Systematic Review: Comparative Effectiveness of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors or Angiotensin II–Receptor Blockers for Ischemic Heart Disease

William L. Baker; Craig I. Coleman; Jeffrey Kluger; Kurt M. Reinhart; Ripple Talati; Robert Quercia; Olivia J. Phung; C. Michael White

doi:10.7326/0000605-200912150-00162

Reviews |15 December 2009

Systematic Review: Comparative Effectiveness of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors or Angiotensin II–Receptor Blockers for Ischemic Heart Disease Free

William L. Baker, PharmD; Craig I. Coleman, PharmD; Jeffrey Kluger, MD; Kurt M. Reinhart, PharmD; Ripple Talati, PharmD; Robert Quercia, MS; Olivia J. Phung, PharmD; C. Michael White, PharmD

Article, Author, and Disclosure Information

Abstract

Background:

Patients with ischemic heart disease and preserved ventricular function experience considerable morbidity and mortality despite standard medical therapy.

Purpose:

To compare benefits and harms of using angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin IIâ€“receptor blockers (ARBs), or combination therapy in adults with stable ischemic heart disease and preserved ventricular function.

Data Sources:

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (earliest date, July 2009) were searched without language restrictions.

Study Selection:

Two independent investigators screened citations for trials of at least 6 months' duration that compared ACE inhibitors, ARBs, or combination therapy with placebo or active control and reported any of several clinical outcomes.

Data Extraction:

Using standardized protocols, 2 independent investigators extracted information about study characteristics and rated the quality and strength of evidence. Disagreement was resolved by consensus.

Data Synthesis:

41 studies met eligibility criteria. Moderate- to high-strength evidence (7 trials; 32Â 559 participants) showed that ACE inhibitors reduce the relative risk (RR) for total mortality (RR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.81 to 0.94]) and nonfatal myocardial infarction (RR, 0.83 [CI, 0.73 to 0.94]) but increase the RR for syncope (RR, 1.24 [CI, 1.02 to 1.52]) and cough (RR, 1.67 [CI, 1.22 to 2.29]) compared with placebo. Low-strength evidence (1 trial; 5926 participants) suggested that ARBs reduce the RR for the composite end point of cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or stroke (RR, 0.88 [CI, 0.77 to 1.00]) but not for the individual components. Moderate-strength evidence (1 trial; 25Â 620 participants) showed similar effects on total mortality (RR, 1.07 [CI, 0.98 to 1.16]) and myocardial infarction (RR, 1.08 [CI, 0.94 to 1.23]) but an increased risk for discontinuations because of hypotension (PÂ < 0.001) and syncope (PÂ = 0.035) with combination therapy compared with ACE inhibitors alone.

Limitations:

Many studies either did not assess or did not report harms in a systematic manner. Many studies did not adequately report benefits or harms by various patient subgroups.

Conclusion:

Adding an ACE inhibitor to standard medical therapy improves outcomes, including reduced risk for mortality and myocardial infarctions, in some patients with stable ischemic heart disease and preserved ventricular function. Less evidence supports a benefit of ARB therapy, and combination therapy seems no better than ACE inhibitor therapy alone and increases harms.

Primary Funding Source:

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Editors' Notes

Context

Do patients already receiving standard therapy for ischemic heart disease benefit from additional treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin II–receptor blockers (ARBs)?

Contribution

Authors of this systematic review concluded that ACE inhibitors reduce risk for mortality, stroke, and myocardial infarction in patients with stable ischemic heart disease and preserved left ventricular function who already receive standard treatments, such as β-blockers, statins, and aspirin. Evidence about effects of ARBs was scant. Combining ACE inhibitors and ARBs increased risks for hypotension and syncope compared with ACE inhibitor therapy alone.

—The Editors

An estimated 16 800 000 adults have ischemic heart disease (1). Standard medical therapy for these patients includes aspirin, β-blockers, and aggressive modification of risk factors (2, 3). Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin II–receptor blockers (ARBs) have established benefit in patients with heart failure and those who have had a myocardial infarction with ventricular dysfunction (4–11). Their use, however, in patients with preserved ventricular function is less certain.

Previous systematic reviews (12–17) have not included recent ACE inhibitor trials conducted in this population. In addition, no systematic review has evaluated ARB therapy or the combination of ACE inhibitor and ARB therapy in this population. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality commissioned this report (18) to review the evidence for the clinical effects and harms of using ACE inhibitors, ARBs, or combination therapy in adult patients with stable ischemic heart disease and preserved ventricular function receiving standard medical therapy.

Methods

We developed and followed a standard protocol for all steps of this review. A technical report that details methods, including literature search strategies and analysis plans, and includes evidence tables is available at www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov (18). That report also includes information specific to patients who have recently had or will have a coronary revascularization procedure and to patients with an ischemic heart disease risk equivalent.

Key Questions

We refined key questions on the effectiveness of ACE inhibitors and ARBs in adults with stable ischemic heart disease and preserved ventricular function receiving standard medical therapy. We wrote these questions with input from a technical expert panel that included cardiologists, pharmacists, an internist, and a managed care organization representative. The following key questions were formulated.

1. In patients with stable ischemic heart disease who have preserved ventricular function, what are the benefits and harms of adding ACE inhibitors or ARBs to standard medical therapy compared with standard medical therapy alone?

2. In patients with stable ischemic heart disease who have preserved ventricular function and are receiving standard medical therapy, what are the benefits and harms of combining ACE inhibitors and ARBs compared with either an ACE inhibitor or an ARB alone?

3. What is the evidence that benefits or harms differ in prespecified subpopulations?

Data Sources and Searches

We searched MEDLINE (1966 to July 2009), EMBASE (1990 to July 2009) (19), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (second quarter of 2009) (20) for both randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. We searched for systematic reviews in MEDLINE (1966 to July 2009) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (second quarter of 2009) with no language restrictions. We also manually searched references from trials or reviews and major cardiology meeting abstracts (American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and European Society of Cardiology for June 2006 to July 2009). We ultimately did not include any studies that were published only in abstract form. We contacted authors of 11 trials to obtain information on their inclusion and exclusion criteria, including data on mean ejection fraction and inclusion of patients with heart failure, and received responses from 10. We also contacted authors from 4 trials for additional information about various clinical outcomes and were successful in getting additional information about such clinical outcomes as mortality (in 2 RCTs), myocardial infarction (in 3 RCTs), stroke (in 2 RCTs), and the composite of the 3 (in 3 RCTs).

