Angiotensin receptor blockers not equivalent to ACE inhibitors for heart failure

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Although, in theory, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) offer improved blockade of the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone pathway over angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, their relative effectiveness in the treatment of heart failure remains controversial. This meta-analysis combined all relevant randomized-controlled studies comparing the benefits of ARBs alone or in combination with ACE inhibitors.

POPULATION STUDIED: The authors identified 17 studies comparing ARBs with placebo or ACE inhibitors published before May 2001 through a search of 7 relevant databases. To be included, the studies had to have a treatment duration of at least 4 weeks, include patients with New York Heart Association functional class II to IV, use a randomized, blinded design, and report outcomes of death or hospitalization. Studies were excluded if they were published only as abstracts or in non–peer-reviewed journals, were crossover trials or single-dose studies, included nonrandomized investigational agents, or had other significant validity concerns. Three ongoing, but otherwise relevant, studies were not included.

STUDY DESIGN AND VALIDITY: The protocol followed guidelines for performing Cochrane reviews. Inclusion decisions were reached by consensus and outcome data were independently extracted by 2 reviewers, with disagreements settled by consensus or third reviewer. Reasons for excluding each article were listed and potential validity concerns of the included articles were addressed. For their primary analysis the authors combined all ARBs regardless of type, dosage, or concomitant ACE inhibitor therapy and compared them with all controls, whether placebo or ACE inhibitors. Subanalyses followed comparing ARBs with placebo, ACE inhibitors, and ARB + ACE inhibitor with ACE inhibitor alone. All data were analyzed based on intention to treat.

OUTCOMES MEASURED: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality (evaluated in all 17 trials). The secondary outcome was hospitalization for heart failure, worsening signs and symptoms of heart failure, or complications of heart failure treatment. Hospitalization data were extractable from only 6 of the trials, but these trials contained the most patients (N = 10,031).

RESULTS: No statistical difference in all-cause mortality was found in the primary analysis (odds ratio [OR] = 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75–1.23). There was also no difference in mortality in trials comparing ARBs with placebo only (OR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.38–1.22), trials comparing ARBs with ACE inhibitors (OR = 1.09; 95% CI, 0.92–1.29), or in trials comparing combined ARBs and ACE inhibitors with ACE inhibitors alone (OR = 1.04; 95% CI, 0.91–1.20). Overall, treatment with an ARB had no affect on the rate of hospitalization due to heart failure. Similar to mortality, 2 of the subanalyses, ARBs vs placebo and ARBs vs ACE inhibitors, showed no difference (OR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.29–1.51 and OR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.80–1.13). However, the combination of ARBs with ACE inhibitors reduced hospitalization rates as compared with ACE inhibitors alone (OR = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64–0.86, NNT = 23 for about 2 years).

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Although, in theory, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) offer improved blockade of the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone pathway over angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, their relative effectiveness in the treatment of heart failure remains controversial. This meta-analysis combined all relevant randomized-controlled studies comparing the benefits of ARBs alone or in combination with ACE inhibitors.

POPULATION STUDIED: The authors identified 17 studies comparing ARBs with placebo or ACE inhibitors published before May 2001 through a search of 7 relevant databases. To be included, the studies had to have a treatment duration of at least 4 weeks, include patients with New York Heart Association functional class II to IV, use a randomized, blinded design, and report outcomes of death or hospitalization. Studies were excluded if they were published only as abstracts or in non–peer-reviewed journals, were crossover trials or single-dose studies, included nonrandomized investigational agents, or had other significant validity concerns. Three ongoing, but otherwise relevant, studies were not included.

STUDY DESIGN AND VALIDITY: The protocol followed guidelines for performing Cochrane reviews. Inclusion decisions were reached by consensus and outcome data were independently extracted by 2 reviewers, with disagreements settled by consensus or third reviewer. Reasons for excluding each article were listed and potential validity concerns of the included articles were addressed. For their primary analysis the authors combined all ARBs regardless of type, dosage, or concomitant ACE inhibitor therapy and compared them with all controls, whether placebo or ACE inhibitors. Subanalyses followed comparing ARBs with placebo, ACE inhibitors, and ARB + ACE inhibitor with ACE inhibitor alone. All data were analyzed based on intention to treat.

