Systematic Review: Comparative Effectiveness of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers for Treating Essential Hypertension

1 January 2008 | Volume 148 Issue 1

Background: The relative effectiveness of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) for lowering blood pressure is unknown.

Purpose: To compare the benefits and harms of ACE inhibitors versus ARBs for treating essential hypertension in adults.

Data Sources: MEDLINE (1966 to May 2006), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 2, 2006), and selected reference lists for relevant English-language trials. The MEDLINE search was updated to August 2007 to identify head-to-head trials that reported blood pressure outcomes and major cardiovascular events.

Study Selection: 61 clinical studies that directly compared ACE inhibitors versus ARBs in adult patients with essential hypertension, reported an outcome of interest, lasted at least 12 weeks, and included at least 20 total patients.

Data Extraction: A standardized protocol with predefined criteria was used to extract data on study design, interventions, population characteristics, and outcomes; evaluate study quality and applicability; and assess the strength of the body of evidence for key outcomes.

Data Synthesis: ACE inhibitors and ARBs had similar long-term effects on blood pressure (50 studies; strength of evidence, high). No consistent differential effects were observed for other outcomes (infrequently studied over the long term), including death, cardiovascular events, quality of life, rate of single antihypertensive agent use, lipid levels, progression to diabetes, left ventricular mass or function, and kidney disease. Consistent fair- to good-quality evidence showed that ACE inhibitors were associated with a greater risk for cough. Fewer withdrawals due to adverse events and greater persistence with therapy tended to favor ARBs over ACE inhibitors, although this evidence was not definitive. Subgroups of patients for whom ACE inhibitors or ARBs were more effective, associated with fewer adverse events, or better tolerated were not established.

Limitations: Few studies involved a representative sample treated in a typical clinical setting over a long duration, treatment protocols had marked heterogeneity, and substantive amounts data about important outcomes and patient subgroups were missing.

Conclusion: Available evidence shows that ACE inhibitors and ARBs have similar effects on blood pressure control, and that ACE inhibitors have higher rates of cough than ARBs. Data regarding other outcomes are limited.

Editors' Notes Top Editors' Notes Methods Results Discussion Author & Article Info References Context Are angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) more effective? Contribution This systematic review of trials that directly compared ACE inhibitors and ARBs in adults with essential hypertension found good evidence that the agents had similar long-term effects on blood pressure. There were no consistent differential effects for mortality, cardiovascular events, progression to diabetes, left ventricular function, or kidney disease. ACE inhibitors caused cough more often than ARBs. Implication ACE inhibitors and ARBs have similar effects on blood pressure and may not have differential effects on other clinical outcomes, although ACE inhibitors do cause cough more often than ARBs. —The Editors

 

More than 65 million American adults—approximately one third—have hypertension. In addition to being the leading attributable risk factor for death throughout the world (1), hypertension results in substantial illness due to its effect on several target organs, including the brain, eyes, heart, arteries, and kidneys.

Despite the high rate of morbidity and mortality attributable to hypertension, control remains suboptimal (2). In addition to several effective nonpharmacologic interventions, many individuals require antihypertensive medication to lower blood pressure and often require several medications together (2). Among the most common of the many choices in antihypertensive therapy are those aimed at inhibiting the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone (renin) system. Currently, renin system inhibitors include angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs).

Although ACE inhibitors and ARBs are regarded by clinicians as effectively equivalent, it is not clear whether this is appropriate. For example, ACE inhibitors do not entirely block production of angiotensin II because of other, unaffected converting enzymes. Also, ACE inhibitors are associated with well-known adverse events not shared by ARBs, including cough (estimated incidence, 5% to 20%) and the possibly related phenomenon of angioedema (estimated incidence, 0.1% to 0.2%) (3). Although both ACE inhibitors and ARBs are highly effective in lowering blood pressure among patients with essential hypertension (4, 5), their comparative effectiveness and the relative advantages and disadvantages of ACE inhibitors versus ARBs are unknown.

This review summarizes the evidence on the comparative long-term benefits and harms of ACE inhibitors versus ARBs for treating essential hypertension in adults. The full technical report was commissioned by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (6).

Methods

Top Editors' Notes Methods Results Discussion Author & Article Info References

We developed and followed a standardized protocol for all steps of the review.

Data Sources and Searches

We searched MEDLINE (1966 to week 3 of May 2006) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 2, 2006), using terms for drug interventions, hypertension, and study design and limiting to studies published in English after 1988. We also reviewed bibliographies submitted by pharmaceutical companies to the Scientific Resource Center for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Effective Health Care Program, reference lists of relevant review articles, and citations identified by reviewers of the draft report. For the current paper, we updated our MEDLINE search to August 2007 to identify new head-to-head trials that reported blood pressure outcomes and major cardiovascular events. Results from the newly identified studies (7–21) were consistent with the evidence described in the full technical report and are not incorporated here.

Study Selection

We included comparative clinical studies of any design (including randomized, controlled trials and nonrandomized, controlled trials; cohort studies; and case–control studies) that provided direct comparisons of ACE inhibitors versus ARBs at 12 weeks or more after the initial intervention. In addition to simple comparisons of a single ACE inhibitor versus a single ARB, we included studies with "grouped" comparisons (such as a specific ARB versus "ACE inhibitors" or unspecified "ARBs" versus unspecified "ACE inhibitors") and comparisons where the same drug was administered with an ACE inhibitor versus that drug with an ARB (for example, losartan and hydrochlorothiazide vs. enalapril and hydrochlorothiazide). We excluded studies with comparisons where the drugs administered with an ACE inhibitor were different than those administered with an ARB (for example, enalapril and manidipine vs. irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide). We included studies with treatment protocols that permitted the addition of other antihypertensive medications during the trial, provided that the cointervention protocols were the same in the ACE inhibitor and ARB treatment groups. Outcomes we considered included blood pressure control, adherence, quality of life, several intermediate outcomes, and harms. We excluded studies with fewer than 20 total patients in the ACE inhibitor and ARB treatment groups and focused on studies of adult patients (18 years of age) with essential hypertension, as defined by the study authors.

We also evaluated studies of ARBs versus other (non–ACE inhibitor) comparators and ACE inhibitors versus other (non-ARB) comparators, which were to be considered in case too few direct head-to-head trials were identified for outcomes of interest. Appendix A contains the details of how we identified and reviewed indirect comparison studies.

Data Extraction and Quality, Applicability, and Strength of Evidence Assessments

One author extracted data from each study, which were confirmed by another author. Extracted information included study design; interventions; population characteristics; recruitment setting; inclusion and exclusion criteria; numbers of participants screened, eligible, enrolled, and lost to follow-up; and results for each outcome.

We used predefined criteria adapted from those developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (22) and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination in the United Kingdom (23) to assess the quality of individual studies as good, fair, or poor, and we noted important limitations on internal validity for studies rated as fair or poor. The applicability of individual studies was assessed by noting the most important potential limitations (up to 3) in a study's applicability from among the list described by Rothwell (24), as adapted by the Scientific Resource Center (Appendix B). Quality and applicability assessments are detailed for individual studies in the evidence tables included in the full report (6). Finally, we assessed the strength of the body of evidence for each key question as high, moderate, low, or very low by using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework (25).

Data Synthesis and Analysis

Given that many studies did not have the statistical power to determine equivalence for relevant outcomes, we considered pooling (without regard to the specific drug within the ACE inhibitor or ARB class) to overcome a type II error. In evaluating direct comparison studies for potential data synthesis, we primarily considered clinical homogeneity. In general, we considered groups of studies as suitable candidates for a quantitative synthesis when we could identify at least 4 clinically and relatively similar studies that assessed the same outcome. We used additional and more detailed criteria to determine suitability for pooling of indirect comparisons, as such comparisons are tenuous (Appendix A). We did not attempt to pool direct and indirect comparison studies in a single analysis, primarily because we did not identify a sufficient number of clinically similar indirect comparison studies to analyze.