Study Selection

Two independent reviewers assessed studies for inclusion in a parallel manner by using a priori–defined criteria. To assess potential benefits, we selected RCTs if they had 1) compared ACE inhibitor or ARB therapy with placebo or active control or compared combination ACE inhibitor and ARB therapy with either agent alone, 2) included patients with stable ischemic heart disease, 3) included patients with preserved left ventricular function (an average ejection fraction in experimental groups >0.40 or no systematic evaluation of left ventricular ejection fraction but exclusion of patients with signs or symptoms of heart failure), 4) included at least 75 patients, 5) followed patients for at least 6 months, and 6) reported data on at least 1 prespecified efficacy outcome (total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, or a composite of the latter 3 end points).

We included RCTs in the harms evaluation if they satisfied criteria 1 to 5 above and reported data on a prespecified harm (including withdrawals due to adverse events, hypotension, syncope, or cough). We included observational studies if they met the first 3 criteria above, included at least 1000 patients, followed patients for at least 6 months, and reported data on a prespecified harm (withdrawals due to adverse events, hypotension, syncope, or cough).

Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

Two reviewers used a standardized data abstraction tool to independently extract study data. Data obtained from each study included interventions, study design, inclusion and exclusion criteria, methodological quality criteria, study population, patient baseline characteristics, use of concurrent standard medical therapies, benefits, and harms.

To ascertain the validity of eligible RCTs, 2 independent reviewers assessed the adequacy of randomization, concealment of allocation, blinding of patients, and use of intention-to-treat methodology. We used Evidence-based Practice Center methodology based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methods, to assess the strength of evidence. We used 4 required domains: risk for bias, consistency, directness, and precision (21). Evidence pertaining to each key question was classified into 3 broad categories: high, moderate, or low. Table 1 shows the results of this grading. The Assess the Methodological Quality of Systematic Review (AMSTAR) checklist was used to assess methodological quality of systematic reviews (22). We resolved disagreements about abstracted data, quality assessments, and ratings of evidence through discussion.

Table 1.

Outcomes, Strength of Evidence, and Conclusions

Table 1.

Data Synthesis and Analysis

We qualitatively examined data from all identified studies. We conducted meta-analyses when 2 or more RCTs adequate for pooling were available. We reported outcomes as pooled relative risks (RRs) with associated 95% CIs by using a random-effects model (23). We assessed statistical heterogeneity by using the I² statistic (24). We evaluated the presence of publication bias and related biases by using funnel plots and Egger tests (25, 26), but the small number of studies limited the ability of these methods to detect publication bias (data not shown). We conducted an analysis comparing either an ACE inhibitor or an ARB with a control and then conducted analyses in which ACE inhibitor or ARB trials were evaluated separately.

Role of the Funding Source

This project was prepared by the University of Connecticut/Hartford Hospital Evidence-based Practice Center, Hartford, Connecticut, with funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The funding source formulated the initial study questions and provided copyright release for this manuscript, but did not participate in the literature search, data analysis, or interpretation of results.

Results

Results of Primary Literature Review

We screened 1531 abstracts and evaluated 366 full-text articles (Appendix Figure). A total of 44 articles (27–70), reporting on 9 RCTs (28, 31–33, 35, 37, 40–42) and 2 nonrandomized comparative studies (34, 36), as well as 6 systematic reviews (12–17) met our eligibility criteria.

Appendix Figure.

Literature search and selection.

IHD = ischemic heart disease; LV = left ventricular; RCT = randomized, controlled trial.

* We included 3 citations at this step after a manual reference search.

† We included 27 citations from the outcomes search and evaluated them for harms data.

‡ We included 1 citation at this step after a manual reference search.

Evidence of Benefits With ACE Inhibitors or ARBs

Eight RCTs (37 148 participants) met our inclusion criteria (Appendix Table) (28, 31–33, 35, 37, 40, 41). All of the RCTs were placebo-controlled (28, 31–33, 35, 37, 40, 41), and 1 also had an active comparator group (amlodipine) (35). All but 1 RCT (33) had adequate randomization, double blinding, and intention-to-treat methods. Seven of the RCTs evaluated ACE inhibitors, with 2 using enalapril (32, 35); 2 using ramipril (28, 31); and 1 each using perindopril (33), trandolapril (37), and zofenopril (40). We identified a single RCT that evaluated the ARB telmisartan (41) in patients with a history of intolerance to ACE inhibitors.

Appendix Table.

Description of Included RCTs

Appendix Table.

The mean age of the trial participants ranged from 57 to 67 years; 57% to 89% of participants were men. In all, 8% to 39% of participants had diabetes, 27% to 100% had hypertension, 7% to 45% had peripheral vascular disease, and 3% to 22% had a previous stroke or transient ischemic attack. Baseline medical therapy use also varied between trials. β-Blocker, antiplatelet, and lipid-lowering therapies were used in 10% to 79%, 3% to 95%, and 28% to 84% of patients in these studies, respectively. Differences between use of baseline therapy may have been related to the standard of care at the time the study was conducted or to underlying medical conditions of the patient population.

Total and Cardiovascular Mortality

Seven RCTs reported data on total mortality (28, 31–33, 35, 37, 41). Pooled analysis showed that ACE inhibitors reduced the risk for total mortality (RR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.81 to 0.94]; I² = 0%) compared with placebo. A single RCT that included patients intolerant to ACE inhibitors suggested that ARBs did not affect risk for total mortality compared with placebo (RR, 1.05 [CI, 0.91 to 1.20]) (41). The pooled RR that included the ACE inhibitor trials and the single ARB trial was 0.91 (CI, 0.84 to 0.98; I² = 21.5%) (Figure).

Figure.

Meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials of ACE inhibitors or ARBs in patients with stable ischemic heart disease and preserved left ventricular systolic function.

ACE = angiotensin-converting enzyme; ARB = angiotensin II–receptor blocker; CAMELOT = Comparison of Amlodipine vs. Enalapril to Limit Occurrences of Thrombosis; EUROPA = European Trial on Reduction of Cardiac Events with Perindopril in Stable Coronary Artery Disease; HOPE = Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation; MI = myocardial infarction; PART-2 = Prevention of Atherosclerosis with Ramipril 2; PEACE = Prevention of Events with Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibition; RR = relative risk; SCAT = Simvastatin/Enalapril Coronary Atherosclerosis Trial; TRANSCEND = Telmisartan Randomised Assessment Study in ACE Intolerant Subjects with Cardiovascular Disease.

