Diabetes and CVD risk during angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker treatment in hypertension: a study of 15,990 patients

L P Hasvold, J Bodegård, M Thuresson, J Stålhammar, N Hammar, J Sundström, D Russell, S E Kjeldsen, L P Hasvold, J Bodegård, M Thuresson, J Stålhammar, N Hammar, J Sundström, D Russell, S E Kjeldsen

Abstract

Differences in clinical effectiveness between angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in the primary treatment of hypertension are unknown. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to assess the prevention of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (CVD) in patients treated with ARBs or ACEis. Patients initiated on enalapril or candesartan treatment in 71 Swedish primary care centers between 1999 and 2007 were included. Medical records data were extracted and linked with nationwide hospital discharge and cause of death registers. The 11,725 patients initiated on enalapril and 4265 on candesartan had similar baseline characteristics. During a mean follow-up of 1.84 years, 36,482 patient-years, the risk of new diabetes onset was lower in the candesartan group (hazard ratio (HR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-0.96, P=0.01) compared with the enalapril group. No difference between the groups was observed in CVD risk (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87-1.13, P=0.86). More patients discontinued treatment in the enalapril group (38.1%) vs the candesartan group (27.2%). In a clinical setting, patients initiated on candesartan treatment had a lower risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes and lower rates of drug discontinuation compared with patients initiated on enalapril. No differences in CVD risk were observed.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01152567.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Patient flow.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Blood pressure during follow-up. %*Percentage of blood pressure reading among patients at risk. Ena, enalapril; Can, candesartan.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Kaplan–Meier curves for diabetes and composite CVD end point. Ena, enalapril; Can, candesartan.

References

    1. Lindholm LH, Persson M, Alaupovic P, Carlberg B, Svensson A, Samuelsson O. Metabolic outcome during 1 year in newly detected hypertensives: results of the Antihypertensive Treatment and Lipid Profile in a North of Sweden Efficacy Evaluation (ALPINE study) J Hypertens. 2003;21:1563–1574.
    1. Jandeleit-Dahm KA, Tikellis C, Reid CM, Johnston CI, Cooper ME. Why blockade of the renin-angiotensin system reduces the incidence of new-onset diabetes. J Hypertens. 2005;23:463–473.
    1. Ogihara T, Fujimoto A, Nakao K, Saruta T, CASE-J Trial Group ARB candesartan and CCB amlodipine in hypertensive patients: the CASE-J trial. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2008;6:1195–1201.
    1. The NAVIGATOR Study Group Effect of valsartan on the incidence of diabetes and cardiovascular events. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1477–1490.
    1. Elliott WJ, Meyer PM. Incident diabetes in clinical trials of antihypertensive drugs: a network meta-analysis. Lancet. 2007;369:201–207.
    1. Chen CC, Chiang AN, Hsieh MH. Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker for the prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2010;90:e25–e26.
    1. Manrique C, Lastra G, Sowers JR. New insights into insulin action and resistance in the vasculature. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2014;311:136–156.
    1. Pitt B, Poole-Wilson PA, Segal R, Martinez FA, Dickstein K, Camm AJ, et al. Effect of losartan compared with captopril on mortality in patients with symptomatic heart failure: randomised trial—the Losartan Heart Failure Survival Study ELITE II. Lancet. 2000;355:1582–1587.
    1. ONTARGET investigators Telmisartan, ramipril, or both in patients at high risk for vascular events. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1547–1559.
    1. Kjeldsen SE, Stalhammar J, Hasvold P, Bodegard J, Olsson U, Russell D. Effects of losartan vs candesartan in reducing cardiovascular events in the primary treatment of hypertension. J Hum Hypertens. 2010;24:263–273.
    1. Martinell M, Stalhammar J, Hallqvist J. Automated data extraction—a feasible way to construct patient registers of primary care utilization. Ups J Med Sci. 2012;117:52–56.
    1. Ludvigsson JF, Andersson A, Ekbom A, Feychting M, Kim J-L, Reuterwall C, et al. External review and validation of the Swedish national inpatient register. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:450.
    1. Rolandsson O, Norberg M, Nyström L, Söderberg S, Svensson M, Lindahl B, et al. How to diagnose and classify diabetes in primary health care: lessons learned from the Diabetes Register in Northern Sweden (DiabNorth) Scand J Primary Health Care. 2012;30:81–87.
    1. Juutilainen A, Kortelainen S, Lehto S, Rönnemaa T, Pyörälä K, Laakso M. Gender difference in the impact of type 2 diabetes on coronary heart disease risk. Diabetes Care. 2004;27:2898–2904.
    1. Novak M, Björck L, Giang KW, Heden-Ståhl C, Wilhelmsen L, Rosengren A. Perceived stress and incidence of Type 2 diabetes: a 35-year follow-up study of middle-aged Swedish men. Diabet Med. 2013;30:e8–e16.
    1. Agardh E, Allebeck P, Hallqvist P, Tahereh Moradi T, Sidorchuk A. Type 2 diabetes incidence and socio-economic position: a systematic review and meta-analysis Int. J Epidemiol. 2011;40:804–818.
    1. Conroy RM, Pyorala K, Fitzgerald AP, Sans S, Menotti A, De Backer G, et al. Estimation of ten-year risk of fatal cardiovascular disease in Europe: the SCORE project. Eur Heart J. 2003;11:987–1003.
    1. Tiikkaja S, Olsson M, Malki N, Modin B, Sparén P. Familial risk of premature cardiovascular mortality and the impact of intergenerational occupational class mobility. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75:1883–1890.
    1. Brookhart MA, Wyss R, Layton JB, Stürmer T. Propensity score methods for confounding control in nonexperimental research. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2013;6:604–611.
    1. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70:41–55.
    1. Austin PC. Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharm Stat. 2011;10:150–161.
    1. Sekhon JS. Multivariate and propensity score matching software with automated balance optimization. J Stat Software. 2011;42:1–52.
    1. Michel MC, Foster C, Brunner HR, Liu L. A systematic comparison of the properties of clinically used angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists. Pharmacol Rev. 2013;65:809–848.
    1. Bramlage P, Hasford J. Blood pressure reduction, persistence and costs in the evaluation of antihypertensive drug treatment – a review. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2009;8:18.
    1. Bloom BS. Continuation of initial antihypertensive medication after 1 year of therapy. Clin Ther. 1998;20:671–681.
    1. Patel BV, Remigio-Baker RA, Mehta D, Thiebaud P, Frech-Tamas F, Preblick R. Effects of initial antihypertensive drug class on patient persistence and compliance in a usual-care setting in the United States. J Clin Hypertens. 2007;9:692–700.
    1. Elliott WJ. Double-blind comparison of eprosartan and enalapril on cough and blood pressure in unselected hypertensive patients. Eprosartan Study Group. J Hum Hypertens. 1999;13:413–417.

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel