductions in HFrEF patients, consistent with landmark trials. However, the lack of mortality benefit in HFmrEF/HFpEF suggests that these phenotypes may not exhibit the same degree of neurohormonal dysregulation, or that competing pathophysiological mechanisms (such as concentric remodeling, microvascular dysfunction, and myocardial stiffness) predominate and are less responsive to RAAS-neprilysin modulation. A critical safety finding was the substantially elevated hypotension risk with sacubitril/valsartan in HFmrEF/HFpEF patients, contrasting with the non-significant trend in HFrEF. Alberto et al. (2024) demonstrated that higher baseline LVEF was independently associated with increased hypotension risk in sacubitril/valsartan-treated patients, supporting the hypothesis of differential hemodynamic reserve across HF phenotypes. HFmrEF/HFpEF populations in our included trials exhibited demographic and clinical characteristics that predispose to hypotension. HFmrEF/HFpEF populations are characterized by advanced age (mean 72–75 years) (Supplementary Table S1), female predominance (50%–60%) (Lam et al., 2019), higher baseline blood pressure (reflecting chronic hypertension) (Shah et al., 2016), and greater comorbidity burden (CKD 40%–50%, diabetes 45%–50%, atrial fibrillation 40%–45%) (Jafari et al., 2023; Dunlay et al., 2017)—all predisposing factors for hemodynamic intolerance. Many HFpEF patients exhibit impaired heart rate response to physiological stress, limiting their ability to compensate for reduced blood pressure through increased cardiac output (Borlaug et al., 2010). Sacubitril/valsartan holds a Class I, Level of Evidence B recommendation in the ESC guidelines for HFrEF patients (McDonagh et al., 2023). For HFmrEF and HFpEF, the guideline recommendations are more nuanced. The 2021 ESC guidelines provided a Class IIb recommendation for sacubitril/valsartan in HFmrEF. The current ESC position reflects appropriate caution, awaiting dedicated prospective trials specifically designed for the HFmrEF population before upgrading recommendations to Class I.
Omecamtiv mecarbil
Omecamtiv mecarbil selectively enhances myocardial contractility by increasing cardiac myosin’s pre-powerstroke state without altering calcium handling, thereby avoiding conventional inotrope-related toxicity (Vicente et al., 2017; Fady et al., 2011; John R,T. et al., 2011; John GF,C. et al., 2011). Despite favorable effects on cardiac structure and function in the COSMIC-HF trial (Teerlink et al., 2016a), our pooled analysis revealed no significant impact on cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, or HHF. The GALACTIC-HF trial demonstrated only a modest reduction in the composite endpoint (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86–0.99) without improvements in individual mortality or symptom outcomes, suggesting that enhanced contractility alone may be insufficient to alter hard clinical endpoints in HF management where multidrug optimization is standard (Teerlink et al., 2021).
Vericiguat
Similarly, vericiguat stimulates soluble guanylate cyclase to enhance the NO-sGC-cGMP pathway, addressing endothelial dysfunction and impaired vasomotor regulation characteristic of HF. However, our analysis found no significant mortality or morbidity benefits. While the VICTORIA trial reported a reduction in the composite outcome of cardiovascular death or first HHF (driven primarily by HHF reduction), individual mortality endpoints remained unchanged, and the VITALITY-HFpEF trial (Armstrong et al., 2020b) showed no symptomatic improvement in HFpEF patients. In our opinion, further clinical trials of vericiguat are needed to determine the potential role of this drug in patients with HF, due to limited and contradictory results. In contrast to the foundational pillars of HF therapy, vericiguat and omecamtiv mecarbil occupy more selective therapeutic niches, reflected in their Class IIb, Level of Evidence B recommendations in the 2021 ESC guidelines for HFrEF (McDonagh et al., 2021). These weaker recommendations stem from their more limited scope of proven benefit and specific target populations.