Six RCTs reported data on cardiovascular mortality (28–31, 33, 35, 37, 41). Pooled analysis showed that ACE inhibitors compared with placebo reduced the risk for cardiovascular mortality (RR, 0.83 [CI, 0.70 to 0.98]; I² = 45.5%). A single RCT suggested that ARBs did not affect risk for cardiovascular mortality compared with placebo (RR, 1.02 [CI, 0.86 to 1.22]). The pooled RR that included the ACE inhibitor trials and the single ARB trial was 0.87 (CI, 0.75 to 1.02; I² = 57.9%) (Figure). The pooled result and CI are suggestive of and compatible with a reduced risk for cardiovascular mortality. The heterogeneity is caused, in part, by the inclusion of the ARB trial and 1 ACE inhibitor trial (35), which suggested an increased risk for events with ACE inhibitor use. The increased baseline use of antiplatelet agents, shorter follow-up, and decreased intensity of ACE inhibition in that trial versus other ACE inhibitor trials may explain the findings.

Nonfatal Myocardial Infarction

Six RCTs evaluating ACE inhibitors reported data on nonfatal myocardial infarction (28–33, 35, 37). All but 1 RCT (33) had adequate randomization, double blinding, and intention-to-treat methods. Pooled analysis demonstrated that ACE inhibitors reduced the risk for nonfatal myocardial infarction (RR, 0.83 [CI, 0.73 to 0.94]; I² = 30.5%) compared with placebo (Figure). Two of the RCTs (33, 35) with small sample sizes and low event rates showed more dramatic reductions in the risk for nonfatal myocardial infarction than the others, but the CIs were very large and overlapped with the pooled estimate.

Stroke

Seven RCTs reported data on stroke (28–33, 35, 37, 41). Pooled analysis showed that ACE inhibitors reduced the risk for stroke (RR, 0.78 [CI, 0.63 to 0.97]; I² = 37.7%) compared with placebo. The pooled RR in the single ARB trial was 0.83 (CI, 0.65 to 1.06), which suggests and is compatible with a reduced risk for stroke. The pooled RR estimate that included the ACE inhibitor trials and the single ARB trial was 0.79 (CI, 0.67 to 0.93; I² = 27.6%) (Figure). One RCT (31), which used a different event definition (nonfatal stroke requiring hospital admission), suggested that patients receiving ACE inhibitors had an increased risk for stroke compared with those receiving placebo. Another RCT (32) showed that ACE inhibitors compared with placebo decreased risk for stroke more than that reported in other trials. Both trials had a small sample size and event rate, which resulted in CIs that overlapped with the pooled estimate.

Composite End Point

Three RCTs (28, 37, 41) reported data on the composite end point (cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or stroke). Pooled analysis of 2 RCTs (28, 37) suggested that ACE inhibitors reduced the risk for the composite end point (RR, 0.85 [CI, 0.72 to 1.01]) compared with placebo. The single ARB trial also suggested a reduced risk (RR, 0.88 [CI, 0.77 to 1.00]). The pooled RR that included the ACE inhibitor trials and the single ARB trial was 0.86 (CI, 0.77 to 0.95; I² = 58.0%), probably due to increased power (Figure).

Evidence of Harms With ACE Inhibitors or ARBs

Withdrawals Due to Adverse Events

Three of 8 RCTs (31, 35, 37) reported data on withdrawals due to adverse events, all evaluating ACE inhibitors (Table 2). Pooled analysis of these selected reports suggested that patients receiving ACE inhibitors were more likely than those receiving placebo to withdraw because of adverse events (RR, 2.30 [CI, 1.34 to 3.95]; I² = 87.2%). One study (31) showed a more than 10-fold increase in the risk for withdrawals (RR, 10.37 [CI, 3.42 to 31.72]), whereas another study (37) showed a slightly more than 2-fold increase (RR, 2.21 [CI, 1.93 to 2.54]).

Table 2.

Harms Event Rates for ACE Inhibitors

Table 2.

Hypotension

Three of 8 trials (28, 35, 40) reported data on hypotension, all evaluating ACE inhibitors (Table 2). One study (28) reported only serious adverse events and therefore reported a decreased rate, whereas another study (35) reported a higher rate of hypotension (9.5% in the ACE inhibitor group) than other studies (0.04% to 1.2% in the ACE inhibitor group) (28, 40). Pooled analysis showed no overall effect of ACE inhibitors on hypotension risk (RR, 1.79 [CI, 0.68 to 4.71]; I² = 40.6%), although the CI was wide and the analysis was probably underpowered.

Syncope

Two of 8 trials (28, 37) reported data on syncope, both evaluating ACE inhibitors (Table 2). One trial (28) reported syncope as a serious adverse event, resulting in a low risk for syncope (0.04%) compared with the other trial (4.4%) (37). Pooled analysis showed that ACE inhibitors increased the risk for syncope (RR, 1.24 [CI, 1.02 to 1.52]) compared with placebo.

Cough

Three of 8 trials (28, 35, 37) reported data on cough, all evaluating ACE inhibitors (Table 2). The overall incidence of cough varied widely between trials, with 1 trial (27) reporting only serious events and thus a decreased overall rate (0.3%). The other 2 trials (35, 37) reported rates of cough of 9.2% and 33.3%. Pooled analysis showed an increased risk for cough with ACE inhibitors (RR, 1.67 [CI, 1.22 to 2.29]; I² = 60.2%) compared with placebo.

Evidence of Benefits and Harms With a Combination of ACE Inhibitors and ARBs

We found 1 trial (42) of combination therapy in this population. The ONTARGET (Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial) investigators randomly assigned 25 620 patients with vascular disease or high-risk diabetes to 1 of 3 therapies (ramipril, telmisartan, or combination of the 2 drugs) for a mean of 4.5 years (42). Total mortality (RR, 1.07 [CI, 0.98 to 1.16]), cardiovascular mortality (RR, 1.04 [CI, 0.93 to 1.17]), total myocardial infarctions (RR, 1.08 [CI, 0.94 to 1.23]), stroke (RR, 0.93 [CI, 0.81 to 1.07]), or the composite of the latter 3 end points (RR, 1.00 [CI, 0.93 to 1.09]) did not significantly differ between combination therapy and ramipril alone. Combination therapy, however, was associated with more study discontinuations (P < 0.001), as well as discontinuations due to hypotension (P < 0.001) and syncope (P = 0.03), compared with ramipril alone.