When we pooled studies, we used the random-effects model for the primary analysis and the fixed-effect model as a sensitivity analysis. We stratified analyses by study design, separating randomized, controlled trials from observational studies. We performed all analyses by using Comprehensive Meta-analysis, version 2 (Biostat, Englewood, New Jersey). For count outcomes, we calculated summaries of the relative effect (odds ratios) and absolute effect (risk difference). We chose the Peto method for analyzing data on cough and withdrawals due to adverse events because event rates were low and treatment groups were not substantially imbalanced, conditions under which this method is the least biased and most powerful (26). This method also allows inclusion of studies with zero events in 1 group with no continuity correction. For data on rates of successful monotherapy, we used risk differences because event rates were high, which makes the assumption of a constant odds ratio unreasonable.

Role of the Funding Source

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality formulated the initial study questions and reviewed and commented on planned methods, data analysis, and the draft report. The funding source did not participate in the search of the literature, determination of study eligibility, or evaluation of individual studies.

Results

Top Editors' Notes Methods Results Discussion Author & Article Info References

Of 1185 citations, 69 reports (61 distinct studies) directly compared ACE inhibitors with ARBs (Figure 1). Forty-seven studies were randomized, controlled trials; 1 was a nonrandomized, controlled trial; 9 were retrospective cohort studies; 2 were prospective cohort studies; 1 was a cross-sectional cohort study; and 1 was a case–control study. Table 1 shows the numbers of studies that compared different agents. Enalapril was the most frequently studied ACE inhibitor (24 studies), and losartan the most frequently studied ARB (19 studies). Most studies were relatively short-term; 19 followed patients for 12 weeks and an additional 21 followed patients between 12 weeks and 6 months. Most studies excluded patients with secondary causes of hypertension, as well as patients with recent acute events, such as myocardial infarction or stroke. Table 2 summarizes the number and quality scores of reviewed studies, by outcome assessed.

View larger version (41K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Literature flow diagram. *See Appendix A.

 

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 1. Number of Included Studies and Publications Evaluating Various Treatment Comparisons

 

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 2. Summary of Reviewed Studies*

 

Comparative Effectiveness for Achieving Blood Pressure Control and Improving Cardiovascular Outcomes and Risk

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and ARBs seem to have similar long-term effects on blood pressure in individuals with essential hypertension.

Because of the insufficient numbers of deaths or major cardiovascular events in the included studies, we could not discern any differential effect of ACE inhibitors versus ARBs for these critical outcomes. Likewise, ACE inhibitors and ARBs exhibited no consistent differential effects on several potentially important risk factors, including lipid levels, progression to type 2 diabetes mellitus, markers of carbohydrate metabolism or diabetes control, measures of left ventricular mass or function, and progression of renal disease (either based on creatinine, glomerular filtration rate, or proteinuria). Relatively few studies assessed these outcomes over the long term.

Blood Pressure Control

Of the 50 identified studies that reported blood pressure control, 47 were randomized, controlled trials. These studies exhibited substantial protocol differences, including maximal medication dose, whether additional blood pressure medications were permitted, whether adjustments were by algorithm or physician discretion, whether nonresponders were withdrawn, and whether blood pressure was reported as a change or only as final blood pressure. Thirty-seven studies (42 papers) reported no statistically significant differences in blood pressure control (27–68), 2 studies (3 papers) favored ACE inhibitors (69–71), 8 studies favored ARBs (72–79), and 3 studies did not report the comparison between the agents (80–82). Both studies favoring ACE inhibitors compared 50 mg of losartan to 20 mg of enalapril, in contrast to other studies showing no difference between these 2 agents, which compared 100 mg of losartan to 10 or 20 mg of enalapril. For studies that favored ARBs, we found no salient features of the study design that might explain the difference observed. Notably, across studies, the modal difference in systolic or diastolic blood pressure was 0 mm Hg and generally did not exceed 4 mm Hg.

Success as a Single Antihypertensive Agent

We identified 22 studies (27, 34, 37, 42–44, 46,47, 49, 53, 55, 58–60, 66–69, 73, 80, 82, 83) that reported successful monotherapy. The definition of "successful" differed across studies. Definitions included various systolic or diastolic blood pressure cutoffs or lack of additional antihypertensive medication at the end of the study. The rates of successful monotherapy ranged between 6% and 93% (median, 61%). The average proportion of patients who achieved successful monotherapy across all studies was about 55% for both ACE inhibitors and ARBs.

Figure 2 shows estimates for the differences between ACE inhibitors and ARBs in the proportion of patients achieving successful blood pressure control with a single agent. We found no important statistical heterogeneity for these estimates (Q statistic = 25.8; I² = 18%; P = 0.22). The summary estimate using a random-effects model was 1.3% (95% CI, –1.0% to 3.5%; P = 0.26). Results based on odds ratios and median incidence were similar.

View larger version (28K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. Successful monotherapy, angiotension-converting enzyme inhibitors versus angiotensin receptor II blockers. The first group are observational studies and the second group are randomized, controlled trials.

 

Because the definition of successful control of blood pressure with a single agent requires that a patient continue the originally prescribed drug regimen and receive no additional antihypertensive agent, successful monotherapy reflects both the efficacy of the medication and tolerability and adherence to the prescribed therapy. The tendency in favoring ARBs for this outcome seemed driven primarily by differences in tolerability and adherence. The observed benefit of ARBs seemed heavily influenced by retrospective cohort studies, where medication discontinuation rates were higher in ACE inhibitor-treated patients, and by randomized, controlled trials that had loosely defined protocols for medication titration and switching.

Death and Major Cardiovascular Events

Only 9 studies, described in 13 publications (27, 29, 31, 38, 41, 44, 46, 48,49, 59, 62, 65, 79), reported how many patients died or had a myocardial infarction or stroke (Table 2). Most of these studies excluded patients with clinically significant cardiovascular disease and other comorbid conditions. Of 3322 patients who received an ACE inhibitor or an ARB in these studies, 16 died; 12 of these were from a study by Barnett and colleagues (29). That study provided the most and the longest-term data on cardiovascular events, evaluating telmisartan (n = 120) versus enalapril (n = 130) in patients with type 2 diabetes and early nephropathy over a 5-year treatment period. Event rates were similar in this higher-risk sample, with stroke, congestive heart failure, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or death occurring in 31 patients receiving telmisartan (25.8% [CI, 18.3% to 34.6%]) and 25 patients receiving enalapril (19.2% [CI, 12.9% to 27.1%]). In none of the studies did investigators attribute any observed events directly to therapy.

Lipid Levels and Glucose Control

Eleven randomized, controlled trials (36, 38–40, 42, 44, 46, 58, 62, 67, 70) and 1 observational case–control study (68) reported lipid levels. We rated most of these studies as fair quality. None addressed the use of lipid-lowering agents during the study. Nine studies found no change either between or within groups in total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein, high-density lipoprotein, or triglyceride levels during the study. The remaining 3 studies detected a small but statistically significant change within the groups in total cholesterol (44, 46), low-density lipoprotein (36), and triglyceride levels (44). The magnitude of these changes was equivalent for the compared medications except for 1 of the total cholesterol studies (44), which favored the ARB, and the low-density lipoprotein study (36), which favored the ACE inhibitor.

Thirteen studies measured glucose or hemoglobin A_1c. All but 2 (28, 68) were randomized, controlled trials. We rated 2 as good quality (36, 62), 7 as fair quality (38–40, 46, 53, 67, 70), and 4 as poor quality (28, 42, 44, 68). None addressed hypoglycemic therapy during the study. No change occurred in hemoglobin A_1c either between or within groups in 11 studies. One reported a small decrease in glucose that was statistically greater in the ACE inhibitor group (36), and 1 reported a statistically significant but clinically unimportant increase in hemoglobin A_1c for both groups (46). Results were similar between the 6 studies that specifically included diabetic patients and the studies that did not.

Left Ventricular Mass or Function

Eight studies presented results on left ventricular mass or function assessed by left ventricular mass index (28, 35, 68), left ventricular ejection fraction (32, 61), or both (34, 57, 65). Half of these studies had fewer than 50 patients (28, 35, 61, 65), whereas the other half had 100 or more patients (32, 34, 57, 68). All but 2 (28, 68) were randomized, controlled trials. Two had relatively long-term follow-up (3 years) (35, 68), 5 had between 6 and 12 months of follow-up (28, 32, 34, 57, 65), and 1 had only 3 months of follow-up (61). Despite differences in sample size, study design, length of follow-up, study quality, therapeutic agents, and outcome measure, most of the studies demonstrated either similar differences in improvements in left ventricular mass or function, with an approximately 2% difference between the ACE inhibitor and ARB groups (28, 34, 65, 68), or no change in these measures for either group (35, 57).

