Angiotensin Receptor Blockers versus ACE Inhibitors: Prevention of Death and Myocardial Infarction in High-Risk Populations

2005 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 470-480 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin J Epstein ◽  
John G Gums

OBJECTIVE: To determine, through a review of the medical literature, whether there is adequate evidence to support the use of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in place of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors in high-risk populations, focusing on the prevention of death and myocardial infarction (MI). DATA SOURCES: Original investigations, reviews, and meta-analyses were identified from the biomedical literature via a MEDLINE search (1966–August 2004). Published articles were also cross-referenced for pertinent citations, and recent meeting abstracts were searched for relevant data. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All articles identified during the search were evaluated. Preference was given to prospective, randomized, controlled trials that evaluated major cardiovascular endpoints and compared ARBs with ACE inhibitors, active controls, or placebo. DATA SYNTHESIS: The renin—angiotensin system plays a pivotal role in the continuum of cardiovascular disease and represents a major therapeutic target in the treatment of patients at risk for vascular events. While ACE inhibitors have been definitively shown to prevent death and MI, studies with ARBs in similar populations have not reduced these endpoints. In clinical trials that enrolled patients with heart failure, post-MI, diabetes, and hypertension, ARBs did not prevent MI or prolong survival compared with ACE inhibitors, other antihypertensives, or placebo. CONCLUSIONS: ACE inhibitors and ARBs should not be considered interchangeable, even among patients with a documented history of ACE inhibitor intolerance. ARBs can be considered a second-line alternative in such patients with the realization that they have not been shown to prevent MI or prolong survival.

Open Heart ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. e001010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dennis Ko ◽  
Paymon Azizi ◽  
Maria Koh ◽  
Alice Chong ◽  
Peter Austin ◽  
...  

ObjectiveAlthough 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).MethodsAll 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.ResultsOur 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).ConclusionsDespite 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.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e044010
Author(s):  
Molly Moore Jeffery ◽  
Nathan W Cummins ◽  
Timothy M Dempsey ◽  
Andrew H. Limper ◽  
Nilay D Shah ◽  
...  

ObjectivesEvaluate associations between ACE inhibitors (ACEis) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and clinical outcomes in acute viral respiratory illness (AVRI).DesignRetrospective cohort analysis of claims data.SettingThe USA; 2018–2019 influenza season.ParticipantsMain cohort: people with hypertension (HTN) taking an ACEi, ARB or other HTN medications, and experiencing AVRI. Falsification cohort: parallel cohort receiving elective knee or hip replacement.Main outcome measuresMain cohort: hospital admission, intensive care unit, acute respiratory distress (ARD), ARD syndrome and all-cause mortality. Falsification cohort: complications after surgery and all-cause mortality.ResultsThe main cohort included 236 843 episodes of AVRI contributed by 202 629 unique individuals. Most episodes were in women (58.9%), 81.4% in people with Medicare Advantage and 40.3% in people aged 75+ years. Odds of mortality were lower in the ACEi (0.78 (0.74 to 0.83)) and ARB (0.64 (0.61 to 0.68)) cohorts compared with other HTN medications. On all other outcomes, people taking ARBs (but not ACEis) had a >10% reduction in odds of inpatient stays compared with other HTN medications.In the falsification analysis (N=103 353), both ACEis (0.89 (0.80 to 0.98)) and ARBs (0.82 (0.74 to 0.91)) were associated with decreased odds of complications compared with other HTN medications; ARBs (0.64 (0.47 to 0.87)) but not ACEis (0.79 (0.60 to 1.05)) were associated with lower odds of death compared with other HTN medications.ConclusionsOutpatient use of ARBs was associated with better outcomes with AVRI compared with other medications for HTN. ACEis were associated with reduced risk of death, but with minimal or no reduction in risk of other complications. A falsification analysis conducted to provide context on the possible causal implications of these findings did not provide a clear answer. Further analysis using observational data will benefit from additional approaches to assess causal relationships between these drugs and outcomes in AVRI.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document