Beyond the four drug classes included in our meta-analysis, other therapeutic agents, such as mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists (MRAs), have established roles in heart failure management (Bismpos et al., 2024). MRAs have demonstrated robust and well-established benefits in HFrEF patients. Current guidelines provide Class I, Level of Evidence A recommendations for MRAs in symptomatic HFrEF patients (McDonagh et al., 2023; Heidenreich et al., 2022). The role of MRAs in HFmrEF and HFpEF has been more controversial, though emerging evidence suggests potential benefits in selected populations. The TOPCAT trial, which evaluated spironolactone in patients with symptomatic HFpEF (LVEF ≥45%), did not demonstrate a significant reduction in the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death, aborted cardiac arrest, or HHF (Pitt et al., 2014). However, spironolactone did significantly reduce HHF. Importantly, subgroup analyses suggested benefit in patients with elevated natriuretic peptides and in specific geographic regions (Pfeffer et al., 2015). Post-hoc analyses from trials including patients with LVEF in the mildly reduced range have suggested dose-dependent benefits similar to those observed in HFrEF (Straw et al., 2023). Current ESC guidelines provide a Class IIb recommendation for MRA use in HFmrEF patients (McDonagh et al., 2023).
ACE inhibitors represent one of the foundational pillars of HFrEF therapy, with decades of evidence supporting their use. Current guidelines recommend ACE inhibitors as Class I, Level of Evidence A therapy for all patients with HFrEF, unless contraindicated or not tolerated (McDonagh et al., 2023). In contrast to their established benefits in HFrEF, the role of ACE inhibitors in HFpEF has been disappointing. The PEP-CHF trial, which evaluated perindopril in elderly patients (≥70 years) with HFpEF, demonstrated a non-significant trend toward reduction in the primary composite endpoint of all-cause mortality or unplanned HHF (Cleland et al., 2006). Similarly, the CHARM-Preserved trial showed that the angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) candesartan did not significantly reduce the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death or HHF in HFpEF patients, though there was a modest reduction in HHF (Yusuf et al., 2003). However, post hoc analyses suggest that ACE inhibitors and ARB may provide benefits in HFmrEF patients, with current guidelines providing Class IIb recommendations for their use in this population (McDonagh et al., 2023; Straw et al., 2023).
Limitation
This meta-analysis has several limitations. First, the combined analysis of HFmrEF and HFpEF patients may obscure phenotype-specific treatment differences, as separate subgroup data were not consistently available in the included trials. Second, the inclusion of studies from CNKI may introduce geographic and linguistic bias. Clinical practices and patient demographics in Asian populations may differ from Western countries. Sensitivity analyses excluding these studies yielded consistent results. Third, owing to the limited number of clinical trials for omecamtiv mecarbil and vericiguat, it is difficult to evaluate the exact benefits of these novel drugs. However, we summarized recent clinical trials about omecamtiv mecarbil and vericiguat in the discussion, which aimed to provide evidence for clinical physicians to choose drugs. Forth, there was a difference in the duration of follow-up between trials. However, the heterogeneity of the results was very low. Fifth, several findings showed confidence intervals approaching 1.00, warranting cautious interpretation. For example, the SGLT2i cardiovascular death benefit in HFmrEF/HFpEF demonstrated borderline statistical significance. However, the point estimate indicates a clinically meaningful 12% risk reduction, and is corroborated by highly significant HHF reduction in the same population. Nevertheless, additional high-quality evidence is needed to confirm these borderline findings and establish definitive conclusions. Sixth, several studies were rated as high risk. Sensitivity analyses excluding these studies yielded consistent results. Additionally, we attempted meta-regression to explore LVEF as a continuous moderator. However, when stratified by drug class and HF subtype, most subgroups contained <10 studies (Cochrane Handbook), below the recommended minimum for reliable meta-regression. Finally, some of the trials were retrospective studies, retrospective studies are susceptible to selection bias, as treatment allocation was not randomized and may have been influenced by physician preference, disease severity, or patient characteristics not fully captured in multivariable adjustments. Additionally, information bias may arise from incomplete or inconsistent documentation of clinical outcomes, covariates, and adverse events in retrospective medical records, potentially leading to misclassification or underreporting.
Conclusion
SGLT2i was an effective and safe strategy to improve the cardiovascular benefits in HFrEF and HFmrEF/HFpEF patients. Sacubitril/valsartan treatment significantly improved cardiovascular outcomes in patients with HFrEF. However, benefit/risk ratios of sacubitril/valsartan applying for HFpEF/HFmrEF patients should be carefully evaluated. Current evidence does not support routine use of omecamtiv mecarbil or vericiguat, and more trials should be conducted to obtain validated data.
Data availability statement
The datasets presented in this study can be found in online repositories. The names of the repository/repositories and accession number(s) can be found in the article/Supplementary Material.
