Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 621

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of Omapatrilat and Enalapril in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure: The Omapatrilat Versus Enalapril Randomized Trial of Utility in Reducing Events (OVERTURE)

Open access
Packer, Milton, Califf, Robert M., Konstam, Marvin A., Krum, Henry, McMurray, John J., Rouleau, Jean-Lucien, Swedberg, Karl·2002·Circulation

Abstract

Background— Combined inhibition of the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) and neutral endopeptidase (NEP) may produce greater benefits in heart failure than ACE inhibition alone. Methods and Results— We randomly assigned 5770 patients with New York Heart Association class II to IV heart failure to double-blind treatment with either the ACE inhibitor enalapril (10 mg BID, n=2884) or to the ACE-NEP inhibitor omapatrilat (40 mg once daily, n=2886) for a mean of 14.5 months. The primary end point—the combined risk of death or hospitalization for heart failure requiring intravenous treatment—was used prospectively to test both a superiority and noninferiority hypothesis (based on the effect of enalapril in the Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction [SOLVD] Treatment Trial). A primary end point was achieved in 973 patients in the enalapril group and in 914 patients in the omapatrilat group (hazard ratio 0.94; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.03, P =0.187)—a result that fulfilled prespecified criteria for noninferiority but not for superiority. The omapatrilat group also had a 9% lower risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization ( P =0.024) and a 6% lower risk of death ( P =0.339). Post hoc analysis of the primary end point with the definition used in the SOLVD Treatment Trial (which included all hospitalizations for heart failure) showed an 11% lower risk in patients treated with omapatrilat (nominal P =0.012). Conclusion— Omapatrilat reduces the risk of death and hospitalization in chronic heart failure but was not more effective than ACE inhibition alone in reducing the risk of a primary clinical event. Between-group differences in favor of omapatrilat observed in secondary and post hoc analyses warrant further study.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/01.cir.0000029801.86489.50

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 621

Metadata

Authors
Packer, M., Califf, R. M., Konstam, M. A., Krum, H., McMurray, J. J., Rouleau, J.-L., & Swedberg, K.
Venue
Circulation
Published
2002-08-20
Volume
106
Issue
8
Pages
920-926
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2155400583
Cited by
621
References
2
FWCI
23.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of Omapatrilat and Enalapril in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure: The Omapatrilat Versus Enalapril Randomized Trial of Utility in Reducing Events (OVERTURE). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.cir.0000029801.86489.50
The paper
Packer, M., Califf, R. M., Konstam, M. A., Krum, H., McMurray, J. J., Rouleau, J.-L., & Swedberg, K. (2002). Comparison of Omapatrilat and Enalapril in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure: The Omapatrilat Versus Enalapril Randomized Trial of Utility in Reducing Events (OVERTURE). Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.0000029801.86489.50

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.