The ONTARGET investigators also evaluated the comparative effectiveness of an ACE inhibitor with that of an ARB. No differences were found in any aforementioned end points when ACE inhibitor and ARB therapy were directly compared. However, ARB therapy did result in fewer study discontinuations (P = 0.02) and discontinuations due to hypotension (P < 0.001) and cough (P < 0.001) than did ACE inhibitor therapy (42).

Evidence of Benefits and Harms, by Subpopulation

We found few trials that evaluated the comparative benefits or harms of ACE inhibitors, ARBs, or their combination in various patient subgroups. A pooled analysis of 2 trials (28, 33) demonstrated that ACE inhibitors reduced event rates more in patients who did not receive antiplatelet therapy than in those who did receive it (P value for interaction < 0.003) (13). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors reduced event rates more in patients without previous coronary revascularization than in those with revascularization (P value for interaction = 0.078). No differential benefits resulting from ACE inhibitors were noted for those receiving or not receiving β-blockers (P value for interaction = 0.139) or lipid-lowering agents (P value for interaction = 0.651). A single RCT (41) found no difference in outcomes resulting from ARB therapy in patients either receiving or not receiving statins (P value for interaction = 0.287). Of the 4 RCTs (28, 35, 41, 42) that assessed the effect of baseline risk on treatment effects, only 1 (28) found a positive relationship on the risk for the composite end point.

Discussion

Moderate- to high-strength evidence demonstrates that ACE inhibitors reduce the RR for total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and stroke in adults with stable ischemic heart disease and preserved ventricular function (Table 1). This includes patients with a history of coronary artery, peripheral vascular, or cerebrovascular disease, as well as patients with diabetes and evidence of end-organ damage. Data are insufficient to adequately assess the benefits of ARBs, because only 1 high-quality RCT (41) was identified, and the population was limited to patients who could not tolerate ACE inhibitors. A single study with moderate-strength evidence showed similar effects on total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke with combination ACE inhibitor and ARB therapy compared with an ACE inhibitor alone but showed a greater risk for study discontinuations and discontinuations due to hypotension and syncope (42).

Most patients in the included trials were receiving concomitant antiplatelet and lipid-lowering therapy, with approximately half receiving β-blockers. We could not find differences in outcomes among patients receiving ACE inhibitors with or without β-blockers or lipid-lowering therapy (13). Some evidence suggests that ACE inhibitors confer more pronounced benefits in patients without concomitant antiplatelet therapy than in those who are receiving antiplatelet therapy (13). Whether this is related to a drug interaction between aspirin and ACE inhibitors (blocking the release of vasodilatory prostaglandins) or also occurs with adenosine diphosphate inhibitors is not known (71–75). The effect of antiplatelet therapy on ARB benefits is not known.

Study factors, including the use of different ACE inhibitors, varying doses of ACE inhibitors, differences in baseline blood pressure, and different degrees of blood pressure reduction, may affect pooled estimates of effect or heterogeneity (12, 14, 76, 77). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors considered to be tissue-specific (ramipril, quinapril, perindopril, or trandolapril) have not provided better cardioprotection than serum-specific agents (for example, enalapril) (76, 78–80). In addition, ACE inhibitors provide similar benefits regardless of changes in blood pressure or history of hypertension (12, 28, 33). However, using increased doses of ACE inhibitors may improve the ability to slow atherosclerosis (81), which may accentuate clinical benefits.

Our review has several limitations. We could analyze only data from published trials and data provided from trial authors. We could not adequately assess the possibility of publication bias for several outcomes, although selective reporting of both benefits and harms was possible. Subgroup data were inconsistently reported. Most studies evaluated patients between ages 60 and 67 years and predominantly enrolled men (57% to 89%), negatively affecting applicability. Few trials reported average left ventricular ejection fractions, and none of the trials assessed the affect of ventricular function on outcomes. Only 1 trial compared ARBs with placebo, and only 1 trial compared combination therapy with an ACE inhibitor alone. As a result, the ability to formally test for statistical heterogeneity was limited in many analyses, and the resultant strength of evidence reduced. Finally, data reporting on harms were inconsistent and incomplete, compromising our ability to determine the balance of benefits to harms.

In conclusion, adding an ACE inhibitor to standard medical therapy improves clinical outcomes in some patients with stable ischemic heart disease and preserved left ventricular function. Combination therapy seems no better than ACE inhibitor therapy alone and increases harms. Future trials are needed to more clearly define the role of ARBs in this patient population.

