The Comparative Effectiveness of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers in Patients With Diabetes

Cardiorenal effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers among people underrepresented in trials: analysis of routinely collected data with emulation of a reference trial (ONTARGET)

Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of death globally. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), compared in the ONTARGET trial (Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial), each prevent cardiovascular disease. However, trial results may not be generalizable, and their effectiveness in underrepresented groups is unclear. Using trial emulation methods within routine-care data to validate findings, we explored the generalizability of ONTARGET results. For people prescribed an ACEi/ARB in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD dataset from January 1, 2001, to July 31, 2019, we applied trial criteria and propensity-score methods to create an ONTARGET trial-eligible cohort. Comparing ARB with ACEi, we estimated hazard ratios for the primary composite trial outcome (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure) and secondary outcomes. Because the prespecified criteria were met, confirming trial emulation, we then explored treatment heterogeneity among 3 trial-underrepresented subgroups: females, persons aged ≥75 years, and those with chronic kidney disease. In the trial-eligible population (n = 137 155), results for the primary outcome demonstrated similar effects of ARB and ACEi (hazard ratio = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.93-1.01), meeting the prespecified validation criteria. When extending this outcome to trial-underrepresented groups, similar treatment effects were observed by sex, age, and chronic kidney disease. This suggests that ONTARGET trial findings are generalizable to trial-underrepresented subgroups. This article is part of a Special Collection on Pharmacoepidemiology.

Effectiveness of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers on total and cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in primary prevention: A nationwide study based on French Health Insurance Data (SNDS)

Angiotensin‐converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) both inhibit the renin‐angiotensin system (RAS) but have different sites of action. Whether clinically meaningful differences exist is still debated. The authors set up a population‐based nationwide retrospective cohort study with at least 5 years of follow‐up based on the comprehensive French Health Insurance Database linked to the French hospital discharge database. Patients aged 50 or above, identified as ARB or ACE inhibitor new users in 2009 (at least one delivery during the year and no such delivery in 2008) were eligible. Exclusion criteria included history of cancer, cardiovascular disease, or chronic renal insufficiency. Main outcome measure was overall mortality. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular deaths, major cardiovascular events, and major or other cardiovascular events. Out of 407 815 eligible patients, 233 682 (57%) were ARB users; two‐third had no previous exposure to antihypertensive drug. Based on propensity‐score based Cox model, ARB new user group had a better overall (HR: .878, 95%CI, .854 to .902), and cardiovascular (HR: .841, 95%CI, .800 to .84) survival and had a lower risk for major cardiovascular events (HR: .886, 95%CI, .868 to .905). Statistically significant quantitative interactions were detected with diabetes. Considering subgroup analyses, ARBs had a better survival than ACE inhibitors in nondiabetic patients.

Comparative effectiveness of ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers in patients with prior myocardial infarction

Objective

Although ACE inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are commonly prescribed for patients with coronary artery disease, whether these medications are similarly effective is still a subject of intense debate. Our objective was to compare the clinical effectiveness of ACEIs and ARBs in patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI).

Methods

All residents older than 65 years, alive on 1 April 2012, with a prior MI were included. Propensity weighting was used to balance potentially confounding baseline covariates between the treatment groups. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, hospitalisation for MI or unstable angina at 3 years.

Results

Our cohort included 59 353 patients with MI; their mean age was 77 years and 40% were women. In the propensity-weighted cohort, the primary outcome occurred in 6.5% in the ACEI group and 5.7% in the ARB group at 1 year (HR comparing ACEI with ARB 1.14, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.23, p<0.001). At 3 years, the primary outcome occurring in 16.0% with ACEIs and 15.1% with ARBs (HR 1.07; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.12; p<0.001). A significant interaction with sex was observed, with women prescribed ACEIs having a higher hazards (HR 1.17; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.26) compared with ARBs, while no significant difference was seen among men (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06, interaction p<0.001).