Serum Creatinine, Glomerular Filtration Rate, and Proteinuria

Twenty studies identified renal outcomes. We excluded one of these studies (65) from our analysis because no changes would be expected in the outcome assessed (serum creatinine) in the sample studied (patients with end-stage renal disease who had been on maintenance hemodialysis for at least 1 month). Of the remaining 19 studies, 9 assessed either serum creatinine or glomerular filtration rate (28, 35, 38,39, 52, 63, 67,68, 78), 4 assessed proteinuria (36, 53, 62, 84), and 6 assessed both (29, 44, 46, 50, 58, 70).

The 15 studies that described changes in creatinine or glomerular filtration rate did not consistently demonstrate differential effects related to renal function with the use of ACE inhibitors versus ARBs. Among the 9 studies that reported data on renal function, none was rated as good quality, 4 were of poor quality (28, 44, 63, 68), 2 were not randomized, controlled trials (28, 68), and only 2 had more than 100 patients (29, 52). All but 2 (29, 52) compared losartan with a specific ACE inhibitor. The ACE inhibitor most frequently studied was enalapril (28,29, 35, 63, 68). Overall fair in quality, the 10 studies that described changes in urine albumin or protein excretion consistently demonstrated no differential effects between ACE inhibitors and ARBs related to the reduction of urinary protein or albumin excretion among patients with essential hypertension.

Quality of Life, Adverse Events, Persistence, and Adherence

On the basis of 4 studies, 2 of which did not provide quantitative data, we found no differences in measures of general quality of life. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors have been consistently shown to be associated with a greater risk for cough than ARBs (pooled odds ratio [Peto], 0.32). For randomized, controlled trials, this translates to a difference in rates of cough of 6.7%; however, for cohort studies with lower rates of cough, this translates to a difference of 1.1%. We found no evidence of differences in rates of other commonly reported specific adverse events. Angioedema was reported only in patients treated with ACE inhibitors; however, because angioedema was rarely explicitly reported in the included studies, we could not estimate its frequency in this population. Angiotension-converting enzyme inhibitors and ARBs have similar rates of adherence based on pill counts; this result may not be applicable outside the clinical trial setting. Rates of continuation with therapy seem to be somewhat better with ARBs than with ACE inhibitors; however, the precise magnitude of this effect is difficult to quantify.

Quality of Life

Four fair-quality studies described in 8 papers reported quality-of-life outcomes (27, 31, 35, 38, 41, 43, 48, 76). They used a variety of quality-of-life scales. None demonstrated a differential effect on quality of life between ACE inhibitors and ARBs.

Serious and Overall Adverse Events

Seven studies of either fair or good quality (43, 49, 52, 58, 74, 78, 79) reported overall rates of serious adverse events. The biggest issues in evaluating these studies were inconsistent reporting and a low rate of serious adverse events (0% to 6%). A potentially salient and serious adverse event, angioedema, was reported in only 3 of the 61 included studies (43, 51, 55). All reported cases occurred in patients treated with an ACE inhibitor. Because angioedema was rarely explicitly reported in the included studies, we could not estimate its frequency.

Of the 29 studies that reported overall adverse event rates (29,30, 33,34, 36–38, 43, 45, 47, 49, 51,52, 55, 58,59, 63, 66, 69,70, 72–79, 81), 20 were assessed as being fair quality and 5 as poor quality. The manner in which adverse events were reported substantially varied. Depending on the definition used, adverse event rates ranged from 0% to 100% (median, 32%) for ACE inhibitors and 0% to 96% (median, 28%) for ARBs.

Specific Adverse Events

Thirty studies reported rates of 1 or more specific adverse events (30, 33–36, 38, 43, 45–47, 49, 51,52, 54,55, 59, 66, 69,70, 72–79, 84–86), including cough (29 studies); headache (21 studies); dizziness (18 studies); fatigue (10 studies); upper respiratory infection (6 studies); nausea (6 studies); viral infection, ankle edema, and back pain (3 studies each); and palpitations, myalgia, diarrhea, malaise, and hypotension (2 studies each). Several other adverse events were reported in 1 study, including pharyngitis, rhinitis, dyspnea, abdominal pain, urinary tract infection, constipation, dry mouth, feeling sick, pyrosis, insomnia, musculoskeletal pain, flatulence, epigastric discomfort, increased sweating, and erythematous rash.

Given the large number of commonly reported specific adverse events, we focused on 3 specific events with the largest difference in absolute rates across studies: headache, dizziness, and cough.

Headache

Twenty-one studies compared headache in patients treated with ACE inhibitors and ARBs. Rates of headache ranged from 1% to 22% for ARB-treated groups (overall rate, 6.3%) and from 0% to 34% in ACE inhibitor–treated groups (overall rate, 7.9%). Meta-analyses did not reveal evidence of a differential effect of ACE inhibitors and ARBs on headache.

Dizziness

Eighteen studies compared dizziness in patients treated with ACE inhibitors and ARBs. Rates of dizziness ranged from 1% to 20% for ARB-treated groups (overall rate, 4.3%) and from 0% to 18% in ACE inhibitor–treated groups (overall rate, 5.4%). Meta-analyses did not reveal evidence of a differential effect of ACE inhibitors and ARBs on dizziness.

Cough

Twenty-nine studies compared cough in patients treated with ACE inhibitors and ARBs (30, 33–36, 38, 43, 45–47, 49, 51,52, 54,55, 59, 66, 69,70, 72–74, 76–79, 84–86). We rated 4 of these studies as good, 20 as fair, and 5 as poor in quality. Rates of cough ranged from 0% to 13% for ARB-treated groups (mean, 3%; median, 1%) and from 0% to 23% in ACE inhibitor–treated groups (mean, 10%, median, 9%). All 29 studies demonstrated higher rates of cough in ACE inhibitor–treated participants. For the meta-analysis of studies reporting cough as an adverse event, we included all 29 studies that reported cough rates (Figure 3). The Cochran Q test and the I² between studies demonstrated statistical heterogeneity among the studies (Q statistic = 57.5; I² = 51.3%). The observed rates of cough were much higher in randomized, controlled trials, where patients were queried systematically for the symptom, than those in cohort studies. The rates of cough in randomized, controlled trials were 9.9% for the ACE inhibitor group and 3.2% for the ARB group (absolute risk difference, 6.7 percentage points), whereas the rates of cough in cohort studies were 1.7% for the ACE inhibitor group and 0.6% for the ARB group (absolute risk difference, 1.1 percentage points).

View larger version (31K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 3. Cough as an adverse event, angiotension-converting enzyme inhibitors versus angiotensin receptor II blockers. The first group are observational studies and the second group are randomized, controlled trials.

 

Withdrawals Due to Adverse Events

Twenty-four studies (28–30, 33–35, 38, 43, 45,46, 49, 51–55, 62,63, 66, 68, 70, 72, 75, 78) reported withdrawals due to adverse events. We rated 2 as good in methodological quality, 18 as fair, and 4 as poor. Rates of withdrawal due to adverse events ranged from 1% to 41% (mean, 10%; median, 3%) for patients who received ARBs, and from 1% to 41% (mean, 19%; median, 8%) for patients who received ACE inhibitors. Sixteen studies demonstrated higher rates in ACE inhibitor–treated participants, 3 demonstrated higher rates in ARB-treated participants, and 5 showed no difference in withdrawal rates (Figure 4). The differences in rates of adverse events (such as cough) and the duration of the trials probably explain this heterogeneity. We found modest statistical heterogeneity between studies (Q statistic = 36.0; I² = 36.2%). The summary odds ratio (Peto) favored ARBs (0.51 [CI, 0.38 to 0.70]; random-effects model). Given this odds ratio and a median withdrawal rate of 8% for ACE inhibitors, the expected withdrawal rate for ARBs is 3.7%.

View larger version (27K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 4. Withdrawals due to adverse events, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors versus angiotensin receptor II blockers. The first group are observational studies and the second group are randomized, controlled trials.

 

Caveats and concerns regarding these data include only 1 study being considered of good methodological quality and the high degree of variability in the reporting of withdrawal data.