References

Lloyd-Jones
D
,
Adams
R
,
Carnethon
M
,
De Simone
G
,
Ferguson
TB
,
Flegal
K
. et al.
American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee
Heart disease and stroke statistics—2009 update: a report from the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee.
Circulation
2009
119
21
181
PubMed
CrossRef
Gibbons
RJ
,
Abrams
J
,
Chatterjee
K
,
Daley
J
,
Deedwania
PC
,
Douglas
JS
. et al.
American College of Cardiology
ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for the management of patients with chronic stable angina—summary article: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines (Committee on the Management of Patients With Chronic Stable Angina).
J Am Coll Cardiol
2003
41
159
68
PubMed
Fraker
TD
Jr
,
Fihn
SD
,
2002 Chronic Stable Angina Writing Committee
American College of Cardiology
American Heart Association
Gibbons
RJ
. et al.
Chronic Stable Angina Writing Committee
2007 chronic angina focused update of the ACC/AHA 2002 guidelines for the management of patients with chronic stable angina: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines Writing Group to develop the focused update of the 2002 guidelines for the management of patients with chronic stable angina.
J Am Coll Cardiol
2007
50
2264
74
PubMed
Ambrosioni
E
,
Borghi
C
,
Magnani
B
.
the Survival of Myocardial Infarction Long-Term Evaluation (SMILE) Study Investigators
The effect of the angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor zofenopril on mortality and morbidity after anterior myocardial infarction.
N Engl J Med
1995
332
80
5
PubMed
Køber
L
,
Torp-Pedersen
C
,
Carlsen
JE
,
Bagger
H
,
Eliasen
P
,
Lyngborg
K
. et al.
Trandolapril Cardiac Evaluation (TRACE) Study Group
A clinical trial of the angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor trandolapril in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction.
N Engl J Med
1995
333
1670
6
PubMed
Garg
R
,
Yusuf
S
.
Collaborative Group on ACE Inhibitor Trials
Overview of randomized trials of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors on mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure.
JAMA
1995
273
1450
6
PubMed
Pitt
B
,
Poole-Wilson
PA
,
Segal
R
,
Martinez
FA
,
Dickstein
K
,
Camm
AJ
. et al.
Effect of losartan compared with captopril on mortality in patients with symptomatic heart failure: randomised trial—the Losartan Heart Failure Survival Study ELITE II.
Lancet
2000
355
1582
7
PubMed
Cohn
JN
,
Tognoni
G
.
Valsartan Heart Failure Trial Investigators
A randomized trial of the angiotensin-receptor blocker valsartan in chronic heart failure.
N Engl J Med
2001
345
1667
75
PubMed
Pfeffer
MA
,
Swedberg
K
,
Granger
CB
,
Held
P
,
McMurray
JJ
,
Michelson
EL
. et al.
CHARM Investigators and Committees
Effects of candesartan on mortality and morbidity in patients with chronic heart failure: the CHARM-Overall programme.
Lancet
2003
362
759
66
PubMed
McMurray
JJ
,
Ostergren
J
,
Swedberg
K
,
Granger
CB
,
Held
P
,
Michelson
EL
. et al.
CHARM Investigators and Committees
Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced left-ventricular systolic function taking angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors: the CHARM-Added trial.
Lancet
2003
362
767
71
PubMed
Pfeffer
MA
,
McMurray
JJ
,
Velazquez
EJ
,
Rouleau
JL
,
Køber
L
,
Maggioni
AP
. et al.
Valsartan in Acute Myocardial Infarction Trial Investigators
Valsartan, captopril, or both in myocardial infarction complicated by heart failure, left ventricular dysfunction, or both.
N Engl J Med
2003
349
1893
906
PubMed
Al-Mallah
MH
,
Tleyjeh
IM
,
Abdel-Latif
AA
,
Weaver
WD
.
Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in coronary artery disease and preserved left ventricular systolic function: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
J Am Coll Cardiol
2006
47
1576
83
PubMed
Dagenais
GR
,
Pogue
J
,
Fox
K
,
Simoons
ML
,
Yusuf
S
.
Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors in stable vascular disease without left ventricular systolic dysfunction or heart failure: a combined analysis of three trials.
Lancet
2006
368
581
8
PubMed
Danchin
N
,
Cucherat
M
,
Thuillez
C
,
Durand
E
,
Kadri
Z
,
Steg
PG
.
Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in patients with coronary artery disease and absence of heart failure or left ventricular systolic dysfunction: an overview of long-term randomized controlled trials.
Arch Intern Med
2006
166
787
96
PubMed
Saha
SA
,
Molnar
J
,
Arora
RR
.
Tissue ACE inhibitors for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with preserved left ventricular function: a pooled meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials.
J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther
2007
12
192
204
PubMed
Lang
CD
,
Arora
RR
,
Saha
SA
,
Molnar
J
.
Bayesian meta-analysis of tissue angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors for reduction of adverse cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes mellitus and preserved left ventricular function.
J Cardiometab Syndr
2008
3
45
52
PubMed
Saha
SA
,
Molnar
J
,
Arora
RR
.
Tissue angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes mellitus without left ventricular systolic dysfunction or clinical evidence of heart failure: a pooled meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials.
Diabetes Obes Metab
2008
10
41
52
PubMed
www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov
Coleman
CI
,
Baker
WL
,
Kluger
J
,
Reinhart
K
,
Talati
R
,
Quercia
R
. et al.
Comparative effectiveness of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers added to standard medical therapy for treating stable ischemic heart disease. Comparative Effectiveness Review no. 18. (Prepared by University of Connecticut/Hartford Hospital Evidence-based Practice Center under contract no. 290-2007-10067-I.)
Rockville, MD
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
2009
Wong
SS
,
Wilczynski
NL
,
Haynes
RB
.
Comparison of top-performing search strategies for detecting clinically sound treatment studies and systematic reviews in MEDLINE and EMBASE.
J Med Libr Assoc
2006
94
451
5
PubMed
Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.0.1 (updated September 2008). The Cochrane Collaboration; 2008. Accessed atwww.cochrane-handbook.orgon 7 October 2009.
Schunemann H, Brozek J, Oxman A, eds. GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendation. Version 3.2 (updated March 2008). The GRADE Working Group; 2008. Accessed atwww.gradeworkinggroup.orgon 13 October 2009.
Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10. [PMID: 17302989]
DerSimonian
R
,
Laird
N
.
Meta-analysis in clinical trials.
Control Clin Trials
1986
7
177
88
PubMed
Higgins
JP
,
Thompson
SG
,
Deeks
JJ
,
Altman
DG
.
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.
BMJ
2003
327
557
60
PubMed
Bax
L
,
Yu
LM
,
Ikeda
N
,
Tsuruta
H
,
Moons
KG
.
Development and validation of MIX: comprehensive free software for meta-analysis of causal research data.
BMC Med Res Methodol
2006
6
50
PubMed
Egger
M
,
Davey Smith
G
,
Schneider
M
,
Minder
C
.
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test.
BMJ
1997
315
629
34
PubMed
Duval
S
,
Tweedie
R
.
Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis.
Biometrics
2000
56
455
63
PubMed
Yusuf
S
,
Sleight
P
,
Pogue
J
,
Bosch
J
,
Davies
R
,
Dagenais
G
.
The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators
Effects of an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor, ramipril, on cardiovascular events in high-risk patients.