Conclusions

Despite previous concerns regarding ARBs, we found that they had slightly lower rates of adverse clinical cardiovascular outcomes among older patients with MI compared with ACEIs. The observed difference in clinical outcomes may be related to a sex difference in effectiveness.

Metabolic Syndrome as a Multifaceted Risk Factor for Oxidative Stress

SIGNIFICANCE

Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is associated with a greater risk of diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. It is estimated that this multifactorial condition affects 20%-30% of the world's population. A detailed understanding of MetS mechanisms is crucial for the development of effective prevention strategies and adequate intervention tools that could curb its increasing prevalence and limit its comorbidities, particularly in younger age groups. With advances in basic redox biology, oxidative stress (OxS) involvement in the complex pathophysiology of MetS has become widely accepted. Nevertheless, its clear association with and causative effects on MetS require further elucidation. Recent Advances: Although a better understanding of the causes, risks, and effects of MetS is essential, studies suggest that oxidant/antioxidant imbalance is a key contributor to this condition. OxS is now understood to be a major underlying mechanism for mitochondrial dysfunction, ectopic lipid accumulation, and gut microbiota impairment.

CRITICAL ISSUES

Further studies, particularly in the field of translational research, are clearly required to understand and control the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels, especially in the mitochondria, since the various therapeutic trials conducted to date have not targeted this major ROS-generating system, aimed to delay MetS onset, or prevent its progression.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Multiple relevant markers need to be identified to clarify the role of ROS in the etiology of MetS. Future clinical trials should provide important proof of concept for the effectiveness of antioxidants as useful therapeutic approaches to simultaneously counteract mitochondrial OxS, alleviate MetS symptoms, and prevent complications. Antioxid. Redox Signal. 26, 445-461.

A comparison between angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers on end stage renal disease and major adverse cardiovascular events in diabetic patients: a population-based dynamic cohort study in Taiwan

Background

Contemporary guidelines recommend angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARB) for hypertensive patients with diabetes. However, there is limited data to evaluate the comparison between ACEi and ARB on end stage renal disease (ESRD) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), in Asian diabetic patients.

Methods

We used the Taiwan Longitudinal Cohort of Diabetes Patients Database to perform a population-based dynamic cohort study. The comparison between ACEi and ARB on ESRD and MACE in diabetic patients was examined using the propensity score weighting method. We followed these patients until the occurrence of first study outcomes or end date of the study, whichever came first.

Results

There were 6898 and 12,758 patients in ACEi and ARB groups, respectively. The mean follow-up period was about 3.5 years in ESRD and 2.5 years in MACE. The incidence of ESRD was 0.44 % and 0.63 % per person-years in the ACEi and ARB group, respectively. The risk of ESRD was lower in the ACEi group than the ARB group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.69; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.54–0.88, P = 0.0025]. Among those without chronic kidney disease (CKD), the incidence of ESRD was 0.30 % and 0.37 % per person-years in the ACEi and ARB group, respectively. ACEi was similar to ARB in preventing ESRD for those without CKD (P = 0.11). Among those with CKD, the incidence of ESRD was 1.39 % and 2.34 % per person-years in the ACEi and ARB group, respectively. The ACEi group had a lower risk of ESRD than the ARB group (HR 0.61; 95 % CI 0.42–0.88, P = 0.008). The incidence of MACE was 9.33 % and 9.62 % per person-years in the ACEi and ARB group, respectively. There was no significant difference in the composite MACE outcome between the two groups (P = 0.42), but the ACEi group was associated with a higher risk of stroke than the ARB group (HR 1.12; 95 % CI 1.02–1.24, P = 0.02).

Conclusions

ACEi compared with ARB was associated with a lower incidence of ESRD, especially in those with CKD. Though ACEi and ARB had a similar risk of composite MACE outcome, ACEi had a slightly higher incidence of stroke than ARB, among the Asian diabetic patients.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12933-016-0365-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.