OUTCOMES MEASURED: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality (evaluated in all 17 trials). The secondary outcome was hospitalization for heart failure, worsening signs and symptoms of heart failure, or complications of heart failure treatment. Hospitalization data were extractable from only 6 of the trials, but these trials contained the most patients (N = 10,031).

RESULTS: No statistical difference in all-cause mortality was found in the primary analysis (odds ratio [OR] = 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75–1.23). There was also no difference in mortality in trials comparing ARBs with placebo only (OR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.38–1.22), trials comparing ARBs with ACE inhibitors (OR = 1.09; 95% CI, 0.92–1.29), or in trials comparing combined ARBs and ACE inhibitors with ACE inhibitors alone (OR = 1.04; 95% CI, 0.91–1.20). Overall, treatment with an ARB had no affect on the rate of hospitalization due to heart failure. Similar to mortality, 2 of the subanalyses, ARBs vs placebo and ARBs vs ACE inhibitors, showed no difference (OR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.29–1.51 and OR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.80–1.13). However, the combination of ARBs with ACE inhibitors reduced hospitalization rates as compared with ACE inhibitors alone (OR = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64–0.86, NNT = 23 for about 2 years).

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Although, in theory, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) offer improved blockade of the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone pathway over angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, their relative effectiveness in the treatment of heart failure remains controversial. This meta-analysis combined all relevant randomized-controlled studies comparing the benefits of ARBs alone or in combination with ACE inhibitors.

POPULATION STUDIED: The authors identified 17 studies comparing ARBs with placebo or ACE inhibitors published before May 2001 through a search of 7 relevant databases. To be included, the studies had to have a treatment duration of at least 4 weeks, include patients with New York Heart Association functional class II to IV, use a randomized, blinded design, and report outcomes of death or hospitalization. Studies were excluded if they were published only as abstracts or in non–peer-reviewed journals, were crossover trials or single-dose studies, included nonrandomized investigational agents, or had other significant validity concerns. Three ongoing, but otherwise relevant, studies were not included.

STUDY DESIGN AND VALIDITY: The protocol followed guidelines for performing Cochrane reviews. Inclusion decisions were reached by consensus and outcome data were independently extracted by 2 reviewers, with disagreements settled by consensus or third reviewer. Reasons for excluding each article were listed and potential validity concerns of the included articles were addressed. For their primary analysis the authors combined all ARBs regardless of type, dosage, or concomitant ACE inhibitor therapy and compared them with all controls, whether placebo or ACE inhibitors. Subanalyses followed comparing ARBs with placebo, ACE inhibitors, and ARB + ACE inhibitor with ACE inhibitor alone. All data were analyzed based on intention to treat.

OUTCOMES MEASURED: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality (evaluated in all 17 trials). The secondary outcome was hospitalization for heart failure, worsening signs and symptoms of heart failure, or complications of heart failure treatment. Hospitalization data were extractable from only 6 of the trials, but these trials contained the most patients (N = 10,031).

RESULTS: No statistical difference in all-cause mortality was found in the primary analysis (odds ratio [OR] = 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75–1.23). There was also no difference in mortality in trials comparing ARBs with placebo only (OR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.38–1.22), trials comparing ARBs with ACE inhibitors (OR = 1.09; 95% CI, 0.92–1.29), or in trials comparing combined ARBs and ACE inhibitors with ACE inhibitors alone (OR = 1.04; 95% CI, 0.91–1.20). Overall, treatment with an ARB had no affect on the rate of hospitalization due to heart failure. Similar to mortality, 2 of the subanalyses, ARBs vs placebo and ARBs vs ACE inhibitors, showed no difference (OR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.29–1.51 and OR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.80–1.13). However, the combination of ARBs with ACE inhibitors reduced hospitalization rates as compared with ACE inhibitors alone (OR = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64–0.86, NNT = 23 for about 2 years).