Author contributions
MW: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review and editing, Software, Formal Analysis, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Data curation, Visualization, Investigation, Validation. ZhZ: Conceptualization, Software, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Resources, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Writing – review and editing, Validation, Supervision, Data curation, Methodology, Visualization, Formal Analysis. TW: Writing – review and editing, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Validation, Project administration, Methodology. ZjZ: Writing – review and editing, Project administration, Supervision, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Software, Formal Analysis, Conceptualization, Resources, Data curation.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This work was supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China (82300490), China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2025M782314), Youth Science Foundation of Xiangya Hospital (2022Q01), and Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province (2023JJ40996 and 2024JJ4092).
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2026.1644757/full#supplementary-material
References
Aimo, A., Pateras, K., Stamatelopoulos, K., Bayes-Genis, A., Lombardi, C. M., Passino, C., et al. (2021). Relative efficacy of sacubitril-valsartan, vericiguat, and SGLT2 inhibitors in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther. 35 (5), 1067–1076. doi:10.1007/s10557-020-07099-2
Alberto, F., Muthiah, V., Brian, C., Maria, P., Henri, L., Marc, P., et al. (2024). Sacubitril/valsartan-related hypotension in patients with heart failure and preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 83 (18), 1731–1739. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2024.02.035
Anker, S. D., Butler, J., Filippatos, G., Ferreira, J. P., Bocchi, E., Böhm, M., et al. (2021). Empagliflozin in heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction. N. Engl. J. Med. 385 (16), 1451–1461. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2107038
Armstrong, P. W., Pieske, B., Anstrom, K. J., Ezekowitz, J., Hernandez, A. F., Butler, J., et al. (2020a). Vericiguat in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. N. Engl. J. Med. 382 (20), 1883–1893. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1915928
Armstrong, P. W., Lam, C. S. P., Anstrom, K. J., Ezekowitz, J., Hernandez, A. F., O'Connor, C. M., et al. (2020b). Effect of vericiguat vs placebo on quality of life in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction: the vitality-HFpEF randomized clinical trial. Jama 324 (15), 1512–1521. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.15922
Bechmann, L. E., Emanuelsson, F., Nordestgaard, B. G., and Benn, M. (2024). SGLT2-inhibition increases total, LDL, and HDL cholesterol and lowers triglycerides: meta-Analyses of 60 randomized trials, overall and by dose, ethnicity, and drug type. Atherosclerosis 394, 117236. doi:10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2023.117236
Bismpos, D., Wintrich, J., Hövelmann, J., and Böhm, M. (2024). Latest pharmaceutical approaches across the spectrum of heart failure. Heart Fail Rev. 29 (3), 675–687. doi:10.1007/s10741-024-10389-8
Borlaug, B. A., Nishimura, R. A., Sorajja, P., Lam, C. S. P., and Redfield, M. M. (2010). Exercise hemodynamics enhance diagnosis of early heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Circ. Heart Fail 3 (5), 588–595. doi:10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.109.930701
Chang, P. C., Wang, C. L., Hsiao, F. C., Wen, M. S., Huang, C. Y., Chou, C. C., et al. (2020). Sacubitril/Valsartan vs. angiotensin receptor inhibition in heart failure: a real-world study in Taiwan. Esc. Heart Fail 7 (5), 3003–3012. doi:10.1002/ehf2.12924
Chen, D. Y., Chen, C. C., Tseng, C. N., Chen, S. W., Chang, S. H., Huang, W. K., et al. (2021). Clinical outcomes of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with acute heart failure: a multi-institution study. EClinicalMedicine 41, 101149. doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101149
Cleland, J. G., Tendera, M., Adamus, J., Freemantle, N., Polonski, L., Taylor, J., et al. (2006). The perindopril in elderly people with chronic heart failure (PEP-CHF) study. Eur. Heart J. 27 (19), 2338–2345. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehl250