N Engl J Med
2000
342
145
53
PubMed
Dagenais
GR
,
Yusuf
S
,
Bourassa
MG
,
Yi
Q
,
Bosch
J
,
Lonn
EM
. et al.
HOPE Investigators
Effects of ramipril on coronary events in high-risk persons: results of the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study.
Circulation
2001
104
522
6
PubMed
Salehian
O
,
Healey
J
,
Stambler
B
,
Alnemer
K
,
Almerri
K
,
Grover
J
. et al.
HOPE Investigators
Impact of ramipril on the incidence of atrial fibrillation: results of the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation study.
Am Heart J
2007
154
448
53
PubMed
MacMahon
S
,
Sharpe
N
,
Gamble
G
,
Clague
A
,
Mhurchu
CN
,
Clark
T
. et al.
Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, ramipril, in patients with coronary or other occlusive arterial disease. PART-2 Collaborative Research Group. Prevention of Atherosclerosis with Ramipril.
J Am Coll Cardiol
2000
36
438
43
PubMed
Teo
KK
,
Burton
JR
,
Buller
CE
,
Plante
S
,
Catellier
D
,
Tymchak
W
. et al.
Long-term effects of cholesterol lowering and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition on coronary atherosclerosis: The Simvastatin/Enalapril Coronary Atherosclerosis Trial (SCAT).
Circulation
2000
102
1748
54
PubMed
Fox
KM
.
EURopean trial On reduction of cardiac events with Perindopril in stable coronary Artery disease Investigators
Efficacy of perindopril in reduction of cardiovascular events among patients with stable coronary artery disease: randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial (the EUROPA study).
Lancet
2003
362
782
8
PubMed
Kondo
J
,
Sone
T
,
Tsuboi
H
,
Mukawa
H
,
Morishima
I
,
Uesugi
M
. et al.
Effects of low-dose angiotensin II receptor blocker candesartan on cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease.
Am Heart J
2003
146
20
PubMed
Nissen
SE
,
Tuzcu
EM
,
Libby
P
,
Thompson
PD
,
Ghali
M
,
Garza
D
. et al.
CAMELOT Investigators
Effect of antihypertensive agents on cardiovascular events in patients with coronary disease and normal blood pressure: the CAMELOT study: a randomized controlled trial.
JAMA
2004
292
2217
25
PubMed
Yui
Y
,
Sumiyoshi
T
,
Kodama
K
,
Hirayama
A
,
Nonogi
H
,
Kanmatsuse
K
. et al.
Japan Multicenter Investigation for Cardiovascular Diseases-B Study Group
Comparison of nifedipine retard with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors in Japanese hypertensive patients with coronary artery disease: the Japan Multicenter Investigation for Cardiovascular Diseases-B (JMIC-B) randomized trial.
Hypertens Res
2004
27
181
91
PubMed
Braunwald
E
,
Domanski
MJ
,
Fowler
SE
,
Geller
NL
,
Gersh
BJ
,
Hsia
J
. et al.
PEACE Trial Investigators
Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibition in stable coronary artery disease.
N Engl J Med
2004
351
2058
68
PubMed
Zannad
F
,
Kessler
M
,
Lehert
P
,
Grünfeld
JP
,
Thuilliez
C
,
Leizorovicz
A
. et al.
Prevention of cardiovascular events in end-stage renal disease: results of a randomized trial of fosinopril and implications for future studies.
Kidney Int
2006
70
1318
24
PubMed
Takahashi
A
,
Takase
H
,
Toriyama
T
,
Sugiura
T
,
Kurita
Y
,
Ueda
R
. et al.
Candesartan, an angiotensin II type-1 receptor blocker, reduces cardiovascular events in patients on chronic haemodialysis—a randomized study.
Nephrol Dial Transplant
2006
21
2507
12
PubMed
Borghi
C
,
Ambrosioni
E
.
Survival of Myocardial Infarction Long-term Evaluation Study Group
Effects of zofenopril on myocardial ischemia in post-myocardial infarction patients with preserved left ventricular function: the Survival of Myocardial Infarction Long-term Evaluation (SMILE)-ISCHEMIA study.
Am Heart J
2007
153
PubMed
Yusuf
S
,
Teo
K
,
Anderson
C
,
Pogue
J
,
Dyal
L
,
Copland
I
. et al.
Telmisartan Randomised AssessmeNt Study in ACE iNtolerant subjects with cardiovascular Disease (TRANSCEND) Investigators
Effects of the angiotensin-receptor blocker telmisartan on cardiovascular events in high-risk patients intolerant to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors: a randomised controlled trial.
Lancet
2008
372
1174
83
PubMed
Yusuf
S
,
Teo
KK
,
Pogue
J
,
Dyal
L
,
Copland
I
,
Schumacher
H
. et al.
ONTARGET Investigators
Telmisartan, ramipril, or both in patients at high risk for vascular events.
N Engl J Med
2008
358
1547
59
PubMed
The HOPE Study Investigators
The HOPE (Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation) Study: the design of a large, simple randomized trial of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ramipril) and vitamin E in patients at high risk of cardiovascular events.
Can J Cardiol
1996
12
127
37
PubMed
Pfeffer
MA
,
Domanski
M
,
Rosenberg
Y
,
Verter
J
,
Geller
N
,
Albert
P
. et al.
Prevention of events with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition (the PEACE study design). Prevention of Events with Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibition.
Am J Cardiol
1998
82
25H
30H
PubMed
Zannad
F
,
Kessler
M
,
Grünfeld
JP
,
Thuilliez
C
.
FOSInopril in DIALysis Investigators
FOSIDIAL: a randomised placebo controlled trial of the effects of fosinopril on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in haemodialysis patients. Study design and patients' baseline characteristics.
Fundam Clin Pharmacol
2002
16
353
60
PubMed
Teo
KK
,
Burton
JR
,
Buller
C
,
Plante
S
,
Yokoyama
S
,
Montague
TJ
.
Rationale and design features of a clinical trial examining the effects of cholesterol lowering and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition on coronary atherosclerosis: Simvastatin/Enalapril Coronary Atherosclerosis Trial (SCAT). SCAT Investigators.
Can J Cardiol
1997
13
591
9
PubMed
Topouchian
J
,
El Feghali
R
,
Pannier
B
,
Wang
S
,
Zhao
F
,
Smetana
K
. et al.
Arterial stiffness and pharmacological interventions—the TRanscend arterial stiffNess Substudy (TRANS study).
Vasc Health Risk Manag
2007
3
381
7
PubMed
Fox
KM
,
Henderson
JR
,
Bertrand
ME
,
Ferrari
R
,
Remme
WJ
,
Simoons
ML
.
The European trial on reduction of cardiac events with perindopril in stable coronary artery disease (EUROPA).
Eur Heart J
1998
19
Suppl J
J52
5
PubMed
Gomma
AH
,
Fox
KM
.
The EUROPA trial: design, baseline demography and status of the substudies.
Cardiovasc Drugs Ther
2001
15
169
79
PubMed
Simoons
ML
,
Vos
J
,
de Feyter
PJ
,
Bots
ML
,
Remme
WJ
,
Grobbee
DE
. et al.
EUROPA substudies, confirmation of pathophysiological concepts. European trial on reduction of cardiac events with perindopril in stable coronary artery disease.
Eur Heart J
1998
19
Suppl J
J56
60
PubMed
Kjøller-Hansen
L
,
Steffensen
R
,
Grande
P
.
The Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibition Post Revascularization Study (APRES). Effects of ramipril in patients with reduced left ventricular function. Rationale, design, methods, baseline characteristics and first-year experience.
Scand Cardiovasc J
1998
32
225
32
PubMed
Teo
K
,
Yusuf
S
,
Sleight
P
,
Anderson
C
,
Mookadam
F
,
Ramos
B
. et al.
ONTARGET/TRANSCEND Investigators
Rationale, design, and baseline characteristics of 2 large, simple, randomized trials evaluating telmisartan, ramipril, and their combination in high-risk patients: the Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial/Telmisartan Randomized Assessment Study in ACE Intolerant Subjects with Cardiovascular Disease (ONTARGET/TRANSCEND) trials.
Am Heart J
2004
148
52
61
PubMed
Unger
T
.
The ongoing telmisartan alone and in combination with ramipril global endpoint trial program.
Am J Cardiol