Adherence and Persistence

Seventeen studies described in 19 papers (33, 45, 51, 58, 60, 72, 76, 79,80, 83, 87–95) reported quantitative information on persistence or adherence. We operationally defined adherence as the consistency with which medication was taken, measured by such direct evidence as pill counts. Collecting such evidence typically requires an experimental setting, which limits the ability to generalize because patients who participate in trials and are aware that they are being observed will probably demonstrate better adherence than in usual practice. Adherence for both ACE inhibitors and ARBs was high (exceeding 90%).

We operationally defined persistence as the percentage of patients continuing a particular therapy after a certain interval of time (for example, patients continuing ARB therapy 12 months after the initial prescription), where the patient's treatment status was determined by the pattern of filled prescriptions. Thus, persistence could be measured in nonexperimental settings (for example, by using administrative databases).

Studies addressing persistence included 2 randomized, controlled trials and 9 longitudinal cohort studies. These studies consistently showed that persistence with ARBs was somewhat better than persistence with ACE inhibitors (Table 3); for example, the median absolute difference in persistence rates for the longitudinal cohort studies was in the range of 6% to 7%.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 3. Studies of Persistence*

 

Certain caveats apply to these results. The longitudinal cohort studies typically used administrative databases. Although investigators in these studies often presented analyses that statistically controlled for differences in characteristics between patients receiving ACE inhibitors and those receiving ARBs, the absence of randomization means that similarity in unmeasured patient characteristics within the groups cannot be guaranteed. Consequently, the consistency of results reported in Table 3 (across experimental vs. nonexperimental studies, among the various longitudinal cohort studies, and over time within a study) is crucial. In addition, several longitudinal cohort studies, such as those by Marentette and colleagues (93), Bourgault and colleagues (88), Burke and colleagues (95), Wogen and colleagues (94), and Degli Esposti and colleagues (90, 91), corresponded in time to the introduction of ARBs and thus have relatively small sample sizes for this medication class. Persistence estimates are less precise in these studies than might be desired.

Effects in Subgroups of Patients

We found inadequate evidence regarding comparative effectiveness, adverse events, or tolerability of ACE inhibitors and ARBs for any particular patient subgroup (6).

Discussion

Top Editors' Notes Methods Results Discussion Author & Article Info References

With the exception of rates of cough, the hypothesis that ACE inhibitors and ARBs have clinically meaningful differences in benefits or harms for individuals with essential hypertension is not strongly supported by the available evidence. In particular, both classes of therapy provide similar levels of blood pressure control and seem to have an equivalent effect on death and cardiovascular events; major adverse events; quality of life; and risk factors, such as lipid levels, diabetes mellitus, and left ventricular mass and function. Evidence does suggest that ARBs are associated with higher rates of persistence with initial therapy than are ACE inhibitors, although the magnitude of this difference is difficult to quantify.

The literature had important limitations. Assessment of the long-term effect of treatment is restricted by the dearth of truly long-term studies; follow-up exceeded 6 months in only one third of head-to-head studies. Many of the studies reported limited data on patient characteristics, did not report results by subpopulation, and underrepresented black patients. Study protocols had substantial differences, including maximal medication dose, whether additional blood pressure medications were permitted, whether adjustments were by algorithm or physician discretion, and whether nonresponders were withdrawn at some point in the study.

Assessment of outcomes was not uniform. Blood pressure was reported in some studies only as final blood pressure and in other studies as change in blood pressure. Important outcomes, such as death, vascular events, and angioedema, were often not mentioned.

This review highlights several issues that should be addressed by further research. In addition to examining the effect of therapy over several years, studies should incorporate pragmatic designs, such as clinical trials in which treatment is consistent with typical clinical practice, or randomization by organizationally meaningful clusters, such as practice organizations or health plans. Assessments should consider subgroups of special importance, such as individuals with essential hypertension and diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and dyslipidemia, and should have a broader representation of such groups as the elderly and ethnic and racial minorities. Given the demonstrated higher incidence of cough with ACE inhibitors, it would also be valuable to gain a more precise understanding of the effect of cough on quality of life, care patterns (for example, use of therapeutic agents for cough symptoms or conditions associated with cough), and health outcomes, particularly for individuals who continue to use ACE inhibitors.

Although a strong clinical motivation exists to differentiate among therapies to achieve optimal outcomes and to tailor treatment to the individual patient, this review indicates that, for the relatively low-risk individual with essential hypertension, any differences between ACE inhibitors and ARBs in major events or changes in risk factors are likely to be small. Identifying such small differences is a substantial challenge requiring large, prolonged studies in generalizable populations and settings. However, in the face of the considerable effect of marginal differences in treatment efficacy for common conditions, such an effort may well be justified.

Appendix A: Methods for Reviewing Indirect Comparison Studies

Our review of the literature on the comparative long-term benefits and harms of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors versus angiotensin II receptor antagonists (ARBs) for treating hypertension focused, in the first instance, on direct head-to-head comparisons of drugs in the 2 classes. Because we were uncertain that these direct comparisons would adequately address all aspects of the key questions, we also sought to identify and screen potentially relevant indirect comparison studies—studies in which ACE inhibitors and ARBs were compared, in distinct trials, with a common comparator. This Appendix describes the methods we used to identify and review indirect comparison studies.

Search and Abstract Screening

We began by searching MEDLINE for studies of ARBs versus other (non–ACE inhibitor) comparators, including placebo. We screened these abstracts along with the head-to-head trials. Note that, for indirect comparisons, we considered only randomized, controlled trials. We coded each included abstract for treatment duration or length of follow-up (for example, "12 weeks" or "1 year").

Because a primary objective for evaluating non–head-to-head studies was to expand the pool of evidence regarding long-term results, we restricted the pool of abstracts for further evaluation to those with a treatment duration or length of follow-up of at least 24 weeks. Further, because the credibility of any meta-analysis—particularly for non-head-to-head trials—depends on consistency among studies, we considered only comparators studied in at least 3 trials. The comparators thus identified were atenolol, amlodipine, and placebo.

Next, we searched MEDLINE for studies of ACE inhibitors versus atenolol or amlodipine. To identify potentially relevant ACE inhibitor-versus-placebo trials, we began by searching the references of the June 2005 Drug Class Review on ACE inhibitors (4) and supplemented this with a search of MEDLINE for articles published after that review. Finally, the abstracts for all ACE inhibitor-versus-other studies were screened for inclusion and evaluated further to identify trials with the right treatment duration or length of follow-up (24 weeks) and the right comparators (atenolol, amlodipine, or placebo).

The result of this process was that we identified 76 randomized, controlled trial publications comparing ARBs with atenolol, amlodipine, or placebo over a period of at least 24 weeks, and 136 randomized, controlled trial publications comparing ACE inhibitors with the same group of comparators over the same period of time. We were unable to obtain copies of 4 articles (2 each for ACE inhibitors and ARBs), so the final counts were 74 potentially relevant ARB articles and 134 potentially relevant ACE inhibitor articles.

Identifying Publications Reporting Outcomes of Interest

Once data from the direct comparator trials had been abstracted, we identified 3 categories of outcomes that we thought were under-reported in these trials: death and major events (myocardial infarction, stroke), measures of carbohydrate metabolism or diabetes control (progression to type 2 diabetes, hemoglobin A1c, insulin or other diabetes medication dosage, fasting plasma glucose, or aggregated measures of serial glucose measurements), and measures of kidney disease (creatinine, glomerular filtration rate, and proteinuria). We then screened the indirect comparison literature identified through the process described above in full-text form to identify publications that reported on 1 or more of these outcomes. Thirty-two ARB-versus-other publications and 42 ACE inhibitor-versus-other publications reported one or more of the outcomes of interest and were evaluated further.

Analysis of Comparability of Trials

Because of the special challenges of using indirect (non–head-to-head) comparison studies to infer relative efficacy regarding any particular health outcome, we established minimal criteria before considering any indirect comparison. Our goal was to achieve a reasonable degree of clinical homogeneity without being excessively restrictive at this stage.