Cleland, J. G. F., Bunting, K. V., Flather, M. D., Altman, D. G., Holmes, J., Coats, A. J. S., et al. (2018). Beta-blockers for heart failure with reduced, mid-range, and preserved ejection fraction: an individual patient-level analysis of double-blind randomized trials. Eur. Heart J. 39 (1), 26–35. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehx564
Damman, K., Gori, M., Claggett, B., Jhund, P. S., Senni, M., Lefkowitz, M. P., et al. (2018). Renal effects and associated outcomes during angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition in heart failure. JACC Heart Fail 6 (6), 489–498. doi:10.1016/j.jchf.2018.02.004
Dong, Q. Z., and Yuan, Y. L. (2023). Clinical effects and safety analysis of sakubatril valsartan in the treatment of elderly patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Heilongjiang Med. J. 47 (2), 169–171. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-5775.2023.02.012
Dunlay, S. M., Roger, V. L., and Redfield, M. M. (2017). Epidemiology of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 14 (10), 591–602. doi:10.1038/nrcardio.2017.65
Fady, I. M., James, J. H., Kathleen, A. E., Bradley, P. M., Hector, R., Katjusa, B., et al. (2011). Cardiac myosin activation: a potential therapeutic approach for systolic heart failure. Science 331 (6023), 1439–1443. doi:10.1126/science.1200113
Ferreira, J. P., Butler, J., Anker, S. D., Januzzi, J. L., Panova-Noeva, M., Reese-Petersen, A. L., et al. (2024). Effects of empagliflozin on collagen biomarkers in patients with heart failure: findings from the EMPEROR trials. Eur. J. Heart Fail 26 (2), 274–284. doi:10.1002/ejhf.3101
Gao, Y., Xing, C., Hao, W., Zhao, H., Wang, L., Luan, B., et al. (2020). The impact of sacrubitril/valsartan on clinical treatment and hs-cTnT and NT-ProBNP serum levels and the left ventricular function in patients with chronic heart failure. Int. Heart J. 61 (1), 1–6. doi:10.1536/ihj.19-231
Gheorghiade, M., Greene, S. J., Butler, J., Filippatos, G., Lam, C. S. P., Maggioni, A. P., et al. (2015). Effect of vericiguat, a soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator, on natriuretic peptide levels in patients with worsening chronic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: the SOCRATES-REDUCED randomized trial. Jama 314 (21), 2251–2262. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.15734
Greene, S. J., Choi, S., Lippmann, S. J., Mentz, R. J., Greiner, M. A., Hardy, N. C., et al. (2021). Clinical effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan among patients hospitalized for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 10 (16), e021459. doi:10.1161/JAHA.121.021459
Hai-Ping, T., Yan, H. S., Lan, H., Ya, F. Y., Xiang, G., and Ding, L. X. (2018). Single-stranded DNA-binding protein 1 abrogates cardiac fibroblast proliferation and collagen expression induced by angiotensin II. Int. Heart J. 59 (6), 1398–1408.doi:10.1536/ihj.17-650
Hartupee, J., and Mann, D. L. (2017). Neurohormonal activation in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 14 (1), 30–38. doi:10.1038/nrcardio.2016.163
He, Y., Lu, X., Zheng, Y., Song, M., Shen, B., Nienaber, C. A., et al. (2021). Efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan therapy for acute decompensated heart failure with reduced ejection fraction during the vulnerable phase: a multicenter, assessor-blinded, prospective, observational, cohort study. Efficacy And Saf. of Sacubitril/Valsartan Ther. for Acute Decompensated Heart Fail. with Reduc. Ejection Fraction during Vulnerable Phase A Multicent. Assessor-Blinded, Prospect. Observational, Cohort Study. Cardiol. 146 (3), 335–344. doi:10.1159/000512418
Heidenreich, P. A., Bozkurt, B., Aguilar, D., Allen, L. A., Byun, J. J., Colvin, M. M., et al. (2022). AHA/ACC/HFSA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American college of cardiology/american heart association joint committee on clinical practice guidelines. Circulation 145 (18), e895–e1032. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000001063
Hsieh, H. L., Chen, C. Y., Chen, C. H., Hsu, S. C., Huang, W. C., Sue, Y. M., et al. (2021). Renal protective effect of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure. Sci. Rep. 11 (1), 4593. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-84118-8
Jafari, E., Cooper-DeHoff, R. M., Effron, M. B., Hogan, W. R., and McDonough, C. W. (2023). Characteristics and predictors of apparent treatment resistant hypertension in real-world populations using electronic health record-based data. Am. J. Hypertens. 37 (1), 60–68. doi:10.1093/ajh/hpad084
Jelena, P. S., Brian, C., Sara, B. S., Ellen, W. S., Milton, P., Michael, R. Z., et al. (2017). Effect of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril on glycaemic control in patients with heart failure and diabetes: a post-hoc analysis from the PARADIGM-HF trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 5 (5), 333–340. doi:10.1016/S2213-8587(17)30087-6