2003
91
28G
34G
PubMed
Mancia
G
,
Jakobsen
A
,
Heroys
J
,
Ralph
A
,
Rees
T
,
Shaw
M
.
Cardiac and vascular protection: the potential of ONTARGET.
Medscape J Med
2008
10
Suppl
S7
PubMed
Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators
Effects of ramipril on cardiovascular and microvascular outcomes in people with diabetes mellitus: results of the HOPE study and MICRO-HOPE substudy.
Lancet
2000
355
253
9
PubMed
Daly
CA
,
Fox
KM
,
Remme
WJ
,
Bertrand
ME
,
Ferrari
R
,
Simoons
ML
.
EUROPA Investigators
The effect of perindopril on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with diabetes in the EUROPA study: results from the PERSUADE substudy.
Eur Heart J
2005
26
1369
78
PubMed
Yui
Y
,
Sumiyoshi
T
,
Kodama
K
,
Hirayama
A
,
Nonogi
H
,
Kanmatsuse
K
. et al.
Nifedipine retard was as effective as angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors in preventing cardiac events in high-risk hypertensive patients with diabetes and coronary artery disease: the Japan Multicenter Investigation for Cardiovascular Diseases-B (JMIC-B) subgroup analysis.
Hypertens Res
2004
27
449
56
PubMed
Solomon
SD
,
Rice
MM
,
A Jablonski
K
,
Jose
P
,
Domanski
M
,
Sabatine
M
. et al.
Prevention of Events with ACE inhibition (PEACE) Investigators
Renal function and effectiveness of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor therapy in patients with chronic stable coronary disease in the Prevention of Events with ACE inhibition (PEACE) trial.
Circulation
2006
114
26
31
PubMed
Brugts
JJ
,
Boersma
E
,
Chonchol
M
,
Deckers
JW
,
Bertrand
M
,
Remme
WJ
. et al.
EUROPA Investigators
The cardioprotective effects of the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor perindopril in patients with stable coronary artery disease are not modified by mild to moderate renal insufficiency: insights from the EUROPA trial.
J Am Coll Cardiol
2007
50
2148
55
PubMed
Mann
JF
,
Gerstein
HC
,
Pogue
J
,
Bosch
J
,
Yusuf
S
.
Renal insufficiency as a predictor of cardiovascular outcomes and the impact of ramipril: the HOPE randomized trial.
Ann Intern Med
2001
134
629
36
PubMed
Yui
Y
,
Shinoda
E
,
Kodama
K
,
Hirayama
A
,
Nonogi
H
,
Haze
K
. et al.
Japan Multicenter Investigation for Cardiovascular Diseases B (JMIC-B) Study Group
Nifedipine retard prevents hospitalization for angina pectoris better than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in hypertensive Japanese patients with previous myocardial infarction (JMIC-B substudy).
J Hypertens
2007
25
2019
26
PubMed
Bertrand
ME
,
Remme
WJ
,
Fox
KM
,
Ferrari
R
,
Simoons
ML
.
EUROPA Investigators
Effects of perindopril on long-term clinical outcome of patients with coronary artery disease and preserved left ventricular function.
Int J Cardiol
2007
121
57
61
PubMed
Gianni
M
,
Bosch
J
,
Pogue
J
,
Probstfield
J
,
Dagenais
G
,
Yusuf
S
. et al.
Effect of long-term ACE-inhibitor therapy in elderly vascular disease patients.
Eur Heart J
2007
28
1382
8
PubMed
Deckers
JW
,
Goedhart
DM
,
Boersma
E
,
Briggs
A
,
Bertrand
M
,
Ferrari
R
. et al.
Treatment benefit by perindopril in patients with stable coronary artery disease at different levels of risk.
Eur Heart J
2006
27
796
801
PubMed
Fox
KM
,
Bertrand
ME
,
Remme
WJ
,
Ferrari
R
,
Simoons
ML
,
Deckers
JW
.
EUROPA Investigators
Efficacy of perindopril in reducing risk of cardiac events in patients with revascularized coronary artery disease.
Am Heart J
2007
153
629
35
PubMed
Mann
JF
,
Yi
QL
,
Sleight
P
,
Dagenais
GR
,
Gerstein
HC
,
Lonn
EM
. et al.
HOPE Investigators
Serum potassium, cardiovascular risk, and effects of an ACE inhibitor: results of the HOPE study.
Clin Nephrol
2005
63
181
7
PubMed
Gerstein
HC
,
Bosch
J
,
Pogue
J
,
Taylor
DW
,
Zinman
B
,
Yusuf
S
.
Rationale and design of a large study to evaluate the renal and cardiovascular effects of an ACE inhibitor and vitamin E in high-risk patients with diabetes. The MICRO-HOPE Study. Microalbuminuria, cardiovascular, and renal outcomes. Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation.
Diabetes Care
1996
19
1225
8
PubMed
HOPE/HOPE-TOO Study Investigators
Long-term effects of ramipril on cardiovascular events and on diabetes: results of the HOPE study extension.
Circulation
2005
112
1339
46
PubMed
Bertrand
ME
,
Fox
KM
,
Remme
WJ
,
Ferrari
R
,
Simoons
ML
.
Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition with perindopril in patients with prior myocardial infarction and/or revascularization: a subgroup analysis of the EUROPA trial.
Arch Cardiovasc Dis
2009
102
89
96
PubMed
Remme
WJ
,
Deckers
JW
,
Fox
KM
,
Ferrari
R
,
Bertrand
M
,
Simoons
ML
.
EUROPA Investigators
Secondary prevention of coronary disease with ACE inhibition—does blood pressure reduction with perindopril explain the benefits in EUROPA?
Cardiovasc Drugs Ther
2009
23
161
70
PubMed
Rosendorff
C
,
Black
HR
,
Cannon
CP
,
Gersh
BJ
,
Gore
J
,
Izzo
JL
Jr
. et al.
American Heart Association Council for High Blood Pressure Research
Treatment of hypertension in the prevention and management of ischemic heart disease: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Council for High Blood Pressure Research and the Councils on Clinical Cardiology and Epidemiology and Prevention.
Circulation
2007
115
2761
88
PubMed
Brunner-La Rocca
HP
.
Interaction of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition and aspirin in congestive heart failure: long controversy finally resolved? [Editorial].
Chest
2003
124
1192
4
PubMed
Townend
JN
,
Doran
J
,
Lote
CJ
,
Davies
MK
.
Peripheral haemodynamic effects of inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis in congestive heart failure and interactions with captopril.
Br Heart J
1995
73
434
41
PubMed
Spaulding
C
,
Charbonnier
B
,
Cohen-Solal
A
,
Juillière
Y
,
Kromer
EP
,
Benhamda
K
. et al.
Acute hemodynamic interaction of aspirin and ticlopidine with enalapril: results of a double-blind, randomized comparative trial.
Circulation
1998
98
757
65
PubMed
Morgan
TO
,
Anderson
A
,
Bertram
D
.
Effect of indomethacin on blood pressure in elderly people with essential hypertension well controlled on amlodipine or enalapril.
Am J Hypertens
2000
13
1161
7
PubMed
Dzau
VJ
,
Bernstein
K
,
Celermajer
D
,
Cohen
J
,
Dahlöf
B
,
Deanfield
J
. et al.
Pathophysiologic and therapeutic importance of tissue ACE: a consensus report.
Cardiovasc Drugs Ther
2002
16
149
60
PubMed
Pavlicević
I
,
Kuzmanić
M
,
Rumboldt
M
,
Rumboldt
Z
.
Interaction between antihypertensives and NSAIDs in primary care: a controlled trial.
Can J Clin Pharmacol
2008
15
372
82
PubMed
Pilote
L
,
Abrahamowicz
M
,
Rodrigues
E
,
Eisenberg
MJ
,
Rahme
E
.
Mortality rates in elderly patients who take different angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors after acute myocardial infarction: a class effect?
Ann Intern Med
2004
141
102
12
PubMed
Remme
WJ
.
Secondary prevention of coronary artery disease and the choice of the ACE inhibitor why EUROPA and not PEACE [Editorial].
Cardiovasc Drugs Ther
2007
21
405
7
PubMed
Shah
AD
,
Arora
RR
.
Tissue angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors: are they more effective than serum angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors?
Clin Cardiol
2005
28
551
5
PubMed
Lonn
E
,
Yusuf
S
,
Dzavik
V
,
Doris
C
,
Yi
Q
,
Smith
S
. et al.
SECURE Investigators
Effects of ramipril and vitamin E on atherosclerosis: the study to evaluate carotid ultrasound changes in patients treated with ramipril and vitamin E (SECURE).
Circulation
2001
103
919
25
PubMed

