Evidence Hub

Comparative clinical outcomes and safety of finerenone, SGLT2 inhibitors, RAS inhibitors and ARNI in heart failure with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Fu Z, Chen X, Liu H, Yang J, Jin T, Liu T, Ta G

Frontiers in pharmacology, 2026

65,929 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Background: Although pharmacological therapies for heart failure have advanced, direct comparative evidence on the clinical outcomes and safety of finerenone versus other agents remains limited in HFpEF or HFmrEF.

Objective: A network meta-analysis was conducted to compare clinical outcomes and safety among finerenone, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) in patients with HFpEF or HFmrEF.

Methods: A comprehensive systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from database inception to 3 January 2026. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included, and a network meta-analysis was performed to evaluate cardiovascular (CV) death, worsening heart failure (HF) events, composite renal outcomes, all-cause mortality, total HF hospitalizations, and adverse events.

Results: A total of 27 RCTs involving 65,929 patients were included. Compared with placebo, finerenone was associated with lower risk of CV death (OR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.82-0.95) and worsening HF events (OR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.71-0.79), but higher risk of composite renal outcomes (OR = 1.42, 95% CI 1.10-1.84). No significant differences in CV death or all-cause mortality. In indirect comparisons, finerenone was associated with lower risk of worsening HF events versus canagliflozin (OR = 2.12, 95% CI 1.13-3.98) and RASi (OR = 1.21, 95% CI 1.03-1.42). Sotagliflozin (OR…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 65,929 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free