We defined 3 criteria for considering performing an indirect comparison. The first criterion was that the studies must have a common comparator (amlodipine, atenolol, or placebo), because comparators cannot be considered equivalent with regard to any particular health outcome. The second criterion was that study populations must be generally comparable, at least with regard to key characteristics relevant to the outcome being assessed. For studies examining event rates (mortality, stroke, or myocardial infarction), the key characteristic was the mean age of the population. For studies of laboratory measures (hemoglobin A1c, glucose, creatinine, glomerular filtration rate, or proteinuria), the key characteristic was the mean of the corresponding laboratory measure at baseline. The value for the key characteristic could be different by as much as 10% and still be considered comparable (for example, comparable studies for mortality rates in which the study with the highest mean age for patients was 70 years could have mean patient ages as low as 63 years). The third criterion was that among studies satisfying the preceding criteria, there must be more than 1 study of an ACE inhibitor versus the comparator and more than 1 study of an ARB versus the comparator. That is, indirect comparisons for a particular outcome would only be considered if we could find at least 4 comparable studies to evaluate, 2 for an ACE inhibitor and 2 for an ARB. Notably, we did not restrict studies to the same ACE inhibitor or ARB, or any other protocol characteristics.

Despite these relatively liberal criteria for considering indirect comparisons between ACE inhibitors and ARBs, we did not identify any appropriate candidate studies related to an outcome of special interest, and thus we did not attempt to use indirect evidence to infer relative effect of ACE inhibitors versus ARBs.

Appendix B: Applicability Criteria

We did not provide a global rating of applicability (such as "high" or "low") because applicability may differ substantially depending on the user of the review. However, applicability of research studies was assessed by noting the most important potential limitations in a study's applicability from among the list described by Rothwell (24). These criteria, slightly adapted by the Scientific Resource Center, are reproduced below. Assessors were instructed to list the most important (up to 3) limitations affecting applicability, if any, based on this list.

Instructions to abstractors/assessors: Do not assign an overall applicability score. Instead, list the most important (up to 3) limitations affecting applicability, if any, based on the following list.

Setting of the Study

1. In which country (or countries) was the study conducted?

2. In what health care system (or systems) was the study conducted?

3. Were patients recruited from the primary, secondary, or tertiary care settings?

4. How were study centers selected for participation?

5. How were study clinicians selected for participation?

Selection of Participants

6. How were participants diagnosed and identified for eligibility screening before random allocation?

7. What were the study eligibility criteria?

8. What were the study exclusion criteria?

9. Did the study require a run-in period with the control or placebo intervention?

10. Did the study require a run-in period with the active intervention?

11. Did the study selectively recruit participants who demonstrated a history of favorable or unfavorable response to drug or other interventions for the condition?

12. Did the study report the ratio of randomly allocated participants to nonallocated participants (who were eligible)?

13. Did the study report the proportion of eligible participants who declined random allocation?

Characteristics of Study Participants

14. Did the study report participants' baseline characteristics?

15. Did the study report participants' race?

16. Did the study report participants' underlying pathology?

17. Did the study report participants' stage in the natural history of the disease?

18. Did the study report participants' severity of disease?

19. Did the study report participants' comorbid conditions?

20. Did the study report participants' absolute risk of a poor outcome in the control arm?

Differences between the Study Protocol and Routine Clinical Practice

21. Were the study interventions (active arm) similar to interventions used in routine clinical practice?

22. Was the timing of the intervention similar to the timing in routine clinical practice?

23. Was the study's control arm appropriate and relevant in relation to routine clinical practice?

24. Were the study's cointerventions—which were not randomly allocated—adequate to reflect routine clinical practice?

25. Were any interventions prohibited by the study that are routinely used in clinical practice?

26. Have there been diagnostic or therapeutic advances used in routine practice since the study was conducted?

Outcome Measures and Follow-up

27. If applicable, did the study use a clinically relevant surrogate outcome?

28. If applicable, did the study use a scale that is clinically relevant, valid, and reproducible?

29. If applicable, was the intervention beneficial on the most relevant components of the composite outcome?

30. Which clinician measured the outcome (e.g., treating physician or surgeon)?

31. Did the study use patient-centered outcomes?

32. How frequently were participants followed in the study?

33. Was the duration of participant follow-up adequate?

Adverse Effects of Treatment

34. How completely did the study report the occurrence of relevant adverse effects?

35. Did the study report the rates of treatment discontinuations?

36. Were the study centers and/or clinicians selected on the basis of their skill or experience?

37. Did the study exclude participants at elevated risk of intervention complications?

38. Did the study exclude participants who suffered adverse effects during the run-in period?

39. Did the study monitor participants intensively for early signs of adverse effects?

Author and Article Information

Top Editors' Notes Methods Results Discussion Author & Article Info References

From the Duke Center for Clinical Health Policy Research, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, and the Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.

See related article: Meta-analysis: Effect of Monotherapy and Combination Therapy with Inhibitors of the Renin–Angiotensin System on Proteinuria in Renal Disease by R. Kunz, C. Friedrich, M. Wolbers, and J.F.E. Mann.

See editorial: Inhibitors of the Renin–Angiotensin System: Proven Benefits, Unproven Safety by P.S. Parfrey.

Disclaimer: The authors of this report are responsible for its content. Statements in the report should not be construed as endorsements by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Grant Support: This project was funded under contract no. 290-02-0025 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Potential Financial Conflicts of Interest: Honoraria: D.C. McCrory (AstraZeneca). Stock ownership or options (other than mutual funds): G.P. Samsa (Pfizer).

Requests for Single Reprints: David B. Matchar, MD, Duke Center for Clinical Health Policy Research, 2200 West Main Street, Suite 220, Durham, NC 27705; e-mail, david.matchar{at}duke.edu.

Current Author Addresses: Drs. Matchar, McCrory, Orlando, Patwardhan, Samsa, and Gray: Duke Center for Clinical Health Policy Research, 2200 West Main Street, Suite 220, Durham, NC 27705.

Dr. M.R. Patel: Duke Clinical Research Institute, North Pavilion, 2400 Pratt Street, Room 0311, Durham, NC 27705.

Dr. U.D. Patel: Department of Nephrology, Duke University Medical Center, DUMC Box 3646, Durham, NC 27710.

Dr. Powers: Duke University and Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 2424 Erwin Road, Suite 1105, Durham, NC 27705.

References

Top Editors' Notes Methods Results Discussion Author & Article Info References

1.  World Health Organization. World health report 2002: reducing risks, promoting healthy life. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2002. Accessed at www.who.int/whr/2002 on 14 December 2006.

2.  Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, Cushman WC, Green LA, Izzo JL Jr, et al.; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: the JNC 7 report. JAMA. 2003;289:2560-72. [PMID: 12748199].[Abstract/Free Full Text]

3.  Israili ZH, Hall WD. Cough and angioneurotic edema associated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor therapy. A review of the literature and pathophysiology. Ann Intern Med. 1992;117:234-42. [PMID: 1616218].[Medline]

4.  Chou R, Helfand M, Carson S. Drug Class Review on Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors. Final Report. Portland, OR: Oregon Health & Science Univ; 2005. Accessed at www.ohsu.edu/drugeffectiveness/reports/final.cfm on 17 August 2006.

5.  Furmaga E, Glassman P, Rhodes S, Suttorp M, Mojica W. Drug Class Review on Angiotensin II Receptor Antagonists. Final Report. Portland, OR: Oregon Health & Science Univ; 2006. Accessed at www.ohsu.edu/drugeffectiveness/reports/final.cfm on 17 August 2006.

6.  Matchar DB, McCrory DC, Orlando LA, Patel MR, Patel UD, Patwardhan MB, et al. Comparative Effectiveness of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors (ACEIs) and Angiotensin II Receptor Antagonists (ARBs) for Treating Essential Hypertension. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 10. (Prepared by Duke Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-02-0025.) Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. November 2007. Available at: www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm.