John, R. T., Cyril, P. C., Khalil, G. S., Jacqueline, H. L., Michael, M. C., Rafael, D. E., et al. (2011a). Dose-dependent augmentation of cardiac systolic function with the selective cardiac myosin activator, omecamtiv mecarbil: a first-in-man study. Lancet 378 (9792), 667–675. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61219-1
John, G. F. C., John, R. T., Roxy, S., Evgeny, M. N., John, J. V. M. M., Chim, C. L., et al. (2011b). The effects of the cardiac myosin activator, omecamtiv mecarbil, on cardiac function in systolic heart failure: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover, dose-ranging phase 2 trial. Lancet 378 (9792), 676–683. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61126-4
Julio, A. C., and Nancy, S. (2017). Ventricular-arterial coupling in chronic heart failure. Card. Fail Rev. 3 (1), 12–18. doi:10.15420/cfr.2017:4:2
Kosiborod, M., Gause-Nilsson, I., Xu, J., Sonesson, C., and Johnsson, E. (2017). Efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes and concomitant heart failure. J. Diabetes Complicat. 31 (7), 1215–1221. doi:10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2017.02.001
Lam, C. S. P., Arnott, C., Beale, A. L., Chandramouli, C., Hilfiker-Kleiner, D., Kaye, D. M., et al. (2019). Sex differences in heart failure. Eur. Heart J. 40 (47), 3859–3868c. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz835
Lewis, G. D., Voors, A. A., Cohen-Solal, A., Metra, M., Whellan, D. J., Ezekowitz, J. A., et al. (2022). Effect of omecamtiv mecarbil on exercise capacity in chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: the METEORIC-HF randomized clinical trial. Jama 328 (3), 259–269. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.11016
Li, B. H., Fang, K. F., Lin, P. H., Zhang, Y. H., Huang, Y. X., and Jie, H. (2021). Effect of sacubitril valsartan on cardiac function and endothelial function in patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Clin. Hemorheol. Microcirc. 77 (4), 425–433. doi:10.3233/CH-201032
Lund, L. H., Claggett, B., Liu, J., Lam, C. S., Jhund, P. S., Rosano, G. M., et al. (2018). Heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction in CHARM: characteristics, outcomes and effect of candesartan across the entire ejection fraction spectrum. Eur. J. Heart Fail 20 (8), 1230–1239. doi:10.1002/ejhf.1149
Matteucci, A., Pandozi, C., Bonanni, M., Mariani, M. V., Sgarra, L., Nesti, L., et al. (2025). Impact of empagliflozin and dapagliflozin on sudden cardiac death: a systematic review and meta-analysis of adjudicated randomized evidence. Heart rhythm. (25), 02890–02895. doi:10.1016/j.hrthm.2025.09.023
McDonagh, T. A., Metra, M., Adamo, M., Gardner, R. S., Baumbach, A., Böhm, M., et al. (2021). ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. Eur. Heart J. 42 (36), 3599–3726. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehab368
McDonagh, T. A., Metra, M., Adamo, M., Gardner, R. S., Baumbach, A., Böhm, M., et al. (2023). Focused update of the 2021 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. Eur. Heart J. 44 (37), 3627–3639. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehad195
McMurray, J. J., Packer, M., Desai, A. S., Gong, J., Lefkowitz, M. P., Rizkala, A. R., et al. (2014). Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition versus enalapril in heart failure. N. Engl. J. Med. 371 (11), 993–1004. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1409077
McMurray, J. J. V., Solomon, S. D., Inzucchi, S. E., Køber, L., Kosiborod, M. N., Martinez, F. A., et al. (2019). Dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. N. Engl. J. Med. 381 (21), 1995–2008. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1911303
Mentz, R. J., Ward, J. H., Hernandez, A. F., Lepage, S., Morrow, D. A., Sarwat, S., et al. (2023). Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition in patients with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction and worsening heart failure. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 82 (1), 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2023.04.019
Milton, P., Stefan, D. A., Javed, B., Gerasimos, F., Faiez, Z., et al. (2017). Effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors for the treatment of patients with heart failure: proposal of a novel mechanism of action. JAMA Cardiol. 2 (9), 1025–1029. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2017.2275
