Sacubitril/Valsartan vs Enalapril in Heart Failure Due to Chagas Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: The efficacy and safety of guideline-recommended treatments for heart failure (HF) are uncertain in patients with Chagas disease. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction due to Chagas disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: From December 10, 2019, through September 13, 2023, patients with HF, confirmed diagnosis of Chagas disease, left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) of 600 pg/mL or greater (or B-type natriuretic peptide [BNP] ≥150 pg/mL) or 400 pg/mL or greater (or BNP ≥100 pg/mL) if hospitalized for HF within the previous 12 months were screened at 83 sites in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico. Statistical analysis was conducted between May and July 2025. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive sacubitril/valsartan (target dose, 200 mg twice daily) or enalapril (target dose, 10 mg twice daily), in addition to standard therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was a hierarchical composite outcome tested, in order, of death from cardiovascular causes, hospitalization for HF, or relative change in NT-proBNP from baseline to 12 weeks. The primary analysis was done using a win ratio approach. Results: Overall, 462 participants were randomized to receive sacubitril/valsartan and 460 to receive enalapril (mean [SD] age, 64.2 [10.8] years; 387 [42.0%] were female). Over a median (IQR) follow-up of 25.2 (18.4-33.2) months, cardiovascular death occurred in 110 patients (23.8% [18.3% wins in the hierarchical comparison]) in the sacubitril/valsartan group and 117 patients (25.4% [17.5% wins]) in the enalapril group. A total of 102 patients (22.1% [7.7% wins]) in the sacubitril/valsartan group and 111 (24.1% [6.9% wins]) in the enalapril group experienced a first hospitalization for HF. Patients in the sacubitril/valsartan group had a median (IQR) decrease in NT-proBNP of 30.6% (-54.3% to -0.9%) at 12 weeks, leading to 22.5% wins, while those in the enalapril group had a 5.5% (-31.9% to 37.5%) decrease (7.2% wins). The resulting stratified win ratio was 1.52 (95% CI, 1.28-1.82; P < .001) for sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril. Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction due to Chagas disease, there was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril, but there was a greater reduction in NT-proBNP at 12 weeks in patients in the sacubitril/valsartan group. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04023227.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".