7.  Anan F, Takahashi N, Ooie T, Yufu K, Hara M, Nakagawa M, et al. Effects of valsartan and perindopril combination therapy on left ventricular hypertrophy and aortic arterial stiffness in patients with essential hypertension. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2005;61:353-9. [PMID: 15918057].[Medline]

8.  Andersen NH, Poulsen SH, Poulsen PL, Knudsen ST, Helleberg K, Hansen KW, et al. Effects of blood pressure lowering and metabolic control on systolic left ventricular function in Type II diabetes mellitus. Clin Sci (Lond). 2006;111:53-9. [PMID: 16512787].[Medline]

9.  Fogari R, Mugellini A, Zoppi A, Lazzari P, Destro M, Rinaldi A, et al. Effect of telmisartan/hydrochlorothiazide vs lisinopril/hydrochlorothiazide combination on ambulatory blood pressure and cognitive function in elderly hypertensive patients. J Hum Hypertens. 2006;20:177-85. [PMID: 16306998].[Medline]

10.  Hosohata K, Saito S, Asayama K, Ohkubo T, Kikuya M, Metoki H, et al. Progress report on The Hypertension Objective Treatment Based on Measurement by Electrical Devices of Blood Pressure (HOMED-BP) study: status at February 2004. Clin Exp Hypertens. 2007;29:69-81. [PMID: 17190733].[Medline]

11.  Kyvelou SM, Vyssoulis GP, Karpanou EA, Adamopoulos DN, Zervoudaki AI, Pietri PG, et al. Effects of antihypertensive treatment with angiotensin II receptor blockers on lipid profile: an open multi-drug comparison trial. Hellenic J Cardiol. 2006;47:21-8. [PMID: 16532712].[Medline]

12.  Mochizuki S, Dahlof B, Shimizu M, Ikewaki K, Yoshikawa M, Taniguchi I, et al.; Jikei Heart Study group. Valsartan in a Japanese population with hypertension and other cardiovascular disease (Jikei Heart Study): a randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint morbidity-mortality study. Lancet. 2007;369:1431-9. [PMID: 17467513].[Medline]

13.  Ogawa S, Takeuchi K, Mori T, Nako K, Tsubono Y, Ito S. Effects of monotherapy of temocapril or candesartan with dose increments or combination therapy with both drugs on the suppression of diabetic nephropathy. Hypertens Res. 2007;30:325-34. [PMID: 17541211].[Medline]

14.  Palma-Gámiz JL, Pêgo M, Contreras EM, Anglada MP, Martínez JO, Esquerra EA, et al.; Iberian Multicenter Imidapril Study on Hypertension. A twelve-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, noninferiority trial of the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of imidapril and candesartan in adult patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension: the Iberian Multicenter Imidapril Study on Hypertension (IMISH). Clin Ther. 2006;28:2040-51. [PMID: 17296460].[Medline]

15.  Palma-Gamiz JL, Pêgo M, Marquez E, Pujol M, Olivan J, Alegría E, et al. A multicentre, 12-week study of imidapril and candesartan cilexetil in patients with mild to moderate hypertension using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Clin Drug Investig. 2007;27:407-17. [PMID: 17506591].[Medline]

16.  Palmas W, Ma S, Psaty B, Goff DC Jr, Darwin C, Barr RG. Antihypertensive medications and C-reactive protein in the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis. Am J Hypertens. 2007;20:233-41. [PMID: 17324732].[Medline]

17.  Rehman A, Ismail SB, Naing L, Roshan TM, Rahman AR. Reduction in arterial stiffness with angiotensin II antagonism and converting enzyme inhibition. A comparative study among malay hypertensive subjects with a known genetic profile. Am J Hypertens. 2007;20:184-9. [PMID: 17261465].[Medline]

18.  Scaglione R, Argano C, Di Chiara T, Parrinello G, Colomba D, Avellone G, et al. Effect of dual blockade of renin-angiotensin system on TGFbeta1 and left ventricular structure and function in hypertensive patients. J Hum Hypertens. 2007;21:307-15. [PMID: 17301824].[Medline]

19.  Sengul AM, Altuntas Y, Kürklü A, Aydin L. Beneficial effect of lisinopril plus telmisartan in patients with type 2 diabetes, microalbuminuria and hypertension. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2006;71:210-9. [PMID: 16112244].[Medline]

20.  Spoelstra-de Man AM, van Ittersum FJ, Schram MT, Kamp O, van Dijk RA, Ijzerman RG, et al. Aggressive antihypertensive strategies based on hydrochlorothiazide, candesartan or lisinopril decrease left ventricular mass and improve arterial compliance in patients with type II diabetes mellitus and hypertension. J Hum Hypertens. 2006;20:599-611. [PMID: 16673014].[Medline]

21.  Tedesco MA, Natale F, Calabrò R. Effects of monotherapy and combination therapy on blood pressure control and target organ damage: a randomized prospective intervention study in a large population of hypertensive patients. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2006;8:634-41. [PMID: 16957425].[Medline]

22.  Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, Lohr KN, Mulrow CD, Teutsch SM, et al.; Methods Work Group, Third US Preventive Services Task Force. Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Am J Prev Med. 2001;20:21-35. [PMID: 11306229].[Medline]

23.  Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD's guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews. CRD Report no. 4. 2nd ed. York, UK: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; 2001.

24.  Rothwell PM. External validity of randomised controlled trials: "to whom do the results of this trial apply?". Lancet. 2005;365:82-93. [PMID: 15639683].[Medline]

25.  Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S, et al.; GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328:1490. [PMID: 15205295].[Abstract/Free Full Text]

26.  Bradburn MJ, Deeks JJ, Berlin JA, Russell Localio A. Much ado about nothing: a comparison of the performance of meta-analytical methods with rare events. Stat Med. 2007;26:53-77. [PMID: 16596572].[Medline]

27.  Argenziano L, Trimarco B. Effect of eprosartan and enalapril in the treatment of elderly hypertensive patients: subgroup analysis of a 26-week, double-blind, multicentre study. Eprosartan Multinational Study Group. Curr Med Res Opin. 1999;15:9-14. [PMID: 10216806].[Medline]

28.  Avanza AC Jr, El Aouar LM, Mill JG. Reduction in left ventricular hypertrophy in hypertensive patients treated with enalapril, losartan or the combination of enalapril and losartan. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2000;74:103-17. [PMID: 10904284].[Medline]

29.  Barnett AH, Bain SC, Bouter P, Karlberg B, Madsbad S, Jervell J, et al.; Diabetics Exposed to Telmisartan and Enalapril Study Group. Angiotensin-receptor blockade versus converting-enzyme inhibition in type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:1952-61. [PMID: 15516696].[Abstract/Free Full Text]

30.  Black HR, Graff A, Shute D, Stoltz R, Ruff D, Levine J, et al. Valsartan, a new angiotensin II antagonist for the treatment of essential hypertension: efficacy, tolerability and safety compared to an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, lisinopril. J Hum Hypertens. 1997;11:483-9. [PMID: 9322828].[Medline]

31.  Breeze E, Rake EC, Donoghue MD, Fletcher AE. Comparison of quality of life and cough on eprosartan and enalapril in people with moderate hypertension. J Hum Hypertens. 2001;15:857-62. [PMID: 11773988].[Medline]

32.  Celik T, Iyisoy A, Kursaklioglu H, Yilmaz MI, Kose S, Kilic S, et al. The comparative effects of telmisartan and ramipril on P-wave dispersion in hypertensive patients: a randomized clinical study. Clin Cardiol. 2005;28:298-302. [PMID: 16028466].[Medline]

33.  Coca A, Calvo C, Garcia-Puig J, Gil-Extremera B, Aguilera MT, de la Sierra A, et al.; MAPAVEL Investigators (Monitorizacíon Ambulatoria Presión Arterial APROVEL). A multicenter, randomized, double-blind comparison of the efficacy and safety of irbesartan and enalapril in adults with mild to moderate essential hypertension, as assessed by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: the MAPAVEL Study (Monitorización Ambulatoria Presión Arterial APROVEL). Clin Ther. 2002;24:126-38. [PMID: 11833827].[Medline]

34.  Cuspidi C, Muiesan ML, Valagussa L, Salvetti M, Di Biagio C, Agabiti-Rosei E, et al.; CATCH investigators. Comparative effects of candesartan and enalapril on left ventricular hypertrophy in patients with essential hypertension: the candesartan assessment in the treatment of cardiac hypertrophy (CATCH) study. J Hypertens. 2002;20:2293-300. [PMID: 12409969].[Medline]

35.  De Rosa ML, Cardace P, Rossi M, Baiano A, de Cristofaro A. Comparative effects of chronic ACE inhibition and AT1 receptor blocked losartan on cardiac hypertrophy and renal function in hypertensive patients. J Hum Hypertens. 2002;16:133-40. [PMID: 11850771].[Medline]

36.  Derosa G, Cicero AF, Ciccarelli L, Fogari R. A randomized, double-blind, controlled, parallel-group comparison of perindopril and candesartan in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Clin Ther. 2003;25:2006-21. [PMID: 12946547].[Medline]