Mirić, D., Baković, D., Eterović, D., Sorić, T., Čapkun, V., Vuković, I., et al. (2021). Left-ventricular function after 3 months of sacubitril-valsartan in acute decompensated heart failure. J. Cardiovasc Transl. Res. 14 (2), 290–298. doi:10.1007/s12265-020-10041-4
Mishriky, B.M., Tanenberg, R.J., Sewell, K.A., and Cumming, D.M. (2018). Comparing SGLT-2 inhibitors to DPP-4 inhibitors as an add-on therapy to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Metab. 44 (2), 112–120. doi:10.1016/j.diabet.2018.01.017
Mordi, N. A., Mordi, I. R., Singh, J. S., McCrimmon, R. J., Struthers, A. D., and Lang, C. C. (2020). Renal and cardiovascular effects of SGLT2 inhibition in combination with loop diuretics in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic heart failure: the RECEDE-CHF trial. Circulation 142 (18), 1713–1724. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.048739
Nassif, M. E., Windsor, S. L., Tang, F., Khariton, Y., Husain, M., Inzucchi, S. E., et al. (2019). Dapagliflozin effects on biomarkers, symptoms, and functional status in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: the DEFINE-HF trial. Circulation 140 (18), 1463–1476. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.042929
Nassif, M. E., Windsor, S. L., Borlaug, B. A., Kitzman, D. W., Shah, S. J., Tang, F., et al. (2021). The SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a multicenter randomized trial. Nat. Med. 27 (11), 1954–1960. doi:10.1038/s41591-021-01536-x
Nauta, J. F., Hummel, Y. M., Tromp, J., Ouwerkerk, W., van der Meer, P., Jin, X., et al. (2020). Concentric vs. eccentric remodelling in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: clinical characteristics, pathophysiology and response to treatment. Eur. J. Heart Fail 22 (7), 1147–1155. doi:10.1002/ejhf.1632
Naveed, S., James, M., Søren, L. K., David, P., and John, J. M. (2016). SGLT2 inhibition and cardiovascular events: why did EMPA-REG outcomes surprise and what were the likely mechanisms? Diabetologia 59 (7), 1333–1339. doi:10.1007/s00125-016-3956-x
Omar, M., Jensen, J., Ali, M., Frederiksen, P. H., Kistorp, C., Videbæk, L., et al. (2021). Associations of empagliflozin with left ventricular volumes, mass, and function in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: a substudy of the empire HF randomized clinical trial. JAMA Cardiol. 6 (7), 836–840. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.6827
Packer, M., Anker, S. D., Butler, J., Filippatos, G., Pocock, S. J., Carson, P., et al. (2020). Cardiovascular and renal outcomes with empagliflozin in heart failure. N. Engl. J. Med. 383 (15), 1413–1424. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2022190
Pagnesi, M., Baldetti, L., Aimo, A., Inciardi, R. M., Tomasoni, D., Vizzardi, E., et al. (2022). Prognostic benefit of new drugs for HFrEF: a systematic review and. Network meta-analysis. J. Clin. Med. 11 (2), 348. doi:10.3390/jcm11020348
Paulus, W. J., and Zile, M. R. (2021). From systemic inflammation to myocardial fibrosis: the heart failure with preserved ejection fraction paradigm revisited. Circ. Res. 128 (10), 1451–1467. doi:10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.121.318159
Pfeffer, M. A., Claggett, B., Assmann, S. F., Boineau, R., Anand, I. S., Clausell, N., et al. (2015). Regional variation in patients and outcomes in the treatment of preserved cardiac function heart failure with an aldosterone antagonist (TOPCAT) trial. Circulation 131 (1), 34–42. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.013255
Philippaert, K., Kalyaanamoorthy, S., Fatehi, M., Long, W., Soni, S., Byrne, N. J., et al. (2021). Cardiac late sodium channel current is a molecular target for the sodium/glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin. Circulation 143 (22), 2188–2204. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.053350
Piepoli, M. F., Hussain, R. I., Comin-Colet, J., Dosantos, R., Ferber, P., Jaarsma, T., et al. (2021). OUTSTEP-HF: randomised controlled trial comparing short-term effects of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril on daily physical activity in patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Eur. J. Heart Fail 23 (1), 127–135. doi:10.1002/ejhf.2076
Pieske, B., Wachter, R., Shah, S. J., Baldridge, A., Szeczoedy, P., Ibram, G., et al. (2021). Effect of sacubitril/valsartan vs standard medical therapies on plasma NT-proBNP concentration and submaximal exercise capacity in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction: the PARALLAX randomized clinical trial. Jama 326 (19), 1919–1929. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.18463