Appendix Figure.

Literature search and selection.

IHD = ischemic heart disease; LV = left ventricular; RCT = randomized, controlled trial.

* We included 3 citations at this step after a manual reference search.

† We included 27 citations from the outcomes search and evaluated them for harms data.

‡ We included 1 citation at this step after a manual reference search.

Figure.

Meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials of ACE inhibitors or ARBs in patients with stable ischemic heart disease and preserved left ventricular systolic function.

Clinical Slide Sets

Terms of Use

The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP. The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities. Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.

This feature is available only to Registered Users

Subscribe/Learn More

1 Comment

Alain Braillon

Public Health

December 22, 2009

Effectiveness of therapeutic reviews in search for efficiency.

Effectiveness of therapeutic reviews and search for efficiency.

For patients with stable ischemic heart disease, Baker et al finally showed that adding an Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor (ACEI) to standard medical therapy decrease mortality and morbidity while there was less evidence supporting a benefit of Angiotensin Receptor Blockers (ARB) therapy (1). However, I have concern for the effectiveness of this review.

For hypertension, ONTARGET is one of many studies showing that both classes give the same benefits in outcome for mortality and morbidity (2). In contrast, there are huge differences for prices: eg. in France, a daily treatment with Captopril or its generics costs 0.33 euro vs 0.67 to 0.74 euro for ARB. Prices are not related to the social value of the product: cost-effectiveness analysis (ie efficiency) seems inexistent and far beyond the capabilities of national pricing committees. Conflicts of interest in medicine are the subject of intensive and extensive debates. These debates divert us from the sad reality. The data are available to every one but very few professionals, either experts or practitioners, have concern for price. Price which is paid by the most deprived, the patient. We know what is wrong, why are we so weak that we cannot adjust our behavior and take back control.

References

1 Baker WL, Coleman CI, Kluger J, et al. Systematic review: comparative effectiveness of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II-receptor blockers for ischemic heart disease.Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:861-71.

2 Yusuf S, Diener HC, Sacco RL, Cotton D, Ounpuu S, Lawton WA, et al. Telmisartan to Prevent Recurrent Stroke and Cardiovascular Events. N Eng J Med 2008;358:1547-59.

3 http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/2008- 10/fiche_iec_sartans_011008.pdf accessed Dec. 22, 2009

Conflict of Interest:

None declared

PDF

Not Available

Citations