37.  Eguchi K, Kario K, Shimada K. Comparison of candesartan with lisinopril on ambulatory blood pressure and morning surge in patients with systemic hypertension. Am J Cardiol. 2003;92:621-4. [PMID: 12943892].[Medline]

38.  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;13:413-7. [PMID: 10408592].[Medline]

39.  Fogari R, Mugellini A, Zoppi A, Corradi L, Preti P, Lazzari P, et al. Losartan and perindopril effects on plasma plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 and fibrinogen in hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients. Am J Hypertens. 2002;15:316-20. [PMID: 11991216].[Medline]

40.  Fogari R, Zoppi A, Preti P, Fogari E, Malamani G, Mugellini A. Differential effects of ACE-inhibition and angiotensin II antagonism on fibrinolysis and insulin sensitivity in hypertensive postmenopausal women. Am J Hypertens. 2001;14:921-6. [PMID: 11587159].[Medline]

41.  Gavras I, Gavras H. Effects of eprosartan versus enalapril in hypertensive patients on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and safety parameters: results from a 26-week, double-blind, multicentre study. Eprosartan Multinational Study Group. Curr Med Res Opin. 1999;15:15-24. [PMID: 10216807].[Medline]

42.  Ghiadoni L, Magagna A, Versari D, Kardasz I, Huang Y, Taddei S, et al. Different effect of antihypertensive drugs on conduit artery endothelial function. Hypertension. 2003;41:1281-6. [PMID: 12719441].[Abstract/Free Full Text]

43.  Karlberg BE, Lins LE, Hermansson K. Efficacy and safety of telmisartan, a selective AT1 receptor antagonist, compared with enalapril in elderly patients with primary hypertension. TEES Study Group. J Hypertens. 1999;17:293-302. [PMID: 10067800].[Medline]

44.  Kavgaci H, Sahin A, Onder Ersoz H, Erem C, Ozdemir F. The effects of losartan and fosinopril in hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2002;58:19-25. [PMID: 12161053].[Medline]

45.  Koylan N, Acarturk E, Canberk A, Caglar N, Caglar S, Erdine S, et al.; Turkish Irbesartan Study Group. Effect of irbesartan monotherapy compared with ACE inhibitors and calcium-channel blockers on patient compliance in essential hypertension patients: a multicenter, open-labeled, three-armed study. Blood Press Suppl. 2005;1:23-31. [PMID: 16060413].[Medline]

46.  Lacourcière Y, Bélanger A, Godin C, Hallé JP, Ross S, Wright N, et al. Long-term comparison of losartan and enalapril on kidney function in hypertensive type 2 diabetics with early nephropathy. Kidney Int. 2000;58:762-9. [PMID: 10916100].[Medline]

47.  Larochelle P, Flack JM, Marbury TC, Sareli P, Krieger EM, Reeves RA. Effects and tolerability of irbesartan versus enalapril in patients with severe hypertension. Irbesartan Multicenter Investigators. Am J Cardiol. 1997;80:1613-5. [PMID: 9416950].[Medline]

48.  Levine B. Effect of eprosartan and enalapril in the treatment of black hypertensive patients: subgroup analysis of a 26-week, double-blind, multicentre study. Eprosartan Multinational Study Group. Curr Med Res Opin. 1999;15:25-32. [PMID: 10216808].[Medline]

49.  Malacco E, Santonastaso M, Vari NA, Gargiulo A, Spagnuolo V, Bertocchi F, et al.; Blood Pressure Reduction and Tolerability of Valsartan in Comparison with Lisinopril Study. Comparison of valsartan 160 mg with lisinopril 20 mg, given as monotherapy or in combination with a diuretic, for the treatment of hypertension: the Blood Pressure Reduction and Tolerability of Valsartan in Comparison with Lisinopril (PREVAIL) study. Clin Ther. 2004;26:855-65. [PMID: 15262456].[Medline]

50.  Matsuda H, Hayashi K, Saruta T. Distinct time courses of renal protective action of angiotensin receptor antagonists and ACE inhibitors in chronic renal disease. J Hum Hypertens. 2003;17:271-6. [PMID: 12692572].[Medline]

51.  McInnes GT, O'Kane KP, Istad H, Keinänen-Kiukaanniemi S, Van Mierlo HF. Comparison of the AT1-receptor blocker, candesartan cilexetil, and the ACE inhibitor, lisinopril, in fixed combination with low dose hydrochlorothiazide in hypertensive patients. J Hum Hypertens. 2000;14:263-9. [PMID: 10805052].[Medline]

52.  Mimran A, Ruilope L, Kerwin L, Nys M, Owens D, Kassler-Taub K, et al. A randomised, double-blind comparison of the angiotensin II receptor antagonist, irbesartan, with the full dose range of enalapril for the treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension. J Hum Hypertens. 1998;12:203-8. [PMID: 9579771].[Medline]

53.  Mogensen CE, Neldam S, Tikkanen I, Oren S, Viskoper R, Watts RW, et al. Randomised controlled trial of dual blockade of renin-angiotensin system in patients with hypertension, microalbuminuria, and non-insulin dependent diabetes: the candesartan and lisinopril microalbuminuria (CALM) study. BMJ. 2000;321:1440-4. [PMID: 11110735].[Abstract/Free Full Text]

54.  Naidoo DP, Sareli P, Marin F, Aroca-Martinez G, Maritz FJ, Jardim PC, et al. Increased efficacy and tolerability with losartan plus hydrochlorothiazide in patients with uncontrolled hypertension and therapy-related symptoms receiving two monotherapies. Adv Ther. 1999;16:187-99. [PMID: 10915394].[Medline]

55.  Neutel JM, Frishman WH, Oparil S, Papademitriou V, Guthrie G. Comparison of telmisartan with lisinopril in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Am J Ther. 1999;6:161-6. [PMID: 10423659].[Medline]

56.  Rabbia F, Silke B, Carra R, Milan A, Del Colle S, Pugni C, et al. Heart Rate Variability and Baroreflex Sensitivity during Fosinopril, Irbesartan and Atenolol Therapy in Hypertension. Clin Drug Investig. 2004;24:651-9. [PMID: 17523728].[Medline]

57.  Rajzer M, Klocek M, Kawecka-Jaszcz K. Effect of amlodipine, quinapril, and losartan on pulse wave velocity and plasma collagen markers in patients with mild-to-moderate arterial hypertension. Am J Hypertens. 2003;16:439-44. [PMID: 12799091].[Medline]

58.  Rosei EA, Rizzoni D, Muiesan ML, Sleiman I, Salvetti M, Monteduro C, et al.; CENTRO (CandEsartaN on aTherosclerotic Risk factors) study investigators. Effects of candesartan cilexetil and enalapril on inflammatory markers of atherosclerosis in hypertensive patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. J Hypertens. 2005;23:435-44. [PMID: 15662233].[Medline]

59.  Ruilope L, Jäger B, Prichard B. Eprosartan versus enalapril in elderly patients with hypertension: a double-blind, randomized trial. Blood Press. 2001;10:223-9. [PMID: 11800061].[Medline]

60.  Saito S, Asayama K, Ohkubo T, Kikuya M, Metoki H, Obara T, et al.; HOMED-BP Study Group. The second progress report on the Hypertension Objective treatment based on Measurement by Electrical Devices of Blood Pressure (HOMED-BP) study. Blood Press Monit. 2004;9:243-7. [PMID: 15472496].[Medline]

61.  Schieffer B, Bünte C, Witte J, Hoeper K, Böger RH, Schwedhelm E, et al. Comparative effects of AT1-antagonism and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition on markers of inflammation and platelet aggregation in patients with coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44:362-8. [PMID: 15261932].[Abstract/Free Full Text]

62.  Schram MT, van Ittersum FJ, Spoelstra-de Man A, van Dijk RA, Schalkwijk CG, Ijzerman RG, et al. Aggressive antihypertensive therapy based on hydrochlorothiazide, candesartan or lisinopril as initial choice in hypertensive type II diabetic individuals: effects on albumin excretion, endothelial function and inflammation in a double-blind, randomized clinical trial. J Hum Hypertens. 2005;19:429-37. [PMID: 15647778].[Medline]

63.  Shand BI. Haemorheological effects of losartan and enalapril in patients with renal parenchymal disease and hypertension. J Hum Hypertens. 2000;14:305-9. [PMID: 10822316].[Medline]