Pietschner, R., Kolwelter, J., Bosch, A., Striepe, K., Jung, S., Kannenkeril, D., et al. (2021). Effect of empagliflozin on ketone bodies in patients with stable chronic heart failure. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 20 (1), 219. doi:10.1186/s12933-021-01410-7
Pitt, B., Pfeffer, M. A., Assmann, S. F., Boineau, R., Anand, I. S., Claggett, B., et al. (2014). Spironolactone for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. N. Engl. J. Med. 370 (15), 1383–1392. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1313731
Polito, M. V., Silverio, A., Rispoli, A., Vitulano, G., Auria, F. D., De Angelis, E., et al. (2020). Clinical and echocardiographic benefit of sacubitril/valsartan in a real-world population with HF with reduced ejection fraction. Sci. Rep. 10 (1), 6665. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-63801-2
Qu, L., Duan, X., and Chen, H. (2025). The effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors on the 'forgotten' right ventricle. Esc. Heart Fail 12 (2), 1045–1058. doi:10.1002/ehf2.15103
Rattanavipanon, W., Sotananusak, T., Yamaae, F., Chandrsawang, A., Kaewkan, P., Nathisuwan, S., et al. (2021). Real-world experience of angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) usage in Thailand: a single-center, retrospective analysis. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 21 (1), 324. doi:10.1186/s12872-021-02145-9
Riaz, M., Smith, S. M., Dietrich, E. A., Pepine, C. J., and Park, H. (2021). Effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan versus aldosterone antagonists in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a retrospective cohort study. Pharmacotherapy 41 (9), 710–721. doi:10.1002/phar.2610
Roh, J., Hill, J. A., Singh, A., Valero-Muñoz, M., and Sam, F. (2022). Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: heterogeneous syndrome, diverse preclinical models. Circ. Res. 130 (12), 1906–1925. doi:10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.122.320257
Savarese, G., Uijl, A., Lund, L. H., Anker, S. D., Asselbergs, F., Fitchett, D., et al. (2021). Empagliflozin in heart failure with predicted preserved versus reduced ejection fraction: data from the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial. J. Card. Fail 27 (8), 888–895. doi:10.1016/j.cardfail.2021.05.012
Shah, A. M., and Solomon, S. D. (2012). Phenotypic and pathophysiological heterogeneity in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Eur. Heart J. 33 (14), 1716–1717. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehs124
Shah, S. J., Kitzman, D. W., Borlaug, B. A., van Heerebeek, L., Zile, M. R., Kass, D. A., et al. (2016). Phenotype-specific treatment of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a multiorgan roadmap. Circulation 134 (1), 73–90. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.021884
Si, J. (2023). Efficacy and safety of sackubactril valsartan in the adjuvant treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Health Everyone 5, 99–101. doi:10.20252/j.cnki.rrjk.2023.05.051
Singh, I., Rahaghi, F. N., Naeije, R., Oliveira, R. K. F., Systrom, D. M., and Waxman, A. B. (2019). Right ventricular-arterial uncoupling during exercise in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: role of pulmonary vascular dysfunction. Chest 156 (5), 933–943. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2019.04.109
Singh, J. S. S., Mordi, I. R., Vickneson, K., Fathi, A., Donnan, P. T., Mohan, M., et al. (2020). Dapagliflozin versus placebo on left ventricular remodeling in patients with diabetes and heart failure: the REFORM trial. Diabetes Care 43 (6), 1356–1359. doi:10.2337/dc19-2187
Solomon, S. D., Zile, M., Pieske, B., Voors, A., Shah, A., Kraigher-Krainer, E., et al. (2012). The angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a phase 2 double-blind randomised controlled trial. Lancet 380 (9851), 1387–1395. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61227-6
Solomon, S. D., McMurray, J. J. V., Anand, I. S., Ge, J., Lam, C. S. P., Maggioni, A. P., et al. (2019). Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. N. Engl. J. Med. 381 (17), 1609–1620. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1908655
Solomon, S. D., McMurray, J. J. V., Claggett, B., de Boer, R. A., DeMets, D., Hernandez, A. F., et al. (2022). Dapagliflozin in heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. N. Engl. J. Med. 387 (12), 1089–1098. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2206286
Straw, S., Cole, C. A., McGinlay, M., Drozd, M., Slater, T. A., Lowry, J. E., et al. (2023). Guideline-directed medical therapy is similarly effective in heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction. Clin. Res. Cardiol. 112 (1), 111–122. doi:10.1007/s00392-022-02053-8
