Angiotensin receptor blocker vs ace inhibitor
Searched over 200M research papers
Summary
10 papers analyzed
These studies suggest that angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and ACE inhibitors are similarly effective in preventing cardiovascular events, reducing new-onset diabetes, and treating hypertension, with ARBs having a better safety profile and tolerability.
Not a yes or no question
To use the Consensus Meter, try asking a simple yes or no question
Research summarized with Copilot
Beta20 papers analyzed
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Angiotensin Receptor Blockers vs. ACE Inhibitors
Introduction to Angiotensin Receptor Blockers (ARBs) and ACE Inhibitors (ACE-Is)
Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is) are widely used in the management of cardiovascular diseases, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease. Both classes of drugs act on the renin-angiotensin system but through different mechanisms. This article synthesizes the current research comparing the efficacy and safety of ARBs and ACE-Is.
Cardiovascular Outcomes in High-Risk Patients
Efficacy in Preventing Cardiovascular Events
Several studies have compared the efficacy of ARBs and ACE-Is in preventing cardiovascular (CV) events such as myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and CV death. A network meta-analysis involving 125,330 patients found no significant differences between ARBs and ACE-Is in preventing the composite endpoint of CV death, MI, and stroke. Similarly, another meta-analysis of 254,301 patients concluded that ARBs are as effective as ACE-Is in reducing the risk of these events, with the added benefit of better tolerability.
Impact on All-Cause Mortality
The impact of ARBs and ACE-Is on all-cause mortality has also been extensively studied. Research indicates that ACE-Is may have a slight edge over ARBs in reducing all-cause mortality, but this difference is not statistically significant in most analyses . However, ACE-Is are associated with a higher incidence of adverse effects, leading to higher drug withdrawal rates compared to ARBs.
Diabetes Prevention
Role in New-Onset Diabetes
Both ARBs and ACE-Is have been shown to reduce the incidence of new-onset type 2 diabetes. A meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials found that ACE-Is and ARBs reduced the incidence of newly diagnosed diabetes by 27% and 23%, respectively. This suggests that both drug classes are beneficial in patients with pre-diabetic conditions.
Renal Outcomes
Efficacy in Proteinuric Renal Disease
In patients with chronic proteinuric renal disease, both ARBs and ACE-Is have been shown to decrease urinary protein excretion and slow disease progression. A systematic review found that combination therapy with both ARBs and ACE-Is resulted in a significant decrease in proteinuria compared to monotherapy with either drug. However, the combination therapy was associated with a small increase in serum potassium levels, which warrants careful monitoring.
Kidney Failure and Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD)
A Bayesian network meta-analysis of 119 randomized controlled trials involving 64,768 patients with CKD found that both ARBs and ACE-Is significantly reduced the odds of kidney failure and major cardiovascular events compared to placebo. ACE-Is were also found to reduce all-cause mortality, suggesting a potential superiority over ARBs in this population.
Hypertension Management
Blood Pressure Control
In the management of hypertension, both ARBs and ACE-Is are effective in reducing blood pressure. A meta-analysis found that the combination of an ARB and an ACE-I provided a small additive effect on blood pressure reduction compared to monotherapy with either drug. However, the routine use of combination therapy is not recommended until more controlled studies are performed.
Safety and Tolerability
ARBs are generally better tolerated than ACE-Is, which are associated with a higher incidence of cough and angioedema. A large-scale observational study involving over 2.9 million patients found no significant difference in the primary outcomes of acute MI, heart failure, stroke, or composite cardiovascular events between ARBs and ACE-Is. However, ARBs had a significantly lower risk of adverse effects such as angioedema and cough.
Conclusion
Both ARBs and ACE-Is are effective in managing cardiovascular diseases, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease. While ACE-Is may have a slight edge in reducing all-cause mortality and new-onset heart failure, ARBs offer a better safety profile with fewer adverse effects. Therefore, ARBs represent a valuable alternative, especially for patients who are intolerant to ACE-Is. Further research is needed to fully elucidate the long-term benefits and risks of these therapies.
Sources and full results
Most relevant research papers on this topic
