NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Cover of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors (ACEIs), Angiotensin II Receptor Antagonists (ARBs), and Direct Renin Inhibitors for Treating Essential Hypertension: An Update

Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors (ACEIs), Angiotensin II Receptor Antagonists (ARBs), and Direct Renin Inhibitors for Treating Essential Hypertension: An Update

Comparative Effectiveness Reviews, No. 34

Investigators: , PhD, , MD, PhD, , MD, MHS, , PhD, , MD, , MD, , MD, MHSc, , D Phil, , MCM, and , RN, MSN.

Duke Evidence-based Practice Center
Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); .
Report No.: 11-EHC063-EF

Structured Abstract

Objectives:

A 2007 comparative effectiveness review (CER) evaluated the long-term benefits and harms of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) versus angiotensin II receptor blockers/antagonists (ARBs) for treating essential hypertension in adults. Since then, significant additional research has been published comparing these agents, and direct renin inhibitors (DRIs) have been introduced to the market. We sought to update 2007 CER on ACEIs versus ARBs and expand this to include comparisons with DRIs.

Data Sources:

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, a list of systematic reviews underway in the Cochrane Hypertension Review Group, and selected gray literature sources.

Review Methods:

We included studies that directly compared ACEIs, ARBs, and/or DRIs in at least 20 total adults with essential hypertension; had at least 12 weeks of followup; and reported at least one outcome of interest. Two investigators reviewed each article, and a standard protocol was used to extract data on study design, interventions, population characteristics, and outcomes; evaluate study quality; and summarize the evidence. When appropriate, quantitative meta-analysis was performed.

Results:

We included 97 studies (36 new since 2007) directly comparing ACEIs versus ARBs and 3 studies directly comparing DRIs to ACEIs or ARBs. The strength of evidence remains high for equivalence between ACEIs and ARBs for blood pressure lowering and use of a single antihypertensive agent, and for superiority of ARBs over ACEIs for short-term adverse events (primarily due to cough). The new evidence did not strengthen our conclusions regarding long-term cardiovascular outcomes, quality of life, progression of renal disease, medication adherence or persistence, rates of angioedema, or differences in key patient subgroups: the strength of evidence for these outcomes remained low to moderate. For DRIs, we were not able to reach definitive conclusions for any of the outcomes of interest. Few studies involved a representative sample treated in a typical clinical setting over a long duration; treatment protocols had marked heterogeneity; and significant amounts of data about important outcomes and patient subgroups were missing.

Conclusion:

Evidence does not support a meaningful difference between ACEIs and ARBs for any outcome except short-term adverse events. Few, if any, of the questions that were not answered in the 2007 CER have been addressed by the 39 new studies. Future research in this area should consider areas of uncertainty and be prioritized accordingly.

Contents

Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services1. Contract No. 290-02-0025. Prepared by: Duke Evidence-based Practice Center, Durham, NC.

Suggested citation:

Sanders GD, Coeytaux R, Dolor RJ, Hasselblad V, Patel UD, Powers B, Yancy Jr WS, Gray RN, Irvine RJ, Kendrick A. Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors (ACEIs), Angiotensin II Receptor Antagonists (ARBs), and Direct Renin Inhibitors for Treating Essential Hypertension: An Update. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 34. (Prepared by the Duke Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-02-0025.) AHRQ Publication No. 11-EHC063-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. June 2011. Available at: www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm.

This report is based on research conducted by the Duke Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. 290-02-0025). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the author(s), who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The information in this report is intended to help clinicians, employers, policymakers, and others make informed decisions about the provision of health care services. This report is intended as a reference and not as a substitute for clinical judgment.

This report may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for development of clinical practice guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or as a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such derivative products may not be stated or implied.

None of the investigators has any affiliations or financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report.

1

540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; www‚Äč.ahrq.gov

Bookshelf ID: NBK61789PMID: 21977520

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page
  • PDF version of this title (3.1M)
  • Disable Glossary Links

Related information

Similar articles in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...