Teerlink, J. R., Felker, G. M., McMurray, J. J. V., Solomon, S. D., Adams, K. F., Jr, Cleland, J. G. F., et al. (2016a). Chronic oral study of myosin activation to increase contractility in heart failure (COSMIC-HF): a phase 2, pharmacokinetic, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 388 (10062), 2895–2903. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32049-9
Teerlink, J. R., Felker, G. M., McMurray, J. J. V., Ponikowski, P., Metra, M., Filippatos, G. S., et al. (2016b). Acute treatment with omecamtiv mecarbil to increase contractility in acute heart failure: the ATOMIC-AHF study. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 67 (12), 1444–1455. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2016.01.031
Teerlink, J. R., Diaz, R., Felker, G. M., McMurray, J. J. V., Metra, M., Solomon, S. D., et al. (2021). Cardiac myosin activation with omecamtiv mecarbil in systolic heart failure. N. Engl. J. Med. 384 (2), 105–116. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2025797
Tsutsui, H. (2022). Recent advances in the pharmacological therapy of chronic heart failure: evidence and guidelines. Pharmacol. Ther. 238, 108185. doi:10.1016/j.pharmthera.2022.108185
Vaduganathan, M., Claggett, B. L., Jhund, P., de Boer, R. A., Hernandez, A. F., Inzucchi, S. E., et al. (2022). Time to clinical benefit of dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction: a prespecified secondary analysis of the DELIVER randomized clinical trial. JAMA Cardiol. 7 (12), 1259–1263. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2022.3750
Vaduganathan, M., Mentz, R. J., Claggett, B. L., Miao, Z. M., Kulac, I. J., Ward, J. H., et al. (2023). Sacubitril/Valsartan in heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction: a pre-specified participant-level pooled analysis of PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF. Eur. Heart J. 44 (31), 2982–2993. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehad344
Velazquez, E. J., Morrow, D. A., DeVore, A. D., Duffy, C. I., Ambrosy, A. P., McCague, K., et al. (2019). Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition in acute decompensated heart failure. N. Engl. J. Med. 380 (6), 539–548. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1812851
Vicente, J. P., James, J. H., Julien, R. P., Fady, I. M., Anne, H., et al. (2017). Mechanistic and structural basis for activation of cardiac myosin force production by omecamtiv mecarbil. Nat. Commun. 8 (1), 190. doi:10.1038/s41467-017-00176-5
Wang, S., Wu, T., Zuo, Z., Jin, P., Luo, X., and Deng, M. (2022). Comparison of cardiovascular outcomes and cardiometabolic risk factors between patients with type 2 diabetes treated with sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors: a meta-analysis. Eur. J. Prev. Cardiol. 28 (16), 1840–1849. doi:10.1093/eurjpc/zwab099
Yuliya, L., Marko, Š., Gary, K. Y., Paul, M. Y., Bruce, A. P., Yuliya, L., et al. (2014). Glycosuria-mediated urinary uric acid excretion in patients with uncomplicated type 1 diabetes mellitus. Am. J. Physiol. Ren. Physiol. 308 (2), F77–F83. doi:10.1152/ajprenal.00555.2014
Yusuf, S., Pfeffer, M. A., Swedberg, K., Granger, C. B., Held, P., McMurray, J. J. V., et al. (2003). Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and preserved left-ventricular ejection fraction: the CHARM-preserved trial. Lancet 362 (9386), 777–781. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14285-7
Keywords: heart failure, omecamtiv mecarbil, sacubitril/valsartan, sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor, vericiguat
Citation: Wang M, Zuo Z, Wu T and Zhou Z (2026) Differential cardiovascular benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors, sacubitril/valsartan, omecamtiv mecarbil, and vericiguat across heart failure phenotypes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front. Pharmacol. 17:1644757. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2026.1644757
Received: 10 June 2025; Accepted: 22 January 2026;
Published: 06 February 2026.
Edited by:
Abdullah Tuncay Demiryürek, University of Gaziantep, TürkiyeReviewed by:
Nicola Pierucci, Sapienza University of Rome, ItalyMing Li, Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences and Sichuan Provincial People’s Hospital, China
Ming Hung Lin, National Taichung University of Science and Technology College of Health, Taiwan
Copyright © 2026 Wang, Zuo, Wu and Zhou. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Zijing Zhou, amVhbl94eTN5eUAxNjMuY29t