64.  Shand BI, Lynn KL. A comparative study of losartan and enalapril on erythropoiesis and renal function in hypertensive patients with renal parenchymal disease [Letter]. Clin Nephrol. 2000;54:427-8. [PMID: 11105808].[Medline]

65.  Shibasaki Y, Masaki H, Nishiue T, Nishikawa M, Matsubara H, Iwasaka T. Angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist, losartan, causes regression of left ventricular hypertrophy in end-stage renal disease. Nephron. 2002;90:256-61. [PMID: 11867945].[Medline]

66.  Townsend R, Haggert B, Liss C, Edelman JM. Efficacy and tolerability of losartan versus enalapril alone or in combination with hydrochlorothiazide in patients with essential hypertension. Clin Ther. 1995;17:911-23. [PMID: 8595643].[Medline]

67.  Uchiyama-Tanaka Y, Mori Y, Kishimoto N, Fukui M, Nose A, Kijima Y, et al. Comparison of the effects of quinapril and losartan on carotid artery intima-media thickness in patients with mild-to-moderate arterial hypertension. Kidney Blood Press Res. 2005;28:111-6. [PMID: 15741734].[Medline]

68.  Verdecchia P, Schillaci G, Reboldi GP, Sacchi N, Bruni B, Benemio G, et al. Long-term effects of losartan and enalapril, alone or with a diuretic, on ambulatory blood pressure and cardiac performance in hypertension: a case-control study. Blood Press Monit. 2000;5:187-93. [PMID: 10915233].[Medline]

69.  Ruff D, Gazdick LP, Berman R, Goldberg AI, Sweet CS. Comparative effects of combination drug therapy regimens commencing with either losartan potassium, an angiotensin II receptor antagonist, or enalapril maleate for the treatment of severe hypertension. J Hypertens. 1996;14:263-70. [PMID: 8728306].[Medline]

70.  Tikkanen I, Omvik P, Jensen HA. Comparison of the angiotensin II antagonist losartan with the angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril in patients with essential hypertension. J Hypertens. 1995;13:1343-51. [PMID: 8984133].[Medline]

71.  Nielsen S, Dollerup J, Nielsen B, Jensen HA, Mogensen CE. Losartan reduces albuminuria in patients with essential hypertension. An enalapril controlled 3 months study. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1997;12 Suppl 2:19-23. [PMID: 9269694].[Medline]

72.  Amerena J, Pappas S, Ouellet JP, Williams L, O'Shaughnessy D. ABPM comparison of the anti-hypertensive profiles of telmisartan and enalapril in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. J Int Med Res. 2002;30:543-52. [PMID: 12526280].[Medline]

73.  Fogari R, Mugellini A, Zoppi A, Marasi G, Pasotti C, Poletti L, et al. Effects of valsartan compared with enalapril on blood pressure and cognitive function in elderly patients with essential hypertension. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2004;59:863-8. [PMID: 14747881].[Medline]

74.  Lacourcière Y, Neutel JM, Davidai G, Koval S. A multicenter, 14-week study of telmisartan and ramipril in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Am J Hypertens. 2006;19:104-12. [PMID: 16461201].[Medline]

75.  Mallion JM, Bradstreet DC, Makris L, Goldberg AI, Halasz S, Sweet CS, et al. Antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of once daily losartan potassium compared with captopril in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. J Hypertens Suppl. 1995;13:S35-41.

76.  Malmqvist K, Kahan T, Dahl M. Angiotensin II type 1 (AT1) receptor blockade in hypertensive women: benefits of candesartan cilexetil versus enalapril or hydrochlorothiazide. Am J Hypertens. 2000;13:504-11. [PMID: 10826401].[Medline]

77.  Ragot S, Ezzaher A, Meunier A, Poterre M, Bourkaib R, Herpin D. Comparison of trough effect of telmisartan vs perindopril using self blood pressure measurement: EVERESTE study. J Hum Hypertens. 2002;16:865-73. [PMID: 12522468].[Medline]

78.  Roca-Cusachs A, Oigman W, Lepe L, Cifkova R, Karpov YA, Harron DW. A randomized, double-blind comparison of the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of once-daily losartan compared to twice-daily captopril in mild to moderate essential hypertension. Acta Cardiol. 1997;52:495-506. [PMID: 9542575].[Medline]

79.  Williams B, Gosse P, Lowe L, Harper R; PRISMA I Study Group. The prospective, randomized investigation of the safety and efficacy of telmisartan versus ramipril using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (PRISMA I). J Hypertens. 2006;24:193-200. [PMID: 16331118].[Medline]

80.  Hasford J, Mimran A, Simons WR. A population-based European cohort study of persistence in newly diagnosed hypertensive patients. J Hum Hypertens. 2002;16:569-75. [PMID: 12149663].[Medline]

81.  Franke H. Antihypertensive effects of candesartan cilexetil, enalapril and placebo. J Hum Hypertens. 1997;11 Suppl 2:S61-2. [PMID: 9331010].[Medline]

82.  Robles NR, Angulo E, Grois J, Barquero A. Comparative effects of fosinopril and irbesartan on hematopoiesis in essential hypertensives. Ren Fail. 2004;26:399-404. [PMID: 15462108].[Medline]

83.  Mazzaglia G, Mantovani LG, Sturkenboom MC, Filippi A, Trifirò G, Cricelli C, et al. Patterns of persistence with antihypertensive medications in newly diagnosed hypertensive patients in Italy: a retrospective cohort study in primary care. J Hypertens. 2005;23:2093-100. [PMID: 16208153].[Medline]

84.  Sato A, Tabata M, Hayashi K, Saruta T. Effects of the angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist candesartan, compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, on the urinary excretion of albumin and type IV collagen in patients with diabetic nephropathy. Clin Exp Nephrol. 2003;7:215-20. [PMID: 14586718].[Medline]

85.  Grégoire JP, Moisan J, Guibert R, Ciampi A, Milot A, Côté I, et al. Tolerability of antihypertensive drugs in a community-based setting. Clin Ther. 2001;23:715-26. [PMID: 11394730].[Medline]

86.  Mackay FJ, Pearce GL, Mann RD. Cough and angiotensin II receptor antagonists: cause or confounding? Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1999;47:111-4. [PMID: 10073748].[Medline]

87.  Bloom BS. Continuation of initial antihypertensive medication after 1 year of therapy. Clin Ther. 1998;20:671-81. [PMID: 9737827].[Medline]

88.  Bourgault C, Sénécal M, Brisson M, Marentette MA, Grégoire JP. Persistence and discontinuation patterns of antihypertensive therapy among newly treated patients: a population-based study. J Hum Hypertens. 2005;19:607-13. [PMID: 15920457].[Medline]

89.  Conlin PR, Gerth WC, Fox J, Roehm JB, Boccuzzi SJ. Four-Year persistence patterns among patients initiating therapy with the angiotensin II receptor antagonist losartan versus other artihypertensive drug classes. Clin Ther. 2001;23:1999-2010. [PMID: 11813934].[Medline]

90.  Degli Esposti L, Degli Esposti E, Valpiani G, Di Martino M, Saragoni S, Buda S, et al. A retrospective, population-based analysis of persistence with antihypertensive drug therapy in primary care practice in Italy. Clin Ther. 2002;24:1347-57; discussion 1346. [PMID: 12240784].[Medline]

91.  Degli Esposti E, Sturani A, Di Martino M, Falasca P, Novi MV, Baio G, et al. Long-term persistence with antihypertensive drugs in new patients. J Hum Hypertens. 2002;16:439-44. [PMID: 12037702].[Medline]

92.  Erkens JA, Panneman MM, Klungel OH, van den Boom G, Prescott MF, Herings RM. Differences in antihypertensive drug persistence associated with drug class and gender: a PHARMO study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2005;14:795-803. [PMID: 16178043].[Medline]

93.  Marentette MA, Gerth WC, Billings DK, Zarnke KB. Antihypertensive persistence and drug class. Can J Cardiol. 2002;18:649-56. [PMID: 12107422].[Medline]

94.  Wogen J, Kreilick CA, Livornese RC, Yokoyama K, Frech F. Patient adherence with amlodipine, lisinopril, or valsartan therapy in a usual-care setting. J Manag Care Pharm. 2003;9:424-9. [PMID: 14613440].[Medline]